Adis Duderija on Islam, Muslims and Interfaith Dialogue

 

By Darwish

13 September, 2014

 

 

 

Adis Duderija was born in Bosnia in 1977. He is currently lecturing at the University of Malaya; Malaysia .He received his Ph.D. in 2010 from the University of Western Australia in contemporary Islamic hermeneutics.  His research interests include contemporary Islamic hermeneutics, gender, inter-religious dialogue and western Muslims’ identity dynamics, on which he has published extensively. He is the author of Constructing a Religiously Ideal "Believer" and "Woman" in Islam: Neo-traditional Salafi and Progressive Muslims' Methods of Interpretation, and editor of two volumes:  Maqasid-al-Sharia and Contemporary Reformist Muslim Thought and the Concept and Evolution of Sunna in Early Islamic Thought (forthcoming). He also maintains a blog: adisduderija.blogspot.com

In this interview with Darwish, he talks about issues related to Islam, Muslims and interfaith dialogue.

Q: What, in your view, should be the basis of interfaith dialogue—the basic common consensus that brings people of different faiths together to dialogue in the first place?

A: The basis for interfaith dialogue should be the acknowledgement of every human being’s humanity and basic dignity, regardless of their religious or any other background. When two people are engaged in a dialogue, they embark on a search for common meaning though a process of a mutual inquiry, and in the spirit of cooperation they suspend any preconceived assumptions of the other prior to entering it. Dialogue is by its very nature always a developing, creative and ongoing process, with the views of the participants taking the form of notions that are tentative and open to modification. Through dialogue, its participants become consciously ‘vulnerable’, seeking deeper understanding of the other (and thereby the self) with the aim of generating empathy and increased sensitivity for humanity and the inherent dignity and difference of the other. It is a process of bringing the hearts (and not necessarily the minds) of those engaged in dialogue together. As the philosopher Martin Buber puts it, “true dialogue expresses an essential aspect of the human spirit, when we listen and respond to one another with an authenticity that forges a bond between us”.

Willingness to exercise introspection and self-criticism are also essential ingredients of those engaging in dialogue. For dialogue to be meaningful, its participants must establish mutual trust and approach dialogue with integrity and honesty.

Q: What do you feel should be the purpose(s) of interfaith dialogue: Mutual understanding? Communicating one’s religion to others? Learning about other religions? Benefitting spiritually from the goodness that we can discover in other faiths and their adherents? Promoting peace? Or what?

A: What I outlined above about the nature of dialogue in general also applies to interreligious dialogue. What is peculiar to interreligious dialogue is that, given the above, it does not seek doctrinal agreement or conversion, but is a process of enriching one’s own faith by gaining a better understanding of the other and establishing respect for those who belong to a different religious tradition. Meaningful interreligious dialogue also brings about the multifaceted, complex and contested nature of the participants’ own religious traditions and does not neglect the cacophony of diverse and, at times, marginalized voices that make up each religious tradition itself. At the collective or communal level, interfaith dialogue has an important role in promoting social cohesion and as a form of non-violent resistance to any form of injustice and unfair treatment.

Q: What does Islam say about interfaith dialogue? Can you please elaborate with the help of references to the Quran and Hadith?

A: This is a complex question. The Islamic tradition, like any other religious tradition, is open to many interpretations on many issues, including that of interfaith dialogue. It is the respective interpretational models governing these textual sources as well as interpretations of Muslim history that will determine the outcome of the interpretation. If interpreted holistically and with due consideration to the historical context in which the revelation was revelled and which it in many ways mirrored, the normative sources of Islam—the Qur’an and Sunna—in my view present us with many opportunities for a fruitful and constructive interfaith dialogue.

To understand how Muslims have approached (and still approach) interreligious dialogue, in addition examining scriptural sources more needs to be said about the context in which Islam first appeared.  The context of the emergence of Prophet Muhammad’s message in seventh century Arabia as evident in the Qur’an was such that it took place alongside other already well-established religious communities, most important of which were, apart from Arabian pre-Qur’anic beliefs, Judaism, Hanifiyyah (Arabian monotheism based on the faith of Abraham) and Christianity.

It is important to note in this context that the very fabric and nature of the Qur’an clearly depicts many of the events and the nature of the relationship between the Muslim community and the non-Muslim Other during the revelatory period. Here it is essential to point out that the Qur’anic attitude (and, therefore, the Prophet Muhammad’s praxis) towards the religious Other was highly contextual in nature and therefore context-dependent, if not ambivalent. The aspects of religious identity, continuity and commonality with other faiths, especially Judaism and Christianity (adherents of which the Qur’an refers to as Ahl-e Kitab, i.e. People of Scripture), are intertwined with those of the emergence and emphasis on the Muslim identity, originality and distinctiveness.  In addition to this, in the Qur’an there are verses (e.g. 22:17;5:69;2:62) which place some of the Ahl-e Kitab adherents in very favourable light, while  in some  verses other  members of the Ahl-e Kitab are strongly  criticized for some of their beliefs and unjust practices, such as the belief in the Divine nature of Jesus (which Muslims understood as a form of shirk or polytheism),  the distortion of the (meaning) of the previous  texts of revelation (known as Tahrif), or killing of previous Messengers of God .

