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.

To understand some of the comments, I entered some personal accounts to find out the intellectual and cultural backgrounds of the commentators, where I came out with the conclusion that these people are mostly from the most closed and puritan group in Tunisia, and among them are many Tunisians residing abroad, especially in countries where Muslims are considered minorities.

Based on these comments, I see that whoever believes that political Islam is alien to us and those who planted it within Tunisian society are the Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood, let him review his accounts!

If we go back to history, we would know that the height of political Islam was in the second half of the last century (at that time the leaders of the Islamic trend in Tunisia, such as Moro, Ghannouchi and other faces of political Islam, were not born yet) and in that particular period, the liberation movements from colonialism were investing in religious feeling Emotional people in order to confront the colonizer. After years of independence, the Islamic trend was in control of the Tunisian University, and it grew stronger with the rise of radical Islam during the Iranian revolution, which overthrew the rule of the last king of Iran, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979. And let us not forget that in the first free pluralist elections in Tunisia, less than a year after The fall of the Ben Ali regime, at least 48% of the vote went to representatives of political Islam (Ennahda and Popular Petition).

The fact that must not be denied is that political Islam has historical and cultural roots, and it is a reality that permeates mentalities in different forms. It is not a Tunisian peculiarity, and we confront it with arbitrariness, prisons and exclusion. We have tried it for decades (the eras of Bourguiba and Ben Ali) and we have noticed its results.

That is why I believe that there is no solution to besiege the extremist idea (religious, ethnic or ideological) except by strengthening democracy and individual and collective freedoms, including religious freedoms, intolerance for those who demand freedom for themselves and do not respect the freedom of others, and to confront fanaticism and closed-mindedness by spreading a culture of diversity and pluralism in community circles and to be basic educational subjects taught in kindergartens, institutes and universities.

Intellectual/spiritual integrity

I think that it is important for those of us who are concerned about how citizens of nations might healthily relate to one another across religious divides to be true to our own heritages. Whilst we may well discern values in common (as human beings and/or as people of faith), a healthy relating of people of different religious persuasions is not best served by trying to reduce differences of religious heritage to some minimal, agreed content. It is as convinced Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, atheists, agnostics etc. that we seek mutually beneficial relationship. I do not find the current humanistic, relativistic, reductionist, rampant secularism of Western societies very convincing.

I was a Christian representative on an inter-religious dialogue group that met regularly in Liverpool, UK when I was serving as a church leader there. One of the comments made to me by an imam on the group was by way of thanking me that he heard from me a convinced view of my beliefs about Jesus Christ and a reverence for the Holy Bible – something he felt was sometimes unhelpfully avoided by Christians in conversation with Muslims, for whatever good intention.

At the same time, within our own religious traditions, we need to be secure enough in our personal convictions to honestly face up to differences of interpretation about what our own “faith” might mean. It is not good enough to pronounce to members of other faith communities that certain expressions of our own faith are nothing to do with the faith we espouse. Christians need to confess that the mindset of medieval Crusaders or of some contemporary, fundamentalist-evangelical spokespersons has been and is a considered “Christian” view of some Christians. Muslims need to admit that an extreme interpretation of the meaning/validity of jihadism is a “Muslim” view held by some Muslims. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, humanists similarly!

I was a Christian representative recently in a conference convened by the British Council bringing together Protestant Christians and Shiite Muslims for a consideration of “Faith in Modern Secular Society”. On the third day of meeting, the tenor of the exchange changed when various Christian delegates argued with one another about their views in front of the Muslim delegates; and various Muslim delegates (including ulama from Qom, Iran) argued with one another about interpretations of some hadiths in front of the Christian delegates. We Muslims and Christians respected and trusted one another much more from that moment!

In none of our faith traditions are we all perfectly agreed. Can we be honest about our contingency and lack of absolute certainty?

