In our contemporary times, the suspicion and fears that exist between the “Western” World (secular) and the world of Islam are strong. In fact, there are places and cultures, because of some “extremist” groups, the suspicion and fears have actually become antagonism and hostility. The depressing fact, nay tragedy, is that, despite globalization and the rapid advances of technology and mass communications, the misunderstanding between the Western world and the world of Islam continues. Yes, distrust, fear and even hostility continue to persist.

The many and varying peace processes as well as “democratization” in many hot spots are very remarkable and encouraging events. Albeit the recent tragedy in Gaza, there are new developments in the Middle East that are encouraging though very slowly. In Asia, the “return” to democracy of Indonesia considered the “largest Islamic” country is positive development in a new and growing perception about Islam.

The suspicion and fear between these two “worlds“ are deeply rooted in history. People claim that the “rootedness” of misunderstanding is to be found in the very “psyche” of the two cultures and two worlds. No doubt, the history is marred by conflict. The history of relationship between the Western world and the world of Islam has given rise to an enduring tradition of fear, distrust and hostility, because the two worlds have so often charted collision and contradictory courses. The history of Crusades, the Spanish “re-conquista“, the Muslin conquest and the fall of Constantinople, the Ottaman expansion to Europe in 1529 and 1683, the Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798, the West colonial expansion subjecting almost all the world of Islam and the fall of the Ottoman Empire are few examples of the historical “rootedness” of the fears, distrust and hostilities.

Yet, for all the fears, distrust and hostilities between the two worlds, there are interesting, nay wonderful convergences or “kindredness” between the Western world and the world of Islam. First and foremost, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all “Peoples of the Book.” Yes, Judaisn, Christianity and Islam share a common monotheistic vision. In the language of Vatican II: “They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to people” (Vat. II, NA, No. 3). In fact, the same Council recognizes the quarrels and dissensions between Christians and Muslims over the centuries and (it) “now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values” (ibid.).

Moreover, Christians and Muslims share many key values in common: respect for knowledge, for justice, compassion towards the poor and underprivileged, the importance of family life, respect for parents and elders and consultations/consensus in the determination of societal/community affairs.

These days, there is again a growing myopia not only in our common attitude toward each other, but also in the way we understand the roles of religions and the religious in society. It is a tragedy that our attitudes and understanding have been temporarily hijacked by the extreme and the superficial versions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Many Christians view Islam in terms of the tragic wars in the Balkans, the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and the extreme developments in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. No doubt, the extremes exist on both Islam and Christianity, and they must be dealt with. But when used as a basis to judge a people and society, they lead to distortion and unfairness.

Oftentimes, our judgment of each other has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to be the norm. This is a serious mistake! It is like judging the quality of life in a community by the existence of murder, rape, drug addiction, etc. We have to school ourselves to see things that the extremes are rarely practiced and the extremists are, indeed, very little minority. By highlighting the extremes, we are actually engaged in peddling those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex.

Moreover, in the cases of the world of Islam, there is the urgent need to distinguish the religion of Islam from the practices of some Islamic States. We do not judge Islam by the practices of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the “fundamentalists” in many countries today. We must not succumb to the temptation to believe that extremism is in some way the hallmark and essence of Islam and/or Muslims. In the first place, extremism is not the monopoly of Islam. Religions and ideologies including Christianity have their share of extremism. The good news is the fact that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims are moderates in their politics. Theirs is the religion of the “middle way” or moderation. Thus, if we are to understand each other, we must learn to distinguish clearly between the vast majority of believers who are moderates and the terrible violence of a small minority who are known as “Extremists.”

The challenge to us today is to learn to understand each other, and to educate our children – a new generation, whose attitudes and cultural outlook may be different from ours – so that they understand too. We have to show trust, mutual respect, and tolerance, if we are to find the common ground between us and work together to find solutions to the many and varied issues that divide us. We can no longer afford to stand apart from a common effort to solve our common problems of “unpeace” and lack/little development.

Understanding and movement toward peace has to be two-way. Each of us needs to understand the importance of peace, reconciliation, and development. There is the necessity to open our minds and unlock our hearts to each other. The Arabic word for this is “TADABBAR”!

Of late, religions have become prominent again both in the resurgence of conflict as well as in peace building worldwide. This phenomenon is a shocking surprise to many who have believed religions have been relegated to the background. The secularist worldview believes that “ideologies (state socialism, secular democracy, nationalism, etc.) has replaced religion as the prime ´ethos source' for many nations in the modern era“. This view is now being questioned as religion is returning to reclaim its previously prominent role in the triad of identities operating in most pre-modern societies: (1) political-national identity, (2) ethno-cultural identity and (3) religious identity.

The “return“ of religion in the public arena is no accident for the simple reason that religious identity permeates groups and it provides the well of assumptions that direct decisions and behavior.

