Dialogue and Difference Based on Islamic Political Philosophy
International Conference on Dialogue and Difference: Meditations on Local/Global Values in Post Modernity
SOAS, University of London, 9-11 September 2009
Dialogue or monologue, difference or similarity, this is the sorrowful story of human social relationships throughout history. * Do governments, regardless of whether they are western or eastern, secular or religious believe in dialogue or monologue? It appears that the majority of governments believe in monologue, although, in order to force the other party to follow and implement their own desires, and for the sake of public relations and the international community, they use different methods to portray themselves as engaging in dialogue. * Who is the other party? The party in the face of governments are generally two groups: nations and other governments.
1. Nations
Western imperialist powers usually use soft and complex methods in their relationship with their own nations as a means of forcing them to follow their opinions and plans. However, in relation to Eastern nations, they practise no restriction in using severe economic, political or military punishments. Eastern governments generally use simple, authoritarian, backward and aggressive methods in relation to their own nations.
2. Governments
The economic, cultural, political and military relation of imperialist powers with other governments is a one-sided relationship. They command and others must obey, and in the case of disobedience, this disobedience is met with coup d’états, moral and financial disgrace of the government leaders and economic, political and military punishments. * What is the cause of the establishment of monologue and the lack of dialogue? This is because constructive dialogue is based on positive difference.
Types of Difference
1. Essential difference; 2. Accidental difference.
1. Essential Difference
One of the most important essential differences is ‘the essential difference of thought and knowledge’. Human thought in its essence requires difference. This difference is, on the one hand, the product of the essential difference of the degrees of empirical, intellectual and spiritual (‘irfani) knowledge, and on the other hand, the product of the process of the ‘geometry of knowledge’. This process has multiple sides. When the different sides are the ‘geometry of knowledge’ of different individuals, the thought which is produced is also different. Empirical knowledge explains the parts of the world of matter, but is incapable of explaining the universal image of the world, and even above that, the whole existence. Of course, this limitation is the requirement of the objectives, subject and method of this science. On the other hand, the striving of philosophy is the synoptic understanding of the world of nature and existence, whereas ‘Irfan is responsible for clarifying the esoteric aspect of the human being, society, history, existence and above all, the method of attaining union with one’s origin. It is natural that a chemist’s outlook on the world is different to that of a philosopher’s outlook on the human being, the world and history, just as the outlook of a mystic is different to the outlook of both. The philosopher speaks of argumentative reasoning and the mystic speaks of the spiritual state.
2. Accidental Difference
Accidental difference is divided into two sections:
1. Natural Accidental Difference;2. Imposed Accidental Difference.
1. Natural accidental difference: this refers to a difference such as that between the old and the young, black and white, writer and reader.
2. Imposed accidental difference: this refers to a difference such as that between the different classes of societies and governments of the North and South in terms of unjust economic, social, cultural and political systems and relations.
Throughout history, those in power have constantly, portrayed imposed accidental difference as natural and positive essential difference, and have stressed on its acceptance and on not changing this perception of it. This is a great fallacy: they impose an issue which is ‘non-essential’, human and accidental (negative) on their own kind, and because of historical continuity, consider it ‘essential’; whereas God has created His blessings for all human beings, regardless of gender, race, religion and nationality, and the most important duty of Divine prophets is the establishment of social justice and equality. “Indeed we sent our messengers with clear proofs so that people might establish themselves in justice”.[1]
As rulers do not accept ‘difference of thought’, generally because of their belief in monologue, they do not believe in dialogue; for dialogue is based on the acceptance of the principle of ‘difference of thoughts’. The holy Qur’an invites people to listen to different points of view and follow the best of them: “those who listen to the word and follow the best of it”[2]. Therefore, in Qur’anic culture, difference of opinion is an axiom principle.
Rulers divide people into those who are the same as themselves and those who are the ‘other’. Those who are the same as the rulers, based on the reasoning that the ruler knows things that they are oblivious to, believe in the ruler’s opinions and commands, and follow and implement them even if it is against their own intellect. The ‘other’ think differently and do not submit to the views and commands of the rulers unreservedly and without conditions.. An example of this issue is George Bush’s speech on September 20th 2001 in congress, telling the world, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”.
In the sphere of social relations, as the rulers consider difference to be ‘essential’ and not accidental, they do not believe in constructive and dynamic dialogue which moves us forward; for they consider social relations as stagnant and have defined and interpreted it in the framework of the relationship of ‘master and servant’.
Dialogue and Difference Between the Human Being and God
While the relationship of the human being and God is not changed, the relationship between human beings and society does not change either. The relationship between the human being and God, contrary to Aristotelian philosophy, is a two-sided relationship. It is not the case that God, as the prime mover or cause of causes, has created the world and then abandoned it, and has no knowledge of the particularities of its affairs. In the holy Qur’an it is said: “God is all-aware, fully observant of His servants”[3]; “and God sees all what you do”[4]; “God is the all-hearing the all-seeing”[5]; “verily God knows the unseen in the heavens and the earth[6]”.