The reports about the Prophet Muhammad’s attitude regarding the religious other as given in the Hadith literature reflect this Qur’anic contextuality and possibly ambivalence via-a-vis the religious other. The Qur’an is, however, unequivocal on the importance and beauty of dialogue with just and upright religious others, as evident in the following verses:

Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords.’ If they turn away, say, ‘Witness our devotion to Him.’(3:64)

[Prophet], call [people] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided. (16:125)

[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same]; we are devoted to Him.’ (29:46)

Q: There is a verse in the Quran that says:

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted”.

Do you see this verse as also being related to interfaith dialogue? Do you think that the different religious communities also come under ‘peoples and tribes’ referred to here?

A: I am always reluctant to comment on individual Qur’anic verses and on that basis hastily proclaim that this is what the Qur’an says about a particular issue. The Qur’an is a profoundly dialectical and dialogical discourse. It was revealed at a time and in a place where people adhered to a number of different theistic traditions, and the Qur’an clearly repeatedly addressed these various  communities, at times praising and at times  disparaging some of them (for a number of different reasons) or  the individuals within the same theistic tradition. I am not sure that the Qur’an has a final and definite position on the salvation of the religious other or that this was what its message was about. The Qur’an often uses the discourse of various natural phenomena, including human diversity, as  ‘signs’ to drive a particular moral point or to invite  thinking people to ponder over them, recognize “God” in them and therefore live a righteous life.  And this verse should be interpreted in that overall context in my view.

So, I do not have a categorical answer to the question but would not exclude the possibility that it indeed it can be used as an argument in favour of interfaith dialogue.

Q: Some people may claim that because of the widespread Muslim belief that Islam alone is the true, uncorrupted religion, Islam is inimical to dialogue with other faiths and their adherents. They argue that since most Muslims believe that Islam alone among the religions is perfect and complete, Muslims have nothing at all to learn in terms of religion from others. They contend that Muslims think of other religions as false or corrupted, and, therefore, as having nothing that Muslims lack and nothing that Muslims can gain from. Hence, Muslims see little point in dialogue. What do you have to say?

A: I think that the kind of mentality and arguments you described do predominate among significant portions of Muslim community, especially among traditional religious leaders and their proponents. Indeed, for those who do adopt such a view, it is incommensurate with the nature of dialogue in its proper meaning as described above. For them, this ‘dialogue’ would amount to nothing more than a chance to ‘proselytise’.

Q: Some people may claim that since Islam is a missionary religion, and since Muslims are commanded to engage in Da’wah, Muslims cannot genuinely engage in dialogue or that their ‘dialogue’ is geared simply to Da’wah. They may see dialogue just as a means to reach out to communicate Islam to others. That’s hardly ‘dialogue’, some would comment, but, rather just a polite way to justify Muslim ‘monologuing’. What is your response?

A: I am not convinced that Islam is a ‘missionary’ religion in the common sense of the word. Islam never claimed to bring anything new, but  is a ‘reminder’ and perhaps a ‘reviver’ of the kind of teachings common  all major religious traditions—our longing for God as part of our quest for meaning in life,  our responsibility to humanity based on ethics of care, and our responsibility to safeguard and protect all creation. With respect to Da’wah, it all depends on your definition. What you described is indeed the most common understanding, especially in traditionalist circles, which again is not conducive to engaging in genuine dialogue for reasons described above.  But in my view it could also mean ‘bearing witness’.

Q: Some religious pluralists engaged in interfaith dialogue stress that one purpose of interfaith dialogue is to listen to, learn from and be enriched by insights of other religions. In other words, dialogue is not just about telling others about one’s own religion (perhaps in the hope that they might accept it), but also to learn from and imbibe spiritual truths, values, perspectives and practices from other faiths which may not be present in one’s own faith or which may not be so clearly stressed in one’s faith as it is in another one.

Do you see Islam as endorsing this approach to dialogue? Do Muslims feel they have any need to learn anything spiritually from others faiths (as opposed to technology perhaps—from non-Muslims)? Or is it that they think that there’s nothing of value that they can learn or add to from other faiths?

A: Again, if seen from my perspective described above, Islam indeed endorses a pluralist perspective, especially because, as I explained earlier, Islam’s message is a reaffirmation of teachings common to all major religious traditions.

