Trust building Part 2: the need for dialogue

This is the second part of a 2 part series exploring the role of trust and dialogue. the first part looked at what trust means. Building on the first part of this blog, dialogue is a means and a goal of bridging the trust deficit.

In his Christmas sermon, Pope Francis called for dialogue on the world stage to resolve conflict. This is an important recognition of the role of dialogue as a foundation for resolving conflict as it builds trust.

Dialogue can transform individuals in societies in a way that increases true social cohesion, because it strengthens trust and understanding, and enables real relationships to be built across differences. Dialogue is a two way process of mutual accommodation that can only take place if both “sides” have a deeper understanding of the needs, perspectives, desires, fears, and priorities of the other. It is not just about understanding what the other is saying, but what they really mean.

As the international centre for dialogue (KAICIID) interfaith dialogue manual states, dialogue is more than just a conversation. The goal is not to find a resolution to a problem or settling on a specific action, but the point is to explore and find common ground, leading to solutions or cooperation. This is a particular important tool in diverse societies seeking to incorporate, celebrate and use that diversity. Dialogue becomes an effective approach to strengthening social cohesion within culturally and religiously diverse societies because it allows for people to maintain their various identities while still finding common ground.

common ground

Dialogue helps people who are different sides of an argument; those that are marginalised and excluded, to understand that they are not alone in their hopes and fears; nor do people need to be afraid or ashamed to ask difficult questions to seek to understand, to respect and ultimately to accept differences without compromising one’s beliefs or identities.

Dialogue is a powerful tool that can be undertaken in both formal and informal settings. Diaological approaches provides a certain code to undertake informal dialogue. This determines a set of principles to be followed in the interaction with the other. It provides for a quality of interaction that allows for a way of getting involved in different creative processes where the participants can feel included and empowered, safe to be transparent, take risks, open to what others have to say and able to take long term view of the issues.

These are important ways to strengthen cohesion as it maintains identities whilst finding common grounds

Thus the aim of dialogue is to overcome misunderstandings and dispel stereotypes in order to gain better mutual understanding. Rather than necessarily agreeing on a point of view, dialogue is about recognising and developing mutual respect so as to build sustainable relationships. By focusing on common needs, dialogue builds bridges and transforms human relations. It fosters deeper understanding, so that even though disagreements may persist, an appreciation for the perspectives of the other can emerge .

identity formation

In taking a dialogical approach, misperceptions and fears can be dispelled, understanding built which lays the ground work for practical approaches to peaceful coexistence. This is extremely important when we are faced with the politics of identity as we are increasingly faced with now. As social beings, we have a unique collection of thoughts, habits and beliefs that define who we are, as they have been imprinted on our lives through a series of events and contexts. This shapes our identity and our expressions and representations of it. As Amartya Sen (2007) writes “Identity incorporates the ideas, beliefs, qualities and expressions that make a person who he/she is. This self-perception is modelled by relation with others and with an individual’s own context in time”.

Identities are important because they form the basis of who we believe ourselves to be and how we fit in with the world. Identity formation gives the sense of worth and value to people. It constructs their common views and meanings, shaping their experiences, perception and behaviour. Identity is represented through cultural attributes. While cultures may differ from one another, one aspect they all share in common is that they provide a framework to fulfil the primary human need to belong. Thus, humans strive to fulfil this basic need to belong through one or more of the broader collective identities, in addition to the recognition of their own personal identity. Their cultural identity often overlaps with language and ethnicity, and sometimes also religion.

Worldviews are also important in dialogue as they define how a person views the world, including all the conscious and unconscious elements that form and influence the person’s perception of reality. A worldview can be seen as dynamic, as these elements, as well as the individual’s perception of reality, may change over time. Therefore, inter worldview dialogue aims to improve mutual understanding of different worldviews, including the numerous identities and sub-identities, and it opens pathways for more inclusive language.

When we feel unacknowledged or receive negative feedback or experience negative reactions to our personal identities, we tend to suppress our identity and develop coping narratives. Sometimes these narratives are used to justify violence against others, and foster further exclusion or inclusion of only those with whom we share that particular identity. The good news is that the same is true in the reverse: when identities are recognised and affirmed, we also develop narratives about them. Ultimately these stories act as a protective mechanism and directly affect how we interact with others as well as influence who we choose to engage with and who we choose to avoid. Thus, when we have a single story that has been built upon negative stereotypes and false perceptions of those who are different from us, we can easily become prone towards prejudice and discrimination against others.

Dialogue allows us to become more aware of these power dynamics of identities and hierarchy of identities. Dialogue requires clarity of purpose. We need to be aware of What do we want to achieve and what questions do we need to answer in order to get there?

Building blocks

As someone who has been working in the space of dialogue and trust building over the last decade, here are some some of the building blocks that I have learnt that enable us to have a conversation and keep a focus on the end goal

1) Approach as a golden rule — We need to be aware of the golden rule of treating others as we wish to be treated. Bx expanding this premise, we respect others just as we expect others to respect us. We need to respect the differences that make each and everyone unique. Dialogue can take then place only between equals, which means that partners learn from each others

2) Honesty and sincerity — It is imperative that each participant comes to the dialogue process with complete honesty and sincerity. This means not only describing the major and minor thrusts, as well as potential future shifts of one’s tradition, but also possible difficulties that s/he has with it. Everyone must be honest and sincere, even if that means revealing discomforts with your own tradition or that of the other. Everyone must assume that everyone else is being equally honest and sincere

