Abstracts

Session 1- 10:30-12:00 Challenges to Dialog

 

What Challenges to Comparative Religion Can Teach Us about Challenges to Interreligious Dialogue, Timothy Knepper

  

If genuine dialogue is encounter of the other, genuine interreligious dialogue rests on the practice of comparative religion. This practice need not be formal. Nor need it occur prior to or outside of the act of dialogue. But comparative religion is nevertheless necessary to interreligious dialogue: for only if we understand something about the ways in which the other is other, can the other dialogically confront and change our prejudices; and to understand something about the ways in which the religious other is other is to practice some sort of comparative religion. But the challenges to comparative religion—much like interreligious dialogue itself—are multiple and formidable. Those registering postmodern issues complain that comparison reduces differences both within and between religions, essentially translating the other into the same. Those advocating postcolonial concerns point out that the categories used to make comparisons always come out of some particular tradition, usually that of an oppressor. And then there’s the longstanding critique of J.Z. Smith: religious comparison actually has no method, resting instead on the apparent “magic” of subjective discernment. This panel—comprised of students from Prof. Knepper’s F09 course in comparative religion at Drake University—will explore some of these challenges to comparison, in particular as addressed to a classic example of a phenomenological approach to comparative religion, Ninian Smart’s Dimensions of Sacred. In doing so, each paper will consider not only whether these challenges are apropos of Smart’s phenomenology of religion but also what comparative religion can learn from these challenges. Finally, the panel itself will take up the question: what can these challenges to comparative religion teach us about the challenges to interreligious dialogue?

 

Gülen’s Dialogic Framework: Hoşgörü as a Roadmap to Peace? by Peter Steinfeld

 

 Invite conversation! Sit down and talk! It seems so deceptively simple. Fethullah Gülen’s advocacy of hosgörü (literally “nice seeing,” “compassion”) is the foundation of the Gülen Movement’s focus on tolerance, moderation, and dialogue.¹ This simple imperative might serve as a profound model for building bridges between Islam and the West, even as it subverts common stereotypes, misconceptions, and prejudices about Muslims. Gülen’s emphasis on tolerance is deeply grounded in Turkish heritage, from the progressive policies of the Ottoman Empire to the secularism of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Gülen’s optimism about the role of moderate Muslims to counter fundamentalist Islamists might appear at first to be simplistic and naïve, but might point to a profound remedy for the deep suspicions, mistrust, and propaganda that are so divisive for Islam in the modern world.

 

Dialogical encounters might normalize relations and stabilize tensions in a world that has constructed dangerous and simplistic dualisms between Islam (as the Oriental “Other”) and the West.

 

My purpose in this paper is to problematize the notion of dialogue in order to disclose its strategic importance in a world dominated by power and privilege. I will critically interrogate ho§görü using Jürgen Habermas and his analysis of discourse ethics and communicative action. Habermas spells out the formal procedural requirements for moral discourse, including truth, rightness, and truthfulness.² Rules of discourse for Habermas are grounded in reciprocity. However, Habermas’s rules assume parity and equal positions of power among conversation partners. Dialogue depends on conversation partners who stand on relatively equal social, political, and economic ground. When there are gross inequities in status and power, there is no compelling reason to engage in conversation.

 

The Dar al-Islam (house of Islam) has been constructed as “other” by the christianized West - from crusaders to colonialists. Such false constructions of otherness, and the simultaneous threats of violence to enforce the subservience of the other, are effective in building systemic structures of power, privilege - and oppression. Such reductionist thinking deeply distorts images of Islam while also privileging and serving the hegemonic interests of the West.

 

Given the asymmetries of power and privilege, how is the “other” supposed to open a conversation with those without any interest in talking? Gülen implies that the burden to open inter-religious dialogue today might rest with Muslims. Abant Meetings, the Journalists and Writer’s Foundation, and the Gülen Movement’s interfaith dialogue centers, all point to a strategy for engaged conversation. With its humble injunction of hoşgörü, to “see nicely” and to invite compassionate dialogue, the Gülen Movement might well have discovered an elusive roadmap to real communication - and ultimately to peace.

 

Interreligious or Metareligious? The \"Problem\" of Religion in Christian-Muslim Dialog, Robert F. Shedinger

Christian-Muslim dialog is traditionally considered a type of interreligious dialog, a seemingly appropriate designation given that Christianity and Islam are generally classified as types of the same generic phenomenon (religion). But the term interreligious dialog is actually more problematic than first appears considering that the very term “religion” possesses no clear or coherent definition and that many Muslims reject the idea that Islam constitutes a religion in a way that religion is normally defined in the West. Therefore, considering Christian-Muslim dialog to be a type of interreligious dialog has the effect of distorting Islam by forcing it into a category (religion) that many of its adherents do not recognize. This violates one of the basic tenets of authentic dialog, that all dialog partners be able to fully represent themselves and their traditions in a way consistent with their own understanding and worldview.

