In recent decades, the concept of interfaith dialogue has emerged and been celebrated by many intellectuals and scholars in the Islamic world. Yet, in an age marked by the dominance of Western civilization, it is only fair that we ask some essential questions. How can we truly engage in dialogue with the representatives of a civilization to which we have become subordinate in our time? And for what purpose do we seek to hold such dialogue? Is it to offer further concessions, to show even more submission to the logic of “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”?
When we enter into dialogue, our interlocutors will hasten to remind us that we must hold fast to certain shared principles among them respect for human rights and the right of peoples to live under systems of governance that ensure justice. What shall we say to them then? That we, as intellectual elites, are unable to uphold these principles because we fear for our lives ?
To engage in dialogue with a “civilized” other, one possessing arrogant power, requires at least a minimal degree of sovereignty and self-determination. Moreover, the institutional and elite West conditions any dialogue with it on our treating it as a full and equal partner not as an adversary but as a superior civilizational peer. This raises the following question:
How can we possibly regard the American political establishment as a friendly and equal partner in interfaith or intercivilizational dialogue when its record with the Islamic world is so dark?
As Muslims, we have little need to engage with Jewish clerics or Christian church representatives compared to our need to make the secular, institutional West understand that Islam as a religion is a complete way of life that does not separate the public from the private, religion from the state, or the worldly from the hereafter, or the inner from the outer. The real challenge we face lies in convincing this institutional West, which has refused to accept what Emmanuel Kant acknowledged two centuries ago: that the principles of good and evil are the same for all humankind.
Such an acknowledgment alone would allow us to engage in dialogue from a different angle that of shared humanity, which unites us all as Muslims, Christians, or Jews. For this reason, it seems to me premature to rush into interfaith or intercivilizational dialogue. Yet, if we must participate in such encounters, we should commit to a clear plan of action: to deliver our message to those concerned and to insist on our right to uphold these principles as the ceiling of any dialogue.
We must realize that a new generation of Westerners is in the making from one end of the earth to the other quite different from the men who legislate in the Capitol Building in Washington. Many of them are beginning to understand that Western civilization has no choice but to accept the aforementioned principle. Personally, I place my hopes on this new generation, still in the process of formation and birth, and which embodies President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s maxim: “A man must do what he must, in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, dangers, and pressures and that is the basis of human morality.”
Based on this vision, we must be aware of a crucial point, which is, in truth, the key to dialogue between Islam and other religions: it is difficult to speak of “dialogue” if such dialogue lacks the moral foundation that enables us to meet, converse, debate, differ, and enrich one another. Dialogue rests on the principle of coexistence among peoples, religions, and civilizations. So, what kind of dialogue do we want today—whether we are Christians or Muslims? Is it the dialogue from which we emerge convinced that we are destined to coexist, on the condition that we all agree that good is good for everyone and evil is evil for everyone? Or is it a dialogue that merely seats opposing parties at one table some at odds, others in accord whose disagreement stems from a distorted understanding of moral law? And what could we possibly gain from such a dialogue?
Any dialogue—whether at the level of religions or civilizations—will inevitably lead, willingly or unwillingly, to addressing the political concerns that trouble our planet. Take any dialogue topic: development, minority rights, public freedoms, or human rights—all are subject to the political framework of the state. How, then, can we approach political issues from a religious or civilizational perspective, when politics as a science in our era is based primarily on the principle of separating religion from the state? Do we not thereby enter a labyrinth of contradictions and collisions? Or does secularism perhaps share values similar to those of religion?
And even if such similarity exists—which I doubt—can we truly discuss and reason together, maintaining our composure, on issues such as the right of peoples to self-determination, from Palestine to Chechnya? Or are religious and intellectual elites expected merely to produce flexible ideas that can adapt to both legitimate and illegitimate realities alike? More importantly, why are we engaging in dialogue at all? What are its aims, and about what do we seek to converse?
1) Why and how should we engage in dialogue?
We are destined to coexist, whether we like it or not, and coexistence presupposes dialogue, exchange of views, and agreement on essential matters—namely, the five universal objectives: preservation of life, lineage, intellect, property, and religion. When we decide to meet and agree on a program of dialogue and joint action, our primary goal should be to bridge concerns, overcome differences, and heal rifts by creating an atmosphere of trust and patience.
Any endeavor requires perseverance, and any dialogue requires flexibility not concessions. Accepting the other, with both his faults and virtues, is important, and prioritizing issues within the dialogue is extremely useful. It is impossible to engage in interfaith or intercivilizational dialogue while each of us carries an enormous load of negative prejudices against the other or while the dialogue turns into mere negotiations in which, for example, we are asked to exchange our Islamic values for secular ones being imposed as universal. That is a trap we must not fall into. Our values are universal; they address all humanity. We need not replace them with notions like the “preemptive war” devised by the American military mind to solve problems that can be resolved by better means.
