The Asymmetry of Tolerance: Europe, Islam, and Faith’s Future

Introduction by Nick Sasaki 

Welcome, friends. Today we embark on a journey through one of the most profound paradoxes of our time: the asymmetry of tolerance between Europe and the Middle East. In Europe, Muslims worship freely, build mosques, and shape cultural life openly. Yet in many Middle Eastern countries, Christians cannot do the same — restricted to private prayer, silenced in public, and barred from influencing the wider culture.

This series of conversations asks the uncomfortable but necessary questions: Should tolerance be unconditional, or must it be reciprocal? Does migration enrich a society, or does it risk unraveling its identity? Can secular law and Sharia coexist within the same public square? And in a globalized world, will religions clash, or can they grow together into a more compassionate whole?

We will hear from voices of faith, critics of religion, philosophers of law, and defenders of culture. Each will bring their wisdom — and their disagreements — to help us face the question that defines our century: how do we live together when our deepest values collide?

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event)

Topic 1: The Asymmetry of Tolerance

We’re here today to wrestle with a paradox that many people hesitate to confront: in Europe, Muslims are free to worship, build mosques, and practice their faith openly. Yet in much of the Middle East, Christians cannot do the same. This “asymmetry of tolerance” is one of the most provocative cultural and political tensions of our time. Should tolerance be unconditional, or must it be reciprocal to survive? With us are five voices representing diverse perspectives: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Karen Armstrong, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Douglas Murray, and Yuval Noah Harari.

First Question: Why does this asymmetry exist, and is it fair?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
This asymmetry exists because Islamic-majority countries prioritize religious identity over individual rights. They do not see religious freedom as a universal principle but as a threat to their political and cultural stability. Europe, in contrast, has chosen the path of Enlightenment values, but that generosity is not being reciprocated. I find it profoundly unfair. Reciprocity must be demanded; otherwise, tolerance becomes self-defeating.

Karen Armstrong:
I see this less as hypocrisy and more as differing historical paths. The Middle East has been scarred by colonialism and foreign intervention, which reinforced defensive attitudes toward preserving Islam. Europe, on the other hand, after its religious wars, enshrined tolerance as its survival mechanism. It’s not about fairness so much as it is about context. We must understand before we condemn.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:
Islamic tradition does contain strands of tolerance — historically, Christians and Jews were “People of the Book” with protected status. The problem is modern state policies, often influenced by authoritarian regimes, not Islam itself. We cannot generalize. It is fair to critique restrictions, but it is also fair to recognize that Europe’s openness could serve as a model to be gradually adopted.

Douglas Murray:
I think we need to be blunt: Europe’s generosity is not reciprocated, and that creates a dangerous imbalance. If one side insists on open borders and pluralism while the other guards its faith with iron walls, the result is not cultural harmony but cultural erosion. Fairness matters, and Europe should stop pretending it doesn’t.

Yuval Noah Harari:
Fairness is less the issue than power. Civilizations act to preserve themselves. Europe has chosen to preserve itself through liberalism; the Middle East through religious identity. Both strategies come with costs. Europe’s cost is vulnerability to cultural transformation. The Middle East’s cost is isolation. The question is not whether it’s fair but whether this asymmetry can last in a globalized world.

Second Question: Should Europe continue allowing this freedom unconditionally, or should it demand reciprocity?

Douglas Murray:
Europe must demand reciprocity, at least diplomatically. Why should Saudi Arabia be allowed to fund mosques in Europe while banning churches at home? It’s absurd. Reciprocity is a matter of dignity. Without it, Europe sends the message that its values are negotiable, and that undermines the very idea of Europe.