Moreover, religion is intimately linked to ethnicity and culture. The combination of the three generates character and defines the style of relationships intra and inter peoples and communities. In contrast, national/political identity represents, directs and channels these energies into corporate relationships and decision making. The political identity and character of a group changes over years or decades. Ethnic identity evolves gradually over centuries. But, religious identity is relatively permanent over centuries and millennia.

What is emerging seems to be a global struggle between a secular nationalism and a religiously-oriented worldview to determine which will be the prime shaper of state ideology. As religion becomes more prominent it will factor more significantly into national and international conflicts. This process could be seen as a re-sacralization of national structures that were themselves created by religious forces, as Fuad Khuri notes: “ Hardly any nationalistic formulation has emerged in the world without religion playing a major role in clarifying its contents. Consider the rise of English nationalism and its association with the Anglican Church; or German nationalism and Lutheranism; or the French, Italian, and Spanish nationalisms and the consolidation of the Catholic Church; or Greek nationalism and the Orthodox Church of Byzantium; or, for that matter, American nationalism and the Protestant Churches. Religious symbols are part and parcel of the total symbolic heritage in which the national pattern is embodied“. (Khuri, p. 218)

Rationale for conflict is now shifting away from the need to "keep the world safe for democracy," "to promote the socialist revolution," or “to gain independence from a colonial power“, toward the call “to establish an Islamic state“, to expand a “Jewish state“, to preserve and expand a “Serbian Orthodox state“, to form a “Chechen Muslim state“, to “to establish a Bangsamoro state for Muslims in the Southern Philippines. Many current religious conflicts come from the desire to have homogeneous ethno-religious populations in states: a Catholic Croatia, an Orthodox Serbia, a Jewish state in Israel, an Islamic government in Algeria, a Christian America, an Orthodox Slovenia and Eurasia. The first adjective in each of the descriptions of these emerging political realities is religious.

David Steele notes that when the war in the former Yugoslavia erupted, "The presence of religious symbols, religious targets, and even religious leaders in the war effort served as indication that a form of religious identification had accompanied nationalism into the souls of even those who were avowedly nonreligious. Religious symbols appeared in many forms -- on military weapons and vehicles, in the use of the three finger cheinik sign (symbolizing the Trinity), and in signs of the cross which were carved or burned on the bodies of Muslim people" (Steele, "Former Yugoslavia," p.11).

An article published in the new Russian religious news journal, Metaphrasis, was titled, "The Orthodox Christian Faith is Playing a Special Role in the Formation of the Slavonic--Eurasian Ideology". The article stated, "With the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia the second international Slavonic-Eurasian Congress: ´50 Years of Victory Over Fascism and Contemporary World' was held in Moscow May 27 to 29 ..." The main motto of the congress was restoration of the Orthodox state, at least in the borders of the former Soviet Union. The final resolution of the congress read as follows: "It is the Orthodox Christian faith that should become the state religion of the Slavonic-Eurasian Union -- a reborn monarchic Russia and the USSR." ("The Orthodox Christian Faith ...") The Slavonic-Eurasian Union sounds much like the former Soviet Union in both ideological and geographical scope.

On September 1, 1995, Muslims in Russia held the first meeting of the new political party called the Muslim Union, to prepare Muslims living in Russia for the coming elections.

The Christian Coalition was a major player in the 1996 United States presidential elections. The nature of its religious influence is a concern to some religious minorities. In a recent American Jewish Council (AJC) meeting in Philadelphia a national staff council member of the AJC noted that, "America has ´never been a secular country, and it never will be' religious beliefs have ´always shaped the public dialogue'." Another staff member of the AJC noted the provocative statements made by Pat Robertson: "Only Christians and Jews should be entitled to hold public office" in America. (O'Reilly, p.E8) American Jews could wonder when that statement will be narrowed to "only Christians."

The Muslim communities in various secular western nations struggle with the degree of their political participation. In the United States, the Director of Islamic Studies of the Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations of New York, Imran N. Hosein, called for the political separation of Muslims. "When Muslims and non-Muslims coexist in the same state, political relations between the two groups are determined, bilaterally or mutually, on the basis of treaties and agreements. ... It is clear that Muslims cannot participate in the secular political system of North America in the manner permitted to them (and all citizens) without compromising their supreme loyalty to God and violating His commands regarding submission to political authority. Participation would also entail a violation of the example (sunnah) of the Prophet, who determined that Muslims must participate as a community, rather than as individuals, in a plural polity" (Hosein, p.53).

This interesting development directly impacts peace building. The “re-introduction” of religions in the public discourse is no longer considered as simple variable in the equation that go up and down depending of the moods and tempers of the protagonists. Today, there is a growing awareness that religions are considered neither simply a dimension in a conflict or peace building nor merely a mobilizing vehicle for national or ethnic passions. In fact, religious identity permeates groups and provides the well of assumptions that direct decisions and behavior of people, nation and communities (Roy Hange. The Curtain of Fire: Religious Identity and Emerging Conflicts at MCC Web Site).