Italian news agency AKI reports on the recently concluded interfaith talks held at the Vatican between Catholics and Muslims. I’ll try to find the text of the final report, which is supposed to be issued sometime today.
Note that this dialogue is separate from the UN-sponsored dialogue to take place in New York later this month, which will be attended by both Saudi King Abdullah and Pres. Bush. There are also reports that Shimon Peres, President of Israel, will be in attendance.
Muslims ‘satisfied’ with interfaith talks
Rome, 6 Nov. (AKI) – Muslims involved in landmark talks this week with Catholic officials at the Vatican say the talks have achieved results. “We are satisfied with the results of the Catholic-Muslim Forum, especially the creation of a permanent interreligious committee to prevent and resolve conflict,” said the president of Italy’s Association of Muslim Intellectuals and representative of Rome’s Grand Mosque, Ahmad Gianpiero Vincenzo.
“The committee is vital to the putting into practice of principles we have established we have in common,” said Vincenzo. The Muslim delegation to the talks proposed the new body, he said.
“Muslims and Christians believe in the same God and share the same tradition of prophets from Abraham to Jesus,” he continued.
“But we also share the same fundamental values of religious freedom, and respect for the physical and intellectual dignity of the individual,” he added.
“Catholics and Muslims both agree on the importance of education for young people and the teaching of ethical values that can counter the materialism which is damaging families and destroying humanity,” Vincenzo stressed.
…
Reuters report on the conference.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:06:2008 - 16:04
As monotheistic faiths Islam and Christianity share a belief in one God. Unfortunately Islam’s concept of the one God and Christianity’s concept of the one God are not one and the same. Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. He is so great he exists beyond humanity’s capacity to know him. Christianity holds that man can come to know God and even have a personal relationship with him; God is interactive.
Muslims reject the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity and therefore the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and a great guy, but not God on earth. The fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian views of the creator are irreconcilable.
While we cannot ignore our important differences, they can be overcome. In possession of a clear understanding of our respective views of the creator, and in the different ways in which we relate to him, productive dialog is possible, and common solutions to taming extremism can be found.
I’m heartened by the fact that in practice faithful Muslims and faithful Christians behave in ways that are strikingly similar. On this basis, it’s possible to achieve universal agreement on what it means to be faithful to God, however one chooses to define his true nature.
Whether God is absolutely transcendent or interactive, unknowable or knowable, we can observe certain actions and know that they are agreeable, or disagreeable, to God. Unfortunately, we seem unable to acknowledge the important differences in our respective views. Until we can, I expect this dialog will be ignored by the media and by the individuals who could benefit from it – like all the well-meaning interfaith conferences that preceded it.
Our religious leaders, while very good at religion-speak are often very poor at real-speak. It’s time to get real.
November:06:2008 - 16:42
Michael: Thanks for your comment. I added paragraph breaks to make it easier to read, but did not change a word.
November:06:2008 - 22:27
Thanks John. Can I ask you a tough question? What are we to make of King Abdullah’s conference at the UN next week? Is it a follow up to his interfaith outreach in Madrid? Or is it, as The US Commision on International Religious Freedom says, “a public relations move…[to] reinforce the defamation of religion resolution the [Saudis] are sponsoring before the General Assembly this fall?” Abdullah’s meeting with Benedict at the Vatican was the first ever between a Saudi monarch and a pope. It was described as positive and very emotional. Benedict is an often critisized but significant figure in the East, and Abdullah is an often criticized but significant figure in the West. Is it possible that these two unlikely partners are in cahoots?
November:07:2008 - 00:20
I suppose Abdullah’s presence could be considered ‘public relations’, but not in the way the US Commission is suggesting.
I believe Abdullah is trying to shift the thinking of the majority of Saudis, not interested in buffing the global opinion of Saudi Arabia. The basic fact–and something the US Commission has not been able to understand–is that Saudi Arabia is populated by a not-very-well-educated people who are very xenophobic, very conservative, and ill-advised in the possibilities of Islam.
Some Saudis, including obviously King Abdullah, think that the country can do better. But it won’t happen by magic; it won’t happen by royal diktat. The King is trying to shift opinion. I think we know how easily that is done…
I’ve dealt with the US Commission before. The attitude of the members I’ve met has been: “This is bad. It needs to be changed. Make it happen. Tomorrow’s too late.”
I suspect the Commission will be even less patient under an Obama presidency.
I do think the US has put the right amount of pressure on the Saudis and left it mostly up to them to make their own changes. Saudis react very negatively to overt pressure from any source, but particularly from outsiders.
November:07:2008 - 13:41
According to a report in today’s New York Times, “Two Saudis were expected to attend [the Muslim-Catholic forum] but cancelled at the last minute for health reasons. Hmmm. I can only assume they became aware that freedom of religion and apostasy were going to be hot buttons for the pope. Challenging the pope would be poor form and silence would represent a tacit endorsement of the pope’s perspective, so they decided to stay home.
November:07:2008 - 15:16
Well, I suppose that could be considered ‘health reasons’. Between the headache of trying to explain themselves and the potential for being ostracized if the explanation didn’t impress the xenophobes, it was ‘healthy’ in some sense.
Just not a very good or optimistic sense…