Ali: Interfaith dialog vital for religious harmony
The writer recently received from a friend a gift of a video tape of a meeting between Muslim and Christian religious experts in Indonesia. It was described as a "debate between two religions", with the subtitle, "Islam versus Christianity" as if it was a boxing match. My friend presented it to me as though it would provide interesting viewing. This, though, was not the case for me at all.
Instead of seeing this debate as interesting, the writer was left feeling disappointed and saddened. The "two sides" in the debate were not really listening to each other; they were in fact trying to "score points" off each other and "win" the argument. This is not really the kind of communication we need between faiths. What is the better way, though?
***
Interfaith dialog vital for religious harmony
By Ali
I recently received from a friend a gift of a video tape of a meeting between Muslim and Christian religious experts in Indonesia. It was described as a "debate between two religions", with the subtitle, "Islam versus Christianity" as if it was a boxing match. My friend presented it to me as though it would provide interesting viewing. This, though, was not the case for me at all.
Instead of seeing this debate as interesting, I was left feeling disappointed and saddened. The "two sides" in the debate were not really listening to each other; they were in fact trying to "score points" off each other and "win" the argument. This is not really the kind of communication we need between faiths.
A debate format really does little more than reinforce ideas of opposition and the foolish notion that one party (or here, religion) may emerge "victorious". This is not useful communication and discourse between peoples. For communication to be useful it needs to be a shared and respectful dialog in which both parties speak and listen, and ultimately become wiser for having spoken and listened.
Many times people claim to be entering into useful discussions when in fact all they are really doing is seeking ways in which to promote and even impose their own ideals and agendas. But ultimately this approach is neither useful in the pursuit of their goals nor generally fruitful.
Those that seek to "succeed" or "prevail" through their arguments are doing little more then waging war. True, their war is a war with words and not bullets or bombs, but these kinds of words can and do lead to the use of bullets and bombs.
When religion is "debated" in this kind of confrontational way it is quite easy to see the debating parties as fundamentalists who want to attack their supposed "infidel" opponents or convert the "heathens" so their opponents will come to share their faith and vision of the world. This kind of thinking is nothing short of the ideals of empire and the imposition of imperialism.
In the manner of imperialism, there are those that see the process of communication as a way of bringing their singular truth to a plural world. For them the aim of communication is to conquer and convert, but this kind of thinking has never been successful for the "conqueror" particularly or the "conquered" generally.
A faith that is coerced is not really a faith at all; to do or accept something just because you are told to is neither satisfying nor of lasting worth. Communication, likewise, to be truly satisfying and possessing anything remotely resembling lasting worth, needs to be more than occasionally staged debates that are inappropriately founded on notions of determining superiority.
Our communication has to be a process centered on generating understanding. This means that it needs to be based around the sharing of ideas and the sharing of ways in which we can mutually come to terms with what it is to have a human existence and be part of human society.
Communication, then, needs to be stable, consistent and peacefully orientated toward wanting to participate in understanding others; not just engaging in confrontation and making your voice heard, expecting others to listen and being in denial of their voice.
This means that we have to live and cooperate together so that we may gradually achieve the habit of cooperation and the realm of trust that is so critical for us to live together. In turn it requires that our process of communication is a process of association; wherein we actually interact with others, even if those "others" are fundamentally different from us.
Though there may be fundamental differences between us, these do not have to lead to a fundamentalist abuse and attacking of each other. We can, it must be hoped, recognize and appreciate our differences and ultimately accept, if not plainly concede, that we all stand before God irrespective of our differing routes to God.
People of faith can surely accept this truth. After all, true faith exalts, enriches and empowers the human heart; why should such a great attribute be wasted on destructive extremes?
Perhaps the reason why is that we too often fail to truly communicate and interact with and thus understand others. In our towns and cities we are prone to live in segregated communities.
This has been (too, too often) exemplified in Jakarta, where clashes between neighboring communities have for years been the flash points of ugly violence.
Trust needs to be built up but if we live separated from each other there is very little hope for the building of trust. Instead we live in ignorance of the "other" and this leaves us prone to the suggestion that the "other" is a threat to us; and yet quite the opposite is likely to be the case -- if only we knew.
True and lasting dialog is needed for the benefit of all. All should be involved - not just "religious experts". From talking to each other and, vitally important but so often and so easily forgotten, listening to each other, we can reach across the boundaries that separate us.
Boundaries of faith, race and income can and will remain, but dialog will help us to understand and value them and so truly make space for them in both our cognitive and our physical worlds.
Debates and argumentation may be intellectually challenging and even entertaining, but constructive outcomes from dialog that builds understanding and trust are more vital to us now. We must speak and be heard, but we must also listen. Our listening will inform our speech and help us kill ignorance and revive trust.
