What after the 11th September ?
Presentation
As a preliminary remark to start with in order to set the tone for this paper, let me remind you that all major Muslim leaders had unanimously condemned the horrific acts of terror committed on September 11, in the name of Islam. There is no justification for attacks against civilians. The second statement that I would like to underline is that those terrorists who claim to be Muslims do not share the same book with us. Our references and understanding of Islam are quite at the opposite of theirs. I mean that those who defend apartheid or Nazism have nothing to do with Christianity. Regarding this subject, the Quran is cristal clear: " If any one slew a person -unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land- it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people" (5, 35). Where can we find a stronger condemnation of assassination and revenge? And the last remark that I would like to stress is that nobody can feel safe after this barbarian violence, for all of us are the targets of terrorists. Those who kill or seek to kill individuals because they bear an ideal is to kill all those who represent this ideal. Barbary is against religion, for religion is civilization founding.
Religion is not just a link between people - according to Latin religio - but more than that; it is the move from the state of nature to the state of culture. The state of nature is characterized by anarchy of instincts while the state of culture is the field of order and responsibility. This new kind of social organization is the founding of religion, i.e. law and norm. Through all the past, barbarians never respected social order, or any kind of civilization. Why should they start now? This concern is well captured by Hans Kung : " there will be no peace in the world without dialogue amongst the religions ", and the far-seeing thinker André Malraux: 'the 21 st century will be religious or will not'.
Since the sixties, religious dialogue is improving and now it is accepted as a way of tackling problems. A better understanding among religious groups is raised. However, if it is important to know each other, in terms of religion, culture and way of life, it would be better to put into practice what we have in common, in terms of principles and vision of the world. After the terrible events of 11th September, some journalists talked of clash of civilizations. What was behind, in fact, was a clash of ignorance. Discussing principles is good, but practicing them is better. The point is what can we do, as believers, together , here and now ? It seems to me that it is time to act, as interfaith groups, and build the world that we expect. The believers bear a tremendous responsibility, particularly because they claim that they are believers. Having received the gift of faith is not just a privilege, but also more responsibility. In fact, man is free to accept faith, but in doing so, he becomes responsible for it. It is not neutral to be a believer or not. Is there any difference between a believer and an unbeliever? As human beings, truly no. In terms of ethics and world conception, yes, indeed. That why we can say with Dostoievski ' if God does not exist, everything is permitted'. A believer cannot allow himself to do what he wants. As a vice gerent of God on earth, he will be asked what he has done with what he has been given. He is accountable to God at the end of the day.
Within our religious and interfaith groups, we need to work out a common vision of world society with concrete, and not naïve proposals. Beyond these proposals, it is of utmost importance to share with politicians, economists and all those who shape the future, this vision of world society based on justice, solidarity and cooperation.
In response to the recent tragic events in the United States of America and ongoing conflicts with religious dimensions around the world, the Dalai Lama said that two responses to these terrible events were possible. One coming from fear, the other from love. 'If we could love even those who have attacked us, and seek to understand why they have done so we would become spiritual activists.' For this to happen, he says, we need divine help and mutual support to grow in inner peace and wisdom. Each of us can contribute to healing the world. The out of fear response will result in more fear, cries and anguish, and will finally lead to war and destruction. Definitely, that is not our objective. Are we able to hear the other's pain and grievance? Could we set ourselves a goal that we give and forgive, so we can free ourselves from the chains that bind us to a bitter past? If we can draw lessons from the past, we realize that violence generates violence and hatred nourishes hatred. The only way to overcome this situation is to foster love and enhance understanding, in order to learn to live with oneself and with others.
More than before, what happened in the United States on 11th September, binds us to ask ourselves if we are able to react, to affirm and show our solidarity against obscurantism and fundamentalism. Facing destruction and negation of life, are we capable of asserting our will to live together and to build a better world for our children? The world is no more divided into two blocks where believers, as such, were absent. I am not advocating to set up a common front in order to take power for a given ideology, but I argue for constituting a body that has an authority. There is a difference between power and authority. We represent a force with its values and ethics that has to express itself against injustice, hatred and sorrow. The terrible events of 11th September are an alarm urging us to immediately tackle our world's problems. We cannot stay aloof and let politicians and decision makers decide on our behalf. Our voice, as believers, should be, if not heard, at least, listened to.
Globalization and religious response to terrorism
Terrorism is becoming international because of poverty and a crisis of values civilization. Poverty exists everywhere, but it is becoming massive. Fundamentalism provides a basis for identity and transcends national frontiers due to the weakness of the nation state. These movements exist in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. That why terrorism is everywhere. If one of the key causes of Islamism is poverty, how can we eradicate it and secure a decent living to people? Besides that, poverty is not the only element, for some countries are rich, but fundamentalism is flourishing like in Iran or Nigeria.
