 Good morning, and welcome to the United States Institute of Peace for today's event exploring the role of religious actors in combating radicalization and violent extremism. My name is Susan Hayward, and I serve in the Religion and Peace Building program here at the Institute, which works with religious actors and organizations in conflict zones around the world to support their efforts at building peace and coexistence and justice. Friends, the news has been sobering of late. Around the world, impacting nearly every region, every tradition, nearly every one, violent extremism has been on the rise, often couched in religious terms. The stories we hear from our partners on the ground, the images we see, the strident messages beamed from immaturely shot videos are chilling. No religion appears to be immune to motivating, in part, these movements that compel hatred of the other and heartbreaking acts of violence against businesses, homes, and the bodies of others. But we know that that's not the whole story. Less visible in the media is the steady and courageous work of religious actors across traditions. Who have sought to turn back this tide, to draw from the best of their faiths, to leverage their positions of authority and credibility in order to counter religious messages of hate, and to address the underlying drivers of violence. Today we bring you some of these stories from North and West Africa and Sri Lanka, from the Muslim, Christian, and Buddhist faiths. This public event that we're holding today is a glimpse into a wider initiative that has been taking place over five days in D.C. and New York City, and that itself is part of a global, wider initiative. So the events here in the States, which are generously sponsored by the Finnish Foreign Ministry, and organized in partnership with USIP by Finchurch Aid, are in effort under the auspices of the network of religious and traditional peacemakers. We have nearly a dozen religious peace builders from the Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths with us as part of a delegation. They represent 10 countries around the world. So you have bios of the wider group, and you can see how rich is their experience, how courageous they are. And I want to thank especially Mohammed Al-Sanusi and Antti Panakayan from FCA for their partnership in this, and I'd also like to invite Antti up to give a brief introduction to what the network is. Thank you Susan, and I would also want to acknowledge the presence of Dr. Wendley, the Secretary-General for Religious for Peace. On invitation a few of us came together analyzing what's going on in the conflicts, and what we realized is that each and every conflict there is always local traditional and religious leaders who are doing exactly the right thing. They know exactly what the problem is and how to fix it, but the problem is that they're not seen, they're not supported, they're not given the space to come forward with their ideas. So we came up with a network of people, experts like Susan and Mohammed and others, with the plan that we have to organize ourselves better to get these voices heard. So the network of traditional religious leaders is truly about those people in the ground doing everyday that work, often very vulnerable exposed to a lot of dangers. And I just want to quote one of my colleagues working with them when you go for example in Syria, work with religious leaders there or Pakistan, the women activists, others. There's very little in terms of training and understanding you can give to them. But sometimes the situation is just so desperate that the hope dies. There is no hope. So then the best you can do is to be a carrier of hope. So thank you for coming here and I think we all have to carry this small light of hope on this start time. Thank you. To speak first and after a bit of background on the full day workshop we had with our religious delegation yesterday and some of its initial insights and recommendations. I'm going to invite up my colleague Georgia Holmer who's deputy director in the rule of law program with over 16 years of experience in the justice and security sector. Georgia co-leads our CVE working group here at USIP and led co-led led and led a women preventing violent extremism project in Nigeria in which Pastor Esther who we're going to be beaming in over video in a moment was a participant. So Georgia please come up. Thank you Susan. Good morning and welcome and welcome to our distinguished guests. Yesterday I had the very profound pleasure of spending the day learning from a group of peace builders and religious scholars and practitioners about the role of religious actors in preventing violent extremism. And what was clear from the outset of our gathering was evidenced by the diversity in the room. We had women and men and we had Buddhists and Christians and we had Muslims we have from Nigeria from Somalia from Burma from Libya from Pakistan Sri Lanka and Yemen was that we all shared a very broad definition of violent extremism. One that transcended cultures and one that transcended religions and one that was not confined to the Muslim world. However we also shared a common understanding that the reasons why individuals and groups become engaged in violent extremism is very different in every context. The reason why a young man in northern Nigeria might join Boko Haram is completely different than the reason why someone from Mabasa might join Al-Shabaab and with some research that was shared with us yesterday might be indeed completely different why a youth in Mogadishu might join that same group. The factors surrounding the violence by Buddhists in Burma being yet a completely different and unique context. Further we agreed that this is not just about young men at risk that there are plenty of examples of how empowerment can take a dark form when women become radicalized. We all agreed that understanding this complexity was the first step in developing effective solutions and that the role of religious actors was a pivotal component in any holistic CVE strategy. Why? Because violent extremism even when it's more about resources and politics than religious ideology often invokes religious belief in dogma and uses it to justify the violence. Because many religious leaders have the credibility and the influence in their community to help counter extremist narratives that pull vulnerable youth towards violence whether it's through corrective interpretations of religious texts or through the promotion of tolerance and peace. Because religious leaders are uniquely positioned to work with those who are former militants and need help being reintegrated back into society. Because religious leaders are often a source of resilience in communities and a source of social cohesion. They are mentors, they're counselors and they understand and see the challenges that people face, the vulnerabilities that exist in their communities. They can acknowledge and help address the feelings of exclusion, despair, frustration and anger that often fuel radicalization. Because religious leaders through interfaith work can model and teach tolerance and empathy and nonviolent approaches to resolving conflict. And also because religious leaders are also political advocates and mediators and can help resolve the disputes and address the larger grievances that underpin local expressions of violent extremism. Over the past two years, USIP has been supporting a pilot program that explores the role of women in preventing violent extremism. And as part of this effort, we worked with a group of women interfaith leaders