3) Openness to learn and to understanding and embracing other identities- The essential purpose of dialogue is to learn, which entails change. At the very least, to learn that one’s dialogue partner views the world differently is to effect a change in oneself. Reciprocally, change happens for one’s partner as s/he learns about her/himself. One needs to enter into dialogue so that you can learn and grow, not to change the other. This means we need to relearn the art of listening and be willing to experience it from within, which requires a “passing over,” even if only momentarily, into another’s religious or ideological experience All should strive to experience the other’s faith “from within” and be prepared to view themselves differently as a result of an “outside” perspective. People must not come to the dialogue with any preconceptions as to where the points of disagreement lie. A process of agreeing with one’s partner as much as possible, without violating the integrity of one’s own tradition, will reveal where the real boundaries between the traditions lie: the point where s/he cannot agree without going against the principles of one’s own tradition

4) Don’t be insecure about your own identity (self reflection) — Each participant needs to describe her/himself from their perspective and postion. For example, only a Muslim can describe what it really means to be an authentic member of the Muslim community. At the same time, when one’s partner in dialogue attempts to describe back to them what they have understood of their partner’s self-description, then such a description must be recognizable to the described party Participants in dialogue should have a healthy level of criticism toward their own traditions. A lack of such criticism implies that one’s tradition has all the answers, thus making dialogue not only unnecessary but unfeasible. The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, which is impossible if one’s tradition is seen as having all the answers. Sometimes you can explore and understand yourself better when engaging with others. Interfaith dialogue to foster understanding among religions

5) Accept boundaries you are in a Journey- Don’t feel that you are the spokesperson for your entire community or faith tradition or that you ought somehow to know everything there is to know about it. Admit any confusion or uncertainty you might have if a puzzling question arises

6) Dialogue must be a two-sided project: both between religious/ideological groups, and within religious/ideological groups (inter- and intra-). Intra-religious/ideological dialogue is vital for moving one’s community toward an increasingly perceptive insight into reality. Understand similarities and differences between theological and philosophical discussions on an intellectual level. Don’t assume in advance where points of agreement or disagreement will exist. Everyone should be willing to be self-critical

7) Lived Experience is vital — One must compare only her/his ideals with their partner’s ideals and her/his practice with the partner’s practice, not one’s ideals with one’s partner’s practice. Value other peoples position and experience and spirituality by learning about different religions through sacred writings, stories and narratives. Everyone must be permitted to define their own religious experience and identity, and others must respect this

8) Trust is a means and a goal — Trust is a must. Confidences must be kept within the group. Everyone should feel “safe “ to express their ideas and feelings without fear. Dialogue can only take place on the basis of mutual trust. Because it is persons, and not entire communities, that enter into dialogue, it is essential for personal trust to be established. To encourage this it is important that less controversial matters are discussed before dealing with more controversial ones

9) Work together on joint projects to actualize your shared ideals and understandings. — You need to work together on specific projects to actualize that trust. Nothing works better than joint projects on the ground helping to actualize the commonality and differences between people.

trust building

Trust building through dialogue involving shared endeavour and mutual vulnerability requires a willingness to be open to understanding the lifeworld of another. This most certainly does not mean that one needs to agree with its every detail, nor to, in some way, concede something essential in oneself. It does however need to understand where other ideas are coming from — historically and intellectually. In other words, the doors need to be kept open, not slammed shut.

So how do we build the trust that creates the ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe? Using the Trust Quotient buttressed by the 4 R’s of Trustbuilding outlined in part 1 one can create a safe space for critical self-reflection but more importantly to reach out to dialogue with the other. This is extremely important to achieve what the pope calls as the search for “reconciliation and fraternity”

This originally appeared here

Trust Building — Part 1: The 4R’s of Building Trust

 This is the first part of a two part series looking at Trust and Dialogue.

Trust is in short supply

This blog is prompted by the feeling that currently global trust is in short supply. With many people across the world increasingly being anti vaccine and being susceptible to the misinformation that is being spread, a reluctance to take the covid vaccine and adhere to safety protocols signals a lack of trust in the system and those enforcing the system. This lack of trust is symptomatic of a wider global malaise where there is a massive trust deficit in society, with old institutions and positions such as bankers, journalists and politicians facing the brunt of this.

The 2021Edelman Trust Barometer has revealed that there is a trust paradox that despite an era of strong economic performance and nearly full employment (over the past two decades, more than a billion people around the world have lifted themselves out of poverty), the 4 major societal institutions — government, business, NGOs and media — are not trusted at all. This has been further exacerbated by a year of unprecedented disaster and turbulence brought on by the triple crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic , the economic crisis and the resulting social crisis that has been made worse by the global outcry over systemic racism and political instability. The infodemic around covid 19 has also contributed to this failing trust ecosystem.

the role of globalisation

The trust paradox is also worsened and defined by the process of globalisation which has disrupted the social fabric that helps individuals define themselves and assess their social roles. The shifts of the 21st century as a result of globalisation have upended traditional structures of authority, relocated centres of power and allowed a flood of perspectives on how life should be lived. These shifts have unanchored lives, challenging the traditional structures and networks that guided peoples’ behaviour in society, such as learning from the teachings of our forefathers, by trial and error and following the models of others. In times of rapid social change these networks are erased or shifted to a degree that they become unrecognisable. This frantic pace has unsettled people to such an extent that they yearn for agents of constancy to provide an oasis in the shifting sands of today. This unsettling has also led to a decrease in trust in the institutions that have traditionally played that role of an agent of constancy, mainly because they have failed to keep up the pace to address (Jurgensmeyer, Griego and Soboslai 2015).:

A Search for Social Identity — the increasing mobility of people and the ease of global communications seems almost to make it possible for everyone to live everywhere. As a result, huge new multicultural populations are emerging around the world that have mixed identities- grounded in their new homelands but in touch with countries of heritage. Thus today one’s social identity is fluid and often determined by changing global circumstances and remains a paradox.

Accountability — there is a global issue of authority. As the concept of the nation-state becomes diluted with globalisation, it is no longer clear who is in charge. This phenomenon is further exacerbated by disaffected nationalist regimes and movements that claim — but have seemingly lost — moral bearings.

