Interfaith Dialogue Between Christianity and Islam – the Role of Spiritual Paths – Dr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tokyo June 15 2013, Public Symposium: “Interfaith Dialogue”, Tokyo International University, Waseda Campus Interfaith Dialogue between Christianity and Islam – the Role of Spiritual Paths – Dr. Liana Trufas, Former Professor, Lecturer, University of Tsukuba Introduction With the hardening of fundamentalist movements and in the wake of dramatic events in recent years, the desire to avoid inter-religious conflict and to reach a better mutual understanding has made the need for a constructive interfaith dialogue between Christianity and Islam more urgent than ever. Contrary to a widespread idea, the present tensions between Christianity and Islam do not derive primarily from pure religious reasons, nor come they from a supposed “clash of civilizations”. One of their important sources is the fact that, besides the distaste for the manifest decadence of Western culture and mores that many people of all religions have, the Arabs and other Muslims have an additional ground for complaint. It is the fact that, ever since the beginning of the 20th century, large parts of the Islamic world are been subjected to certain major injustices of which the majority of people in the West are not even aware. It is this unawareness that is the main cause of the pain and bitterness throughout the Muslim world. That is why to prevent the inter-religious conflicts and to heal the wounds caused by the fundamentalist movements of various stripes which have sickened our societies is not an easy task. From the standpoint which is our, that of academic studies, it seems that the only thing we can do is to contribute to the process of achieving a real and fruitful interfaith dialogue. There have already been many approaches, all of them valuable for their effort in finding a solution, and there will be surely many others. In this paper I will suggest an approach to the interfaith-dialogue based on the notion of “religious diversity”: 1. The stance on religious diversity in Christian and Islamic fundamental texts; 2. Two approaches to religious diversity in the philosophy of religion: John Hick and S.H. Nasr; 3. Christian and Islamic spiritual paths: means leading to a better attitude towards religious diversity Before proceeding any further I have to clarify some notions. Every religion makes the dual claim to be a vehicle of truth and a provider of a means of salvation; truth and a means of salvation are the defining characteristics of every religion. Were it no so, it would not be a religion, but a man-made ideology. In considering this dual claim of religions, three stances or attitudes towards religious diversity have emerged in contemporary religious studies: pluralism, exclusivism and inclusivism. They can be roughly characterized as follows. A pluralist maintains that different religions provide an equally salvific path; an exclusivist claims that only his or her religion offers a true salvific path, while an inclusivist holds that salvation is also available in some degree in other religions, but that his or her own religion offers its highest form. However, each stance has variants which can differ significantly as regards their reasons for adopting it. Now the notion of “religious diversity” or coexistence of a plurality of religions is neutral in itself. What matters is the attitude towards this diversity or the “others”: their claims can be accepted or rejected. In the classification above, though for different reasons, “pluralism” and “inclusivism” accept them, while “exclusivism” rejects them. 1. The stance on religious diversity in Christian and Islamic fundamental texts A. The Christian stance on other religions (1) Statements interpretable in a pluralist sense: 1. Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, and that anyone in every nation who fears Him, and does what is right, is acceptable [to Him]. (Peter, Acts 10:34-35) 2. In past ages God allowed all nations to go their own way. (Paul, Acts 14:16) 3. [There are among the Athenians a yearning for the] unknown God (Paul, Acts 17:23), [a search for God who] is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live and move and in Him exist. (Paul, Acts 17: 27-28) 4. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? (John 14:2) (2) Statements interpreted in an exclusivist sense: 1. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) 2. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved. (John 10:9) 3. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matt. 11:27) 4. Neither is there salvation in any other [name]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men [except Jesus’ name], whereby we must be saved. (Peter, Acts 4:12) Though the last statements (2) allow a non-exclusivist interpretation (see below), they have always been understood ad litteram. The Church resumed this exclusivist attitude in the famous dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“there is no salvation outside the Church”) (Saint Cyprian of Carthage, 3rd c.), which became a central tenet of the Catholic Church. And the poor harvest of statements on a possible pluralist attitude (1) was never really developed. Surely, in the primitive Church there were some timid attempts made by a few Church Fathers to interpret them in a vague pluralist sense. But unfortunately, from the same period to our days, the Christian theology was dominated by exclusivism: all people must be Christian if they are to be saved. Let us look at some authoritative testimonies: 1. Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, that is, outside the Church no one is saved. (Origen, d. 254, In Iesu Nave homiliae) 2. No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. (Saint Augustine, d. 430, Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem ) 3. There is no entering into salvation outside the Church. (Saint Thomas Aquinas, d. 1274, Summa Theologiae) 4. Those who are outside Christianity, be they heathens, Turks, Jews or false Christians [i.e. Roman Catholics], although they may believe in only one true God, yet remain in eternal wrath and perdition. (Luther, d. 1546, Large Catechism) 5. We therefore challenge all non-Christians, who belong to God on the basis of creation, to believe in him [Jesus Christ] and to be baptized to in his name, for in him alone is eternal salvation promised to them. (Frankfurt - 2 - Declaration, 1970) From the quotations above, it is clear that in order to reach a real interfaith dialogue on the theological ground, the Christian Church must renounce the claim that Christianity is the sole true religion and that salvation is an exclusive prerogative of Christians. B. The Islamic stance on other religions – the Quran (1) Statements on pluralism: (a) The universality and diversity of God’s revelation: 1. The East and the West belong to God; wherever you turn, there is His Face. (2:115) 2. We sent a messenger to every nation [community], saying, ‘Warship God and shun false gods.’(16:36) 3. We have sent other messengers before you – some We have mentioned to you and some We have not. (40:78) 4. [Believers] Say, ‘We believe in God and in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we devote ourselves to Him’. (2:136) 5. We have never sent a messenger who did not use his own people’s language to make things clear for them. (14:4) 6. We sent to you [Muhammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it…We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community…you will return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about. (5:48) From the quotations above we can see that Islam explicitly endorses the universality of God’s revelation. The God of the Quran is not only the God of Muslim people but the God of all humankind. He did not leave any nation in dark; rather he sent a messenger to all of them to assure the salvation of all people. Although God sent a messenger to every nation, he did not mention all of them in the Quran. Accordingly, Muslims receive a Quranic sanction which enables them to expand the Islamic notion of prophecy so that it could include those messengers who are not mentioned in the Quran, for instance Gautama the Buddha and the avatars of the Hindus. And although all the messengers spoke about the same reality and conveyed the same truth, the messages they delivered were not identical in their forms. Every message was expressed in the language and the form which would accord with the community to which it is revealed. (See Aslan, 188) (b) There is no compulsion; rather there must be tolerance: 1. Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ (18:29) 2. Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet] compel people to believe? (10:99) 3.