Download a PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

Historically speaking, followers of the great world faiths have been in contact with each other throughout the centuries. The Abrahamic traditions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – have confronted each other almost from the beginning, with bitter-sweet experiences of each other. The opportunity for genuine dialogue and mutual understanding was rarely possible before the twentieth century. This was due to the cultural and political dominance of certain religions in particular regions of the world. Once such dominance asserted itself, the most powerful tradition considered itself the truest and felt the blessing of God upon itself, while subordinate religions “formed a negative image” of the other as a defence mechanism and hoped that God's assistance would come soon.

However, the situation started to change with the European Enlightenment. The Enlightenment brought with it the authority of reason to solve problems, and was extremely critical of traditional organized Christianity. This was followed by the development of anthropological studies, whereby Western civilization came to recognise that there were other civiliza-tions and religions very different from its own. Three elements aided in the rapid spread of this discovery:

(i) the increasing number of anthro­pological books about world religions available for public consumption,

(ii) journeys made to other countries by Westerners as observers of different religions, and

(iii) massive immigration from the East to the West after the second World War, which promoted better understanding through personal and familial contacts.

One could add to these recent important developments in communi-cations technology from newspapers to telephone, radio, television and lately the internet and e-mail. These have turned the world into a global village where personal contact between followers of-different religious and cultural affiliations is commonplace. Thus the days when “religion” was associated only with one’s own beliefs have passed and people are faced more acutely with the question of other religions.

Put another way, no religion can continue to progress if it ignores oth-ers. As Alan Race indicates: “chang-ing patterns of mobility have shattered older conceptions of the religious his-tory of the world which viewed the faiths as confined, culturally and geo-graphically, within particular boundar-ies...” Moreover, because of these recent developments the authentic power and richness of other religious traditions have entered into our own conscious awareness. Thus it seems that the reality of other religions no longer exists only across borders, in distant lands, but in neighbourhoods throughout the world.2 I would now like to higlight the function of religious feelings in our contemporary world before moving on to explain the function of a dialogical worldview for confronting the new threats which we face today.

 

DIALOGUE AS A WAY OF CONFRONTING NEW THREATS

As is well known – contrary to "secu-larization" theory (which maintains that entire sectors of society and culture are removed from the influence of reli-gious feelings and symbols) – religion is increasingly dominant in the contem-porary world. As Huntington rightly states: “in the modern world, religion is a central, perhaps the central force that motivates and mobilizes people; what ultimately counts for people is not political ideology or economic interest. Faith and family, blood and belief, are what people identify with and what they will fight and die for”.3

When we look at the conflict zones in our world we can see that in most of them religious feelings are invoked to shape the constant underlying structures for territorial disputes, as well as politi-cal and economic conflicts. Consider, for example, the conflict that arose in the Balkans after the collapse of former Yugoslavia among Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. "All three speak the same language and share the same race; the only thing that divides them is religion."4 It is clear that if religion is misconstrued in our societies, the abuse of religious feelings is inevitable. The manipulation of religious feelings by religious leaders and politi-cians will certainly damage both religion itself and the ideal of living together with others in a peaceful world-order.

At this point I would like to indicate that my objective here is not to show that religions themselves have a high potential to cause conflict and thereby threaten world peace. When we look at the principal teachings of the world reli-gions, we can see that all of them urge their followers to do to others what they would like to be done to themselves. Sometimes this ethical principle is artic-ulated positively – instructing people to act in a certain way. At other times, how-ever, it is articulated negatively – that is, warning against selfish behavior.5 On the one hand, religions strive to make their followers well-informed persons, to transform their lives, and to make them happy both in this world and the hereafter. On the other hand, they urge them to protect their bodies, their belongings, their minds, their genera-tions, their races and their faiths.