Karen Armstrong:
Reciprocity is attractive rhetorically, but practically, it risks closing doors. Europe must not abandon its principles to punish others. By continuing to model tolerance, it can influence change in the long run. If Europe starts demanding reciprocity, it becomes transactional, and tolerance should never be transactional — it should be a moral stance.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
With respect, Karen, that is naïve. Influence doesn’t work when the other side has no incentive to change. If Europe doesn’t defend its cultural survival, it will lose itself. Reciprocity is not about punishment; it’s about preserving balance. Otherwise, tolerance becomes a tool of its own demise.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:
Perhaps there’s a middle ground: Europe should continue to be open, but it can use diplomacy and interfaith initiatives to gently pressure Islamic nations toward greater openness. Hostility will only deepen divisions. Soft power, cultural exchange, and education are better tools than hard demands.

Yuval Noah Harari:
Europe is caught in a paradox: if it demands reciprocity, it risks undermining its liberal identity. If it doesn’t, it risks being transformed. Perhaps the real solution is for Europe to build stronger confidence in its own identity so that it can withstand asymmetry without losing itself. The key isn’t reciprocity but resilience.

Third Question: What is the long-term solution to this imbalance?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:
The solution lies in highlighting Islam’s own tradition of tolerance and reviving it. We must work inside Muslim societies to remind them that Islam historically coexisted with other faiths. Reform must come from within, not from external pressure. Europe’s role is to encourage this renaissance, not dictate it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
That is noble, but time is running out. The long-term solution must involve clear boundaries: Europe must say, “You are free here, but you must also respect our culture and values.” Simultaneously, we should stop funding regimes that repress Christians and minorities. Economic and political pressure can accelerate change.

Karen Armstrong:
I believe the long-term answer is empathy and dialogue. We must resist framing this as a war of civilizations. Christianity and Islam share profound moral teachings — compassion, justice, mercy. By building bridges rather than walls, both sides can evolve into a more balanced future.

Douglas Murray:
Empathy has its place, but without firmness, Europe will collapse under its own generosity. The solution is strength: defend borders, defend culture, and insist on reciprocal respect. Only when Europe shows confidence will others take it seriously.

Yuval Noah Harari:
Ultimately, the imbalance may resolve itself through globalization. As cultures mix, rigid borders between “Islamic” and “Christian” societies will blur. But whether this leads to harmony or conflict depends on choices we make now. The future of tolerance will not be reciprocity alone — it will be the ability of civilizations to imagine themselves as part of one interconnected humanity.

Closing Reflection by Nick Sasaki

What we’ve heard tonight is a microcosm of the world’s deepest tension: can tolerance survive if it’s one-sided? Ayaan and Douglas remind us of the dangers of naivety. Karen and Feisal remind us of the power of empathy and history. Yuval reminds us of the inevitability of global interconnection. The paradox remains unresolved, but perhaps that is the point: the answer is not simple. It is a journey of defining who we are — both in Europe and the Middle East — and whether we can survive generosity without demanding symmetry.

Topic 2: Religious Freedom or Cultural Survival?

At the heart of today’s discussion lies a tough question: should nations prioritize absolute religious freedom, even if it risks transforming their culture? Or should they protect their traditions and identity, even at the cost of restricting religious pluralism? With us are five thinkers who approach this dilemma from radically different angles: Jordan Peterson, Rowan Williams, Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, Slavoj Žižek, and Martha Nussbaum.

First Question: Is religious freedom more important than cultural survival, or the other way around?

Jordan Peterson:
Culture is fragile. It takes centuries to build and only a generation to lose. If a society prioritizes abstract ideals of freedom over the survival of its cultural framework, it risks disintegration. Religious freedom is valuable, yes, but without cultural survival, it becomes meaningless, because there’s no stable context for it to operate within.

Rowan Williams:
I would reverse that. True cultural survival depends on the ability to embrace freedom of conscience. A culture that clings to its identity by excluding others will eventually decay. The vitality of tradition comes from its capacity to dialogue with new voices and reinterpret itself. So freedom is not the enemy of culture — it is its safeguard.

