Multi-religious Cooperation to Overcome Violent Religious Extremism

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Multi-religious Cooperation to Overcome Violent Religious Extremism"

Brittany Tucker
5 years ago
Views:

1 Multi-religious Cooperation to Overcome Violent Religious Extremism Tendai Mount Hiei Summit 3 August 2017 Dr. William Vendley Secretary General Introduction Warm greetings. First, allow me to offer my heartfelt appreciation to the Tendai Sect of Buddhism. This Summit expresses Buddhism s commitment to an utterly unrestricted Compassion, to genuine Peace. and to multi-religious cooperation to advance the Peace. Religion is increasingly being abused in support of violent extremism that is violence justified by an extremist religious ideology that does not acknowledge and honor human dignity and the rights that flow from it. There are other forms of violent extremism, for example, political and ethnic violent ideologies that purport to justify the killing of the innocent. While we rightly deplore and condemn all forms of violent extremism, allow me to focus quite directly on violent religious extremism. Violent religious extremism is malignant and perhaps metastasizing. Every religiously related hostility every attack, every hate crime, every insult, every humiliation is amplified in the media and sends out a polarizing wave that is fueling a rise in social hostility. In a vicious cycle, rising social hostilities only increase the seductions of violent religious extremism. In turn, every increase in violent religious extremism further fuels the rise in social hostility. So, this vicious cycle spirals deeper into a sinkhole of darkness. This Mt. Hiei Summit asks how we can bring light into this sinkhole of darkness. 1

2 To share ways that religions can contribute to an answer, I would like to organize my remarks in three sections: First, I ll like to share the story of the Egyptian Dr. Nageh Ibrahim. Dr. Nageh is a Muslim whose story offers lessons for all. Second, I will focus on what are called the drivers of violent religious extremism. These drivers are the forces that either push or pull people to violent extremism. Third, I would like to draw our attention to an emerging multi-religious expression of positive Peace. This shared positive vision of Peace can undercut the misuse of religion in support of violent extremism. It can also help to guide us toward a state of genuine flourishing. I. The Story of Dr. Nageh Ibrahim To share the story of Dr. Nageh Ibrahim, it is necessary to bring to mind Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Recall that in 1979, Egypt and Israel entered into a peace treaty that still stands today. The jihadist Islamists groups in Egypt experienced this treaty as an utter betrayal, and plotted the overthrow of Sadat. On 6 October 1981, a victory parade was held in Cairo to commemorate an anniversary of Egypt s crossing the Suez Canal during the Yom Kipper War. During the parade, an attack was launched by Egyptian Islamic militants lasting about two minutes. Sadat and ten others were killed. Dr. Nageh Ibrahim was one of the leaders of the Jama a Islamia (Islamic Group) of Egypt, and its militant wing- the Islamic Jihad Organization. He participated in the plot to assassinate President Sadat and in subsequent attacks on police stations across the country. Hundreds of civilians and police were killed. In short, Dr. Nageh preached and perpetrated violence in the name of Islam. He was utterly convinced that he was doing the work of God. He was completely willing to die for his faith. 2

3 Dr. Nageh Ibrahim was captured. He was found guilty of terrorism, murder and the attempt to overthrow the Egyptian government and he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. In prison, Dr. Nageh continued to inspire and coordinate militant activities. He and his comrades became heroes in the eyes of the new waves of young Muslim Jihadists worldwide. Some of them would act out similar episodes of violence elsewhere including in the Philippines, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Chechnya, Europe and North America. These violent jihadi movements took inspiration from Dr. Nageh and his colleagues. Indeed, a friend of mine, Dr. Amr Abdalla, a former Egyptian prosecutor who worked to legally prosecute jihadi extremists like Dr. Nageh, shared with me how the jailed jihadists often taunted prosecutors like him, clearly convinced of their moral superiority. Seemingly endless hours in prison allowed Dr. Nageh to probe ever more deeply the foundations of his faith. This issued in an unexpected religious awakening, one that resulted in a stunning reversal or an about-face regarding violence. Over time, this led to the emergence of what has come to be known as the Doctrine Revisions (Muraja at Fiqhyia). Its essence was the recognition that resorting to violence to establish an Islamic state was profoundly un-islamic; it was wrong. These Revisions, begun by Dr. Nageh and some of his comrades were in later years adopted by larger movements namely, by Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya in 1997 and by Islamic Jihad in This is a stunning development; one that is far too little known. Since February 2007, after the publication of their Doctrine Revisions, jihadi commanders, with the support of the Egyptian authorities, have been touring Egyptian prisons to hold meetings with their followers. i Dr. Nageh confirms that he and his comrades have organized de-radicalization workshops in various prisons in Egypt. They succeeded in transforming the violent attitudes and beliefs of 3