Security — we see mass disillusionment with the system of sovereign, secular states. National unities have been challenged by division based on religious and tribal identities and new ideologies of nationalism have emerged based on the sectarian interests of religion.

This loss of trust means that we can also lose hope in imagined realities with public belief in many core aspects of “the system” disappearing around the world. The current COVID-19 pandemic is showing a new form of this loss of trust. As people reject official sources of information, they are increasingly turning to search engines and social media to inform themselves. This rising tide of misinformation and mistrust is threatening Covid-19 recovery, as people are deeply suspicious and hesitant about the Covid-19 vaccine. In fact, among those who practice poor information hygiene — in that they do not check their sources and/or ensure credible and factual information is shared — there is substantially less willingness to get the vaccine within the year of its first availability (59 percent versus 70 percent for people with good information hygiene)

four horsemen

In the absence of accepted referees of truth, new imagined realities can easily form in the algorithmic echo chambers, that fly in the face of facts rather than building on them, sometimes based on who is shouting loudest (Mahmood 2020). The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called this global wave of mistrust one of the “four horsemen” that “endanger 21st-century progress and imperil 21st-century possibilities.” (Guterres 2020)

This trust deficit also caused by a deficit in leadership has led to a wider trust within society, with a large portion of the rhetoric of distrust being deflected to immigrants or people who appear to be the ‘Other’. In America a large portion of the distrust against the ‘other’ has led to the #BlackLivesMatter movement which has exposed the fear against the Afro Caribbean community (Kendi 2020) and the distrust that the community has in the public institutions to be fair and just. It is this distrust of the public institutions like law enforcement that reinforces a vicious cycle whereby both sides are not confident in each other.

There is an irony here as trust is often seen as something warm and fuzzy and not quantifiable. Yet trust also makes us feel safe and comfortable. So whilst trust is dismissed from the professional sphere as being something not tangible, from a leadership perspective it is still seen as a much valued trait and value. Leaders who cannot inspire trust cannot lead; there will be no followership.

The reason for there to be some much reluctance to professionally consider this whilst acknowledging its personal trait is that trust can be seen to be a leap of faith. It is based on one’s own worldview and experience that involves taking some risks, because whilst trust takes a long time to build, it can be broken very quickly. When times call for fundamental change, trust is often hard to come by. Yet it is clear that trust is essential to developing relationships with individuals. So the message is clear: To be trusted, one has to be trustworthy!!

Building trust is the essential foundation for building healthy communities. It inspires changes in individual lives and interpersonal relationships which in turn can catalyse social action and legislative changes (Corcoran 2010). Building trust has to start from the individual perspective as the most needed reforms in our communities require levels of political courage and trust based collaboration that can only be achieved by individuals who have the vision, integrity and persistence to call out the best in others and sustain deep and long term effects. Without trust, true collaboration is unattainable. From history, the likes of Mandela, Ghandi and King worked off social capital based on trust.

The Trust Quotient

In this light, it is worth exploring the ‘Trust Quotient’ which has been developed as an online self-assessment tool to measure an individual’s ability to garner ‘Trust’ (Maister, Galford and Green 2000). Whilst the tool is itself useful, what is more useful to consider are the attributes behind the ‘Trust Quotient’: credibility, reliability, intimacy and self-orientation. The equation identified below is thought provoking as it makes the concept of trust more practical and also posits the notion that the idea of trust is very much linked to the individual and dependent on the level of one’s own self-orientation.

The Trust Quotient (Maister, Galford and Green 2000) thus has one variable in the denominator and three in the numerator. The three numerator variables improve trustworthiness, whilst the denominator can reduce trustworthiness. Increasing the value of the factors in the numerator increases the value of trust. Increasing the value of the denominator — self-orientation — decreases the value of trust. The Trust Quotient provides a scientific, analytical and actionable framework for how we help organizations and individuals improve their businesses and lives. Thus, Trust is a consequence of good behaviour, not an ingredient, and while it takes decades to build it can vanish overnight based on the ego and self-orientation

Exploring the attributes in more detail, one sees that:

Credibility is about rating “what you say and how believable you are to others.” In other words, you must be and sound credible if you are asking others to follow your lead. Credibility also comes from integrating spirituality and a language of faith into what you say and do.

Reliability measures “actions, and how dependable you appear.” The actions need to follow up words. Do you ‘say what you do and do what you say’? So people need to know that you will come through for them.

Intimacy considers “how safe people feel in sharing with and being with you.” So often we are emotionally distant from others but we need to create opportunities to ensure that leaders do keep their emotional distance from their followers, but when you are presented with confidential information, you need to keep it so. It is also about keeping trust that God’s Plan for you is the best plan. That no matter if you are facing something positive or negative, it was chosen for you and you can handle it;

The fourth characteristic, self-orientation, refers to personal focus, e.g. yourself or others. What the equation shows is that too much self-focus will lower your degree of trustworthiness. It is important to demonstrate a strong ego but if your power is all about you, then few will follow. Self-Orientation refers to the focus of yourself. Self-orientation, which sits alone in the denominator, thus is the most important variable in the Trust Equation. A person with low self-orientation is free to completely and honestly focus on the other person — not for his own sake, but for the sake of the other person. Thus “Lowering self-orientation” can improve trustworthiness. When all you focus on is helping prospects, they trust you more. Ego is a common enemy that is a main impediment to learning and the cultivation of talent. With success, it can blind us to our faults and sow future problems. In failure it magnifies each blow and makes recovery more difficult. At every stage, ego holds us back (Holliday 2016).

Thus the Quotient and understanding its whole attributes may serve as a check on those of us who may think we are trustworthy, but perhaps may not be credible or reliable. Or we may be too self-absorbed to notice our deficiency. Building trust is ultimately about people.