Q: Some people may say that while Islam can tolerate other People of the Book, it has no such tolerance for others—people whom many Muslims label as ‘polytheists’ such as Hindus, Buddhists etc.—and that Islam gives them just two choices—death or conversion to Islam. Hence, they may contend, Islam does not envisage any possibility for dialogue and harmonious relations with people who are not considered by Muslims to be Ahl-e Kitab. What do you have to say?

A: Muslim history testifies to the fact that the Qur’anic category of Ahl-e Kitab was ‘extended’ to other religious communities apart from the Jewish and the Christian. It is very important to in this context have a historically sensitive understanding of the Qur’an when it talks about the ‘Mushrikun’. In my view, these verses cannot be simply a contextually transplanted to very different contexts—e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism etc.

Q: From an Islamic perspective, do you think it possible for Muslims to respect other religions (as distinct from respecting followers of these religions as fellow human beings), especially since many Muslims believe that religions other than Islam are false or corrupted?

A: I think the answer is a clear ‘yes’ for reasons I hopefully outlined earlier, namely: other religions are to be considered in essence as conveyers  of the same truths and teachings as that of Islam associated with the historical community of the Prophet Muhammad and his followers.

Q: Traditional Fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence is premised on the notion of Muslim supremacy and the subordinate status of non-Muslims. Many Muslim scholars (especially traditionalist ‘Ulema’) use this traditional Fiqh framework even today in relating to non-Muslims. Thus, they may see non-Muslims as Dhimmis and then talk about the rights of non-Muslims in Islam, based on the assumption of the normativity of an ‘Islamic’ state, ruled by traditional Fiqh, in which Dhimmis have certain rights (and, of course, a certain subordinate status).  Obviously, this doesn't help much in promoting better relations with people of other faiths.

What do you feel? Do you think there’s a need to rethink Fiqh in relation to non-Muslims or to relate to them outside the framework of traditional Fiqh?

A: There is definitely a need to deconstruct and critique many aspects of traditional Fiqh, especially the elements dealing with relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims (and those dealing with family laws). Traditional fiqh was crafted at a time when one’s adherence to a religious community automatically implied allegiance to a particular political community, and the political theology developed by classical Muslim scholars reflected a world that is very different to the one today.

Q: What do you think should be meant when we talk about the need to respect other religions? Does it mean respecting these religions (their beliefs, practices etc), or respecting the right of their adherents to follow them?

A: For the purposes of governance and law, it is the latter, as long as they are based on a principle of a shared universal that does not undermine a person’s dignity and autonomy. As far as former is concerned,  this can be achieved only at the level of the individual’s consciousness through education, because we cannot force someone to ‘respect’ another religion unless that person sees something inherently good and righteous in it  that is common to all religions.

Q: Why is it that relatively few interfaith dialogues have been initiated by Muslims? Do you think Muslims are generally not interested in dialogue? Do you think they’d rather debate about religion than dialogue with others? If so, is this a reflection of a deep-seated sense of superiority vis-à-vis others—that they’d rather convert them (or even, in the case of some, rather conquer non-Muslim lands) than dialogue with them and understand and learn from them?

A: I am not sure that what you stated is entirely correct. Take for example the “Common Word” initiative taken by Muslim scholars and academics in the light of the famous Regensburg lecture given by the former Pope. There are many other similar initiatives. However, there is some truth in your question. Those Muslims who adopt a traditionalist mindset of Islam’s superiority ipso facto would not be capable of true dialogue.

Q: If non-Muslims are looking for dialogue partners among Muslims, which sort of Muslims do you think they should approach? If many traditionalist ‘Ulema’ and the Islamists aren’t really interested in genuine dialogue, and non-Muslims reach out to dialogue with the ‘liberals’—people who are already convinced about the need for dialogue and harmony etc.—what’s the use of this sort of dialogue? Won’t it be just ‘preaching to the already converted’?

A: I do understand and can relate to this conundrum. I think we should never underestimate the power of bringing people together and the possibility of transformation. Non-Muslims and Muslims alike should continue to reach out to both.

Q: Who do you think are most capable/suitable for engaging in dialogue with people of other faiths: the traditionalist ‘Ulema’, ‘modern’/’Western’ educated Muslims?

A: Well, I think labelling people in this manner is not necessarily helpful. We have several example of traditionally educated-‘Ulema’ like Farid Esack, former Bosnian Mufti Mustafa Ceric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and many others   who are champions of interfaith dialogue. The most suitable are those who subscribe to the principles of genuine dialogue or are willing to explore them.

