Over the past two decades a number of
states and institutions have launched initiatives to promote mutual
understanding between the world’s civilizations through intercultural and interreligious
dialogue. All the professors and academics who are with us here today are
involved in this, so what conclusions can we draw?
This kind of dialogue is clearly not
a waste of time or a symptom of mere idle curiosity. Rather, it shows that there
is a problem which people of good will around the world would like to see
resolved. While it is true that there are plenty of problems in today’s world and
conferences are being held all the time to tackle them and address their root
causes, the fact is that the kind of intercultural dialogue — or dialogue
between civilizations — that concerns us here is essentially a response to the
uneasy relationship between Muslims and the modern world.
Anthropologists (as well as some
strategists) see religion as being a part of culture — indeed, a pivotal part
of it. Here I do not wish to go into the causes of cultural/religious turmoil
or conflict, because much has already been written on the subject; in fact,
Professor Esposito, who is with us here today, has published several books
about it. However, if religion is indeed a cultural phenomenon, this would mean
that it falls into the philosophical category of “Weltanschauung” or “world
view”. Indeed, some people even go so far
as to claim that the mutual hostility we see today is due to the fact that the
way Muslims see themselves and others is incompatible with the values of the
prevailing global culture.
As we all know, there are many
religions in the world — some major and some minor — as well as countless
cultures, and no-one can deny that there is mutual hostility between Western
civilization and some religions and cultures — a hostility that may be
attributed to the hegemony Western nations imposed upon them in the name of
religion in former times, then latterly in the name of “empire”. Eventually it
became a global problem that spawned conferences and symposiums, many of them
focused on relations with Muslims and Islam. This is mainly due to the fact
that there are so many Muslims in the world; today they account for around one fifth
of the total world population and many of them (in their countries of origin
and as expatriate communities) are determined to preserve their distinctive
religious and cultural identity. On the other hand, others — i.e. non-Muslims — see their
attitude as being contrary to their own traditions, values and laws, and it is true
that in some cases it has led to acts of violence against non-Muslims in the
name of Islam.
There have been two kinds of global and
strategic reactions to this situation. One of these maintains that there is a
clash of civilizations; that is to say, that Islam by its very nature is
antagonistic to other religions, cultures and nations and
must be resisted by force. This is what has happened over the last decade. On
the other hand, most academics and informed observers — including those present
here today — prefer the option of intercultural dialogue aimed at peaceful
coexistence and good-neighbourly relations with Muslims.
The important thing is to ensure that
the spectre of violence and terrorism has no place in the international arena
and in relationships between members of the human race.
There have been two lines of approach
to cultural and religious dialogue. The first sees Islam as sharing a number of
common religious denominators — in its beliefs as well as its practices and
Abrahamic origins — with Judaism and Christianity, and consequently with Western
civilization which is rooted in the Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions.
On the cultural side, Muslims and the West share a common historical background
thanks to extensive interaction between their two civilizations in al Andalus,
Sicily, Oman and elsewhere. Moreover, Baghdad’s thriving culture
was largely a result of the Arabic translations of works from their original
languages, including Greek, Syriac, Middle Persian and Sanskrit. The fruits of
that cultural renaissance later spread to Europe, producing a “tripartite
partnership” between the civilizations of Islam, Europe and China.
The second line of approach is
essentially a pragmatic one. Its basic premise is that Western civilization is
now the global civilization and that its main political, social and economic
values have become globalised. Pressure should therefore
be put on Arabs and Muslims to become part of it and abandon their ossified
traditions and violent fundamentalism, because this would be in
their interests in the Age of Globalization. An obsession with identity — and
the consequent violence arising from it — is just a reaction by Muslims to
their failure to become part of the modern world.
We can see from this that the
attitudes adopted by the Muslims’ friends to the dialogue of civilizations show
both sides as being responsible for the crisis in relations, so that
consequently they need to work together to replace it with reconciliation and
harmony.
