While there are religious groups that are exclusive and communal, there are others, which we have alluded to, that are genuinely committed to interfaith, intercivilizational dialogue. They may be few and far between, but because they are inclusive and universal in outlook, they hold the key to intercivilizational understanding and empathy in the future.

There are two important characteristics about these groups and the individuals associated with them. Apart from their inclusive attitude, they also seek to focus upon the substantive, as against the symbolic dimension of religion. For them, justice and freedom, love and compassion, equality and integrity, modesty and humility, restraint and discipline, and the efforts to translate these fundamental values, into laws, policies, and institutions constitute the essence of faith (Muzaffar). This does not mean that they do not appreciate the role of forms and symbols, rituals and practices in religion, they do: but they realize that the meaning and message behind a symbol or ritual is what endows it with strength and vitality.

Because their approach is inclusive and the values they espouse are not only universal but also identifiable with other religious communities, these groups and individuals will be completely at ease with intercivilizational dialogue. In almost every country in Asia, there are groups like this, though their influence is limited. Among the leading lights of religious universalism—as against religious revivalism—in Asia today would be Swami Agnivesh of India, Ariyaratne of Sri Lanka, Nurcholis Madjid of Indonesia, and Bishop Labayan of the Philippines. Though these four individuals come from different religious backgrounds, they speak the same global language—of a God who belongs to all and yet to none; of the human being as God’s trustee with the sacred responsibility of advocating what is right and prohibiting what is wrong; of universal, perennial values as the foundation of an ethical society; and of rights, responsibilities, roles, and relationships shaped by these values that provide human life with harmony and equilibrium.

The alternative visions [1] of these and other individuals resonate with the outlook of a couple of Asian political leaders who realize the importance of civilizational dialogue. The former deputy prime minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim, for instance, initiated a dialogue between Islam and Confucianism in 1995. No high-level government leader in Malaysia before him had undertaken such a task[2]. Anwar argues eloquently that “The primary motive of civilizational dialogue must be a global convivencia, a harmonious and enriching experience of living together among people of diverse religions and cultures. To enter a more meaningful stage of engagement between Asia and the West, it must be an encounter between equals, between cherished ideals and values that will serve to challenge our pride and end our prejudices” (Ibrahim).

The other Asian leader who has been in the forefront of intercivilizational dialogue is, of course, the President of Iran Mohammed Khatami. It was he who proposed that the UN declare 2001 as the year of the dialogue of civilizations. Displaying an intimate grasp of the issues involved in civilizational dialogue, he observed in a lecture to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1997:

With the terrible gap between the rich and the poor in various communities and countries of the world, how can we naively call for peace and mutual understanding? How can we call for dialogue if this inequality persists and if no fundamental steps are taken to help the deprived peoples of the world? On the threshold of the third millennium, the destiny of our world is common for all. For this destiny to be a just and happy one, the only course of action is a dialogue among various cultures and civilizations. We should remember that although in the twentieth century the sword held sway, and some people won and others lost with each sweep of its blade the next century should revolve around dialogue. Otherwise, this sword will reemerge as a two-edged weapon that will spare no one, and it is quite possible that the mighty warmongers will be among its first victims. (Khatami)

At the beginning of the third millennium. In the year of civilizational dialogue, it is apparent that there are governments, NGOs, and individuals who are deeply committed to the noble goal of bringing people of different religions, cultures, and civilizations closer together on the basis of shared universal spiritual and moral values. But there are impediments; the global system is one of them and exclusive, communal attitudes within religious and cultural communities is another.[3] However, the realities that challenge all of us—more and more societies are becoming ethnically heterogeneous; nations everywhere are becoming more and more interdependent—leave us with no choice. Either we dialogue with one another or we die together. That is the promise and the peril.

Sources:

• Ibrahim, Anwar. The Asian Renaissance, Singapore/Kuala Lumpur: Times Books International, 1996, p.45.

• Khatami, Mohammad. Islam, Dialogue, and Civil Society, Canberra: Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, The Australian National University, 2000, p 34.

• Muzaffar, Chandra. Religion in Asia Pacific Region: the Challenge Without; the Change Within Religion and Culture in Asia Pacific: Violence or Healing? Joseph A. Camilleri, ed. Melbourne: Vista Publications, 2001.

[1] An incisive analysis of alternative spiritual visions of this sort can be found in Fred Dallmayr’s Alternative Visions: Paths in the Global Village, Lanhan/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1998.

[2] Though Anwar initiated the dialogue, the government has not kept it going. This is one of the consequences of his incarceration since September 1998. He was convicted on two separate charges of sodomy and interference with the course of justice in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct and is now serving a 15 year jail term. His imprisonment is regarded domestically and internationally as a politically motivated act, aimed at persecuting a political leader who had committed the mortal sin of challenging his chief, the long serving Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

[3] The question of religion and globalization is examined in a comprehensive manner in Richard Falk’s Religion and Humane Global Governance, New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Read Also: