Rapprochement and Harmony

          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.