In this Asharq Alawsat commentary, Lebanese professor of Islamic Studies Radwan al Sayyid calls for the institutionalization of interfaith dialogue. King Abdullah’s call for just such talks, he says, is good in itself, but the King will not be around forever, thus it’s important to move on his initiative now and ensure that it continues.
This is an interesting piece and one cannot argue with the premise. But as with many things, the ‘devil is in the details’. If a new organization were to become a mere talk-shop or be encumbered as many existing UN bodies are with self-contradictory goals, then it’s probably not worth the effort. In the short term, ‘jaw-jaw’ is better than ‘war-war’, in the words of Winston Churchill, but it does nothing toward the long term resolution of a cultural, religious conflict.
Interfaith Dialog: Responsibilities and Challenges
Dr. Radwan al SayyidThis is the greatest initiative by Saudi Monarch King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz. His call for interfaith dialog comes at a time when the societies and countries are living through a moment of stumbling and confusion to the extent that shocking pronouncements, such as clash of civilizations and clash of religions, are prevailing.
The essence of the initiative is that it pursues building common bridges between religions, bridges that are based on the ethical foundations that unite all religions, such as preserving the family cohesion, which is undoubtedly the corner stone of building healthy societies.
The interfaith dialog will not end today or tomorrow, it is something that will continue for future generations. Therefore, international response to it is necessary, and it should be followed by establishing an international organization to secure the continuation and the vitality of the dialog. Moreover, it is necessary to guard against and not to underestimate the abilities of the institutions and groups that always try to empty every serious initiative of its content, especially in the Arab world.
In the Arab world policies proceed in one direction, while politics move in another. For instance, all our educational and technological policies follow the successful western examples, while most of our political address rejects the west. King Abdallah’s openness to the other religions and cultures is a unique attempt to incorporate policies and politics and to make them proceed in the same direction. This harmony between policies and politics is required in all Arab countries.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
April:22:2008 - 12:24
The emphasis of this piece seems only superficially concerned with “interfaith dialogue”. Instead, a great deal of effort is spent extolling the virtues of the Saudi King himself! Reading this, I wonder about the King’s current health, because this sounds very much like a courtier jockeying for position, expecting soon to serve a new monarch and creating the impression that they are cognizant of the current King’s wishes and thus should be judged best-suited to carry them out once the King departs.
That said, interfaith dialogue can be a tricky thing. Both Muslims and Orthodox Jews may point out that the insistence of each group to regard its the Koran or Torahas holy forbids as holy forbids certain types of critical analyses.
For example, Orthodox Jews generally permit Christians to study Torah with them but not Muslims, ostensibly because Muslims don’t regard the Torah as holy. A truer reason, in my opinion, is that in the Middle Ages such activity could be regarded as an attempt at conversion, with deadly consequences for all involved.
Currently, at the practical level, I find my efforts at interfaith dialogue hampered not just by ignorance of Islam, but through the poison of rhetorical manipulation once associated with Christian Scholasticism. (The author Frank Herbert had a good name for this, “rhetorical despotism”.) Examples: It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion if Muslims choose to re-define words on an ad-hoc basis, or deliberately alter the meaning of what was said in the past to suit current purposes. Dialogue is fruitless unless, as in Scrabble, the participants can agree on a common dictionary first.
A second, more surprising issue is that of concealed arguments and issues in Islam. I argued with one theologian that an entire topic of Islamic theology was moot because an error in its axioms was concealed in imprecise language. He agreed with me privately but said such matters were advanced discussion for members of the ummah. The thought that generations of muslim students had been chasing a dead end for generations, to the certain knowledge of some of their teachers who choose to remain silent to preserve their influence, is a matter of despair, not hope.
April:22:2008 - 14:01
Any serious dialogue needs to begin first with serious people. Next, an agreed vocabulary, with clear definitions is needed. Shifting the goalposts, redefining terms, and other rhetorical tricks to avoid the issues will only kill the conversations.
I did notice that the writer was a bit rapturous about the King. I figure he’s hoping for a job of some sort, not that that’s new in the region or anything… or history, for that matter. Court poets and painters, bards and historians have a way of matching their content to the desires of the ruler.
April:22:2008 - 16:33
serious dialogue needs to begin first with serious people.
I am not accusing anybody of being “unserious”.
an agreed vocabulary, with clear definitions is needed.
No. It should be realized from the very beginning that the issue of “vocabulary” is a major part of the discussion, not a precondition. For example, it should not be assumed that what the Old Testament refers to as a “Jew” is the same thing parts of the Koran refer to as a “Jew”. Different possible definitions must be listed and constantly kept track through discussions on all topics.
Shifting the goalposts, redefining terms, and other rhetorical tricks to avoid the issues will only kill the conversations.
That, too, is a worthy topic for discussion. For if arguments can be constructed that lead to unsatisfactory results, is it permissible to alter the definitions of the words so that the Koran can remain “true”?
April:22:2008 - 17:20
I think there are those who are perfectly happy to demagogue on religion. Those are the ones I consider ‘not serious’ and the ones I hope are excluded from the dialogues. You know who these are: the ones who start from the point ‘My religion is superior’ or ‘Of course you pagans wouldn’t understand’. Unfortunately, the Saudi ulema is full of that sort. Let them watch from the audience and perhaps learn something. Don’t let them derail the proceedings.
We don’t really have an argument here. My preference is to select people who will take on the task in a serious manner first. Then they can work out the vocabulary (and semantic) issues that you highlight. The dolts will never get that far because they’ll insist that there’s one meaning, forever and for all time, to any word they feel strongly about. And that’s why they don’t belong as discussants.
Rather than a legal argument in which one is bound by terms a priori, this is an argument that should be approached with an attitude of “How do we get there from here”.
For instance, rather than slamming the door shut by declaring that ‘the Quran says X’, look at the Quran and see if there’s any way that it might mean something preferable. If so, go that way. If not, then acknowledge that there are root incompatibilities that will have to be tolerated, if not welcomed.