RSSReligious Dialog In the modern era, living together with different backgrounds is inevitable. That, especially religious diversity, potentially has two possibilities; living together in harmony or living with tension towards each other. Certainly, in community, living in harmony is a priority and should be the expectation. Understanding each other is a key to achieving it through dialogue. This because through dialogue, we can respect and learn from each other’s differences. Other reasons are all truth is limited (philosophical reason), God is bigger than any religion (religious reason), we have to work together to solve common problems (ethical reason), and there will be no peace among nations without peace among religions (political reason). The needed dialogue is not just conversation, better understanding, or debate, but it is the exchange of experience and understanding between two or more partners with the intention that all partners grow in experience and understanding. Consequently, it demands listening and speaking, recognizing that there is more to learn, readiness to grow or change, and ending up in agreeing to disagree. There are many forms of dialogue, for instance, dialogue of study, dialogue of prayer and dialogue of action. Therefore, in a new understanding the study of religions is not just the study of history and matters of certain religions, but it must be the dialogue of religions. In order to be successful in our dialogue, there are prerequisites that have to be considered. First of all is the recognition of differences. The differences among religions are “incommensurable”; meaning that one religion can not evaluate other religion. In this instance, we should not look for the similarities among them, because that can lead us to the conclusion that all religions are same. The second is having trust that there is “something” that enable us to learn and understand each other. This “something” perhaps appears universally among religions and it may mediate our differences. The third is a balancing between commitment and openness. In dialogue we have to be committed to our religion and to our tradition. Consequently, we are demanded not only to learn, but also to teach and give witness, and even to persuade other believers to convert to our religion. On the other hand, we have to be open to expect the truth from other religions. Consequently, we are required to be ready to change the paradigm and the conviction. However, making dialogue among religions is not easy, because in each religion, there are some groups who have different attitudes toward other religions. Based on their attitude and their relationship to other religions, those groups can be classified to four models. The first is the replacement model. The main claim of this model is that there is only one true religion. This means that there is only one way in which humans can find God, and other ways are useless. Therefore, commitment dominates in the dialogue and the openness is lacking. This means that dialogue in this model is closed. The second is the fulfillment model. This model claims that other religions are true, but are to be fulfilled in its religion. This means that there are many ways in which human can find truth, but finally those ways need to be fulfilled in one religion. In the other words, its religion is superior and other religions are inferior. In this model, dialogue is open, but the commitment is more dominant than the openness. The third is the mutuality model. This model claims that all religions are true, equal position and no superiority or inferiority. It acknowledges genuine difference among religions. Therefore, it seeks what they have in common. Consequently, it calls all religions to set down together to make dialogue. There are three forms of dialogue that are set up in this model. The first is a philosophical dialogue that is based on the reason that all religions are relative. The second is a mystical dialogue that is based on the reason that there is a similarity at the core of mystical experience within all religions. And the third is an ethical dialogue. It starts from the common problems surrounding all religions, precisely human suffering. In this model, the commitment and openness are equal. The fourth is the acceptance model. This model claims that each religion has its own goal, or ultimate end, and is different from the others. It calls on all religious persons to simply accept the other religions, let them be. Therefore, in this model, the form of dialogue is different from the mutuality model. The dialogue only focuses on learning or listening rather than witnessing or speaking, even though it is recommended that there is an equalness between commitment and openness. Haw to View Other Religions Religion is not only a set of belief to God and belief to transcendental matters, but it also consists of a way of life that directs human being to be good person. Some thinkers even define religion in wide meaning. It’s just the way of life without prerequisite to believe to Gods or believe to transcendental matters. Those definitions lead me to conclude that each religion has same idea to drive its believers to be a good person, personally or communally. This means that he has a good attitude, a good notion, and a good characteristic that can lead him received by his community. In short, basically, religion always brings a potency to create peaceful, welfare, and harmony. Based on the thought above, I believe that each religion basically is equal, neither superior nor inferior religion, neither first nor second religion. Equality means that each religion is responsible to keep peaceful, welfare, and harmony in the world. Therefore, each religion is demanded to cooperate with the other to work together to solve common