Dialogue Vs. Religious debate By Salah Salem Al-Hayat ALMOST five decades ago, the Vatican took the initiative, calling for a religious dialogue that led to the formation of good relationships between the Catholic Church and Israel. But until this day, the Vatican's dialogue remained unable to change the typical image of Islam that resides in the minds of non-Muslims, even though Islam had been represented through the past centuries by different cultures and races. During the period that extended from the sixth to the 19th century, the west was introduced to Islam by the Turkish Ottoman state, later on Iran presented its version through the revolution and nowadays it's back to the Arabs, whose time as representatives of Islam couldn't have been worse, with terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda appearing and feeding the clash of civilizations theory which was on its way to be forgotten until it was revived by the September 11 terrorist attacks. Still it's not a one way process, the clash of civilizations was also seen in other incidents in which the west played the catalyst role, drawing angry reactions from Islamic countries that threatened the very fate of any chances of dialogue or relationships built on mutual respect and coexistence. One of these incidents was the cartoon crisis, in which Danish newspapers published cartoons that portrayed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a disrespectful manner. The incident sparked debate regarding the limits of freedom of expression, in which the European right wing insisted on its own egoistic definition for this freedom. Amazingly, the second incident came from the head of the Catholic Church, when Pope Benedict XVI quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel the second, who described Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a man that lived by the sword and used it to spread his ‘heresies.' The Pope's quote seems to be built on a deep belief that Islam contradicts the very idea of reason, while Christianity resembles it since it had absorbed the essence of Greek philosophy. And now we find ourselves facing yet another crisis, with Danish newspapers republishing the disrespectful cartoons of the Prophet, in what seems to be an emphasis on the arrogant right winged definition of freedom of expression. And while western culture is used to portraying, criticizing and sometimes insulting its own religions and religious symbols, including Jesus Christ, that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for the west to do the same with others. Knowing that Muslims consider the portraying of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in any way to be insulting explains how they felt when Danish newspapers went for more than just portraying the most sacred symbols of Islam. The west has no other choice but to respect others, if its mutual respect they seek. Such respect can only be gained through treating others' beliefs and symbols according to the way of treatment that these symbols receive from those believing in them. Freedom of expression can not be used as an excuse to attack what others cherish, especially when it comes to Faith. The fact that the west can tolerate any criticism directed to its religious symbols cannot be used as an excuse, since even though religion might not be considered a red line in the west, other topics are. For instance, doubting the existence of a controversial historical event like the holocaust can get you jailed in certain western countries, even though it is merely a historical incident and can not be considered a sacred belief. And since these provocative incidents have been occurring a bit too often lately, one might think that the west is developing a new habit, one that will make peaceful coexistence with other cultures a very hard if not an impossible thing to do. In order to prevent irreparable damage to relationships between the west and the Islamic world, something has to be done. In terms of religion, the only way for the establishment of a good relationship will depend on complete respect for the beliefs of others, accepting these beliefs and treating them as those who believe in them do and not as we perceive them. Still, dialogue can not be built on religion, since debating on ideologies will only lead to a dead end. Such an outcome is not at the least surprising, since all religions disagree with fundamental orthodoxies of other religions. For example, the central dogma of Christianity, which claims Jesus to be the son of god, can not be discussed with Christians without attacking Christianity's corner stones. Such a debate will lead to no results, since none of those participating in it will agree to compromise, and the same can be said about trying to convince others to accept and believe in what we believe in. Those who have solid and unquestionable faith in what they believe in mustn't be surprised when they find that others consider their beliefs deficient or weak, had they not thought so, they would have been on the same side themselves. Still, it remains a solid inner belief that we might not be able to convince others to follow. All one can do is accepting others as they are, away from disrespect or negativity. Muslims can accept Christians as they are, without calling them infidels, even though they might be so in the eyes of most Muslims. The same applies to the Catholic Church, which will have to adjust its doctrine that points at the church as the only way to salvation. Such an adjustment will force the church out of its schizophrenic state that acknowledges Muslims as respectable humans, yet it refuses to acknowledge their sacred symbols, like Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the holy Qur'an. As for culture , the west also needs to get over its blind faith in the exceptionality of Greek philosophy and the purity of western mentality since these beliefs seem to be exiling Islam away by clashing with its reason, regardless of any attempts to bring closer points of view. And since Jewish-Catholic dialogue wouldn't have achieved any results if it wasn't for the common belief that Jews are one of the two main foundations of western civilization, since the new testimony cannot be separated from the old, Islamic-Christian dialogue will not give any results unless there was a complete acceptance of differences, focusing only on what we have in common instead of overlooking that and going in circles around orthodoxies and beliefs. Focusing on what we agree on can bring us closer, we all call for the revival of faith and ethics in the face of modern moral decay. We also agree on the importance of world peace, in a time of struggle between the dominance of western powers and the extremism of terrorist organizations. If we accept each other, there will be no need for any talk of cultural conflict; instead we will be on the track leading to an Islamic-Christian understanding and peaceful coexistence. __
