With the tragic conflict continuing to rage in Israel and Palestine, threatening to tear communities here in the UK apart, it has never been more important to bring people of different faiths and beliefs together to build understanding.
However, in my 20 years of working in this space, I can safely say I have never seen such forceful efforts by people on different sides to willingly denigrate these initiatives quite so brazenly. The consequences, if their efforts are successful, should worry us all.
As the founder of the Jewish-Muslim women’s network Nisa-Nashim, I truly believe that we need more opportunities to meet people of different faiths – not less.
But, I’ve been increasingly under attack from people who seem intent on driving ever deeper wedges between our communities – particularly between Jews and Muslims, but other faith and cultural communities too.
First, we have those who belittle what we do: it’s easy to paint “interfaith” work as naïve, idealistic or in some way fluffy.
They say that we can’t possibly solve the big issues by listening and entering into dialogue. They say interfaith has ‘let us down’ and so should be abandoned.
But what alternative are they are proposing?
Do they really believe retreating to positions of polarised, shouty narratives is any less naïve when it comes to solving the big problems we face?
Mitzvah Day chair Laura Marks CBE with Muslim campaigner Julie Siddiqi MBE (Picture: Yakir Zur (c))
The evidence for building relationships between faith communities is compelling, academic and far from fluffy.
As Dr Katherine Marshall of Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs has written:
“Interfaith knowledge can avert the social tensions that can lead to conflict and violence as well as political divides that detract from efforts to develop flourishing societies.”
Then, we have detractors who are set on discrediting people or organisations who associate with ‘undesirables’ – whatever that might mean.
‘Guilt by association’ has become the norm.
In my own organisations, I have seen this time and again, with my charities being scoured by people looking to find funders or connections their narrative finds unpalatable.
Nisa Nashim members at South Hampstead synagogue (Picture: Yakir Zur (c))
In reality, most major Jewish philanthropists support Israeli causes and most Muslim funders support Palestinian causes, making it easy for some to lay suspicion that they are in some way ‘hateful’.
Of course, we must have red lines, all of us.
But, if we are to solve inter-community conflict and tension, we will need to reach outside our echo chambers and welcome people whose wider networks don’t always align with our own.
And at its most dangerous, there are those who are actively trying to undermine our efforts because it suits their extreme positions to whip up yet more distrust and ultimately intimidate people away from connecting with people who are different to themselves.
Despite the successes we have seen at Nisa-Nashim, where our work is underpinned by friendships between Muslim and Jewish women, our members are too frequently under immense pressure from family and friends, as well as organisations with an agenda, to step away.
They’re warned not to hang out with Muslim ‘extremists’ or Jewish ‘Zionists’.
Put simply, they use intimidation tactics designed to break the limited chances we have to share, learn and reflect together.
Nisa Nashim members at St. Johns Wood Church (Picture: Yakir Zur (c))
All types of attack come from a position of fear.
For many Jews (certainly not all), there is unfortunately already a level of mistrust and anxiety about engaging particularly with Muslim neighbours.
For many Muslims (certainly not all), there is a fear of association with Jewish people – particularly if there is a perceived link to Israel – and therefore a worry about being stigmatised in turn.
It’s easy to mock interfaith work as sipping cups of tea and sharing samosas, but the truth is that it’s a long graft.
To be frank, I don’t need more friends in my busy life – my social life isn’t in need of a boost.
Building relationships with people I might only know from afar (Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or other) is hard work and time consuming, as well as endlessly joyful and fascinating.
But, history shows us that only by putting in the hours over decades can we make a difference.
Take Northern Ireland, where years of division and a lack of spaces to exchange with other groups gradually gave way to a better, more peaceful future.
The peace process required the courage for people to deal with those who they might have deemed, for whatever reason, ‘unpalatable’.
In this case, like with Nisa-Nashim, it was also characterised by a deep level of involvement by women.
Those lessons are more valuable to us now than ever.
I am deeply worried about where this intimidation will lead.
I know of many people in the interfaith space who have simply had enough of dealing with the constant pushback from all sides and are now tragically walking away from dialogue. Not only direct participants, but funders of our work who we rely on in an already precarious landscape (made one step worse with Iranian intervention this week).
We need more people, not less, to come to the table.
As we pass Easter and Ramadan, and move through Eid rapidly to Vaisakhi and Passover, the opportunities to connect are endless.
I’m a relentless optimist and, as I prepare for my interfaith Passover seder meal, I believe that change is in our own hands – indeed round our own dining room tables.
Credits:
This article was first published by Jewish News (18/04/2024).
Laura Marks is the co-founder of Nisa-Nashim, the UK’s Jewish and Muslim Women’s network.
She founded Mitzvah Day – the UK’s largest faith-led day of social action, in 2005. Laura is Chair of Trustees for Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.
Interfaith and intercultural relationships can bring individuals and different families and communities together. However, there is sometimes the potential for conflict when navigating difference.
There is also the risk of potential social isolation from either or both of the couple’s communities, and of wider conflict within families.
This is often brought about by fear of difference, notions of “dishonour” and anxieties around loss of cultural or religious heritage. In some communities, marrying outside one’s faith can be a real taboo.
However, despite the challenges, interfaith and intercultural relationships are becoming more common in England and Wales.
Over the pond in the USA, similar trends appear. In fact, 7 out of every 10 people marry someone from the same faith tradition. However, in comparison to previous generations, marrying someone of the same faith background seems to be less important than it was several decades ago.
Likewise, with intercultural relationships, nearly 1 in 10 people (9%, 2.3 million people)in the last census in England and Wales who were living together as a couple were in an inter-ethnic relationship.
This marked an increase from 7% in the previous census 10 years before. Research found that people of mixed ethnic heritage were the most likely (85% of cases) to be in an inter-ethnic relationship.
So, given the place of such relationships, and the potential for conflict, how can we manage conflict and diversity in interfaith and intercultural relationships?
Dialogue: preventing and mediating conflict
Dialogue is a powerful tool to overcome conflict. But what exactly is it?
“Two monologues do not make a dialogue.” (Jeff Daly)
Never a truer word said!
Dialogue isn’t simply “talking” or listening to simply speak your turn.
It’s instead a collaborative, introspective process where two or more people communicate their interests, needs and feelings in a safe space and actively, empathetically and compassionately listen to “the other” (KAICIID, 2022).
In this safe space, people are free to air assumptions and views, as they try to break down misconceptions, stereotypes and assumptions to understand the other person(s) (KAICIID, 2022).
Through active compassionate listening we can break down assumptions, clarify misconceptions and understanding to build a sense of unity and work towards a common understanding and find new solutions to existing problems/conflict (KAICIID, 2022).
As such, dialogue is most definitely not:
Debate: we’re not here to “convince” the other person of our view
Advocacy: we’re not here to push a certain agenda but to share experiences and build solutions
Negotiation: whilst compromise is almost inevitable, the views of all participants are respected and needs of everyone taken into account – it’s the process that builds the outcome
Rather than debating a point, advocating for a specific agenda, dialogue instead promotes a culture of:
Respecting difference and celebrating diversity
Coexistence, cooperation and understanding
Empathy, cooperation and engagement
Respect, open communication and acknowledging/accepting different views
Dialogue is therefore a powerful means to build relationships, raise awareness and understanding of problems and resolve conflict.
Source: KAICIID (2022) “Interreligious Dialogue Resource Guide”, International Fellows Programme
For interfaith and intercultural couples, dialogue can critically:
Highlight and address any stigma faced as a couple
Navigate conflict and manage difference in a relationship, family and wider community
Teach the importance of respecting diversity and dialogue as a means of open, transparent communication
When sharing diverse traditions together, dialogue helps to therefore create harmonious hybrid spaces.