Furthermore, the choice of dialogue topics must not come through imposition, as is often the case with the World Council of Churches, or as the Catholic Church recently did in demanding that we abandon one of our core beliefs namely, the divine origin of the Holy Qur’an. Interfaith dialogue must never be understood as the unification of religions, the abolishment of some beliefs, or the consolidation of others. Imposing a dialogue agenda by one party upon another shows a lack of respect, an insult, and contempt for the interlocutor. Peaceful coexistence has its own etiquette, and disregarding it serves no one. Dialogue must be a voluntary choice, not an obligation. It is an alternative to rupture and hopelessness.
Preparing for dialogue requires certain conditions such as tolerance, the ability to listen, and a focus on the essence of issues before delving into details. Let us seek common ground among all human beings: the aspiration for peace and the respect for the particularity of each religion and culture. In this same spirit, religion provides its adherents with a unique cultural identity that distinguishes them from others—not in a detestable, racist sense, but in a way that allows every group, people, and nation to become part of a beautiful human mosaic: complementary rather than conflicting, diverse rather than divisive.
It is therefore of utmost importance that we define the concepts and dimensions we wish to attribute to dialogue, without neglecting the element of particularity that ensures for everyone both subjective and objective existence. This is the essence of religion—to grant its followers the distinctive mark that allows them to be different from all others, yet similar to them all in their shared humanity. The principles upon which we agree enable us to understand and reach consensus on the constancy of good and evil for all mankind, recalling what Emmanuel Kant affirmed earlier. Recognizing the principles of coexistence, tolerance, and patience with one another marks a crucial step toward building a global community governed by religious values heralded by all prophets—peace be upon them—as a testament to the dignity of humankind in the universe.
Let us therefore approach interfaith dialogue with this perspective: “Let us engage the other in dialogue, without forgetting that he is a human being like us, with the same rights and duties.” If we start from this premise, we will be able to engage others and their religions with increasing confidence. Dialogue allows us to reaffirm the importance of leaving religion free to speak directly to people’s minds and hearts without mediation. Humanity is in need of a guide and a moral compass that transcends all else—and only religion can fulfill such a role.
If we take to heart the insight of the orientalist Karen Armstrong in her article titled “Does Immortality Matter? Religion Dwells Here and Now,” she argues that we must view religion as a philosophy of life that serves this world more than any other dimension. She writes:
“I used to think that Christians, upon entering Heaven, might feel anger if they were deprived of witnessing—with a mix of pity and joy—the damned suffering in Hell!”
Thus spoke a former Catholic Christian, describing the natural sentiment born of obedience to religious teachings, and how believers imagine the reward of the blessed and the fate of the condemned.
This conception is one we share as followers of the Abrahamic faiths, all of which promise Paradise to the righteous and Hell to the wicked. If we share this vision of the afterlife, how can we not share a vision of humanity’s role in this world ? President John Fitzgerald Kennedy summarized it best in his speech before the Massachusetts State Senate, as he prepared to assume the presidency of the United States:
“As a son of Massachusetts, and with humility and reverence, I ask the Lord to help me in this task, fully aware that on this earth His will is executed by men.”
If, in interfaith dialogue, we can agree that man is nothing other than God’s vicegerent on earth, then we will have taken great strides toward a fruitful dialogue—one that transcends generalities and particularities to reach the very essence: What should the role of human beings be under the light of religion? How can we make religion the driving force of our lives and the measure by which we judge the righteousness or falsehood of our endeavors?
The fifth commandment in both Christianity and Judaism is: “Thou shalt not kill.”
The fifth commandment in Islam, found toward the end of Surah Al-An‘am, is:
“And do not kill the soul which God has forbidden, except by right.” Holy Qur’an
We thus see that killing is prohibited in all three Abrahamic religions. Yet, despite this, the world’s screens confront us daily with scenes of individual and collective slaughter. People kill and are killed, as though they were created for killing!
Here is an accurate and faithful English translation of your third section:
How Can We Remind People That What Unites Them Is Greater Than What Divides Them?
If we truly wish to establish dialogue as a civilized means of addressing one another, we must begin from clear standards that call white “white” and black “black.” We must all adhere to a logic that firmly believes that injustice and the unjust—whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim—must be treated as such, without the slightest equivocation. Only then can we lay the foundation for the credibility of dialogue. Any leniency with this standard or evasion of it will render dialogue futile, leading only to further estrangement, discord, and confrontation.
