|
ON RELIGIOUS AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Increasing inter-religious and intercultural conflicts throughout the
world has made it very necessary to promote inter-religious and
inter-cultural dialogue. The reasons of these conflicts are many. The
world has been divided into north south poles, north being highly
developed and south afflicted with underdevelopment and mass illiteracy
and poverty. The educated youth in the South does not find jobs to fulfil
its aspirations. It looks to the North for better paid jobs. Also, most of
these underdeveloped countries were once colonies of the North and hence
people from these former colonies are attracted towards the metropolitan
countries. When large number of people migrate the native white people
resent and racial tensions intensify, specially when there is economic
downturn in the metropolitan countries and available jobs are few to go
around. Though the underlying causes may be economic or political, the
conflict expresses itself through religious or cultural channels. Though
ultimately tensions could be reduced only by addressing economic causes,
its religio-cultural tensions also need to be tackled effectively. The
religious and cultural expressions do great deal of damage and spread
misunderstanding even among others who are not affected directly by the
economic downturn. Due to high pitched propaganda by extremely vocal
sections of fundamentalists, cultural and religious prejudices spread like
wild fire.
The media also plays very important role in spreading these prejudices.
The media, needless to say, is more interested in sensational news than
sensible constructive news. Repeated negative reportings in the media
leads to widespread prejudices against certain religious or cultural
groups. It is well known fact that Islam bashing goes on in the western
media. It is very important to understand that the western countries led
by the USA adopt extremely hostile attitude towards certain Islamic
countries like Iran, Libya, Iraq who dare defy the USA authorities. The
USA not only punishes them severely (as for example bombings on Iraq or on
pharmaceutical factory in Sudan etc.) but also starts a propaganda war
against Islam and Islamic countries in their media. Also, out of sheer
frustration, some militant youth carry out violent attacks on some
American establishments (for example, explosions on the World Trade Centre
a few years ago). As a result of all this an average American has terrible
prejudices against Islam and Muslims. Islam is thought to be a religion of
fanaticism and violence.
Similarly the internal extremist violence in Algeria has spilled over to
France. The Algerian extremists carried out some bombing attacks in Paris
too as it believes the Government of France collaborates with the Algerian
authorities in wiping out Muslim militants. Naturally this leads to strong
prejudices among the French against Islam. The Germans are facing a severe
economic recession these days and there is wide ranging unemployment
touching as high a level as 12%. But during the sixties when German
economy was booming and foreign labour was needed large number of Turks
were brought to Germany. Now with economic recession the Turks are looked
down upon and tensions between the Germans and Turks has increased.
Due to ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka a large number of Tamils have also
migrated to several European countries including Germany. In last few
years quite a few attacks have taken place on Tamils by neo-Nazis. It is
strange but true that it is in East Germany which was formerly under the
Communist rule that neo-Nazi movement is spreading and the East German
Youths are involved in the attacks on the Tamils and Turks. This is
because the levels of unemployment among the East Germans is far higher
than the national average. It is supposed to be as high as 20-25%. And
hence like an average American, an average German is highly prejudiced
against Islam and Muslims as well as against Tamils. The migration of
Muslims from Bosnia has further aggravated this religio-cultural conflict.
Apart from the religious and cultural conflict in the west there is
increasing conflicts among different religious and cultural groups within
the developing countries in Asia and Africa. Hindus and Muslims in India
(and now Hindus and Christians too), Muslims and Christians in some
African countries like in Nigeria and Sudan are embroiled in conflict.
Similarly various ethnic and cultural groups within these countries are
involved in mutual violence for example Bodos versus other tribals in
Assam, Nagas and Meitis in Manipur, Bengalis and tribals in Tripura and so
on. There are also prejudices against South Indian in North and Western
India. The Shiv Sena is a militant Maharashtrian Hindu organisation in
Bombay which attacks both Muslims and South Indians. It has spread
militancy among the Maharshtrian youth.
There are various reasons for such conflicts mainly political and also
economic in some cases. The developmental processes are quite uneven and
leads to in-migration from rural to urban and from less developed urban to
more developed urban areas. Thus one finds different religious and
cultural groups jostling with each other in these urban areas. Thus one
finds more conflict in Urban than rural areas. Rural areas are more
homogeneous and less amenable to such conflicts. Many urban areas have
become real hotbeds of ethnic or religious or cultural conflicts. Each
religious or ethnic group wants to establish its own domination in a
particular area and wants to cleanse it of other 'polluting' groups. And
to mobilise members of their own group religious or cultural discourse is
used thus creating strong prejudices in the minds of the other religious
or cultural groups.
It should, however, be noted that it is not a new phenomenon. Throughout
history there have been such migrations from one country to another and
from one area within a country to other areas. These conflicts are also
not new. The Christians and Muslims fought on the question of control over
Palestine and these wars in history are known as the crusades. The zeal
with which these wars were fought between Christians and Muslims made
'crusade' synonymous with zeal and a new phrase 'crusading spirit' came
into existence.
