If we speak too much about something it means that it is lacking or else that there is a need or urgency for it.  This also seems valid for the inter-religious dialogue. Therefore true dialogue begins when the two speakers do not use the word dialogue anymore, dialogue becomes second nature to them, and a way of being and of acting that is self-evident. When two friends speak, they never think they are having a dialogue; they are friends, that’s all.  Friendship does not mean we are photocopies of one another; we are different by nature. Only strangers use the word dialogue to stress the boundaries.

 

Dialogue, for me, has a divine ontology, both human and cosmic, that has an existential significance and role.  From this point of view dialogue is not only a pragmatic necessity to govern the relationships between different communities, and resolve the problems of a crisis in community life. This aspect is no doubt important, but it is not right to reduce it to a department of external affairs, religious or/and political.  Dialogue is a way of being and of acting that embraces everything.  Without the support of a spirituality of dialogue that finds its correct expression in theology and in religious thought in general, dialogue would risk becoming a diplomatic show window, marginal and superficial.

 

Based on these observations, dialogue is not an activity among other activities, but a type of religiosity among other types of religiosity. But what type of religion and religiosity are we talking about?  Before attempting to respond to this question (perhaps with other questions!), let us begin by analysing the meaning and the role of religion.

 

I start with a given: the role of religion is to give us the ultimate significance in the world and of ourselves, and to give us a motive for choice and action in the light of this significance.  I do not believe that religion has the monopoly on meaning and motivation.  There are lay forms of thinking that look for ways to challenge or replace the traditional forms of religion; we can consider them pseudo-religions or simply religions in the broad sense of the word, as long as they assume this almost religious role as provider of meaning.

 

I insist, in this context, on the unity of the different aspects of religion: intention and action, interiority and exteriority, religious experience and its philosophical expression, theology, art, ethics, social political etc….  This unity demands a certain equilibrium and exchange among these dimensions.  Theological thought, for example, separated from the spiritual experience, risks being a language of power and dominion.

 

One may ask fairly what types of religiosity permit true dialogue?  When does a religion or a type of religiosity become an obstacle? 

 

Basing myself on my experience and on my understanding of the role of religion, I believe that the principle obstacle is egoism, in other words the refusal, the fear of the other and the will to dominate, the closing in on one’s ego, and the imprisonment in the particular. In this sense selfishness is anti-religious by definition, it is simply satanical.  The first word pronounced by IblËѕ  (Satan) when God asked him why he had refused to prostrate himself before Adam was: I, “I am better than he, you created me from fire, while you created him from mud” Corano (7: 12 ; 38: 76). The first sin is racism.

 

The initial role of religion therefore, according to this consideration, is to free us from our individual ego and from the collective ego. We often speak of the first and rarely of the second:

 

     1-   First, because religions have in general condemned individual egoism, but being builders of                    community, have reinforced, willingly or not, “communitarism”, or what we call it today, planetary tribalism.  When a community stops being a space of spiritual growth and becomes an absolute in itself is becomes a tribe, a prison for the person.

 

     2-   Second, because collective egoism is hidden behind a heavy veil of collectivism in which  responsibility is not very clear, the collective subconscious knows how to defend itself with national and religious arguments, knows what to do to justify and embellish its ethnic or religious racism. The last is less often named and therefore less condemned.

 

Religious racism becomes “austerity”, “fervour”, or “zeal” according to some.  In certain theological milieu it is called “exclusivism” or “traditionalism”.  Sometimes it is tolerated as a form of traditional and conservative pride in societies of antiquity, a certain theoretical exclusivism that does not necessarily translate into violence.

 

Nothing is guaranteed. The experience of history teaches us that this exclusivism supposedly “moderate” is the potential container in which is born explosive exclusivism.  The passage from one to the other is like that from intention to action, from the verdict to the execution.

 

On the other hand nothing is guaranteed by religious pluralism either, because the risk always exists of being exclusive with the exclusive, and of falling into a vicious circle of action and counter-action from which we cannot escape.  It is simply a contradiction.

 

The struggle against exclusivism as a transmitter of the virus of national or religious violence consists in having a sound theological foundation accompanied by a long period of study.  This progressive and slow change depends also on culture and on the socio-economic conditions.  We know well that social injustice, unemployment, hunger, despotism, torture, corruption etc., are conditions not favourable to openness and to dialogue; on the contrary they are factors of revolt and of refusal that often take aggressive forms.  For the oppressed this violence could be an act of survival that risks, in extreme cases, to transform them into oppressors, and so they inflict on others what they themselves endured.