from the Middle Belt in Nigeria and Joss and Kaduna. And what we learned through our engagement with them is that these women by virtue of their work in peace building and interfaith fora and as religious leaders are already equipped with many of the relationship building and communication skills that are associated with countering violent extremism. That said, one of the recommendations that this group presented to policymakers this morning was a request to develop more capacity and skill building programs designed and tailored specifically to help religious actors engage in CVE. This morning you'll have the opportunity, as Susan mentioned, to hear from one of the participants in the women's CVE project by video pastor Esther Ebanga from Joss, Nigeria. One of the participants in the symposium yesterday eloquently referenced the saying that it's better to light a candle than condemn the darkness. And I really appreciated that metaphor. And it struck me as a very prosaic way of answering the question, what role do religious leaders play in helping to counter violent extremism? Religious actors can help illuminate a better understanding and they can shine a light on a better path for those at risk of heading down a road towards violence. Thank you. Traveled here to TZ to be with us. We're going to begin with the renowned Sheikh Abdullah Ben-Baya from Mauritania who's now residing in the Saudi Arabia where he is a scholar at the King Abdul Aziz University. Sheikh Ben-Baya is founder and president of the organization of promoting peace in Muslim societies and has been a vocal advocate against violent extremism couched in Islamic terms. His efforts recognized most recently by President Obama in his speech at the UN General Assembly this week. Translating for Sheikh Ben-Baya is Khamza Yousef of Zaitina College. Sheikh Ben-Baya. My distinguished introduced, introduced her and all of the distinguished guests, peace be upon you. The first thing you want to thank the Ministry of Exterior from Finland and also this Institute of Peace for bringing about this important forum. The first thing you want to thank the Ministry of Exterior from Finland and also the Institute of Peace for bringing about this important forum. The first thing you want to thank the Ministry of Exterior from Finland and also the Institute of Peace for bringing about this important forum. So he said that the big question that we're addressing is the role of religious leaders in terms of addressing the problem of violence and extremism. And he said that violence has been a human challenge from the very beginning of our species. We know that human beings have a need for resources and so sometimes that need actually confronts other people's needs and so people clash over resources and this ends up in this violence. And so we've had in history religious leaders and then philosophers, people of intellect that have attempted to address this problem at a deep level so that they could help solve this problem and bring about peace. And he said that this is a problem that resides in the hearts of people, this problem of violence and extremism. And he said in our foundational story that we have about the first people we have the story of Cain and Abel and this is a story of violence and so it's at the root of the human condition. A doctor who treats the sick society. One philosopher says that the civilization is sick and its doctors are the philosophers. So the societies now and the civilization, especially in the Middle East, are sick. What is the effect that should be done by religious leaders? They are not military leaders to go to the battlefield to fight the wars. They are not political leaders. So he said that in this context there's a huge responsibility that religious leadership has. It's the responsibility of a physician really because if you look at our civilizations, particularly now we see in the Middle East that they're not well, they're sick. And he said that a philosopher, I believe it was Nietzsche, said that civilizations become sick. And the treatment plan has to be at the hands of philosophers. He said, I think it's Nietzsche who said that. So he said that the illness has to be addressed by people of intellect. So he noticed I didn't translate something. He's very fluent in French and he follows my translations. But he said that the religious leadership are not military leaders. They don't have the capacity to go in as a military force and stop these conflicts. And he said that they're also not political leaders that can take political decisions that please or otherwise they're political constituents. He said they don't have people that elect them into power. He said these are people that what emanates from them is based on their spiritual and their ethical positions. And he said like that was said by the previous speaker that sometimes they're in incredibly difficult conditions and yet despite those conditions they rise to the occasion and do what they can. So here we have to look at what is this treatment that we can put forward from the religious leadership in order to treat this problem. He said primarily this is a treatment that addresses the intellects, the hearts and the emotions. Our approach is to teach people. We have an African proverb. He says that if the heart is sick, it's because of a minute or a minute mark. It's like a tree in Africa, a tree in Africa. And if you want to get rid of it, you need to get rid of it. It's sick, but the treatment is to give it more of the same fruit. So he said that the treatment here is not less religion but actually more that they need to better understand their faith. Because these people actually it's out of religious ignorance that they're doing what they're doing. They have very shallow understanding. They use some decontextualized verses and things from religious texts and their own interpretations and explanations. And also some historical examples. So this is really an edifice that we need to deconstruct. It's this current of violence. So we have to build that which will confront this current. So we have to put forward intelligent responses and correct understandings that will address the problems. So at this stage he feels that the why is not what needs to be addressed in the immediate circumstances. That as the previous speaker mentioned that there are conditions that bring about these problems. But right now the focus should be on how to address the immediate problems. It doesn't mean that we neglect the why. The why is important. But in the immediate circumstances it has to be how do we address this. Not why did it come about. So we always put forward in our methodology three questions. What, why and how. But we begin with how. It doesn't mean we neglect the other two. We have a fire that we need to attempt to put it out before we can get into the causes of the fire and who started it. Sometimes the problems are too complicated and we can't even really get to the actual why. There's victimization, there's grievances, poverty. Yes, thank you. But we want to put forward the opportunity of peace because the opportunity of peace is the appropriate environment that we can address these other issues. This is a big area of debate amongst intellectuals in the Muslim world. They said how can you talk about peace and you're not addressing the grievances. My perspective is that war is not what is going to solve the problem of the grievances. He said that now the means by which people engage in war is very different from the previous period. These are weapons of mass destruction and much more destructive. We have to address the grievances by other means. In perpetual peace Kant talks about that without justice there can be no peace which is a very common slogan people hear. He said that's true that you can't have Kant or Kamil. You can't have Kantian peace. You can't have complete peace close Kamil Kant. But it's more important from his perspective to have peace so that we can address the problems of justice within the context of peace. We need the dialogue of civilizations, a societal dialogue. This has to be, the whole society has to engage in this dialogue. The men, the women, the youth, the religious leadership, political leadership. So that we can really examine the alternatives to war. Of course, Plato says that the dialogue is the one that presents the beginning of a different war. And that war is the proof of failure of civilization. Plato said that the dialogue is the means by which we find alternatives to war and that war is actually the failure of a civilization. So our approach might appear to be complex. It also might appear to be a long-term approach. But if enough people are convinced of this approach then we can work towards engendering peace. He said, I believe that all of our religions, but in particular the religion that I speak on behalf of Islam has within it mechanisms for promoting peace. But I want to draw attention to a point. Religion is like a power. Energy. Energy, power. It's an energy. It's an energy. So you can use that energy to facilitate the water and bring about life and bring about agriculture and greenery. But you can also use that same energy to develop weapons of mass destruction that can annihilate us. He said this is exactly the problem with our religions. So the people that carry the religion, they're responsible for how they use this energy. So our approach is to use all of these means within our religious tradition to promote peace. And also to reveal the sophistical nature of these arguments that people are using for the opposite approach. Sometimes they use means that are actually just completely fabricated that have no real basis or source. Just to give you an example, we had a conference five years ago. We have a fatwa from somebody who's from the 8th century. His name was Ibn Taymiyyah. So this fatwa was used by, there was an ideologue in Egypt that was Salam Faraj who actually used this fatwa as a foundation for a small book that he wrote arguing that Muslims and Muslim rulers in Egypt could be killed because they weren't following the Sharia. And Sadat was assassinated based on this fatwa. And this fatwa was actually, the fatwa had a misprint in it because of a printing of over 100 years ago. There was actually a misprint in the fatwa that came out. And this fatwa was also quoted by Al Qaeda in their declarations over 150 times. So there were two editions, one in Riyadh and one in Cairo, and both editions had this mistake. So when I heard the fatwa and when we were addressing the issue in Mardin, in Turkey, which is where the people who asked him for the fatwa were from, I brought together a group of scholars just to discuss the fatwa, but during that discussion I looked at it and realized that there was a problem with the fatwa and actually said there's something wrong. I don't think Ibn Taymiyyah said this. So when we got back to Jeddah, we actually asked somebody from Syria in Damascus and there's a mektaba library there that's known to have some of the oldest manuscripts. We got one of the oldest manuscripts. And it was the only one. And we found that what I had pointed out on the misprint was actually accurate. That in the original handwritten manuscript it had a completely different word. So we showed and then everybody agreed, even though they didn't agree at the time I'm adding that, but everybody agreed later that the fatwa was indeed misquoted. It was a misprint because the actual word it said which means that the ruler could be killed or fought or attempt to kill him, whereas the actual word was that he should be treated appropriately, which is a completely different understanding. He said this is a small example. He said we really need to have an army of scholars and I'm not saying I'm using that metaphorically. We need an army of scholars that can address these issues in order to disseminate these ideas. These spaces where these ideas can be disseminated. The scholars they need also security protection because they're being assassinated. So in these places like Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, Syria, many places Yemen that the scholars that are speaking out now against these positions, they're actually putting their lives into jeopardy, including the sheikh. So there has to be some type of cooperation between the scholars and between the people's in authority, the intelligent people in authority to do that. And that can't mean that the scholars just say what is pleasing to the governments, but there has to be some agreed upon area where they can work together and that's peace. This is what we're engaged in endeavoring to do. We met with scholars from Nigeria. We had a gathering for two days and then we also had a forum with the scholars from Somalia. And then the recent forum we brought together 250 scholars from all over the world to address the issue of peace and they agreed upon the declaration that we put forward and that declaration is online. We don't have the media channels. We don't have the capability to spread these things around the world. But despite all of that, we'll continue to do what we can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your insights and for your courage. And I hope our friends at Google and Facebook and YouTube are all listening to that last part in particular about the need to work with technologists to spread this message. Our next speaker, Pastor Esther Avanga, unfortunately couldn't be here with us today because of some travel difficulties. But we didn't want to lose her voice and her insights in our discussion, given her remarkable and courageous work she's doing on the ground in Nigeria as president of Women Without Walls Initiative in Joss, Nigeria. Which is a place in Nigeria which has witnessed quite a bit of violence between militant Christian and Muslim extremist groups. So she kindly shot a video presentation for us to air today. I can ask my friends and back to please screen it. Hello there. I'm Pastor Esther Avanga and I'm Pastor Joss Christian Missions International here in Nigeria. And it's a privilege to be part of this conversation. I'm sure it's been a great meeting. It's a pity I'm missing it but well we hope next time it works out. The nature of extremism in my own context that I understand having worked as a religious leader in my own community and in my own state and country is that you have someone who believes his opinion is superior to any other. And as such you are naturally would be intolerant to any other opinion that it's not similar to your own opinion. And the nature of such extreme either opinion or ideologies or whatever it is that makes people be extremely passionate about what they believe in and how things must be done. The nature of such stand is that it always looks for ways of expression. Now I'm not saying that it all the time leads to terrorism but the fact that you know you have such extremist views on a particular issue. Naturally it's like a bottled up you know paint up you know bottle of coke under the sun and the moment that coke is lifted up it just bursts out. So there's very little that triggers such you know opinions and most of these