Slavoj Žižek:
Ah, but you both miss something: freedom and culture are not pure categories. Freedom is always conditioned by ideology, and culture is always selective. When we talk about “cultural survival,” what we really mean is the survival of the ruling narrative. Perhaps the only honest stance is to admit this tension and laugh at the illusion that one can have pure freedom or pure culture.

Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah:
In Islam, culture and religion are intertwined. Protecting religion means protecting the culture that gives meaning to life. But true protection does not mean exclusion; it means balance. A society can maintain its Islamic identity while also showing hospitality to others, if it remembers that tolerance itself is part of the tradition.

Martha Nussbaum:
Freedom of conscience is not negotiable. A just society must allow individuals to pursue their own spiritual path, even if it unsettles the majority. Cultural survival is important, but not at the expense of basic human rights. A culture that survives by suppressing freedom is a culture that has betrayed its humanity.

Second Question: Can a society both protect its heritage and allow full religious freedom, or are they fundamentally in conflict?

Rowan Williams:
They need not be in conflict. Britain, for example, has a Christian heritage but allows for pluralism. The heritage remains, but it evolves. The danger lies in imagining that heritage is static. Culture survives not by fossilizing itself, but by integrating diversity into its fabric.

Jordan Peterson:
Integration sounds good in theory, but in practice, large-scale change often destabilizes societies. Europe is learning this the hard way. To assume cultures will automatically adapt is naïve. Without clear boundaries, heritage is diluted, and soon what you wanted to preserve disappears entirely.

Slavoj Žižek:
Yes, but let’s be honest: what we call “heritage” is already a hybrid. Christianity itself is a fusion of Jewish tradition and Greek philosophy. Islam is an inheritance shaped by Jewish, Christian, and tribal traditions. So when people say, “We must protect heritage,” I ask: which version? The frozen myth, or the living reality of constant change?

Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah:
Žižek is right that traditions are layered, but societies still need a recognizable identity. I believe heritage and freedom can coexist if there is a shared moral framework. In Islam, the principle of no compulsion in religion provides room for freedom, while still affirming the cultural foundation. The key is moderation, not extremes.

Martha Nussbaum:
I would insist that protecting heritage cannot come at the expense of freedom. Heritage that is truly worth preserving will survive scrutiny and dialogue. If it only survives by silencing dissent, then it was weak to begin with. The task is not to protect heritage from freedom, but to protect freedom from fear.

Third Question: Looking ahead, which approach will lead to more harmonious societies — prioritizing freedom or prioritizing cultural identity?

Slavoj Žižek:
Neither, if pursued in isolation. Freedom without cultural grounding leads to chaos; culture without freedom leads to authoritarianism. Harmony may come from the recognition that both are illusions — we are always negotiating between competing forces, never arriving at a perfect balance. Perhaps the answer is to live with the tension, not resolve it.

Jordan Peterson:
Harmony requires limits. Freedom without responsibility degenerates into anarchy. Societies that endure are those that honor their cultural bedrock while cautiously expanding freedom. Prioritize culture first, then allow freedoms that don’t destabilize it. That is the only sustainable path.

Rowan Williams:
But harmony without freedom is shallow. People need to believe their conscience matters. In the long run, freedom will prove more durable, because it builds trust. Cultural identity is important, but it must grow like a tree, not be locked in a glass case.

Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah:
Harmony will come when societies rediscover that freedom and culture are not enemies. Islam’s great civilizations thrived when they welcomed knowledge, debate, and diversity, without abandoning their Islamic foundation. If we can revive that spirit, the tension dissolves.

Martha Nussbaum:
The societies that thrive in the future will be those that honor freedom of conscience as inviolable. Cultural identity will flourish precisely because people are free to choose it, not because it is imposed. Harmony is possible, but only when freedom is the foundation.

Closing 

What we’ve heard is a clash between two instincts: the need for stability and the longing for freedom. Jordan and Žižek remind us that identity cannot be ignored; Rowan and Nussbaum insist that freedom is the truest safeguard of culture; Sheikh bin Bayyah shows us that faith traditions themselves may hold keys to balancing both. Perhaps the truth lies in weaving freedom and culture together, so that survival is not about exclusion but about transformation. The future will demand not purity but resilience — cultures strong enough to adapt, and freedoms wise enough to respect the soil in which they grow.

Topic 3: Migration and the Shaping of Identity

Migration has always shaped civilizations, but today the scale and speed are unprecedented. Millions of Muslims have moved into Europe, bringing vibrant cultures and faith traditions. Yet this influx raises urgent questions: Can Europe integrate newcomers without losing itself? Could the Middle East ever allow Christians to migrate and worship openly in the same way? And ultimately, what does migration mean for cultural identity in a globalized world? To explore these questions, we are joined by Shadi Hamid, Marine Le Pen, Pope Francis, Yascha Mounk, and Amr Khaled.

First Question: Does migration enrich or erode cultural identity in host nations?

Shadi Hamid:
It depends on how we define identity. Migration certainly challenges established norms, but it can also revitalize societies by introducing new perspectives, energy, and cultural exchange. The erosion comes not from diversity itself but from poor integration policies. When societies fail to create a sense of belonging, both migrants and natives retreat into suspicion.

Marine Le Pen:
I must disagree. Migration at the scale Europe has seen is not enrichment but dissolution. Identity is not infinitely elastic. If we allow millions of people who do not share our heritage, our laws, our values, then we cease to be ourselves. A nation that cannot defend its cultural character will vanish.

Pope Francis:
Every person is a child of God, and to see migrants as threats rather than as brothers and sisters is a failure of compassion. Migration can enrich not only the economy but also the soul of a nation, if we embrace it with love. Identity that closes itself off becomes brittle; identity that welcomes becomes strong.

Yascha Mounk:
I see truth in both sides. Migration has potential for enrichment, but scale matters. When numbers are too large, integration becomes difficult. When done gradually, societies adapt; when sudden, they panic. The challenge is not whether migration is good or bad, but whether it’s managed responsibly.

Amr Khaled:
As a Muslim preacher, I tell my community: migration is a test of character. If we go to a new land, we must respect its laws and culture while bringing our values of faith and family. If both sides approach migration with humility, it is enrichment. If either side is arrogant, it becomes erosion.

Second Question: Should Europe demand cultural assimilation from Muslim migrants, or allow parallel identities?

Marine Le Pen:
Assimilation is non-negotiable. You cannot have two competing civilizations under one roof. If Muslims come to Europe, they must adopt European culture — not just laws but traditions, language, and loyalty. Parallel societies create division, not harmony.

Shadi Hamid:
That is too rigid. Expecting full assimilation denies the reality of pluralism. Identities are layered — you can be Muslim and European at the same time. Forcing migrants to abandon their religious and cultural heritage is not only unjust but counterproductive. Inclusion works better than coercion.

Yascha Mounk:
We need a middle ground. Europe must insist on loyalty to liberal democracy — rule of law, gender equality, freedom of religion — but beyond that, space should exist for multiple cultural identities. The state should not dictate how people pray or eat, but it must protect the shared democratic framework.

Amr Khaled:
Yes, exactly. Muslims can keep their prayer and traditions while respecting the host nation. The Prophet himself lived among non-Muslims peacefully. Parallel identities are not the problem — the problem is when either side refuses respect. Integration does not mean erasing one’s soul.

Pope Francis:
Assimilation is not the word I would use. What we need is encounter. Migrants should not lose their dignity, nor should host societies lose their character. Instead, both should meet in dialogue. The Gospel teaches us that in welcoming the stranger, we meet God. That is the deepest form of integration.

Third Question: Could the Middle East ever mirror Europe by allowing large-scale Christian migration and open worship?

Amr Khaled:
I hope so, but it will require patience. Many Muslim societies still see themselves as guardians of Islam and fear dilution. But Islam has nothing to fear from Christianity. If Muslims truly trust their faith, they should not be afraid of coexistence. The Qur’an itself acknowledges Christians with respect.

Shadi Hamid:
Theoretically, yes — but practically, it is unlikely soon. Middle Eastern regimes use religion as a tool of control. Opening the door to Christian migration or public worship would challenge that control. Unless political reforms occur, the asymmetry will remain.

Marine Le Pen:
And that is precisely why Europe must not be naïve. Do not expect reciprocity from countries that have no intention of giving it. Europe must protect itself, because the Middle East will not change for Europe’s sake. The generosity is one-sided, and Europe pays the price.

Pope Francis:
I will not give up hope. History shows that walls can fall, that enmities can turn into friendships. The Middle East once had flourishing Christian communities. The Spirit of God can make it so again. But this requires courage from both leaders and ordinary believers to take steps of reconciliation.

Yascha Mounk:
It’s possible in the long run, but it will take more than moral appeals. It will require structural change — education, governance, and economic development. For now, Europe and the Middle East will remain asymmetrical. The real question is whether Europe can maintain its generosity without losing its identity in the process.

Closing

This debate reveals how migration is both a gift and a challenge. Shadi and Yascha point to integration as the key variable; Marine warns that too much generosity risks self-erasure; Pope Francis and Amr Khaled remind us that compassion and humility must guide our steps. And yet the paradox persists: Europe welcomes, while the Middle East resists. Perhaps the real solution lies not in expecting symmetry, but in strengthening the resilience of societies to handle asymmetry — with compassion, with confidence, and with wisdom.

Topic 4: The Clash of Law: Secularism vs. Sharia

At the heart of Europe’s cultural debate lies an uncomfortable question: what happens when secular democratic law collides with Sharia, the legal framework rooted in Islam? In Europe, law is meant to be neutral and above religion. In the Middle East, law is often inseparable from Islam. Can these systems coexist, or are they doomed to conflict? To unpack this, we’re joined by Charles Taylor, Hamza Yusuf, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (in memoriam), Sam Harris, and Tariq Ramadan.

First Question: Can secularism and Sharia law coexist within the same society, or are they fundamentally incompatible?

Charles Taylor:
Secularism does not mean the absence of religion; it means the state remains impartial between religions. In principle, this allows Sharia to exist in the personal and spiritual lives of Muslims, so long as it does not override democratic law. The problem is not coexistence but when one system refuses the authority of the other.

Sam Harris:
I see it differently. Sharia is not simply a private moral code — it makes political claims. When Muslims demand Sharia courts, they are saying secular law is insufficient. That is incompatible with liberal democracy. Secularism and Sharia are not partners; they are rivals.

Hamza Yusuf:
With respect, Sam, you misunderstand Sharia. It is not a monolith. Much of Sharia is about prayer, fasting, family life, charity — not about criminal punishments. Muslims in secular societies can live by Sharia privately while respecting the laws of the land. Conflict arises only when Sharia is caricatured as a parallel state.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
History shows us that law and faith often struggle to coexist. The Jewish community lived with halakha under non-Jewish rulers for centuries. We learned that religious law governs the faithful, while secular law governs society. The challenge is ensuring neither side feels erased. It is not impossible, but it requires humility.

Tariq Ramadan:
Exactly. Muslims in Europe can follow Sharia ethically while fully embracing European law. The two can coexist, but not if we allow extremists — whether secular or religious — to monopolize the conversation. The issue is not incompatibility but a lack of trust.

Second Question: Should secular Europe allow Sharia-inspired practices (such as family courts), or does this undermine democracy?

Sam Harris:
Allowing parallel courts is a disaster. It divides citizens into tribes, each living by its own rules. Democracy depends on one law for all. If Europe bends to accommodate Sharia courts, it invites the fragmentation of its entire system.

Charles Taylor:
But consider: secularism thrives when it is flexible. If limited accommodations allow Muslims to feel recognized, why not? Britain experimented with Sharia-based arbitration in family law, and it didn’t destroy democracy. What matters is that the secular state has ultimate authority.

