(Published in the New Sunday Times, 14th January 2007 as "Extremism, Not Religion, Begets Violence")
I HAD not been told that my workshop was potentially the most controversial. At an international conference in Prague last November, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the United Nations' Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion of Belief, I was co-facilitating a workshop on the relationship between the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression.
My presentation focused on the twin pillars of freedom of religion: The freedom to profess (or not to profess as the case may be) as a personal or internal expression of one's belief; and the freedom to manifest, or externally express that belief through an act of worship or by not worshiping. The experience I had gained, in cases dealing with the denial of the freedom of religion, had led me to understand that while no one could impede another's internal expression, much could be done to restrict the manifestation of that belief.
The nuances of expression in religion must be explored at all levels, from the right of the individual to profess and practice a religion of choice, to a state's justifications for clamping down on free discussion concerning religious practices. My involvement in various efforts has led me to the conclusion that, other than to genuinely preserve public order, free expression on matters of religion is vital if a community is to defend against intolerance and extremism. This is at the heart of the 1981 Declaration.
Out of the 50 participants in our session, more than half were diplomats. And everyone wanted to talk about the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.h.) and the controversial speech by the Pope. The European diplomats were keen to defend their position on the freedom of expression underlying these events. Representatives of Islamic countries were, on the other hand, driven to point to the insensitivity and the underlying insult. All indicators pointed to a potentially explosive morning.
As my co-facilitator, a senior director from Amnesty International, and I began to navigate through the session, it became apparent that in order to ensure a meaningful dialogue we needed to ensure that the language was kept civil and the concepts objective.
This was to prove challenging as one of the first salvos into the fray was from a British academic. He scathingly made two points. First, that Islam demanded sensitivity and acceptance of its particular idiosyncrasies but was unwilling to reciprocate with tolerance and understanding. Referring to the cartoon episode, he pointed out that the Islamic world had not attempted to understand that in allowing for the publication, the publisher may not have intended to insult Islam but rather uphold a universal freedom of expression. The violence of reactions was proof of the rejection of any other view. In this vein, secondly, he went on to characterize Islam as a religion of violence.
Objectively, one could see why he might have thought so. I do not mean that he was right in his conclusions. The sad truth, however, is that a lot of violence is done in the name of Islam. The violence is not limited to acts of terrorism but includes aggression, abuses of power and insensitivity. I have seen some of that violence first hand. There was, as such, a basis for his skewed perceptions of Islam.
However, not everyone in the room was prepared to consider his position with the necessary objectivity. The outrage was immediate and loud. This was ironic as it served to reinforce the point the academic was making. Where were the objectivity, rationality and broad-mindedness that one associates with Islam, I found myself wondering.
Amidst the protests, I thought it might be useful for the others to hear a clarification of his stance. I believed that he might not be anti-Islamic and that he might sincerely hold the view that he was espousing. I also recognised that there was a possibility that he could not see that he was confusing issues, much as the others were. The premise of his argument was tenuous at best; the same reasoning could be employed against any religion. World events, past and present, reflect that.
There was, however, some value in the academic's point of view. It highlighted the fact that the use of religions, all religions in one form or the other, to justify violence pointed to a single painful truth: Religion is too often misused for political purpose. Such misuse is made possible by a propensity on the part of some towards extremism. In this way, extremism is harnessed not for religious purpose but for political purpose.
Perhaps it was more important then to understand why extremism existed.
Exploring this notion, I asked the academic whether he could agree that it was extremism, as opposed to religion, that led to violence. He was gracious enough to agree, conceding the point immediately. He also agreed to the suggestion that in allowing for diversity, religions were not monolithic. This, he further conceded, disallowed any generalizations about any particular religion.
Muslim participants were quick to agree as well. I believe their willingness lay in recognition of the fact that the violence we have seen done in the name of Islam - from effigy-burning to death threats to killings to terrorism - cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as being definitive or characteristic of Islam.
This agreement was echoed by other participants from different backgrounds, some completely secular or atheistic. Discussing the matter further, the workshop very quickly agreed that extremism was largely caused by factors that were independent of religion. Core amongst these are poverty, a lack of education and the denial of social justice. These factors have allowed for the entrenching, and misuse, of extremist thought and the galvanizing of extremist action.
Recognising this, the workshop readily agreed that the fight against extremism was one that had to focus, as a global concern, on eradicating the root causes of extremism.
The workshop ended on a high note, its recommendations a testament to the fact that more often than not, so many of us are shackled by fear and prejudice. Constructive and meaningful dialogue, and the truths it bears, can be achieved where there is the will to do so.
