Logics of an interfaith conference

The Saudi-sponsored interfaith conference held at the UN can be surveyed from two angels. So far, the political side of the meeting and the presence of Shimon Perez in it had been discussed thoroughly. But there is an angle left unnoticed.

Numerous interfaith meetings have been held in different parts of the world, especially in Vatican and reputable universities. The recent UN interfaith meeting was shadowed by Barack Obama’s victory in US presidential election, the US financial crisis and the G20 leaders’ meeting; so it was not able to completely convey the message of interfaith dialogue’s necessity to the world. The most noticeable symbol of the meeting was the simultaneous presence of Saudi Arabian king and Israeli president Shimon Perez. But even the mere invitation of Perez by the Saudis was not something to be ignored. Saudis tried to justify this invitation by saying that invitations to UN meetings are sent by the UN and not by certain countries. Iran was also invited and the Iranian representative to the UN attended the meeting. On Perez’s presence and his role I would later talk. What I want to say here is that the principal condition for interfaith dialogue-especially among m Abrahamic religions - have not yet been met. The meetings are numerous but their essential conditions have not been ascertained.

 

First: How can we talk to other faiths without admitting them as holy religions with holy prophets? Such dialogue would not be based on the truth. The Christians and the Jews do not deem Islam and its prophet as holy. On the contrary, we have recently witnessed numerous insults to Muslim beliefs especially to Quran and the prophet of Islam. As soon as an unknown writer publishes an anti-Quran book, she/he would become famous and respected (like Taslima Nasrin and Ayan Hersi). Worst of all was Pope’s insult to prophet of Islam, calling him "a man with no accomplishment but violence". The Pope did not even manage to admit to what he said. So he accused Muslims of misunderstanding his speech!

 

The Pope was apparently oblivious of the Catholic Church’s attempts for promoting dialogue between the believers of all faiths, done forty years ago.

I believe that the declaration of the Second Vatican Council known as "Nostra Aetate" can be a good prelude to interfaith dialogue. The declaration was ratified by Pope John XXIII on October 28^th 1965. It is all about respecting all faiths but the Jews’ share is more than others. The reason is clear: After Jews being slaughtered by the Nazis and the Jews being ostracized in Europe, the Vatican wanted to appease to them. The other reason was that the Jews were enjoying great global opportunities at the time.

 

In the first part of the declaration, believing in God is presented as the root and origin of all faiths. In the second part, the holiness of Hinduism and Buddhism has been asserted. In the third part, Islam and Muslims are honored and there are references to the respect Muslims show to Ibrahim, Mary and Jesus. It has also been mentioned that Muslims know Jesus as the prophet and not god. The fourth part of the declaration concerns the Jews and states that "the Jews of the time of Christ, taken indiscriminately, and all Jews today are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians" and the Jews should not be regarded as ostracized by God. The declaration concludes that all human beings are God’s creatures.

 

That declaration was meant for the "new world". But it seems that the new world is experiencing setbacks in this regard. One should look back and survey the principles of the Second Vatican Council’s declaration from the Christians’ side and explain why the world has reached this current point.

 

That declaration had a clear basis. Belief in God and accepting the fact that other religions-even Hinduism and Buddhism- are also holy can be an opportunity for religious tolerance.  As we know, Quran has also invited all believers to have interactions on the basis of their belief in monotheism. According to Quran, no group is allowed to impose its will on others (Al-Omran: 64).

 

That is to say without stating the common principle of belief in God, one can not hold on to interfaith dialogue.

Second: Hans Küng- the German theologian and philosopher- has been active in proliferation of interfaith dialogue and has been researching on the issue. His trilogy on Judaism, Christianity and Islam is undoubtedly one of the most important books written on the three religions.

 

According to George Carey- the former Archbishop of Canterbury- Hans Küng is one of the greatest theologian philosophers of the time. In his book "Islam: Past, Present and Future", Küng refers to two important issues: "There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions". (1)

 

This is the basis of the three-way researches of Küng in the past thirty years.

Küng has done a great deal of research on Islam. It may have deficiencies but one can not underestimate his work. No Islamic country has ever done such comprehensive research on Islam.

 

Küng has warned Christianity: "We accept Amos and Joshua and Armia and Elijah as prophets but why don’t we accept Muhamad as the prophet of Islam?"(2)

Without the belief in common principles and recognition of other religions, how can we expect to reach an understanding?

 

References:

1-Hans Kung, Islam past, present&future, Oneworld Ogford, 2007, England, p:xxiii

2-Ibid, p:123