Still, the major world religions do invite their adherents to love their neighbours as they love themselves. But of course we cannot love our neighbours unless we are ready to dialogue with them. So, if we do not extend to others the same care and respect that we would wish for ourselves, we do not really love them. If we enter a relationship with the others presupposing that we have the fullness of God’s truth and they have only partial rays of that truth, we will easily view them as less able than we to know the truth or to live moral lives or to know God. With such an attitude we do not really love them.6 In this respect, both in the Islamic tradition and the Gospels, to serve God is to serve one’s neighbours in their need.7

Concerning the genuine possibil­ity that adherents of different religions can live together peacefully, Hans Küng states that the Samuel Huntington thesis – the “clash of civilizations” – is only a half truth:

For the civilizations and religions have not only high potential for conflict but also a high potential for peace, which they have shown not only in the revolution in Eastern Europe but also in the removal of the dictatorship in the Philippines and the abolition of Apartheid in South Africa.8

It must be admitted that those who tend to prophesy a “clash of civilizations” do have some grounds for their argument. Where we can and should take issue with them, however, is that they tend to see the clash as an inevitability.

In our view, what happens in the future will depend primarily on the vision, self-restraint, magnanimity, wisdom and far-sightedness that political and religious leaders bring to bear upon the prob­lems confronting all humanity. Should they succumb to chauvinism, whether religious or otherwise, and pursue their narrow interests blindly, arrogantly and recklessly, disregarding the implications for the rest of humanity, the results are bound to be horrendous.

On the other hand, if Muslims, Jews and Christians can learn the obvious lesson dictated by common sense and pragmatic prudence, let alone by high­er idealism and altruistic concern for humanity’s well-being, the followers of these three faiths can join their minds and hands to build a much better world.

It would seem that in our day, when we are in crisis because of internal and external threats to our social peace, we need to increase the contribution of the world's religions to world peace. In order to do this we need to listen care-fully to the common call of religions, to pursue constructive action and endeavor to strengthen fundamental ethical values.

At this point, one must ask: how have religions that have embraced com-mon ethical teachings been used to jus-tify and bless human evils? Alternatively: if the various world religions have a high potential for living together in harmony and peace, how have they been used to exacerbate conflicts and enmity among their followers?

In my view, the central teachings of the great religions do not harbour any intentions for causing or justifying evils. However, historical structures and dogmas, which imply that every religion has a unique superiority over the others, have been used to justify and bless human evils, since religions have played “a significant role by bless-ing both sides in each conflict, and by intensifying the rival loyalties and motivating young men to be willing to kill and to be killed for a sacred cause.”9 Because of this implication of the clas-sical dogmas or conflicting truth claims of religions, it is clear that we need to reconsider those dogmas, so that they are not used to justify and bless human evils, but rather as the basis for estab-lishing a world in which we might all live in peace within the context of our own particular beliefs.

Interreligious and intercultural dia-logue, which offers a way of settling -conflicts by inviting people to come together in a civilized manner – over against methods which use force, violence and pressure – has now become an absolute necessity in today’s world.

The way of confronting new threats to world peace passes through the estab-lishment of peace among the followers of different world faiths. As we have noted above, religious feelings are, as in the past, still being used to incite and justify conflicts and wars. It is neces-sary to prevent such negative expression of religious beliefs and feelings, and to use them in accordance with their real intention, which is for restoring a more peaceful world where people are able to co-habit in peace without conflict and hostility. If we wish to achieve this goal we need to give priority to implement-ing the following measures in our dia-logue encounters:

1. We need to work together to clear up misunderstandings of every sort between each other.

2. We need to work together to heal our past traumatic memories.

3. We need to work together to dissolve all hostile sterotypes.

4. We need to work together to break down hatred and destructiveness.

5. We need to reflect on what is held in common more than what seems to separate us.

6. We need always to promote past positive models of co-existence and develop them further to suit our time and the challenges of the modern world.

