Interreligious dialogue: smokescreen or real utility?
Interreligious dialogue is very fashionable these days. But what achievements does it have to show?
Interreligious meetings are ten a penny nowadays. It is obviously better for people to spend their time talking to each other than to smash each other’s heads in. But apart from this elementary use, do they have any merits? A few years ago, I attended a conference on Religion in Asia after 9/11 at Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi. There, Swami Agnivesh, the Hindu equivalent of a liberation theologian (“Vedic socialism”), was asked to evaluate his long experience with interreligious dialogue. His conclusion: “No, it has no use. Have we achieved anything with it? No, we have not. It is time we tried something else.”
Yet, some people keep on trying. In the weekend of 12-13 September 2009, Antwerp witnessed a modest conference of all religions, or nearly all. Every religion had its own little stall for self-presentation and a spokesman from each gave a speech. The major religions were present, though they mistrust such meetings as (1) conveying the theologically unacceptable impression that their own message is on a par with that of other, “false” religions; (2) giving undue importance to small religions, since each one sends one delegation regardless of the size of its flock.
One knows how all this pans out: neo-Druids, neo-Templars, non-Muslim “Sufis”, would-be-Amerindian sweatlodgers and other Wiccas will stake their claim to an equal seat at the table with the billion-plus religions of Catholicism and Islam. Biblical and Quranic orthodoxies dismiss such syncretism and “equal respect for all religions” as Pagan par excellence, an insult to the sole revealed truth. The initiative for the conference lies with these small religions, though they found a Catholic priest willing (and others unwilling) to open his church for the ecumenical celebration. Some Catholics have gone soft under the impact of the Zeitgeist, represented by the political authorities of the city, who are always eager to patronize such chummy interreligious affairs.
This highlight of a truly ecumenical celebration is theologically very risky. For example, many traditions impose specific purity requirements for a ritual to be effective, requirements which outsiders don’t observe and generally don’t even know about. Therefore, the usual scenario is that at such gatherings the delegates pat each other on the shoulder a lot in the plenary session, intone the predictable mantras about “mutual understanding” and “respect”, but insist on celebrating the intimate moments of religious worship separately (e.g. at the Assisi gathering hosted by Pope John-Paul II). Let us just see how it works out.
Meanwhile, my own experience with such gatherings is that they may have their uses at the personal level. On 3 May 2009, I participated in an interreligious dialogue session organized by the Belgian Ahmadiya community in the Basilica of Koekelberg (Brussels). It worked out very nicely, at least for me.
The Ahmadiyas are a Muslim-yet-non-Muslim tradition. Founded in the late 19th century in British India by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, they claim to be Muslim and even excel in their zeal for Islam, yet they are considered non-Muslim by other Muslims including the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The reason is that the Ahmadiyas consider their own founder as another prophet, completing and reaffirming the message of Mohammed. But Islamic orthodoxy holds that Mohammed was “the Seal of the Prophets”, the final prophet whose word is definitively authoritative until Judgment Day. The Prophet’s status is belittled by the claim that he could have any use for a self-styled helper. Because of this alleged disrespect for the Prophet of Islam, Ahmadiyas are actively persecuted in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, hence their massive presence among our bonafide asylum-seekers.
One of their tactics to wriggle out of their persecuted condition is an emphatic veneration for Mohammed, the very prophet in whose name they are persecuted. An Ahmadiya spokesman and religious teacher explained at the Koekelberg meeting that the name “Ahmad” does not so much refer to founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but to the name’s literal meaning, “praiser (of God)”, of the same root as Mohammed, “praised one”.
He mentioned only in passing the belief dear to the Ahmadiyas that Jesus had migrated east after the crucifixion and resurrection, then lived most of his life in Kashmir, there to die at the high age of 115 of natural causes. A Catholic priest was pressed for his view on this matter, and upheld the Christian belief that Jesus was buried in Jerusalem, in a grave identified three centuries later by Emperor Constantine’s mother. It was a friendly meeting, so this dissonance caused no unpleasant reactions. However, the priest could have been even more diplomatic by avoiding this negative answer yet sticking to the Gospel truth, the way Jef Ulburghs did at the Islamist mass meeting in Genk (Limburg, Belgium) of 6 April 1992. Ulburghs, a Catholic priest and then socialist MP, dismissed the Crusades as a sad mistake: the Crusaders had gone to Palestine to liberate the Holy Grave, but that was a perfectly unimportant place as “Jesus was no longer in that grave, he was resurrected!”
Each of the Ahmadiya speakers denounced the Jihad-mongers in the Muslim community, at least those who justified terror as Jihad: “Other Muslims reproach us for not waging jihad. But this is jihad, this interreligious get-together here!” If such convivial meetings are really jihad, I wouldn’t mind jihad too much.
They were very strict about the peace-loving and tolerant reinterpretation of Islamic scripture. Thus, they highlighted Quranic verses seemingly implying that Hell is not eternal, that even those condemned to hell (which includes all unbelievers) will get a chance to enter heaven eventually. They accepted the Quranic doctrine that God alone decides who becomes Muslim and who non-Muslim, and that it is only up to Him to punish wrong human “choices”. The orthodox reading is a fatalistic one, viz. that man has no real choice and that God is the only real agent in the universe, the rest of us being mere pawns in His game. But these Ahmadiyas said it means that God has willed the existence of different religions, and that this is a Quranic basis for religious pluralism.
Even more surprisingly, they effectively nullified the notion of “false gods”, since other gods but Allah are in reality merely other names for the same Allah: “There is no god but Allah, He is the god worshipped by Zarathustra, Krishna, Buddha and all other prophets. Mohammed accepted that messengers had been sent to all nations. Even though not mentioned by name, Zarathustra, Krishna, Buddha and others are acknowledged as valid by the Prophet.”
This comes close to the notion of the “common truth underlying all religions”, preached by Baha’ullah, Mahatma Gandhi and other moderns. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad lived and worked in the same colonial, proto-globalist context, the time when Ludwig Zamenhof a.k.a. “Dr. Esperanto” launched his “international language” as an instrument for world peace. The Baha’is and Ahmadiyas are two sects of Islam that came under the influence of the internationalist spirit of the age and increasingly started taking the “common truth underlying all religions” seriously. This is the philosophy underlying most contemporary interreligious initiatives. It sounds nice but is abhorred by religious orthodoxies, and I’m afraid it only convinces those who already take a liberal view of religious truth claims.
The liberal interpretations of Islamic scripture by the Belgium-based Ahmadiya community are theologically questionable, indeed they are sharply rejected by the orthodox. But there is no question that the people I met were entirely serious about them. Maybe the Quran does not truly support religious pluralism, but these people clearly do.
This, then, is my personal reason for supporting interreligious dialogue in principle. It doesn’t get the participants doctrinally closer, they are in no mood to change their minds about their cherished beliefs, not even by their dialogue partners; but it brings them humanly closer. Perhaps my speaking some Urdu had something to do with it, but I found the Ahmadiya hosts a very friendly group, in the sense that I felt like being among friends. The use of personal encounters with people representing other religions, even gravely distrusted ones like Islam, is to remind us that they are not abstract quantities in a discourse on “jihadist infiltration” and “demographic aggression”, but real people.
I get a lot of criticism these days for allegedly going soft on “the threat of Islam”. I remain perfectly aware of the problem that Islam poses. But I insist that any solution must start from the realization that Muslims are human beings who, like the rest of us, have merely developed an identification with the religion they happened to be born into. It is possible to outgrow one’s early conditioning, as I have done to quite an extent. We should not deny them the opportunity to go through a similar growth process, but we should respect their human freedom and capacity to discover the truth for themselves. Underneath the crust of religious doctrine, there is in them the same lava of longing for truth, pushing to break free.
The Hindu and Hinduism Dual edged weapon
The Hindu and Hinduism are modern tools to exploit and create rift between ‘This or that Hindu’ to rule over India. The Wendy Doniger is modern weapon in the race.
India was world leader and cradle of civilization. There was no theft, robbery, shops and houses were open for all without lock and key. All were doing their duties at their own. It was due to the deep rooted theology with the theory of reincarnation that every one is bound to face actions in life with new birth. It was having the background of Vedic Science fully. With time the Vedas were beyond interpretation, and turned towards sacrificial rituals to satisfy God and soul.
The human sentiments were kept alive with sentiments of god- soul relationship and reincarnation of God to re establish righteousness time to time. It has been established with different stories from time to time with modification by the narrator as per their fancy in the language of common man. The vast Sanskrit literature is filled with this, and higher knowledge of God and soul at molecular level in Upnishads and Vedas. It has laid down the sound ethical foundation of the Indian culture. It was exploited by the invaders and the rulers to rule over India with religious sentiments only. The long slavery of India, under Moughal and British Emperor devalued it with their superstitious religion and faith in one God.