Hamza Yusuf:
And remember, Muslims are not asking for a separate state — only for recognition of their traditions. If Jewish or Christian communities are allowed private arbitration in family matters, why should Muslims be singled out as dangerous? The principle of fairness demands consistency.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
Fairness, yes, but also protection. Religious arbitration can sometimes pressure individuals, especially women, to accept rulings against their rights. That is where secular law must intervene. Accommodation must never come at the cost of justice for the vulnerable.

Tariq Ramadan:
We should be cautious but not fearful. Allowing space for Sharia in personal matters need not threaten democracy, as long as universal rights are upheld. The key is transparency and oversight. Europe must prove that respect and rule of law can coexist.

Third Question: Looking ahead, will secular democracy or religious law shape the future of global societies?

Hamza Yusuf:
I believe the future lies in harmony. Muslims will learn to practice Sharia ethically within secular frameworks, and secular societies will learn to accept religion as a source of moral guidance without fear. The clash narrative is exaggerated.

Sam Harris:
I am less optimistic. Religion is by nature resistant to compromise. Secular democracy will survive only if it refuses to yield. The more it tries to appease religious law, the more it risks its own collapse. The future must be secular, or there will be no real freedom.

Charles Taylor:
I think both secularism and religious law will persist, but the form will evolve. Secularism must be seen not as hostility to religion, but as the condition for peaceful pluralism. Religions, including Islam, will adapt — not abandon their principles, but reinterpret them for new contexts.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
The deeper question is not law but meaning. Secularism gives us order, but faith gives us purpose. A society that chooses one without the other becomes unbalanced. The future depends on societies wise enough to honor both justice and transcendence.

Tariq Ramadan:
Yes — the future is not either/or. Muslims in the West are already forging a new identity, one that combines Islamic ethics with democratic participation. This is not a clash but a new synthesis. The question is whether Europe is willing to recognize it as part of its own story.

Closing

This conversation shows us that the clash between secularism and Sharia is not as simple as opposition. For Sam Harris, it is a fight for survival of freedom. For Hamza Yusuf and Tariq Ramadan, it is a call for coexistence. For Charles Taylor, it is a matter of evolving frameworks. For Rabbi Sacks, it is about balancing law with meaning. The question remains open, but perhaps the future will not be about choosing one or the other — rather, about learning to live in the tension between them.

Topic 5: The Future of Faith in a Globalized World

Globalization is weaving cultures together faster than ever. Migration, technology, and instant communication mean that no religion lives in isolation anymore. But this raises profound questions: Will faith traditions blend into something new, or clash more violently as identities collide? Can Islam and Christianity, along with other world religions, coexist in the same public spaces without one trying to dominate? To explore these possibilities, I’m joined by Yuval Noah Harari, Karen Armstrong, Imam Omar Suleiman, Hans Küng, and Reza Aslan.

First Question: Will globalization lead to more harmony between religions, or deeper conflict?

Yuval Noah Harari:
I fear it may lead to both simultaneously. Globalization forces us to live together, but it also amplifies our differences. Technology exposes us to other faiths daily, which can build empathy or resentment. The question is whether we use this interconnectedness to create solidarity, or to double down on fear and exclusion.

Karen Armstrong:
History shows that encounters between faiths have often sparked conflict — but also creativity. The Islamic Golden Age was enriched by Jewish and Christian scholarship; the Renaissance thrived on Islamic science. Globalization gives us a chance to rediscover that cross-pollination. The danger is real, but the potential for harmony is unprecedented.

Imam Omar Suleiman:
For Muslims, globalization is a test of character. Will we respond with insecurity, retreating into isolation, or with confidence, embracing dialogue? Islam is not threatened by diversity — it is strengthened by it. I believe we can build harmony if we remember that God created us in different tribes and nations to know one another, not to despise one another.

