فاعلية الخطاب الإعلامي الأزهري في مكافحة التعصب الديني و تعزيز التسامح : دراسة تحليلية

الملخص EN

The research aimed at identifying the dimensions of the effectiveness of Al-Azhar media discourse in combating religious fanaticism and promoting tolerance, and the reflection of Al-Azhar ideological thought on the discourse's perceptions in both cases of tolerance and fanaticism by the (Non-Muslim) Other.

It also aimed to reveal the extent of fanaticism or tolerance of Al-Azhar's media discourse according to the indicators of a scale developed by the researcher.

The study relied on media survey methodology and utilized discourse qualitative analysis within a framework of the theory of Multimodal Discourse Analysis, and the Van Dijk's methodology of socio-cognitive discourse analysis.

The analytical sample consisted of all press articles published on Al-Azhar Magazine, Sawt Al-Azhar, Al-Azhar Observer website and Almarsad magazine, which tackled the most important initiatives of religious tolerance, citing Al-Azhar participation in the 1936 World Congress of Faiths and the Human Fraternity document in 2019, and also tackled some violent crimes against Muslims caused by religious fanaticism, citing the massacre of two mosques in New Zealand.

The research concluded that the most important dimensions of discourse effectiveness are the positive perceptions towards religious tolerance initiatives, whether initiated by Non-Muslim entities or by Al-Azhar, and the comprehensiveness of tackling the religious fanaticism elements, whether in terms of presentation of its causes, manifestations, results, and means of combating fanaticism, in addition to the objectivity of the discourse's language avoiding polarization and stereotyping; I.

e.

that Non-Muslims aren't seen as identical copies, where the discourse perception drew a realistic image for the Other that includes the diversity of the internal formation.

Even when tackling the fanatic crimes committed against Muslims, neither of non-Muslims was criticized in general, nor wrongdoing liability generalization was adopted.

The discourse, however, adopted fairness, ascribing the crimes to their perpetrators only without generalization, while expanding to highlight the positive non-Muslim models and ignoring the religious identity of the perpetrators of fanatic acts to promote tolerance and excuse religions from causing them, with full ence of fanatic indicators and the existence of high religious tolerance indicators in the discourse.