There are some people of goodwill and
friends of Islam around the world who recommend the following: firstly, a
recognition of shared values and a dialogue aimed at coexistence based on those
values and, secondly, an acceptance of the
realities of globalization along with the abandonment of entrenched attitudes
and extremism. In their view this is the best way to achieve integration and
put paid to misunderstandings and feelings of disappointment.
It is not my intention here to
present you with a rundown of various Islamic trends and their views on calls
for dialogue. It is well known that many Muslims — traditionalists as well as
others — have responded positively to the idea of religious and cultural
dialogue; some of them see it as a solution and a step in the right direction,
while others view it as an opportunity to put forward their own opinions on the
causes of the mutual hostility.
However, there has been no
corresponding enthusiasm for the idea from the general Muslim public.
There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, seen from a Muslim perspective the problems have nothing to do with religion,
culture or values, but with politics, strategy and economics. Secondly, Muslims
tend to feel that dialogue is not likely to benefit them because it is not
moving in their direction. They believe that what is needed is an approach that
will solve their political, strategic and ethical problems — problems that have
to do with freedom, dignity and respect for one’s fellow humans as human beings.
This is what the Holy Qur’an really means by the word “ta‘aruf” (“knowing one
another”) in the verse: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and
female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another”.
“Ta‘uruf” is something that entails
two mutually complementary processes — knowledge and recognition.
Although Christian-Islamic dialogue
has been going on for over six decades, it has not yielded any tangible results
and it has been limited to the religious elites. Cultural dialogue has been
somewhat more successful because the door has been kept open to exchanges of views,
though this has not led to recognition.
There has been a meeting of minds at
the cultural and human level. This continues to be the
case and the door for dialogue remains open. Meanwhile, as far as results are
concerned, due to a range of political, strategic and economic factors,
intercultural and interreligious relations are not limited solely to contacts
between East and West. This is because in today’s world Asia and Latin America
are also active players in the political and economic order, while the global
financial crisis has been a further significant factor. As a result, today we
stand on the brink of a new multipolar political and economic order governed by
reciprocity and mutual interests within a much broader context than ever
before. Although it is true that there are still many shortcomings, I think we
can say that today there are good prospects for a fairer world with a far
greater degree of give and take — a world in which a growing number of
previously excluded peoples will play an active part in influencing the course
of events. We can look forward to less outside interference in other countries’
affairs, a reduction in violence and counter-violence, greater peace and tranquility
and a rejection of extremism and the use of force, whether in the name of religion
or under any other pretext.
Nevertheless, should we conclude from
all this that Christian-Islamic dialogue has never really served any useful
purpose, and that it never will? Not at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. It is
an essential tool for promoting rapport and mutual understanding. The process
of “ta‘aruf” has led to a series of dialogues, and these have shown us the
potential benefits that familiarity with different cultures and value systems
can bring. Today our younger generation feels — just as we do — that through
the dialogue we have started we will not only be able to acquire knowledge and
engage in constructive discourse, but we shall also gain the recognition that comes
from initiatives, participation and reciprocity (as opposed to having ideas and
values imposed upon us from outside). This cultural-political process has
enabled our young people and our nation to grasp the initiative with their own
hands, rather than suffer invasion in the name of democracy or being told that
there is something called “Arab and Islamic exceptionalism”.
Experience has shown us that most of
the crises in today’s world are due to an absence of moral absolutes, the lack
of a proper value system, and the abandonment of religious belief and guidance.
In Arabic there is a saying which sums up the need for all mankind to agree to
live together, while striving to work for the common good by remaining true to
the highest moral principles — “Low la’l wi’am, lahalaka’l
anam”
— or in English: “Were it not for harmony, mankind would perish”.
Reference:
Rapprochement and
Harmony, by: Abdullah bin Muhammad al Salimi, Al-Tafahom Magazine, issue number
11/2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment