AN APPROACH TO PLURALISM, DIALOGUE AND PEACE IN ISLAMIC WORLD-VIEW
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance. Human Rights, Article 18.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to evaluate the Islamic approach to pluralism, dialogue and peace
between different faiths. After analysing each concept of pluralism, dialogue and monologue
the study focuses on the assumptions of, and justifications for, dialogue. Then it discusses
possible personality characteristics, which may obstruct the way to dialogue between various
spiritualities. The study develops its own interpretation on the concepts of jihad, tabligh in the
light of related controversial verses in the Qur’an. The study puts forward the assumption that
historically Islamic teaching acknowledged plurality, and invited other faiths to co-operation
in order to accomplish minimum three conditions of believing in one god, in hereafter and
championing the act of doing good on earth for human kind. Finally, enumerating the
principles of dialogue it ends up with some suggestions about how to enhance dialogue
between the members of differing faiths through various educational as well as other
activities.
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Pluralism, Dialogue and Monologue
Inspiring from sociocultural activity theory and cultural studies a brief sketch of
major terms of pluralism, dialogue and characteristics of monologue which are employed
in this study will be presented.
The words of individualism and pluralism in opposition to the phrases of
multiculturalism, diversity and multiethnicity are preferred to define a social condition in
which cultural, religious, ideological differences and geographical origins are discernible
supposing that the utilisation of ethnic diversity or multiculturalism may denote racism. To
this view, racism is defined as the “notion that one’s race determines one’s identity. It is
the belief that one’s convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgement
of one’s mind but one’s anatomy or “blood.” [This approach causes] people to be
condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In fact, one can gain an
authentic sense of pride only from one’s own achievements, not from inherited
characteristics” (Berliner and Hull, 2003).
Berliner and Hull are suspicious about the aim of diversity movement and regard its
aim of extinguishing racism and of building tolerance of differences as unrealistic and
consider it as deceitful. To them, the notion of collective identity prevents growth of selfesteem and “advocates of diversity are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they
see the world through coloured lenses, coloured by race and gender.” Further, they argue
that despite the advocates of “diversity” claim to teach students to tolerate and celebrate
their differences, the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means
they are being urged to glorify race, which means they are being asked to institutionalise
separatism.
Although this view seems to be an ideal position in terms of equality of human
race, it may contradict the sociological fact that communities naturally promote their
collective identities to distinguish themselves from others, thus, constituting a source of
identity for their members.
A definition can be given from Chaplin (1993) who preferred to use the word
pluralism to define a “condition in which two or more sharply contrasting cultural and
2
religious communities exist within the same political community. ... It becomes more acute
when the political community is, or is perceived to be, dominated by one particular cultural
or religious community” (p. 32).
Here is an important question about the ideal level of pluralism. Does the exponents
of a pluralist policy tend to welcome an absolute pluralism, regarding every individual as
unique, by rejecting a dominating majority, or are they in favour of appropriating pluralism
for political purposes, i.e. for the sake of managing minority groups under the dominance
of majority?
The word dialogue can be defined in two main contexts of religious and literary
studies. Dialogue between religions is defined by Küçük (1991) simply as talking,
discussion and co-operation between people belonging to the same or different faith on
shared concerns (p.27). In like manner, Borrmans (1988, p. 31) meant by dialogue “a form
of acting and being which refuses excessive individuality, constantly considerate of the
other side and believe in advancing power of this relationship.” Among the main
characteristics of dialogue is a form of action, which is based on being ready to embrace
the other side, listening to them and accepting their plurality. With dialogue it is meant not
only the relations between two individuals or two religious systems but also relations
between a group of people in the same or different societies (Borrmans, 1988, p. 36).
As to come to literary studies, dialogism was defined by Bakhtin, as an
epistemological mode characterised by constant interaction between and among meanings,
all of which have the potential to influence and condition each other (Bakhtin and
Holquist, 1981, quoted from Bowers and Moore, 1997, p. 2). In other words, to him, it is
co-existence in a single “utterance” of two intentionally distinct, identifiable voices
(speaking consciousness, conceptual horizon or world view). In the social condition of a
plural society many languages, genres, discourses and voices brought into existence by
various faith and ideological groups, all involved within the Bakhtinian term heteroglossia,
are expected to be in operation at once within equal conditions.
Although rooted primarily in language, dialogism as a concept is deeply ontological
(Bowers and Moore, 1997, p. 3). If members of any faith want to be fully realised, they
need to be given a spatio-temporal address. They are expected to be addressable as well as
to be addressers.
3
Given the definition by Bakhtin above it is possible to argue that a coincidental and
naïve dialogue have always been in action in the form of eye contact, hand shaking,
touching, posturing, facial expressions, attitudes etc. Nevertheless, it is important to
develop and turn this tacit dialogue into an intentional one. One way of looking at dialogue
is to view differentiation and diversity not as just distinctness and separateness but as a
special way of being connected to others (Irving and Young, 2002). This is because only
those who are ‘other’ to us that can call out from us responses we could never call from
ourselves (Shotter, 2001, p. 169).
The opposite condition of dialogism can be monologism, namley, an authoritative
discourse, which refuses to engage in dialogue, and to enter mutual constructions, with
other discourses. A monologic discourse expect from people to acknowledge it’s word and
make it their own, without trying to persuade them internally. Authoritative discourse can
be accepted or rejected but it is impracticable to enter into a conversation with it.