 

Generally speaking, inter-religious dialogue is not at the centre of the preoccupations of the common people.  Society suffers from a dangerous lack of dialogue at all levels: between the State and society, Government and Opposition,  political parties, social classes, between generations and  members of a family, between nationalists and Islamists, and the diverse groups and religious tendencies… Before these problems, the inter-religious dialogue that goes on in Universities and  centres of study, do not interest the masses hungry for bread and for freedom.  In this situation dialogue is not a priority.

 

All this is not without some element of truth; the social and political aspect is predominant in the Arab type of religiosity, for example. But this does not justify the marginalizing of dialogue and the isolation of its people. Dialogue, as I have said before, is not partial but systematic, a mental structure, a spirit that blows and acts in all the parts.  A radical reform that does not consider the importance of dialogue is destined to fail, in my opinion.

 

We can escape from ecumenical dialogue into inter-religious dialogue because it seems to contain fewer doctrinal implications; it is easier to deal with persons that are far away. To insert dialogue in the system is a most difficult challenge. One of the forms of singularity that can be an obstacle to dialogue is cultural singularity.  The word “singularity” is more neutral than egotism, but both can prevent openness and universality.

 

The flight from Tunisia to Rome takes about an hour, but the trip that really counts is the mental one, that has its own measure. Our mental and imaginary geography, the houses of our dreams and nightmares, definitely influence our way of being and of acting.  To jump or cross the wall of imaginary, means to pass from the Christian imaginary to the concrete Christian (though concrete remains relative), is the main goal, according to me, of our pilgrimage to the heart of the Catholic world.

 

The Mediterranean separates and unites two different worlds.  In general (I would say in a simplistic way), the countries of Maher, because of their geography and history, are very close to Western culture, above all to the urban elite. But this culture is often seen in its dimension à la Française, in which the religious aspect is neglected, if not to say suspect.  But for the great majority of the people of Maghreb, the classic image of the other as the Spanish re-conquistador and the French colon has remained intact. After centuries of westernisation, generally forced and superficial, the relation with the West has remained ambiguous: the West, hated and loved, condemned and glorified, anti-religious and Christian at the same time.

 

The geographical vicinity or a long sojourn in the West does not necessarily mean a deep and comprehensive knowledge of the other, as long as the prejudices and memories cannot be criticised.   So the cultural pilgrimages are necessary to prepare a new generation for dialogue.  Dialogue today is a basic mode for being universal.  To live in the presupposition of the absence of the other is now impossible.

 

 Another cultural obstacle is the breadth and the wealth of the religious patrimony accumulated through the centuries. Religious sciences are a very wide world. One could consecrate a whole lifetime to the work of theology or exegeses.

 

From which part of Christianity can a Muslim begin his studies, or vice-versa?  Is there a discipline of Christology similar to that of Islamology?

 

Where can one study all this?  The Pontifical Universities and Institutes are numerous, but from where can we begin the study of Christianity?  Even those that have the time to begin the academic program from the beginning (Bachelor, Licence and Doctorate) must make a precise choice: History, Theology, Biblical Studies, Patristic, Spirituality, Missionology, Ecumenical Studies… and in Theology, one must choose between Dogma, Systematic, Bible, the Fathers, Christology, Pneumatic, Mariology…  It is sufficient to open an Ordo of any Pontifical University to see the abundance of choices.  From this comes a certain perplexity at first that can be temporary, but risks sometimes causing a total refusal or generates superficial knowledge.

 

The cultural obstacle is not limited to the multiplicity of the disciplines, but manifests itself above all in the differences of languages and of mental categories.  The Christian dogmatic discourse is not easy, above all in abstract philosophy.  How does one succeed in understanding an argument that seems difficult for Christians themselves?  What do I understand for example from the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Passion, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and Redemption… ?

 

All these cultural difficulties, collective egotism and paranoid singularity meet on the individual plane in the heart of the human being.  Here psychology helps us to find the solution to the problems of sociology and culture.