Hans Küng:
We cannot have peace among nations without peace among religions, and we cannot have peace among religions without dialogue. Globalization is forcing us into dialogue, whether we like it or not. The future will depend on whether leaders and communities choose to embrace a “global ethic” that transcends individual creeds.

Reza Aslan:
I would add that globalization is not making religion disappear — it’s making it evolve. Faith is being reshaped in hybrid forms, with Muslims in Europe, Christians in the Middle East, Buddhists in America, all creating new ways of being religious. Conflict comes from rigidity. Harmony comes from adaptation.

Second Question: How can religions maintain their identity in a world where cultures constantly mix?

Karen Armstrong:
Identity must be rooted in compassion, not in boundaries. Religions lose themselves when they obsess over purity. The more they insist on separation, the weaker they become. To maintain identity in a mixed world, faiths must focus on their core ethical teachings — mercy, justice, love. That is what survives mixing.

Yuval Noah Harari:
I’m skeptical. Religions are stories, and stories survive by differentiation. If everyone merges, the story fades. For religions to endure in globalization, they will need to reinvent themselves, perhaps emphasizing spirituality over dogma. Otherwise, they risk being swallowed by consumerism and technology, which are the real new global faiths.

Imam Omar Suleiman:
Our faith is preserved not by rejecting others, but by living it authentically. A Muslim who prays, gives charity, and serves humanity does not lose identity because his neighbor is Christian or atheist. Identity is not a wall — it is a light. The brighter it shines, the more it can share without being extinguished.

Hans Küng:
Yes, but the light must also be willing to shine alongside others. A global ethic does not erase identities; it anchors them in shared principles. Religions can remain distinct while still uniting around dignity, justice, and peace. That is how they survive in a global village.

Reza Aslan:
I see it happening already. Young Muslims in Europe, young Christians in Asia — they live with dual or triple identities. They are not less authentic; they are more complex. Identity in globalization is not about clinging to the old in isolation, but about weaving the old into new patterns.

Third Question: What role should religion play in shaping the global future?

Hans Küng:
Religion must provide the ethical backbone. Politics alone cannot guide humanity; we need moral vision. If religions do not step up, the vacuum will be filled by nationalism or consumerism. A global ethic rooted in the Golden Rule could anchor the future.

Sam Harris (if he were here, Nick chuckles) might say religion should play no role. But I believe, like Hans, that it must — and wisely.

Yuval Noah Harari:
I agree religion will continue to play a role, but we must be careful. Religion should not dictate politics, but it can inspire values. The danger is when religions cling to old frameworks unsuited for global challenges like climate change or AI. The future role of religion must be to help humans find meaning in a rapidly changing world.

Karen Armstrong:
Exactly. Religion should remind us of compassion when technology makes us cold, of humility when politics makes us arrogant. It should not seek dominance but service. Its role is to humanize the global order.

Imam Omar Suleiman:
Religion must also stand with the oppressed. In a world of globalization, inequalities will grow. Faith must be the voice for justice, not power. If religion forgets this, it betrays its essence. The role of religion is to remind humanity of its accountability before God.

Reza Aslan:
And let’s not forget — religion’s adaptability is its strength. It has survived every empire, every revolution. It will survive globalization too, not by clinging to the past, but by reimagining its role in the present. Its future is not to rule, but to guide.

Closing

Tonight’s conversation shows us that faith in a globalized world is both fragile and resilient. Harari warns us that religion could dissolve into consumerism unless it adapts. Armstrong and Küng remind us of compassion and ethics as the essence of survival. Omar Suleiman insists identity is preserved by authenticity, not isolation. Reza Aslan sees hybrid forms already emerging. The future of faith will not be about walls or even pure harmony, but about how religions choose to reimagine themselves in a connected world — either as competitors for dominance, or as companions in shaping a more humane future.

Final Thoughts by Nick Sasaki

After five dialogues, we are left with no easy answers, only sharper insights. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray warn us of the dangers of unchecked generosity; Karen Armstrong and Hans Küng call us to empathy and a global ethic; Jordan Peterson insists on protecting cultural survival, while Pope Francis reminds us that compassion itself is survival.