The 4R’s

Living the four Trust Values is the best way to increase your trustworthiness. So how would one work to build those 4 trust values? How can we develop trust through building credibility, intimacy and reliability and reducing self orientation?

In my opinion, this can be done with building the 4 R’s of Trust building:

Take Responsibility

The first concept on ensuring trust and developing credibility is about taking personal responsibility and recognising that we individually need to work on, contributing towards the 4 trust attributes. The individual step will be to begin with ourselves with a values integration to model the change and be the catalyst for change we want to see. Change comes from taking courage to challenge the status quo and those that perpetuate fear and distrust. Taking responsibility is not just for the select few but for everyone (men and women) to step forward to take the lead in overcoming division.

Taking personal responsibility also means moving beyond victimhood to overcome burdens that can destroy them in order to give them a new lease of life. The concept of victimhood is extremely important for many who due to historical / colonial perspectives as well as the experiences of migrants to the west is one of being under siege (Hussain 2014).

The historian Yuval Harari has explained that the shift of human beings’ from small family social units, to nations and ideologies gathering millions owes a great deal to our ability to invent and then believe in stories (Harari 2020). In other words, having common “imagined realities” — that allow us to believe in invisible constructs as a way of organising ourselves. Hence there is a need to reconstruct the narrative of the community that is one that moves away from victimhood and takes responsibility for addressing social change to address concrete cause-and-effect relations (Harari 2018)

Build Relationships

How can we expect the people we serve to trust us, if we are not willing to trust them? How can we trust them if there is no engagement with them? The second pillar is about engagement and outreach. Studies conducted in Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict by the Asian Foundation, found that there was a lot of mistrust between the various faiths largely because there was no day to day engagement between the various members of the communities (The Asia Foundation 2011).

Thus it all starts with getting to know the other. In some cases it is about breaking bread or having a cup of tea with the other. It is about getting to know the ‘other’, lean their culture and traditions and share a meal with them. This requires the practice of humility, because it involves listening to what they have to say.

Building trust has to be about reaching out to ‘the other’ to include everyone and listen to everyone, to dispel the misinformation now infinitely magnified and exaggerated by the Internet. So we all need to do more to build those bridges and relationships with people. There is no magic formula to build those bridges rather just to be humble, with an ability to listen, build relationships with diverse communities, learn and understand from the others. Building relationships is hence about dialogue. Dialogue to understand, respect and accept has to be the intention.

Dialogue is a responsibility. Dialogue is a process of exploration and coming to know the other, as much as it is an example of clarifying one’s own positions. Therefore, when one dialogues with others, what is desired is to explore their ways of thinking, so as to correct misconceptions in our own minds and arrive at common ground. This common ground is the desideratum of all dialogue, and lays the groundwork for mutual cooperation based on the principles of faith in God and good relations with neighbours.

Ensure Respect

Building relationships is about ensuring respect for others. One of the key components of this is to ensure a space for dialogue that is safe is built where what is discussed is not only kept confidential, but more importantly that the spaces are kept welcoming. For example, if there is a need to build trust with religious leaders or representatives from other faiths, one should not shy away from integrating an intentional space for prayer or other rituals.

It means that there should be a clarity about the agenda. Respect is earned by standing firmly to our principles and not compromising.

Respect is also about doing what you say and following through. We need to be true and honest about what can be done and not done which also means following through on promises.

Always Reflect

Self-reflection and self-assessment are very important to understand where you go wrong and as well to acknowledge the past to learn from it. An Arab emperor once said ‘Take account of yourself before you are taken account of’. Acknowledging the past can only be done if a safe space is created, an outreach is done and people are treated with respect.

So where does this leave us with trust?

Living the Trust Values

Trust should not be second-best to accountability. It’s not good enough to say, “Trust us”. It’s not about corruption, political influence, paternalism and hypocrisy but there is a need to put in place the checks and balances that are visibly functioning and that give people a reason to trust you. If you want to reduce your self-interest, you need to put a check on those human and organisational tendencies. This requires self-reflection and humble correction.

It requires dialogue which can transform individuals in societies in a way that increases true social cohesion. Dialogue is important because it strengthens trust and understanding, and enables real relationships to be built across differences.

the importance of dialogue

Dialogue is an important tool in the context of outreach and gaining respect and understanding. migrant integration efforts. The two way process of mutual accommodation can only take place if both “sides” have a deeper understanding of the needs, perspectives, desires, fears, and priorities of the other. It is not just about understanding what the other is saying, but what they really mean. Hence dialogue is an effective approach to strengthen social cohesion within culturally and religiously diverse societies because it allows people to maintain their various identities while still finding common ground .

The aim of dialogue is to overcome misunderstandings and dispel stereotypes in order to gain better mutual understanding, to build trust. Rather than necessarily agreeing on a point of view, dialogue is about recognising and developing mutual respect so as to build sustainable relationships. By focusing on common needs, dialogue builds bridges and transforms human relations. It fosters deeper understanding, so that even though disagreements may persist, an appreciation for the perspectives of the other can emerge. I intend to go more deeper on dialogue in the second part of this blog

not a hotline

Trust is not a hotline. Trust is not an auxiliary, There is much to reflect on and also to take responsibility for in terms of creating safe spaces for dialogue and engagement. Whilst there is much that is outside the control of individuals to affect and that remains within a circle of concern, there is still much within the circle of influence where there can be direct impact. Thus individual responsibility is an obligation to respond proactively to the tensions of our world by working actively and methodically to ameliorate them, so as to replace instability with stability, hostility with friendship, and animosity with alliances.

