The theme of the dialogue was Countering Religious Extremism at the Grassroots Level. It was held at the Seoul National University’s Graduate School of International Studies, and was cohosted by the Korean Council of Religions for Peace (KCRP) and the Hangang Network, both organizations based in Seoul. KCRP brings together representatives from seven different religious traditions throughout Korea, ranging from Buddhism and Confucianism to Protestantism and Catholicism. Together in one place, the roundtable discussion permitted an exploration of the problems that lead some persons, especially the young, to turn to extremist, self- and other-destructive beliefs and acts. The panel also discussed how peaceable—faithful— alternatives might be supported at local faith-based organizations. The dialogue was quite fruitful, and helped generate greater appreciation of the struggles within each faith tradition and how those assembled might learn from each other how to creatively respond to those struggles.

While extremely valuable, the point of these brief notes is not to report on the discussions and resulting suggestions. Rather than providing details from those particular dialogue discussions, let’s seek to lay out the different kinds or forms of interfaith dialogue to help set a viable context and reasonable hopes that are appropriate to each. We can thus aid in advancing various forms of dialogue within and between peoples of faith. In short, the term “interfaith dialogue” is ambiguous and too often misleading, since it is used to cover a wide variety of interactions and expectations. Let’s consider the following four forms to help us unpack the term.

Interfaith Dialogue form #1: Persons from various and diverse religious traditions get together to talk, listen, and learn about other religions and groups of people. This form of dialogue typically assumes simple ignorance on the part of participants, and such dialogue becomes an important means of seeking understanding of other groups and belief systems, and thereby also of one’s own faith. This form of dialogue is represented by discussions with groups like the KCRP, where participants were encouraged to share and explain their own beliefs by responding to questions from one another (for example, what does “salvation” or “heaven” or “hell” or “justice” mean for each different faith). Such dialogue ordinarily involves a single meeting of persons who may not formally meet again.

Interfaith Dialogue form #2: Like form #1 the point of meeting in dialogue is to share a greater understanding of and appreciation for and with one another. But there is an additional commitment to continuing dialogue opportunities in order to develop and maintain personal relationships between the participants. Such regular dialogue represents more than an experience of listening and learning about each other’s faith. Rather, it is a chance to grow and mature together as persons of faith, and so requires a consistent commitment over time.

Interfaith Dialogue form #3: Like form #2, such dialogue sessions occur on a regular schedule. But the meetings are not open ended, like forms #1 & #2. Rather, these sessions are focused on reading together and seeking understanding through the sacred texts of all participants. For example, one or two sessions would be devoted to reading and discussing a selected passage from the Qur’an, while subsequent sessions would be devoted to reading and discussing a passage from the Jewish, Christian, or Hindu scriptures. By studying the different sacred texts, all participants can gain a better understanding of how the texts are being realized in daily life. As the cycle of study and engagement repeats, relationships deepen in shared narratives of faith and life.

Interfaith Dialogue form #4: Unlike forms #1-3, this form of dialogue focuses on co-commitments to specific actions of social justice, such as helping one another establish and manage schools or other educational programs of nonsectarian academic excellence; addressing the need for food, clothing, and shelter in some communities; organizing political action on key issues like refugee resettlement or reforming immigration laws; working to establish hospitals and health clinics where access is otherwise limited or nonexistent; establishing and managing summer camps for youth, especially those youth at risk. Thus, while forms #1 & #2 can lead to action (though specific actions do not necessarily follow from those dialogue forms), this form results in dialogue that necessarily flows from people working together to meet common needs. There is a certain complementarity when participating in activities for the benefit and blessing of all, while also seeking nothing in return. In such settings, learning from and committing to one another is unavoidable here, as there is reciprocity in being and doing, joining together in restorative justice. As proclaimed in several traditions, such heartfelt hospitality forms a sacred ground for “welcoming angels unawares.” The resulting experience in interactive dialogue is thus serendipitous, yet more important because of it.

These four forms are not meant to represent an exhaustive list of interfaith dialogue patterns, nor does the list mean to suggest that one can engage exclusively in only one form. Rather, the variety of forms help to clarify just what reasonable commitments and hopes are appropriate to each form, and so help prevent misunderstanding, confusion, frustration, or failure when engaging together in dialogue.

Finally, it must be understood from the start that there is one key caveat: in no form of interfaith dialogue is seeking to convert people an appropriate motivation or desire. Dialogue can never be about turning another into a copy of oneself. True understanding, the knowledge that is from above, is grounded in respect for one another, and the recognition that one is incomplete apart from each other, standing side by side—all being welcome, facing (or as in many traditions, “as if seeing”) the One with whom we all have to do.