The monologue is oppressive. Everything that was completed, fixed, determined,
and too narrowly defined is, to Bakhtin, dogmatic and repressive. On the other hand, the
carnival sense of the world is one in which the highest values are openness and
incompletion (Irving and Young, 2002, p. 6.). Monologism at its extreme denies the
existence outside itself of another consciousness with equal rights and equal
responsibilities. With a monologic approach another person remains wholly and merely an
object of consciousness, and not another consciousness. No response is expected from it
that could change everything in the world of one’s consciousness (Irving and Young,
2002).
Monologic attitude may explain the authoritative characteristics of, for instance,
Orientalism which was criticised by Said (1979). A truly effective colonial conquest
required knowledge of the conquered people. By knowing the Orient, the West came to
own it. The Orient became the studied, the seen, the observed, the object. Orientalist
scholars were the students, the seers, the observers, the subject. It created an image of a
prototypical Oriental – a biological inferior that is culturally backward, peculiar, and
unchanging. A rejection of Orientalism entails a rejection of biological generalisations,
cultural constructions, and racial and religious prejudices (Said, 1979).
4
2. Assumptions of Dialogue
By engaging in dialogue participants presume that:
1. In order to respect to each other and to live in peace together the members of
human family does not necessarily need to belong to a single faith.
2. They attempt to develop such a condition that enables members of each faith to
assume that the spiritual values of each participant’s faith is equal in terms of deserving
respect and they can have as much potential to lead to truth as others can. So, they do not
introduce their faith as the only true or authentic way to God.
3. They also acknowledge that the worldview of religions allow, even perhaps
encourage, its members to engage in sincere dialogue with “outsiders.”
4. Social conditions with dialogue are better than without it. Life without dialogue,
sense of respect and sympathy among various cultural communities is potentially more
likely to prone to destructive spiritual competition, conflict and tension among believers
than being present in dialogue.
5. The opposite of present or historical state of conflicts between various faiths is
not only to live in peace together but also should mean to live in dialogue as well. By
comparison, the lack of dialogue does not necessarily indicate existence of tension or
conflict. For instance, think about a Muslim and a Christian travelling in a bus sitting one
by one. Both may be in peace without involving in conflict but they may not also
necessarily be in dialogue.
3. Justifications for Engaging in Dialogue: Shared Concerns

“In each of the three main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and
Judaism) a basis can be found for tolerance and mutual respect towards people with
differing beliefs or towards non-believers. Every human being is viewed as the
creation of one God, and as such, is due to some dignity and the same rights,
regardless of his [sic.] convictions.” (The 1993 Recommendation of the Assembly
of the Council of Europe, Section 11, quoted from Nipkow, 2003).

Believers have common universal concerns, some of which are also shared by
non-believers: “what is human? What is the meaning of life? What is sin and
5
reward? What is the source and aim of suffering? What is the way leading to real
happiness? What is death? What is judgement and hereafter? And what is the
ultimate and mysterious end which surrounds our existence, with which we find our
root and to which we moves towards?” (Borrmans, 1988).

Current studies have developed more global and pluralistic definitions of faith
and spirituality. According to fairly recent definitions, spirituality (Hull, 2002)
“refers to the way we realise the potential of our biological nature by transcending
previous levels” (p.172) and the concept of faith coined by Fowler (1981) as
connoting the “broad human potential for responding to life in certain way.”
(Coined and quoted from Hull, 2002, p. 172). In other words, “people’s orientation
to the ultimate environment in terms of what they value as being most relevant and
important to their entire lives” (quoted from Jacobs, 1993, p. 26). So, every person
can be said to have a common transcendental dimension, which may be nourished
by Islam, Christianity, Humanism, Capitalism, Communism, etc. These -isms are
not aim in themselves but are means for a higher purpose, i.e. for humanisation.

As the proponents of socio-cultural activity theory, such as Vygotsky and
Bakhtin among others, suggest, engaging in dialogue is more creative and more
teaching for humanity than acting in monologue, though this may be challenging
and even frightening for some.

As a result of poor economic and political management, many Muslims from
various locations migrated particularly by the middle of the last century to
prosperous European countries. As can be seen from Table 1 the number of
Muslims across the Europe are 12. 690. 000 (Time, Dec. 24. 2001).
Table 1
Muslims in some European countries
Countries
France
Germany
Britain
Italy
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Sweden
Number of Muslims
5m
3.2m
2m
1m
800, 000
400,000
160.000
130.000
6
Total Population
(60m)
(83m)
(60m)
(57m)
(16m)
(10m)
(5m)
(9m)
Total:
(300m)
12.690.000
This resulted in the mixture of believers from various faith groups in the same country but
leaving migrating people as minorities in predominantly Christian culture. In these new
social conditions people from various cultures came physically close to each other and can
meet each other more often than any other time. In addition, there are already Christian
communities in dominating Muslim lands. So, members of various faiths need to be in
dialogue in order to create a better world in which it would be worth to live together in
peace not letting plurality in belief to cause tension and contradictions. In addition, these
socio-political and cultural conditions of world today demand to develop a more global
identity exceeding beyond the local or tribal one.
