The Challenges in Catholic–Muslim Dialogue
Page 1 of 2
“ The most important challenge to the Roman Catholic–Muslim dialogue is perhaps also the most obvious and the simplest: to believe that the work of dialogue is an action of God’s grace,” Fr. Elias Mallon told participants in the first national-level consultation between the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Muslims October 21–22, 1991.
The challenges which face the Catholic–Muslim dialogue are intimately related to several factors. The purpose of the dialogue, the culture in which the dialogue takes place, the familiarity of the dialogue partners with each other’s religion and the expectations of the dialogue all work together to influence the dialogue positively or negatively. In what follows I hope to touch briefly upon what I think are the challenges facing the Catholic–Muslim dialogue in the United States.
I am aware that both Roman Catholicism and Islam are worldwide religions with histories spanning over 1,500 years. Nonetheless, I believe that the situation of both religions in the United States provides more than enough challenges for a fruitful dialogue. What this implies is that the dialogue limit itself to questions and problems pertaining to Roman Catholics and Muslims in the United States and avoid dealing with questions and problems obtaining in other parts of the Christian and Islamic worlds.
Purpose of the Dialogue
One of the main challenges facing the Catholic–Muslim dialogue is to articulate the purpose of the dialogue. This is important both internally and externally. The articulation of the purpose of the dialogue is important internally in that it helps the dialogue partners to focus the discussions and to set goals which are understood by both the Catholic and Muslim partners and which are realistically related to the purpose of the dialogue. Through a clear focusing of the discussions, the dialogue can avoid getting lost in generalities or so caught up in particulars as to have no effect on the average Muslim or Roman Catholic in the United States.
It is also important to clarify the purpose of the dialogue for those who are not members of it. Only the most naive Roman Catholic and Muslim believes that all our fellow believers are equally convinced of the necessity or even the advisability of a Catholic–Muslim dialogue. There are among both Roman Catholics and Muslims those who fear that to engage in dialogue is to betray the principle of a revealed religion—be it Christianity or Islam—with its unique truth claims. If at the beginning we are clear about the purpose of the dialogue, we can avoid much confusion among our own constituencies and also obviate many fears about syncretism or cryptoproselytism.
The Challenge of Religious Pluralism
Both Islam and Christianity find themselves in a unique position in the United States with its constitutional separation of church and state, and its cultural and religious pluralism. At the outset it is important to be clear about religious pluralism. By religious pluralism I mean a situation in which no religion is politically or culturally dominant (1) and all religions and their adherents are considered equal in society. This is important because in the history of Islam and Christianity there has been religious pluralism in the sense of the presence of other religions. But neither in Islam nor in Christianity were the adherents of other religions considered equal politically or societally to the adherents of the dominant religion. Both Islam and Roman Catholicism have long experiences of cultural and political dominance in societies in Europe and Asia. Both Islam and Catholicism have also limited experience of being a minority religion in countries where the other religion is dominant.
I am fully aware that Islam historically has tended to be more tolerant of Christianity and Judaism than European Christianity has of Islam and Judaism. Nonetheless, although the status of the dhimmi in Islam was often much better than the status of a ghetto resident in European cities, in no way could the dhimmi be said to enjoy political equality with Muslims in the society. To a great extent these conditions still exist albeit in a milder form. In many Islamic countries it is illegal for a non-Muslim to hold the office of president or prime minister and in some countries, e.g. Argentina, the president is required by the constitution to be a Roman Catholic. A situation, therefore, in which both religions and their adherents enjoy the same rights and obligations is new to both Roman Catholicism and Islam.
Religious pluralism offers both a challenge and threat to Catholicism and Islam. Both Roman Catholicism and Islam are religions with a clear code of behavior which each religion connects with its understanding of God’s revealed will. In a religiously pluralistic society not everyone is obliged to conform to a given code of behavior which a particular religion considers to be in accord with God’s will. Thus Muslims and Catholics will disagree, for example, as to God’s will on the consumption of alcohol or pork. For the Muslim, God has forbidden both; for the Christian, God has allowed one and prescribed the other in the eucharist. Even among themselves Christians have deep divisions as to God’s will in matters of sexual ethics.
Religious pluralism can be painful and disorienting to members of religions whose values are not dominant in society. Roman Catholics refer to themselves as “the people of God” in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Christians are called to be “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” in the New Testament. For a long time in Roman Catholicism the principle “error has no rights” was used to secure a special position for Roman Catholicism and to prevent full religious freedom for non-Catholics in predominantly Catholic cultures. The Quran refers to Muslims as “the best people raised for the good of mankind; you enjoin what is good and forbid evil” (3:111). For the Muslim it is unthinkable that anyone other than a Muslim should rule in a Muslim society. Thus each religion sees itself as the ideal guardian of society’s moral structure.
When Catholicism or Islam are not in decisive positions in religiously pluralistic societies, there is, on the one hand, the temptation to privatize religion. Religion becomes no longer a matter of human beings living in the world but a private matter between me and God.
