Rufiz Hafizoglu, Head of the Trend Middle East Desk
However hard the world tries to minimize the role of religion in people's lives, in both the East and West the effect has been minimal. The more important religion's role in society, the more pressing is inter-religious dialogue. It is sad that many events today take on a religious tone.
Although religion is designed to carry out a peacekeeping function, it is often used by the world's superpowers to achieve selfish aims. Islam and Christianity are often subjected to politicization. As a result, it is necessary to hold a dialogue between these two major religions. However, representatives of these faiths cannot overcome obstacles to reconcile their mutual accusations.
What are the factors hampering them from establishing a dialogue?
First and foremost, it is the lack of a single management system in the Muslim world. Despite repeated statements by the Vatican's official representatives about their willingness to conduct a dialogue with Muslims, they face the tough question of with whom these talks should be held - with Saudi Arabia, which is trying to monopolize Islam, or moderate Muslim Turkey, or Iran.
The Vatican must realize that inter-religious dialogue with Saudi Arabia without Turkey's and Iran's involvement will not bring about the desired effect. Although thanks to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia became a spiritual stronghold for a significant number of Muslims, the country does not have authority in the Islamic world.
The reason is that Al-Riyadh does not make attempts to unite Muslims, but rather demonstrates quite the opposite position. The strain of wahhabism that Saudi Arabia is seeking to spread has nothing in common with the wahhabism of early Islam. The country is not pushing for a union, but rather for disunity. Today, modern wahhabi demonstrate an uncompromising attitude not only to Iran and Shiite Muslims, but also to other Sunni sects. Moreover, they try to impose a new way of life and thinking on the rest of the world.
As opposed to Saudi Arabia, Turkey today has a broader potential for dialogue. But the concept of "moderate Islam" in Turkey today is thought to be unacceptable for many Muslims. This is due because the concepts of "moderate Islam" and "moderation in Islam" radically differ. The attitude toward the former in Muslim countries is ambiguous.
It is interesting that many Muslim politicians flatly oppose the term "moderate Islam."
In his speech, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan in August 2007 said he opposes the use of the term "moderate Islam."
"There is no moderate or radical Islam. The notion 'moderate Islam' is slander. This is disrespect toward our religion," he said.
In general, today Muslims are of the opinion that the notion of "moderate Islam" is a concept promoted by the West. Its aim is to shake Islam's very foundations. As for the term itself, it first appeared in the reports of the Bush administration as the U.S. president's team outlined their foreign policy strategy for the Middle East.
After Sept. 11, the U.S. government used the strategy of "preemptive preeminence" in its foreign policy. The Pentagon's intervention in areas of a potential "global" threat before such threats occur was envisaged in the policy. This strategy was to ensure the U.S government's hegemony in the fight against global terror.
Along with the project on "preemptive preeminence," the U.S. began to implement the "Great Middle East Project."
The project, which has not been indicated in any official documents up until now, aimed to unite the broad range of Islamic geography - over 50 countries from Mauritania to Indonesia. The goal of the project was to introduce "moderate" Islam." Based on this strategy, a new model of Islam needed to be established to drain radical Islamic and conservative religious ideas from the Arab world. Turkey was the only viable country for implementing this model.
Turkey's "moderate Islam" suits the Vatican for dialogue more so than other Islamic strains. As for Iran, one major factor hampering a successful dialogue is that Shiites compose only 23 percent of all world Muslims. Even if a dialogue starts, it will be doomed to failure.
Indeed, an important prerequisite for forming interfaith dialogue, particularly between Muslims and Christians, is to unite the Islamic world. However, this does not give grounds for saying that only the Muslim world is responsible for the lack of today's inter-religious dialogue.
Unfortunately, the West is not ready for dialogue. It has democracy, freedom of expression and human rights. The most important factor in the West hampering dialogue is insults made against Islamic values under the guise of Islamophobia and freedom of expression. The increasing number of such cases have led to the isolation of Muslims in Western society, who have already become an integral part of their socio-political life.
Today, some European circles say Muslim immigrants are guilty of Islamophobia. These circles accuse Muslim immigrants of their unwillingness to integrate into European culture. However, for some reason, they do not mention that not all Muslims in Europe are immigrants.
Despite Europe's accusations that Muslim countries are undemocratic, the West's biased attitude toward Islam and Muslims testifies to the hypocrisy of European democracy. Europe's actions have lead to the radicalization of European Muslims. Thus, Europe serves the interests of radical groups, who believe the fight against a fake democracy can only be waged by radical Islam.
The dialogue between representatives of different religions could prevent bloodshed throughout the world. Interfaith dialogue is necessary despite the obstacles.
