A Critique of Contemporary Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue

While the appeal of 'civilisational dialogue' is on the rise, its sources, functions, and con-sequences arouse controversy within and between faith communities. Some religious lead-ers have attempted to clarify the religious foundations for such dialogue. Among them are Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, Edward Idris, Cardinal Cassidy of the Catholic Church, and Fethullah Gülen. The paper compares the approach of these three religious leaders from the Abrahamic tra-dition as presented in their scholarly works – Sacks' The Dignity of Difference, Cardinal Cassidy's Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue, and Gülen's Advocate of Dialogue. The discussion attempts to answer the following questions: Can monotheistic traditions accom-modate the dignity of followers of other monotheistic and polytheistic religions as well as non-theistic religions and philosophies? Is a belief in the unity of God compatible ...

International Journal of Interreligious and Intercultural Studies (IJIIS), 2020

Humanization is a frequently invoked goal of interfaith dialogue-but what does it mean to dialoguers to be "human," let alone to make each person more human? This article takes a close look at the common discourses of interfaith dialoguers, and how those discourses are translated into action. Drawing on observed vignettes and reflections from ethnographic interviews across geopolitical contexts, the article conceptualizes humanization as a discursive object of the interfaith society that dialoguers invoke to enhance group solidarity and express collective identity in the form of their sacred values. By frequently invoking the concept of humanization, interfaith dialogues signal to each other that they are uniting around a common goal. Specifically, the article investigates normative discourses regarding "humanization" of the religious other and how the practice of exchanging narratives facilitates humanization and the cultivation of empathy. Through this data we can see that "humanization" is a common discursive goal of dialoguers. In Italy, humanization is a matter of disconfirming stereotypes and alleviating ignorance across social divides, whereas in the Middle East humanization intensifies into a commitment to not physically harm the other, who is recognized through the course of intergroup engagement as sharing a common ground of experience and complexity with the other. Dialoguers say humanization can be achieved through non-discursive relational practices such as artistic collaboration, shared silence, humor or cognitive re-framing, but most often through narrative storytelling.

Interfaith dialogue is widely promoted as a pathway to global peace and mutual understanding in an age of religious diversity and ideological polarization. However, meaningful dialogue is often hindered by deeply entrenched theological asymmetriesmost notably, the systemic indoctrination and doctrinal supremacism prevalent in many Muslim-majority societies. This paper critiques two prevalent but inadequate approaches to dialogue: the relativistic universalism that downplays doctrinal differences, and the apologetic self-effacement that disproportionately targets Christian and Jewish identities while overlooking persistent Islamic exclusivism. Drawing on historical precedents, legal frameworks, and contemporary sociopolitical trends, this study offers a theologically grounded and morally consistent model for interfaith engagement. It argues that authentic dialogue must be anchored in truth, reciprocity, and reform, including educational transformation, theological clarity, and mutual accountability. Only when dialogue refuses both romanticism and reactionism can it fulfill its promise as a vehicle for justice, peace, and genuine mutual recognition.

Dialogue among the adherents of the major world religions has always taken place, especially, but not only, among the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Excellent examples of this may be found in the midst of shared histories where we are more often presented with a record of conflicts. The high points must be the enormously rich and creative interactions which took place in medieval Islamic Spain and southern Italy and at various times in places as far apart as Central Asia, Baghdad, Delhi, Cairo and the Ottoman Empire.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), 2014

IOSR(JH.SS), 2019

Religious exclusivism is the biggest threat for multi-religious society at the same time, ambivalent thoughts among religion in religious pluralism due to religious diversity, often yields religious violence. In both of the extreme, (religious exclusivism and religious pluralism) there is the possibility of religious violence, i.e., religious riots, terrorism, mob lynching, and communalism. The objective of this paper is to discuss the significance of interreligious dialogue (IRD), its basic principle, how IRD will help us for addressing the problems of humanity (i.e., Religious diversity and contradictory thoughts in major religions, Religious Dogma, superstition, and terrorism). If there is any biggest challenge for religion in the 21 st century, is this one that how religion can deal with these problems and became a good tool for establishing peace and prosperity in the region.

Journal of Interreligious Studies, 2021

In this essay, I pay attention to a voice that casts doubts on the value of interreligious dialogue and questions seriously its intellectual and practical validity alike. I touch upon two examples of this skeptical voice, one Christian, represented by John Milbank, and the other Muslim, represented by Ḥasan al-Bannā and Muslim Fundamentalism in Europe and UK. Both voices exist in Europe and echo one version of many other similar voices of suspicion toward interreligious dialogue one can encounter in different Western countries today. After I shed light on these two examples, I offer a re-interpretation of the value and purpose of interreligious dialogue by approaching it from the perspective of identity-formation and self-perception processes. I try to demonstrate that interreligious dialogue is not just a chance for understanding the different other and relating to its realm of reasoning. It is also a venue for pursuing a reforming and in-depth process of self-perception.

Australian Catholic University, 2005

The paper explores the contemporary call to interfaith dialogue from the Christian-especially Roman Catholic-perspective. Although there is focus on dialogue among the Abrahamic traditions, some attention is given to dialogue with indigenous and secular humanist traditions. The paper proposes various theological bases for dialogue in Vatican II and subsequent Church teachings, and in newer theologies which focus on the role of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. Some attention is given to the insights of Raimon Panikkar including his emphasis on intra-religious dialogue and a spirituality for dialogue. Various levels of dialogue-life, action, theology and religious experienceare discussed along with other practical aspects of dialogue. Challenges and promises of interfaith dialogue are explored in the Australian context with emphasis on its possible contribution to tolerance, reconciliation and the transformation of culture.

The Review of Faith and International Affairs, 2018

In the wake of the events of 9/11 there has emerged a now significant body of literature that seeks to account for the resurgence of religion in international relations. Insofar as this literature typically focuses on particular religious traditions, however, a critical blind spot has developed whereby the contemporaneous proliferation of transnational interfaith initiatives — that necessarily rely on the collaborative efforts of two or more religious traditions — has often been overlooked. This introduction to the special issue highlights this oversight and explores the role of interfaith actors, organizations and initiatives in the broader narrative of the ‘return’ of religion in international relations.