Introduction to IJWP, September 2019

The relation of religion to governance is one of the most important yet disputed aspects of the modern state. Should a state merely administer services on a territory or should it use its force to impose a specific set of religious beliefs and values on all of its citizens and residents? And, if a specific set of values is imposed, should there be limits to what the state is allowed to impose? For example, should it merely define crimes as harmful to a citizen’s life or property, or should it be criminal to hurt someone’s feelings or express a view different than state policy? And, who determines state policy on religion: the ruling family, the will of the majority, or some constitutional process?

This issue of International Journal on World Peace contains three articles that relate to creating peaceful states in a world where many religions, belief systems, and schisms exist in almost every country. The first article on “The Syrian Conflict” by Nasreen Akhtar and Hala Nageen shows what can happen when the ruler, Bashar al Assad, favors government jobs and financial contracts for members of his own family and his minority religious group, the Alawi, who make up 11 percent of the population.

Religious favoritism always leads to the exclusion or second-class citizenship of others. Or, in a worst-case scenario, genocide. In the case of Syria, the Arab Spring created hope among these less-favored groups that a new system could emerge that either treated citizens of all religions equally, or reversed the tables and installed some other religious group, and their religious values, in power. This led first to civil war and secondly to foreign states and interest groups aligning with and supporting various factions. As in other historical wars, most contestants in Syria expect to impose their values on all citizens after their victory.

The anarchy and fighting in Syria largely represent the pre-modern monarchical or tribal idea that the ruler determines the official values of the state. However, the Arab Spring generally conveyed the idea that the majority of the population would determine the official religion, as happened in Egypt after the overthrow of Mubarak when the Muslim Brotherhood won a popular election. The idea of adopting a constitutional process that disestablishes religion and allows a diversity of religious ideas and values to coexist in the state was not really supported by any of the major players. Even U.S. President Obama was willing to support the religion of the elected majority and did not push for a constitutional separation of religion and state as exists in the United States. The article makes it clear that the war in Syria is waged by competing political and economic powers and not a pluralistic ideal that would create a system of governance with religious freedom and equality.

Our second article, “The Role of Civil Society in Religious Extremism in Pakistan Post-9/11,” by Khalid Shafi examines the relationship between religious extremism and civil society. While the idea of civil society existed in the ancient world, it is a concept that developed in the West with the rise of religious pluralism and tolerance in the modern state. Civil society involves the legal existence of a plurality of religions, NGOs, social clubs, and other voluntary organizations. These organizations often perform social services like education, social welfare, crafting, and other activities that serve the development and interests of citizens.

The idea of a “civil” society also conveys the notion that people are “civil” or polite towards one another, even those of different religious faiths or competing political and economic interests. Behaving civilly toward one another requires the suppression of intolerance and the desire to control by conquest. It requires the recognition of fundamental rights of all people, regardless of their cultural, political, or economic background.

Religious “extremism” is a widely-used label that implies the opposite of civil behavior. It is generally associated with the willingness of a group to use violence against those who do not accept or conform to that group’s doctrine or orders. Religious extremism can be intolerant of others and often considers others to be less human and not entitled to any human rights. Psychologically it is associated with lack of education, experience, and a narrow consciousness that does not include others. It is more common among people who are young, sheltered, and indoctrinated, such as in some of the more fundamentalist madrasas in the Middle East. Religious extremism is not limited to Islam, but can be found in all of the world’s religions and cultures. Responding to frustrating circumstances with violence often comes from a “fight or flight” survival instinct. Religions normally help people to suppress this instinct and seek constructive non-violent solutions through healthy socialization processes. Broken families, war-torn societies, social injustice, and poverty can be more correlated with an extremist personality than to which religion one belongs.

Shafi argues that in Pakistan the government is not able to deal with the high level of religious extremism in society. Pakistan, while a Muslim society, is a modern constitutional state that allows religious pluralism and civil society. Thus, Shafi examines whether civil society has a role in reducing religious extremism and violence. He argues that poor economic and social conditions, illiteracy, and unemployment are some of the causes behind the increasing number of extremist groups. He conducted a survey in which 90 percent of respondents believed that religious extremism was among the top five issues in Pakistan. Over 50 percent believed extremism cannot be combatted with government power, and 84 percent believed that civil society is the most desirable way to eliminate religious extremism.

Our third article, “Interreligious Peacebuilding through Comparative Theology” by Darius Asghar-Zadeh, argues that mere tolerance of the existence of people who are different is an insufficient foundation for peace. He is a student of comparative religion steeped in the knowledge of both Muslim and Christian traditions. He states that faith-based groups have a major role to play in peacebuilding communication. Peace and conflict studies cannot be successful if it is limited to the study of state interests and conflicts, but must be attentive to a much wider range of interests, including the religious faith commitments of citizens.

Asghar-Zadeh argues that the development of “religious literacy” should be an essential core competency for scholars and other agents engaged in peace work. It is important to understand that Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and other major religions have peace as a core component of their faith. The social sciences, which have often viewed religion critically, if not with resentment, should see the importance of a relationship between peace studies and theology. The relationship should be “defined in terms of a mutual methodological participation in the shaping of a culture of peace instead of reciprocal methodological exclusion.” Such methodological exclusivism might be considered a form of religious intolerance.

Asghar-Zadeh introduces the idea that “comparative theology” provides a methodological approach that is the most adequate form of interreligious peacebuilding. In comparative theology, the members of even strongly differing groups of religious beliefs try to understand each other’s convictional elements and even systems. This approach outlines comparative theology “as a hermeneutical endeavour that aims to renew theology and contribute to a more positive coexistence among different religions and cultures.”

In discussing the important social concepts of freedom and love, Asghar-Zadeh contends that freedom can only be successfully achieved with the acknowledgment of others’ freedom. Love is the strongest guiding notion in intertheological peacebuilding because it involves mutual empathetic perception, reciprocal appreciation, and the acknowledgement of the cultural and religious other. Competencies related to both these concepts of freedom and love, which are at the foundation of interreligious peacebuilding, are also essential factors in peace and conflict resolution processes.

Continuing on the theme of comparative religion and interreligious peace building are two of the books for review in this issue. A Palestinian Theology of Liberation: The Bible, Justice, and the Palestine-Israel Conflict, by Naim Stifan Ateek is reviewed by Donald Rappé. Ateek notes that Eastern Christianity “does not aspire to political control” though Judaism and Islam do. He asserts that “the best democratic system assigns religion to private life,” treats all as “equal under the law,” encompasses the spectrum of belief and political opinion, and is informed by “open and progressive education”—all qualities that could contribute to the Midddle East region’s future.
Norman Swazo’s book, Destroying Idols: Revisioning the Meaning of “God,” is an in-depth application of the tools of contemporary post-modern criticism and linguistic analysis to the Jewish and Christian traditions that we have inherited. It is a stark realization to discover that contemporary orthodox Jewish and Christian doctrines are essentially theological idols constructed by rabbis and theologians and that both the monotheism of Judaism and the Trinitarianism of Christianity might be divergences from the original Jewish and Christian worldviews that shared a “di-theism” of Father in Heaven and “Lord,” or “Son” active in the world.

Gordon L. Anderson, Editor-in-Chief