Our plural world is one, and as a chain, its force is equal to its weakest link. So stronger are the links, stronger is our world and better we feel. Religion as such is not terrorist, but ideology is: Islam is a religion of peace, but Islamism is dogmatic and exclusive. When a given religion tries to ignore its roots and becomes an ideology for taking power, this perversion justifies everything, including killing others in the name of God, as if He were fanatic, so paradise cannot be earned without shedding innocent blood. There motto seems to be : " I kill, therefore I am ". The great problem with religions is when they found a political regime; so the rules are confused, we do not know if we are dealing with transcendence or immanence, and there is always a shift between two different levels. Things are clearer when there is a distinction between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God. For this kind of twisted understanding, the question of secularization does not even arise. In fact, what is behind is intolerance and totalitarianism. Religion is used as an alibi, no more. If we can deflect the famous phrase of the late Israeli prime minister, who lost his life because of fanatics, we would say: " we should fight terrorism as if poverty did not exist and fight poverty as if terrorism did not exist ". That seems to be a wise way in which to tackle problems of terrorism. It is understood that it has multiple roots, and it would be efficient to take all of them into account.
The fault line is global: nowadays, there are 2 billion people living with less than one dollar per day, and within the next twenty years to come, they will be 4 billion. What have we done - or have we even tried - to heal their suffering and help them having a decent standard of life? It is up each one of us to do his/her best to make this world more acceptable. We cannot stay indifferent to what is going on in the world. As in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, it will be said " between you and us a great chasm has been fixed "(Luke, XVI, 19-31). And it is too late to go back and repair our faults. It is urgent to reduce this fault line.
No doubt that the events of 11th September were a deep shock for Americans as well as for all those who are keen on democracy and freedom. It can be noticed that over a thousand Muslims perished in the World Trade Centre, and one of the towers contained a Muslim prayer room. Terrorists attacked cruelly the powerful America that thought it was unbeatable and that shows America's weakness. Facing barbarism, we are, all of us, vulnerable. The logic of hatred and destruction cannot be stronger than civilization. What happened could not even be imagined before. The words are very weak to describe this crime against humanity and civilization.
However, are we aware that in other places all over the world millions of human beings live tragedies and nobody cares. What is going on in Algeria leaves the international community unconcerned with the destiny of Algerians. Since 1991, half a million of children are dead in Iraq due to the embargo imposed on them by the Americans and nobody reacts. Palestinians are fighting to have their own land, and no hand is given to them. In Africa, which is a forgotten continent, 17 million people are AIDS sufferers and they cannot even afford drugs produced by rich pharmaceutical firms in the West. This list is far from being exhaustive of world misery. If it is impossible to solve all the distress of the world, but it is possible -at least- to pay special attention to what is going on and demonstrate our compassion. The world's religions should be offering an alternative viewpoint to meet real human needs. Religion should give the world hope. It is urgent to reduce this fracture and set an other tone for this world, a tone of sharing and solidarity.
Response to terrorism
As terrorism transcends borders, the response must be international. We should point out that the Islamic tradition is absolutely against the murder of innocents. Over and over again, we must remind that when we kill a person it is as if we have killed the whole humanity. The pillars of Islamic tradition are both justice and compassion, for Islam is 'a mercy to the world'.
It should be noted that the Arabic root rahima (to be merciful) is related to rahm, womb, and who is more merciful and compassionate for the baby than his mother? Among what we call the 99 beautiful names of God (i.e. His attributes) there is al-rahman al-rahim , these two words are constantly found together, as if to add intensity one to the other. Muslims, in their daily life, before starting to do anything, invoke the name of God, the merciful and compassionate. It is shocking when those who committed crimes invoked the name of God. Indeed, I am aware that it is not possible to reduce scriptures to an inspiring book of philosophy and there is always a gap between words and deeds. What is more needed now is action. It is up all of us to pave the way for finding a common background for cooperation and to alter people's thinking to make our principles work. If terrorism is linked to poverty and ignorance, it is time to shift towards a new politics where people are the centre of this new politics. People should no more be at the service of economics and politics, things should rather be the opposite. Are we standing at the cutting edge, helping the poor to fight for their rights? This is what is called anthro-politics based particularly upon pluralism. I assume that all religions share this common background that is the acceptance of people's differences.
