The question of terrorism and heritage, despite all its boldness, cannot be turned a blind eye on but must be taken with great firmness and depth. A number of scholars of the terrorist file believe that the dire economic situation and fragile social background have a key role to play in the production of terrorism, while others believe that Britain, America and political events since the Balfour Declaration, have a role to play in creating the terrorist situation.

   I do not deny that these things together have some useful bases for a partial interpretation of the terrorist phenomenon. However, it would be wrong to lose sight of the foundations of the closed identity structure that would later become fatal, especially if we recall Samuel Huntington’s sincere observation, “which is that most of the fundamentalist movements in all religions are university degree holders and belong to the middle classes.”

   The social and economic situation is not very helpful in interpreting the phenomenon. These analysts are missing dozens of poor countries that do not know of an explosion in the terrorist phenomenon. They also miss the large numbers of those who joined from the world’s richest countries: “Over 20,000 fighters from Europe, hundreds of them from Scandinavia, the richest country in the world.”

I go back to asking: Do the sheikhs, jurists, and preachers recognize that there is some problem with traditional religious interpretation?

   In fact, as a whole, they never admit… They don’t see the traditional system that teaches in the morning and evening the door of enslavement, the rulings of the people of dhimmis, the abandonment of the innovator, the jihad of demand, the intolerant effects that count in the hundreds, if not in the thousands, narrated by many jurists, the many doors of atonement in the books of doctrinal jurisprudence, the Hanbali rooting of the doors of infidelity and faith adopted by contemporary jihadist currents, and all that long list of unacceptable interpretations against women, and the jurisprudential chapters that perpetuate the heritage worldview: Dar Harb and Dar Islam, and the violent and pretentious interpretations of the verses of jihad in the books of interpretation… They don’t see all this as a matter of review, and it’s somehow responsible for recreating the current violence.

   Rather, any abuse of the religious text is more than that God Almighty says in the Qur’an: “And We have honoured the children of Adam.” Then the commentators come after that and say: God honoured man, and then the infidel chose to humiliate himself by his lack of faith, so he does not deserve to be honoured. These scholars speak with a frequent cosmetic tone, and wholesale accusations to all those affiliated with jihadist movements that they are Kharijites and that they are ignorant. It’s all this is in the pursuit of creating a perfect picture of this heritage.

   ISIS is a Sunni band. It has emerged from a Sunni womb, its literature is Sunni, and those who joined it were brought up in a Sunni country. They did not come from the country of Mzab in Algeria. If the organization were to adopt the doctrine of the Kharijites, it would not have had any supporters or followers in the Sunni class.

   All in the matter is that ISIS, like all Islamic groups, was selecting from within the Sunni heritage what was consistent with its purposes, interests, and psychological motives. Therefore, running away from practising self-criticism doubles the bill for all of us. It should be recognized that part of our jurisprudential and historical heritage bears the imprints of hostility towards others, with a narrow chest in accepting and dealing with the other opinion.

   The general jurists today practice an improper approach to jurisprudence and reality. All that they do not like about the legacy and the jurisprudence of the past imams, or are difficult to apply today, are fleeing it towards loose and general rules, such as the rule of interest, and that the reality today is not appropriate for these matters, or they say that the time of slavery – for example – is over.

The danger in this jurisprudential perception is due to two things:

• One: They magnify the heritage in the eyes of people and young people to such an extent that the jurisprudence of former imams is raised to unthinkable positions of veneration, with young people later adopting the entire heritage system without discrimination. It is no secret that hundreds of thousands of young people today believe in the need to return to the age of slavery and servitude, dreaming of “yellow girls” from the blondes of Germany, Sweden and New Zealand, believing in reshaping another country different from this… Faith state! They believe in all the heritage provisions about Christians and Jews and the need to humiliate them as established in the books of jurisprudence. “They believe in the necessity of conquest and that there will be a day when Muslims will regain their military ability to declare war on all unbelievers.”