Karen Armstrong may well be right in speaking of “good religions” and “bad religions,” for religion is increasingly called upon in our modern age to fulfill humanity’s need for faith in a truth higher than all that is visible or invisible. Believers everywhere on this planet yearn for their faith to triumph through their deeds. Interfaith dialogue, in turn, is called upon to solve the riddles that philosophers, politicians, sages, and heroes alike have failed to unravel.
For this reason, we cannot accept that specialists in religious studies gather to discuss topics unrelated to these profound mysteries. How are we to answer such questions as: How can we learn to respect one another so that we may cease this loathsome fighting? How can we build the features of a human civilization that does not reserve its privileges for an arrogant elite of the wealthy? How can we remind every person of the blessing of life, the inevitability of death, resurrection, and judgment? How can we overcome the hatreds and thousands of years of rancor and misunderstanding of religion’s role in our lives? How can we make religion a bond of fellowship among humankind? And how can we live according to the teachings of our religion without colliding with the positivist logic that refuses to let religion govern human life, individually and collectively?
The mysteries remain many, but I believe I have summarized the most important among them.
2) What Comes After Dialogue?
What comes after interfaith dialogue?
By answering the preceding questions, we reach the moment to move into a decisive stage in the life of dialogue—translating the answers achieved by the scholars of religions into the lived reality of millions of followers. Without the concrete implementation of those answers, dialogue becomes mere sophistry.
Perhaps the greatest challenge facing both revealed and man-made religions alike is the establishment of a law compelling all systems, regardless of creed, to let the voice of religion prevail over any human theorizing. Only then can we entrench the divine vision of a truly human society on this planet. Otherwise, what is the point of holding dialogue sessions across the four corners of the earth? The acknowledgment by secular systems of the importance and gravity of interfaith dialogue is itself an acknowledgment of religion’s authority over the lives of individuals, communities, societies, nations, and all forms of human collectivity.
On this basis, the world’s decision-makers must recognize that religion alone provides the comprehensive, precise, wise, and objective conception of humanity’s role—both individual and collective—in this worldly life.
There is nothing but religion that embodies totality, precision, wisdom, and objectivity all at once. Any system of life devised by human hands is incapable of producing a model worthy of human dignity. The successive collapses of human ideologies throughout history—the most recent being communism and despotism—stand as irrefutable proof of the enduring stability unique to religion. Religion penetrates, naturally and effortlessly, all dimensions—space, time, and others whose secrets remain unknown. It pierces veils to address the human mind and heart in a miraculous way that modern scientists have yet to explain.
Thus, politicians, economists, sociologists, and intellectuals alike must understand that religion is greater than their intellects, ambitions, hopes, dreams, nightmares, plans, and strategies.
If they come to grasp this vital truth, then reaching the answers sought through interfaith dialogue becomes possible. Implementing these answers is the challenge to which all moral and material efforts must be devoted, so that humankind may overcome the current stage of explosion, chaos, and savagery plaguing the fifteenth Islamic century and the third Christian millennium.
Only then, I believe, shall we truly have transcended, in practice, the barriers of fear, reservation, and rejection of the “other”—the follower of a different religion or creed.
As Muslims and representatives of the final revealed religion, we must grasp the challenge of approaching others with a deep readiness to differ with them—yet without allowing this difference to become a deviation from the path established by the Messenger of Creation, the noblest of humankind, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
We have read in the biography of the Messenger of Truth—may peace and blessings be upon him—that he never despaired of addressing the polytheists and the People of the Book. He never ceased to consider those who rejected his faith as people still capable of understanding and coexistence, even if they did not embrace Islam.
The Messenger of Truth (peace be upon him) always followed the divine command: “And argue with them in the best manner”*—imbued with the spirit and ethics of this great divine injunction. If we Muslims can conduct such dialogue with these principles and prophetic morals—even amid our wounds, calamities, tragedies, and sufferings—then we shall indeed embody the description God Almighty gave to the Muslim nation:
“You are the best nation ever brought forth for mankind: you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.”*
The Holy Qur’an
3) Interfaith Dialogue After the Fall of the Arab Despotic Regime
Although I remain somewhat cautious about proclaiming the fall of the Arab despotic regime—for in Egypt and Tunisia, even if their figures have fallen, their inner and external foundations still persist, and time, effort, and immense sacrifices are needed to eliminate them completely—I have used this phrase to highlight the precision of the timing in which we now call for interfaith dialogue.
This timing has been determined by the institutions and think tanks in Washington and other Western capitals—those so-called *Think Tanks*.
We must seriously study the means available to initiate an internal dialogue among ourselves as Muslims. Then, as a second step, we should engage in dialogue with the Christians and Jews living among us—for they are the first who deserve such exchange, to listen to us and to be heard by us. Only after that should we move to others in the remaining continents.
As the late Samuel Huntington (d. 2008) predicted, the story of white domination over world civilization is nearing its end. A time will come when we will be called upon to present an effective civilizational alternative.