The Quran has no ambiguity towards this topic. If we want to live peacefully in this world, for we are interrelated, there is no other way than promoting the interfaith dialogue that fosters our will to live together and to share our pluralism. The diversity of religions and their different expressions should be seen as an extraordinary gift. Diversity is richness; the rainbow is beautiful because it contains many colours assembled together in harmony. The differences should be understood not as opposition, but as complementarity. When we define our identity through family, school, society, media,… our definition should be broad, otherwise, people are likely to see an " us " versus " them " relation existing between themselves and others. Actually, the universe belongs to the whole humanity, and the only way to overcome this situation of tension is to think in terms of otherness. My neighbour is another myself.
Let us talk frankly about what is going on. The first victims of terrorism are Muslims, not without clash with the West. The fundamentalists consider their fellow believers as unbelievers and traitors to Islam. It started with Sadat's assassination, through the civil war in Algeria, till the current devastating war in Afghanistan. In the name of so-called freedom of speech, the Islamic activists were welcomed in the West. It seems that there are some reasons for those Muslims who are angry with the West. There is a logic of double standards when it comes to the extradition of terrorist refugees in the West by some Muslim governments.
Curiously enough, when Pakistan engaged in war, its debt was forgiven while Argentina became bankrupt. Debt cancellation for developing countries must be at the top list of our agenda. It is also in the name of supposed free world that the Talebans were armed and organized to fight against communism. It does make no sense to let the Palestinian President on probation where his action is brought to halt and at the same time to take him as responsible for the violence in the area. In fact, he is politically out. A whole people are humiliated on behalf of their leader. Even if Palestinian leaders claim that the Palestinian cause is not an Islamic cause, but the paradox is that when we defend Palestinian victims, we defend fundamentalists. Let us be serious for a while and have a minimum of shared confidence, so the Muslims could be treated as trustworthy partners. It is high time that cynical Western countries ended the way they have so far dealt with the Muslim world. Indeed, the Islamic world has also a long way to go to get its house in order.
In our 'global village', we have to remember our fundamental values that we bear in common and that we are proud of. Notice that we have experienced historically rooted misunderstandings from one religion to another, and that sometimes occurred even between members of the same religion and that needs discussing without creating a chasm between us. The most important point is to build a significant interfaith work in order to realize social harmony and that is the contribution we can make for the future. We are at the crossroads, so remaining silent is acting as accomplices in what is going on. It is our obligation, as an inter-religious movement to choose our path, stressing our commitment to struggle beside the poor.
Talking about peace is easy, but to what extent are we really committed to peace? Instead of building walls and borders, are we able to build bridges between people? There are two steps in peace making: the first is to create a climate of self-confidence, and the second is peace keeping. Peace is not granted forever, we have to be vigilant all the time. According to an Arabic saying: "people are enemies of what they ignore". Violence bursts because of lack of dialogue, and when some people talk about clash of civilizations, they reject dialogue. It is well known that the authorship of clash of civilizations goes to Samuel Huntington, who wrote his book after the collapse of Berlin's wall, having in mind the cold war. His hypothesis is " that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."
It seems that this pessimistic hypothesis considers civilizations as an entity able to act over people, and ignores the values of religions, cultures and civilizations. Only love and forgiveness will triumph over death. The real point is that are we going to encourage civilizations to create a dynamic for dialogue, or are we looking at them as a dynamite that undermines dialogue? In fact, what is at issue is the interpretation that people make of their own culture. In itself, a civilization is always positive, and cannot prescribe to fight against another civilization. We know that every civilization is interconnected with and indebted to others, for the frontiers are always porous. To practice otherness one should really know the other. The West should wonder about its relationships with the Islamic world in all fields, not only on terrorism, and the Islamic World should wonder about its place in the world and the kind of relationships it wants to establish with others. Unfortunately, in the Islamic world, fundamentalists take the field of debate while the intellectuals remain silent. This is, as such, a real issue that should be addressed by the whole society. Those who are hostile to this image should make their own ideas known.
Interfaith dialogue, proposals
More than a tree, man requires to be rooted; the assertion of oneself through religious identity is a fundamental need. That is why we should focus on positive data and constructive approaches related to interfaith dialogue, particularly now when there is an intense crisis. Those who are inhabited by peace should not act as firemen, i.e. to react after a disaster has taken place, but they must be vigilant enough in order to prevent disaster from happening. These following proposals may help facing the situation:
It is necessary to create a peace observatory for monitoring what is going on. Once there is something that could constitute a threat for peace, the alarm should be given. It is less arduous to prevent than to repair. Acting before the irreversible is committed gives enough room for finding a solution. This action is needed everywhere: in the business enterprise, at schools, at NGOs; where we can foster how to prevent conflicts and use inter-religious dialogue as a means of tolerance. It is absolutely urgent to experiment these ways everywhere it is needed in order to build a responsible, plural world where solidarity is not just a vain word. Indeed, we share a common history where refutation and agreement, fascination and repulsion, understanding and misunderstanding are blended. Sometimes, without our knowing, reciprocal influences help bring about cultural cross-fertilization that reveals our common values. If our relationships are complex, they include a great deal of richness. We have to learn how to live with it, for there is no other choice than to accept this situation.
