Interfaith dialog vital for religious harmony

Interfaith dialog vital for religious harmony

M. Ali, Manchester, UK

I recently received from a friend a gift of a video tape of a
meeting between Muslim and Christian religious experts in
Indonesia. It was described as a "debate between two religions",
with the subtitle, "Islam versus Christianity" as if it was a
boxing match. My friend presented it to me as though it would
provide interesting viewing. This, though, was not the case for
me at all.

Instead of seeing this debate as interesting, I was left
feeling disappointed and saddened. The "two sides" in the debate
were not really listening to each other; they were in fact trying
to "score points" off each other and "win" the argument. This is
not really the kind of communication we need between faiths.

A debate format really does little more than reinforce ideas
of opposition and the foolish notion that one party (or here,
religion) may emerge "victorious". This is not useful
communication and discourse between peoples. For communication to
be useful it needs to be a shared and respectful dialog in which
both parties speak and listen, and ultimately become wiser for
having spoken and listened.

Many times people claim to be entering into useful discussions
when in fact all they are really doing is seeking ways in which
to promote and even impose their own ideals and agendas. But
ultimately this approach is neither useful in the pursuit of
their goals nor generally fruitful.

Those that seek to "succeed" or "prevail" through their
arguments are doing little more then waging war. True, their war
is a war with words and not bullets or bombs, but these kinds of
words can and do lead to the use of bullets and bombs.

When religion is "debated" in this kind of confrontational way
it is quite easy to see the debating parties as fundamentalists
who want to attack their supposed "infidel" opponents or convert
the "heathens" so their opponents will come to share their faith
and vision of the world. This kind of thinking is nothing short
of the ideals of empire and the imposition of imperialism.

In the manner of imperialism, there are those that see the
process of communication as a way of bringing their singular
truth to a plural world. For them the aim of communication is to
conquer and convert, but this kind of thinking has never been
successful for the "conqueror" particularly or the "conquered"
generally.

A faith that is coerced is not really a faith at all; to do or
accept something just because you are told to is neither
satisfying nor of lasting worth. Communication, likewise, to be
truly satisfying and possessing anything remotely resembling
lasting worth, needs to be more than occasionally staged debates
that are inappropriately founded on notions of determining
superiority.

Our communication has to be a process centered on generating
understanding. This means that it needs to be based around the
sharing of ideas and the sharing of ways in which we can mutually
come to terms with what it is to have a human existence and be
part of human society.

Communication, then, needs to be stable, consistent and
peacefully orientated toward wanting to participate in
understanding others; not just engaging in confrontation and
making your voice heard, expecting others to listen and being in
denial of their voice.

This means that we have to live and cooperate together so that
we may gradually achieve the habit of cooperation and the realm
of trust that is so critical for us to live together. In turn it
requires that our process of communication is a process of
association; wherein we actually interact with others, even if
those "others" are fundamentally different from us.

Though there may be fundamental differences between us, these
do not have to lead to a fundamentalist abuse and attacking of
each other. We can, it must be hoped, recognize and appreciate
our differences and ultimately accept, if not plainly concede,
that we all stand before God irrespective of our differing routes
to God.

People of faith can surely accept this truth. After all, true
faith exalts, enriches and empowers the human heart; why should
such a great attribute be wasted on destructive extremes?

Perhaps the reason why is that we too often fail to truly
communicate and interact with and thus understand others. In our
towns and cities we are prone to live in segregated communities.

This has been (too, too often) exemplified in Jakarta, where
clashes between neighboring communities have for years been the
flash points of ugly violence.

Trust needs to be built up but if we live separated from each
other there is very little hope for the building of trust.
Instead we live in ignorance of the "other" and this leaves us
prone to the suggestion that the "other" is a threat to us; and
yet quite the opposite is likely to be the case -- if only we
knew.

True and lasting dialog is needed for the benefit of all. All
should be involved -- not just "religious experts". From talking
to each other and, vitally important but so often and so easily
forgotten, listening to each other, we can reach across the
boundaries that separate us.

Boundaries of faith, race and income can and will remain, but
dialog will help us to understand and value them and so truly
make space for them in both our cognitive and our physical
worlds.

Debates and argumentation may be intellectually challenging
and even entertaining, but constructive outcomes from dialog that
builds understanding and trust are more vital to us now. We must
speak and be heard, but we must also listen. Our listening will
inform our speech and help us kill ignorance and revive trust.

The author is a senior researcher at the Cunningham Research
Centre in Manchester, UK.