DA‘WA OR DIALOGUE?
Asghar Ali Engineer
(Islam and Modern Age, June, 2002)
Most societies now
tend to be highly diverse in many ways – religiously, culturally, racially and
linguistically. Even tribal societies tend to be quite diverse with different
tribes living together in one geographical area. Today with faster means of
migration and communication diversity tends to be almost bewildering. While it
is enriching to live with diversity it is quite challenging as well.
In medieval ages
religious missions played an important role. The religious authorities worked
with missionary spirit (the spirit of da‘wa
) and spread religions to other nations and other peoples. It was considered as
a religious duty to spread ones religion. While Christians called it mission
Muslims referred to it as da‘wa. Da‘wa literally means invitation,
invitation to join the faith. Both Christianity and Islam spread throughout the
world though missionary or da‘wa
activities. Today one finds in these two world religions peoples of different
nationalities, races, languages and tribes. Thus in both these religions there
is great deal of internal diversity.
Missionary and da‘wa activities still continue in
certain parts of the world, especially Africa and Asia and the two religions
compete with each other giving rise to tensions. Today a large number of
Muslims of diverse origin have migrated to western countries and are living as
religious and racial minorities with the Christian majorities. There is hardly
any Western country of Europe or North America where Muslims are not found.
Most of them are from Afro-Asian countries.
Both the missionary
and da‘wa activities and Muslims
living as religious minorities in Western countries cause religious tensions.
In the interest of stability and peace one has to minimise tensions and create
inter-religious harmony. These conditions can be created through mutual
dialogue. Today dialogue rather than da‘wa
or missionary activities is needed. One has to promote the spirit of dialogue.
As far as Islam is concerned
there is no obligation on Muslims to spread one's religion at the cost of peace
and mutual good will. Peace is more fundamental to Islam than aggressive da‘wa. Da‘wa is desirable only if it does not lead to loss of peace and
harmony. Firstly, the Qur’an, accepts validity of religion preached by all
Allah’s messengers and a Muslim is required not to discriminate between one and
another prophets of Allah. Allah has sent thousands of prophets some of whom
have been named in the Qur’an and many have not been even named. The list of
the prophets in the Qur’an is illustrative and not exhaustive. The Qur’an not
only accepts all Biblical prophets but also adds others like ones from nations
of Thamud and ‘Aad and others. The Qur’an makes it obligatory on all Muslims to
accept all these prophets and not to belie any one from amongst them. Anyone
who discriminates, one from the other is true kafir (4-150-51).
Thus to recognise and
respect other religions based on revelations from Allah whether mentioned or
not mentioned in the Qur’an is part of Islamic faith. It is truly in keeping
with the spirit of dialogue. The Islamic thinkers who have imbibed the spirit
of dialogue have added prophets, not mentioned in the Qur’an to list of
prophets sent by Allah. Some Sufi saints like Mazhar Jan-i Janan have accepted
some Hindu highly revered religious figures like Ram and Krishna as prophets.
The Qur’an does not
encourage undesirable methods for da‘wa,
much less aggressive methods or defiling others religious beliefs. The Qur’anic
requirement for da‘wa is wisdom and
goodly exhortation (16:125). Anyone who uses aggressive methods or abusive
language deviates from the Qur’anic guidance and exhortations. The Qur’an
specifically prohibits offensive or abusive language (6:109). Instead it
encourages what it calls istibaq al-khyrat (excelling each other in good
deeds). It also makes it clear that diversity or plurality of laws and faith is
Allah’s own desire (5:48). Thus diversity is a divine destiny and should be
respected.
The Qur’anic concept
of da‘wa is more dialogical than an
attempt to impose religion of Islam on others. It is a great myth that Islam
advocates its spread through sword; nothing can be further from truth and
injurious to the spirit of Islam. Even if some conquerors have done it, it was
their personal responsibility and not that of Islam.
Islam, in its earliest
period had to deal with two major religions, Judaism and Christianity. It not
only showed respect for the two and tried to accommodate them but also tried to
have dialogue with them on the basis of what was common between them. It is
interesting to take note of the following verse (5:82): “Thou wilt certainly
find the most violent of people in enmity against the believers to be the Jews
and the idolaters; and thou wilt find the nearest in friendship to the
believers to be those who say, we are Christians. That is because there are
priests and monks among them and because they are not proud.”
Here the verse is
speaking of people, not faiths. The Qur’an refers to the Jews as people who are
violent towards Muslims and Christians as friends. The conflict between Muslims
and Jews was not on grounds of their faith. The Qur’an showed highest respect
both for Abraham and Moses. The conflict between Muslims and Jews was of
supremacy of power and domination. The Jews were dominating Madina before the
Prophet of Islam migrated to Madina along with his followers. Though the Jews
initially entered into a pact with the Holy Prophet called Mithaq-i-Madina (the
covenant of Madina) they were not happy with it and inwardly resented it. They
clearly saw that the Muslims were an emergent community who will take over
reigns of Madina. They, therefore, betrayed the covenant at the first available
opportunity and thus violent conflict developed between the followers of two
faiths.
There was no such
problem with the Christians. Christians had no presence in Madina and there was
no conflict of interest between them and Christians in Madina. The Prophet,
however, came in contact with the Christian priests and monks who had no
ambition for power or domination and hence the Qur’an says “they are not
proud”. Hence the Christians are “nearest in friendship”.
Thus often it is not
conflict of faith, which creates problems but conflict of power or domination.
The Qur’an was very clear on this count. It does not falsify any faith, Jewish,
Christian or any other. The Prophet even extended a hand of friendship towards
the followers of the other faiths and looked upon them with respect. However,
it is vested interests, which clashed.
And even when it was
necessary to argue with the people of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews) the
Qur’an did not want Muslims to be aggressive at all. Thus for mujadila
(mutual arguments) Qur’an lays down clear guide lines. It says , “And argue not
with the people of the Book except by what is best, save such of them as
act unjustly. But say: We believe in that which has been revealed to you, and
our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit.” (29:46) (emphasis supplied)
Thus Qur’an requires Muslims to argue with the people of the Book in best possible manner. If this is not dialogical spirit what it is? Note that people of the Book include both Christians and Jews. It is these two religions, which were present in the immediate environs of the Qur’an and hence these two religions are repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an. In fact these are more of principles and guide–lines, which can be applied to other religions as well, including Hinduism in India.
Maulana Muhammad Ali, in
his commentary on this verse, tries to explain its spirit. He says, “It should
be noted that this passage deals only with the mode of controversy to be
adopted in inviting those who already had scriptures in their hands – which the
Arabs had not – to the truth of Islam and the revelation of the Qur’an. The
Qur’an makes its own meaning clear when it explains that it is the broad
principles of religion that should demand paramount consideration. The
fundamental principle of religion is that God exists and that He reveals
Himself to man, and it is common to all revealed religions.” He also adds that
a Muslim’s conception of Divine revelation is wider than that of follower of
any other religion, recognising, as it does, that Divine revelation is granted
in all ages to all nations. A Muslim, therefore, admits the truth of all
prophets and revelations…(The Holy Qur’an, Lahore, 1973, p. 769)
Thus a Muslim should
not shun dialogue with followers of other religions recognising the basic truth
in them. It is not proper for him to denounce other religions as false. It is
not disputation but dialogue with others that is in true spirit of Islam. The
Qur’anic verse 3:63 represents true spirit of Islam in this respect: “O People
of the Book, come to an equitable word between us and you that we shall serve
none but Allah and that we shall not associate aught with Him, and that some of
us shall not take others for lords besides Allah. But if they turn away, then
say: bear witness, we are Muslims.” (3:63)
Thus in this verse also
the stress is on what is common and not what is contentious. And this is
important for carrying on dialogical process. I think when Islam came into
being in Arabia in 7th Century this tradition of respecting other religions and
stressing what is common in other religions did not exist anywhere. It is
Qur’an which accepted truth of other religions and sought their co-operation.
The Muslims, wherever
in the world, living in majority or minority, should seek to revive this
Qur’anic spirit of dialogue. In medieval ages the whole emphasis was on da‘wa or conversion in Islam and on
missionary activities among the Christians. Now in our times the emphasis is on
dialogue i.e. understanding each other and interaction with each other.
Globalisation makes it all the more necessary. Globalisation leads to much
increased shifting of population and migration. Thus diversity increases and
people of different religions and cultures live together. If there is no
dialogue among themselves or they emphasise da‘wa
in place of dialogue it would lead to tension, strife and conflict. And social
tensions would disturb social stability.
It is, therefore,
necessary to promote the spirit of dialogue among people of different faiths.
It is, therefore, necessary to throw some light on the methodology of
conducting inter-faith dialogue .
The first requirement
of the spirit of dialogue is to know the ‘other’ in faith. No dialogue can ever
be successful if this spirit does not prevail. There should not be any attempt
to influence, much less convert the other. It is, therefore, very necessary
that we cultivate the habit of listening, not of arguing. A successful dialogue
can be conducted only if we listen to each other with rapt attention so that we
can understand each other. Argumentation should not be there or should be kept
at minimum. We can understand the other only if we patiently listen to the
other. Listening is the sterling quality in the process of dialogue.
It is also important
to develop trust in each other and the process of dialogue should lead to
building up trust in each other. If trust is lacking no dialogue can ever
succeed. Mutual trust is very basic to any inter-religious dialogue.
It is also necessary
for building proper spirit of dialogue to talk to the other to explain and
listen to learn and to counter as it often happens.
In the process of
dialogue one should know the self in order to know the other. Without knowing
the self fully it is not possible to know the other properly. It has been often
observed that without knowing ourselves we try to know the other and this will
only result in confusion rather than clarification. The first question should
be who am I before we ask who the other is?
Also, as quoted from
the Qur’anic verse above we should develop the spirit of sharing in common what
can be shared in common. The emphasis should be on what is common rather than
what is different. The conflict develops when we stress what is different
rather than what is common. Not that it is not necessary to know what is
different; it is. But first we should build trust in each other by emphasising
what is common before we go to differences amongst us. Differences could come
last.
It is also important
to have dialogue with the inner other before we have dialogue with the external
other. Each religious faith is divided in number of sects and schools of thought. Thus dialogue
with inner other is as necessary as with the external other. The differences
between, for example, Shi`ahs and Sunnis among Muslims and Catholics and
Protestants lead to creation of inner other. Some times dialogue with the inner
other becomes more necessary than the external other. Here too we should be
guided by the principle of what we share in common and what could lead to
building up the spirit of trust with the inner other.
We live in democracies
today and sometime political differences may override or coincide with
religious differences. In a democratic and secular polity often religious
differences may become secondary and political unity may override religious
differences. Thus the religious other may not necessarily be the political
other and political other may not necessarily be the religious other. One may
have much in common politically with the religious other. If we share political
ideology with the religious other it is likely to reduce religious tensions.
One should encourage such processes. Religious polarisation is likely to be
more problematic for peace and stability than political polarisation. In a
democratic set up followers of different religions may come together
politically, resulting in greater religious harmony.
Also, linguistic and
cultural otherness might erode ‘we’ feeling in a religious group. The
linguistic and cultural differences can also become as explosive as religious
differences. Thus a linguistic other may not be able to have strong ‘we’
feeling with ones own religious group. It is thus necessary to make dialogues
linguistically and culturally inclusive too.
It is also necessary
to understand that the identity of ‘we’ and ‘they’ also keeps on changing with
the context. Identities also cannot be static or may be even multiple. Even
religious identities change or evolve. One may have orthodox identity today and
liberal one tomorrow or vice versa. Or conversion also leads to change of
identity. Even when we emphasise the importance of dialogue conversion cannot
be completely ruled out. Conversion is not always the result of da‘wa, it can result from inner
motivation and conversion through inner motivation and inner feeling is more genuine
than through mission or through da‘wa.