These alliances are about bridging social capital between communities that are a strong enough consensual basis for trust that takes into account cultural difference (Putnam 2000). We need to develop that so-called ‘thin trust’ that binds us to those we do not know and with whom we have limited first hand dealings, to go along with the ‘thick trust’ that develops from personal familiarity. Thus there needs to be more of an opening up of physical and virtual spaces where individuals and communities can come together, free from the restraints imposed by pre-determined (and biased) agendas (Yaqin and Morey 2016). This comes from understanding that multicultural environments are key to celebrating difference in the practices of everyday life.

Trust building through shared endeavour and mutual vulnerability requires a willingness to be open to understanding the lifeworld of another. This most certainly does not mean that one needs to agree with its every detail, nor to, in some way, concede something essential in oneself. It does however need to understand where other ideas are coming from — historically and intellectually. In other words, the doors need to be kept open, not slammed shut. The history of Islamic civilisations is a testimony to this celebration of multiculturalism.

So how do we build the trust that creates the ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe? Using the Trust Quotient buttressed by the 4 R’s of Trustbuilding, one can create a safe space for critical self-reflection that allows one to reach out to treat the other with respect and to understand trust enables communities to move towards a common good of peaceful existence with each other.

rebuilding the shattered mirror

The famous Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton (Among other exploits, Burton managed in 1853 to gain entry to Mecca and Median as a pilgrim, helping to communicate the complexity and richness of Islamic culture to Victorian Britain.) once wrote that ‘All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own’ (The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi). In his mind, he meant that you will find parts of the truth everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. This concept of the ‘shattered mirror concept’ enables us to see that ‘each shard reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle’ (Appiah 2006).

Distrust comes from the fact that we consider that ‘our little shard can reflect the whole’ and that our little truth is the whole truth. Building trust is about understanding that for the common good, each of us (with our faith and spiritual teachings) have a bit of that shard of broken glass. These small shards of glass which, require careful positioning to create a compelling mosaic that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become.

Trust building starts with all of us individuals and then grows with the communities in which we live and work. This snowball effect can only come through daily practice of the Trust Quotient and being mindful of the 4 R’s of Trust Building.

A second part of this blog on dialogue will be printed soon

this originally appeared here

Works Cited

Sahgal, Neha, and Besheer Mohamed. 2019. Pew Research. 08 10. Accessed 05 10, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/08/in-the-u-s-and-western-europe-people-say-they-accept-muslims-but-opinions-are-divided-on-islam/.

Abdullah, Arif Kemil. 2014. The Qur’an and Normative Religious Pluralism: A Thematic Study of the Qur’an. London: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 2018. “Alternative Approaches to Transforming Violent Extremism — The Case of Islamic Peace and Interreligious Peacebuilding.” Transformative Approaches to Violent Extremism — Berghoff Handbook Dialogue Series (Berghoff Foundation) (13).

Allawi, Ali A. 2009. The Crisis of Islamic Civilisation. London: Yale University Press.

Alshammari, Yousef H. 2020. Inside Arabia. 2 April. Accessed May 30, 2020. https://insidearabia.com/coronavirus-in-arab-gulf-states-symptoms-include-range-of-xenophobia/.

Amarasuriya, Harini. 2020. The Wire. 30 May. Accessed May 30, 2020. https://thewire.in/south-asia/sri-lanka-covid-19-demonisation-minorities.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton.

Aydin, Cemil. 2017. The Idea of the Muslim World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Corcoran, Rob. 2010. Trustbuilding: An Honest Conversation on Race, Reconciliation and Responsibiity. University of Virginia Press.

Edelman. 2020. 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary_Single Spread without Crops. Edelman.

Finnbogason, Daniel, Goran Larsson, and Isak Svensson. 2019. “Is Shia-Sunni Violence on the Rise? Exploring New Data on Intra-Muslim Organised Violence 1989–2017.” Civil Wars 21 (1): 25–53.

Gardener, Scott, and Jonathan Evans. 2018. “In Western Europe, familiarity with Muslims is linked to positive views of Muslims and Islam.” Pew Research Centre. 24 07. Accessed 05 01, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/24/in-western-europe-familiarity-with-muslims-is-linked-to-positive-views-of-muslims-and-islam/.

Gudavarthy, Ajay. 2017. The Wire. 20 Dec. Accessed June 01, 2020. https://thewire.in/communalism/india-muslims-safest-enemy.

Guiso, Luigi, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. 2006. “Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2): 23–48.

Guterres, António. 2020. “Secretary-General’s remarks to the General Assembly on his priorities for 2020.” UN. 24 January. Accessed May 01, 2020. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-01-22/secretary-generals-remarks-the-general-assembly-his-priorities-for-2020-bilingual-delivered-scroll-down-for-all-english-version.

Harari, Yuval. 2018. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. London: Jonathan Cape.

— . 2020. Yuval Harari’s blistering warning to Davos. 24 Jan. Accessed May 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/yuval-hararis-warning-davos-speech-future-predications/.

Holliday, Ryan. 2016. Ego is the Enemy. New York: Penguin.

Hussain, Musharraf. 2014. Musharraf Hussain. 4 12. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.musharrafhussain.com/trust-building-in-society-what-can-muslims-do/ .

Jurgensmeyer, Mark, Dinah Griego, and John Soboslai. 2015. God in the Tumult of the Global Square: Religion in Global Civil Society. Univ of California Press.

Kendi, Ibram. 2020. The Atlantic. 12 May. Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery/611539/.

Khaleeli, Homa. 2016. The Guardian. 8 Aug. Accessed May 4, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/08/the-perils-of-flying-while-muslim.

Kotecha, Sima. 2013. Quarter of young British people ‘do not trust Muslims. 25 Sep. Accessed 05 20, 2020. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/24204742/quarter-of-young-british-people-do-not-trust-muslims.

Mahmood, Jemilah. 2020. “The trust deficit in humanitarian action — does going local address it?” IFRC. 20 February. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/speech/trust-deficit-humanitarian-action-going-local-address/#:~:text=About%20two%20weeks%20ago%2C%20UN,imperil%2021st%2Dcentury%20possibilities.%E2%80%9D.

Maister, David, Rob Galford, and Charles H Green. 2000. The Trusted Advisor. London: Simon & Schuster.

Mujahid, Abdul Malik. 2003. Can We Trust Muslims. 01 April. Accessed March 05, 2020. https://www.soundvision.com/article/can-we-trust-muslims.

Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. 2016. Trust. Accessed May 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/trust.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” In Culture and Politics, by L Crowthers and C Lockhart. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ramadan, Tariq. 2012. The Arab Awakening: Islam and the new Middle East. London: Allen Lane.

Roknifard, Julia. 2019. Al Jazeera English. 25 July. Accessed May 01, 2020. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/growing-threat-sectarianism-malaysia-190719110108799.html.

Sabharwal, Gita, and Liam Chinn. 2012. Asia Foundation: Notes from the Field. 11 07. Accessed 07 07, 2013. http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2012/07/11/new-survey-in-post-war-sri-lanka-examines-ethno-religious-relationships/.

Saleem, A. 2016. “Muslim-State Relations in Sri Lanka: A Challenge for Post-Conflict Reconciliation.” In Muslim Minority-State Relations. The Modern Muslim World, by R (eds) Mason. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shah, Sabir. 2019. The News PK. 09 May . Accessed May 09, 2020. https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/469047-attacks-on-shrines-of-revered-sufi-saints-continue.

Specia, Megan. 2017. The New York Times. 24 Nov. Accessed April 01, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/middleeast/sufi-muslim-explainer.html.

Suleiman, Omar. 2020. Al Jazeera. 20 May. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/india-sri-lanka-coronavirus-stigmatise-muslims-200519134939934.html.

The Asia Foundation. 2011. National Values Survey 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Report, Colombo: The Asia Foundation.

TMV. 2020. The Muslim Vibe. 20 May. Accessed May 21, 2020. https://themuslimvibe.com/social-issues/community/aya-hachem-uproar-as-some-plan-to-withdraw-fundraisers-based-on-sectarian-differences.

Weaver, Matthew. 2020. The Guardian: UK News. 18 May. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/18/woman-shot-dead-blackburn-named-aya-hachem.

Yaqin, Amina, and Peter Morey. 2016. “How do we build trust between cultures?” Knowledge Quarter. October. Accessed May 2020. https://www.knowledgequarter.london/how-do-we-build-trust-between-cultures-by-amina-yaqin-and-peter-morey/.

Younis, Mohamed. 2015. Gallup. 12. Accessed 05 2020. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/187664/perceptions-muslims-united-states-review.aspx.

Zajac, Anna. 2014. “Between Sufism and Salafism: The Rise of Salafi Tendencies after the Arab Spring and Its Implications.” Hemispheres. Studies on Cultures and Societies (Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN) 29 (2): 97–109.

The Role of Interfaith Harmony in Today’s World

In his book, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari laments that traditional religion is the “handmaid of modern nationalism.” It divides humanity into different camps, he says, and there is not much hope of religions offering solutions to global problems. This might be a hugely pessimistic attitude to consider, but as the UN’s World Interfaith Harmony Week takes places from February 1 to 7, these sentiments are not in isolation and should be disregarded at one’s own peril.

Originally conceived in 2010 as a chance for the global community to promote harmony between all people and to establish dialogue amongst different faiths and religions, it has long disappeared from the world’s agenda. Only the “converted” go about celebrating interfaith week with platitudes and statements. However, the mere fact that it hardly registers on anyone’s radar is testimony to not only the impact that the week has, but to a greater affliction affecting the faith community worldwide akin to what Harari alludes to in his writing.

Today, there is a loss of trust and hope in institutionalized religion providing some respite to tensions in global politics. At a time when there is a need to unite to address international problems, faith is plagued by local challenges creating a crisis of values, morals and, ultimately, interfaith engagement.

These challenges arise as we are increasingly living in an age of disruption that affects the way we communicate, do business, and how we relate to each other. Thanks in part to globalization, we are now experiencing the disruption of the social fabric that helps individuals define themselves and assess their social roles.

In one sense, that doesn’t seem to be such a bad thing because we have seen the upending of traditional structures of authority, the relocation of centers of power and the emergence of a flood of perspectives on how life should be lived. Yet primarily because of these disruptions that have unanchored lives and challenged traditional structures and networks, we see a backlash of increased racism and xenophobia amidst a wave of nationalism incapable of dealing with globalization. In addition, we see a growing globalization of fragility that is creating new forms of vulnerability for communities.

With migration, climate change and mental health all being seen as top priorities for 2019, the battlefield for tackling vulnerability is not defined by geography. It is on our streets, in our hospitals, in our schools and in our places of worship. In 2019, vulnerability will be easily defined as the rise of pandemics, along with greater disparities between rich and poor, men and women, rural and urban communities, and even this generation and the next.

Our search for a social identity has become a paradox remaining fluid in the midst of the increasing mobility of people, as well as the ease of global communications that make it possible for everyone to live everywhere. As a result, huge new multicultural populations are emerging around the world that have mixed identities shaped by multiple competing factors.

The loss of the moral compass from those in charge is compounded by a general loss of authority as it is no longer clear who is in charge. With the loss of authority comes a threat of security, compounded by the challenge on national unity by division based on religious, ethnic and tribal identities and new ideologies of nationalism. This is what Harari talks about and precisely what this week should focus on in terms of creating a space for dialogue around interfaith harmony.

