Hiwar al Adyan fi Akher al Zaman
An open and honest dialogue must be started without delay between the adherents of the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths and all their various branches. This dialogue should start by discussing all the prejudices and stereotypes, we should tell each other what we never dared do before; say how we really feel and what we really think of each other. We express how we really feel often to others of the same faith that is why we often start a conversation in Lebanon with ‘which part of the country are you from?’ unless the other person’s name is a dead give away as to which faith he belongs to.
But such dialogue must not include men of the cloth who have political ambition or who hold high office. I would rather have a lowly priest or monk like Martin Luther from a small village represent Christianity in such a dialogue than a bishop. We need both moderates and extremists in such a dialogue; we don’t want to gloss over anything. People must be willing and must be courageous enough to sit in a room together and have their most sacred beliefs attacked. They must transcend their fears of loss of privilege, power and status. This is how dialogue starts.
There are multiple contradictions in the scriptures of all faiths. Is God of the Old Testament the same God of the New Testament? We can either attribute these anomalies to God’s desire to test our faith and tolerance of dissonance or attribute such anomalies to the very human authors of the scriptures. Maybe this can be the first item on the agenda of such a dialogue.
If we decide that God is perfect but the followers of religion on Earth are not, then we start from a premise that all Earthly things, beliefs too, can be changeable and will be open to multiple interpretations. If we were honest with ourselves we would also include in this discussion the heads of the worlds largest corporations as consumerism has become a very powerful religion in its own right. They can tell us a little about the ethical and moral basis for the rampant consumer spending in one corner of the world while people starve in the other.
When I am asked what I think of the upheavals in the Arab countries and whether I believe the revolutionaries can succeed in toppling dictatorial regimes, I say, breaking things is easy, rebuilding over rubble is hard. But what will the new dawn look like? Will it be a secular one in which all citizens have equal rights and obligations and the freedom to practice their faiths and to express their ideas no matter how disturbing and contradictory?
I think human nature is far more predictable. Ultimately, a people’s revolution will be hijacked by the best organized and numerically superior group, whether it’s a tribe, a religious sect, or a political party or worst of all the national army. Unless, that is, we first draft a new social contract that would define our relationship to one another according to principles we all agree on, principles enshrined in laws and enforced evenly and fairly.
Such a social contract cannot be written without first ending the very real divisions that exist in Arab societies. These divisions are religious at their root and based on dogma that often disagrees with itself and with the merciful nature of all faiths. The argument of separate but equal won’t work either; you can’t have a country who’s component parts are at war with each other and nurse a deep hatred for one another.
Only an inter-faith dialogue can iron out the many thorny issues. We have to accept that the various faith systems complete each other rather than contradict with one another. We should accept the need for a modern outlook on faith, one that incorporates the many social changes of the last one thousand years. We should not deny heaven to anyone with the stroke of a pen simply because they chose to practice their faith differently or because they belong to an entirely different belief system. We should allow God’s mercy to guide our hearts in such a dialogue.
The best venue I can think of for such a dialogue is Lebanon, a country mired in denial. Parts of it are trying to ignore sectarianism altogether and apply a purely secular system, thinking such a system would be immune to the tyranny of the majority, which, of course, it would not be. Only by embracing a new approach that embraces our religious variety and recognizes it can we reach a point where we are liberated from our sectarian baggage and are actually be free to draft a new social contract and constitution based on principles of fairness to all.
What we need today is a new social contract that embraces religion as a part of our complex national persona, not a rejection of religion. Invariably, any rejection of sectarianism in politics will be seen as a rejection of one or all religions. Thus the anti-sectarian movements are and shall remain misunderstood by the vast majority who see conspiracies around every bend. We are after all a deeply paranoid people.
I suggest the Magan Abraham synagogue in down town Beirut as the ideal venue for such a Hiwar. It is a house of God destined for such a purpose, waiting for such a blessed event when all of God’s children meet under His roof to make peace, for blessed are the peacemakers.
But such dialogue must not include men of the cloth who have political ambition or who hold high office. I would rather have a lowly priest or monk like Martin Luther from a small village represent Christianity in such a dialogue than a bishop. We need both moderates and extremists in such a dialogue; we don’t want to gloss over anything. People must be willing and must be courageous enough to sit in a room together and have their most sacred beliefs attacked. They must transcend their fears of loss of privilege, power and status. This is how dialogue starts.
There are multiple contradictions in the scriptures of all faiths. Is God of the Old Testament the same God of the New Testament? We can either attribute these anomalies to God’s desire to test our faith and tolerance of dissonance or attribute such anomalies to the very human authors of the scriptures. Maybe this can be the first item on the agenda of such a dialogue.
If we decide that God is perfect but the followers of religion on Earth are not, then we start from a premise that all Earthly things, beliefs too, can be changeable and will be open to multiple interpretations. If we were honest with ourselves we would also include in this discussion the heads of the worlds largest corporations as consumerism has become a very powerful religion in its own right. They can tell us a little about the ethical and moral basis for the rampant consumer spending in one corner of the world while people starve in the other.
When I am asked what I think of the upheavals in the Arab countries and whether I believe the revolutionaries can succeed in toppling dictatorial regimes, I say, breaking things is easy, rebuilding over rubble is hard. But what will the new dawn look like? Will it be a secular one in which all citizens have equal rights and obligations and the freedom to practice their faiths and to express their ideas no matter how disturbing and contradictory?
I think human nature is far more predictable. Ultimately, a people’s revolution will be hijacked by the best organized and numerically superior group, whether it’s a tribe, a religious sect, or a political party or worst of all the national army. Unless, that is, we first draft a new social contract that would define our relationship to one another according to principles we all agree on, principles enshrined in laws and enforced evenly and fairly.
Such a social contract cannot be written without first ending the very real divisions that exist in Arab societies. These divisions are religious at their root and based on dogma that often disagrees with itself and with the merciful nature of all faiths. The argument of separate but equal won’t work either; you can’t have a country who’s component parts are at war with each other and nurse a deep hatred for one another.
Only an inter-faith dialogue can iron out the many thorny issues. We have to accept that the various faith systems complete each other rather than contradict with one another. We should accept the need for a modern outlook on faith, one that incorporates the many social changes of the last one thousand years. We should not deny heaven to anyone with the stroke of a pen simply because they chose to practice their faith differently or because they belong to an entirely different belief system. We should allow God’s mercy to guide our hearts in such a dialogue.
The best venue I can think of for such a dialogue is Lebanon, a country mired in denial. Parts of it are trying to ignore sectarianism altogether and apply a purely secular system, thinking such a system would be immune to the tyranny of the majority, which, of course, it would not be. Only by embracing a new approach that embraces our religious variety and recognizes it can we reach a point where we are liberated from our sectarian baggage and are actually be free to draft a new social contract and constitution based on principles of fairness to all.
What we need today is a new social contract that embraces religion as a part of our complex national persona, not a rejection of religion. Invariably, any rejection of sectarianism in politics will be seen as a rejection of one or all religions. Thus the anti-sectarian movements are and shall remain misunderstood by the vast majority who see conspiracies around every bend. We are after all a deeply paranoid people.
I suggest the Magan Abraham synagogue in down town Beirut as the ideal venue for such a Hiwar. It is a house of God destined for such a purpose, waiting for such a blessed event when all of God’s children meet under His roof to make peace, for blessed are the peacemakers.
Comments
Post a Comment