The Hindu and Hinduism are modern tools to exploit and create rift between ‘This or that Hindu’ to harvest vote bank. The Wendy’s book is dual edged modern weapon.
India is passing through a critical period with ethical barrenness. The religious fundamentalism and terrorist’s attack on Mumbai has shaken the faith of common men. Although India has a long history of pride in the world, but pride of Nation and Nationality in India has devalued up to certain extent, ethical values are deteriorating and religious fundamentalism has upper hand. To follow the ethics in life was individual responsibility, under the cycle of birth and death.
The entry of organized religion like Christian and Muslim relieved the human-beings from individual responsibility, under the faith in God. Who is devoid of sentiments without attribute and character; The religious institutes are the rulers.
. India the Cradle of Civilization
The European scholars have considered the India, as the cradle of civilization, when they became acquainted with the Sanskrit language and the Indian literature. The astronomer Bailly, the first mayor of Paris was very much influenced by the Indian culture, in 1777, he has stated that Brahmans are the teachers of the Pythagoras, the instructors of Greece and through her of the whole of Europe (51). Voltaire voiced his agreement “in short, Sir, I am convinced that everything-astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc comes to us from the banks of the Ganges” (Bailly 1777, 4).
The French naturalist and traveller Pierre de Sonnerat (1782) also believed all knowledge came from India, which he considered the cradle of the human race. In 1807, the well known metaphysician Schelling could wonder “what is Europe really but a sterile trunk which owes everything to Oriental grafts?” (Poliakov 1971, 11). A year later the influential Friendrich von Schlegel argued that “the northwest of India must be considered the central point from which all of these nations had their origin” (505). In 1845, Echo was adamant that “all Europeans come from the Orient. This truth has is confirmed by the evidence of physiology and linguistics, no longer needs special proof” (12). Even as late as 1855, Lord A. Curzon, the governor general of India and eventual chancellor of Oxford, was still convinced that “the race of India branched out and multiplied in to that of the great Indo-European family…The Aryans at a period as yet undetermined, advanced towards and invaded the countries to the west and north-west of India, [and] conquered the various tribes who occupied the land.” European civilization, in his view, was initiated by the Indian Aryans: “They must have imposed their religion, institutions, and language, or languages, of the conquered tribes” (172-173)
Michelet held that the Vedas “were undoubtedly the first monument of the world” (1864, 26) and that from India emanated “a torrent of light and the flow of reason and Right” (485). He proclaimed that “the migrations of mankind follow the route of the sun from East to West along the sun’s course…. At its starting point man arose in India, the birthplace of races and of religions, “the womb of the world” (Febvre 1946, 95-96).
Even the Britishers find a common relationship with Indian Brahmins; they were much influenced by the light skinned colour and authority of Vedic doctrines. To rule over India, they influence upper caste Brahmins and diplomatically they tried to form a racial relationship that the Sanskrit language is close to the European languages and mother of all languages. It was propagated that the British rule in India is only a reunion of the old brethren. J. Wilson insisted that “what has taken place since the commencement of the British Government in India is only a reunion… of the members of the same family” (14-15). Marlborough wrote in 1870 that “in coming to Hindustan with our advanced civilization, we were returning home with splendid gifts, to visit a member of our common family” (quoted in Maw 1950, 14-15). Müller himself (1847) had expressed “it is curious to see how the descendants of the same race, to which the first conquerors and masters of India belonged, return…to accomplish the glorious work of civilization, which had been left unfinished by their Arian brethren” (349). The Aryan connection was a politically shrewd card to play “ in thus honouring our Aryan forerunners in India we shall both honour ourselves and make the most direct and effective appeal to Indian loyalty” Havell (1918-1X). W.C. Pearce in 1876 compared the ancient pre Christian Aryan invasion of the subcontinent to the modern Christian Aryan one. In his view, the ancient Aryans had descended from the high land of Asia, bringing with them their language, civilization, and religion, which far surpassed those of the natives. Max Müller in his course of lectures “India: What can it teach us?” (1883), he declared that she was “the country of most richly endowed with all the wealth, power and beauty that nature can bestow,” indeed “a very paradise on earth,” a place where “the human mind has most fully developed. Some of its choicest gifts, [and] has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life”
It was the early response of the European intellectuals and missionaries, which has helped in conversion of Indians in to Christianity.