extremist views can be destructive. They are exclusive in nature and they claim to have superior knowledge. They're standing on something else that no one else knows and their opinion is better than anybody's. And of course that naturally will lead them to absolute intolerance of any other opinion that contradicts their opinion. So basically we're talking about how that affects you know family units and then the society at large. It is very important that we also address the issue of injustice. You know most extremist views have a feeling that you know they have not been given fairness. And so there's a sense of injustice that justifies whatever that extremist views now results in. And so that sense of injustice needs to be addressed. And I must say that as religious actors we really do have a challenge particularly female religious leaders because you'll be surprised that even in the religious circle. First of all there is very little platform for for example women that can participate and actually have their voices heard. It's a male dominated area even in religion. Most religions do not believe a woman should actually speak. So it's actually a challenge for a voice or the voice of a woman to speak strongly on the issue of extremism. And I also think that one of the challenges we face as religious leaders is the fact that you can only counsel them and you can pray for them but you can't force them. If somebody is holding so strongly to an opinion or a view you know you can only counsel. You can only try to make the person see the other way but you can't force them. Some of them are actually born with that belief system so you know there's only so much you can do. And like I mentioned about the strong male voices I really think that platforms should be created for more female voices. Number one their mothers their sisters their daughters there's a way a woman perceives and ministers that's different from a man. And I also think that outsiders can help by creating more platforms where religious actors are actually involved in decision making process. That is really really important when policies are formed and made you know religious leaders are totally exempted from it because they feel that it is totally outside the mosque or the church. But I also think that they need the input so to speak the guidance from a spiritual perspective where all spiritual beings as it is. And in the long run there are principles that guide us the Bible guides every Christian in the way he or she lives. And I think that even on a government level when policies are being made religious actors should actually be included you know to offer you know guidance as to how some of these laws. Because if you look at the Bible most of the laws in our constitution is even taken from there and everybody believes thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not steal and so on and so forth. So where there is a common ground I think that that should be utilized. And also think that in the place of you know resolving conflicts and talking about reconciliation and things like that it's very important to involve religious actors. You may not always have that influence outside of the church or the mosque but to the level of influence that you have within the church and the mosque it should be adequately utilized. How outsiders can help religious actors well they can support them you know and in the place of training and in both religions I think and also been exposed to different platforms to enable them and equip them and empower religious actors to make use of the influence they have over followers positively, more positively. And I think that also religious actors should also be examined you know on their own to make sure that they don't hold extremist views you know because you know you give out what you have. You know and if you're already an extremist yourself as a religious leader then you're not likely to you know encourage tolerance and acceptance of the differences from other people. So I think that the government can help the society can help and in recognizing the role of religious leaders in actually influencing the lives of their followers positively and I think that that should not be taken lightly at all. Well these are just my views and I hope that you know you have a great meeting I look forward to hearing the rest of this conference and have a great time. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Our final speaker is a dear and old friend of mine, Vinya Ari Arratna from the Sarvodaya movement in Sri Lanka. Sarvodaya is a Buddhist faith-based organization that's guided by Gandhian principles of non-violence, promotes poverty, eradication and peace across ethnic and religious divisions. And Sarvodaya has sought to empower religious actors to serve as agents of peace and coexistence in the country particularly in the midst of multiple forms of violence. Dr. Vinya is a doctor by training but a peace activist at heart and by practice. Vinya. Thank you, Susan, Sheikh Bin Baya distinguished ladies and gentlemen. I'm deeply honored and very humbled to be a part of this distinguished panel. I speak as a lay Buddhist practitioner who is connected to the Sarvodaya Sramadana movement of Sri Lanka which is by far the most widespread grassroots development organization in the country which is based on Buddhist and Gandhian principles as mentioned by Susan. We work across all ethnic and religious communities in the country and we have a history of working in Sri Lanka for more than 50 years now. Sri Lanka is a country which is now emerging out of a very violent conflict which lasted for more than 30 years. And today though the war is not there anymore, we are trying to rebuild our country which is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. And we have also experienced violent extremism in Sri Lanka from during the last three to four decades. The more prominent one has of course been the ethnic strife that had affected our country for nearly three decades but there were also other insurrections, youth insurrections, very violent insurrections, twice in our history which had also claimed the lives of hundreds and thousands of youth who belong to both ethnic communities. Now I would say that religion played an insignificant role in those conflicts compared to what we, some of the recent trends that we see in our country today. We have seen during the last few years actions by certain Buddhist monks who have taken up a confrontational stand against the Muslim community in Sri Lanka which is very unfortunate. And this has also resulted in serious riots recently and where a number of lives were lost and also significant damage to livelihoods and also to property. It's not my intention to go into deep analysis of the causes, effects and possible solutions to the varied forms of violent extremism that we see or the trends of violent extremism that we see in our country but to reflect on how ordinary people read this situation and what we are trying to do to promote peace and harmony in our part of the world. I also draw from the experiences that were shared during our deliberations from yesterday with my colleagues who also come from some countries which face similar challenges. Now ethnic and religious identity really form an integral part of our society, particularly in Asia. Religion has played a very important role in building not only the culture but also social and economic systems. Now whilst I would call them those religious ethnic determinants or drivers as internal, our deeper consciousness is shaped by our history, the