It was these crusades which caused great deal of misunderstanding about
Islam in western countries during the medieval period. The image of
Muslims Qur'an in one hand, and sword in the other', was creation of these
crusades. Similarly, the Muslim invasions on North India led to image of
Islam as violent religion in the minds of many Hindus (though quite a few
Hindus were collaborators in these invasions). These images are being
revived in the modern context to serve contemporary political interests.
However, due to propaganda hype an average Hindu thinks of Muslims as
fanatic and violent. The media again plays an important role in spreading
such ideas and images. The whole Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid movement drew
its vigour and zeal from such images. Muslims were seen as fanatical Hindu
temple bashers by an average Hindu. The BJP, itself a Hindu fundamentalist
party, played an important role for mobilising the Hindu electoral
support. In medieval ages such mass mobilization for political purposes
was not required and the monarchs could maintain inter-religious balance
in their own interests. In modern times compulsions of democratic
mobilization has its own logic. Masses are sought to be manipulated by
political interests. This manipulation is made easy by the might of mass
media. Such medium did not exist in the old times. Thus we see that need
for manipulation of the masses and the role played by the media - and now
not only print but also electronic media - plays great role in spreading
inter-religious and inter-cultural prejudices.
The images about some religion or culture built by media may not be true
but can play absolute havoc by spreading strong prejudices against
particular group. The role of media has become extremely crucial in modern
times. Electronic media is even more so. But the media can play very
constructive role too provided it has interest in promotion of better
inter-religious or inter-cultural understanding. It should also be pointed
out that entire media is not responsible for sensationalising the
conflict. A section of print and electronic media does play a very
positive role in this regard. It is for those interested in
inter-religious or inter-cultural dialogue to make proper use of both
print and electronic media. We have to do everything possible to promote
this dialogical spirit among the conflicting groups.
INTER-RELIGIOUS AND INTER-CULTURAL DIALOGUE
Dialoguing is the only way out for promoting better understanding between
the conflicting groups. As the spread of misinformation through whatever
means is largely responsible for misunderstanding dissemination of correct
information is highly necessary to contain the conflict. This can most
effectively be done through dialoguing. We would like to throw light on
the rules and processes of such inter-religious and inter-cultural
dialogues.
The dialogue can take place between different kinds of groups: 1)
political groups; 2) religious groups and 3) supporters of political or
religious groups. Also, there are different levels of dialogue and a
comprehensive process of dialoguing will involve all these levels. It can
take place at the level of political or religious leaders; at the level of
intellectuals from different groups and also at the level of masses. The
nature of dialogue will vary at these levels.
At the level of intellectuals it will be more of analysis of events and
understanding of the nature of forces involved in promoting conflict. At
this level the dialogue will also deal with the strategies of promoting
inter-religious and inter-cultural harmony. At the political level the
dialogue may deal with those politicians who believe in secular politics
and oppose based on ideological convictions, the politics of religious or
cultural confrontation. At political level the dialogue may comprise
strategies of bringing secular alliances to isolate the communal and
fundamental forces.
At the religious level, the dialogue, on the other hand, will have to deal
with religious and theological aspects. A religion too has to be
understood at different levels i.e. at the level of rituals, theology,
institutions and values. While rituals, theologies and institutions might
vary from religion to religion, values are bound to be complementary. For
example Hinduism emphasises non-violence and Buddhism compassion;
Christianity emphasises love and Islam justice and equality. It will be
seen that all these values are complementary to each other.
Rituals, theologies and institutions are unique to every religion and this
often leads to misunderstandings. Each religious tradition emphasises
importance of certain rituals and theological dogmas as central to that
religious tradition and also exerts superiority of its own rituals and
theology. For example the Islamic system of worship prohibits worshipping
or bowing before idols. Islam lays central stress on unity of God and
considers associating any other being with Him as a sin. The Hindus, on
the other hand, believe in idol worship and bow before idols. These
differences often lead to violent conflict between the two communities in
India. However, it is also to be noted that this conflict is not promoted
by religious leaders as much as by political leaders who hardly care for
religious rituals and dogmas.
But that does not mean that religious leaders do not differ. These
differences, for a proper dialogue, have to be understood and appreciated
rather than fought about. Many sufis and bhakti saints did precisely that.
They not only tried to appreciate these differences but also often tried
to even reconcile them. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, for example,
showed great respect both for Islam and Hinduism and worked out a creative
synthesis between the two. He had great regard for Sufis of Islamic
tradition and included the verses of Baba Farid, a great Sufi saint from
Punjab, into his Adi Granth.
Dara Shikoh, the Moghul prince who was greatly interested in sufi
traditions had deep appreciation of Hindu religious traditions and he
wrote a treatise called Majma' al-Bahrayn (i.e. meeting of two great
oceans Hinduism and Islam). He compared, in this treatise, the
terminologies of both the religions and showed striking similarities
between the two. He also believed, and believed so on the basis of
comparative study of Islamic and Hindu scriptures that Hinduism though
apparently polytheistic, was not; and quoting Upanishads, the sacred Hindu
scriptures, showed that basically Hinduism too is a monotheistic religion.