The author is a senior researcher at the Cunningham Research Centre in Manchester, UK.
(Jakarta Post, 7/2/2005)
Read More...>>>
Instead of seeing this debate as interesting, the writer was left feeling disappointed and saddened. The "two sides" in the debate were not really listening to each other; they were in fact trying to "score points" off each other and "win" the argument. This is not really the kind of communication we need between faiths. What is the better way, though?
***
Interfaith dialog vital for religious harmony
By Ali
I recently received from a friend a gift of a video tape of a meeting between Muslim and Christian religious experts in Indonesia. It was described as a "debate between two religions", with the subtitle, "Islam versus Christianity" as if it was a boxing match. My friend presented it to me as though it would provide interesting viewing. This, though, was not the case for me at all.
Instead of seeing this debate as interesting, I was left feeling disappointed and saddened. The "two sides" in the debate were not really listening to each other; they were in fact trying to "score points" off each other and "win" the argument. This is not really the kind of communication we need between faiths.
A debate format really does little more than reinforce ideas of opposition and the foolish notion that one party (or here, religion) may emerge "victorious". This is not useful communication and discourse between peoples. For communication to be useful it needs to be a shared and respectful dialog in which both parties speak and listen, and ultimately become wiser for having spoken and listened.
Many times people claim to be entering into useful discussions when in fact all they are really doing is seeking ways in which to promote and even impose their own ideals and agendas. But ultimately this approach is neither useful in the pursuit of their goals nor generally fruitful.
Those that seek to "succeed" or "prevail" through their arguments are doing little more then waging war. True, their war is a war with words and not bullets or bombs, but these kinds of words can and do lead to the use of bullets and bombs.
When religion is "debated" in this kind of confrontational way it is quite easy to see the debating parties as fundamentalists who want to attack their supposed "infidel" opponents or convert the "heathens" so their opponents will come to share their faith and vision of the world. This kind of thinking is nothing short of the ideals of empire and the imposition of imperialism.
In the manner of imperialism, there are those that see the process of communication as a way of bringing their singular truth to a plural world. For them the aim of communication is to conquer and convert, but this kind of thinking has never been successful for the "conqueror" particularly or the "conquered" generally.
A faith that is coerced is not really a faith at all; to do or accept something just because you are told to is neither satisfying nor of lasting worth. Communication, likewise, to be truly satisfying and possessing anything remotely resembling lasting worth, needs to be more than occasionally staged debates that are inappropriately founded on notions of determining superiority.
Our communication has to be a process centered on generating understanding. This means that it needs to be based around the sharing of ideas and the sharing of ways in which we can mutually come to terms with what it is to have a human existence and be part of human society.
Communication, then, needs to be stable, consistent and peacefully orientated toward wanting to participate in understanding others; not just engaging in confrontation and making your voice heard, expecting others to listen and being in denial of their voice.
This means that we have to live and cooperate together so that we may gradually achieve the habit of cooperation and the realm of trust that is so critical for us to live together. In turn it requires that our process of communication is a process of association; wherein we actually interact with others, even if those "others" are fundamentally different from us.
Though there may be fundamental differences between us, these do not have to lead to a fundamentalist abuse and attacking of each other. We can, it must be hoped, recognize and appreciate our differences and ultimately accept, if not plainly concede, that we all stand before God irrespective of our differing routes to God.
People of faith can surely accept this truth. After all, true faith exalts, enriches and empowers the human heart; why should such a great attribute be wasted on destructive extremes?
Perhaps the reason why is that we too often fail to truly communicate and interact with and thus understand others. In our towns and cities we are prone to live in segregated communities.
This has been (too, too often) exemplified in Jakarta, where clashes between neighboring communities have for years been the flash points of ugly violence.
Trust needs to be built up but if we live separated from each other there is very little hope for the building of trust. Instead we live in ignorance of the "other" and this leaves us prone to the suggestion that the "other" is a threat to us; and yet quite the opposite is likely to be the case -- if only we knew.
True and lasting dialog is needed for the benefit of all. All should be involved - not just "religious experts". From talking to each other and, vitally important but so often and so easily forgotten, listening to each other, we can reach across the boundaries that separate us.
Boundaries of faith, race and income can and will remain, but dialog will help us to understand and value them and so truly make space for them in both our cognitive and our physical worlds.
Debates and argumentation may be intellectually challenging and even entertaining, but constructive outcomes from dialog that builds understanding and trust are more vital to us now. We must speak and be heard, but we must also listen. Our listening will inform our speech and help us kill ignorance and revive trust.
The author is a senior researcher at the Cunningham Research Centre in Manchester, UK.
(Jakarta Post, 7/2/2005)
Read More...>>>
Post by PUAN Amal Hayati SAQO Al-Jailani at
10:40 AM
|
0 comments
