Hello everybody my name is Jen cesari I am um a professor of religion and politics at the University of Birmingham and in the UK and at Georgetown University and I am the head of the section of religion and ir and it’s um a great pleasure to welcome you today to
The new session of our virtual book talk series on religion and international relations today we’re going to discuss the book of Michael dren the global politics of inter religious dialogue religious change citizenship and solidarity in the Middle East it was published by Oxford University press in 2023 we have three
Distinguished panelist or respondent to the book Peter K crosville from The Institute of international relations in Prague tan Kay from the University of Colorado Denver and net Sandal from the UN from ho hoo University so each of them will engage with Michael Ron book after we give him
The floor for 10 15 minutes to present uh his publication so Michael you have the floor for 10 uh 15 minutes great well thank you very much um thanks so much Joseline for the introduction and thanks to uh Isa for the organization but especially thanks to um this panel of experts it’s a
Humbling experience to have a group of Scholars who you esteem to uh to read your book so I’m very grateful for that and looking forward to the conversation so um I’ll just give a brief introduction to some of the major themes here of the book and then um yeah look
Forward to uh the the debate and dialogue with with others here in the panel so um this book explores uh the rise of what I call state sponsored interreligious dialogue initiatives in the broader middle east region over the last 15 years we’ve seen growth of a range of state-based initiatives in
Favor of religious tolerance uh and interreligious or Intercultural dialogue have the creation of centers like kaied in Saudi Arabia DED in Doha the Abu Dhabi form for peace and declarations like the human fraternity document the mares declaration and the common word letter and when I first started this
Project it seemed clear to me that these initiatives represented a new kind of institutional strategy that was being adopted by state and international actors to formally engage with religious communities in the region at the same time clear me that these initiatives were connected to broader impulse to
These initiatives but they also seem to have developed over time genuine religious and political content and they were drawing on new social practices and aspirations to do so so in order to make sense of these multiple layers the book builds a theoretical framework with three levels of analysis focused on
Considerations of political power ideas and practices at work in these initiatives these three dimensions are sometimes in ttention with one another but they’re also inevitably connected and one of the ways in which I see them connected is that all three can be linked somehow to the evolving response
By multiple actors to ongoing crisis of liberal democracy and the liberal International System which they had constructed these crises have provoked what uh is often tagged in our field as new post secular thinking about the role of religion and politics and new postsecular accounts of global politics
Which the book draws on in its theoretical framework and adopting this approach one of my goals has been to place the growth of interreligious dialogue in the region within large processes of global religious change within this perspective the recent evolution of dialogue in the Middle East can be seen to be not unique
To hislam but rather part of a global religious development in response to globally experienced dynamics of modernity so that’s a little bit about the broader research project let me now say something about the first layer of analysis in my framework which is that of geopolitics in political science uh
Recent work on inter religious initiatives in the region have been especially focused on questions about State interests and power dynamics which seem to be driving these initiatives forward and in fact the growth of state sponsored dialogue initiatives in the region could be seen as a concrete
Attempt by policy makers to craft a new relationship with religious actors and communities both on account of inceed security threats having to do with religion in a post 911 post Isis world but also at the same time a growing acceptance of the position that directly engaging with religious actors was
Necessary somehow for the achievement of a range of political and humanitarian goals whether that be on the environment conflict mediation uh or immigration in a number of these accounts the growth of interreligious dialogue can be seen as a result of the broader impulse of the modern nation state to manage domesticate and control
Religion and other Rel social forces we’re very much in the realm of what Elizabeth Shakin heard calls the Big R religion problem through interreligious dialogue States and international organizations have begun to construct what might be dubbed as a global religious engagement regime which legitimizes and establishes certain religious authorities and certain
Religious narratives while simultaneously exluding and delegitimizing others for the United States and Europe and a number of international organizations these interreligious initiatives and the formalization of policy positions which has gone along with it have served as a sort of pseudo Ministry of religious Affairs for the International
System for regimes in the region these dialogue initiatives have also been useful for states to maintain manage and promote certain religious authorities and narratives but also as Peter Manderville and shotti hamid’s work argues to utilize religion as a form of statecraft to accumulate soft power and extend geopolitical competition Qatar
And the UAE are important examples here now this strategic logic has led to a certain skepticism of interreligious Engagement it’s a worry that it is or has been easily instrumentalized by state Act to manage religious actors and religious communities and vice versa and we have this common epithet you hear
That these interreligious initiatives simply function as a form of religion washing now I think that this argument is important but also insufficient and that by itself the barebones geopolitical analysis misses other dimensions that work in these initiatives including the political and religious ideas which they bring forward
So we have to dig further into the substrata I live in the Mediterranean it’s all about the substrata here and here I detect especially over the Arc of recent declarations in the region elements of what I argue is part of a longer effort within Islam and other Global religious Traditions to respond
To processes of modernization modernization and all that that has entailed democratization globalization secularization and so forth so there’s a long run religious development at work here which has been pushed forward in important ways by the experience of violence but also by Democratic developments within Middle East societies themselves here I think ASA
B’s work on the emergence of a post islamist sensibility in the region remains important in this regard and in the book I focus especially on the development Within These declarations and initiatives of citizenship narratives what it’s often referred to as inclusive citizenship Within These declarations and what I refer to as the
Dignity Freedom citizenship principle which seems to emerge from them this principle has been increasingly articulated and embraced by a number of theologians and religious actors and cons consistently shows up in Progressive Development Across these declarations in the book I trace the idea through the Aman message common word letter the maresh Declaration a
Series of Alazar statements uh last decade and the human fraternity document among others and one of the things I find interesting is how much this idea of inclusive or what’s often times is referred to as active or full or comprehensive citizenship has been embraced within recent in religious in
Initiatives in the Middle East as the solution to really religious and political crisis and religious pluralism faced with a question of violence against religious minorities of religious and political instability and conflict the strengthening of citizenship rights and support for citizenship formation has often been posed as the answer as a strong model of
Political and religious development which responds to those crises in important ways therefore I read this body of actions and movements and ideas is striving to construct a credible and alternative vision of religious modernity uh and in the book I explore some parallels with the Catholic World which I think offens uh interesting
Perspective on uh on that construction in this light in the religious dialogue efforts in the region represent a breakthrough they’ve helped liberate religious authorities to reclaim a positive public religious role in their support for citizen rights and religious reform now part of the enthusiasm within official Islam today for dialogue and multi-religious Cooper
Operation I think must be understood within this perspective as perceived to be consonant with a project of religious renewal one which does not threaten but may even strengthen Orthodox religious moral sensibilities within society and I find something distinctively postsecular about this term the rediscovery of a great necessary role for religion in
Postmodernity as the original grounding for the rights and freedom and pluralism that moderns hold dear and I think you can see this especially with the use and development of the term human fraternity or as often has been posed Within These Declarations of social cohesion um solidarity Within These
Initiatives is often argued to be the necessary flip side to freedom and diversity and religion is proposed as offering a source for regenerating that solidarity and this is a classic position which we can find within the sociology religion stretching back to durkon and in this respect these religious actors and intellectuals are
Clearly making an argument that political crisis in the region and political crisis globally represent a religious crisis and therefore that political renewal requires religious renewal and the strengthening of religion’s role in space in the public sphere and that raises a number of interesting ambiguities which characterize not just these dialogue
Initiatives but I think a whole range of contemporary religious political projects which also propose to rebuild public religious Dynamics as a means to recreating a stronger moral foundation for exercising Human Rights and Freedoms in politics my colleague Christina stokle has captured this tension in what she refers
To as the rediscovery of article 29 of the universal Declaration of Human Rights especially by the rosian Orthodox Church which is her uh purview uh but also other conservative religious Traditions across the Globe article 29 includes a line about the duties of individuals to their community and the
Limitations to Freedom set by the just requirements of morality and public order in my book I document a number of religious leaders in the middle who have also rediscovered article 29 in doing so their support for inclusive citizenship and religious freedom is coupled with strong emphasis on duties and
Responsibilities and the role played by the state and religious authorities in generating political virtues and social cohesion few of these declarations it should be noted particularly those emanated from the Middle East mention democracy or recommend limits on state power now by naming these tensions I don’t want to argue that this
Ambivalence is necessary debilitating the Declarations do not condemn democracy and they’re not and they’re designed to orient diverse societies towards common ideals on citizenship pluralism and freedom and to motivate International cooperation on that basis and doing so I think these declarations have facilitated broader efforts by religious Traditions to come
To terms with late modernity and ways which preserve a strong religious account of society in politics while also promoting Human Rights and Freedoms as I conclude in the book the future of interreligious dialogue in the re region remains unclear even more so today given the tragic new violence in the
Region whatever its future may be however these initiatives I think remain an important stage represent an important stage in the global development of religion in late modernity and in international relations and I think they should continually require our research attentions and efforts and I’ll stop there uh for for
Time and pass over uh to the others for conversation thank you very much thank you thank you Michael um the floor is to Pete kville thank you thank you thank you very much dear Shin um well it is of course an honor for me to to speak in
This round table and and discuss a book that I read with one breath as as we say in my mother tongue um well there is a long list of reasons why anyone interested in religion and global politics should read this book uh but I want to highlight just three of those
Reasons um first uh as I wrote in my recent study in international studies review uh if you look at the academic articles published in the last 10 years about Islam and politics still around 80% of those focus on the negative aspects of Islam and on conflict um and
This book presents a very different picture and does so exceedingly well and this alone I think makes the book worth reading um uh secondly the the study is obviously heavily focused on the Islamic world but the theoretical chapters which constitute almost two-thirds of of the of the study are useful for anyone
Interested in in the Resurgence Global Resurgence of religion and I I believe there are very few studies out there uh that have succeeded in so organically connecting the desperate discussions about the new exil age po secularism and and multiple mod ities as this book has done I really enjoyed reading the
Theoretical part and the third thing that I really like about the book is uh uh that it skillfully avoids the Trap of an either or so either the success of the interreligious dialogue in the Middle East is uh due to a religious Resurgence or U as a it is a consequence
Of the state supreme argument so instrumentalization of religion essentially and and Michael demonstrates how these two elements intertwine uh in all those four case studies differently but also how they produce new unexpected outcomes that also tell us a lot about how religious communities respond to to the challenges of
Modernization and the possibility of a religious modernity is obviously the key underlying theme here and one that uh is fascinating at least for me and I hope for many others as well so congratulations on that uh I I found that really uh uh great too I really enjoyed reading it
But of course there are elements and arguments where I was not entirely convinced as is always the case and where I would love to hear more from from Michael um and I would like to mention perhaps two of those and perhaps then we can come to others in in the
Discussion now first uh the discussion about exclusivism inclusivism and pluralism which which is a central argument of the the study uh the study makes a subtle and nuanced claim that what we are seeing at the moment is an axial breakthrough uh a dramatic if incomplete shift in thinking about
Religious truth from exclusivism via inclusivism to pluralism um and the study uses the Catholic shift at the second Vatican Council as a historical example and to some extent also as a template uh um and as Christianity and global politics is my own research area I enjoyed reading about that connection that you make
There um but um you also argue or the study also argues that um that what the what the study describes um uh here and in relation to Islam is part of a global religious shift right so you make a broad argument not only that there is a shift an aial paradigmatic shift within
The Islamic world or within the Catholic church but that it’s an example of a broader Trend and I really wonder whether that really is the case uh especially when talking about the current Catholic church and the evolution within the current Catholic church now I would argue that what
Happened at the second Vatican Council was essentially an Embrace of inclusivism uh but certainly not pluralism and even after the council uh the church refused and continues to refuse to join acumenical bodies such as the World Council churches or the conference of European churches The ecumenical movement where I am personally also
Heavily engaged and invested in but the problem for me is even deeper and that is that what we have recently seen especially uh with Benedict the 16th but also with the growing opposition to Pope Francis is a reversal of the trend a certain backsliding towards exclusivism uh and a similar trend is
Visible in The ecumenical movement beyond the Catholic Church church with an intensifying struggle between the exclusivist and inclusivist position not to speak about pluralism at all so pluralism essentially is nowhere to be seen in in global Christianity I would argue today either in terms of the political steps by the religious leaders
Or in terms of the positions of ordinary Believers and instead what I see there is a general Retreat and weakening of The ecumenical movement and interch Christian dialogue and many would even argue that what we are seeing is the most serious crisis of The ecumenical movement there so in a sense the
Argument that the new AAL AG is bringing a new pluralist self- understanding of religious actors is increasingly contested I would say uh or even under a heavy attack attack so this I would say calls forth the question about whether what we see in the Middle East and the
Case studies that you so well describe is an exception from a global Trend or whether the back backlash that we see within Christianity is a deviation from the general Trend or perhaps my reading of the Christian situation um is may be mistaken right so I would like to hear
More about about that and the second point I want to make is related to the distinction or classification used or introduced by Elizabeth chuckman her where she speaks about expert governed and live religion right this this I’m I’m sure you are familiar with the distinction um and uh I would say that
The study is really strong in terms of expert religion so the analysis of interreligious dialogue as seen by the experts or by people from the Academia yourself included obviously uh it is also strong I would argue as far as govern religion is concerned so interreligious dialogue as defined by
Those in positions of power be those leaders of State secular power or religious leaders but thirdly there is the there is the question of lift religion and now of course you could easily argue that you have these two case studies for Kare in Algeria and the Adan found Foundation Lebanon and both
Of those are examples of lift religion but still both of these are very specific actors and relatively small ones so I wonder in how far you would be prepared to extend your anal is and perhaps more importantly also your conclusions about the increasing pluralism in in the Islamic world to the
Views and also political Behavior by ordinary Believers in in these countries so uh for it seems to me that what the case studies describe are in all four cases still examples of elite religion so either experts or those governing uh all those living in unique very specific
Communities so what about the masses uh is a similar Trend observable there and if yes or not no what what are the consequences then so that’s the second point I have a long list of other things that I love to discuss with you but again let me conclude my introductory
Remarks by saying that this is an excellent study that I really enjoyed reading and which I uh believe and Hope will soon become a seminal work on interreligious dialogue thank you thank you P before I give the floor to tan I want to inform our audience
That they can raise their hand and ask question when the Q&A comes or they can also write their question in the q& boxes that they can see at the bottom of their screen both ways are acceptable um toan please thank you thank you for the introduction and thank
You also inviting me to this discussion I’m I’m I’m looking forward to um to the engagement kind a couple things in terms of to kind of help you to frame where I’m coming from about some of my comments I want kind of tell a bit about my own
Positionality I Define myself as for now American mus Muslim of Turkish origin and I have kind of work and write on issues about Interfaith inter religious dialogue over I think 10 15 years and I also did practice some form some forms of interfaith dialogue and interreligious engagement as in American
Muslim context dealing with maybe American kind of Christians or American American Jews I have particularly invested quite bit time about the dialogue between American American Muslims and American American Jews and when I was cond ofed the this this impressive book I really enjoyed the interdisplinary era of scholarship
That you bring from not only from political science but religious studies history comparative religion kind of the philosophy I was kind of the amazed about the interdisplinary breath and I I really enjoy enjoy that I I I felt that the framework that I’m in the book and I
Will continue to vate that is essentially a political political frame and I think over the time my understanding or my Approach the inter religious dialogue and Interfaith dialogue canot evolve to be a bit more sympathetic to much more critical and the skeptical kind of perspective I’m
Not a cynic yet but I want to ask us to kind of think a little bit more kind of skeptic skeptically I will say that any Interfaith or inter religious dialogue that is beyond your neighborhood friendly Imam priest and Rabbi are getting together talking about their neighborhood issues anything beyond that
For any national and international actor engaging inter religious dialogue I will say that it’s driven by mostly in some cases exclusively political political interest and that the and my another question and my kind of the comments I will kind of try kind of force that particular kind of the perspective I
Will kind of frame my kind of the comments in three uh questions one is that the and I will post them in the chat as well one is that the I want to kind of ask whether that the frame that you are asking us to think about inter religious
Dialogue particularly post islamism and post secularism are the right frames I admire habas and bat’s work they are definitely kind of challenge us to think about philosophical intellectual futuristic possibilities but I kind of felt that kind of taking such a kind of the framework from narrowly defined philosophical and intellectual
Environment and try to kind of explain a global kind of the activities of inter religious kind of dialogue Maybe kind of the misapplying the kind of the frame framework it allows of course to think about us about the future possibilities but I’m also I think being a more kind of skeptical I’m also
Getting a b more skeptical about as us as social scientist to understand what’s going to happen 100 years from 100 100 years from now it allows a bit more long-term mism and again just allow you to say some about the possibilities but again it may not necessarily for me capture what I
See inter religious uh dialogue activities political framework and captures much better to build on that I will say that my second question is that the as you are kind of thinking about these possibilities whether there are some definitional and case selection issues are built into into that I felt that
Your definition of inter religious dialogue is fairly neutral it doesn’t necessarily involve a normative framework but your broader discussion it just definitely put it in a progressive emancipatory framework kind of talking about and your case studies help with that much more democratic expanding the citizenship emancipatory kind of the
Framework I one of my identities at least until last month was an elected official in United States I sered a school board and I was kind of amazed how that I’m getting very similar emails from Evangelical Christians and from conservative Muslims about their fears about that the lgbtq Canada rights and
Increasingly what I’m seeing is that the Evangelical Christian uh discourse about that and that the conservative Muslim discourse are kind of converging and it’s not going to surprise me that these people are actually talking to each other learning from each other kind of feed into each other’s anti-lgbtq kind of the
Sentiments just kind of thinking about American politics I kind of see that such a kind of the convergence may have kind of quite bit political implications as we are into a presidential cycle but my broader question is this is that the if a group of Christians and Muslims get
Together and talk and they canot converge about a pro lgbtq agenda I think your framework nicely captur that but if they convert into anti-lgbtq agenda you will have kind of the hard time to kind of the capture that and when I kind of think about the politics
I see more of the later lots of convergence on a partic social conservative agendas among the religious actors and religious conservative people as opposed to emancipatory can of framework I’m not necessarily sure how that kind of reflect onto kind of middle kind of the space but again since your framework also as
Peter nicely said kind of has kind of theoretical underpinnings I want to bring that to the table and then the third issue I want to bring is that the as I mentioned I invested quite bit time about American Jewish and American Muslim dialogue an issue that I cannot talk
Comfortably now because I kind of feel that if I kind of talk I can of the either elate and just kind of establish quite bit break between my American Muslim communities and if I canot talk in some Ma I will definitely establish some breaks with the American Jewish
Communities and it ask me question is that why is it so difficult to be able to have a sustained engagement interreligious engagement between American Muslims and American Jews which in not all but in many respects kind of they share similar positionality in American politics as religious kind of minorities and in