At that moment, we must have already experienced a pioneering civilizational experiment of our own—so that we can offer it as an alternative to the excesses, failures, and crimes of Western civilization. Then, dialogue will be far more effective and influential for religions approaching the principle of dialogue.
Dialogue, in essence, is but a civilized expression of the triumph of human thought and intelligence. We now stand at a crucial and perilous turning point, given the profound transformations unfolding in the peaceful civic revolutions that have swept across our Arab world. These will, sooner or later, impact the nature of dialogue and determine how we may conduct it—based on a positive vision in which we, as free and independent people, shape our own destiny, despite the institutional West’s refusal to accept such independence.
I consider the matter of civilizational independence as a cornerstone in building a comprehensive civilizational dialogue between religions and beliefs. We all share the common factor of faith in a power that determines our destiny. The Islamic perspective on the role of the Creator is the clearest and safest for humanity, which lacks a correct understanding of its existence and origins as tribes in the beginning. Over time, with the convergence of many factors and circumstances, civilizations emerged. These civilizations were built on a solid foundation that later crumbled as people turned away from religion and its sublime ethics, leading to periods of decline and contraction.
Those who have carried the concern of the civilizational revival of Islam over decades, if not centuries, now witness an enormous internal movement that will lead to the radical change we seek. This is necessary so that we can revive the spirit properly within the body of a nation that was “the best nation brought forth for mankind.” What we need most at this particular time is to convey this message to those responsible for interfaith dialogue on the other side:
The inevitability of internal change in our affairs is a decision they must respect, and they must also refrain from speculating about the type of system to which we will be subject. Democracy, which they have promoted for over two centuries since the founding of the United States, now allows the West to witness the decline of white civilization. This political system has contributed greatly to accelerating the West’s decline, bringing it to a point where its sustainability is not guaranteed.
Democracy has granted an excessively wide margin for freedom, which Western humans, due to their economic and military power, have exploited to the utmost. The result has been disastrous not only for underdeveloped nations that suffered from their dominance and tyranny but also for Western societies themselves! This, however, gives us hope for the future and for the type of dialogue that will continue with representatives of religions, as we do not engage in dialogue from a position of arrogance or excessive self-confidence. Rather, we engage because we have solutions to offer, whose effectiveness will become evident when we implement them in ourselves and in our reality.
Nothing is more effective than the language of action, which Islam has established through the concepts of servitude and religion as practice. Faith is not merely what resides in the heart; it must manifest in behavior and meaningful action.
The world today is in urgent need of solutions to its multiple crises. Democracy has enabled a small, wealthy, and influential elite to turn the world’s population into hostages of their greedy desires. Anyone studying the American representative system through the Senate and the House of Representatives will quickly realize, without much effort, that American democracy, operating behind the scenes of these chambers, primarily serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful ethnic groups with financial, industrial, and energy influence.
Therefore, we must break free from inactivity and the margins we have confined ourselves to by turning away from our Islamic values, so that we can map out a more humane, more equitable, and more harmonious world. Let the struggle between right and wrong guide us to overcome hatred and grudges sown by oppression, whether the oppressors were Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.
Let us uphold justice on a universal scale, applicable to all people. We must not invent separate justice for Jews, another for Christians, and another for Muslims. Through interfaith dialogue, we should affirm that the principle of retribution, as decreed by divine law, does not distinguish between Arab and non-Arab, Muslim and Jew, and that before the Creator, we are all equal. “The most honored among you in the sight of God is the most righteous.” Versus from Holy Coran.
: Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to highlight some points I derived from my participation in the Interfaith Dialogue Program from November 11 to December 2, 2006, in the United States, organized by the Meridian International Center and funded by the U.S. Department of State. Personally, I had initially refused my nomination for such a program, considering it inappropriate to engage in dialogue with people under the supervision of an American administration besieging the Palestinian people in Gaza, inciting blatant Zionist aggression against Lebanon, and supporting the Zionist project in Palestine.
However, my eventual participation reflected a personal desire to understand the strengths and weaknesses of those we were dialoguing with—from American churches and distorted heavenly beliefs, to secular ones—and also the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. administration, the enemy.
During the twenty-one days, I spent across five U.S. states—from the federal capital, Washington, to Kansas City, through Los Angeles and Huntsville, and ending in New York—I became convinced of this painful yet enlightening truth: We, holders of the correct faith, have, in a very naive and foolish way, underestimated the other side. It is inconceivable, for example, to hear a Jewish woman and her Jewish husband at a dinner in their home openly declare that, as Jews, in Palestine in 1948—they had to kill and displace the Palestinian people to occupy their land!
Such an attitude toward interfaith dialogue confirmed one thing for me: dialogue with killers is futile.
