For half a century, I have been reading and hearing about conferences on interfaith or inter-sectarian dialogue. Despite the resources spent on these events, they have produced limited results. Those who lead, promote, and benefit from religious movements know that their status and the respect they command from their communities are tied to their positions. Hence, relinquishing these positions would mean losing both their resources and that respect. From this perspective, acknowledging the concept of “religious rapprochement” implicitly means that what they have believed for a thousand or two thousand years was not entirely true, which is unacceptable. Such rapprochement, in its very nature, means destroying the house from within.
These meetings are no different, for example, from meetings between Pepsi and Coca-Cola executives to agree on a merger, or for one company to exit the market in favor of the other, knowing full well that each beverage has its own loyal consumers. The market can easily accommodate both brands. Why, then, should the shareholders of one company, along with hundreds of thousands of employees, agents, and distributors in hundreds of cities, lose billions of dollars without a convincing reason? It appears that those who call for such conferences are either benefiting from them or are unaware that human nature has never agreed, and will never agree, on a single religion, just as people differ in their preferences for vehicle colors, cuisine, and clothing styles.
History has repeatedly shown that even non-proselytizing or small religions persist, regardless of attempts to eradicate them.
Despite this, religions such as Mandaeism and the Sabians have persisted for thousands of years and are expected to continue to do so. History has not witnessed a people willingly abandoning their faith in its entirety in favor of followers of a hostile or opposing belief system. Recently, some parties have come to recognize the importance of respecting every human being as a human being, and that differences and diversity within societies can only be managed when the majority respects the minority. Respect is a moral imperative that goes beyond mere tolerance, as tolerance can sometimes conceal a sense of superiority.
China has experienced conflicts with a religious character; however, the number of wars classified as religious has been far fewer than in other parts of the world. This is because, in Chinese history, and to a large extent in Japan, religion was typically linked to the state, morality, and social order, rather than to competition. Political conflict was mostly centered on dynasty, legitimacy, land, taxation, or ethnic rule, rather than on disputes over correct religious interpretation.
Chinese rulers generally accepted religious pluralism under state control. As a result, Confucianism formed the basis of the political system, while Buddhism, Taoism, and later Islam and Christianity were permitted to exist, provided their followers did not challenge the authority of the emperor or the state. Chinese religions were often not exclusive, as is the case in many monotheistic traditions.
People could practice several traditions belonging to more than one religion simultaneously, which diminished the notion of a single true religion requiring constant defense and even death. Consequently, the state treated religion as a matter of public order, not as an ideology to be imposed on everyone.
By Ahmad alsarraf
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