MIS
I HAD not been told that my workshop was potentially the most controversial. At an international conference in Prague last November, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the United Nations' Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion of Belief, I was co-facilitating a workshop on the relationship between the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression.
My presentation focused on the twin pillars of freedom of religion: The freedom to profess (or not to profess as the case may be) as a personal or internal expression of one's belief; and the freedom to manifest, or externally express that belief through an act of worship or by not worshiping. The experience I had gained, in cases dealing with the denial of the freedom of religion, had led me to understand that while no one could impede another's internal expression, much could be done to restrict the manifestation of that belief.
The nuances of expression in religion must be explored at all levels, from the right of the individual to profess and practice a religion of choice, to a state's justifications for clamping down on free discussion concerning religious practices. My involvement in various efforts has led me to the conclusion that, other than to genuinely preserve public order, free expression on matters of religion is vital if a community is to defend against intolerance and extremism. This is at the heart of the 1981 Declaration.
Out of the 50 participants in our session, more than half were diplomats. And everyone wanted to talk about the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.h.) and the controversial speech by the Pope. The European diplomats were keen to defend their position on the freedom of expression underlying these events. Representatives of Islamic countries were, on the other hand, driven to point to the insensitivity and the underlying insult. All indicators pointed to a potentially explosive morning.
As my co-facilitator, a senior director from Amnesty International, and I began to navigate through the session, it became apparent that in order to ensure a meaningful dialogue we needed to ensure that the language was kept civil and the concepts objective.
This was to prove challenging as one of the first salvos into the fray was from a British academic. He scathingly made two points. First, that Islam demanded sensitivity and acceptance of its particular idiosyncrasies but was unwilling to reciprocate with tolerance and understanding. Referring to the cartoon episode, he pointed out that the Islamic world had not attempted to understand that in allowing for the publication, the publisher may not have intended to insult Islam but rather uphold a universal freedom of expression. The violence of reactions was proof of the rejection of any other view. In this vein, secondly, he went on to characterize Islam as a religion of violence.
Objectively, one could see why he might have thought so. I do not mean that he was right in his conclusions. The sad truth, however, is that a lot of violence is done in the name of Islam. The violence is not limited to acts of terrorism but includes aggression, abuses of power and insensitivity. I have seen some of that violence first hand. There was, as such, a basis for his skewed perceptions of Islam.
However, not everyone in the room was prepared to consider his position with the necessary objectivity. The outrage was immediate and loud. This was ironic as it served to reinforce the point the academic was making. Where were the objectivity, rationality and broad-mindedness that one associates with Islam, I found myself wondering.
Amidst the protests, I thought it might be useful for the others to hear a clarification of his stance. I believed that he might not be anti-Islamic and that he might sincerely hold the view that he was espousing. I also recognised that there was a possibility that he could not see that he was confusing issues, much as the others were. The premise of his argument was tenuous at best; the same reasoning could be employed against any religion. World events, past and present, reflect that.
There was, however, some value in the academic's point of view. It highlighted the fact that the use of religions, all religions in one form or the other, to justify violence pointed to a single painful truth: Religion is too often misused for political purpose. Such misuse is made possible by a propensity on the part of some towards extremism. In this way, extremism is harnessed not for religious purpose but for political purpose.
Perhaps it was more important then to understand why extremism existed.
Exploring this notion, I asked the academic whether he could agree that it was extremism, as opposed to religion, that led to violence. He was gracious enough to agree, conceding the point immediately. He also agreed to the suggestion that in allowing for diversity, religions were not monolithic. This, he further conceded, disallowed any generalizations about any particular religion.
Muslim participants were quick to agree as well. I believe their willingness lay in recognition of the fact that the violence we have seen done in the name of Islam - from effigy-burning to death threats to killings to terrorism - cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as being definitive or characteristic of Islam.
This agreement was echoed by other participants from different backgrounds, some completely secular or atheistic. Discussing the matter further, the workshop very quickly agreed that extremism was largely caused by factors that were independent of religion. Core amongst these are poverty, a lack of education and the denial of social justice. These factors have allowed for the entrenching, and misuse, of extremist thought and the galvanizing of extremist action.
Recognising this, the workshop readily agreed that the fight against extremism was one that had to focus, as a global concern, on eradicating the root causes of extremism.
The workshop ended on a high note, its recommendations a testament to the fact that more often than not, so many of us are shackled by fear and prejudice. Constructive and meaningful dialogue, and the truths it bears, can be achieved where there is the will to do so.
MIS
