21 - 27 February 2002
Issue No.574
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 21 - 27 February 2002 Issue No.574 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The more we talk
The idea of inter-faith dialogue may be all the rage these days, but what exactly is it about? Amina Elbendary reports from a public lecture meant to answer just that
The notion of "inter-faith dialogue" is an understandably fashionable term these days. The concept was given an inevitable boost in the wake of the attacks of 11 September, rising to prominence as a politically correct antidote to the "clash of civilisations." Still, the recent popularity of the idea in certain circles has done nothing, it would seem, to iron out the inherent contradictions and enigmas of the whole project.
So just who is dialoguing, about what, and with whom? These are questions that appeared -- at least to this hapless reporter -- as elusive as ever last Monday, when Ali El-Samman addressed a packed Oriental Hall at the American University in Cairo (AUC).
El-Samman is best known as an attorney-at-law who has occupied various positions including adviser to the president for foreign information. At one point, he was close to the late President Anwar El-Sadat.
Nowadays, El-Samman is something of a don in the inter-faith dialogue movement. He concurrently presides over the Dialogue Committee on Islamic Relations in the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and the Association of International Dialogue for the Monotheistic Religions and Education of Peace. He is also vice president of the Permanent Committee for Monotheistic Inter-religious Dialogue, and the Joint Dialogue Committee between Al-Azhar and the Vatican. His wide experience on inter-faith communication was the subject of his lecture this week as part of AUC's English Public Lecture series.
El-Samman spoke of the various recent international gatherings and meetings where representatives of the three major monotheistic religions -- namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- met and deliberated. What did rabbis, archbishops of the Vatican and sheikhs of Al-Azhar have to talk about? Not dogma, El-Samman assured his audience. The grand imam of Al-Azhar had made his position on that clear from the start, he added.
Indeed, it does seem obvious that official religious institutions would not attempt to proselytise amongst each other. This, perhaps, is the inherent contradiction in the whole project: how could a monotheist ever accept the validity of another religion?
But El-Samman explained that the subject of dialogue relates more to acceptance of the other, coexistence and social development.
El-Samman recounted his experiences in dealing with representatives of Jewish and Christian institutions in London, the Vatican, Davos and Alexandria. In some of these -- for example at the Vatican -- the Azharite committee was the only one representing Islam. It was an honour but also a responsibility, El-Samman added, to be speaking in the name of the whole Umma (nation).
Having been the spokesman at one of these occasions, El-Samman was quite conscious that discourse ought to be adjusted to suit the occasion and the audience. Speak to the world about Islam in words the world will understand, he argued.
But as El-Samman told us about the behind-the- scenes deliberations in preparing for the Declaration of Alexandria, for example, it became clear that the very objective of the dialogue is far from obvious.
El-Samman told the audience how the Arab Muslim contingent were lobbying -- eventually successfully -- to include a clear backing of the Mitchell and Tenet reports and recommendation, and references to international treaties. Of course, the facts on the ground in occupied Palestine (often referred to as the home of the three religions in question) were bound to have an influence on inter-faith dialogue. And if that seems to smack of politics to you, you are not alone. You have a right to be confused.
What exactly can be defined as "politics" is another question, but El-Samman, and perhaps other spokesmen of the inter-faith dialogue movement, would like to assure us that they are not politicians or policy- makers. Their domain is not politics, they boldly claim. It is religion.
But what is religion about, one might wonder, if not about life and afterlife, peace and justice?
The audience at Oriental Hall, mostly intrigued expatriates, seemed predisposed to encourage any form of dialogue -- especially as that dialogue is repeatedly conceived as the antidote to clash. Several members of the audience referred to the need for inter-faith dialogue and dialogue within religious communities and among various sects as well.
But even though El-Samman did not -- and, to be fair, who could have expected him to -- make the grand objectives of inter-faith dialogue crystal clear, he was obviously promoting a movement of tolerance and of accepting the "other." Who could argue against that?
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page