problems, to respond the human suffering. On the other words, each religion has to make its contribution to the common ethical challenges facing humanity that is like Hans Kung means in his “Global Ethic”. Furthermore, the togetherness also is needed to avoid violence that sometimes comes up under religious justification. That because I believe that if there is no violence among religions, there is no violence among nations. In short, in my opinion, the mutuality model is more appropriate to cover the relationship among religious world in the present days. There are many reasons why I prefer the mutuality model than the others. The first is that in this model there are many opportunities to dialogue among religions with a number of forms, for instance, a philosophical dialogue, a mystical dialogue, and an ethical dialogue. The result of those dialogues is to build understandings each other, the understanding of uniqueness of each religion and the understanding genuine differences between religions. Eventually, the world of religions can be avoided from the conflict. The second is that the opportunity for working together among religions is more open. That’s basically more needed in the present days. With the ethical dialogue we start from the common problems surrounding all religions. Then we respond them by working together to help the victims. For instance, in Iraq now, there are many war victims, working together among religions is very important to show that basically religion is the source of welfare and peaceful, it is not the source of conflict. Finally, that can prove the equality of all religions, no superior or inferior in the world of religions. I am sure that my religious tradition (Islam) supports the opinion above. That because those reasons are not contrary to the sources of Islamic tradition, namely, Qur’an and Hadith (Muhammad tradition). There are some verses that sanction that explanation, for instance, in the QS 2;62 stated “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabians, whoever believe in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. The lessons of that verse are the first that God states the equality among religions. Every religion whos believe in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their God. God does not distinguish between Islam and other religion. The second is that God supports everyone who does righteous good deeds. Working together to respond the human suffering and to help the war victims is included doing righteous good deeds. Muhammad, as a model person of Muslim, has set an example for his ummah. He visited and helped everyone who is involved in suffering even though from non-Muslim community. Eventually, I believe that God blesses my taught.
Feb 23
Religious Dialog
In the modern era, living together with different backgrounds is inevitable. That, especially religious diversity, potentially has two possibilities; living together in harmony or living with tension towards each other. Certainly, in community, living in harmony is a priority and should be the expectation. Understanding each other is a key to achieving it through dialogue. This because through dialogue, we can respect and learn from each other’s differences. Other reasons are all truth is limited (philosophical reason), God is bigger than any religion (religious reason), we have to work together to solve common problems (ethical reason), and there will be no peace among nations without peace among religions (political reason).
The needed dialogue is not just conversation, better understanding, or debate, but it is the exchange of experience and understanding between two or more partners with the intention that all partners grow in experience and understanding. Consequently, it demands listening and speaking, recognizing that there is more to learn, readiness to grow or change, and ending up in agreeing to disagree. There are many forms of dialogue, for instance, dialogue of study, dialogue of prayer and dialogue of action. Therefore, in a new understanding the study of religions is not just the study of history and matters of certain religions, but it must be the dialogue of religions.
In order to be successful in our dialogue, there are prerequisites that have to be considered. First of all is the recognition of differences. The differences among religions are “incommensurable”; meaning that one religion can not evaluate other religion. In this instance, we should not look for the similarities among them, because that can lead us to the conclusion that all religions are same. The second is having trust that there is “something” that enable us to learn and understand each other. This “something” perhaps appears universally among religions and it may mediate our differences. The third is a balancing between commitment and openness. In dialogue we have to be committed to our religion and to our tradition. Consequently, we are demanded not only to learn, but also to teach and give witness, and even to persuade other believers to convert to our religion. On the other hand, we have to be open to expect the truth from other religions. Consequently, we are required to be ready to change the paradigm and the conviction.
However, making dialogue among religions is not easy, because in each religion, there are some groups who have different attitudes toward other religions. Based on their attitude and their relationship to other religions, those groups can be classified to four models. The first is the replacement model. The main claim of this model is that there is only one true religion. This means that there is only one way in which humans can find God, and other ways are useless. Therefore, commitment dominates in the dialogue and the openness is lacking. This means that dialogue in this model is closed.
