Dialogue and terrorism ( by Dr. Francisco César Pinheiro Rodrigues)
15/03/2008

Today, as I was reading the text of a Jane Kinninmont interview with Moazzam Begg on the website www.opendemocracy.net, I felt myself tentatively returning once again to a topic already discussed in some of my modest articles.Moazzam Begg is a British Muslim who, after being detained in Pakistan, was imprisoned for three years in Guantánamo under the vague suspicion of being a member of al-Qaida, although no proof of this has ever been found. The British government insisted and managed to obtain his freedom. Following release, he wrote a book in which he recounts his experience and puts forward a personal view of the fight against terrorism. Hence the interest of the journalist in interviewing him.One particular point in the interview that drew my attention was his opinion that, even with terrorists, there should be dialogue. This opinion has been opposed by the American and British authorities, who cannot consider lowering themselves to the point of exchanging ideas with “vile and pitiless killers” or others of the same genre.Nevertheless, Moazzam Begg is right, although it is necessary to have a lot of guts in order to enter into dialogue with an individual who has ordered the killing of dozens of innocent people, given that terrorism is characterized by the exercise of indiscriminate violence, making victims not only of soldiers, but also women, children and the elderly.Why enter into dialogue with fanatical terrorists? Precisely because at least we will get to know the root cause of such hatred “at source”, without any personal distortions on the part of the intelligence services. Once known, perhaps something can be done to eradicate it. Without roots, the tree dies. This is a more direct method of getting to know the deep motivation that activates the arsenal of dynamite. It is possible that, listening to their complaints, we are able to agree with certain demands, even though we repudiate the methods used. And listening, without interruptions, to the complaints of terrorists, it would be difficult for them not to listen to what we have to say.In those cases where terrorism is strictly criminal in nature, interested in money, it is still possible to understand total refusal to enter into dialogue. However, it is not pure and simple gangsterism that has held the world in suspense. Gangsters do not blow themselves up. “Here one is dealing with “business”, let’s not exaggerate ...”Those who are more skeptical will say that most terrorist hatred is the result of deep-seated ignorance and fanaticism, against which little can be done, except repression. However, this is a mistaken view, because ignorance – any kind of ignorance – can be broken down or diminished with certain information and arguments (when impossible to deny), if presented in such a way that neither offends the sensibility of the listener, nor (a necessary precaution...) places the personal subsistence of religious leaders at total risk (I hope to be mistakenly cynical in saying this). Logical and perceptive reflection, on our part, regarding the opposing viewpoint may exert an influence on the most radical facet of “doctrine”, thus reducing its hostility. If it were always the case that ignorance is invincible, all schools attended by adults would close, their efforts being to no avail. It should not be forgotten that there are enormous differences in understanding the same religion between a semi-illiterate peasant and a theologian. Once he is duly convinced, his flock will follow him.Given that religions have the political influence that they have (for better or worse) throughout the world, I do not understand why the issue in question has been considered as almost “taboo” by the press. Respect for veneration and the personal intimate relationship between the believer and his or her God - a deservedly untouchable area, is one thing. Quite another is hostility assuming a very concrete form and being consequently of concern to humanity in general. If all forms of “energy” (and religion is one of the most potent) could be examined without fear of a bomb exploding in the hands of the examiner, why should the most influential belief systems, which are capable of driving the world towards war or peace, be exempt from such examination?It was recently reported in the press that an Afghan Muslim was sentenced to death, at a Muslim court, because he converted to Christianity. Through his association with a group of Westerners, on a humanitarian mission in the country, he ended up being convinced of the superiority (from his viewpoint) of the Christian faith, and changed religion, this being considered a crime according to Taliban legislation. Refusing to renounce his new faith, he would have to die. He only escaped the death penalty as international pressure, principally on the part of the United States, was immense. The conversion of this Afghan is proof that all religious convictions can be profoundly shaken or modified by discussion, knowledge and, principally, by example.I have absolutely nothing against any religion. I do not even have anything against certain kinds of fanaticism, as long as they are limited to the individual’s intimate personal relationship with his or her God. If a believer finds fulfillment in flagellating himself until blood is drawn, that’s entirely his own business. However, when he starts to whip his neighbors, the international community can and should intervene, as its mission is that of safeguarding the wellbeing of everyone – not the individual wielding the whip. Nevertheless, intervention should come about in an intelligent manner, through representatives specializing in the religion in question, not bureaucrats or the military. Such specialists would try to show the radicals that their interpretation is perhaps not compatible with the original intentions of the founders of their beliefs.