During his visit to Turkey, Pope Benedict XVI called to
have a "true"
dialogue between Islām and Christianity; a call that was welcomed by some Muslim thinkers who forgave
his
offensive claims of Islām being violent, whereas it was described by al-Qā‘idah as part of a
new crusade aimed at severing Turkey’s Islamic roots.
The author of this article comments on this
saying
that the word "true" in the Pope’s call indicates that dialogue will not be true if both
parties insist that
differences between religions are more superficial than inherent. Furthermore, it is
necessary to acknowledge that
religious teachings are similar in their essence so that a compromise can be
reached in a step towards enhancing
peace and religious tolerance. The author criticizes this compromising
view, arguing that if religions were all the
same there would be no need for more than one. He believes
that they represent different views, each reflecting a
different understanding of the universe, life, and
human behavior. In this regard, he distinguishes between two
types of dialogue; constructive as opposed to
misleading dialogue. In his view, recognizing diverse views is an
important step toward "true constructive
dialogue," provided that all parties believe that each of these views hold
one side of the truth that is
not obvious to the others. Thus, the affluence of human souls would lie in knowing
the essence of these
diverse views and benefiting from what is unique about each of them; only then would a
dialogue among
religions be useful. On the other hand, he says that a dialogue would be harmful and misleading in
several
cases, among which are:
If a dialogue was based on the will for victory disregarding the search for
the truth, as each party will only seek to defeat the opponent’s arguments even if this involves
hiding or
fabricating part of the truth.
If any party involved in the dialogue resorted to their
holy scriptures to
support their arguments, this would destroy the dialogue as these sources are of no
credibility for the opposing
party. Thus, argumentation should be based on rationality and
syllogism.
Finally, he concludes that the
fanatic’s view of his religion being the best is
normal, since through his religion he sees the truth. The
problem with fanatics however, lies in their
failure to recognize the relation between God and believers of other
religions, and that no religion is
wrong as long as it is capable of fulfilling the spiritual needs of its
believers and lead them to a
virtuous life, besides, isolating himself from other religions and using his religion
as a criteria to
judge them. Thus, the importance of dialogue is revealed. Accordingly, we should surpass polite
listening
and debating to learn and benefit from others, and even reconsider our concepts and ideas when necessary,
because understanding others’ religions means understanding one’s own, and real believers are not
those
who criticize others’ religions or mock them. Rather, real believers are those who can perceive
facts of
different religions and then move on.