It is easy to proclaim a certain identity in the abstract with words and symbols. The sincerity of such claims, however, can only be measured by comparing our actions with the core values of our self-proclaimed identities. The true test of belief is not slogans or dressing up in a certain way; the true test of our beliefs is in living up to core principles shared by all major world faiths such as upholding the sanctity of life and respecting the dignity of all humans.

We must categorically condemn the ideology propagated by terrorists and instead promote a pluralistic mindset with clarity and confidence. After all, before our ethnic, national or religious identity comes our common humanity, which suffers a setback each time a barbaric act is committed. French citizens who lost their lives in Paris, Shiite Muslim Lebanese citizens who lost their lives in Beirut a day earlier and scores of Sunni Muslims in Iraq who lost their lives at the hands of the same terrorists are first and foremost human beings. Our civilization will not progress until we treat the suffering of humans regardless of their religious or ethnic identity as equally tragic in our empathy and respond with the same determination.

Muslims must also reject and avoid conspiracy theories, which have so far only helped us avoid facing our social problems. Instead, we must tackle the real questions: Do our communities provide recruitment grounds for groups with totalitarian mindsets due to unrecognized authoritarianism within ourselves, domestic physical abuse, neglect of youth and lack of balanced education? Did our failure to establish basic human rights and freedoms, supremacy of the rule of law and pluralist mindsets in our communities lead those who are struggling to seek alternative paths?

The recent tragedy in Paris is yet another reminder for both theologians and ordinary Muslims to strongly reject and condemn barbaric acts perpetrated in the name of our religion. However, at this juncture, rejection and condemnation are not enough; terrorist recruitment within Muslim communities must be fought and countered by an effective collaboration of state authorities, religious leaders and civil society actors. We must organize community-wide efforts to address all factors that aid terrorist recruitment.

Ways of expressing support and dissent within democratic means

We need to work with our community to set up the necessary framework for identifying at-risk youth, preventing them from seeking self-destructive paths, assisting families with counseling and other support services. We must promote a proactive, positive government engagement so that engaged Muslim citizens can sit at the table where counterterrorism measures are planned and share their ideas. Our youth should be taught ways of expressing support and dissent within democratic means. Incorporating democratic values into school curricula early on is crucial for inculcating a culture of democracy in young minds.

In the aftermath of such tragedies, historically strong reactions have surfaced. Anti-Muslim and anti-religious sentiment as well as security-driven treatment of Muslim citizens by governments would be counter-productive. The Muslim citizens of Europe want to live in peace and tranquility. Despite the negative climate, they should strive to engage more with their local and national governments to help work toward more inclusive policies that better integrate their community into the larger society.

It is also important for us Muslims to critically review our understanding and practice of Islam in light of the conditions and requirements of our age and the clarifications provided by our collective historic experiences. This does not mean a rupture from the cumulative Islamic tradition but rather, an intelligent questioning so we can confirm the true teachings of the Quran and the Prophetic tradition that our Muslim predecessors attempted to reveal.

We must proactively marginalize decontextualized reading of our religious sources that have been employed in the service of perverted ideologies. Muslim thinkers and intellectuals should encourage a holistic approach and reconsider jurisprudential verdicts of the Middle Ages that were issued under perpetual conflict where religious affiliation often coincided with political affiliation. Having core beliefs should be distinguished from dogmatism. It is possible, indeed absolutely necessary, to revive the spirit of freedom of thought that gave birth to a renaissance of Islam while staying true to the ethos of the religion. Only in such an atmosphere can Muslims effectively combat incivility and violent extremism.

In the aftermath of the recent events I am witnessing, with chagrin, the revival of the thesis of the clash of civilizations. I do not know whether those who first put out such a hypothesis did so out of vision or desire. What is certain is that today, the revival of this rhetoric simply serves the recruitment efforts of the terrorist networks. I want to state clearly that what we are witnessing is not a clash of civilizations but rather the clash of humanity with barbarity in our common civilization.

Our responsibility as Muslim citizens is to be part of the solution despite our grievances. If we want to defend the life and civil liberties of Muslims around the world and the peace and tranquility of every human regardless of their faith, we must act now to tackle the violent extremism problem in all its dimensions: political, economic, social and religious. By setting virtuous examples through our lives, by discrediting and marginalizing the extremist interpretations of religious sources, by staying vigilant toward their impact on our youth, and by incorporating democratic values early in education, we can counter violence and terrorism as well as totalitarian ideologies that lead to them.

* This article by Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen was first published in Le Monde on Dec. 17, 2015.