The privatization of religion is, however, incompatible with the public and societal nature of both Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, there is a temptation to interpret religious pluralism demonically. Thus deep differences of opinion are not attributed to sincerely held beliefs of people of different persuasions but are attributed to “indifference”, “hostility toward (of course, my) religion”, and the ever-handy “secular humanism”.
It is this second temptation which provides, I believe a major challenge to the Catholic–Muslim dialogue. As religions which are accustomed to being culturally and even politically dominant, Islam and Catholicism can look upon the Catholic–Muslim dialogue as a type of alliance against a third party. Whether that third party be atheism, communism, secular humanism, etc., the purpose of the dialogue becomes strategic. The dialogue becomes a subtle or perhaps not so subtle “you and me against them”. In a “you and me against them” situation, it is not important that I know who you are or that you know who I am. What is important is that both of us know whom we are against. This attitude, even in its subtlest forms, is fatal to interreligious dialogue as envisioned in all the documents published by the Roman Catholic Church and in the writings of Muslim intellectuals such as Mohammed Talbi, Mohammed Arkoun and others, as well as the work done by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Al al-Beit, to mention merely two organizations. The Catholic–Muslim dialogue which has arisen in the context of religious pluralism is seriously challenged persuasively to present its values to the overall society. But it is challenged to do that not by overcoming religious pluralism but through mutual recognition, understanding, respect and appreciation. Such a dialogue sees its greatest challenges and opportunities not in areas of similarity and agreement but precisely in areas of difference and disagreement.
I am aware that both Roman Catholicism and Islam are worldwide religions with histories spanning over 1,500 years. Nonetheless, I believe that the situation of both religions in the United States provides more than enough challenges for a fruitful dialogue. What this implies is that the dialogue limit itself to questions and problems pertaining to Roman Catholics and Muslims in the United States and avoid dealing with questions and problems obtaining in other parts of the Christian and Islamic worlds.
Purpose of the Dialogue
One of the main challenges facing the Catholic–Muslim dialogue is to articulate the purpose of the dialogue. This is important both internally and externally. The articulation of the purpose of the dialogue is important internally in that it helps the dialogue partners to focus the discussions and to set goals which are understood by both the Catholic and Muslim partners and which are realistically related to the purpose of the dialogue. Through a clear focusing of the discussions, the dialogue can avoid getting lost in generalities or so caught up in particulars as to have no effect on the average Muslim or Roman Catholic in the United States.
It is also important to clarify the purpose of the dialogue for those who are not members of it. Only the most naive Roman Catholic and Muslim believes that all our fellow believers are equally convinced of the necessity or even the advisability of a Catholic–Muslim dialogue. There are among both Roman Catholics and Muslims those who fear that to engage in dialogue is to betray the principle of a revealed religion—be it Christianity or Islam—with its unique truth claims. If at the beginning we are clear about the purpose of the dialogue, we can avoid much confusion among our own constituencies and also obviate many fears about syncretism or cryptoproselytism.
The Challenge of Religious Pluralism
Both Islam and Christianity find themselves in a unique position in the United States with its constitutional separation of church and state, and its cultural and religious pluralism. At the outset it is important to be clear about religious pluralism. By religious pluralism I mean a situation in which no religion is politically or culturally dominant (1) and all religions and their adherents are considered equal in society. This is important because in the history of Islam and Christianity there has been religious pluralism in the sense of the presence of other religions. But neither in Islam nor in Christianity were the adherents of other religions considered equal politically or societally to the adherents of the dominant religion. Both Islam and Roman Catholicism have long experiences of cultural and political dominance in societies in Europe and Asia. Both Islam and Catholicism have also limited experience of being a minority religion in countries where the other religion is dominant.
I am fully aware that Islam historically has tended to be more tolerant of Christianity and Judaism than European Christianity has of Islam and Judaism. Nonetheless, although the status of the dhimmi in Islam was often much better than the status of a ghetto resident in European cities, in no way could the dhimmi be said to enjoy political equality with Muslims in the society. To a great extent these conditions still exist albeit in a milder form. In many Islamic countries it is illegal for a non-Muslim to hold the office of president or prime minister and in some countries, e.g. Argentina, the president is required by the constitution to be a Roman Catholic. A situation, therefore, in which both religions and their adherents enjoy the same rights and obligations is new to both Roman Catholicism and Islam.
Religious pluralism offers both a challenge and threat to Catholicism and Islam. Both Roman Catholicism and Islam are religions with a clear code of behavior which each religion connects with its understanding of God’s revealed will. In a religiously pluralistic society not everyone is obliged to conform to a given code of behavior which a particular religion considers to be in accord with God’s will. Thus Muslims and Catholics will disagree, for example, as to God’s will on the consumption of alcohol or pork. For the Muslim, God has forbidden both; for the Christian, God has allowed one and prescribed the other in the eucharist. Even among themselves Christians have deep divisions as to God’s will in matters of sexual ethics.
Religious pluralism can be painful and disorienting to members of religions whose values are not dominant in society. Roman Catholics refer to themselves as “the people of God” in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Christians are called to be “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” in the New Testament. For a long time in Roman Catholicism the principle “error has no rights” was used to secure a special position for Roman Catholicism and to prevent full religious freedom for non-Catholics in predominantly Catholic cultures. The Quran refers to Muslims as “the best people raised for the good of mankind; you enjoin what is good and forbid evil” (3:111). For the Muslim it is unthinkable that anyone other than a Muslim should rule in a Muslim society. Thus each religion sees itself as the ideal guardian of society’s moral structure.
When Catholicism or Islam are not in decisive positions in religiously pluralistic societies, there is, on the one hand, the temptation to privatize religion. Religion becomes no longer a matter of human beings living in the world but a private matter between me and God.
The privatization of religion is, however, incompatible with the public and societal nature of both Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, there is a temptation to interpret religious pluralism demonically. Thus deep differences of opinion are not attributed to sincerely held beliefs of people of different persuasions but are attributed to “indifference”, “hostility toward (of course, my) religion”, and the ever-handy “secular humanism”.
It is this second temptation which provides, I believe a major challenge to the Catholic–Muslim dialogue. As religions which are accustomed to being culturally and even politically dominant, Islam and Catholicism can look upon the Catholic–Muslim dialogue as a type of alliance against a third party. Whether that third party be atheism, communism, secular humanism, etc., the purpose of the dialogue becomes strategic. The dialogue becomes a subtle or perhaps not so subtle “you and me against them”. In a “you and me against them” situation, it is not important that I know who you are or that you know who I am. What is important is that both of us know whom we are against. This attitude, even in its subtlest forms, is fatal to interreligious dialogue as envisioned in all the documents published by the Roman Catholic Church and in the writings of Muslim intellectuals such as Mohammed Talbi, Mohammed Arkoun and others, as well as the work done by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Al al-Beit, to mention merely two organizations. The Catholic–Muslim dialogue which has arisen in the context of religious pluralism is seriously challenged persuasively to present its values to the overall society. But it is challenged to do that not by overcoming religious pluralism but through mutual recognition, understanding, respect and appreciation. Such a dialogue sees its greatest challenges and opportunities not in areas of similarity and agreement but precisely in areas of difference and disagreement.
Notes:
1. It might be argued that Christianity is the dominant culture in the United States, and that this is something to which Christians should be sensitive. Nonetheless, the culture of the U.S. does not seem to be determined by anyone denomination or church, and there is good reason to question whether our much-touted “Judeo-Christian” values have not been superseded by something more secular.
2. Walter M. Abbot, SJ (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Guild Press, 1966) p. 113.
3. Cf. Origins, Vol. 20: No. 34, Jan. 31, 1991, pp. 541–568.
4. Cf. especially “Dialogue and Proclamation”, Origins Vol. 21: No. 8, July 4, 1991, pp. 121–135.
5. Perhaps one of the most honest expressions of the tensions that mutual commitments to mission and da’wa can cause is found in Maurice Borrmans (ed.) Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims (New York: Paulist Press) 1990: “Should Muslims be forbidden the desire to see their Christian friends become Muslims, or, similarly, do Christians not have the right to wish that their Muslim friends become Christians? They should not be denied such a desire, for otherwise there would be an undue limitation to their desire for sharing with others. Such desires are legitimate even if practically speaking they effectively exclude each other.”
6. In Christianity God is often presented as a judge. In Islam, God is also considered to be a judge; two of the “99 Beautiful Names of God” are “the Reckoner” (al-hasib and “the Watcher” (al-raqib).
1. It might be argued that Christianity is the dominant culture in the United States, and that this is something to which Christians should be sensitive. Nonetheless, the culture of the U.S. does not seem to be determined by anyone denomination or church, and there is good reason to question whether our much-touted “Judeo-Christian” values have not been superseded by something more secular.
2. Walter M. Abbot, SJ (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Guild Press, 1966) p. 113.
3. Cf. Origins, Vol. 20: No. 34, Jan. 31, 1991, pp. 541–568.
4. Cf. especially “Dialogue and Proclamation”, Origins Vol. 21: No. 8, July 4, 1991, pp. 121–135.
5. Perhaps one of the most honest expressions of the tensions that mutual commitments to mission and da’wa can cause is found in Maurice Borrmans (ed.) Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims (New York: Paulist Press) 1990: “Should Muslims be forbidden the desire to see their Christian friends become Muslims, or, similarly, do Christians not have the right to wish that their Muslim friends become Christians? They should not be denied such a desire, for otherwise there would be an undue limitation to their desire for sharing with others. Such desires are legitimate even if practically speaking they effectively exclude each other.”
6. In Christianity God is often presented as a judge. In Islam, God is also considered to be a judge; two of the “99 Beautiful Names of God” are “the Reckoner” (al-hasib and “the Watcher” (al-raqib).
Website by Booklight, Inc. Copyright © 2010, Monastic Dialogue