Whilst faith is seen as a cause of turmoil and exclusion, it can be used as an antidote. New solutions can be developed to challenge people to create equal opportunities for diverse communities of ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths. As sociologist Ali Shariati put it: “Religion is an amazing phenomenon that plays contradictory roles in people’s lives. It can destroy or revitalize, put to sleep or awaken, enslave or emancipate, teach docility or teach revolt.”

Why faith? Why now?

In his talk around the future of education at the World Economic Forum in 2018, Chinese billionaire Jack Matalked about the need to revisit the teaching of values in the face of increasing automation. This is an inherent USP for religious teachings and institutions to make themselves more relevant again. Religious practices and perspectives continue to be sources of values that nourish ethics of multicultural citizenship, commanding both solidarity and equal respect. Historically, spiritual heritage has often provided humanity with the capacity for personal and social transformation. Simply put, for many people around the world, faith is embedded in cultures, practices, traditions and community values.

Thus today, as we experience dark moments, religion can appear to shine like a beacon of hope and reliability. Hence, interfaith week should once again discuss this idea that religions provide trusted institutions that have their bases of legitimacy in the divine order of the universe and in the societies they have nourished and been nourished by. As a repository of symbols, a system of belief, a convergence of cultural rights, a structure of morality, an institution of power and one that challenges old systems, faith should once again explore how it can offer people a sense of community, a trusted authority and meaning for their lives.

Religious institutions need to become mediums for inclusive engagement, as they offer simple and easy access to communities, as well as a simple language to express the commonalities of existence through the expression of common values, the invoking of social responsibility and working together on issues of social justice and ethics. Thus, rather than just discussing interfaith engagement, we need to speak about action that speaks to a concept of inclusion around religious identity. One that works on the premise of building an understanding of religious pluralism, founded on common features in a language spoken by most people, setting the agenda for creating a new, improved environment.

As religion can cut across class, ethnic, geographic and cultural lines, religious leaders can serve an important — if sometimes informal — representative function. Members of a religious community have an enormous capacity to increase their cultural, social and economic links with one another and with other religious and secular partners in other parts of the world.

Religious identity can thus serve as a powerful bond amid the vicissitudes of globalization, and one reinforced by ethical commitments embedded within a particular tradition. Working on a diverse shared polity of pluralism means you can tap into a hidden channel for creating engagement between people. This can allow us to find new ways to anchor ourselves in a connected world. In the turbulent waters of the global era, religion, which has its basis in the past, can provide solid ground and protection.

World Interfaith Harmony Week offers us an opportunity to do so. We have to address the challenges and the polarization that is tearing apart the fabric of the global community. This will never be easy, but it remains vitally important. Given the uncertainty we face in 2019, there is a greater need for such spaces to pause and reflect on how to create a new environment for the promotion of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue, as well as understanding and cooperation for peace.

Everyone’s Responsibility

Incidents around the world — whether violence in the Middle East, anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe, the rise of racist nationalism in Asia or xenophobic rhetoric worldwide — emphasize the need to build societies that are shared by everyone. These “shared” societies are uniquely imagined as places where durable peace is maintained through values of compassion and solidarity and by encouraging the promotion of dialogue amongst the different forums available in all cultures.

This is of course the idealistic aspiration behind World Interfaith Harmony Week, but with a realistic recognition that it requires real work from all stakeholders that constitute society as a whole. In other words, it is not the purview or responsibility of one component but rather everyone. There needs to be real and fruitful conversations that involve talking to people and understanding how to address the misperceptions that exist about the “other” within all of us. We need to have honest and open discussions about faith and its role in society and what exists within the faiths of mutual coexistence. This centers around common values that espouse the notion of a shared humanity, social responsibility, social justice and ethics.

In essence, we have to rediscover a spirituality of commonality that will allow us to recognize the common space and substance amongst all doctrines, which will provide the fuel for social change and trigger action for the unity of humanity. This shared language will enable us to develop a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; and a running thread of hope that makes this improbable experiment of reconciling and rehabilitation of vulnerable communities possible.

These values and ideals will have to be living, which cannot find expression on paper or monuments or in the annals of history books, but which remain alive in the hearts and minds of people inspiring us to pride, duty and sacrifice. These living values will have to help us build on shared understandings and should be the glue that binds every healthy society together. However, whilst dialogue is a beginning, it is important that engagement goes beyond this. Interfaith — and increasingly intra-faith — dialogue must produce something tangible for communities on the frontline

We are now living at a time where increasingly across the world, political violence flavored by faith, culture and identity is being used to justify positions of power. This often leads to misconceptions and misperceptions about certain faiths and its followers. The tragedy will be if we lose this battle. Faith identities will continue to be part of the picture and faith will be a strong rallying point for global communities. As people of faith and spirituality, we have to retake the reins and change the paradigm.

This was originally published in Fair Observer

What Can We Learn From the 'World Interfaith Harmony Week

Last week, the first week of February was traditionally the 'World Interfaith Harmony Week' as designated by the United Nations to occur annually in the first full week of February. This week was seen as a chance for the global community to promote harmony between all people and to establish a dialogue amongst the different faiths and religions in an attempt to enhance mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation.

Given the very bloody start to 2016, now more than ever is there a need for such spaces to pause and reflect on how to create a new environment for the promotion of Inter-Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace. The incidents around the world whether it is the violence in the Middle East, the anti immigrant feelings in Europe, the rise of racist nationalism in Asia, or the xenophobic rhetoric stemming out the of the US presidential election campaigns, all emphasize the need to build societies that are shared by everyone. These 'shared' societies are uniquely imagined as places where a durable peace is maintained through values of compassion and solidarity and by encouraging the promotion of dialogue amongst the different forums available in all cultures.

