INTERFAITH DIALOGUE: A GUIDE FOR MUSLIMS
Dr Muhammad Shafiq and Dr Mohammed Abu-Nimer
The International Institute of Islamic Thought, P.O. Box 669, Herndon, VA 20172, USA
Pages: 124
Price: $12
Reviewed by PROF. U MUHAMMAD IQBAL
This is a work of great professional skill, highly readable, highly informative, and highly persuasive. It is a fruit of cooperation and collaboration between two eminent academicians-cum- social activists. Their aim is to enlighten the global fraternity of Muslims about the significance and scope of and the need for the Interfaith Dialogue. Their preferred expression is Inter-religious Dialogue. Even though the sub-title specifies that the book is a guide for Muslims, the authors hope that it will be useful to Non-Muslims too, as it provides them with an accurate understanding of Islamic view on the dialogue.
The aims of this guide are: to serve Islam and Muslims by raising the value of interfaith dialogue in the West and grounding in the Qur’an and Sunnah (p.6); to struggle against negative conditioning and fanaticism and to open the door for listening, communicating, and respect (p.2); to build confidence in Islam through accurate and historical knowledge (p.11); to create a perception of the way ‘Islam is re-emerging on the world scene as a framework for peace, justice and dialogue.’ (p.79) Though these aims are commendable, there is a rub. The Evangelical Churches and the Salafi Muslims are not in favour of the Interfaith Dialogue. (p.96) In view of disapproval from such high quarters, this guide assumes significance and satisfies curiosity.
The authors are keenly aware of the challenges and inhibiting factors inherent in this dialogue. One example will make the point clear. A Catholic saw no point in the Dialogue “as Muslims believe that all non-Muslims will go to hell.” (p.88) The authors quote with approval the example of a more polished and refined imam who expounded the concept of salvation in the following way: Islam is Allah’s chosen path and that those who believe in Him, the angels, the Biblical prophets (peace be upon them), Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless and greet him) as seal of the prophets, all holy scriptures including the Qur’an, the Hereafter, the Resurrection, and in the Day of Judgment – He in His mercy, will bless such people in heaven. (p.56)
The authors are of the firm opinion that “there cannot be peaceful co-existence without both intra-faith and inter-faith dialogue, for the former provides institutional support to the latter.” There is no substitute to inter-faith dialogue in the West where Islam is looked down upon as a ‘religion of the Devil and darkness’ and where anti-Muslim hate crimes are on the rise. Interfaith dialogue, it is hoped, will limit the influence of the people whose aim is to spread hate.
The authors quote the following verse, “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion”, (2:120) and invoke its historical context. They interpret it as a verse unhappily not in favour of the Dialogue. Though the verse has a historical context, its semantic applicability is for all times to come. The use of ‘never’ should not be overlooked. This verse throws light on the mindset of the Jews and the Christians and asks Muslims not to follow their desires but to follow the knowledge given by Allah. Even though total satisfaction cannot be expected by Muslims on the one hand and by the Jews and the Christians on the other from each other, dialogue should be preferred to a state of continued discord.
The authors quote 61: 9 and interpret the verse as though it were a directive whereas it is a prophecy about the ultimate triumph of Islam. They say, ‘Truth cannot be spread amidst hostility.’ (p.8) Though this is true, they do not refer to the efforts of Hadrat Mus’ab bin Umair (May Allah be pleased with him) in spreading Islam in hostile Madinah. The verse says that Allah has sent the Prophet with guidance and religion of Truth with the intention of making the religion of Truth get the better of other religions irrespective of the opponents’ hostility. Allah does what He intends to do. The Prophet (May Allah bless and greet him) fulfilled his mission against all odds and the religion of Islam prevailed in the Arabian peninsula. It bids fair to prevail throughout the world too, according to the divine schedule and scheme.
A declarative sentence (3:110) is treated as an imperative sentence. “You are the best of peoples” is explained as “Become the best community.” The verses 4:140, 6:68, 3:85 expect Muslims to hold tenaciously to Islam and not to hobnob with people who hold the Quran to ridicule. Interfaith dialogue is possible with people who have goodwill towards all and malice towards none.
The authors say that the interfaith dialogue is “about respecting the ‘other’s’ views”.(p.9) If the views of others about their own religions are meant, it is possible to respect them. If the views of others about Islam and the Prophet are uncomplimentary, are we Muslims expected to respect them too? Others are entitled to hold uncomplimentary views about Islam but asking Muslims to ‘respect’ those views goes against the instructions contained in the Qur’anic verses mentioned in the previous paragraph.
‘Jadal’ in the fairest manner with the People of the Book is sanctioned in 29:46. The authors say that the debate to persuade the People of the Book to accept the truth of Islam “through logical and theological conversation” has ‘an aggressive objective’. (p.3) The choice of this phrase is unhappy. Is the saving of a soul ‘an aggressive objective’ when they say too that conversion would be a beautiful fruit if it comes about as a result of the dialogue? (p.29) They say that modern interfaith dialogue “focuses on developing a genuine understanding of one’s own religion by comparing it with another”. It is not clear how this comparing will be done: Internally? In conversation with another? Will the listener be interested when the focus is on self-understanding?
On page 27, the authors spell out a guideline for the interfaith dialogue. “Stay open to being changed and challenged: Each participant shall stay open to all suggestions and be ready to accept a collective opinion that contradicts any participant’s belief.” Is this not a suggestion to convert? This guideline seems to run counter to another guideline, “Avoid consensus”. What is the difference between consensus and collective opinion?
Beautiful statements like “Religions are God’s gift to bring peace, not hatred, to humanity’ (p.15) are too broad to have any effect. Religions in their origin were genuine gifts of God indeed. Now the Deen recognised by Allah is Islam. If all religions in their present forms are equally valid, then the attempt to convert is an exercise in futility.
The authors say, “God told Abraham to work for peace with devotion and sincerity.” (p.17) They have not given the relevant references for this assertion from the Bible and the Qur’an. It is also asserted that “strengthening interfaith dialogue” is one of the ways to fight Islamophobia. It may be true. However, the example of the emergence of the pro-Semitic ambience in the West as a result of the said dialogue is not much convincing. The Holocaust may claim much credit for it. There is a lurking fear that this dialogue may ultimately isolate and neutralize the Palestinian cause. There is a need to remove such a fear.
A detailed, full and accurate description of what transpires during the interfaith dialogue from beginning to end without any omission or editing should be presented to the Muslims so that they can decide for themselves whether it is worthwhile to continue with the dialogue. The authors hold up Rochester’s interfaith dialogue as an inspiring ideal.
Interfaith dialogue may or may not reduce religious radicalism. It has its own advantages. If some, qualified and eligible, participate in it, it may serve its purpose. It need not be made compulsory for all. The reasons advanced in defence of this dialogue in the first chapter do not bring complete conviction. They should be fine-tuned further.
On page 92, there is a reference to appendix 8 but the book under review has only five appendices.
There can be no quarrel with this statement, “Living within the Western community context, interfaith dialogue becomes a necessity and intra-Muslim dialogue becomes even more essential.” (p.21) Even though Swidler’s principles of interfaith dialogue appear to be harmless, should they be described as ‘Commandments’?
The authors have done a truly commendable job in emphasising that ‘interfaith dialogue is for mutual understanding and peace building’. (p.28)
Ahmad Gianpiero Vincenzo, Head, Association of Italian Muslims, says, “For us Muslims, inter-religious dialogue has a fundamental role in today’s world, where more than ever before the underlying principles that religions have in common need to be underlined, starting with faith in the same God.” Times of India, Chennai, Weekly Soul Hits, p.12.