Another Sufi saint of eighteenth century India, Mazhar Jan-i-Janan
believed that idol worship among Hindus is not essentially polytheistic as
idols are a way to reach God, not God by themselves. Much earlier,
Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi, an 11th Century Sufi Saint from Spain laid central
emphasis on love of God and considered his heart as centre of love and
hence centre of God. According to his doctrine of wahdat al-wujud entire
creation is the manifestation of God and hence all barriers between human
beings following different religious traditions are artificial and needed
to be demolished. His was truly a universalistic approach. These sufi
saints laid more emphasis on spirituality rather than rituals and hence
they could visualise the basic unity among all faith traditions.
The Hindu scriptures also talk of equal respect for all religions and
religious traditions. The Bhakti saints in the Hindu tradition laid great
emphasis, like the Sufis, on intense love in the form of bhakti i.e.
devotion to God, the Supreme Being. For them too rituals were secondary
and it is spirituality which was fundamental. In the Christian traditions
too, the mystics stressed spirituality and devotion to God.
But this does not mean that rituals and theologies do not matter for the
people. There are millions of people who give great importance to their
respective ritual and theological systems. An inter-religious dialogue
should, as the very basis of the dialogue should accept the central
importance of the ritual and theological systems. Here I would like to lay
down some ground rules for inter-religious dialogue. The following rules
would be of great help in carrying on inter-religious dialogue:
* 1) Those who enter into dialogue should be firmly rooted in their faith
tradition and should have inner conviction. It is true conviction without
being sectarian which becomes the firm ground for dialogue.
* 2) There should not be any feeling of superiority of their respective
traditions in the minds of dialogue partners. The feeling of superiority
can mar the very spirit of dialogue.
* 3) Dialogue should never become polemics. Polemical style is he very
anti-thesis of dialogue. Polemics try to prove the other wrong while
dialogue is conducted to understand the other.
* 4) Dialogue should not only be conducted to understand the other but
also should respect the integrity of the other. No dialogue can be
conducted if there is no respect for integrity and convictions of the
other.
* 5) The idea of dialogue should be to explain ones point of view and not
to convert the other to ones own point of view. Even a slightest attempt
to convert the other to ones point of view will destroy the spirit of
dialogue. It will then be an attempt at conversion and this will lead to
resentment. Attempt at conversion also implies that the person sought to
be converted has belief system not as good as that of the convertor.
* 6) The dialogue partners should be prepared to recognise the uniqueness
of the others belief, ritual or theological systems. It is this uniqueness
which makes it different. It is not the question of right or wrong, but
rather of uniqueness and diversity.
* 7) The dialogue partners should also recognise that diversity is the
very basis of life. Without diversity life will become drab and would
loose all its charm. The Qur'an not only accepts this diversity but also
legitimises it. It is Allah's desire to have diversity (5:48; 2:148). Lack
of diversity and enforcing one faith system or one ideological system can
ultimately lead to fascism and authoritarianism. Thus theological states,
like ideological ones, tend to be highly authoritarian.
* 8) Dialogue should promote the spirit of accommodation and adjustment to
minimise conflict in the society. The dialogical spirit consists in
appreciating others difficulties and complexities of their situation.
Accommodation is the very essence of dialogical culture.
* 9) One has to understand the difference between dialogue and monologue
for effective dialoguing. The desire to dominate in the dialogue leads to
monologue. Each dialogue partner should get equal opportunity to explain
her/his point of view. Dialogue can take place only in true democratic
spirit recognising the rights of all concerned in the dialogue.
* 10) Lastly one must understand that an effective dialoguing is possible
only when not only listens to the others point of view but understands and
appreciates it in the given context. Even the scriptural text has to be
situated in a particular context unless it be a value-statement. Criticism
of the text is often based on ignorance of the context.
If these ground rules are followed in inter-religious and inter-cultural
dialogues the result will be quite encouraging. No country today can boast
of being strictly mono-religious and or mono-cultural. The rapid means of
transportation have brought most diverse religious and cultural groups
together in every country. And one wants it or not one has to live with
such diversity. One cannot wish it away. Some groups will be in numerical
majority, others in minority. Or several minorities put together can
constitute majority as is likely to happen in Canada in near future. The
mosaic model of society can retain its beauty only in harmony; conflict
will only reduce this mosaic into complete disjunction due to stress and
strain.
Lastly I would also like to refer to what is called the dialogue of life
and this dialogue is continuously taking place at the level of the masses.
The dialogue of life consists in living together with all its problems and
stresses and strains and sharing each others joys and woes in human
partnership. We witness this living in togetherness and celebration of
life at the level of masses. There are no theories, theologies and
concepts to quarrel about; there are only problems and difficulties to be
shared together. This is real dialogue of life, a dialogue through living
together and sharing together.
Source: http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com
|