The second is the fulfillment model. This model claims that other religions are true, but are to be fulfilled in its religion. This means that there are many ways in which human can find truth, but finally those ways need to be fulfilled in one religion. In the other words, its religion is superior and other religions are inferior. In this model, dialogue is open, but the commitment is more dominant than the openness.
The third is the mutuality model. This model claims that all religions are true, equal position and no superiority or inferiority. It acknowledges genuine difference among religions. Therefore, it seeks what they have in common. Consequently, it calls all religions to set down together to make dialogue. There are three forms of dialogue that are set up in this model. The first is a philosophical dialogue that is based on the reason that all religions are relative. The second is a mystical dialogue that is based on the reason that there is a similarity at the core of mystical experience within all religions. And the third is an ethical dialogue. It starts from the common problems surrounding all religions, precisely human suffering. In this model, the commitment and openness are equal.
The fourth is the acceptance model. This model claims that each religion has its own goal, or ultimate end, and is different from the others. It calls on all religious persons to simply accept the other religions, let them be. Therefore, in this model, the form of dialogue is different from the mutuality model. The dialogue only focuses on learning or listening rather than witnessing or speaking, even though it is recommended that there is an equalness between commitment and openness.
Haw to View Other Religions
Religion is not only a set of belief to God and belief to transcendental matters, but it also consists of a way of life that directs human being to be good person. Some thinkers even define religion in wide meaning. It’s just the way of life without prerequisite to believe to Gods or believe to transcendental matters. Those definitions lead me to conclude that each religion has same idea to drive its believers to be a good person, personally or communally. This means that he has a good attitude, a good notion, and a good characteristic that can lead him received by his community. In short, basically, religion always brings a potency to create peaceful, welfare, and harmony.
Based on the thought above, I believe that each religion basically is equal, neither superior nor inferior religion, neither first nor second religion. Equality means that each religion is responsible to keep peaceful, welfare, and harmony in the world. Therefore, each religion is demanded to cooperate with the other to work together to solve common problems, to respond the human suffering. On the other words, each religion has to make its contribution to the common ethical challenges facing humanity that is like Hans Kung means in his “Global Ethic”. Furthermore, the togetherness also is needed to avoid violence that sometimes comes up under religious justification. That because I believe that if there is no violence among religions, there is no violence among nations. In short, in my opinion, the mutuality model is more appropriate to cover the relationship among religious world in the present days.
There are many reasons why I prefer the mutuality model than the others. The first is that in this model there are many opportunities to dialogue among religions with a number of forms, for instance, a philosophical dialogue, a mystical dialogue, and an ethical dialogue. The result of those dialogues is to build understandings each other, the understanding of uniqueness of each religion and the understanding genuine differences between religions. Eventually, the world of religions can be avoided from the conflict.
The second is that the opportunity for working together among religions is more open. That’s basically more needed in the present days. With the ethical dialogue we start from the common problems surrounding all religions. Then we respond them by working together to help the victims. For instance, in Iraq now, there are many war victims, working together among religions is very important to show that basically religion is the source of welfare and peaceful, it is not the source of conflict. Finally, that can prove the equality of all religions, no superior or inferior in the world of religions.
I am sure that my religious tradition (Islam) supports the opinion above. That because those reasons are not contrary to the sources of Islamic tradition, namely, Qur’an and Hadith (Muhammad tradition). There are some verses that sanction that explanation, for instance, in the QS 2;62 stated “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabians, whoever believe in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. The lessons of that verse are the first that God states the equality among religions. Every religion whos believe in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their God. God does not distinguish between Islam and other religion. The second is that God supports everyone who does righteous good deeds. Working together to respond the human suffering and to help the war victims is included doing righteous good deeds. Muhammad, as a model person of Muslim, has set an example for his ummah. He visited and helped everyone who is involved in suffering even though from non-Muslim community. Eventually, I believe that God blesses my taught.