Appreciating Diversity
Despite much criticism, Kung\'s words in \'A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics\' have become one of the most important dimensions in building interreligious dialogue as a key to realizing world peace. Interfaith dialogue is very important even though it will not solve all problems.
There will be no peace between civilizations without peace between religions. And there will be no peace between religions without dialogue between religions. (Kung 1998: 92)
Despite much criticism, Hans Kung\'s words in A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics have become one of the most important dimensions in building interreligious dialogue as a key to realizing world peace.
Interfaith dialogue is very important even though it will not solve all problems. However, many issues will very likely be resolved through religious dialogue. The religious dialogue is a necessity for our life and togetherness as human beings, both in the context of Indonesian nationality and in a broader context.
Interreligious dialogue is an ongoing process of building mutual understanding and promoting interfaith learning among religions. Building mutual understanding is not easy because, in reality, the traditions of religions are diverse. Buddhism or Confucianism tend to be nontheistic in their doctrine, but have strong emphasis on ethics and self-management. There are also religions that strongly emphasizes the divine aspect, such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, with regard to the social experience of adherents, certainly there will be much more diversity.
Because of the vastness of diversity, mutual understanding is not an easy thing. It takes heart, mind, time and energy. It requires a continuous process involving all parts of society. Religious dialogue does not need to be formal. We should promote natural, sincere and productive encounters that give birth to improvement of mutual understanding.
Mutual understanding means that other people increasingly know, accept and respect all things related to our religious life. Also on the contrary, we increasingly understand, know, and appreciate other people\'s religiosity. Mutual understanding means not the attitude of ignorance to the diversity as passive tolerant attitude. Mutual understanding is an attitude of full attention and care.
Mutual learning
The process that must also be done in interreligious dialogue is mutual learning. John B Cobb Jr. in Transforming Christianity and the World: A Way Beyond Absolutism and Relativism provides a seemingly controversial picture of the conception of the outcome of this learning process. The translation of these concepts may also make many people dislike, such as an Islamized Christian, a Christianized Muslim, and so on.
But wait a moment. The content of the concept is not at all controversial. Its concrete example , I had attended a few days of events at Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, with the help of Prof. John Titaley and Issack Lattu. In the opening of the event every morning there was a prayer. For me as a Muslim, that was normal. However, what I got from this important lesson was the prayer leader and the content of his prayer.
The prayer leader turned out to be anyone, a man at the cleaning service section, a female worker at the administration section, the lecturer, and sometimes element of the chairmanship. The contents of the prayer were brief, but very impressive. "The father of our friend is undergoing surgery, give him strength, patience, and healing", and was welcomed by the audience, "Amen". Another prayer, "Our son is doing the test preparation, give him success", which was welcomed, "Amen". So-so, trivial things, but very striking.
For me as a Muslim, the experience about 17 years ago was very valuable. Because, in our prayer tradition (Muslim), the prayer content which is pronounced in Arabic has a great theme: the highest demand, but often less relevant to the situational context of the congregation. And, the prayer leader is the one who is considered the most authoritative in religion, namely kiai, ustadz, and others. Usually the prayer leader is man, rarely a woman becomes a prayer leader.
When I as a Muslim understand that, then take lessons from the Christian religious praxis, I am called Christianized Muslim, a Muslim who has learned to Christians. The lessons I take, for example, is that praying should not be led by the authority because in Islam it is stated, the prayer of the poor who are persecuted is the most makbul (acceptable). The content of prayer will also be more appealing if it relates to the real context that the congregation faces. I always want to apply it when I started my study at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, but in practice it is not easy to do istikamah (consistency): like when praying with the parents if someone is sick, simply by reading Al-Fatihah, for example.
Therefore, Christianized Muslim does not mean that the Muslim is influenced and follows Christianity. However, the Muslim learns from the Christian brothers’ tradition of practicing their religion to strengthen and deepen the understanding of his own religion. So ideally, according to that concept, the followers of that religion learn a lot in other people\'s religious praxis, but are at the same time very firm and strong with their own religion. Two things that seem to be the opposite turn out that they can be done simultaneously.
Another example was my experience to take a city bus in Yogyakarta. I frequently sat next to a mother who went or came home from church on Jalan Gejayan. When I asked from what church, she asked me back, "Sir in which church do you usually go?" I replied, "I go to the mosque, ma\'am. I am Muslim."
Even though the answer was a bit surprising, the fact was there was an explanation to each other about rituals in Islam and Christianity.
I disclosed about the obligation to perform wudu (ablution) before praying. To my surprise, ablution had not been known even though the word may often be heard. I also said that wudu is a holy activity like this like that. The mother was very happy and felt that she had gained new knowledge from my explanation. Perhaps the experience about 15 years ago also had advantage to her.
Therefore, religious dialogue should ideally be the one which affirms its identity, not lamis (speaking on lips) with statements of sameness which are frequently false. The dialogue should start from the point of difference, telling oneself what it is and what it really is, then developing into mutual understanding, then learning each other to an endless point.
Not pluralist
Mutual understanding also means not eliminating the difference. The difference is real, fact, and factual. Denying the existence of diversity even in one religion, according to Jamal al-Bana, the brother of the founder of Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, Hasan al-Bana, in the book Al-Ta \'addudiyyah Fi Mujtama\' Islamy, is a denial of the truth and divine provisions. In the divine provisions it is clear, all aspects of human life are diverse and the singular is only one, namely, God the Almighty.
So, diversity must be accepted, understood and appreciated. Differences should not even been forced to be the same thing. Interreligious dialogue is not intended to make different religions the same. The act of imposing or equating religions is the greatest betrayal of religious plurality. It is an act of anti-plurality, even though it is frequently called pluralism. Dialogue is precisely needed to see and understand the real difference.
At this point, efforts to search for the interfaith theological point of view, which were once initiated by John Hick (1995), Farid Esack (2002), Nurcholish Madjid (1995), Karl Rahner (1995), or Imtiyaz Yusuf (2009), according to the writer, are not an urgent and important agenda. The religious dialogue that pretends to look for the sameness tends to be a waste of energy.
Ibnu Burdah, Observer of the Middle East and the Islamic World; Lecturer at School of Civility and Postgraduate studies at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta