At the Bosniak Institute in Sarajevo, a panel of experts discussed the role of interfaith dialogue in addressing violent religious extremism. By Angelika Hoerner, Tasha Fell, and Marko Kljajić On 2 February 2016 the international forum titled “Next Generation Democracy and Interfaith Dialogue – Response to Violent Extremism” was held at the Bosniak Institute in Sarajevo. Sponsored by the Foundation for Shared Societies and Values Sarajevo, a non-profit organization whose mission is to “promote a concept of shared societies” in Bosnia-Herzegovina and around the world, the forum engaged the topic of violent extremism in an era of globalization, the value of interfaith dialogue in reducing violent terrorism and religious radicalization, and the positive role religion can have in the creation of inclusive, tolerant, and pluralistic societies. To navigate the intimate relationship between faith and politics, with a focus on the compatibility and conflicts between Islam and Western liberal democracy, the Foundation invited Dr. Ismail Serageldin, former Vice-President of the World Bank and the current Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Prime Minister of Norway and Founder and President of the Oslo Center for Human Rights, and Dr. Hilmo Neimarlija, Professor at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo and Board Member of the Bosniak Institute. The panel was moderated by the Founder of the Shared Societies and Values Foundation Sarajevo, Dr. Zlatko Lagumdzija. The distinguished panel addressed what can be learned from the history of faith-based conflict and peace in Europe and the Middle East, as well as the practices and role of interfaith dialogue in reducing religious extremism. Based on their analysis they outlined the ways policymakers can elevate interfaith dialogue as a practical instrument for future conflict resolution and peace-building in Bosnia-Herzegovina and around the world. Dr. Serageldin spoke about the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal democracy. Referring to historical examples of tolerance in Islam – pluralistic societies during the Middle Ages, the contribution of Sharia Law to modern jurisprudence, and Islamic principles of free expression – Dr. Serageldin argued that Islam is organically democratic and Muslims have co-existed with other religious groups throughout history, thus refuting the popular misconception, used by populists and religious extremists alike, that Islam is anathema to Western liberal democracy. Dr. Serageldin told the audience that one of the core principles of Islam is the freedom of belief: to believe or not to believe is a private affair between the individual and God. According to the Quran, Dr. Serageldin explained, Muslims are encouraged to co-exist with other religious groups and maintain peace and goodwill. Given this rule, Islamic extremists, who preach and exercise violence against so-called non-believers, reflect bigotry and jingoism rather than Islamic principles. To clarify modern misconceptions about the rigidity of Sharia Law, Dr. Serageldin referred to the reign of Umar ibn Al-Khattab (634-644 AD), one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs in history, who, for his legal expertise and pious and just nature, earned the epithet Al-Farooq (“the one who distinguishes between right and wrong”). Under his rule, the empire expanded, and Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in harmony, each receiving fair treatment, social services, and protection according to the Muslim code. Citing the Treaty of Umar, one of the most progressive treaties in legal history, which granted religious minorities freedom of religion and security in Muslim-dominant societies, Dr. Serageldin stressed the responsibility of modern Muslim leaders to avoid rigid interpretations of Sharia Law and the need to mold core Islamic principles for current contexts. Freedom of expression is the first freedom of human existence because it guarantees all others, claimed Dr. Serageldin. On this topic, he shared his opinion on the Charlie Hebdo cartoon controversy and its tragic fallout. While he condemned the terrorist attacks against the satire magazine, he was also disappointed with the reaction of Western media and many non-Muslim political leaders because rather than condemning the cartoons as “hate speech”, they spoke in support of the cartoons’ publication on the basis of “freedom of speech”. Dr. Serageldin asked the audience, would their reaction have been the same had the cartoons been racist or anti-Semitic? Popular support for the cartoons attracted more attention than necessary and reinforced the position of Islamic extremists, who were able to represent them as an assault on Islam. While censorship is not the answer, said Dr.