4. Possible Obstacles on the way to Peace and Dialogue
“Religionism”: “the way in which some individuals and groups build up their
identity by forming negative descriptions or images of people from other religion.” (Hull,
1998, p. 336). The originator of the term, Hull, compares it with other notions carrying
similar negative connotations. They are religious prejudice, religious intolerance,
communalism and tribalism, fundamentalism, sectarianism, and ‘identity of totalism.’
Dogmatism, closed-mindedness, Prejudice and Authoritarianism: Closely related
two terms dogmatism and closed-mindedness (the inability to form new cognitive systems
of various kinds) designate total rejection of opposing beliefs, a poorly interconnected
belief system and discrimination between groups of people. The intensity in dogmatism is
claimed to have related to external authority. The authoritarian, dogmatic, and militarist are
anti-intellectual; and knowledge is a threat to them. They confuse knowledge with faith
assuming that knowledge is actually faith (Harre and Lamb, 1986, pp. 79-80).
In a closed-minded person the level of rejection of a disbelief system is relatively
high, there is an isolation of parts between the belief and the disbelief system, there is a
relatively large discrepancy in the degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief
systems, the world is threatening, authority is absolute, there is an isolation among the
substructures in the structure of information gained from authority, and finally there is a
relatively narrow, future-oriented time perspective (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 55-56).
Briefly, closed-mindedness refers to narrow mindedness, authoritarianism to a
relationship based on the rules of dominance and submission and dogmatism to the
7
negative attitudes to ‘out groups’ displayed by ‘inner group’ members.
Religious Fundamentalism: According to a classical definition it is “the belief that
there is one set of religious teaching that clearly contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic,
essential, inerrant truth about humanity and deity; that this essential truth is fundamentally
opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this truth must be
followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past; and that
those who believe and follow these fundamental teachings have a special relationship with
the deity” (Altemeyer and Hunsberger, 1992, p. 118).
Proselytising Activities with Hidden Agendas: When evaluating Turkey’s
candidacy for EU membership Hull (2003) cautions Turkey against bearing any hidden
agenda. “The role of Turkey as potentially the first major Islamic country to join the
European Community is crucial. However, it all depends upon Turkey’s understanding of
its final religious vocation and the role of religious education within this vocation. If Islam
in Turkey perceives Europe as a potential mission field for the advance of Islam, or
perceives participation in Europe as an opportunity to compete with other European
religions, this historic opportunity will be lost.” (p.42). Similarly, Brossman (1988) blamed
all criticising attitude of Western Orientalists towards Muslims with prejudice (p. 12). For
the sake of dialogue, Muslims need to develop self-awareness about, to revise and update
the notion of Muallafa-al qulub which is the name for those whose hearts were gained
over. In early Islamic period, the Prophet gave his enemies large shares out of the booty
only for their Taleef al-Qulub – gaining over their hearts.
Global Conflicts: Terrorism and war at varies parts of the word in the form of
crusades, jihads, inquisitions, holy wars etc. in the history and at the present have
sometimes caused contradictory feelings about whether God is “Agent or Double-agent”
(Batson, 1976). Nipkow (2003, p. 52) argues that the Council of Europe acknowledges the
constructive potentials of the religions, but it is also clear that the European politicians are
deeply worried by the destructive powers of religion. Throughout history, religion has been
double-faced, witnessing both the powers of reconciliation and of conflict, love and hate,
respect and disregard of human dignity, granting and preventing freedom. In particular,
local minority-majority conflicts sometimes arise in certain European countries. The
feeling of being excluded from the mainstream often ends up with rivalry, intolerance,
hatred, hostility and violence.
8
Misusing religion: Manipulation of religion purposefully for other than
humanisation ends in the hand of authoritarian systems such as politicising it, oppressing
people misusing religion for the sake of creating so-called “moral society” and getting it
serve to nationalistic policies.
Degeneration or “backwardness”: Collective unconscious deviation of religious
consciousness from its authentic form to “false religious consciousness” has been a
problem throughout history. An open example of this is extremist and fanatical sects,
which mostly arises as a result of rooted uncritical reflection on religious dogma and of
indoctrination in educational systems.
5. Problem
The life-story of the prophet, Muhammad, and equally the nature of the
composition of the Qur’an led both some Muslims and non-Muslims to argue
controversially whether Islam is a peace-loving religion or pro-war religion. In this regard,
severe criticisms have been carried out in the media across the world against Islam,
especially after the grim attack occurred on 11th of September 2001. This problem has
connection with the question of whether Islam is ready for dialogue and co-operation with
other faiths to establish a better world to live.
6. Method
Certain questions come into mind at this stage in the way to peace and dialogue
with regard to the method such as do the determining conditions of dialogue and peace
between cultures need to be secular or religious or a mixture? In other words, is it present
stage of values accumulated so far through human development, culture and civilisation
that will be determinant of the conditions of dialogue or is it the basic principles of
institutionalised religions that will be guiding us in this respect? Will we fall in a position
in which the theological content of participants’ faith will necessarily be sacrificed for the
sake of dialogue? Should the intended dialogue be grounded on common precepts of
various faiths or on more universal secular humane values? In this approach the
interpreted theological presuppositions of Islam with regard to pluralism and peace among
differing cultures were contrasted with more global secular values to test whether they can
be appropriated for a better world. It is theological in the sense that it posed interpretation
on the scripture and observed whether the interpretation is faithful to essence of Islam or
9
not. It may be seen as scientific in the sense that it did not mean to sacrifice or theologise
the scientific findings when carrying theological discussions into a wider international
platform.