The privilege of being a host

I am an Anglican clergyman and, in the UK, part of the national church there. The British monarch is titular head of the Church of England and all Anglican clergypersons, upon ordination or appointment to an incumbency, have to make an oath of allegiance to the Crown plus a promise of obedience (“in all things lawful and honest”) to their diocesan bishop. As members of the national church, Anglicans in the UK are in a unique position to influence society – for good or ill. One of the areas in which lots of “good” has been achieved has been in the hosting, by Anglican clergy, of meetings with leaders of other faiths in order to help with understanding, integration and sharing of experience. Minority populations, such as Muslims in the UK, have been given a healthy national voice through the channel of the Christian/Muslim forum, plus regional and local exposure through various interfaith bodies, mostly organised by Christian leaders. Issues for Muslims in secular Britain have included things like inherited family law and customs, provision of halal food in state institutions, matters of conviction about “ethical” behaviour and practice in the worlds of education and healthcare, concerns about certain aspects of banking and finance etc. There is some good history of Anglican Christians, with their unique role in British society, being proactive in helping Muslim concerns be heard and, sometimes, acted upon nationally, regionally, locally.[1]

I would submit that an equivalent obligation might well be willingly undertaken by the dominant Muslim expression here in Tunisia. The initiative for welcoming, hosting, listening to and seeking to better those of different streams of Islamic or other religious expressions lies with the majority religious expression here. You set the tone for the communities of faith and for the nation as a whole in their self-understanding and in their view of the religious Other. Religious minorities here have concerns, I think, about how they might legitimately express or perhaps change their religious identity. I am not referring to foreigners but nationals. Can they freely congregate? Can they own/build/register places of worship? Can they legally marry without having to declare the shahada? Where can they be distinctly buried? These and similar questions need to be sought out, heard and represented by the religious majority to the authorities in the nation. Is there such practice presently, or even the will to do such? Forgive me for any errors in my understanding of current practices in Tunisia as I ask these questions.

Local and simple

When I was working in inner-city London, I ended up as “coordinator” of the Lambeth Multi-faith Action Group (LAMAG). We organised public meetings on issues of concern to people living in our area of London: crime, policing, health, ageing, poverty, youth issues etc. We comprised Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and more. The goodwill built up over years of such meeting largely prevented a backlash against Muslims in the Lambeth area of London, I believe, after the bombings and attempted bombings on the London transportation system in the summer of 2005. Members of LAMAG, and others, visited and stood in solidarity with their Muslim friends at that time; their gestures were gratefully received.

While there is value in interfaith, religious dialogue – especially if it is intellectually honest – it is often local issues, political issues, economic issues that can bring people together in solidarity. Acting in common over perceived problems can naturally allow people from different faith convictions to get to know one another in non-polemical contexts. Is there an encouraged climate in this country for people coming together to improve the lot of the poor or the marginalised in society to also be free to honestly declare their (maybe religious) motivations in such altruistic concern?

I need to say, in closing, that I loved my seven years living in Tunis, during a period in which the country came of age through the Revolution of January, 2011. I have witnessed the wonder and joy of Tunisians who have chosen to follow Jesus Christ in discovering, since 2011, the freedom in differing degrees of being recognised as valid members of society here. Moncef Marzouki’s initiative in 2011 of inviting religious leaders to break the fast with him during Ramadan meant much to those invited. The possibility of this nation being a lighthouse of what it means to live pluralistically, yet with integrity, in a complex, modern world inspires me and I wish you all well – in the endeavours of this Association – in being a catalyst for such rich living.

As part of the Attalaki cooperation with international organizations, most importantly, the United Nations, ATTALAKI NGO had the honor of meeting Mr. Arnaud Peral, United Nations Resident Coordinator in Tunisia, and Mr. Nabil Ben Nacef, Head of the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator, where extensive and mutually fruitful exchanges took place.

* Our organization’s current and future programs and activities.

* The Attalaki Religious Freedom Committee Report.

* Our cooperation with the United Nations Agencies and Offices.

Mr. Arnaud Peral expressed his support for our organization and for the work we are doing to achieve positive change within the Tunisian society. 

The Public Relations and Partnerships officer of Attalaki, Ghassen AYARI, participated virtually via Zoom in the United Nations 14th session of the Forum on Minority Issues, which was held in Geneva. 

The Fourteenth Session of the Forum on Minority Issues was convened on the 2nd and 3rd December 2021 pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 6/15 of 28 September 2007 and resolution 19/23 of 23 March 2012. The Forum was convened on the theme “Conflict Prevention and the Protection of the Human Rights of Minorities”

During the 4th session titled “Towards a lasting peace: positive initiatives to better protect the rights of minorities”, Attalaki raised recommendations regarding the situation of religious minorities in Tunisia. 

During the forum, Permanent Missions of Member States to the United Nations, experts, and international NGOs provided an overview of the situation of minorities, including countries experiencing conflict, and the supposed measures to protect rights and minorities, based on international law.