 

We can compare my Rome experience to a man who leaves a well lit space and enters into a dark room; at first he sees nothing, and progressively begins to distinguish things, notices that there is a chair on which he can sit, then a light switch and he turns on the light, sees an interesting book near the chair and begins to read it… and maybe he opens the window to discovers a beautiful hidden garden, and so on…

 

The discovery of Christianity for me is not a University Ordo or a beautiful Pontifical Library.  Certainly books and courses are useful and necessary, but the most important thing is human contact, friendship.  It is incredible and fascinating: to meet a person from a different continent, a different language, a different culture, and a different religion… Everything seems different and insurmountable, but is spite of all this, it is possible not only to communicate but also to find each other, to discover a transcendental unity that constitutes the nucleus of our humanity and divinity.  To take the Gospel or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and say: this is the Christian, is a very reduced and mystifying way to know Christianity.  There is so much diversity and plurality in the concrete world, not only between right and left, conservatives and reformists, spiritual and canonical people, heretics and orthodox… but also between person and person, between one country and another… and so we discover that behind the traditional classifications of religions there is another classification of religiosity.  There are Christians that live their faith in a relevant way for me, who give me a deeper dimension and a broader horizon for my religious experience.

But there are others that remind me of some argumentative and exclusive Muslims. However, we dialogue and learn from everyone, with the open we learn openness and with the closed we learn the art of patience.

 

To listen fully to the other, the different one, even when he speaks in an abusive way, is a decisive test and an important challenge for the religious man. It shows concretely that he is free from egoism, individual and collective, which often takes vague forms of the religious.   Dialogue itself is an ascetic mode of interior purification.  To dialogue is a way deepening our religious life, if we understand religion as a continual discovery of the face of God in the cosmos and in man.

 

In the confraternity al-Sheª¼ playa they ask al-murkËd, the novice to distribute water in the mosque.

So in Tunisia in the mosque al-Sayåan, for example, we see prestigious persons who bow before people to offer a glass of cool water on hot summer days.  This small gesture is very significant to eliminate false pride.  Service is at the heart of our spiritual mission; it prevents every imperialistic tendency.  Service is not possible without the humility to listen.

 

One of the great challenges before dialogue is education.  How do we teach objectively the religion of another? Certainly objectivity is relative maybe there is need of a positive subjectivity.  I think that without a minimum of involvement and compassion, a certain sense of acceptance or partial identification, a Christian cannot represent Islam to his co-religionists, and the same is true for a Moslem that teaches Christianity.

 

We must also be attentive not to generalize our convictions, above all when we declare that our intentions are good.  Humanity has known so many types of humanistic imperialism, a soft imperialism that can seem anti- imperialistic, or rather against the hard imperialism.  Inter-religious dialogue is not an exception.

 

In inter-religious dialogue we often condemn the danger of relativism, which means the conviction that each one carries his own truth.  This means that there is no absolute Truth, but only concrete truth, particular and private.

 

I do not want to defend the Sophist philosophy that states there is no truth behind the rhetoric.  But I am aware that our context, languages cultures… in short the total our human condition limits us.  Truth exists, it is one, but it is plural in its manifestations and concepts.  God is one in Himself, But multiple in His names and manifestations.  This teaches us humility, openness and hermeneutical understanding.  There is a big difference between relativism and the privatisation of truth and the acceptance of the pluralistic nature of the one truth. This attitude stimulates dialogue and mutual knowledge. On the contrary, relativism calls for the closing-in on our small truths.

 

I would like to give you two concrete examples that can be bridges of meeting and of communication, all this from my own experience.  These two themes have been very useful and illuminating for me as I continue my way in dialogue:

 

The first bridge is the Eucharist.  One can rightly ask how a Muslim who does not believe in the Crucifixion, the Death and the Resurrection of Christ, nor in His divinity, can understand the rite of the Eucharist.  There is an incompatibility, symbolic and doctrinal, that prevents the person brought up in the Islamic imagery to decipher the meaning that is behind the mask of symbol, and therefore to interact positively with the Eucharistic liturgy. The symbols become simply mute and absurd.  Let us look at a few examples:

 

     1. In Islamic prayers, one cannot eat; but the Eucharist is based on the symbolism of food.

 

     2.   Wine is forbidden in Islam; yet in the Eucharist the wine is transformed into the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

     3.    To eat the flesh of a person is associated in Islamic symbolism with the sin of speaking evil of someone in his absence. (al-ghËba).