To look at dialogue in action, we reached out to various couples and looked at their experiences of navigating conflict and managing difference based on their different religious/cultural affiliations in their relationship, family and wider community through dialogue.
Here’s what they had to say!
George and Amanda: dialoguing through shared experience
George and Amanda live in Leicestershire (UK). George belongs to the Bahá’í faith and is Scottish. Amanda is atheist and English.
The couple have been married for four years and both have children from previous marriages.
Summary of findings:
Respect, curiosity and understanding enable dialogue and prevent conflict
Shared experiences enhance understanding and provide opportunities for dialogue.
Bahá’ís for example are committed to interfaith work, so George and Amanda attend many events hosted by other faith communities and dialogue about their experiences as a couple of mixed faith background together
Gender segregation (not a Bahá’í practice) poses barriers for dialogue
In this case, the barrier was faced by a mixed-sex couple. Not being able to sit together at external events can mean that experiences and avenues for dialogue are restricted
Discovering shared values– not necessarily theological – is important as it allows for greater understanding and bonding
For example, whilst Amanda’s atheist position means she doesn’t buy into the theological aspects of the Bahá’í faith, she’s aligned with the majority of the social teachings and so Amanda and George have discovered they have a lot in common
Dialogue isn’t about trying to “convince” the other person of one’s beliefs
Proselytising is not a value of shared dialogue. As Bahá’ís are expressly forbidden in their own teachings to try and “convert” anyone, Amanda is comfortable taking part in many Bahá’í activities and events without feeling any pressure to change her views and beliefs.
George likewise doesn’t feel under pressure to try and make Amanda conform to what he believes or practices. This allows for genuine learning and respect of diversity
We mustn’t assume that interfaith relationships are more difficult to manage than intercultural ones
Each experience, sense of identity and relationship is unique!
George and Amanda feel that there’s sometimes more difference in being a Scottish-English couple than a couple of mixed faith background.
We should not assume anything!
Thao and Martin: building understanding through dialogue
Thao and Martin live in Stoke-on-Trent (UK). Thao is Vietnamese and Buddhist, whilst Martin is English and an agnostic/atheist.
The couple have been together for five years and both have children from previous relationships.
Summary of findings:
Dialogue is useful for overcoming language and cultural barriers and building understanding
This can range from everyday habits around food to religious practices, behaviours and norms. The understanding developed through such dialogue allows for respect and sensitivity of the other’s needs, thoughts and behaviours when helps prevent and overcome conflict.
With Thao and Martin for example, dialogue has helped them to understand each other’s diverse food tastes (including the contested issue of eating dog meat)
Understanding and respect through dialogue helps couples come to mutual agreements
This in term helps to create/determine safe hybrid spaces where both people in the relationship are free to live their religious beliefs and maintain cultural practices.
For example, Thao is happy with the Buddhist altar in her home and Martin understands the practices around respecting this sacred space.
When it comes to a range of topics such as faith and food, dialogue is also crucial in allowing couples to navigate the identities, needs and roles of blended families and the diverse identities of their children (including stepchildren in the case of Thao and Martin)
The role of dialogue is never complete
A relationship requires ongoing learning and discovery together.
Acknowledging that as a couple, dialogue as ongoing practice is healthy and necessary – as Thao and Martin have done – has enabled the couple to continue their dialogue journey together, to not only resolve but crucially prevent future conflict
A little bit of humour can go a long way!
Whether dealing with heavy complex issues or more lighthearted themes that both require practical navigation, humour allows a couple to lighten the mood, reflect and focus on the role of dialogue – to resolve and prevent conflict – and not to argue.
Dialogue is a healthy way to address conflict, arguing is not.
Humour allows a couple to calm a situation before it heads towards an argument and allow both people time to pause and reflect
Karen and Martin: agreeing to disagree
Summary of findings:
Dialogue isn’t about ending up with the same views!