way history is narrated in our textbooks as we were taught when we were children and also how today the mass media portrays religious and ethnic identity. So in a very highly charged context that we had to operate today compared to maybe 20, 30 years ago. This pose a great challenge to multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multicultural societies such as ours in a very increasingly globalizing world. So when it is claimed that Sri Lanka has a predominantly Buddhist country but which has all ethnic and religious communities living and which is now seeing these alarming trends of increased organized violence against certain ethnic groups but by and large Sri Lanka has been a model of religious harmony and if you visit Sri Lanka even today what you see, what you witness is more of religious coexistence and harmony than animosity. Now use of ethnic and religious identity to mobilize one's own community against another community has been in my view used as a political tool. This has also been emphasized during our discussions from many participants based on their countries experience that religion has been captured or taken over. It has been framed. So it's not really religion which is driving youth and certain groups into extremism but larger political interests. So this is an important factor we have to consider. Now how do we address this trend of extremism and radicalization? At the outset I would like to say that extremism and radicalization cannot be or solely or primarily addressed through a security doctrine only. There are enough examples. Now in our context we see three important fears of influence that are important. One is what we call the psychosocial dimension and we call it the consciousness. Consciousness is the way how we think collectively as individuals as communities on various things that affect our lives. Our identities are formed through this consciousness and this collective psychology and what we have accumulated over the years as part of our culture and values. And it is at this level that the religion and religious actors play a very important role or has the most influence. Then secondly it has to do with physical needs or what we call economics. In a situation where young people do not see a future for themselves or for their families and there is fertile ground for external forces to exploit. If people's basic needs are not satisfied and if there is unequal distribution of wealth, income and resources then naturally that's a breeding ground for extremism. This results in a sense of hopelessness and which combined with the above mentioned psychosocial factors lead to great vulnerability for young people to be attracted to violent extremist ideologies and organizations. Those are not the only two factors. Then thirdly we have governance or power. We all know that politics is an important driver. When people feel disempowered, disenfranchised sometimes, they cannot take part in the decision making processes that affect their lives that lead to deeper frustrations and enhance their vulnerability further. In today's globalized world, local violence is not just driven by local factors. Global policies as well as interpretations of ethno-religious identities may even provide legitimacy to some acts of extreme violence as we see in our part of the world today. We therefore believe that any action to prevent or combat violent extremism should be an integrated holistic and multi-level approach that addresses psychosocial, economic and political determinants. Now coming back to our own experience in Sri Lanka, we have been constantly and in a systematic way have attempted to address these issues for several decades. Even at time when we were facing a very bloody war. And we have also come up with innovative and sometimes very rapid action to address sudden eruption of violence. Therefore early warning systems, the religious leaders as well as those secular organizations which can identify these trends of violence early and can act, it will make a huge impact in combating or preventing violence. Now at the level of consciousness, our work primarily involves facilitating greater understanding of one's own religion. Religion is misinterpreted. Now Buddhism is a very, very peaceful religion which promotes ahimsa, non-violence in every aspect, thoughts, deeds and words. However it has been interpreted by certain groups in a very different way. Therefore we also have to understand not only our own religion but how we relate to other religions particularly in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society. So we have been involved in not just education of our own communities but also relating to other teachings of other religions. And we have researched and published books for children, youth to learn and understand basic religious teachings of other traditions. Sometimes they are simple story books. They have been published in both singhala and tamil languages, the languages that are mostly spoken in Sri Lanka and distributed throughout the country. They have had a tremendous impact of promoting understanding. We also recognize the important role played by the religious leaders themselves and also other religious actors. Interfaith dialogue and understanding has to be promoted. Now sometimes we are being criticized for promoting inter-religious activities. However, if you prepare the religions and religious leaders first to look at their own religions before they have inter-religious dialogues, then I think we can have a very big impact. During the last three years we have organized such programs involving hundreds of religious leaders which include training and capacity building. We see now a disconnect between sometimes the traditional religious leaders and younger generations because they cannot readily relate and interpret the teachings of religions in a way that is relevant to the present day generation's needs and aspirations. So there has to be a certain facilitation to build capacity and to get them to be equipped with certain skills that may include communication skills, understanding how to use certain types of technologies, how to use multiple sources of references and so on. So inter-religious committees and councils consisting of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian clergy were formed. And during the recent riots we have seen that these groups acting together somehow stopping the spread of violence to other areas, particularly serving as even like firewalls and it has been so effective. And we think that we can really on one hand have primary prevention, that is prevention of extremism emerging in the first place at other times trying to detect such trends early and taking early action. And these multi-ethnic, multi-religious councils have been able to effectively stop violence from spreading to many parts of the country when we have witnessed such violence in some isolated locations. So the important driver is really the consciousness, but at the same time we have to also act on the other two spheres which is economics and governance. Economics also traditionally our societies have been shaped, even our economies have been shaped by certain principles that are found in our faith traditions. We have Buddhist economics, we have certain principles of sharing. However, economy should be organized around the principle of justice, equality, that is very important. Today our per capita income as a country is very high. We are a middle income country. We are no longer a poor country, but the income distribution is so skewed that it is, there are so many