Terms of theology there are many more commonalities between Judaism and Islam compared to let’s say that the other kind of Faith Traditions but then again it’s just kind of very very difficult and the difficulty is not that they are not interested in the difficulty is that the broader political framework is not
Going to be able to allow any meaningful suain kind of dialogue between between them all this kind of tells me either about the you know post islamism post secularism are good Frameworks but it allows to Discount the actual politics can of happening can of some we need to
Be kind of cautious and the progressive bias May kind of lead us to see some political engagements some inter religious activities not the others I kind of ask to be cautious about that and then the third for me is an as an American Muslim just kind of my inability to engage in meaningful
Interreligious dialogue in this political climate because something happens in Middle East has kind of repercussions tells me political framework are good us to still consider as as as core Frameworks I’m looking forward to engagement and again thank you Michael for the book Thank you thank you tan and N the floor is
Yours thank you very much much Joselyn and thank you so much Michael again for inviting me to this discussion U your book was already on my to read list but this gave me a push to just finish it um uh in time and uh critically reflect on
It so Michael uh did not of course have the time but also he’s very humble so he did not mention the extensive field research he has done for this book which I would say is like I I was really impressed and I love reading books that include so many interviews and personal
Interactions so I learned a lot just to give a quick sense to folks who haven’t had a chance to read the book yet um he says that over a fiveyear period from 2 to 2014 to 2019 um he has conducted multiple um short trips to Egypt Jordan UAE Austria
And Qatar and longer States in Algeria and Lebanon and conducted um 153 face to face interviews so and when you look at the case studies you see the richness and um the sophistication of this type of research and I really especially learned from those um chapters so um
Like Tran said I will also a little bit talk about my own background um I am also an American of Turkish origin and uh I have conducted extensive research on Northern Ireland especially in the context of interfaith inter inter um but let’s call it Interfaith because it’s not necessarily interreligious um and I
I continue to study turkey and uh religion and politics uh within the context of uh the Middle East so um like uh Peter and tan I have a long list of questions I wish we could discuss for 10 hours maybe over some wine but um I will
Just uh summarize the main points of interest to me and maybe we will have time to engage maybe Michael you will have time to engage those but if not uh I would look forward to some follow-up conversations so um my uh first one is I’m really fascinated by how these um
Initiatives uh interact with the role conceptions political role conceptions of the states especially in the post Cold War World um you talked about uh the religion washing which is really a fascinating term um for example for turkey I recently completed a project where I looked at um trying to navigate
The Muslim leadership identity and discourse whereas keeping the NATO identity so what are some roles that can accommodate both of these identities well you know mediators or conflict resolution or this interreligious and that interreligious um discourse within the context of turkey has not ended yet it continues you know I mean there are
Like ups and downs of it but that gave turkey a convenient identity um given these conflicting role conception same with Qatar right I mean you have the Muslim Brotherhood background coming up sometimes and you need a more um neutral identity if possible so some of these interreligious
Or mediator positions how much of it and I I share trans perspective a little bit like I I see those as More instrumental political moves um that’s will help these states justify their influence in the system so I’m F I would be more interested in hearing about that um and
Also in the book you make multiple references to gulan community community his met movement which actually LED this interreligious uh conversations for some time and probably still leading um but I am also interested in your views about how does that fit into like Turkish State discourse on interreligious and then you come down
Really hard on this group that actually spearheaded these conversations so you see this like State identity in a way oppressing or trying to exclude that discourse which once you know it was intertwined I remember when I first started my Graduate Studies in um California I went to a Turkish Festival
Which was like thousands of dollars actually it was hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on that and it was Turkish like State and Gan Community together his met mov together organized it so from those days of inter religious discourse Interfaith dialogue to today’s world where his m m has been declared a
Terrorist organization by the Turkish State and another interesting point there is um I’m also interested in rights of like Christians and uh Jews in turkey and I have again recently completed a study with my colleague arer so we did lots of interviews and some of the interviews are um interviewees who
Were Christians mostly said that now that there is the Gan community and the Kurds who are the enemies in courtes Christian and Jewish identity is mostly Des securitized so the government has been much more receptive to this Muslim Christian type of understanding and discourse because Christians are not seen as the
Other as much as the new others anymore so that was an interesting Dynamic uh that may be interesting to um Explore More another um my third I have five points my third uh question was do these and you mentioned this I think there’s a uh quote by
Mjar it is said that Christian theology is not the same since the Holocaust and in indeed Muslim theology is not the same since 911 so for these inclusivist uh interpretations to come up do we need always like an exclusive other so that the inclusive ones will step up and say
This is not about that only right so I saw that’s my argument actually in my book about Northern Ireland um initially in 1960s you wouldn’t see politicians or even religious mainstream religious leaders talking about conflict resolution but then you had Ian pacley who with his really radical Evangelical
Discourse tried to occupy that space with aggressive um statements and then mainstream religious leaders who once said that this political situation has nothing to do with religion started to change their tone and they tried to balance that aggressive pacely discourse so are these reactions to certain
Dynamics and in some parts in the book you mention that they are related but I was wondering whether we can um have a even like a tentative causal relationship that when there are more exclusive statements then the moderates will need to come up with some sort of
Discourse um the uh Poore is fascinating I mean I had heard of it but I didn’t have a chance to read more about that and then you talk about like how like the they are in Turkey too and someone experienced this in turkey and then they
Went to Algeria so I mean I would love to hear more about that it was really amazing and the more I read about that I was thinking whether um a theology can exist outside of belonging to one religion because in certain parts you mention there are multiple quotes like
Um like this is not this is the kind of spiritual interior experience I wanted to have and I could not find that experience in the practice of Christianity or Islam and this is something that blends things together and makes a consistent whole and certain parts it made me think maybe this is the
New theology or theological approach that is not Muslim or Christian by itself and that doesn’t exclude those identities you can be Muslim and you know Al be practicing this type of theology but maybe I mean I’m um it’s not an appropriate perspective but it made me think about that and
Um to my final point just to close the first round um so you have also closed links to Adan Foundation Adan right um and it was also a fascinating um topic to read about and one thing I’m I’m really curious there since you have so much experience not just with in the
Context of the book but I think you serve as a consultant for them advisor for them as well so how do they navigate the sectarian politics of Lebanon and you talk about like they’re also close to hisbah circles and falah so as you try to do things and more
Active as you become more active in the public sphere don’t they draw the eye of certain um interest circles be it you know the Shia or the Sunni groups what how do they deal with that in a highly polarized environment where I mean access to Services has been
A big challenge so far so governance is really weak there are multiple problems so I would imagine that not everybody would be very happy about their existence or the links they are forming and they would question oh you know they are close to these circles there must be
Iran there must be Saudi Arabia someone funding there so I would love to hear more about those details within the context of Adan um again I can continue for half more hour but I will stop here thank you so much Michael this really gave me a lot of Food For Thoughts um
And I highly recommend the book to everyone who is interested in both firstand accounts of experience with these uh organizations but also um have a review of what is going on I mean I consider myself pretty well read on inter interreligious Interfaith dialogue but I learned a lot so thank you thank
You very much for the opportunity thank you thank you net so Michael I give you the floor if you want to address some of the points I have some of my own but let’s go I mean let’s give a and go back to you and for the
Second round uh I may had a few comments please go ahead thank you very much um so lots of comments and uh thank you it’s uh it’s really um it’s a treat to have somebody engag with your with your thinking so let me um let me try to respond to a few
Of these I I won’t be able to get to all of them but let me just try to pick up on a few of these points um first uh maybe to Peter on um very well taken uh questions here on um you know potential backsliding this question between pluralism inclusivism
And exclusivism let me just say one thing about that um I if in the book and and want to be careful here in the book I don’t think that the actual shift is necessarily to a type of pluralism of all where all belief systems and theologies are equal
Type of aism um I actually think that what we see most emerging is is a kind of inclusivism which see sees positive veilance within uh plurality and that can go in different directions so um I I don’t and and maybe this didn’t come off
As well but um I I don’t think that the the the predominant shift is to pluralism to cour sort of you know the pluralism of aans kung I I think you’re absolutely right within the Catholic church but also within the um within the groups that I’m looking at within the
Middle East and the Declarations they cannot be described as as plurals and what they can be described as is seen positive veilance in the other and recognizing a spiritual and Theological legitimacy to other so that that’s a that’s a big shift away from exclusivism um and I think it’s new I think it’s
Part of this new interreligious dialogue Global interreligious dialogue movement but is also somehow interacting with modernity that inclusivism however um uh which I try to also um articulate it creates and creates tensions and ambivalence and I try to as I emphasized in the presentation a little bit but
With you know this article 29 which I think is really interesting the the way in which um and you see this within the Russian Orthodox Church which I it’s so interesting that you see they have picked it up word for word within a number of these declarations as well
That article 29 of that uh of the universal Declaration of Human Rights gives cover for uh or or unleashes or liberates a a really strong religious message right so it’s it’s a Within These interreligious dialogue movements it’s it’s it’s pushing for a positive veilance of the religious other but it’s
Also reestablishing re reaffirming the centrality of religion within uh the public sphere and and I think that centrality is should be seen as uh within I think more than inclusivist stage but I think inclusivism itself is is sort of limited within that um so that means that depending on on the
Context and depending on how it is further developed that amb because it’s ambivalent um it can go in a more conservative Direction it can go in a more liberal Direction um and so you see the Russian Orthodox Church I think in sto’s work is very interesting I think
Earlier in earlier versions of our work we much more saw that articulation as potentially moving towards a more liberal understanding from within the Russian Orthodox that was one possibility but it didn’t go in that direction obviously um and so you also have this more conservative possibility
And I see that certainly within uh these declarations as well uh shik Abdullah bbea who’s I spent quite a bit of time looking at I think he’s very ambivalent about you know I mean uh where the the further development of Bay’s thought he’s elderly now but those who take over
His thought I think um it’s not clear you know I mean he can he can easily be used for very conservative um arguments uh as well so um uh so the inclusivism the scene of the other as seen of plurality as as a good doesn’t necessarily mean Progressive and liberal
It can also mean it can also be a conservative um uh a deeply conservative uh position as well um so that’s one thing uh maybe just one thing on the lived religion it’s true um h um I would say that um you know obviously my
Attempts to to get at some of that Rel lived religion was within uh by looking at these case studies so you know nit was talking about Adana and folar they’re small limited you know groups right so this is uh this is clear and one of the things that I’m trying to do
To bring this research forward um is to uh chart out pluralism as an attitude within Middle East societies more from statistical take so looking at different dimensions of religious pluralism how that’s viewed within Society I’m hoping that will help me get at some of this
How much of this has also been um uh reflecting shifts within Society um and and we’ll see we’ll see how how much Echo it has and how much uh you know how how how much limited is but let me use that as a as a bridge to one of uh at
Least one of Tan’s uh wonderful points thank you so much tan lots of uh Food For Thought here um but maybe just one thing on on on on um on post islamism and also B’s work here I do continue to think and this is connecting also to Peter’s question about the lived
Religion or how much of this is coming from within societies um even if we don’t see mass-based interreligious dialogue as a movement right within uh Within These societies although you have elements of it in some places I mean gulan I’ll get to gulan in a little bit gulen was certainly represented that on
Some level um another one of our research projects ongoing research projects just looking in Indonesia particularly at the role that religious dialogue is plain within movements like Nat and you know muhamad where there’s an important aspect there as well but um within the idea the framework of of post
Islamism I think one of the useful things is that it does recognize uh this still present within middle EAS societies this this shift towards um positive attitudes towards democracy so um that’s not necessarily dialogue but I think there’s a connection there I think that the um dialogue is also responding
To that I I really see particularly Within These dialogue initiatives leaders like Shena and others um responding to the social aspirations which uh were emanating from the Arab Spring and which by it I think really captures well U so the dialogue that these declarations are also a response
To that some people argue they’re a kind of revolutionary respon or sort of keeping away further change by uh recognizing religious plalism recognizing religious fism uh really pumping up discourses on citizenship but I think that they are directly respond to those shifts so the the the long-term democratization within democratization
Of attitudes within Society even if that’s not at the institutional level I think is certainly um uh certainly pushing driving these initiatives um so I I agree with you the political context is key uh the much of this has been pushed forward through the geopolitical uh context of the region uh
State interests especially at the expert level um but through the use of postsecularism post islamism I I wanted to try to get at some of those social shifts that were also happening underneath it the long run social shifts that I think also need to be uh need to
Be present on the question of progressive conservative I I tried to say a little bit about how I think this can also be uh you know conservative on no group uh you know I’m not uh I’m not as familiar with inter religious dialogue in the in in the United States
So um but no group that I looked at had any pro LGBT um you know message you know so none of these dialogue even the most Progressive ones uh within the Middle East generally stayed away from that because of uh of how difficult it was to to speak about that within uh
Within the context that that but one of the things I I found I find still so interested is how over the last 15 years you do have very again I’ll use this term conservative religious leaders within the Middle East who sort of have a change of perspective on pluralism uh
So in the the in the chapter on kaied in Saudi Arabia I think that comes out quite a bit they remain conservative Muslim Scholars you know F sort of jurist prudence Scholars but 15 years ago they completely rejected dialogue as a position and now they’re participating
In them so it may be a small change but I think it’s a significant change um and again not necessarily a progressive change in the sense of the progressive the progressivism which we refer to in the United States but Progressive in the shift in the sense of moving more
Towards a positive view on plurality which I think is is significant um very interesting comments on American uh Muslim and Jewish dialogue um the book wasn’t about uh what didn’t concentrate on Muslim Jewish but I think it’s very important if we have time we can come
Back to uh question on the Abra than the Abraham Accords where I think it does play a very important role um uh also within my book um for time sake I’m going to move to a couple of points from nuket um uh thank you very much very interesting uh questions all around
Um I this idea of uh of roles I think is is is nice and and I think you’re right I I I I I agree with that that on one level if we look at just the instrumental use of inter religious dialogue which is an important dimension
Of of of the theory um it plays a useful role it really does allow Qatar or the UA to unlock certain uh quandries uh they can project themselves as um fully Muslim uh but at the same time uh you know uh pursuing a human rights agenda
Um and at the same time um you know uh really keeping on to their traditions and to their um within Society so I think I think that’s right I think the it’s a key it’s a really interesting key which which enables them to go from what
Which I think was you know 10 years of a very defensive posture within the region you know always constantly having to defend Islam from from accusations of violence and whatever it was this enabled them to move on the offensive so to speak you know take a positive you
Know it’s a flip of a switch in some ways we are off we are proposing that Islam is needed somehow that religious renewal is needed for you liberal Democrats in the west which are having this major crisis uh you don’t have solidarity you don’t have all sorts of
Things we offer something to that we offer um a way to um deeper foundations maybe for human rights which uh which you need to remember on some so I think it’s that that shift I think is a very important aspect of this um gulen uh yes um gulan is certainly very important and
And was so key in so many I teran’s the right person to ask this too who wrote a lot on this uh you know in the early uh 2010s they were an avatar for not only for inter religious dialogue but also for you know the type of Muslim
Democracy that uh people were hoping uh was sort of happening or or being created in Turkey in the early 2000s um and that body of work I think remains important even if uh things fell apart and and you have this uh you know have this uh have this conflict and among a
Lot of the dialogue Scholars they still referred to a number of those different ideas and to the to the the development of that connection which I think is uh you know I think is is is very important um part of my attempt here was to uh to
Look at the where the center of gravity shifted afterwards you know so what you know how places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and others sort of uh took up that discourse and pushed it into different different ways um but I also think that
It’s uh you know and I I try to do this in the book and maybe it didn’t come out as much I think it’s also necessary to look at the the the fail failure of that project on some level you know Turkey uh you know as you said criminalized gulan
And um I think tan I could say much more here but has you know largely um even though dialogue is still there as you say but it’s nowhere near what it was 15 years ago so I mean um and very um problematic uh it’s seen as problematic
As as you know uh as a as a place of foreign imposition or or as a foreign intervention among other things it’s still there but it’s you know there’s there’s a there’s a hostile stance towards interreligious dialogue that is um that has crept up and so we know that
States can shift that discourse over time uh and that raises questions about the future of dialogue in places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia will Muhammad bin Salan uh decide that this is no longer useful uh given the context of Israel I think this speaks to Tan’s point and um
Shut that down I think that’s a possibility that uh we need to think about um two small little uh notes and then I’ll let send it back to josn just because these were so rich um yes and Norland Island thanks so much for bringing that up it’s a really nice
Connection um I do think uh and and maybe my recent thinking this has come out even more so there the the development of interreligious dialogue um in multiple locations is connect is somehow connected to experiences of violence uh you know we really can’t think about a dialogue but also democracy in the
Christian Catholic context in the 1960s without understanding the mega violence of World War II that is that is the you know that’s the foundation the if if it had not been for that violence I don’t think the Catholic Church would have uh democratized I think their the preference through World War II was
Really for a conservative a more conservative authoritarian government um and if they would have gotten you know so they were pushed on some level uh for a number of different reasons you know it wasn’t the only thing but there were certainly push to stake out a different
Position uh and to use other resources which were there um and I I think we you know I need to be careful we need to be careful about retrofitting or you know these comparisons can you know we don’t want to I don’t want to put uh you know
You work on both Christianity and Islam so you we want to be careful that to assume that that’s what Islam is doing but I do think that this dialogue the inter religious dialogue moves which I um describe in the book uh cannot be fully understood without uh without
Reference to 9911 in the Islamic State and you know that quote I was I I thought was really pregnant with with meaning in that sense um but not just violence I mean I I think there’s also other things going on again both the Islamic State and the Arab Spring you
Have to understand you know the both of those things going on at the same time they’re they’re developing together somehow and that was also the Christian experience there was also a pre-World War II pre-or war I Democratic Christian thought which was already developing and and it was sort of ripe at the
Uh was right to be used at the time of after World War II maybe just final thing on the Adan Foundation um er yes um that’s a very difficult um task for them to navigate those uh those Dynamics and um and the more in which they have
Become uh prevalent in the public sphere the more in which that has become difficult so you know your intuition is correct the more in which um but that said they have done something I think which is unusual and I think in a religious dialogue again shows it sort
Of usefulness if we can use that term not necessarily an instrumental sense but the way in which they have avoided being pegged as secular or liberal or being bought by outside they’ve always been very clear about their religious public religious project that this is for the good of religion itself you know
They’re not trying to instrument and I think that has given them an enormous uh legitimization um and they have a really sought out friendship with religious leaders and different uh religious traditions and that’s also been you know the they built up relationships for 10 years with really high-placed shiks and
Imams and Theological uh institutes which uh in which they bought credibility that credibility I think over time is again has they become more um more relevant and the protest following the the explosion the youth protest following an explosion over the last couple years which they um participated more openly in um has
Somewhat changed the position in that sense uh because of how they became much more identified with that civil uh Society movement um love to talk more about the falari because they’re super fascinating and your comments are very relevant but um I want to open up to other questions as well thank
You thank you thank you Michael while we are waiting for feedback or question from the audience um um allow me to say a few things first I would like to Second the the praise you got from our colleagues I I it’s I think one of the first book that does a systematic work
To map what what is what is going on in this world of interreligious dialogue and and the empirical work you did so it does give a very Lively Flesh and Blood approach to interreligious dialogue uh I I am intrigued by the position I’m going to take it from your
Position that came in your presentation and I didn’t hear lots of question on that on pushing toward democracy or or this way of doing interreligious dialogue that is a way to um move toward democracy I have doubt about that lots of doubts for multiple reasons the first
One is um that first the Civil societies when they can breathe in lots of these Muslim countries are more open than we think they are through my own empirical Works through lots of surveys that exist there was the inclusiveness is not articulated or framed this way but is what we call
Sometimes you know uh religious competency of people and it does doesn’t show up at the level automatically of the public positions and and we we we should not underestimate that uh in the sense that uh the maturity of Citizen on the ground was already there and that this interreligious initiative doesn’t
Automatically uh mean that they are the lead in my opinion they are behind and they are taking advantage of that and in this uh in this regard everybody mentioned 911 as a shift and the Arab Spring and you show this pretty well in the book um so there is a need to posit
Muslim countes especially from the point of view of the leader in a more inclusive way but they that’s why they are tapping into initiative that may already be there um and in here I just going to run I’m not sure that post secularism is the
Best angle to look at that uh my own take would be more governmentality in the Fuko sense in the sense that we are witnessing here a connection between State action and some segment of the society but at the end of the day it’s for the the sake of maintaining the
State uh uh Power here and um and not really allowing for real inclusiveness or or or democratization um and again because most of these states you mention they are what I call a Gonic Islam state where where Islam is part of the dominant culture even if you
Are not a Muslim so what what’s happening in this new phase is trying to to tap into people mean well bay means very well but I’m not sure that the end the outcome of of what the state is positing itself on the Declaration of Maran minorities is really in the sense
Of pushing toward inclusion on the ground I am not convinced by that and that’s what I would call this governmentality uh in the sense that it doesn’t change much of of the status quo um so I I I stop here um if you want to to respond to that
Sure I uh just brief response to that and then um allow others as well but um yeah well as I mentioned you know presentation I mean in some sense I agree with you I I I democracy is not the main aim of these declarations particularly coming from Saudi Arabia
The UAE and and Qatar they you know they don’t mention democracy and in fact um in negotiations uh that was very clear this is we we this is not so there’s I would distinguish between you know in the Declarations themselves and in the process and then the intention of these
Um of these regimes themselves uh is not democracy uh it is um it is tolerance Perhaps it is but it is citizenship I so citizenship here is doesn’t mean necessarily democracy now they talk about inclusive Citi full citizen I think that creates contradictions but your use of governmentality could be
Well uh could could well describe this they want citizens who are actively participating in the life of the nation building project which they are uh you know tarq M has this very nice piece on this uh on Saudi Arabia sort of the modernization of of Saudi Arabia and and
The place that citizenship plays within that I think that somehow in religious dialogue declarations are playing into that they’re they’re trying to spur on among other things also uh this idea of citizens we need citizens even Within These authoritarian Nations now having said that um that creates tensions with the idea
Itself so here’s the here’s here’s where I maybe push back um not necessarily becoming Democratic I don’t think that that’s going to happen anytime soon in in Qatar or Saudi Arabia but they are they have been developing you know there’s I think there’s a progressive coherent development Within in these
Declarations as well certain ideas which are theologically coherent ideas hermeneutically coherent within the logic of of Islamic theology so um you know the idea of religious freedom I mean an idea of religious freedom that emanates from these I think is is powerful the idea of religious legitimacy of others um the the lengths
To which these declarations go to say that religious minorities need to be protected within our societies um and giving a chronic basis for that I think um and also for citizenship itself that citizenship is you know they they’ve all sorts of these Scholars have really pushed hard that this is an idea which
Is coherent within the long history of Islam you the Medina Charter or whatever um so those ideas are out there they’re sort of out into the system and given legitimacy by these uh declarations themselves and I think and somewhat at odds with the authoritarian designs of these states so I agree there’s an
Instrumental logic that the state is employing um it’s looking for Citizens uh who are inclusive and uh treat their uh their neighbors well um but not necessarily democracy but on the other hand there’s some development there which is being legitimized within society and I’m interested to see what
Happens with that I’m not totally sure um I would say in other places I and here context really makes a difference um in other places the de the Democratic element is much more Central so um again going back to the Indonesia which is the project which I’m working on right now
The in the humanitarian Islam it’s very uh explicit um how they see their interreligious dialogue um or the push for interreligious dialogue and the push for human dignity and and rights and religious freedom as connected to a democratic logic that democracy within that requires those things and that’s
Coherent again consistent with um with an Islamic theological framework um and uh they make Direct I very fascinated by this and in fact this is my next Research b but they make direct um channels they open direct channels to Christian democracy and doing so so um they I think they the humanitarian Islam
Project in particular recognizes themselves as being within a family of a philosophical religious family that we might refer to as religious humanism um and I think that’s um and gulen I think probably was as well uh you know at least philosophically could be understood within that project as well
So that remains there as a tradition and and I think that uh should not be forgotten within our debates um as well so I’ll just say that I see that Dave had a question on the chat I think he left but um so he he’s asking how Michael sees the
Demographic shift of Christianity and Islam outside of the Mediterranean region Loosely speaking impacting the future of interreligious dialogue and its Global foreign policy contexts well thanks Dave who’s gone uh no good question um well I I I have I have Reflections on that I’m not sure that would be the
First um uh the first question but I I wonder if on some level inter religious dialogue or in these declarations is part of a uh a wider Global reflection on the role of relig and mour so that this is one of my sort of bigger thoughts that runs through the book that
This is part of a of a broader reflection on uh public religious engagement and religion’s role in in in modernity uh and I think they’re reclaiming uh within the language within the international language of the that we use within the International System on human rights on religious freedom on
Citizenship the reclaiming a central role for for religion within that so religion is a positive force for modernity uh so that breaks with I think an international a more secular International discourse that modernization requires uh you know a much more secular public sphere secular policy makers and and so on so there’s a
Reclaiming and a positive note of that Central role of religion uh religion and modernity and I think that could be very attractive um to uh a lot of different uh you know societies beyond the Middle East and I’m very curious to see um you know in the next 30 years as power
Shifts to the global South that’s not quite the best term and as we know the global South is much more religious um if others will also be picking up on these kinds of ideas um you know you could imagine a more religiously authoritarian future but you could also Imagine a more religious Democratic
Future as well where religion plays a very important role uh in more democratic societies but also you know in uh in international relations among the regional politics among them where uh the the engage and the regional interactions also have a religious Dimension to them as we’re seeing I think within the Middle
East if I may had something on that I think we are witnessing both also the rise and I think Peter mentioned it of reactionary group it’s not just one way I think the fight is even not cross religion as much but within each of them on these two double Trend
So it’s not that one is taking over they are fighting and and and that this fight that I think would be interesting also to to observe because it is in in my opinion Central to the role of religion internationally can go both ways it’s not just one for democracy inclusiveness
Citizenship and one for violence and exclusion I think both are at play in each religious tradition and can be um part of strategy on on both ways and and and I I recognize that one book cannot do both but that’s what was you know like um it was for me the
Background that was missing too the fact that these movements are also happening on the background of very very reactionary intolerant way of living the same religion and again it’s not particular to Islam right now so um yeah if I if I may continue with with with with that uh line of argument and
Also connecting connecting it to Net’s argument about a question about the necessary existence of the other right with a question mark and this is really you know lies heavily on my mind because it seems to me that um you know the attempt of the interreligious dialogue actors to formulate an alternative
Modern project can very easily turn into creating or attempting to create an anti- liberal project right because the dominant one is liberal modernity project and this is really you know the main struggle in the Christian ecumenical movement at the moment right should we unite around as Christians uh
Around the secular the opposition to the secular liberal consumerist or whatever individualist whatever you want to call it and this is really tempting and and quite attractive and successful sometimes look at Victor Orban of Hungary right and his Christian democracy instead of liberal democracy and there you know coming back to your
To your book because I wonder because your argument if I understand correctly is that even if these state sponsored inter religious initiatives uh are you know uh you know simply scrapped by by the rulers because they say we don’t need them anymore as happened in Turkey
Still and correct me if I’m wrong still already the society is somehow fundamentally Changed by the debates by the discussion of the inclusive citizenship etc etc so there will be a lasting impact on the societies but I wonder right looking at Hungary for instance and the heavy support of this
Kind of illiberal turn there by the society uh as you know only in last let’s say in within 10 years such a radical change in the attitudes right so I wonder uh you know where you know what are the causes of your optimism there uh that it
Will survive even if the state the policy of the state changes but um but again you know I I think our discussion here shows that the book is so empirically rich and uh theoretically productive right for those who haven’t read the book all of our discussions are
Really related to the book because it’s all there right so so it’s fascinating but again a lot of questions there there for me thank you that’s very take U yeah I can this this makes me the entire discussion also makes me like there’s there’s so much more to be done
In terms of like how these inter religious dialogues actually may be a reaction to the inner other and sometimes it’s a good thing I mean you know and sometimes it is uh not as healthy I was thinking also about uh um the evangelicals reach out to patriarch
Kirel and how Russia had been like represented as this is the Christian how the Christianity should look like and the links between us evangelicals and the patriarch in Russia and I was you were talking about this in another platform a few weeks ago so the reason why these interactions dialogues
In some cases not all are so attractive is because there is more polarization within the religions than before so and that’s again I will uh follow Peter’s lead and say that you know the more questions a project can generate for future research the more successful it
Is I think and um as I was reading um Michael’s book and I was learning new things too I also had a chance to think about the things I do research on and see them from different angles so yes it’s a really rich book but I’m right
Now like questioning the um future of these and the Dynamics of these religious dialogues and the ones in the book are some of them are examples of that um I mean the Saudis being involved in this uh does that really mean that uh they will treat the inra Islam movements within
Themselves much more like smoothly or are they trying to control that spheres even more tightly and this is just a gesture to show that we represent Islam and we can reach out to others and of course it’s also the new world and you mentioned this in the book it’s part of
Like post islamism yes post secularism there is so much communication democratization of certain Networks and it becomes even more difficult to control the dissenting voices in a religion so you may want to reach out to those um outside outside actors who were once others because your new others are
Actually within the religion that’s my but again thank you Michael thank you so we are nearing our time together um tan you have been very silent anything you would like to add or I mean you don’t have to thank you thank you for the opportunity this has been a great
Discussion and I enjoy learning and just kind of meeting some of my colleagues that I admire their work and just kind of looking forward to more opportunities to engage thank you thank you um so Michael we give you the last word before closing up uh
And um oh for the people who are still with us we’re going to have before I give to Michael the last word we’re going to have a session on February 1st on contextualizing sectarianism in the middle east and south Asia which is also a new book by Young Scholars so stay
Tuned for the next session but Michael please wrap up bring us to a temporary closure let’s put to a temp yeah these require much longer conversation so I I really appreciate because this is stimulating all sorts of things in my mind as well um one thing I would say is that it’s uh
I I agree with what Peter you know that my mind is oftentimes going to the debates within the United States about post- liberalism you know that Orban looms heavy in a lot of my uh my thinking um and his use of Christian democracy his abuse of Christian democracy it’s clearly not Christian
Democracy but um so it it’s clear that these ideas can be taken in different directions and that the state can capture them as well and when state power captures these ideas um they can get shut down I mean turkey and Hungary I think are good examples of that I do
Want to push back on the um or at least at least to give a I think that that by itself though needs some qualification I I I also think that these ideas as I say are out there somehow um and they’re powerful and that we often times
Underestimate them uh when we think that you know this is just I don’t think that Saudi Arabia can necessarily control uh some of the religious ideas that is pumping into the system I think unexpected things may happen as it uh as it encourages its uh subjects to become
Citizens I think that um so I think that’s going to be interesting to see so they’ve invested millions in in dialogue and you know let’s see um that said the overwhelming power of the state I is clear and and I don’t want to you know argue with that um so maybe I’ll leave
It uh there I think it opens up for yeah for all sorts of uh new places I would say that Orban himself uh interestingly visited Aladar recently uh and had a very interesting uh conversation with Al tayab uh who is the uh you know face of the human fraternity document and and he
Found a lot of uh interesting common points to talk about including uh family value so um again signs that this dialogue Enterprise can go into multiple Dimensions so I’ll leave it there but thank you so much I really uh look forward to sharing more time with all of
You and uh uh taking your um your your Reflections in consideration for where I’m going next thank you thank you so let’s hand up on this positive and optimistic note of my um and thank you all for joining us today and thank you to the panelist and thank you Michael for sharing the
Findings of your book with us so we are closing now be well and see you to another session maybe thank you so much Joselyn for moderation bye thank you Joselyn thanks everyone and thanks to our listeners too thank you bye bye
source