B. ISLAM, PEACE AND DIALOGUE: REFLECTIONS ON HISTORY AND PRESENT
To ease the understanding of the Islamic approach, it would be better to start by
presenting a very short contextual background, namely, a preliminary introduction on the
biography of the prophet (pbuh) and the style of the Qur’an. The prophet (pbuh)
announced his prophethood at Mecca, a well-known trade centre in Arabic peninsula at
that time, in 610 AD. when he was at the age of 40. After revelation started, he spent about
12 years of his life in Mecca and then migrated to Medina where he spent the rest of his
life, 10 years, and died in 632. As to the Qur’an, its verses were gradually revealed in
respond to the historical and local problems usually in the form of small passages
throughout 23 years. Its verses were not thematically arranged and, thus, if one wants to
learn about the Qur’an’s perspective on an issue he/she usually needs to go through it,
gather all related verses together and contemplate on them at the same time bearing the
historical, social and cultural contexts/background in mind. However, this still may not be
always enough to prepare persuasive conclusions. For instance, it is this very nature of the
Qur’an that led two Muslim scholars (see Ateş, 1989 and Koçyiğit, 1989) to discuss
whether Christians and Jews, if do not believe in Islamic teaching, will go to hell or to
paradise in the hereafter according to the Qur’an, each mainly depending their arguments
on it. As will be discussed below, the verses related to Jihad are likewise flexible and can
be interpreted for both destructive and constructive purposes.
1. Expansion of Islam: Jihad and Tabliğ
a. Jihad: Struggle, Defence, or Holly War?
It is a historical fact that the prophet led fights against aggressive enemies of “Allah
and His messenger.” Thus, the Qur’an, as a collection of divine word resonated with the
life of the prophet, contains verses encouraging Muslims to fight employing their “selves
and their properties” in required conditions. In addition, the expansion of Islam throughout
the world in a relatively short time involving in a series of wars makes it important to start
critically discussing theological arguments about political position of Islamic teaching
10
towards “out groups” before reflecting upon how to establish a ground for dialogue and
peace between various religions.
What is jihad? Among its literal meanings are exertion, attempt, effort and fight,
fighting to defend one's life, land, and religion. It can be defined as surrendering “your
properties and yourselves” with an all-out effort in the path of Allah in order to “make
God’s cause (establishing the Islamic socio-moral order) succeed” (9:40) (Fazlurrahman,
1979). Although the means of jihad can vary and the armed jihad is only one form, the
word has often been employed to denote war (Fazlurrahman, 1980, p. 63).
In fact, like the term sharia (Islamic law), the term jihad does not take place in the
noun form in the Qur’an. This should mean that originally it did not have the same
meaning as it has in its politicised form today. Jihad is not a holy war. The notion of holy
war does not exist in Islamic teaching. It is possible to assume that if the prophet would be
an ordinary tribe leader, rather than a leader of the Islamic community, he would have
encouraged its members to defend his tribe by using the very same word jihad. Therefore,
any of the activities aiming to support a better education, peace movements, and even the
activity of international soldiers employed by the UN, should be worth to be named by
Muslims with the term jihad providing they aim to overthrow persecution, chaos, injustice
and, in turn to establish a just socio-moral order.
The prophet is said to have certainly no desire to resort to war if he had not been
fought against and if he could achieve the purpose peacefully. Even when they were
attacked, Muslims were ordered originally only to retaliate, ‘while patience is still better’
(16: 126). Only when fighting was inevitable did he fight. But it also must be remembered
that he did fight wherever he had to and was able to do so. This is because the Islamic
purpose must be achieved, as an absolute imperative, not only by preaching but the
harnessing of social and political forces is necessary (Fazlurrahman, 1979, p. 22). “When
human religio-social endeavour is envisaged in the terms in which we have understood the
Qur’an, jihad becomes an absolute necessity. How can such an ideological world-order be
brought into existence without such a means?” (Fazlurrahman, 1980, p. 63).
Fazlurrahman (1979) makes distinctions between Islam as a social, ethical, ritual
etc. system and the political power Muslims hold. Through the political power the lands
was conquered but the expansion of Islam among non-Muslims was not a direct result of
11
the conquests. “It is a travesty of facts to insist that Islam was propagated ‘by the sword’....
Islam insisted on the assumption of political power since it regarded itself as the repository
of the Will of God which had to be worked on earth through a political order.” To him, it
was Islamic features of egalitarianism and broad humanitarianism that hastened the process
of Islamization among the conquered people (p. 2). What was spread by the sword was not
the religion of Islam, but the political domain of Islam, so that Islam could work to produce
the order on the earth that the Qur’an seeks (Fazlurrahman, 1980, p. 63). Jihad is not a war
to force the faith on others. People should be freed from unjust regimes and influences so
that they can freely choose to believe in Allah (Al-Hussein and Sakr, 2002).
Among the later Muslim legal schools, however, it is only the fanatic Kharijites
who have declared jihad to be one of the ‘pillars of the Faith.’ Shafi school and some
others regarded the infidelity in itself as a justification to declare war. Other schools have
played it down for the obvious reason that the expansion of Islam had already occurred
much too swiftly in proportion to the internal consolidation of the Community in the Faith.
