Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Organiser
Date: April 24, 2005
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=75&page=28
At a time when it is fashionable
to repose confidence in inter-faith dialogue, it is not easy to prick the
feel-good factor this evokes and question the utility of such an enterprise.
Peaceful coexistence between different faiths, howsoever large or small
the number of their adherents may be, can never be a national or world
reality until hitherto unaccommodating creeds incorporate mutual respect
for other traditions as part of their cultural norms.
In the absence of such a fundamental
reform, inter-faith dialogue becomes a fruitless exercise for non-monotheistic
traditions. It raises false hopes of equal respect and equal treatment,
but actually facilitates expansionist creeds in their attempts to tilt
the scales against non-converting faiths.
To this day, for instance, Saudi
Arabia treats any religious practice other than Islam as 'illegal', even
in the private domain. Last month, Saudi religious police discovered an
improvised Hindu temple in a room in old Riyadh, while raiding some flats
suspected of manufacturing alcohol and distributing pornographic videos.
Three Indian men were offering puja in that private apartment. Yet the
police destroyed the temple (may we call this iconoclasm?) and deported
the devotees. Since Islam is a trans-national faith and Saudi Arabia its
fountainhead, what can inter-faith dialogue yield anywhere in the world
if it does not begin on a basic premise of tolerance?
Matters hardly improve when we turn
towards Christianity, the faith that took the lead in initiating the 'dialogue'.
Far from proposing a 'ceasefire' in the matter of poaching upon other faiths,
Cardinal T.P. Toppo, President, Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI),
has given a clarion call to Indian churches to make evangelisation the
cornerstone of their activities. Welcoming the speed of conversions in
southern India, he laments that north India is lagging behind.
The Christian impetus for conversion
is also an international phenomenon. Last month, the Australian government
decided to reopen the cases of 30 immigration detainees (all Muslims) who
had converted to Christianity since their arrival (Sydney Morning Herald,
March 21, 2005). These rejected asylum-seekers may now be allowed to stay,
thanks to hectic lobbying for Christian converts by the Family First party,
which controls a key vote in the Australian Senate.
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone
admits that the only reason for reconsidering the 30 cases is their new
religion. It is argued that the men - who have apostatized from Islam -
may be persecuted if returned to their home countries, especially Iran,
which is a theocratic State. That may be so, yet I view conversion to another
faith while in detention - to win the right to stay - as tantamount to
force or unnatural pressure. And if conversion is the only reason why Australia
will permit Muslims from other nations to settle on its soil, one may legitimately
ask if it is a Christian theocracy? Isn't it religious discrimination to
deny domiciliary rights to Muslims, but bestow them upon those who convert?
Yet both Islam and Christianity
press their respective agendas, even on each others' territory. Saudi Arabia
deals with religious diversity on its soil in the manner described above,
and audaciously pushes Wahhabi Islam abroad via local Muslim communities.
Recently, Freedom House's Centre for Religious Freedom, New York, published
a report on a survey of over a dozen major mosques and Islamic centres
in America. The study also scrutinised 200 of their books and publications,
90 per cent of which were in Arabic. All this literature was in some way
linked with the Saudi regime, as several mosques received funds or were
staffed by the Saudi government (The Friday Times, Lahore, March 25 - 31,
2005).
Most of the literature, collected
from 2003 up to November 2004, preached hatred for other religions and
cultures. One typical tract called America the 'abode of the infidel',
the Christian and the Jew. It warned: "Be dissociated from the infidels,
hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support,
do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic
law. There is consensus in this matter that whoever helps unbelievers against
Muslims, regardless of what type of support he lends to them, he is an
unbeliever himself."
The report has triggered a debate
within Pakistan about how Islam is perceived by other cultures, especially
since some of the material is from a book titled: Greetings from the Cultural
Department of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington. Pakistani journalists
question why Saudi authorities promote the view that the world is divided
into the faithful and the infidel, and instigate Muslims in so-called infidel
societies to behave as if they are on a mission behind enemy lines (a sort
of fifth column in their native countries).
Freedom House found the literature
distributed by the Saudis to be 'replete with condemnations of Christians
and their beliefs'. One publication said that churches and synagogues were
not houses of God and whoever lets these places remain open is an infidel.
Another added: "It is basic Islam to believe that everyone who does not
embrace Islam is an unbeliever, and must be called an unbeliever, and that
they are enemies of Allah, his Prophet and believers."
The Saudi embassy had also issued
fatwas to guide Muslims; one said a Muslim cannot become the citizen of
a country governed by infidels. Freedom House concluded: "We have confirmed
that as of December 2004, the retrograde, unreformed editions of Saudi
textbooks and state-sponsored, hate-filled fatwa collection remain widespread
and plentiful in many important American mosques."
However, despite such loud warning
bells, the regime that rushed to deny Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi
a visa to attend an NRI function, has tread cautiously in the matter of
preaching the virtues of religious freedom and tolerance to Saudi Arabia.
Obviously, the wheels of international morality can be greased (pun intended).