disparities and even if you take certain basic indicators such as malnutrition or even infant mortality rate, health and social indicators, the national indicators are very good but then you see vast disparities between districts and regions. Therefore it's very important to address inequities and every religion has certain principles how you should organize your economics or how systems should be organized at community level to satisfy basic needs of people. We need to have the religious leaders and religious actors reflecting on those economic principles as well and that can also affect policies. Lastly, the aspect of governance. We all know that we would like to be part of decision making of decisions that affect our lives, the principle of subsidiarity. Has it been really practiced in our country? Most of the violent groups or the groups of say youth who are attracted to extremist groups have felt that they have no part in the decision making. So basic principles of democracy by way of forming community organizations, get them to be involved, get them to be part of electoral processes, local government elections, promoting dialogue where you can influence policies at multiple levels. Those are important interventions that can also prevent extremism and radicalization. Now what can religious leaders do in that context? Now we have formed these smaller groups or committees which are really looking at social issues at a local level which brings together religious leaders and also representatives of organizations which have a spiritual basis and that has been very effective. Those have been very effective in expanding the democratic space for various interventions. So finally what I would like to say is that religion has been used as a tool for division whereas all religions do not preach division or hatred or violence. Particularly now society where civilizations have been built on faith based traditions. We need to do much more. We can't take it for granted anymore. We have to come together particularly those of us who are working from the civil society organization with drawing inspiration from great religious traditions. We need to work together. But our local actions can succeed only if external drivers are also promoting harmony and promoting coexistence at ground level. Therefore those policy makers who are working at international policy making institute should also take into consideration that we have to work together in a common framework where we support each other rather than undermining each other's work. I would like to thank the USIP for giving me this opportunity and I assure you that we all would continue to work at grassroots level. We have to bring bridges that is why we have many who come from the country from the grassroots who are working together and we have to draw strength from each other because sometimes even our lives are in danger because we have to really work with certain forces which do not believe in non-violent conflict resolution or peace building. Thank you very much. We have about 20 minutes to open it up for question and answer and I ask that you form lines. There's two microphones halfway up the auditorium so if you can form lines behind them. And while you're doing that because Syria is so much in the news I also invited my colleague Hind to say a couple words about the work that's being done with religious actors in Syria as well. And just to warn you guys our group is going to have to leave I'm going to have to end this precisely at noon because our group is going to be going to the hill for Juma for Friday prayers. So bear with me if we're not able to get to all of your questions. I just want to remind you that the Syrian people who are there now today they are expressing a great confusion in their history. So I'm urging everybody to know that we can have a strike without social and political solution. And as a Christian Syrian part of the Syrian people who have been working so hard to identify the activities of the Muslim other people who have never served. And this kind of activities it would give a great hope for Syria and for the Syrian that without political freedom, without having a conversation and dialogue together we can't have, we can't achieve this. Thank you. What I'd like to do is collect four questions. If you could say your name, say your institution and then please ask a question and keep it short if you can so that we can get to as many as possible. Hello, I'm Ali Mohammed, I'm a student at the American University. I'm an international student from Egypt. My question here is addressed to our distinguished Sheikh. We know that the role of religious leadership is mainly for educating and enlightening the general public. But they also have a role which is advising those in power. But now we have a very serious issue which is a lot of the religious scholars stand side by side by those dictators and anti-democratic regimes. So how can our scholars, you know, restore their credibility and the trust of the people in their ability to make a difference and promote peace? You know, because we want them to discuss the very causes of the issue which is extremism. A lot of youth nowadays, especially in the Middle East, they don't have a chance to be part of the decision making process. Thank you. Can we collect two more questions and then we'll – please go ahead. It should be on if you just speak into it. Hello, hi. Thank you. My name is Kerry Volker and I'm with an organization called Cure Violence. And we take a health approach to developing this idea of Cure Violence that really relies on personal messages like yourselves, studying norms and expectations about violence. My question to the panel is whether you think it would make a difference if instead of promoting peace and co-existence in the positive thing, isn't a much clearer focus message on not doing violence? And in doing so, create more space for those efforts to develop peace and co-existence. Thank you. Many thanks to USIP for hosting this important issue. My name is Yasser Zidane. I'm a graduate student in the Institute of World Politics. My question is for Sheikh Bimbia. It has been always an important role for religious leaders in Muslim countries to reform and take deed. But the problem is that there are some religious texts that hasn't been more organized or interpreted, like some hadith in Sahih that has to be misprinted, as you said, the example of Fatwa. Also, the example that you said about the Fatwa of Sheikh Bimbia, this is the first time I hear about it. Why isn't it published more widely? Thank you very much. Thank you. Peter, why don't we do one more? Go ahead. Yes, Peter Kovach, retired Department of State Diplomat and Interfaith Activist. I can't resist having Sheikh Hamza up there with our two distinguished guests, and thanks to USIP for pulling this very important discussion together, asking for a comment on the role of interfaith seminary training in this peace-building capacity. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'll answer the last question. We'll answer this and then we'll go back. The last question was about interfaith seminary education. Interfaith seminary education, the role that it plays in peace-building. Speak to it. I think I'll answer the last question. We have been promoting the interfaith dialogue mainly, and also connecting the religious leaders from different faiths to their lay followers. That's a very simple model. I got it. That's good. The other questions we had were on the focus on governments, the promotion of non-violence instead of peace. Did she say on basically how you frame it? How we frame it? Bring the focus on not resorting to violence as opposed to advocating for peace. He said that the question is really putting two sides of the same scales, that they complete one another. He said not using violence is also peace. Of course there is a philosophy that says that peace is not the end of war, but that peace is the brotherhood between people, the brotherhood that is in the hearts. So there's a philosophical opinion though that peace is not simply the absence of war, but rather the fellowship of humanity that people have in their hearts a sense of human solidarity. So when we want to speak about peace, we're speaking about it also because we have to speak about ending the violence. You can't have peace and war together, it's their opposites. The best thing is to remove the causes of war. That's obviously the ideal situation. And that's the best approach. But if we can't do that, then at least we have to get a peace that is incomplete. In other words, it has shortcomings. It's not the ideal situation and sometimes we have to do that peace meal. It's not the ideal situation. So we shouldn't despair, we have to move towards peace. At the same time we have to condemn violence, we have to condemn the extremism. It means that the religious men don't know what the governments do. The religious men call us to the truth, to the peace and to the knowledge of God. So there's obviously levels of understanding amongst religious leadership about this problem of peace. So there are some who say justice first and no peace without justice. But from my perspective, if we say in the current conditions no peace without justice, then given the amount of grievances that we're dealing with, let's forget about peace altogether. So we have to get peace established in our hearts so that we can then work towards addressing the grievances in peaceful environments. Putting aside the weapons. Our Prophet said whoever holds up a weapon against us is not among us, not one of us. So do you want to speak to the Interfaith Seminary question? You know I think one of the crises in Muslim societies, I mean I'll give you an example. Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayi comes from a tradition that really is over a thousand years old. And what's really fascinating about his approach is that he doesn't, he's not a modernist. That his approach is actually drawn from these deep sources within the tradition itself. And the Ottoman example is a really interesting example because the Ottomans had a multi-face society that was based on a man, their first ruler, Osman I, who actually had a vision of a massive sycamore tree coming out of his breast. He had a dream where he saw a massive sycamore tree coming out of his breast and all of the religions were in the shade of that tree. And this was something that the Ottomans were very very proud of, the fact that they protected all of these religious minorities that within the traditional Ottoman system the religious minorities was called the millet system. They had their own court systems, the Jews had their own court systems. The Ottomans built synagogues when the Jews were being persecuted in Spain and Bernard Lewis, a great Jewish scholar from the United States, points this out in his book that the Ottomans not only invited the Jews to migrate to the Ottoman lands but they built synagogues for them. And that's why some of the most beautiful synagogues that you'll find in Eastern Europe were built by Ottomans, not by Jews. That these sources that we have, the Convivencia in Spain where the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians live together, people forget that during the Muslim rule in Spain the Muslims never got to over 50%. That they ruled a country that was still a majority of Christians and the Christian churches were preserved. The fact that we've lost so many of these communities, this is one of the great scandals of Muslims in human history, what's happening in Syria to these Christians who have been there for 2,000 years. I mean, these are some of the oldest Christian traditions that we have, the Nestorian, the Jacobite, the Malikite traditions. These are ancient Christian traditions, the Malibari Nasranis that are in India. These were ancient Christians that were persecuted by Orthodox Christianity and yet lived in the Muslim world. The icons during the iconoclastic period in the Muslim world, the only icons that we have during the iconoclastic period where the Christians went and burnt all the icons, that was a short period in Orthodox history, but the only icons from that period are from the monasteries that were protected by the Muslims. And so Muslims traditionally understood this, that there was a responsibility toward religious minorities and this unfortunately is from the massive ignorance that the religious ignorance that we have and that's why Sheikh Abdullah, his argument, you know, Jonathan Swift said we have just enough religion to hate one another and not enough to love one another. That's a very apt truth for our age that we have forgotten as was pointed out about the axial face that they came in a time of immense religious, immense violence and conflict and were actually introduced to remove that. Karen Armstrong in a prophet for our time about the Prophet Muhammad argues that his central thrust was to create a peaceful environment on the Arabian Peninsula because there was so much violence and vengeance. So we've fallen back into this pre, what they call the Jahili period and I think if we don't address the Madrasa issue and real enlightened religious leadership in all of our traditions because we know that we have Jewish extremists that teach a horrible form of Judaism where people are seen as less than human in the Holy Land, who doesn't represent the great tradition of Rabbi Hilal and other of the great religious enlightened leadership from the Jewish tradition that says the whole foundation of the Torah is to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself and everything else is just commentary. And so, and the same with Christian fanaticism and Buddhism which has a nonviolent PR but if you study Buddhist tradition and just study what the Buddhists did to the Muslims when they reconquered Afghanistan I encourage you to read the Clause of Buddha which is about religious violence within the Buddhist tradition. So Buddhism has a history of violence also that all of these religions like the Sheikh said they have violence and they have the potential to eliminate violence and it depends on how we use them. Thank you. We have five minutes so if we can take these two questions and I'm going to ask a closing question as well. Thank you. Ali Al-Mawli from the Embassy of Iraq. I'd like to ask the distinguished speakers whether they see a difference in terms of root causes between sectarian-based conflicts and conflicts between religions. In other words, should there be a different approach in terms of intrafaith dialogue and interfaith dialogue? Thank you. Thanks. Hello, I'm Mehreen Farouk from Word, the World Organization for Resource Development and Education. I wanted to thank all the speakers, especially Sheikh Bin Baya for your excellent comments and particularly your fatwas against violent extremism. Our organization Word has published a number of reports on the importance of engaging religious actors but often we find that western governments are hesitant to engage these actors and they're slow to address the need to build the institutional capacity of religious networks. So my question