This is of course the idealistic aspiration behind the Harmony week but with a realistic recognition that it requires real work from all stakeholders that constitute society as a whole. In other words, it is not the purview or responsibility of one component. It needs commitment to an understanding of the driving contexts and causes for conflict, and also of the real tangible aspects for peace. This lofty goal can be challenging to understand. After all what do we mean by peace? For me, the closest definition for this term is that 'Peace is possible when people can live in safety, have fair and effective laws, participate in shaping political decisions, make a decent living and secure their wellbeing'. The question then becomes how do we arrive at this possibility? From the perspective of the Interfaith Harmony Week, how can such a culture of peace be developed?

Simply put, there needs to be real and fruitful conversations that involve talking to people and understanding how to address the misperceptions that exist about the 'other' within all of us. We have to have honest and open discussions about faith and its role in society and what exists within the faiths of mutual co-existence. This centers around common values which espouse the notion of a shared humanity; social responsibility; social justice and ethics

In essence, we will have to rediscover a spirituality of commonality which will allow us to recognise the common space and substance amongst all doctrines that will provide the fuel for social change and trigger action for the unity of humanity. This shared language will enable us to develop a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes this improbable experiment of reconciling and rehabilitation of vulnerable communities possible. These values and ideals will have to be living, which cannot find expression on paper or monuments or in the annals of history books, but which remain alive in the hearts and minds of people inspiring us to pride, duty and sacrifice. These living values will have to help us to build on shared understandings and should be the glue that binds every healthy society. However whilst dialogues are a beginning it is important that engagement goes beyond this. Interfaith (and increasingly intra-faith) dialogue has to produce something tangible for communities on the front line

We are now living at a time where increasingly across the world, political violence flavoured by faith, culture and identity is being used to justify positions of identity and power. This often leads to misconceptions and misperceptions about certain faiths and its followers. The tragedy will be if we lose this battle. Faith identities will continue to be part of the picture and faith will continue to be a strong rallying point for global communities. We as people of faith and spirituality have to retake the reins and change the paradigm.

The week offers us an opportunity to do so. Yet outside certain circles it is not known or widely practiced even by the UN itself. There are of course doubts as to the integrity of the week given the Saudi Arabia (not one known for its pluralistic appreciation of inter and intra faith dialogue) was one of the initial sponsors. It also skirts around much needed intra-faith dialogue as well. Nevertheless, the space has been created and it is now up to those to make use of it. We have to address the challenges and the polarization that is tearing apart the fabric of the global society. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important. This week offers some opportunity for this

This was originally published here  on the Huffington Post

What Can We Learn From the 'World Interfaith Harmony Week'?

Last week, the first week of February was traditionally the 'World Interfaith Harmony Week' as designated by the United Nations to occur annually in the first full week of February. This week was seen as a chance for the global community to promote harmony between all people and to establish a dialogue amongst the different faiths and religions in an attempt to enhance mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation.

Given the very bloody start to 2016, now more than ever is there a need for such spaces to pause and reflect on how to create a new environment for the promotion of Inter-Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace. The incidents around the world whether it is the violence in the Middle East, the anti immigrant feelings in Europe, the rise of racist nationalism in Asia, or the xenophobic rhetoric stemming out the of the US presidential election campaigns, all emphasize the need to build societies that are shared by everyone. These 'shared' societies are uniquely imagined as places where a durable peace is maintained through values of compassion and solidarity and by encouraging the promotion of dialogue amongst the different forums available in all cultures.

This is of course the idealistic aspiration behind the Harmony week but with a realistic recognition that it requires real work from all stakeholders that constitute society as a whole. In other words, it is not the purview or responsibility of one component. It needs commitment to an understanding of the driving contexts and causes for conflict, and also of the real tangible aspects for peace. This lofty goal can be challenging to understand. After all what do we mean by peace? For me, the closest definition for this term is that 'Peace is possible when people can live in safety, have fair and effective laws, participate in shaping political decisions, make a decent living and secure their wellbeing'. The question then becomes how do we arrive at this possibility? From the perspective of the Interfaith Harmony Week, how can such a culture of peace be developed?

Simply put, there needs to be real and fruitful conversations that involve talking to people and understanding how to address the misperceptions that exist about the 'other' within all of us. We have to have honest and open discussions about faith and its role in society and what exists within the faiths of mutual co-existence. This centers around common values which espouse the notion of a shared humanity; social responsibility; social justice and ethics

In essence, we will have to rediscover a spirituality of commonality which will allow us to recognise the common space and substance amongst all doctrines that will provide the fuel for social change and trigger action for the unity of humanity. This shared language will enable us to develop a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes this improbable experiment of reconciling and rehabilitation of vulnerable communities possible. These values and ideals will have to be living, which cannot find expression on paper or monuments or in the annals of history books, but which remain alive in the hearts and minds of people inspiring us to pride, duty and sacrifice. These living values will have to help us to build on shared understandings and should be the glue that binds every healthy society. However whilst dialogues are a beginning it is important that engagement goes beyond this. Interfaith (and increasingly intra-faith) dialogue has to produce something tangible for communities on the front line

We are now living at a time where increasingly across the world, political violence flavoured by faith, culture and identity is being used to justify positions of identity and power. This often leads to misconceptions and misperceptions about certain faiths and its followers. The tragedy will be if we lose this battle. Faith identities will continue to be part of the picture and faith will continue to be a strong rallying point for global communities. We as people of faith and spirituality have to retake the reins and change the paradigm.

The week offers us an opportunity to do so. Yet outside certain circles it is not known or widely practiced even by the UN itself. There are of course doubts as to the integrity of the week given the Saudi Arabia (not one known for its pluralistic appreciation of inter and intra faith dialogue) was one of the initial sponsors. It also skirts around much needed intra-faith dialogue as well. Nevertheless, the space has been created and it is now up to those to make use of it. We have to address the challenges and the polarization that is tearing apart the fabric of the global society. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important. This week offers some opportunity for this

This originally appeared on Huffington Post