 

On the doctrinal plane, the great majority of Muslims, save a few exceptions today, believe that the crucifixion is negated categorically in the Koran. Therefore one believes either in the Koran or in the Crucifixion.  Considering this radical contradiction, it would be better to keep away from this argument, which is tabù or a red line not to be crossed.

 

In my understanding of religion and of dialogue, there is no tabù that cannot be discussed, above all when there is trust and friendship.  I do not believe that the themes of Crucifixion and Redemption cannot be overcome.  That which makes them so sensitive is the veil of history and of language.  There are truths that are “trans-cultural”, they are existential truths that explain and give meaning to life. The themes of suffering, death, spiritual rebirth, hope… are universal human themes, in spite of the symbolic language used to express them. Better still, they are lives and experiences beyond cultural diversity.  It is possible for a Moslem to understand the Christian language in this case.

 

Other religions use different languages to express this existential reality.  A few Sufi have used the birthing of the Virgin Mary as a model of redemptive suffering and of the spiritual rebirth of the real human identity.  The birth of Jesus Christ, the Christmas event, has taken on here an Easter dimension of death and resurrection.  In Sciismo, we find paschal and redemptive traces in the death of al-Husayn the nephew of the Prophet Muhammad.  Sometimes the mystics have used erotic language to express communion and union with God.

 

It is not easy. The question seems to me sometimes deeper than differences of mental categories. It is psychological, rooted in the subconscious, and the defence mechanisms of the psyche often take subtle and indirect forms.

 

I remember, when I first arrived in Rome, I tried to participate in a Mass, without taking Communion but accompanying people mentally to the altar.  At a certain point, I had the feeling that I needed to vomit. It was a surprising reaction for me. I thought I was more tolerant!  My subconscious had reacted strongly and physically on its own, without asking my permission.  This frightened me. The discovery of hidden hallways and rooms in one’s own soul, gives a strange feeling of instability and of uncontrollability. My soul is in a state of rebellion - perhaps this is insanity. So my new adventure in dialogue, which had just begun, risked failing.

 

Perhaps I had skipped steps. My will to go fast to the depth of the Christian experience had set off in me the psychic alarm: the soul has its own antibodies.  Perhaps I had understood in a way too carnal and almost cannibal the doctrine of “transubstantiation”.  I do not know, but in any case I decided not to go to Mass anymore till things were clarified.

 

After a few months I decided to go to Mass again. I rebelled at my weakness, and the will to continue the adventure was stronger.  During Communion, and without thinking like the first time, I started to recite an Islamic prayer, the prayer of Abraham that is recited at the end of every ritual to invoke the blessing of God on all the sons of Abraham.  It was not I who found the solution, but rather my deep I had found a point of meeting between my prayer, the music that vibrates in my soul, and the Christian prayer, the Eucharist.

 

In dialogue one does not change his religion, but stops considering it in the same light as before.. Our own religion is transfigured in front of our eyes, as if the other had lent us new eyes.  But conservatives of all parties fear dialogue, because, in their opinion, it disturbs the tranquillity of souls and risks causing perdition.  The risks do exist certainly, but life itself is a risk.

 

To understand and appreciate Christianity does not necessarily mean being baptized. But in my case, Christianity has become now a part of my formation and of my cultural baggage.  I can even say of my identity, if we understand identity as an evolving complex journey that embraces that which we have inherited and that which we make and acquire.  Once the first shock is overcome and we become familiar with the new language and its concepts, we can even be creative in this symbolic space.

 

The second bridge of communication with Christianity is its dimension of freedom, its concern for social justice and solidarity with the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed.  This dimension makes the spiritual aspect more active and significant, above all in the countries in the southern hemisphere.  For this reason, the Theology of Liberation, Black Theology, the Feminist Theology etc. have been for me very useful to discern a comprehensible Christian discourse

 

In this line, the concept of mission da’wa takes on other dimensions; it becomes a cooperation for the fulfilment or humanization of the human being and of humanity.  What does God want from us together?  And what type of man do we want to educate?  Maybe I exaggerate a bit when I speak of an inter-religious mission. This seems far away, but I see its signs today, in spite of the catastrophes that surround us.

 

To save our common House, the celestial Ark, it is necessary to have the courage to take a decisive step, full of meaning and understanding towards the other, as the other welcomes us and invites us into his house.