Interfaith dialogues in 21^st century.

By

Dr Ghayur Ayub 

At the end of the last century something extremely important happened. America was attacked by a ‘borderless country’ with no geographic existence; citizens; institutions or governing rules - the essentials of a civilized country. Its 19 ‘citizens’, equipped with ordinary cutlery, took over the control of four planes and crashed them as deadly missiles into the most important centres of America. What would have happened if the fourth plane which was brought down at Pennsylvania had crashed into the nearby nuclear facility as was supposedly intended to? Most probably, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities could have been blunted in the first few weeks of the ‘war on terror’ instead of waiting for a few years and replacing a military-led government with a civilian government; and substituting a uniformed and shrewd president with a civilian Machiavellian president. I am not here to spread despondency on the safety of Pak nuclear technology, but to talk about the twenty first century the way many perceive it. 

9/11 brought drastic changes in global society. Among other things, it brought two Abrahamic theologies of Judeo-Christianity together and pitched them against the theology of Islam. In doing so, it opened an avenue for Islam to revive itself to its original form. The question is what is the original form of Islam?  History tells us, that Mohammad (PBH) as the chief executive of a new political system based on the teachings of the Quran simultaneously held prophet-hood (Risalat) and sainthood (Wilayat); meaning that he (PBH) combined theology of the former with spirituality of the latter and pleated them together into a political system. This was a unique combination never seen before in the history of religions and took the shape of the original Islam. To make the future Islamic religio-political system run smoothly, prophet-hood was terminated but kept its continuity through the spirituality of Wilayat. He (PBH) announced this continuity on his return from the last pilgrimage at Ghadir Khum.  

The war on terror that followed 9/11 was a war against Muslims who practiced one sect of Islam labeled fundamentalists. The terminology was a misnomer because it linked the five fundamentals of Islam which Muslims from other streams also practiced. Was it a deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the original form of Islam and transform it to an ersatz face of terror?  The vast majority of Muslims would agree with this. Did they succeed in their attempt? Many would disagree. The reason being that the result, after the initial ‘knee-jerk’ response ended, was the revivalism of original Islam among Muslims. Similarly, non-Muslims in the West have also started probing those streams which are against terrorism, by initiating interfaith dialogues. These dialogues are going to gain momentum and will become the main theme of global politics in coming decades. There is strong resistance to these dialogues by a segment of Muslims who view the West with suspicion, comparing them with the enemies of Muslims at the dawn of Islam. They believe that Islam was divided into sects as a result of intrigues by similar enemies both within and without. They see a repetition of history at a juncture when Islam is taking a new turn following 9/11. What they fail to understand is that the world has changed. The knowledge and wisdom which was the domain of old age has become the property of youngsters; thanks to the unlimited knowledge world of the internet. The thirst for knowledge has shifted its base from the older generation to the younger; turning the zeal in reverse proportion. It is manifold stronger in youth than it was in the aged. As a result, a dilemma has appeared; the young support such dialogues, the old oppose them. 

 A wise man once said, ‘don’t be afraid of your enemy if you know how he thinks’. Today, the majority of Muslims, both young and old, know how their enemy thinks. All they need is to understand their own goal; the hurdles placed on the track that leads to that goal; and the utter determination they must have to overcome those hurdles. The rest is easy. The Palestinian struggle is a glaring example in present history. And for that matter, Hezbollah's fight in Lebanon two years ago is another quotable instance. But I am not talking about physical confrontation; I am pointing at intellectual altercation. Intra and interfaith dialogue is a kind of scholarly confrontation. The Muslim world is full of intelligent, gifted and talented scholars who could participate in such dialogues for the benefit of humanity and spread of true Islamic message.  

We know that religions have three ingredients; theology, philosophy and spirituality. Theology has given us more bloodshed than any other calamity. It’s not that something is wrong with theology; it’s the lack of knowledge theologians had/have about the concept of godhead. Similarly, philosophy alone has failed to resolve religious problems because of it being ‘an open-ended knowledge’ leaving doubts in our mind about the godhead. This leaves us with spirituality. What can spirituality do to stop bloodshed in the name of religion or prevent further confusion about faiths? Being based on tolerance, understanding and love, it can become a bridge between theology and philosophy as its knowledge is appealing to the psyche of common men. In this context, the 21^st century is going to be the century of spiritual knowledge and its practices. So what could possibly happen in this century in terms of geo-political change?  

Spirituality is going to become a major tool of understanding between the Abrahamic faiths, making a platform for dialogue on the knowledge of divine scripts and divinity of the three faiths. When we compare the three Holy Scriptures, one thing becomes apparent - the Quran has historical background and remained unchanged. Contrarily, the other Holy Scriptures with nebulous historical background have changed repeatedly with the passage of time.  Against such a background, we find similarities as well as dissimilarities between them. It is imperative to know that similarities are the ones which serious scholars believe haven’t been changed so far. The dissimilarities on the other hand, have been changed by various theologians of the respective religions. It is this point which should be explored during inter-faith dialogues. Without criticizing dissimilarities, the scholars should concentrate on the similarities. Furthermore, the dissimilar issues may be discussed in the light of Quranic knowledge, explaining them with utmost respect to other religions in an engaging fashion under scrutiny of modern-day electronic media for the world to watch and decide for themselves. When it comes to discussing spiritualities, the situation changes as they have acute commonalities between them and the engaging groups feel at ease during dialogues.  

I have no doubt in my mind that at the end of such dialogues, the divine knowledge of Quran and Islamic spirituality will become the torch bearers bringing the three faiths closer, erasing misunderstanding and confusion created by the traditional religious custodians during the last three millennia.

The end