Every virile and expansive ideology has, at a stage, to ask itself the question as to what are
its terms of co-existence, if any, with other systems, and how far it may employ methods of
direct expansion (Fazlurrahman, 1979, p. 37).
“Jihad was put into practice at Mecca as a strong willed resistance to the pressures
of fitna (persecution) and retaliation in the case of violence, ... The jihad of Medina refers
to an organised and total effort of the community – if necessary through war – to overcome
the hurdles in the way of the spread of [principles emphasised by] Islam.” (Fazlurrahman,
1980, p. 160).
In Mecca, he and his followers were in minority, so the meaning of jihad was often
defensively being patient.
So, obey not the disbelievers, but strive (jahid) against them herewith with a great endeavour
(jihad’an kabira) (25:52).
And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave-taking (73: 10).
After the migration to Medina he became the leader of the community and the
number of his followers increased. Thus, he used political power to defend the “ummah,”
new Islamic community, through responding to aggressive attacks.
12
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo!
Allah loveth not aggressors (2: 190).
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you
out, for persecution is worst than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of
Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is
the reward of disbeliever. But if they desists, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight
them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be
no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and
forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he
attacked you... (2: 191-4).
... and they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from
your religion. ... (2: 217).
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye
have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the
war lay down its burdens... (47: 4).
As it was pointed above, Islam encouraged believers repeatedly to fight with all
what they possessed against those who “run on earth to create chaos.” The following verse
is one of the most argued verses among Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to jihad in
terms of whether a war should be declared without any reasonable justification or not.
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the
Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not
the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low (9: 29).
Without looking its historical background this verse seems to be encouraging
Muslims to declare war against those who do not believe in Allah and last day. In fact, it
was revealed by the end of prophet’s life when he heard that the East Rome empire which
amalgamated Christian values with pagan mythology of Greek and Rome was preparing to
remove Muslims in the Arabic peninsula. If it is understood otherwise, it would be fairly
difficult to locate the message of the following verses, in which the Qur’an speaks with
tenderness of Jesus and his followers:
You shall find the nearest of all people in friendship to the Believers [Muslims] those who say
they are Christians. This is because among them there are priests and monks and they are not
a proud people. 5: 82. Then we followed up [these Messengers] with Jesus, son of Mary, to
whom We gave the Evangel, and We put in the hearts of his followers kindness and mercy (57:
13
27). Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! ... I will make those who follow thee superior to those who
reject faith until the Day of Resurrection... (5: 55)
As might have been noticed from the verses presented above, the attitude of Islam
towards other faiths are not generalisable but should be regarded as contextually bounded
with certain social conditions which characterises them at that certain period of time.
Therefore, peace should be accepted as the “default” position and there is no justification
to declare war if there is not any legitimised clear reason as can be seen in the following
verse.
if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo, He is the Hearer, the
Knower (8:61). God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith
nor drove you not out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth
those who are just (60: 8).
Furthermore, even at the stage of enmity and war Allah envisaged to seek the ways
of building friendship between them.
It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be
your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (60: 7)
Again, following is another example of misleading approach. If the following two
verses are considered apart from their historical context and related other verses then one is
easily mislead in terms of understanding.
Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does
this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves
against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself;
and to Allah is the eventual coming. (3: 28)
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of
each other; and whoever among you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them;
surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (5: 51)
If one does not consider the following verse, which follows the second one, when
deriving conclusions from the two above then one can make false generalisation that all
Christians and Jews are not worthy to establish friendship. So the answer to the question
“which Christians and Jews” can be found in the following verse.
14
O you who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a
mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among
those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). (5: 57).
The Qur’an counts such things as breaking agreements, betraying, political
duplicity and treachery, secret agreements with the enemy among the major causes of the
war. If any group forms a threat to the Islamic society then it is seen to be legal to fight
against them. Today, jihad can be declared only to those who do not approach to peace and
seek chaos and persecution on earth. If Islam is prevented to invite others while it
possesses a strong political power then it keeps the right of getting rid of barriers
obstructing its way (Aydın, 1997, p. 63).
There is no command in the Qur’an about fighting with those who are not ready for
dialogue. On the contrary, there is a suggestion in the Qur’an (60: 7-8) to establish
relationships with the members of other faiths that does not fight against Muslims (Hatemi,
1998, p. 179). Truly, Islam is in the favour of common sense and the fundamental principle
of the Qur’an can be summarised in the following verse.
We ordained for he Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder
or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people and if any
one saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people … (5: 32).
As discussed so far, the term jihad took different meanings in different times and
contexts. So, when interpreting the term today it is important to bear its very core aim
which, may simply be to engage in dialogue and co-operation to establish just and peaceful
socio-moral order on earth. This interpretation should not be taken as disloyalty to Islamic
teaching because it is clear from the examples given above that Islam sought consensus
between faiths in doing good and sweeping evil on earth. It does not matter whether this is
accomplished solely by Islam itself or through co-operation with others.
If socio-moral order in the society would have been gained by means other than
jihad, and if humanitarian values such as respect, good intention etc. were observed by the
members of that society; there would be no place for war in Islamic teaching.
15
b. Tabligh or Da’wah: announcement, transmission and evangelism
The announcement of Islam to non-Muslims and letting them know about it is one
of the desired duty expected at least from a group of Muslims in Islamic community. It
should be performed not in a disguised and cynical intention, as is often the case in
proselytising activities, but should be done sincerely, openly and intentionally without
using pressure or force.
