Christian-Muslim Dialogue : Perspectives of Four Lebanese Thinkers

This study describes and analyses two Lebanese Muslims and two Lebanese Christians ideas about Christian-Muslim dialogue, its nature, aims, and methods and its different dimensions, which include doctrinal, ethical, and social dimensions. On the basis of the analysis, the four thinkers contributions for promoting constructive dialogue are evaluated. The persons studied are two religious authorities, the Shiite Great Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah (b. 1935) and the Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon, Georges Khodr (b. 1923), and two academic scholars, Doctor Mahmoud Ayoub (b. 1935) and Doctor, Father Mouchir Aoun (b. 1964), from the Shiite and Greek Catholic communities, respectively. The method of the study is systematic analysis. The sources consist of the four thinkers writings on Christian-Muslim relations, the most of which have been published in Lebanon in the 1990s and 2000s in the Arabic language. In their general guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue, the four authors do not offer any novel or unusual insights. However, their dialogue visions are multi-faceted, motivating interreligious encounter both on religious and practical grounds and clarifying the theological grounds and socio-political conditions of this endeavour. The major challenge appears to be the tension between loyalty to one s own convictions and taking into account the particular self-understanding of the other. While this tension may be ultimately unsolvable, it is obvious that linking dialogue tightly to missionary motivations or certain theological agenda imposed on the others is not conducive for better mutual understanding. As for how diverse theologies of religions affect interreligious dialogue, narrow exclusivism hardly promotes mutual knowledge and appreciation, but also inclusive and pluralistic positions have their particular dilemmas. In the end, dialogue is possible from diverse positions on theology of religions. All the authors discuss the theological themes of divine revelation, concept of God, and human condition and ultimate destiny. The two religions particular views on these issues cannot be reconciled, but the authors offer diverse means to facilitate mutual understanding on them, such as increasing mutual knowledge, questioning certain traditional condemnations, showing theological parallels between the two religions, and transcending doctrinal disagreements by stressing common religious experience or ethical concerns. Among the theological themes, especially the concept of God seems to offer possibilities for better understanding than has traditionally been the case. Significantly, all the four authors maintain that Christians and Muslims share the faith in the one God, irrespective of their disagreements about the nature of his oneness. Basic ethical principles are not discussed as widely by the four authors as might be expected, which may reflect the shared cultural background and common ethical values of the Lebanese Muslims and Christians. On this level, Christians alienation from the Islamic law appears as the most significant challenge to mutual understanding, while neighbourly love and the golden rule of ethics offer a fruitful basis for further dialogue. As for the issue of political power-sharing in Lebanon, it is clear that the proposal of an Islamic state is problematic in a country with a sizable Christian minority and a heterogeneous Muslim population. Some form of democracy seems more viable for a multireligious country, but the question remains how to retain religion as a vital force in society, which is felt to be important by all the four Lebanese authors.

Evidence in European Asylum Procedures

This thesis explores the particular framework of evidentiary assessment of three selected appellate national asylum procedures in Europe and discusses the relationship between these procedures, on the one hand, and between these procedures and other legal systems, including the EU legal order and international law, on the other. A theme running throughout the thesis is the EU strivings towards approximation of national asylum procedures and my study analyses the evidentiary assessment of national procedures with the aim of pinpointing similarities and differences, and the influences which affect these distinctions. The thesis first explores the frames construed for national evidentiary solutions by studying the object of decision-making and the impact of legal systems outside the national. Second, the study analyses the factual evidentiary assessment of three national procedures - German, Finnish and English. Thirdly, the study explores the interrelationship between these procedures and the legal systems influencing them and poses questions in relation to the strivings of EU and methods of convergence. The thesis begins by stating the framework and starting points for the research. It moves on to establish keys of comparison concerning four elements of evidentiary assessment that are of importance to any appellate asylum procedure, and that can be compared between national procedures, on the one hand, and between international, regional and national frameworks, on the other. Four keys of comparison are established: the burden of proof, demands for evidentiary robustness, the standard of proof and requirements for the methods of evidentiary assessment. These keys of comparison are then identified in three national appellate asylum procedures, and in order to come to conclusions on the evidentiary standards of the appellate asylum procedures, relevant elements of the asylum procedures in general are presented. Further, institutional, formal and procedural matters which have an impact on the evidentiary standards in the national appellate procedures are analysed. From there, the thesis moves on to establish the relationship between national evidentiary standards and the legal systems which affect them, and gives reasons for similarities and divergences. Further, the thesis studies the impact of the national frameworks on the regional and international level. Lastly, the dissertation makes a de lege ferenda survey of the relationship between EU developments, the goal of harmonization in relation to national asylum procedures and the particular feature of evidentiary standards in national appellate asylum procedures. Methodology The thesis follows legal dogmatic methods. The aim is to analyse legal norms and legal constructions and give them content and context. My study takes as its outset an understanding of the purposes for legal research also regarding evidence and asylum to determine the contents of valid law through analysis and systematization. However, as evidentiary issues traditionally are normatively vaguely defined, a strict traditional normative dogmatic approach is not applied. For the same reason a traditionalist and strict legal positivism is not applied. The dogmatics applied to the analysis of the study is supported by practical analysis. The aim is not only to reach conclusions concerning the contents of legal norms and the requirements of law, but also to study the use and practical functioning of these norms, giving them a practcial context. Further, the study relies on a comparative method. A functionalist comparative method is employed and keys of comparison are found in evidentiary standards of three selected national appellate asylum procedures. The functioning equivalences of German, Finnish and English evidentiary standards of appellate asylum procedures are compared, and they are positioned in an European and international legal setting. Research Results The thesis provides results regarding the use of evidence in national appellate asylum procedures. It is established that evidentiary solutions do indeed impact on the asylum procedure and that the results of the procedure are dependent on the evidentiary solutions made in the procedures. Variations in, amongst other things, the interpretation of the burden of proof, the applied standard of proof and the method for determining evidentiary value, are analysed. It is established that national impacts play an important role in the adaptation of national appellate procedures to external requirements. Further, it is established that the impact of national procedures on as well the international framework as on EU law varies between the studied countries, partly depending on the position of the Member State in legislative advances at the EU level. In this comparative study it is, further, established that the impact of EU requirements concerning evidentiary issues may be have positive as well as negative effects with regard to the desired harmonization. It is also concluded that harmonization using means of convergence that primaly target legal frameworks may not in all instances be optimal in relation to evidentiary standards, and that more varied and pragmatic means of convergence must be introduced in order to secure harmonization also in terms of evidence. To date, legal culture and traditions seem to prevail over direct efforts at procedural harmonization.