• The second, which is based on the first: When the jurists encounter the obstacle of reality in a case of jurisprudence that is unacceptable today, they do not discuss the problem of the conflict of many heritage with modern times, with an explicit call for a complete renewal of the doctrinal system, but are divided into two groups: “A team says that those provisions are valid when the Islamic State returns”, and “a team says that the interest required that we not take those provisions today”.

   In both cases, the status of heritage in the collective mind does not budge, especially with the prevailing glorification tone, the absence of any critical behaviour, or internal readings that place heritage in the balance of objective research and systematic criticism, which, as a logical result, has produced a generation of minds that glorifies heritage. So traditional texts became a standard for judging contemporary jurisprudence, as if we were forced to live our bodies in the 21st century and our minds in the 7th century.

   The status of women in society is an outcome of the interpretation of religious texts and of the cultural and institutional set-up of religious communities (Klingorová, 2015). The role of religion is, obviously, complex and it varies across time and space. We accept the premise that everyone benefits from gender equality (Verveer, 2011). Throughout this research project, we approach the topic of gender equality from a “post-Christian” standpoint, a predominantly secular perspective. We consider gender equality and the emancipation of women as important factors for the economic, social, and democratic progress of the world’s regions and for the development of human society. This process is influenced by institutional norms, as well as culture and tradition, which are both largely determined by religion. As the relationship between religion and culture is reciprocal, religious systems are locked in a circle of mutual influence with social norms and patterns of social organisation (Sinclair, 1986). It is apparent that the study of the status of women in religion also reflects the status of women in society as a whole (King, 1995), while considering the cultural, political and geographic factors.

   Of course, at least two key questions remain to be asked: How significant is the influence of world religions on gender inequality and the social status of women? Unlike previous studies, which predominantly focused on explanation using social surveys (e.g. Seguino, 2011), this research attempts to find answers through a statistical analysis of data reflecting the status of women in groups of selected states, organized by the predominance of world religions in their territory.

   Every religion promotes somewhat different norms, creates different institutions, and builds on different cultural and historical foundations. The infl uence the individual world religions have on the status of women is very differentiated (Klingorová, 2013, 2015), and we should then ask: To what extent do religions determine the status of women and the level of gender inequality in the four largest religious societies studied at the level of states?

   Through an analysis of diversification of the selected religions, as part of this assumption, we would like to expand on the study by Seguino (2011), which primarily concerned itself with the influence of religiosity on gender inequality within a set of socioeconomic parameters of the selected states. Furthermore, we accept the statement that the level of gender inequality is also influenced by a state’s level of economic development (Dollar and Gatti, 1999; Seguino, 2011), and this will be taken into account in the analyses.

   This study attempts to contribute to the multidisciplinary debate on the influence of the four key world religions (and secularity) on gender inequality in 50 selected states. We consider quantitative analysis to be a suitable method for analysing the influence of religiosity on the status of women at the level of national states, even if this method is not frequently used in feminist geographies (England, 2006). Furthermore, it seeks to contribute to the field of the new geography of religion (Kong, 2001), whose study of the world religions and gender equality is still in its early stages.

The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Fernand De Varennes opened the online event, praising the film directors for their work to discover and explore examples of religious diversity in the different regions. In the face of growing intolerance including hate speech and violence towards minorities, he said, it is vital to “reach out with stories that remind us of our common humanity.”  

Participants watched short clips from the films which are available for viewing on the webpage of the Norwegian Center’s Inclusive Citizenship and Human Rights project. Award winning Indian documentary film director Pankaj Butalia spoke about the way in which images are able to break down “the stereotyping which is the backbone of hate speech,” he said. Films are an important tool for engaging people and creating greater awareness of the multiple layers of religious identity which characterize a country like India, he added.

Short films from Asia, Middle East and North Africa showcase positive stories of interreligious relations.

Connecting hearts and minds

Ayari Ghassen, director of a short film entitled ‘Pilgrims in Tunis’, underlined the way in which the arts can play a major role in educating young people about the history and traditions of religious minorities in their countries. By highlighting common ground between people of different faith communities, he said, films are able to create an emotional connection with the viewers, rather than simply requiring a rational response from them.

