Concluding, we can point out that Gamal al-Banna, Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid and Hassan Hanafi
Hassanien, in spite of their different positions, do share similar ideas about at least the following
four matters: First, they explicitly oppose religious fanaticism and consider it a factor
of regression, stagnation and latent violence. Second, they also reject the way political
leaders abuse religion for the pursuit of specific interests mainly related to the maintenance
of their personal power. Third, the three thinkers do highly appreciate the individual as well
as public freedom achieved in Western societies. They all underline the suffering inflicted on
people in societies where public freedom is not guaranteed. Their own personal experiences
emphasise this point. Fourth, all three of them share the same doubts about the usefulness
of inter-religious dialogue. After having participated in inter-religious matters, they all concluded
that it is important for progressive thinking to set out a neutral platform where intellectuals
can express their thoughts freely without direct supervision by any religious authority.
Meetings among the official representatives of the three monotheistic religions do not
seem to them more than mere diplomatic events without a direct impact on people’s minds.
What instead should be promoted in order to enhance unity and decrease conflicts is a
space for cooperative work amongst independent intellectuals coming from different cultural
and religious backgrounds in an atmosphere of freedom of expression.