Unto this, then, summon (O Muhammad). And be thou upright as thou art commanded, and
follow not their lusts, but say: I believe in whatever Scripture Allah hath sent down, and I am
commanded to be just among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. Unto us our works and
unto you your works; no argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and unto
Him is the journeying (42: 15).
Evangelism is regarded as an ethical activity by Hull (1998) who distinguish it from
proselytism: “Although proselytism, with its suggestion of snatching or beguiling
adherence of one religion and appropriating them to ones own religion, smacks of
something rather doubtful, evangelism itself may be a perfectly ethical activity. There is no
reason why any religious individual or group should not explain and commend its views to
others” (p. 340).
Correspondingly, Burrmans (1988) asks the question: does a Muslim should
abandon the right of a fellow Christian to be a Muslim and vice-versa? He opposes this
view with the argument that this would be an unfair condition put against the sharing
principle of dialogue. The prophet told Muslims that they couldn’t be true Muslims unless
they love what they loved for themselves for their fellow believers. This should be true for
all taking part in dialogue provided that it is not regarded among the aims of dialogue
activities.
It is possible to come across several verses in the Qur’an urging Muslims to invite
others to Islam using basically a sympathetic discourse and tone:
Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the
better way (16: 124).
Go, both of you [Moses and his brother], unto Pharaoh. Lo! he hath transgressed (the
bounds). And speak unto him a gentle word, that peradventure he may heed or fear (20: 4344).
16
It was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if thou hadst
been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from round about thee. So pardon
them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. ... (3:
159).
As was indicated above, Jihad has been operationalised when the security and
defence is concerned but not for the purpose of evangelism. It is obvious from more than
one verse that the mission of prophet did not include coercing people into Islam.
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction in henceforth distinct from error (2:
256).
Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them (87:
21-22).
2. Islamic View of Peace, Plurality and Co-operation
a. Acknowledging plurality
First, perhaps the prophet hoped to unify the other religions into one single
community, under his teaching and his terms. Later, however, he aimed to establish a new
community which was called the “Median community” [umma wasat] the “ideal” or “best”
community beside others. Over against the “tendentiousness” of the others, it claimed to be
the loyal descendant of the Abrahamic tradition. Therefore, the “People of the Book” were
invited to return to the original path, the Abrahamic tradition, but not necessarily to join
Islamic community at that particular time. In fact, religions belonging to Abrahamic
tradition were also called Islam:
O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you explaining to you after a
cessation of the (mission of the) messengers, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of
good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner;
and Allah has power over all things. (5:19)
Regarding three faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) as originated from the
same source, Islam wanted to be recognised and confirmed by the two at the same time
advising them to apply the content of their scriptures on their life truthfully:
O People of the Book! You have nothing to stand on until you implement the Tora and the
Evangel and what has been sent to you from your Lord (5:68).
In the earlier (Meccan) period, in particular, Islam acknowledged plurality in belief:
17
.... Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (109: 5-6).
Although Islam envisaged a certain kind of ideal group of people, which was based
not on local, tribal or blood relations but on unity in faith consciousness, it also admitted
the reality in the plurality of human family.
And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not
differing (11: 118). And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming
whatever Scripture was before it and a watcher over it. .... For each We have appointed a
divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community
(5:48).
The essence of all human rights is the equality of the entire human race, which the
Qur’an confirms when it obliterates all distinctions among people except goodness and
virtue (taqwa) (Fazlurrahman, 1980, p. 45).
O people! We have created [all of] you out of male and female, and we have made you into
different nations and tribes [only] for mutual identification; [otherwise] the noblest of you in
the sight of God is the one most possessed of taqwa [not one belonging to this or that race or
nation]; God knows well and is best informed (49: 11-13.
b. Invitation to co-operation
Upon admitting the plurality, the Qur’an invites like-minded communities into cooperation:
O People of the Book! Come [let us join] on a platform [literally: a formula] that may be
common between us – that we serve naught except God and that we shall ascribe no partner
unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away,
then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him) (Qur’an, 3:64).
Fazlurrahman (1980, p. 63) noted that the proposition “that we serve naught except
God” is a statement of the platform, not of the task that has to be performed on earth and
whose details are supposed to flow from this platform or formula of “service” to one God.
This invitation, to him, is for co-operation in building a kind of ethico-social world order.
Theologically, the new religion specified three basic minimum conditions the
holder of which is regarded as “believer.” These are to believe in oneness of God, Last day
and doing good in the world. The Qur’an repeatedly recognises the existence of good
people in other communities just as it recognises the people of faith in Islam
18
(Fazlurrahman, 1980, p. 166).
Lo! Those who believe (in what is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews,
and Christians, and Sabaeans- whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right –
surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall
they grieve (2: 62).
Islam invites believers to come and work together to build a moral and just society.
In this respect, it suggests believers to compete in good works.
O ye who believe! ... help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one
another unto sin and transgression....(5:2). .... so vie one with another in good works.... (5:
48).
On his arrival to Medina, the Prophet attempted to put into practice his idea of cooperation and thus promulgated the celebrated Charter of Medina, guaranteeing the
religious freedom of the Jews (religious autonomy) as a community, emphasizing the
closest possible cooperation among the Muslims, calling on the Jews and the Muslims to
co-operate for peace and, so far as general law and order was concerned, ensuring the
absolute authority of the Prophet to decide and settle disputes and provided that they joined
the Muslims in the defence of Medina when it was attacked (Fazlurrahman, 1979, p. 18-19
and 28). In this union the Jews were given the freedom of applying their own law to
themselves (Aydın, 1997, p. 57).
