 I would like to reveal to you the note of gratitude for the honor that was made by the kind of meditation and his excellency Abdullah bin Ba'a, president of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies and our most gracious government of the UAE, represented by the Minister of Tolerance, who is here and of course is high in his shape, Abdullah bin Ba'a, to speak on the role of religious in promoting tolerance from possibility to necessity. I also must say that the government of the UAE deserves a commendation for designating 1319, the Year of Tolerance, and this forum for taking up the challenge of attempting to forge a consensual ethic for promoting tolerance. The defining pride of our world today is that, thanks to technology and globalization, we have never been more connected than today, yet at the same time, we are probably never been more divided than we are today. This is the handing work of agents of intolerance who weaponize our fear of the government. In recent years, we have witnessed a rise of religious extremism, right wing populism, and ultra-nationalism. We have seen extremists hijack the symbols and letters of the faiths and use them to prosecute devalued campaigns that violate the sanctity of human life on the global scale. I say this is what people around us accept. There is hardly any return of war, but I won't be inspired by a period of terrorism. And yet, such is the diversity of the composition of our societies that for us to allow the promotion of Israel and strife between our communities is to permit the destruction and the fragmentation of our communities and nations. Therefore, if we are to prevent an endless cycle of strife and conflict, tolerance is a necessity. But whose duty is it on who does the responsibility lie to bear the touch of horror and to illuminate the new pathways to the shared future? It is my respectful submission that the world will respond on leaders and the strife between leaders and political leaders and others that we may describe as the elite in our nation and in our communities. It is our role, not only to articulate as we are doing in this ascended debate, the theoretical and doctrinal foundations for a more tolerant world, but more importantly to make the personal sacrifices that will compare our societies and to commit ourselves to life-threatening goals. This, if I may say, is the difficult part. This is the difficult part, making the sacrifice. Well, let us quickly deal with the articulation of the principles that are the foundation of the idea of tolerance. The first principle is to recognize that there is no merit in the notion that the contemporary or this current plague of terrorism and extrinsic, which are inevitable fulfillment of the thesis of the idea, the so-called flash of civilizations, and merely agree with my view upon the cognitive vision of the world's major fundamentalities locked in perpetual conflict. The great conflict of our time is not between Islam and austerity, in Islam and other religions, but between extrinsic and human solidarity, between the forces of hate and intolerance, and those of empathy and peace. What is the great conflict today? Second is to emphasize the central place that is the principle of empathy. This is a threat which runs through all of our moral and religious traditions. And sometimes it goes through the words of Jesus Christ, where he said, do unto others, I shall have them do unto you. But it goes for them. It goes for Jesus Christ who followed the Bible to say that we must love our enemies. We must even pray for our enemies. This is the notion of self-evident. In other words, all of this is found in the general principle that we must be ready to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated. Obviously, I'm embedded in all of the Abrahamic traditions and all of the nature of religions. It's an expansion of this consciousness that enables us to humanize others, regardless of the distinctions that are rooted in craft, in ethnicity, in gender, in race or military. It's all going to transcend ourselves. The injunctions of our religion that emphasize compassion, mercy and kindness as central tenets of religious medium are rooted in humanity. Also, the core principle, the core values of the major religions, validate the notion that tolerance is fundamental to all communal and interpersonal relationships. One of those core principles is the recognition of our shared humanity, despite our diversity. In Acts 17-26, the Holy Spirit says, and He has made that He has made from one block every nation of man to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times of the boundaries of their dwellings. The Quran also said in Proverbs, human beings, who created you all from a male and a female. These words not only give us to see our diversity as a blessing of divine progress, but also to impose a responsibility on us to continue to learn as much as we can about each other and to use such knowledge to answer and silence the couriers of prejudice and bigotry. These attributes practice the generalization of difference that we most prefer the idealization of diversity as a providential gift. This recognition of our shared humanity is also the basis of the universal human rights. Indeed, as argued by Michael Ignatius, for whose thoughts human rights as politics and adultery are delivered in this presentation. And he says, it is the religious conception of human beings as God's creation that sustains the notion that people should have environmental human rights. Human rights are a permission of the sanctity of life. It is precisely because all human beings are sacred in our world that they deserve, that they themselves deserve all of what they deserve and everything that the rights of universal human rights provides for them. And this also means that all human beings should be treated as a foundation of our promotion and our promotion and defense of human rights. It must also be noted in empathy. We draw human actions by the simple test of whether we would like to be on the receiving end because we see a claim that can recognize the claim of honesty and therefore believe that all human beings should be protected from truth. In other words, the very religious bloodshed of compassion is the primary inspiration for attaining human rights. We also recognize that respect for human rights is impossible when there is institutionalizing prejudice and poverty. And this prevents people from seeing others as fully human. Under these circumstances, children's peaceful coexistence and human dignity cannot be read merely as helpful moral suggestions. Consequently, empathy inspires us to seek justice and to enshrine human rights in constitutional and legal orders so as to protect all of us from arbitrary power. This is what the Prince's work will be initiated, such as the Marrakech Declaration on the Rights of Minorities in Movement Majority States. So the path to a more tolerant and peaceful world will be traveled along parallel tracks through the spreading of national and international legal instruments of projected human rights as well as through the well-completed peacemakers in civil society committed to plunging the weapons of pigotry and hatred. They would have, in any way, bear in mind the importance of individual justice. On this arrangement of the second issue, the central role of leaders in promoting and establishing tolerance in our societies, earlier this year, I was privileged to receive Imam Abu Bakr Abdullah, an 83-year-old Muslim cleric who had come to international performance as a result of an extraordinary event. In June 2018, Christians in the village of Ushar Yelou in central Nigeria were attacked by persons who were identified to be Muslims, who had attacked other villages and killed several local farmers who were mainly Christians. As Imam Abdullah was finishing his midday prayers, he and his congregation heard non-shuts on the right outside to see the members of the village's Christian community were running away from their lives. Instituted, the Imam ushered 262 Christians into the mosque and saw him into his home next to the mosque. The Imam then went outside to conform the ground. He refused to allow them to enter the mosque, pleading them to spare the Christians inside the mosque and in the mosque. One day, a sailor of his, your idol, he told them that they would have to kill him first if they were going to kill the Christians. And he had given refuge in the mosque and in the mosque. They eventually left without killing any of the Christians in the mosque or in the mosque. Imam Abdullah's selflessness and sacrifice saved the lives of hundreds of people of the faith just for his own. He not only refused to give up the Christians at their given refuge, he even offered his life in exchange for theirs. His moral, his moral courage is rooted in a deeply profound recognition of our common humanity. His compassion, his equity and selflessness are example to us as people of faith. Also consider the story of two remarkable religious leaders, Pastor James Muir and Imam Mohamed Ashaf. These two are Nigerians, one a Christian as we know from the other in the mosque. As young men in the 1990s, both of them had led rival gangs engaged in violent clashes in the city of Hakuna in northern Nigeria. At the time, they were mortal enemies on opposite sides of the deadly sectarian conflict in which Imam Ashaf lost two brothers and his teacher and Pastor Muir lost his right hand to the machete attack in 1992. Both men paid a heavy price for their mutual enmity and their thirst to exact vengeance on the job. However, in the years that followed, a curious thing happened through the intervention of mutual friends and a series of separate personal epiphanies and meetings. These two men came to increasingly respect each other and eventually they decided to work together. In 1995, Ashaf and Muir co-founded the Interfaith Mediation Center, a religious grassroots organization that had successfully mediated between Christians and Muslims throughout their organization, which now has over 10,000 members drawn from across the country, over 10,000 members, engaged with religious, trans-young people, as well as women, religious figures and tribal leaders to become civic peace activists. Under their leadership, young Muslims and Christians joined together to build the mosques and churches that were most destroyed in various parts, especially in the various parts of the country. These churches have been destroyed and must be destroyed by sectarian values. For 15 years, these two religious leaders, who are once Muslim Christians, have now gone practically all over the world to different parts of the world and have traveled here and there to create a message of peaceful coexistence. This work has not been easy, but I've had to confirm pessimism about the endeavors within their own communities and deep doubts about the possibility of peaceful coexistence. But there is no doubt that their efforts are yielding fruit and also that they are contributing to a gradual coming together, a gradual coming together and a psychological disarmament among communities that either to have long seen themselves as enemies. Now, this is the very nature of self-sacrifice and written about peace. And I tell you just one more story. A few months ago, a leader of a major Christian, in Northern Africa, in the north-eastern Nigeria, sought audience with him. He comes from one of the states that Boko Haram, that Boko Haram's servants, have attacked the people. He said that he would like the Grodnar of his state, a Muslim, to be given a national honor. And I ask why? He said that Grodnar rebuilt over 90 churches that were burnt down by Boko Haram, like Boko Haram's servants. In Muslim, the building churches burned down by the servants is the clearest and most unequivocal way of saying that Islam does not support the destruction of physical worship of other things. The government's actions were louder and more persuasive than the citation of many structures. The stories of Imam Abdulazim, and of Pastor William, and Imam Ashrafah, and the governor of Boko Haram are significant because in each case, the leaders had to make almost incisional sacrifices. They had to take on popular steps. They had to confront people of their own faith to see the value and worth of people of other faiths. Unbelievable. They put their credibility and even their lives on the line. There are these types of sacrifices that can root out intolerance and liberty. No amount of words or platitudes can change the human predisposition to prejudice and copyright. Only acts of deep humility and personal sacrifice can. There is no question at all that this is the responsibility that leadership places upon those of us who are religious leaders, those of us who are political leaders in our countries. The responsibility of leadership is not just words. It's not just text. It is not just laws. The responsibility of leadership is such sacrifice. It's putting our petition on the line. It's putting our words into action. Thank you very much.