دیدگاه‌های نظری به گفتگوی بینادینی در ایران

گفتگو در بین انسان ها را باید با تاریخ پیدایش بشر پیوند زد. انسان ها، چون واجد زبان هستند، گفتگو را مسلط بر حوزه های مختلف زندگی روزمره شان کرده و تعاملات اجتماعی شان را با گفتگو امکان پذیر می سازند. از جمله گفتگوها، گفتگوهای بینادینی است که در برخی از آموزه های ادیان به نحو صریح و یا ضمنی به آن اشاره شده است. این مفهوم و بحث های پیرامون آن به سبب نقش بازدارندگی اش در دورکردن انسان ها از خشونت و دست آویز قرارگرفتن آن توسط برخی از قدرت های برتر در بین و پس از جنگ جهانی دوم، در سطح جهان فراگیر شد و جایگاه برجسته ای در حوزه های مهم سیاسی، اجتماعی و حتی اقتصادی به دست آورد. در ایرانِ پس از انقلاب نیز، به سبب ظهور تحولات ساختاری دین در حوزه عمومی، بحث از گفتگوی ادیان شکل سازنده ای به خود گرفت. همین امر موجب شکل گیری و طرح دیدگاه های گوناگون از سوی اندیشمندان دینی در جامعه ایران گردید. در این مقاله تلاش می شود با کاوش در گفتارها و نوشتارهای ناظر به گفتگوی بینادینی در ایران، فرایند نظری سه دیدگاه؛ یعنی گفتگو به مثابه کنشی تعامل محور، ضرورت محور و زمینه محور بررسی شود.

Theoretical Views in Inter-religious Dialog in Iran

It has almost passed one century from the emergence of the idea of the interreligious dialog. The idea, being based on the assumption that no religion has the absolute truth, believes that there is the possibility of the dialog between all the existent religions in the social world. The dialog could make the coexistence and peace between the religions possible. The importance of this issue is increasingly growing and different ideas have been presented in the different religion departments worldwide. After the Iranian Islamic Revolution, a new image of Islam was offered to the world. An image whose true exposure made the use of the interreligious dialog unavoidable. This also caused appearance of different views between the Muslim scholars. This article seeks to provide a presentation of three different approaches to the interreligious dialog by exploring the works of three eminent scholars in the field Mohaghegh Damad, Abolhassan Navab and Mohammad Masjed Jamei. These three approaches are: middot Interreligious dialog as an interactionoriented action middot Interreligious dialog as a necessityoriented action middot Interreligious dialog as a backgroubdoriented action The necessityoriented action is the approach taken by Mohaghegh Damad. He emphasizes on the acceptance of other religions. The active action referring to this acceptance is the foundation of this approach. This approach, accepting the developmental discourse in the meaning of interreligious dialog, believes that this kind of dialog has been evolved from defensive and opposing to a new meaning. Hence, the interreligious dialog in its new meaning possesses three conditions the existence of common rights, emphasis on mutual respect and the effort for the two sides for religious exchange. This approach assumes that we must first establish a pattern from the current experiences of interreligious dialogs in order to have an ideal cooperation and to fortify it. Then we could harmonize, by changing our attitude, our thoughtful interactions with other religions in order to solve the common issues such as the environment protection, the family and the human rights. The necessityoriented action is the approach taken by Abolhassan Navab. He assumes two subjective interpretation of the interreligious dialog. A dialog which is defined based on the western experience and atmosphere and a dialog which takes its roots from the eastern discourse. There is no necessity for the first dialog which is named prudential dialog and this is existent just to maintain the survival of the secular elements in the modern society. The second kind, on the other hand, is a necessary dialog and emerges in order to make the religion more meaningful. The goal of the latter is to save the humankind from the social crisis and is to make the religions more cohesive. Navab believes that there are two factors which have turned the attention of believers and religious leaders to the necessity of the interreligious dialog in its new meaning first is the opposition culture i.e. the mix of some extremist and modernized elements inside the religions and the second is the gap between new aspects of religious thinking and the current traditions inside the religion. The necessityoriented approach requires the two sides of the dialog avoid the theological and philosophical disputes. It also requires change and modification in the constitutional laws regarding the religious minorities and new interpretation of these laws according to the new conditions. The backgroundoriented approach is based on the views of Aohammmad Masjed Jamei. According to this approach, there are some intellectual, social and historical backgrounds which are the base for the emergence of a new notion for the interreligious dialog. In genearl, Masjed Jamei corresponds the formation of every notion based on two major factor first, the atmosphere and the social context in which the notion has been created, second, the concept transfer of one word from one field to another. From the viewpoint of this analysis, the interreligious dialog is dependent to the intellectual, social and historical backgrounds and gets its meaning from the new conditions. Masjed Jamei believes that the Shiites has been always an axis for presenting a new meaning of interreligious dialog due to their different methodology i.e. using the intellect in the theological argumentation as well as the existence of a historical and traditional memory. Therefore, by taking this approach, one can make contributions to the legitimacy of the interreligious dialog which has been weakened due to the globalization by focus on the common values and their rational explanation, relooking to the old patterns of dialog in the historical memory and tolerance in the acceptance of the others' religious discourse.