In brief, the prophet tended to insist on: One God – one humanity (Fazlurrahman,
1979, p. 12). Indeed, at the bottom the centre of the Qur’an’s interest is man and his
betterment (Fazlurrahman, 1979, p. 35) i.e. what is coined today as humanisation. In the
Farewell
Pilgrimage
Address
the
prophet
enunciated
[...]
the
principles
of
humanitarianism, egalitarianism, social justice, economic justice, righteousness and
solidarity (Fazlurrahman, 1979, p. 25).
3. Result: Towards a Pluralist Model
Experiencing such historical intellectual revolutions as reform, renaissance
enlightenment, a number of European communities accommodated such principles as
democracy, secularism, human rights, freedom, dialecticism-criticism etc. as guiding
principles and ground rules in their lives. Today, in accordance with these ground rules and
pluralist structure, these societies are expected to show respect and equal treatment towards
19
religious institutions and spiritualities. Attitudes towards other spiritualities are no longer
determined according to a certain faith but are based on more global human wisdom, the
maturation process of which might be contributed by these religions themselves.
Using a diagram inspired from Engestrom, Engestrom, and Vahaaho (1999) a draft
concerning the issues around dialogue can be drawn as follows:
Figure 1: The Illustration of the Factors involved in
Dialogical Activity
Instruments: dialogue, intention, scripture and other educational activities
Christian
Muslim
Subjects
Jew
Humanist etc.
Rules
Unbias
No hidden agendas
Respect
Human rights
Tolerance etc.
Object: Monological pluralism
Outcome: Diological pluralism
Living in peace and harmony
Cultural integration
Communities
Netherlands
Germany
Turkey
Uk etc.
Division of Labor
Each representing one's "faith"
Each approaching dialogue
Each reflecting on cultural heritage with critical eye
Each enjoying the co-operation and collaboration
In Islamic literature the following conditions have been put forward by various
authors to be completed for an act of nourishing dialogue:
To introduce the Islamic perspective Hatemi (1998, p. 181-182) puts forward two
conditions for dialogue:
(a). Tolerance for religious freedom; nobody is forced to be religious and there is
no compulsion in religion.
(b). The verse 3:64 (mentioned above) determine the boundary of dialogue
meetings. Dialogue is done not for opportunistic and Machiavellian aims but to help
universal ethics prevail in the world. There is no concession from basics.
In addition, Küçük (1991) enumerates more points in this regard. In order to obtain
20
the targeted result, to him, for interfaith dialogue, which he regard as the humane and
civilised activity, the following points should be observed:
(1). The activity of dialogue should not bear any cynical and hidden aims and the
principle of sincerity should be approved. It should not be seen another method of tabligh
or missonary activities.
(2). There should not be concessions (enforced interpretations) in the principles of
religion for the sake of dialogue. Every religion should be introduced as it is.
(3). The creed, prayers, ethics and laws of every religion should be presented, i.e., it
should not be limited to the issues of love and tolerance only. The common and uncommon
points should also be specified.
(4). The dialogue should take place in equal conditions for each side.
Borrmans suggests that believers should work together and help each other in
approaching God and maintaining good on earth (1987, p. 6). To him, they are expected:
(a). To acknowledge each other (It is important not to let the other side to be
suspicious about whether the other side seeks a way to proselytise and thus imposing
dialogue to this purpose.)
(b). To understand each other
(c). To live and to share together
(d). To be brave and to risk (when starting dialogue) (pp. 36-39).
C. POSSIBLE RESEARCH TOPICS AND ACTIVITIES TO ENHANCE PLURALIST PROJECTS

New religious temples can be designed, with a new style of art, to include three
religions. In addition, new places, such as pluralist pilgrimage locations, common
to three Abrahamic religions can be discovered to pray together.

New syllabi, approaches and teaching methods can be developed for pluralist
21
classes. Such syllabi, for instance, can broad the theme of brotherhood from tribal
and communal to all human and regard every faith as paths to the same end through
different ways. Hull (1998) suggested a type of this model for British schools.

Separating factors can be eliminated through rearranging them. An example of
this is Butchers. Muslims prefer shopping in stores selling halal meat. Cannot the
same store sell halal and non-halal meat creating opportunity for believers to meet
more often?

In order not to leave the security of the world into the monopoly of few nations,
the United Nations should be empowered and made more functional on
international disputes. This may prevent more effectively the potential conflicts
between civilisations.

Setting up departments at universities where intellectual scholars from different
faiths can discuss theological as well as other daily social, political problems. Hall
of Wisdom founded by Abbasid khaliph, Al-Ma’mun in 830 (AD) may be a model
for such kind of co-operation.

Interfaith dialogue is often blamed of being an academic elite activity. If
interfaith dialogue is expected to change the attitudes of believers to one another
and the way they live together, then it should be brought to the “base” i.e. to those
who had no chance of having formal religious or academic education as well. So,
interfaith dialogue should not be limited only to academic seminars (Michel, 1998,
p. 44).