Thus religious identity evolves or changes.
Identity is a sense of
belonging and a psychological boundary vis-ŕ-vis other. An identity can be
defined only by drawing a line between the self and the other, between one
group and the other. There cannot be sense of identity if the other does not
exist. It is always with reference to other that I have my identity. And my own
identity evolves with my own better understanding of faith from its very
elementary understanding to highly specialised knowledge of my faith.
It is also important
to note that a liberal Hindu or Christian or Muslim may have more in common
that an orthodox and a liberal co-religionists. Thus liberals of two different
religions share much more in common than an orthodox and a liberal from the
same religion.
One should also keep
in mind that a dialogue is an encounter and not a confrontation. Encounter
always leads to deeper understanding while confrontation leads to conflict and
violence. Quality of dialogue depends on quality of knowledge the partners in
dialogue have. Dialogue between ignorant persons will lead to strengthening of
prejudices. As pointed out above in globalised world people of diverse
religious, linguistic and cultural backgrounds are thrown together some times
by choice and some times by compulsion. The peoples of these diverse
backgrounds have to live together in a geographical area. This living together
should become a commitment and dialogue further strengthens this commitment.
It is generally
thought that a homogenous group can live in greater peace and stability. Thus
all Muslims or all Hindus or all Christians can live together without problems
or tensions. This is not borne out empirically. The so-called homogenous groups
soon dissolve into several sub-groups with inner tensions and these tensions
can even become explosive. So even a most homogenous group can develop ‘we’ and
‘they’ groups and dialogue may become necessary among them.
Thus in modern world
commitment to live together with the other is very essential and to make this
living together successful knowing the other is highly necessary. Also a
dialogue should always create a culture of tolerance and a culture of
respecting the other. We often demonise the other and draw a false sense of
solace from it as it leads to feeling of self-righteousness in the ‘in’ group.
Such demonisation of other can wreck the process of peace in the society. Some
times we even try to overcome inner group tensions by demonising the other.
Islam teaches Muslims
to live in peace with others, including religious, linguistic, racial or
national other. The Qur’anic verses like 5:48 or 4:35 or 22:40 or 30:22 or
6:109 are very important in this respect. In fact the verse 5:48 throws
challenge to us to live with plurality of faith and laws and the Qur’anic
emphasis is on excelling the other in good deeds and not competing with the
other in religious rituals or ways of worshipping. Thus Qur’an accepts
diversity as given, as the Will of Allah rather than rejecting it.
For a good Muslim
living with diversity in a spirit of tolerance should be a commitment and
he/she should fulfil this commitment for pleasure of Allah. A Muslim should
also continuously enter into dialogue with wisdom with the other to promote the
Will of Allah. Millions of Muslims today live as religious minority in
countries of Asia, Africa, North America and elsewhere. Everywhere, whether in
majority or minority they should become active agents of promoting better
understanding among diverse faith, linguistic, racial or cultural groups.
If Muslims actively
involve themselves in fulfilling this duty world will be much better place to
live in. Living in peace and harmony is as important a duty as believing in
unity of Allah (wahdaniyya). Tawhid (belief in unity of God) is
not only a theological concept but it is also a sociological concept. On
sociological level the concept of Tawhid results in unity of whole
humankind as His creation. Qur’an often addresses humankind as nas bani
Adam (children of Adam) which emphasises this sense of human unity. Thus
the Qur’anic concept of Tawhid is all-inclusive concept.
Thus unity and sense
of inclusiveness can be promoted only by promoting the spirit of dialogue and
spirit of tolerance. It is real spirit of Tawhid.
*******************************
Institute of Islamic Studies,
9B, Himalaya Apts., 1st Floor,
6th Road, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai:- 400 055