The relationship of the human being and God can be dialogue or monologue. Initially, this point of view seems strange; however, when considering the free will of the human being and God, dialogue or monologue is a possible issue. Dialogue is a conversation in which both sides have the ability to hear and see each other. God, through ‘wahy’ (revelation), ‘ilham’ (inspiration), ‘’aql’ (intellect) and ‘signs’ speaks to human beings. However, if the human being wants to (desire and will), he hears the Divine word and enters the creative and dynamic process of dialogue with God, as exemplified by the prophets. This issue is clearly evident concerning Prophet Moses; as such, in the holy Qur’an Moses is named “Kalim Allah” (the one who converses with God)[7] and Jesus the “Word of Allah”[8]. The story of the shepherd in the “Story of Moses and the Shepherd” in Rumi’s Mathnawi portrays the shepherd who is the symbol of a normal human being, but has an awakened heart and speaks to God. The will and desire of hearing have conditions which we do not have time to state. The ignorant and blind-hearted do not hear the Divine message, and as such, are deprived of dialogue with God. God in the holy Qur’an states: “(they are) deaf, dumb and blind, hence they will never return.”[9] And “(they are) deaf, dumb and blind and thus they do not understand”[10].
The human being speaks with God and God responds to him. The conversation of the human and God is majestic, constructive, dynamic and fresh.
This conversation has freshness and is not repetitive. Even if the human being says a set word, in each moment he has a different state and his substance is changing, and thus, there is freshness and newness in his speech. There is also no repetition in the acts of God: “there is no repetition in manifestation”; rather, the Divine act is constant creation and emanation. It is a possibility for the human being to speak with God but for God not to enter into a creative dialogue with him, and as such for the speech of the human being to turn into a monologue. The lack of a reply from God occurs when the desire and what the human being has asked for, due to his actions and thoughts, cannot be granted by God. In the holy Qur’an, when addressing the Prophet God says: “nor can you lead the blind away from straying”[11].
In the great supplication of Kumayl, Imam Ali says: “O Allah! Forgive me my sins that would affront my contingency. O Allah! Forgive me my sins that would bring down calamity. O Allah! Forgive me my sins that would change Divine favours (into disfavours). O Allah! Forgive me my sins that would imprison my supplication. O Allah! Forgive me my sins that would bring down misfortunes (or afflictions). O Allah! Forgive my sins that would suppress hope.”[12]
Through dialogue with God, the human being attains ‘knowledge’, ‘love’, ‘tranquillity’, ‘exaltation’ and ‘guidance’ “And He taught Adam all the Names”[13]; “not found” “the heart of those who believe reaches tranquillity with the remembrance/invocation of Allah”[14]; “God will exalt the rank of those who believe among you”[15]; “and God guides those who believe to the straight path”[16].
Unity in Multiplicity and Multiplicity in Unity
The dialogue of the human being and God is based on the state of similarity or difference of these two in relation to each other. The type of the state of difference and similarity in Islamic philosophy is a special type which is referred to as ‘unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity’. This means that God, at the same time as having unity with the human being, is different to him, and at the same time as being different to the human being, is in unity with him. Imam Ali says, “God is with everything but not in physical proximity, and He is other than everything but not with separation” [17], and God says: “He is with you wherever you are”[18]; “and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein”[19]; indeed my Lord is ever near”[20]. But, at same time, He is unique and nothing is similar to Him: “Say ‘He is God the one and only God; and there is none like unto him”[21].
Allah has breathed from His own spirit into the human being[22]; however, the human being is not only spirit, rather, he is spirit and body. The spirit is eternal and subsistent, yet the body is transient. From the aspect of his spirit, the human being is close to God, but from the aspect of his soul (nafs) which has not been purified, he is far from Him. The righteous human being is the vicegerent of God upon Earth, but he is not God and he cannot rule based on his own will or with selfishness; he can only rule in the framework of Divine values, knowledge and justice. The human being is the manifestation of the names of Allah. In the stage of the descent of manifestations he is afflicted with multiplicity, however, he is a sign from God and in the stage of return to the origin of existence, he attains unity.
The human being is dependant upon God, and God sees Himself in the mirror of the human being. “O people! You are the destitute to God, and God is self-sufficient most praised”[23].
Conclusion
In the material world, similarity in thought is not possible and difference of thought is an essential matter, therefore, for the growth of human knowledge, dialogue and not monologue is a necessary issue. However, in the social sphere, as imposed accidental difference is established, the change and transformation of unjust systems and relations is only possible through dialogue. The wars of humanity throughout history show that monologue and the imposition of unjust social systems and relations is not stable or permanent.
The time has come for us to wake up, learn from the past and move for stable and permanent peace and security by relying on the two principles of ‘justice’ and ‘dialogue’. This movement is, in the first instance, the duty of the intellectuals of the world. I believe that this conference is a positive step towards this exalted goal.