is, how can we work to overcome and address this challenge? Thank you. So the first question is on the difference between doing intrafaith and interfaith. Whether the root causes of those conflicts are different and require different avenues to solve. The second was about overcoming the reticence that the western governments have to engaging with religion. And the final question I would like to add is similar to that. Some of this reticence I know comes from recognition that western governments working with embracing some of these actors or western organizations like the US Institute of Peace doing so can de-legitimate them or put them at risk. So my final question too is what can we do to help without making your life at risk or making your work more difficult to achieve? The first question Are the approaches different from when you have inter- and intra-religious conflict? The first one. So if you look for instance in our region in the Middle East you have in Iran and then Lebanon and then to Yemen you have this problem between the Sunni and the Shi'a. And then you pass through Syria and Iraq. And then also when you look at Israel, the state of Israel, for example, you have the same problem. If you look at Egypt and Libya, there is a conflict in the interior of the one-story building and the one-story building for the Sunnah people. But among those who have a special understanding, they say that they represent the real religion. And among other groups, we cannot say that it is outside the religion, but you may have a different view of life. So in Egypt, for instance, you have a problem within the Sunni Muslims there. One group says that what they're doing is the right way to the way that a country should be run. And they're saying the other group is wrong in that way. So they have different understandings of how they're... So some people use the term secularist and Islamist. I don't really see a real demarcation that's clear to me to make those type of demarcations. So for me, the approach has to be based on a dialogue that emanates from a desire for understanding and then also looking at the shared interest. Thank you. Yeah, the shared interest. My brain is starting to fag. And also from the broadness or vastness of these religious traditions. So the Shi'a can live their way and the Sunni can live their way. So if we have war and if you look at the human resources amongst the Shi'a, the human resources amongst the Sunnis, these are endless. So if there's going to be war, it'll just be perpetual. And in reality, there's no interest here. There's no benefit for either the religion or for the nation. So these so-called victories are temporary victories. He said now we're talking based on reason and political considerations, not really speaking from a religious perspective. So we say there's no benefit in these wars. And just to add that, you know, Sheikh Abdullah is really, for me, he's one of the unique people in Muslim religious leadership, in that he's been a minister, he's been vice president of a country. So he can see from both sides of the fence, which is unfortunately very rare. And it is an actual problem that we have amongst a lot of the religious leadership, is they really don't understand the difficulties involved in governance and the problems, especially with states that are either failing or have already failed. So there's nobody has a guarantee that they're going to be victorious in these conditions. So this is the approach that we're taking to remind these people in the region if you expel these Christians from your communities, your criminals in doing so. This is before Islam. 1300 years ago, there was one of the Muslim rulers wanted to remove Christians from the mountains in Lebanon and Imam al-Oza'i, one of the great scholars of that period, prohibited and he said you can't do that. And so he stopped. And this indicates, this story is a clear indication of the importance of the religious leadership to be involved in these decisions that can sometimes be negative. So they need to understand these rulers that they can't solve these problems alone. Either in the east or the west, they have to engage the religious leadership, emanating from both a rational point of view, but also a moral imperative. And this is an engagement that's possible. It's a cooperation that can be realized. So we need the tools and the measures that can be taken. And to keep moving forward, progressing. Thank you. Dhanya, do you want to say a last word? The last question, it's about the western government's engagement with religious leaders. I think in recent years there had been a lot of positive trends. We have seen institutions like the World Bank, the United Nations engaging in a very formal way. And there are networks like Religions for Peace. I think the lesson is that we need to rely on existing institutions and their enormous experience in engaging with the religious leaders. Sometimes these institutions really try to reinvent the wheel. I think that's not required. There is a knowledge base. There are tools that have been developed. So these governments can always rely on those experienced institutions, networks, which have really supported the inter-religious work and also promoted conflict resolution on the ground. Then on the last question about how best can you support those groups which are working under very difficult conditions. Again, it depends on the context. Different countries have very different conditions. They are again listening to those actors. What are the best ways in which you can support and strengthen without jeopardizing them? How certain policies of the same government can have different effects on the ground in those countries? I think those have to be carefully analyzed. And then this continuous engagement with the actors concerned, you can really come up with the best strategy. It's not straightforward to say, this is how you should engage. I think we have to work it out very intelligently, assist the risks involved and I think there have been progress made on those lines as well. We have generic lessons that we can learn from the countries that we have been working and we have to further develop those tools and then I think we can find the right answer. I would just say too that we had a very fruitful discussion with policymakers from the US government this morning that was very frank and very open and there was a lot of willingness expressed. Not any reticence at all except for a desire to ensure that the way in which the US government and policymakers are supporting these religious actors doesn't undermine their legitimacy or their efforts or put them at risk. So friends, there's a lot of bad news in the media but we know that that's not the whole story. There are also these good news stories of Buddhist monks in Myanmar who are opening up their monasteries to protect Muslims, of the Muslim communities who are speaking out in protection of the Christian communities who have lived in the Middle East forever. Let's keep, forever for 2,000 years, let's keep telling these good stories. Let's share them on Facebook, let's put them on YouTube, let's share them with our friends and on the way out to help you do so. Sheikh Finbaya has provided some party favors. He has a copy of the fatwa that he put out recently condemning ISIS and its violence, bringing up Islamic tenants and hadith and Quranic passages that challenge some of the notions as well as his book, The Culture of Terrorism. So please join me in thanking very much our speakers for the work that they do and the reflections with us.