Also taking part in the panel discussion was Rasha Saba from Minority Rights Group, another partner in the festival’s organizing team. She noted how films “offer a good entry point for discussion, even among those who are not interested in social justice and peace work.” They can also help to promote a sense of accountability without demonizing communities that have been responsible for the persecution of religious minorities, she added.  

Mark Latimer, executive director of the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights said film also “enables you to convey the positive experiences of religious communities,” a vital part of the work to prevent violence and conflicts. He also spoke about the importance of finding ways to effectively share such resources to combat the algorithms of social media “which deliberately front hate speech” and promote harmful stereotypes.

Education and advocacy tools

Dr Sriprapha Petcharamesree, senior advisor to the ASEAN university network for human rights education, stressed that learning requires a combination of imparting knowledge through different tools. As a human rights educator, she said, it is evident that “these are not easy issues to discuss and students may not understand our vocabulary but films can simplify the language.” Questions of ethnicity and religion are “both private and political,” she said, “so people often “avoid discussion about such visceral and sensitive issues.”

The online discussion was moderated by LWF’s Program Executive for Public Theology and Interreligious Relations, Rev. Dr Sivin Kit, together with Dr. Ingvill Thorson Plesner, Network Coordinator with the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies. Participants pointed to a variety of online training resources available on their websites which offer tools for advocacy at local, national and international levels.

Special Rapporteur Fernand De Varennes concluded with an invitation to all those present to expand their work over the coming year which will mark the 30th anniversary of the UN’s declaration on the rights of minorities. Films, he said, are “a powerful tool to approach human rights and overcome stereotypes, by celebrating diversity and giving voice and visibility to minority communities.”

The two parties to the meeting had a two-hour discussion on issues related mainly to the status of religious minorities in Tunisia and religious freedom in general, in addition to addressing activities in the field of interfaith dialogue and building understandings implemented by Attalaki with its local and international partners.

The assistant to the president of the organization presented to the minister the most important projects that have been implemented and are about to be launched in the coming period, among which is “Amana” project directed to workers in religious affairs.

Mr. Ahmed Adhoum expressed his admiration and great interest in the work that has been accomplished, stressing that the ministry is ready for any cooperation or support that the organization may need in carrying out its work and providing the required facilities.

This meeting was attended by officials from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, including Mr. Abdesalam Atoui, President of the General Syndicate for Religious Affairs, and Mrs. Lamia Amara, Director in the Ministry.

On Wednesday, Attalaki office hosted Dr. Ali Al-Moussawi, Secretary-General of the International Council for Religious and Humanitarian Dialogue in Oslo, who visited Tunisia.

This meeting was attended by distinguished figures: Father Frank Bernardi, Dean of the Episcopal/Anglican Church in Tunis; Rabbi Daniel Cohen, pastor of the Jewish Synagogue in La Goulette; Sheikh Ahmed Salman, Director of the Ahl al-Bayt Center for Research and Studies; and Professor Ridha Belhassan, member of the media office of the Baha’i in Tunisia.

The meeting was an opportunity for the attendees to talk about issues of religious diversity and pluralism in Tunisia and the Arab region. Attalaki’s president gave a general idea of the organization’s work, partnership and projects, stressing that Attalaki stands at the same distance from all religious and intellectual components in Tunisia, and that its goal is to raise the issue of comprehensive citizenship that incubates diversity, rejecting all forms of discrimination, hatred, fanaticism and violence, defending religious freedom in particular and individual freedoms in general, making the voice of religious minorities heard, and supporting religious and intellectual dialogue that advances human awareness for the better.

There was also a discussion about the possibility of holding a conference in Tunisia that would bring together religious and secular leaders for dialogue on important issues, including climate change and combating extremism, under the auspices of the International Council for Religious and Humanitarian Dialogue and the World Council of Churches, and supervised by the Attalaki organization with its local partners.

This meeting was attended by Omaima Trabelsi, Legal Adviser to Attalaki, and Mr. Anis Larousi, an activist and religious researcher.