A/55/280 status and therefore afflicted by social, economic and cultural exclusion. Also specifically targeted by Taliban extremism are religious minorities and, of course, non-Muslim communities, whose religious identity is directly threatened by a policy of forced conversion to Islam. 78. Extremism is also manifested with varying intensity in Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, always through non-State entities, but in diverse forms and modalities and with different goals. Clearly, despite the good will of many States, it remains very difficult to contain and combat religious extremism. The active contribution of the international community outside and the civil society within remains crucial in this regard. 79. First, a distinction must be made between escalating political tensions culminating in extremism — such as in Pakistan between factions of different political sensibilities within a single religion, or in Sri Lanka, where the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam exemplify ethnic extremism with political connotations — on the one hand and, on the other hand, the religious extremism that is rampant in these countries. It is also important to stress that the boundaries between these different forms of extremism are not always easy to define, especially because ethnic, religious and political forms of extremism may be combined. 80. Moreover, religious extremism can result from sheer religious fanaticism, where a given individual or group believes that he or it possesses the absolute truth and wishes to impose it on others. Examples may be found in Pakistan, where the fundamental freedom of any person to change his or her religion is not accepted; in Jordan, where any critical debate within a religion is rejected; in Egypt, where religious minorities are not tolerated; in Georgia, where diversity within a religion or belief is rejected; and in Israel, where religious sites are profaned by those of another religion in order to impose their absolute belief. 81. Religious extremism may use religion for political ends. For example, according to the communications from the Special Rapporteur, in India, the role of a religious minority in the educational, social and cultural fields, particularly among the least advantaged, has been questioned with a view to widening the electoral base of nationalist political parties of a religious character. Another case is that of the Molucca Islands of Indonesia, where an extremist group claims to be waging a holy war against the Christian community, but is in fact aiming at the destabilization of the democratic process, which is contrary to the interests of an entire oligarchy, particularly the military one linked to the former regime. 82. Religious extremism is also inter- and intrareligious, that is to say, it affects either communities not belonging to the same religion (for example, according to the communications from the Special Rapporteur, in India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan and the Philippines) or currents within the same religion (for example, in Georgia and Jordan). 83. Such extremism often targets inter- and intrareligious minorities (for example, according to the allegations of the Special Rapporteur, in Egypt and Georgia) and women (for example, according to a communication from the Special Rapporteur, atrocities against women in Lebanon). 84. Extremism is expressed through violence, both symbolic (discrimination against women and others) and physical (serious attacks against persons of a given religious faith, members of the clergy, places of worship and other religious institutions, and so on). 85. Of course, as the communications from the Special Rapporteur point out, no single religion has a monopoly on religious extremism. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur concurs with the position of the Commission on Human Rights, which, in its resolution 2000/84 of 26 April 2000, on defamation of religions, expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism. Likewise, as the Commission points out in this same resolution, negative stereotyping of religions in general is a matter of concern. The Special Rapporteur considers that religious extremism is an aberration to the extent that all religions are based fundamentally on the values of human rights, tolerance and non-discrimination. Certain interpretations and certain manipulations of people on the basis of religion have distorted it and wrongly associated it with extremism. 86. While extremism results mostly from non-State entities, that does not absolve States of their responsibility to guarantee rights, especially the security of persons under their jurisdiction, in 21