I propose, therefore, to reframe Christian-Muslim dialog as metareligious dialog. Rather than dialog that revolves around “religious” questions like the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, or the path to salvation, metareligious dialog places the very nature of the concept “religion” itself and its relationship to the larger political, economic, and social order at the center of dialog. Rather than constructing Christianity and Islam as religions from the outset, which does real violence to Islam, metareligious dialog allows the Islamic critique of the concept “religion” to become a part of the dialog, leading to a more authentic dialog and one that has the potential to lead to a movement of Christian-Muslim solidarity in the pursuit of a more just and peaceful world.

Session 2 – 1:15 – 2:45 pm   Understanding our Shared Traditions

Integration of US Muslim Communities in their Local and Other Communities at large in the US, Mohammed Fahmy

Muslim communities in the USA, which started in large measurable numbers in the late 1700-1800s through the immigration of large numbers of individuals and families from Muslim countries and cultures to the USA, brought with it a fabric that are woven of many colors and several different threads. In many communities, Muslims congregated together as groups from several ethnicities and cultures. In most cases, it was hard for many to mingle outside their own ethnic/cultural community or to deal with their new community at large. In the past few years there has been a new trend among Muslims in the US that they need to integrate and react with other communities in their new country. Particularly after 9/11/2001, the need of Muslims to reach outside their own communities was essential to dispel the new notions that painted Muslims and Islam as terrorists and as a violent religion. This paper will list such new efforts and the need to even increase and refine these attempts to lead US Muslim communities to lead normal lives within their communities at large in their new country.

Common Roots, Common Beliefs: The Shared Traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by Kenneth Atkinson

Paper Abstract: The recognition that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have much in common is the first step to fostering a dialogue between these religions. This presentation explores the following five similarities between these three faiths. First, all three of these religions began in the Mideast. Second, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim Abraham as their spiritual ancestor. Third, Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam are religions of ethical monotheism. Fourth, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are historical religions. Fifth, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of revelation. Through a shared understanding of their common roots and beliefs, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can come together in dialog to learn more about one another, and to make the world a better place.

Positive Examples of Jewish-Muslim Dialogue, Laura J. Praglin

Paper Abstract: I would like to survey uplifting and inspiring examples of Jewish-Muslim dialog, past and present. Some examples include the Jewish experience in Spain and Turkey; grassroots efforts in the Middle East; and important developments in the U.S.

Session 3 – 3:00 – 5:00 pm   Promoting World Peace Through Dialog

Youth Dialog, Developing the Leaders of Tomorrow, Del Christensen

In every country in the world, young people hope for a better life. Unfortunately, in areas where religious conflict and violence are prevalent, even basic hopes are sometimes no more than dreams. Working, caring for their family or community, planning for the future, even establishing their own home are beyond the reach of young people whose world has been turned upside down due to violence. Young people suffer from political violence just like their adult counterparts. When schools are closed, idle youth find themselves in the middle of violence, drugs and other social woes. Young people dream of peace, but they can be caught up in the fears, beliefs and even hatreds of their parents, the violence of local extremists, and even their own government. Deep-seated hatred between religions, regions, ethnic groups, between the sexes, or between different ways of looking at things can turn a country into an endless source of conflict.

Hope for our youth can be more than a dream. Youth-focused dialog through short and long-term exchange programs are proving successful. By teaching them to help one another and show solidarity for their peers, their community, and their fellow humans, they can work together to overcome their differences and break down the invisible wall that education and traditions have built between genders, religions and ethnicities. All that is needed is to bring them together and involve them in a common cause. IRIS through its youth exchange programs is engaging young people in positive actions that will bring their hopes to reality.

Rediscovering the “other” Zwemer: Developing and experiencing intercultural and interfaith dialog, Scott A. Monsma

 

Zwemer Hall is the oldest academic building of Northwestern College in Orange City Iowa. However, there is another Zwemer Hall located in Muscat, the capital of the Sultanate of Oman. This is no mere coincidence as these similarly named buildings reflect connections between Oman and the Reformed Church in American (R.C.A.), the denomination affiliated with Northwestern College. The RCA original work in Oman started more than a century ago and involved medical and educational initiatives. Under the current Sultan, the country has rapidly developed and the “…RCA partnered with others to create an ecumenical center that would use this legacy to work internationally to build bridges of understanding and cooperation between religions to work for the common good of all…” through the Al Amana Centre (http://www.alamanacentre.org/about_us.html)

 

In 2002, several representatives from Northwestern College traveled to Oman with the goal of partnering with the Al Amana Centre to develop an intercultural and interfaith program in Oman for Northwestern students and faculty. Since that initial visit, three short term trips with students and one trip with a group of faculty and staff have been made to Oman. Plans are now in place for the next step, the launch of a semester long program.

