گفت‌وگوي اديان و مساله «ديگريِ ديني» در الهيات ناظر به اديان

Interreligious Dialogue and the Problem of

بنابر باور غالب، شكل گيري و ثمر بخشي گفت وگوي اديان بيش از هر چيز مبتني بر گشودگي نسبت به دين ديگر و به رسميت شناختن ديگريِ ديني است، به گونه اي كه بايد پذيرفت دين ديگر هم واجد بهره و نصيبي از حقيقت است و متدينان به آن نيز كه اينك طرف گفت وگو قرار گرفته اند واجد حظي از نجات و رستگاري هستند. اما پرسش مهم اين است كه بر پايه كدام بستر الهياتي مي توان تكثر ديني را ارج نهاد و چنين سهمي از حقيقت و نجات را براي ديگر اديان در نظر گرفت؟ امروزه واكاوي ابعاد اين مساله و جستجو براي يافتن بهترين پاسخ به آن در الهيات ناظر به اديان، پي گيري مي شود. سه رويكرد انحصارگرايي، شمول گرايي و كثرت گرايي كه هر يك متضمن تفسير الهياتي ويژه اي نسبت به ديگر اديان است، الگوهايي هستند كه با گذشت زمان در دل الهيات ناظر به اديان شكل گرفته اند و بخت و اقبال خود را در سامان دادن پاسخي به مسئله ديگريِ ديني آزموده اند. اين مقاله در صدد است تا پاسخ هاي فوق را مورد ارزيابي قرار دهد. پژوهش حاضر از روش تحقيق كيفي بهره مي گيرد و بر اين پيش فرض استوار است كه الگوهاي كلاسيك الهيات ناظر به اديان، از شكل دادن بستر الهياتي مناسبي براي گفت وگوي اديان به گونه اي كه ديگريِ ديني را به رسميت بشناسد و هم زمان التزام و هويت ديني مشاركان در گفت وگوي اديان را پاس دارد، قاصر است

Interreligious dialogue has never been the subject of extensive debate as it is today. It looks like human has never experienced the importance of being different as profoundly and tangibly when facing with the everyday concept of quot othernessquot as he does these days. It leaves no wonder why the interreligious dialogue has become an inevitable task in the present era. The formation and then the fruitfulness of interreligious dialogue are based more than everything else on the recognition of the quot religious other. Dialogue entails devoting certain space for others and admitting others and when it comes to interreligious dialogue it requires providing special space for other religions and their adherents. The nature of religion, however, presupposes obligation and negation that is: obligation toward the religious doctrines and negation of other religions. Thus, considering this fact, is it possible for religions to admit quot religious otherquot and welcome the interreligious dialogue? The present study is based on this assumption that the contrast between interreligious dialogue and quot religious otherquot from the viewpoint of theology is the result of theological interpretation that the followers of a religion would have of other religions. The three approaches of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, each of which requires specific theological interpretation toward other religions, make up the paradigms that have been formed within the theology of religions over time and have done their best to solve the problem of quot religious otherquot In this paper, at first the value judgment of the three paradigms referring to the theology of religions with regard to religious diversity will be analyzed, then using the Baumanns theory of quot Grammars of Identity / Alterity quot we will try to elaborate on the relationship between the interreligious dialogue and the problem of quot religious otherquot from the perspective of the three mentioned theological patterns. Based on the findings of the study each of the exclusive, inclusive and pluralistic interpretation of theology offers a different explanation of the terms quot selfquot and quot otherquot and seeks a specific tie with the notion quot religious otherquot . Accordingly, there is a meaningful relationship between interreligious dialogue and the way the quot religious otherquot is interpreted. The more Christian theology indicates acceptance of quot religious otherquot the more probable it will be to hold the interreligious dialogue. In addition to increasing the level of religions tolerance toward quot religious otherquot , and would drive the interreligious dialogue toward a more real one, this quality would turn the religious identity from static and selfsufficiency phenomenon to a more dynamic and pluralistic one.