Q: A lot of writings on other religions by Muslim writers on other faiths (even those that style themselves as ‘dialogues’) tend to be very tendentious, seeking to argue that these religions are false and corrupted and that Islam alone is true. They do not bother to try to empathetically understand these religions as their adherents actually understand them. How does this tendency impact on prospects for Muslims engaging in sincere interfaith dialogue?

A: It no doubt diminishes these prospects. I would suggest that non-Muslims attempt to reach out to these Muslim writers and present their point of view to them or ‘refute’ them by writing counter arguments.

Q: In the name of dialogue, some Muslim groups seek to rebut and criticize other religions and point out the (real or imaginary) errors in their scriptures and belief systems. Some try to prove other religions as inferior and mock them. They see this as one of the purposes of ‘dialogue’.

Is this at all compatible with the spirit of dialogue? Can this be called dialogue at all or is it simply inter-religious polemics?

A: It would simply amount to inter-religious polemics, to use your apt phrase, because this is entirely at odds with what genuine dialogue is about as discussed previously.

Q: There are hardly any genuine intra-Muslim dialogue efforts—dialogue between different Muslim ‘sects’. Intra Muslim, inter-sectarian polemics not only continue unabated (with each Muslim sect claiming to be the true, saved [najiyya] one), but they have sharply escalated in recent times in many places and in several countries have now assumed fiercely violent forms.

If the different Muslim sects cannot peacefully dialogue among themselves and see polemics and violence as the way to deal with their differences, can we seriously expect Muslims to be sincerely enthusiastic about dialoguing with people of other faiths?

A: This is a very important point. I attempted to establish on two occasions, some years ago, an academic journal on intra-Muslim dialogue. It never took off. In some places like Lebanon I think there has been some progress with regard to intra-Muslim dialogue, and perhaps the larger Muslim community can learn from it. However, as you suggested, the dynamics at play between intra-Muslim dialogue and interfaith dialogue are not too different.

Q: What impact do you see radical Islamism and violence in the name of Islam, on the one hand, and what is called ‘Islamophobia’, on the other, having on prospects for Muslims engaging in inter-religious dialogue?

A: It is obvious that dogmatism, especially that associated with violence, and Islamophobia (the irrational hatred of and conflation of all Muslims and Islam with the acts of barbarism and regress) are inimical to what interfaith dialogue stands for and aims to accomplish.

Q: Do you see that as radical Islamists gain strength in many places, other Muslims who opposed to them are increasingly willing to stand up to speak for Islam, counter the Islamists and to engage in dialogue with people of other faiths?

A: This is an empirical question that needs to be verified. But to me it does make sense that this could be the case as more Muslims are willing to re-examine their relationship with their faith, what it means to them and to embody and promote alternative understandings of Islam which are very different to those of ‘radical Islamists’, to use your phrase.

Q: What do you feel about the efficacy of dialogue at the theological/scriptural level, between so-called religious ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’? Or do you think it is perhaps more fruitful to focus on dialogue at the social/political level, in terms of people from different faith backgrounds collaborating for common social and political purposes? Or, more than that, dialogue at the mystical level, beyond doctrines and dogmas, where the very notion of different faiths and communities completely dissolves?

A: I think that such dialogue should take place at all of these levels, but in places where prospects for social cohesion are threatened, more action- oriented and pragmatic dialogue should be prioritized.

Q: Can you please reflect on your experiences of interfaith dialogue. What do you feel about the efficacy of such encounters?

A: I have been involved in interfaith dialogue for about 5 years. It is not easy to evaluate the efficacy of these initiatives unless one adopts a scientific empirical approach. But based on my anecdotal evidence, simply bringing people of different faiths and backgrounds face to face on a regular basis who otherwise might not have ever met is itself powerful enough to warrant  the  continued existence interfaith dialogue.

Q: Some people think that if the purpose of dialogue is to promote understanding and harmony, then the best way to do it is not to ‘conference about’ it but, rather, to build close friendships with people of other faiths. In other words, true interfaith dialogue for harmony can only come about through true interfaith living and inter-personal dialogue and harmony. What do you feel?

A: I agree with you entirely on this, but would just add that more formal events will not do harm but should not be a focus. Interfaith dialogue should be very much grassroots-oriented.

Q: How, if at all, has interacting with people of other faiths deepened your own spirituality and helped you understand your own faith in a better, more inclusive way? Have the virtues that you might have discovered in other religions and their adherents helped you to discover or better recognize these virtues in your own religion which might have been occluded by, say, the dominance of conservative/patriarchal/exclusivist understandings of Islam?

A: They have definitely helped me in better recognizing our human condition , our profound interconnectedness , the inherent dignity of each human being , the many  commonalities  different religions/spiritualities share, and have shattered some preconceived notions I had in my mind.

URL: https://newageislam.com/interview/adis-duderija-islam,-muslims-interfaith/d/99055