What emerges is a pattern: Europe defines itself through freedom, the Middle East through faith. One risks erosion by opening too wide; the other risks isolation by closing too tightly. The paradox is real, and perhaps it will never be fully solved.

But maybe the point is not to solve it, but to live within it with honesty. Tolerance cannot be blind, and cultural defense cannot be ruthless. The future demands both courage and humility: courage to defend what is precious, humility to listen to what is different.

If globalization teaches us anything, it is that we are bound together whether we like it or not. The challenge before us is to turn this binding into blessing. For the survival of cultures, for the dignity of faiths, and for the hope that humanity can be more than a collection of walled-off worlds, we must dare to believe that generosity and resilience can walk hand in hand.

Short Bios:

Topic 1 — The Asymmetry of Tolerance

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Somali-born author and activist, critic of Islamic extremism, advocate for women’s rights and freedom of speech.

• Karen Armstrong: British author and historian of religion, known for her comparative studies of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

• Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: American Muslim leader, interfaith advocate, and founder of the Cordoba Initiative, promoting dialogue between Islam and the West.

• Douglas Murray: British writer and political commentator, author of The Strange Death of Europe, critical of mass migration and cultural decline.

• Yuval Noah Harari: Israeli historian and author of Sapiens and Homo Deus, known for exploring the intersection of history, technology, and human identity.

Topic 2 — Religious Freedom or Cultural Survival?

• Jordan Peterson: Canadian psychologist and author, known for his critiques of political correctness and defense of Western cultural values.

• Rowan Williams: Former Archbishop of Canterbury, theologian, and scholar of Christian thought and interfaith dialogue.

• Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah: Mauritanian Islamic scholar, globally respected for promoting peace, moderation, and interfaith understanding.

• Slavoj Žižek: Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, known for provocative takes on ideology, religion, and politics.

• Martha Nussbaum: American philosopher, expert on ethics, law, and human rights, with a focus on freedom of conscience and justice.

Topic 3 — Migration and the Shaping of Identity

• Shadi Hamid: American political scientist, expert on Islam, democracy, and Middle Eastern politics.

• Marine Le Pen: French politician, leader of the National Rally, known for nationalist and anti-immigration positions.

• Pope Francis: Head of the Catholic Church, known for his emphasis on compassion, inclusion, and care for migrants.

• Yascha Mounk: German-American political scientist, author of The Great Experiment, focused on democracy and diversity.

• Amr Khaled: Egyptian Islamic preacher and television personality, advocates for faith, morality, and positive social engagement.

Topic 4 — The Clash of Law: Secularism vs. Sharia

• Charles Taylor: Canadian philosopher, renowned for his work on secularism, pluralism, and modern identity.

• Hamza Yusuf: American Islamic scholar, co-founder of Zaytuna College, advocate of traditional Islamic scholarship in modern contexts.

• Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (1948–2020): Former Chief Rabbi of the UK, influential thinker on faith, morality, and interreligious dialogue.

• Sam Harris: American author, neuroscientist, and atheist thinker, known for critiques of religion and defense of secular values.

• Tariq Ramadan: Swiss Muslim intellectual, writer on Islam in Europe, and advocate for a modern European Muslim identity.

Topic 5 — The Future of Faith in a Globalized World

• Yuval Noah Harari: Historian and futurist, examining how globalization, AI, and technology reshape human meaning and religion.

• Karen Armstrong: Leading voice in interfaith understanding and the power of compassion in religious traditions.

• Imam Omar Suleiman: American Muslim scholar, activist, and founder of the Yaqeen Institute, known for social justice and interfaith efforts.

• Hans Küng (1928–2021): Swiss Catholic theologian, pioneer of global ethics and interfaith dialogue.

• Reza Aslan: Iranian-American scholar of religions, author of No God but God, defender of Islam’s adaptability in modern times.