4 approximately 20,000 young jihadists. Evidence of their success? None of those 20,000 has returned to violence after being released from prison! Moreover, these de-radicalization efforts were not confined to Egyptian militants. Similar efforts have also been adopted with Algerian, Saudi, Yemeni, Jordanian, Tajik, Malaysian, and Indonesian armed Islamist movements. In short, Doctrine Revisions, is arguably the strongest medicine for de-radicalizing those intent on using violence in the name of Islam. It has the potential to transform the hearts and minds of proponents of violence in the name of Islam, and to prevent more Muslim youth from joining violent groups. But notice where this medicine come from it comes directly from the pharmacy of Islam itself. This point must be generalized: History teaches us clearly that each religion baring none is vulnerable to violent extremism. Whenever we find violent extremism undertaken in the name of any particular religion, Dr. Nageh s story suggests that it would wise for the believers of that religion to look within their own religion for the antidote for the illness of extremism. It is a strategy that falls squarely on the shoulders of our religious communities. As I conclude this story, allow me to share a small personal note. My Egyptian friend, Dr. Amr Abdalla, the former Egyptian prosecutor I mentioned, contacted Dr. Nageh a few weeks ago on my behalf, letting him know that I would be sharing his story here in the Mt. Hiei Summit. II. The Drivers of Violent Extremism For my second point, let me turn to what can be called the drivers of violent extremism. It can be useful to group them into three categories: 1) Religious Ideological Drivers false interpretations of religion that attempt to justify violent extremism. These are the doctrinal drivers illustrated in Dr. Nageh s story. They are false and distorted religious narratives and interpretations. They must be unmasked, debunked and replaced by authentic primary religious narratives. By primary religious narratives, 4

5 I am referring to each religion s original holistic vision of Peace that includes what today we call respect for human dignity, concern for the common good and rejection of violence. Importantly, however, Dr. Nageh himself stresses that focusing on doctrinal revisions alone would be futile without addressing the other forces that drive violent extremism. 2) Socio-economic Drivers widespread abuses of fundamental human rights, extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for upward mobility and the inability of governments to provide basic services, including education. The link between these deplorable conditions and violent extremism needs to be responded to by promoting justice through the rule of law and addressing global poverty, thereby removing many of the factors that can push people towards violent religious extremism. 3) Psychological/Spiritual Drivers which include the psychological and spiritual need to belong to a group and the desire to be part of something bigger than one s self. These drivers often pull or attract people to violent extremism. These drivers can make violent extremism seem highly seductive. These drivers can include the desire to respond to affronts to one s personal or collective senses of dignity. The psychological allure the false promise of potency and meaning of violent religious extremism must be countered with real opportunities to build a meaningful life, including genuine ways of addressing long-standing injustices and contributing to the common good. Most of all, people want a sense of meaning and purpose; they want to be called to realize their deeper selves by making personal sacrifices to help others. Each of these three sets of so called drivers of violent religious extremism doctrinal, socio-economic and psychological-spiritual must be further analyzed and responded to with the engaged capacities and resources of the religious communities, governments and other relevant sectors. The Need for a Multi-Religious Approach 5

6 While governments and civil society need to be key actors in addressing the socioeconomic and psycho-spiritual drivers, a multi-religious response is especially useful. It can demonstrate concretely that diverse religious communities can and do respect religious differences, share common concerns and are willing to engage together in concrete action. Multi-religious approaches build solidarity and make clear that the religious other can be recognized as a moral ally, as opposed to an enemy. These multi-religious actions can often be usefully integrated into a broader multi-stakeholder approach. III. Shared Well-Being: An Emergent Multi-Religious Vision of Peace Each religion knows and anticipates Peace to be a holistic state of personal and social flourishing that is far more than the absence of violent conflict. Importantly, it is a religion s positive vision of peace that brings into bold relief the bitter contradictions, the searing personal failures and the deadening social exclusions that so wound our human experience. We only really see the threats to Peace, in the light of our more foundational positive vision of Peace. So, the question arises, is there an emergent shared multi-religious vision of positive Peace? The short answer is yes. This is a vision that has continued to unfold across the decades in Religions for Peace (WCRP). Beginning in 1970 here in Kyoto, about every 5-7 years Religions for Peace (WCRP) convenes a World Assembly so that up to a thousand senior religious leaders from around the world can carefully discern shared positive elements of Peace as well as shared threats to Peace. Regarding positive elements of Peace, allow me to note that Common Healing was the theme of the Assembly in 1994, making it clear that injury is actually always a two-way street in the sense that inevitably both the victims and victimizers are injured when we consider the matter deeply. Thus, we are all linked in our needs for healing, and we can and should help each other and our societies to heal. Common Living was the theme of the 1999 Assembly, which focused on the critical role of building up the common good in all our societies. 6

7 Shared Security was the theme of the remarkable Assembly held here in Kyoto in That Assembly made it clear that there are no walls high enough to separate us from the other s insecurity. We are all only as secure as the least secure among us. On the deepest level, your security is mine and my security is yours. Most recently, the Assembly in 2013 building on the previous Assemblies referred to positive Peace as a state of Shared Well-Being. Shared Well-Being in the eyes of the Assembly recognized that there is an inner call that beckons each and every person to unfold his or her personal dignity across all dimensions cultural, social, economic, political, emotional, intellectual, aesthetic, and religious. It is based on the understanding common to religious traditions that human beings find meaning in being and becoming, rather than simply having and accumulating. As the same time, Shared Well-Being includes the conviction that the call to personal development is directly related to the obligation to build up the common good, which includes honoring and protecting the natural world. The Assembly shared the belief that human beings are oriented beyond selfish egoism toward solidarity, beyond conflict toward cooperation. It affirmed that people find true meaning through caring relationships with others and that, ultimately, all are in varying ways responsible for all. In addition, just as each is called to contribute to the common good, each is, in turn, to be supported by it. This organic reciprocity between the need to both unfold our human dignity and simultaneously build up the common good extends across time and must include concern to live in harmony with the environment. This calls for the patient and resolute cultivation of both personal and social virtues, as these virtues are essential for human flourishing. This positive notion of Shared Well-Being provides us with a framework to assess the relative adequacy of our cultural, political, economic and social systems. To the degree that these systems thwart the profound reciprocity between unfolding human dignity and advancing the common good, they will need to be reformed. 7

8 But, is the positive peace expressed as Shared Well-Being just an idealistic dream, just a comforting fiction? Our religious traditions are really quite concrete when it comes to admitting human failures. They know that human dignity is alltoo-often violated and that the common good is all-too-often mutilated by personal and group forms of selfish egoism. In response to these injuries, religious traditions call for self-sacrifice for the wellbeing of others, the bearing of innocent suffering for peace, returning good for evil, extending forgiveness and expressing universal love and compassion. These priceless spiritual virtues can powerfully restore injured human dignity and rebuild the common good where it has been deeply wounded. Conclusion Let me conclude: While we strongly reject violent religious extremism, we can take real heart in the life stories of persons like Dr. Nageh that illustrate that each religion has its own pharmacy to treat extremism. Second, we need to deeply understand the socio-economic and psycho-spiritual drivers of violent extremism and address them. Third, religions today are advancing an emergent notion of shared positive Peace that organically links the unfolding of human dignity with the building up of the common good. This vision both affirms what is positive in our so-called modern political societies, but in profound ways points beyond it as well. If the capital virtue of the modern political society is tolerance, Shared Well-Being would both acknowledge the value of tolerance while also calling us beyond it to an even deeper organizing virtue. Religions in the final analysis call us to solidarity. It is a solidarity so deep and so inclusive that your well-being in the final analysis is also mine; just as my well-being is also yours. From the moment of our births, each is utterly dependent on the storehouse of the common good. In turn, each of us will taste the deepest joy of our existence as we patiently submit to going beyond the prison of the narrow selfish self in engaged compassion that patiently builds up our common good. If it is true that we are all injured, it is also true that our religions at their deepest 8

9 know of a medicine that would heal and restore us by calling us into self-emptying care. Thank you for your kind patience. i Omar Ashour, "De-Radicalization of Jihad? The Impact of Egyptian Islamist Revisionists on Al-Qaeda," Perspectives on Terrorism, 2 no. 5 (2008), 9

Nanjing Statement on Interfaith Dialogue

Nanjing Statement on Interfaith Dialogue (Nanjing, China, 19 21 June 2007) 1. We, the representatives of ASEM partners, reflecting various cultural, religious, and faith heritages, gathered in Nanjing,