 

This presentation will briefly focus on the legacy and historic connections between the RCA and the Sultanate of Oman before turning to examine in more detail the experiences of trip participants. In addition to discussing their experiences the presentation will examine how this intercultural and interfaith experience shaped the views and perspectives of trip participants. Many participants indicated that their time in Oman significantly shaped their views of Oman, the Middle East, Islam, and their own faith. Many participants also indicated that this trip gave them a new understanding, appreciation, and openness to listen and dialog with others across cultural and across faiths. Finally the presentation will briefly discuss the current work to develop a semester long study program in Oman for students.

 

Sources for this presentation will include material from the Al Amana Centre archives, pictures and notes taken during trips to Oman, and post-trip reflective papers from students, staff, and faculty.

 

Gandhi, Gülen, and Peace in the World: Utopian Ideals or Living Realities, Swasti Bhattacharyya

 

“Nonviolence,” “Peace,” “Justice,” are just words, clanging sounds, simply ideals until they become embodied and expressed in our own lives and actions. While Mahatma Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave (a disciple, friend, and close confidant of Gandhi), provided teachings and examples of how these ideals could be lived, there are those who are currently working to make peace in the world a living reality. The Brahma Vidya Mandir in Maharashtra India is an ashram established to empower women and to provide them a place to engage in an experiment of “spiritual development.” The women who live in this community put the ethical teachings of Vinoba and Gandhi into practice. Working alongside these women, but in a different capacity, are the people in the Sarvodaya movement. Sarvodaya, a word that implies “the wholistic (sic) growth and all around development of all the sections of global humanity,”³ is the aim for the women of the ashram and those working in various villages and cities throughout India.

Having spent the past 3 years learning from the sisters of the Brahma Vidya Mandir and Sarvodaya works, I have seen and experienced ways we can live in this world: ways in which respect, compassion, love, justice, and peace are more than just goals, they are the principles upon which daily decisions are made. After some reading, and a number of opportunities to engage individuals associated with the Gülen movement in various parts of Türkiye, I found they too share in a similar commitment to these principles and to the betterment of all in society. The vision statement of the Iowa Dialog Center reads as follows: “A world, where everyone lives in peace and harmony, where people respect and love each other, where people are merciful, helpful, compassionate and gentle, where differences do not lead to misunderstandings and arguments.”⁴ In this presentation, I share some of what I am learning from the Brahma Vidya Mandir sisters, Sarvodaya workers, and those working within the Gülen movement. Though from different countries, religious traditions, and cultural backgrounds, the individuals in the ashram, Sarvodaya and Gülen movements provide examples of how to live in a way that challenge assumptions that utopian ideals of nonviolence, peace, and justice are impractical or impossible.

Liberalism’s Quest to Create a Universal and Homogeneous State and the Response of Particular Religious Communities by Terrence Kleven

One of the central teachings of modern liberalism from its inception in the seventeenth century is that war and discord would cease if all peoples everywhere could be brought into one sovereign state governed by the principles of justice of liberalism.   This universal state aims at homogeneity, that is, a place where everyone is alike, at least in the common agreement of what justice and liberty require. Differences may be items of curiosity but are fundamentally insignificant. When we hear our colleagues and neighbors speak of “globalism”, “world economy” and “the spread of technology”, and when we notice the ubiquitous influence of the Western entertainment industry throughout the world, we hear and see the intimations of the quest to bring in this universal and homogeneous state. The classic debate over what is at stake in liberalism’s vision is the exchange between the French Marxist, Monsieur Alexandre Kojève and the Classicist Leo Strauss in a series of their publications in the 1950s. Kojève argued that the universal and homogenous state was the supreme good; Strauss argued it led to tyranny because of its denial of all particularities. At least one central aspect of this debate concerns the fate of religion in this world state. Religions continue yet to claim the importance of unique and particular truths which they cannot surrender to the homogenizing forces of modernity. Thus, religions are one of the last remaining voices which speak outside of the futuristic aims of modern liberalism. In light of the common external challenge to deny their particularities, religions find themselves having more in common than may be recognized. The purpose of this paper is to explain what liberalism means by the need to create a universal and homogenous state and how those of us in religious communities, even if different communities, may collaborate to defend our own and each others’ particular differences in light of the common challenge to forms of real difference and diversity. I suggest that our own inter-religious dialogue on such topics as family, marriage, the education of children and loyalties to place and particular communities provide fruitful points of common concern as well as mutual edification and support.