7. We need to accept our difference not as a problem but as a richness.

8. We need to give enough space to the others so that they live their own lives in accordance with their own beliefs.

Moreover, political, social, economic and environmental problems urge people of different religions and beliefs to establish dialogical cooperation with each other as a means of solving common problems fac-ing the entire human community. Every religious tradition offers various recipes to their supporters for creating a more peace-ful, fair and restful world.

Religions provide their supporters with certain principles that explain not only the meaning of life but also how it should be lived. For instance, Islam does not merely urge people to believe in and worship a single God. It also invites them to avoid selfishness and unjust practices, for the purpose of creating a fairer, more prosper-ous and peaceful world. Judaism asks its adherents to love their neighbours as much as themselves. Christ said that those who provide food for the hungry, clothes for the naked and homes for the homeless will reach salvation. In short, each one of the major world religions urges its followers to make efforts to restore a better and sustainable world by asking them to behave towards others as they would have others behave towards them.

 

THE TENSION BETWEEN SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Today, many of the conflicts and hostilities existing among people with different worldviews, and especially among civilizations, stem from focusing on our differences and overlooking our similarities. Interreligious differences are without doubt important, yet com-mon ground provides the opportunity for believers to benefit from differ-ences. In fact, the Holy Qur’an invites Muslims, Christians and Jews to come together on common ground in order to discover that they might benefit from their differences:

“Say: ‘O followers of earlier revelation! Come unto tenet which we and you hold in com­mon; that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall not ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and that we shall not take human beings for our lords beside God...(Sura 3.64).”

As followers of different religions we need to listen carefully to this call if we want to establish a peaceful world in which all people can live by keeping their own differences. As one leading Turkish scholar of interreligious dia-logue emphasizes: we live in a world in which either we live together or we will perish together.10

When we place Jews, Christian and Muslim traditions together and examine them carefully we see that they have some important common points. For example, they are essentially rooted in a common tradition, represented by the patriarch, Abraham. They adhere to a number of similar notions about ultimate reality which contribute to shaping their worldviews. They affirm monotheism, profess belief in revelation, in Prophets, and in scriptures. They uphold the spiritual dignity of human beings, who occupy a distinct posi-tion in God’s scheme of things. They subscribe to a universal morality which comprises concern for righteousness, justice, compassion and benevolence. Also, contrary to common perceptions, each religious culture has benefited from the others and is benefiting even now in countless ways. Unfourtunately, these common points are less known than the battles among the followers of these three Abrahamic faiths.

 

PROMOTING DIALOGUE

After summarizing the function of a dialogical worldview for confront­ing the new threats, let us now discuss consider just what dialogue is. Dialogue is the establishment of mutual commu­nication between two or more persons having different views and thoughts. The main goal of this communication is to ensure that those who participate in the process should attend to each other with mutual understanding and respect, learn from each other and change and develop together. Doubtless, in doing so, both sides will naturally share their own thoughts and each will influence the another, because dialogue is not only a process of establishing commu­nication based on mutual respect and understanding but at the same time, in general, a doorway to a new perspective on the world.

In the past, when we met with people who were different from us with respect to their religious and ideological perspective, we simply considered them our enemies/opponents. However, after the developments occurring in the sec-ond half of the 20th century, it became a necessity for people of different religions and cultures to coexist in dialogue in every corner of the world.

For this reason, each side should try to know the other as they are with-out entering into any conflict, fight or polemic and to listen to the other in as open and sympathetic a way as possible.

Let me now mention two of the basic pillars upon which a dialogical worldview should be based for it to be healthy and productive.11

1. Friendship instead of hostility lies at the center of dialogue.

Friendship among people of dif­ferent beliefs and cultures can onlybe achieved with face-to-face relations, sharing beliefs and thoughts within the framework of mutual respect, mutualunderstanding and hospitality. The reason ­why friendship is so important in dialogue is that it provides the context in which differences among the participants can be accepted in harmony and where opposite beliefs are melted in mutual love without being displayed in a way to cause hostility and hatred.