It is also highly desirable to create an interfaith library . It is worthy to note that after the events of 11th September, there is a general craze for books dealing with clash of civilizations, globalization , religious fundamentalism. How many publications were sold (or read) dealing with interfaith dialogue ? Of course, when it comes to apocalyptic visions, there is a kind of diabolic attraction that makes people interested. When the consequences of misunderstanding between religions and cultures are becoming apparent, the writings prove to be a basic means of dialogue, comprehension and analysis regarding the phenomena in which we are involved. Facing an image, the reaction could be emotional, all the more reason journalists are in hurry to cover the event. On the contrary, when dealing with a writing, we have distance with the event, so we can take time for thinking.
This interfaith library, as a means of fostering links between people from dissimilar cultures, is also helpful when it comes to correct something false published against one or another religion. It can work as a vigilant committee. It is necessary, when a given religion is attacked, to answer and to re-establish the truth. Nobody gains in when the truth is perverted, and our task is to fight in common, if needed, to re-establish what has been distorted. Is it acceptable that a head of a state, like Mr Berlusconi who said that the Islamic civilization is inferior to the Western civilization ? Who allows Mr Berlusconi to pass a definite judgement on Islamic civilization ? He would have done better to have kept quiet, because this kind of statement can not help to calm people down. We know that a religion or culture is neither superior nor inferior to another, but it is simply different from another. Tolerance is the acceptance of differences as a positive value, for no one owes the truth to decide what is worthwhile and what is not.
In order to make people more acquainted with the values of others, it is basic to focus on education, particularly religious education for children. These practices may vary from one country to another, it goes from studying one single religion as a state official one to a secular avoidance of all religion instruction. It is important to know the ways in which values and beliefs are passed down to young generations. Whether there is religious instruction or not, it is urgent to go over text books to avoid statements that are embarrassing or shocking for others. This review will help children better learning about religious diversity, so the image of others will be corrected. To live in harmony with others is not to reflect their distorted image or that made out of hand, but to accept the image that they recognize themselves. It is a question of respect to deal with others as they are.
To enhance our cooperation, as interfaith groups, we have to build the means that can achieve our goals. One of them is the use of internet. The web is gigantic and present everywhere, besides being cheap and affordable to everybody. Indeed, the best and the worst are side by side, so we should make the most of the situation and work in network The new technologies of information are a real revolution and we must know who to manage, so the information could be on hand when needed.
It is possible to say that the 21st century starts with the 11 th September for a radical change occurred. The world is not likely to be as we were used to it before. If truth be told, the Russian power does not exist anymore and Europe is marginalized. What we witness is that the West is at the peak of power compared to others, for Western military power is unequalled. The overwhelming domination on international political, economic and security institutions made by the West is a fact. The U.N. Security Council, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund are simply instruments in the hands of the West. They reflect the interests of the West and are presented to the world as reflecting the desires of the world community. There is an identification of Western interests with the rest of the world as a way of legitimacy regarding Western interests.
Is it credible to talk of human rights claiming that all human beings are equal while some have more rights than others? Is it reliable to say that those who are not with us are against us? Is it plausible to restrict oneself to thinking just in terms of white and black? We know that between them there are many colours with an endless range of nuances. The world is more diverse than that and we can not just confine ourselves in this binary logic. When the question is " which side are you on ?" we become akin with fundamentalists ideas because the key question for them is "what are you?", and any hesitation in answering means a bullet in the head. Does-it make any sense, when fighting fundamentalists, to espouse their own logic ? Is it not convincing, like in trash movies, to divide the world into two parts, "the good guys and the bad guys". There are other ways in which one can consider the relationships among human beings. Of course, life is not a movie and even less a western. We have to get out of this dichotomy, otherwise, there is no end to it. Even common sense could not accept to replace a fundamentalism with another one.
By way of conclusion, the 11 th of September is indisputably a shock, but it could be the prelude of awareness that we are interconnected and salvation lies in solidarity and cooperation. As we are boarding the same boat, it is expected that we share the same fate. Let me submit to your judgement the following : On September 11th, a young Muslim from Pakistan was evacuated from the World Trade Centre where he worked. He saw a dark cloud coming toward him. Trying to escape, he fell. A Hasidic Jew held out his hand, saying, 'Brother, here is a cloud of glass coming at us, grab my hand, let's get the hell out of here'. Even in darkness, expectation, like a candle sheds light in our heart and mind, because every human is a being of love and hope.