It’s productive and healthy to agree to disagree.
In the case of Karen and Martin, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one area where (through dialogue) they have “agreed to disagree”. This prevents conflict around a complex issue and enables the couple to instead focus on their daily lives together.
No two people can ever agree on everything and so by dialoguing and coming to an agreement to “disagree” after understanding the other person, a couple can resolve conflict. Understanding the other is key, not agreeing!
Again: a little humour goes a long way to diffuse conflict
Not only does humour lighten the mood, it also enables the couple time to pause and reflect.
This enables them to know when/how to engage/disengage to manage conflict, for example making a light-hearted joke can clear the air and allow the couple to move on, whilst in other cases ongoing dialogue may be required if there is still a lack of understanding between the two.
More widely, Karen and Martin have found this useful when dealing with outside criticism/prejudice.
Knowing yourself can provide a confidence of self which enables you to know your identity, feelings and views
Such self-awareness in turn aids dialogue – not just as a couple, but also when engaging with friends and family.
Potential conflict arose from members of the family/wider community in the case of Karen and Martin, knew their beliefs, wants and needs as a pair, the couple can dialogue as a united unit with their families to prevent and resolve conflict
Don’t assume that the potential for conflict will be within the couple itself
Family and wider communities may also have views which can benefit from dialogue to prevent, diffuse and resolve conflict.
Karen and Martin found that most of the issues around their mixed faith relationship were related to people outside of the direct relationship.
It’s therefore important to consider where and who with dialogue is needed as a mixed couple outside, not just within, the relationship itself
Getting started: dialogue “do”s and “don’t”s
Remember: dialogue isn’t always easy but it’s a powerful tool.
To start, here are 10 key principles to guide you through the process:
1.Establish a safe space: ensure people feel “safe” to express their views. A safe space is where difference is appreciated, confidentiality is key and there is a moderator present to guide the conversation if required
2. Agree the main purpose is to learn: dialogue isn’t about debating or “convincing” the other person about your views, it’s about learning about “the other”
3. Use appropriate communication skills: speak clearly and politely and do not interrupt or dominate the conversation!
4.Set ground rules: establish what the red lines are and stick to the rules – this will avoid stepping into what’s known as the “danger zone” and provide consistency
5. Take risks: be honest, express your feelings, share your personal experiences (remember: you speak only for yourself) and confront perceptions
6. Remember that the relationship comes first: whatever happens remember that the aim of the dialogue process is to build understanding and cohesive relationships
7.Do not avoid difficult issues: the further you go, the more you’ll achieve. Aim for sustainable change – which is never easy but well worth the time and effort!
8. Gradually address the difficult questions and gradually depart from them: address challenging issues step-by-step to ease into the issue. Likewise, do not dwell on them
9. Expect to be changed: through empathetic listening you’ll learn about others’ views and experiences. Don’t come to the dialogue with generalisations about identity and be open to change
10. Bring the change to others: live the change you see, take on board what you’ve learnt to promote unity and peace!
Source: KAICIID (2022) “Interreligious Dialogue Resource Guide”, International Fellows Programme
Through dialogue, interfaith and interfaith unity is possible. So, why not give it a go!
As so beautifully said: “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions” (‘Abdu’l-Bahá).
Credits and thanks:
KAICIID (2022) “Interreligious Dialogue Resource Guide”, International Fellows Programme
Thank you to all participating couples, the KAICIID team and to Matthew Pointon.
This article has been supported for publication as a part of the KAICIID Fellows Programme, which aims to provide opportunities for individuals to engage in research and scholarship in interreligious dialogue and related areas as part of their professional development and learning. The work undertaken has been conducted by external actors.
The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the article are strictly those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Dialogue Centre (KAICIID) or its Member States.
The International Dialogue Centre (KAICIID) does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this article neither the International Dialogue Centre (KAICIID) nor its Member States will accept any liability in connection with these data.