Conflict between different faith groups is more due to history, social and
economical problems, ethnic differentiation and cultural biases rather than theology
or religious practices. Thus, the dialogue is rather assigned to do with co-operations
on the way to clearing prejudices and improving life conditions rather then pure
theological and philosophical thoughts (Michel, 1998, p. 40).

The education of dialogue should not also be limited to formal and theoretical
instructions taking place in the schools through the medium of books. Neither
books nor lessons can take the valuable place of hospitalities, smiles, intimacies,
jokes, and narratives of personal histories, which can be actualised through
22
personal contacts outside classrooms (Michel, 1998, p. 46).

A Jewish-Islamic aid organisation, for example, to help poor and starving
people around the world would be an important activity in which both sides finds
the opportunity of recognizing each other while “competing for good.” In addition,
co-operations and co-activities between different faith groups such as interfaith
prayers and working for environmental problems may contribute to the groups to
understand each other (Michel, 1998, p. 40).
23
REFERENCES
Al-Hussein, H. K. and Sakr, A. H. (2002) Introducing Islam to Non-Muslims
retrieved from Islamic Server of MSA-USC. Glossary of Islamic Terms and Concepts
(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.JIHAD.html, 20, 05, 2002)
Altemeyer, B., and Hunsburger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 2, 113-133.
Ateş, S. (1989). Cennet kimsenin tekelinde değildir [Paradise cannot be
monopolised by anyfaith]. İslami Araştırmalar, 3 (1), 7-27.
Aydın, M. (1997). İslam ve Kültürel Çoğulculuk [Islam and Multiculturalism] in
Uluslararası İslam Düşüncesi Konferansı [International Conference for Islamic Thought].
İstanbul: İstanbul Büyük Şehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları
Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: agent or double agent. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion,15, 29-45.
Berliner, S. M. and Hull, G. (2003). Diversity and Multiculturalism : The New
Racisim. retrieved from http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/diversity.html
Borrmans, M. (1987). Müslümanlarla Hristiyanlar Arasında Diyaloğa Yönelişler
[Orientations Pour Un Dialogue Entre Chrétiens Et Musulmans] (E. M. Ümit, Trans.].
İstanbul: Der Yayınları
Bowers, R. and Moore, N. K. (1997). Bakhtin, nursing narratives, and dialogical
consciousness. Advances in Nursing Science, 19, 70-78.
Chaplin, J. (1993). How Much Cultural and Religious Pluralism can Liberalism
Tolerate in Horton, J. (Ed). Liberalism, Multiculturalism and Toleration. London:
Macmillan.
Engestrom, Y. Engestrom, R., and Vahaaho, T. (1999). When the centre does
not hold: importance of knotworking in S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard and U. J. Jensen (Eds.).
24
Activity Theory and Social Practice, Aarhus University Press.
Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of Faith. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Harre, R. and L. Roger (1986). (Eds). The Dictionary of Personality and Social
Psychology. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Hatemi, H. (1998). Müslümanların “Diyalog”a Girmelerinin Şartları ve Amacı
[The Conditions and Aims of Muslims’ Joining into “Dialogue” ] in Kültürlerarası
Diyalog Sempozyumu [The Symposium of Interfaith Dialogue]. İstanbul: İstanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları.
Hull, J. M. (1998). Religion, Religionism and Religious Educaton in Johannes
Lähnermann (ed.) Intereligiöse Erziehung 200. Hamburg: E.B. Verlag.
Hull, J. M. (1998). Utopian Whispers. Norwich: RMEP
Hull, J. M. (2002). Spiritual development: interpretations and applications. British
Journal of Religious Education, 24, 171-181.
Hull, J. M. (2003). Religious Education in Democratic Plural Societies: some
general considerations. In New Methodological Approaches in Religious Education:
International Symposium Paper and Discussions 28-30 March, 2001 – Istanbul. Ankara:
M.E.B.
Irving, A. and Tom, Y. (2002). Paradigm for pluralism: Mikhail Bakhtin and
social work practice. Social Work, 47, 19-30.
Koçyiğit, T. (1989). Cennet Mü’minlerin tekelindedir [Paradise is monopolised by
“believers”]. İslami Araştırmalar, 3 (3), 85-94.
Küçük, A. (1991). Dinler arası diyalog üzerine bazı düşünceler. Din Öğretimi
Dergisi, 27, 27-37.
Michel, T. (1998). İnançlar Arası Diyaloga Çeşitli Yaklaşımlar [New Approaches
to Inter-Faiths Dialogues] in Kültürlerarası Diyalog Sempozyumu [The Symposium of
Interfaith Dialogue]. İstanbul: İstanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire
Başkanlığı Yayınları.
25
Nipkow, K. E. (2003). Religious education in the federal republic of Germany –
comparative perspectives in the European context. In New Methodological Approaches in
Religious Education: International Symposium Papers and Discussions, 28-30 March,
2001 – Istanbul. Ankara: MEB.
Rahman, F. (1979). Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rahman, F. (1980). Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind: investigations into the nature of
belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books
Shotter, J. (2001). Towards a third revolution in psychology: from inner mental
representations to dialogically-structured social practices. In D. Bakhurst and S. Shanker
(Eds.) Jerome Bruner: Language, Culture, Self. London: Sage
Şibay, H. S. (1977). Cihad. İslam Ansiklopedisi. (Cilt. 3, s. 164). İstanbul:
Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
26