Spirit of Islam, May-June 2025
Spirit of Islam, May-June 2025, p. 12
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is named as the default author of the periodical; a piece that carries another writer’s byline is credited to that writer.
I t’s generally accepted that interfaith dialogue aims to establish harmony among religious groups. However, I believe history suggests otherwise. Interfaith dialogue has been ongoing for centuries, possibly even several hundred years. The earliest recorded instance was the World’s Parliament of Religions in 1893, Chicago, where representatives from various major religions gathered. Despite these efforts, I’ve found that these dialogues have been largely fruitless and ineffective. Religious harmony among different groups remains an elusive dream. If this was the purpose of dialogue, we must reevaluate its effectiveness. The question arises: why have these efforts failed? Dialogue not for Uniformity or Debating I believe the method employed in these interfaith dialogues was flawed. There were two main models: one based on the concept of uniformity. This idea posits that all religions are essentially one and the same, with an inherent unity that needs to be discovered and shared. Achieving this unity, according to this thinking, would lead to harmony between religious groups. However, this approach has proven to be a complete failure. Thousands of renowned figures have supported this method, yet it has consistently failed. The Reason for Failure The reason for this failure lies in the unnatural nature of the uniformity concept. It contradicts the Creation Plan of God. Nature embraces diversity and differences. Both the material and human worlds are built on differences. It’s impossible to find two identical individuals. The word “uniformity” exists in dictionaries but not in society or the human world. Since this formula of uniformity is unnatural and not aligned with God’s creation plan, it’s no wonder it has failed. THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES

‹ Previous page Next page › About this issue Open in the reader