2. Dialogue requires knowing the “other” instead of ignoring him/her.

As we have noted above, the rea-son why people with different religious beliefs and views in the past often sought to challenge and even to eliminate each other was mutual ignorance. Ignorance is one of the most insidious of cultural diseases, spreading fear, misunderstand-ing, prejudice and intolerance. As we know, the image of Islam has been devastated as a result of sheer ignorance and lack of awareness. Even in our dialogical age there exists a tremendous ignorance and suspicion about Islam in much of Europe and the US. The way to eliminate this kind of image-deprivation is for all the sides to get to know each other. And to know each other, they should not only depend on objective knowledge but should also come together and experience each oth-er’s beliefs and lifestyles themselves.

One of the leading Muslims partici-pants of interreligious dialogue, Prince Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan, emphasizes that we need to expend great efforts to establish a dialogical relationship among different world faiths at the grassroots level in order to clear up misunderstand-ings, challenge prejudices and break down hatred. He states that:

More baffling are the communal sensitivities and phobias arising from justified or unjustified feel­ings of insecurity. It is mainly on such intractable issues that the interfaith dialogue of the coming decades needs to concentrate.12

 

FROM THEORETICAL DIALOGUE TO ACTION-BASED DIALOGUE

In meetings conducted under the ban-ner of “Interreligious Dialogue” in the past several years, the debate has mainly been about the problems in and among religions. Vital problems facing all people, whether believers or non¬believers, such as poverty, misery, hunger, violence, injustice, pressure and brutality, environmental pollution and rapid consumption of the nonrenew-able resources of the world were often ignored. Now is clearly the time for such issues to assume a priority. The common problems facing the world are at the same time opportunities for the establishment of a productive and healthy dialogical environment among people of different religious traditions and cultures.

If supporters of the different reli-gious traditions come together to try to solve comman human problems then they will find opportunities to talk with each other about their dif-ferent religious beliefs and experi-ences. Accordingly, in the process of interreligious dialogue, if every side cooperates to find solutions for exist-ing problems before starting to share their different religious experiences and beliefs, they will be able to share their religious experiences and beliefs more succesfully. Interreligious dia-logue, based on cooperation for the solution of common human problems, rather than theological issues, will be both more healthy and more produc-tive. As Paul Knitter underlines:

If followers of various religious traditions can agree in the beginning that whatever else their experince of truth or of the divine or of enlightenment may bring about, it must always promote greater eco-human well­being and remove the sufferings of our world, they have a shared reference point from which to affirm or criticize each other’s claims. Such ethical concerns do not provide immediate solutions to interreligious disagreements; but they do constitute a walkable path toward such solutions.13

Dialogue encounters where com­mon problems are discussed and solu­tions are sought should certainly be held in the places where those problems occur and with the participation of people who themselves are suffering as a result. In the context of hearing particu­larly from those most directly affected, it is possible not only to analyze the problems at hand but also to explore the relevant teachings and contributions of the religious traditions. In this way, common action plans for the solution of the problems may be shaped.14

The essential thing in dialogue where practical problems are discussed and solutions are sought is not that one side tells the other about its beliefs but that both sides act together with their beliefs taken into consideration. The basic factor urging a Muslim to such an act is the desire to show the contribution to be made when his own message is applied in the actual cases where suffering, sorrow and pain is present. The main goal of the participants in dialogues held for the purpose of finding solutions to com-mon problems lies not in asserting dogmatic claims that their belief in God is superior to that of others, their savior is one and unique, their sugges-tions for the solution of the problems are more effective, but in finding actual solutions in cooperation for the common human problems as such.

People will come to know one another better in a dialogue process that is based on acting together for solving common human problems. Yet there may sometimes be tension-creating dif­ferences between the sides during such sharing. If the participants, however, talk to each other as friends, show love and respect for each other, feel each other when such a case happens, if they can set their goal not as who is right or wrong but as helping those suffering from poverty, misery, violence, torture, sorrow and pain, then they can put an end to the tension by acknowledging the differences among themselves.

In conclusion, all sides in the action-based moral dialogue should be capable of establishing deep friendships by expe-riencing the feelings of loving others, and by working for the goodness and prosper-ity of others. In such friendship, the par-ticipants show respect and patience for religious and cultural differences. They invite enrichment by seeking to benefit from these very differences.

 

NOTES

1 Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions, London: SCM Press, 1983, p. 1.

2 Paul. F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002, p. 5.

3Samuel Huntington, “Response”, p. 210, pp. 191-194, quoted from Hans Küng, Christianity: the Religious Situation of Our Time, London: SCM Press, p. 781.

4Jonathan Sacks, “The Dignity of Difference: Avoiding the Clash of Civilizations”, The Templeton Lecture On Religion and World Affairs, 10/3, 2002.

5For a different version of this ethical principle see, Levililer 19:18; Talmud, Shabbath, 31a; Matta 7:12; Luka 6:31; Buhariî Iman/Faith, 71.72.

6Paul F. Knitter, “Five Theses on the Uniqueness of Jesus,” in L. Swidler & P. Mojzes, eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus: A Dialogue with Paul F. Knitter, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997, p. 6; In Islam, God is seen as our loving friend. Concerning this understanding of Islam Jalaluddin Rumi, one of the greatest Muslim Sufis, states that “Love makes the wheel of the heavens spin, not water; Love makes the moon go forward, not feet” (Rumi, The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teaching of Rumi, trans., William Chittick, New York: State University Press, 1983, p. 160); “Love (mahabbat), and ardent love (‘ıshq) also, is an Attribute of God;...Love hath five hundred wings, every wings reaches from above the empyrean to beneath the earth...Loves of God fly more quickly than lightning. (Rumi, Rumi: Poet and Mystic, trans., R. A. Nicholson, Oxford: Oneworld, 1995, p. 102).

7In one hadith of the Prophet Muhammad it is narrated that in the day of Judgement Allah will ask His servants:

O Son of Adam why did not visit me when I was sick?

Son of Adam answers: You are the Lord of the Universe How I can visit you?

God answers: Do not you know that one of my servants became sick and you did not visit him/her. If you visited him You would find me there.

O Son of Adam I have asked food from you but you did not give me.

Son of Adam replied: How I can forget you. You are the Lord of the Universe.

One of my servants was hungry and asked you food but you did not give him food. If you gave him food you would finds its reward in our side.

O Son of Adam, I was thirsty and asked water from you but you did not give me water.

Son of man answers: How I can give you water, you are the Lord of the World?

God replies: One of my servants became thirsty and you did not give him/her water. If you gave him water you would find its reward in our side.

8Hans Küng, “Editorial: Islam-A Challenge to Christianity,” Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann, eds., Islam: a Challenge for Christianity, London: Consilium (SCM), 1994/3, p. vii.

9John Hick, “Religion, Violence and Global Conflict: A Christian Proposal”, Global Dialogue, 2/1, 2000, p.1.

10Mehmet S. Aydın, From Clashes of Civilization to Dialogue of Civilization, Istanbul, 2000, p. 42.

11See, George Carey, “Documentation: The Challenges Facing Christian-Muslim Dialogue”, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 17/1, 1996, pp. 97-101.

12Prince el Hassan bin Talal, “The Future of Christian-Muslim Relations: A Personal View”, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 11/2, 2000, p. 163.

13Paul F. Knitter, “Responsibilities for the future: toward an interfaith ethic”, in Pluralism and the Religions: The Theological and Political Dimensions, ed., John D’Arcy May, Casell, 1988, p. 85; see also, El Hassan bin Talal, “Preface: Religion, Common Values and Dialogue”, Religions in Dialogue: from Theocracy to Democracy, eds., Alan Race & Ingrid Shafer, Basingstoke: Ashgate, 2002, pp. xvii-xviii.

14Knitter, “Responsibilities for the future: toward an interfaith ethic”, p. 86.