This does not concern just one nation, one social class, or one religious or ideaological community, but we are all urged to realize that, as human beings, we share a common fate. Long ago, it has become impossible to isolate from each other. Long ago, whether we accept the fact or not, a cultural multiplicity has become a social reality in most countries of the world. Thus dialogue, international, inter-cultural, or inter-religious, is not an intellectual pastime but arises from the very meeting and is necessary to solve common global problems.

During the first phase of getting acquainted with each other, an encounter is almost invariably connected with difficulties in understanding. The vis-á-vis is new and strange; its manifestations of life are not easily understandable, and we ourselves are possibly prone to integrating it into our own habitual systen or to apply our own standards, arriving unawares at new prejudices as far as the old ones have not already obstructed our view. Perhaps we want to share our alleged possessions with the other without understanding how rich he is already in a different way. Perhaps the alien is perceived as something fascinating, exotic, or threatening and repelling, or it may be perceived as something confusing or burdening so that one is tempted to uniform in order to unify and to adapt the alien to One's own standards. Perhaps we are rattled by the question whether the alien is superior or inferior in value to our own achievements or might even offer an alternative. All these are reactions which we must understand to be natural on both sides, for human beings usually grow up in a certain religious or ideaological tradition by which they are formed and by which their standards and behaviour are determined and a common language and symbolism is made available that enables them to communicate with others.

Then the encounter itself does not take place in a vacuum but in a concrete socio-political situation, maybe even because of a given critical occasion. Historical experiences in mutual relations have made their impact especially in the case of neighbouring or related religions - as it is the case with the three Abrahamic religions. Present political and economic interests equally mix in. All this must be taken into consideration, and it will take its time until the vis-á-vis is no longer seen as an enemy, a scapegoat, or a competitor but as a partner in dialogue who certainly differs from us in many aspects but who, at the same time, is obviously connected with us by many a common cause.

Only where it is possible to listen to the vis-á-vis and to let his self-esteem get a hearing, the actual dialogue begins. But this is, at the same time, the beginning of the actual challenge. For the vis-á-vis is no longer an object of investigation but a partner and himself a subject who asks questions - who perhaps questions things that we hitherto have taken for granted, who now applies his standards to us and demands our statement, who doubts the very foundation of our hitherto unchallenged concept of identity. Again and again there will be the question of the development of our own religious tradition in history - in the case of Islam, for instance, there is now as before the catchword of "fire and sword" or something similar that can be exploited on the slightest occasion, despite their better knowledge, by the mass media in order to awaken people's fears. Or there are questions concerning the behaviour of our own brethren in faith in the present situation which, more often than not, differs ever so much from their ideals and their claim. Statements of theology and philosophy are compared, evaluated and confronted with different concepts and logical systems; sometimes they are even attacked by polemics.

This phase is clearly a test for our own purity and sincerity. There is certainly the temptation to avoid inconvenient and sometimes painful questions, like hiding behind a claim of exclusiveness of one's own tradition on order to outmaneuver one's own embarrassment; or like declaring one's standards to be absolute in order to condemn the question instead of answering it; or like reckoning up each other's offences in history or repaying polemics with polemics. This would then confirm the opinion of those who take religious multiplicity only as another obstacle in the way of the unification of humankind.

Another temptation, more from a sense of resignation in view of the disagreement with a religious pretence, would be to dissociate from one's own religion or from religion in general respectively. Many people today take secularization, in the sense of relativating religion, as a possibility to solve the problems of living together. Religion is pushed away into a special sphere of life, becomes a "private matter" of which one feels ashamed in public. It is restricted so that it can barely manage to exist as part of the cultural manifestations of society in general. But what happens next? - Questions that hitherto have been answered by religion are partly and more or less explicit taken over by philosophy, like questions of anthropology, cosmology, or occasionally even of the meaning of existence. This may be satisfactory on the intellectual level and open up the way to valuable new aspects of knowledge. But it excludes that sphere of human experience that is not immediately accessible by the rational approach. Moreover, the the intellect tends to analyze; but what about a view of the totality? This is a problem that especially affects the realm of ethics where only from a holistic view the proportions for valid standards can be derived. In Western thought, some kind of anthropocentric utilitarianism seems to prevail that does know values like individual freedom and social equality, but the limits of this kind of freedom had to be pointed out by manmade ecological crises and political tension, and equality is frequently tied to purely external criteria and conditions rather than a concept of an equal basic value. What does remain, then, as a standard when there is no superior comprehensive agency above the human ego, when responsibility is no longer understood in the sense of "responding" to an urgent critical questioning, either in the sense of an account after the end of our life on this earth or in the sense of carmic laws?

The multiple attempts to answer these questions outside the framwork of the basic religious experience of humankind did not bring us one step further to unity but has lead, on the contrary, to the formation of ideologies beyond the rational vindication of group interests that claim the place of religion for themselves and coin the standards and behaviour of their adherents. Capitalism, socialism, nationalism, racism and other 'isms have proved, in recent centuries, to be strong moving forces and still keep people hypnotized. Ideological disputes take the place of the so called religious ones and follow the same mechanisms as far as the claime to absoluteness, polemics and similar phenomena are concerned. The two superpowers that used to distinguish themselves by competitive rearmament represented, with a missionary's eagerness, not religious but ideological systems, and, were the common problems of humankind are concerned, a solution is at least as far away as ever. In my opinion, a solution cannot be reached by secualrization in the sense of dissociation from religion.

But what will happen if we approach inter-religious - as well as inter-ideological - dialogue not with an apologetic attitude nor evasively or in search of artificial common denominators but let ourselves be challenged by our partners' questions to investigate our own religious tradition? Such a mutual challenge could, in the long run, even produce a creative dynamic force; anyway we have today a variety of means for investigation at our disposal. What is then the origin of the concepts, standards and patterns of behaviour that we nowadays take for granted? Which forces of history have given us our present shape? And then, asked from a different angle: Does our religious tradition still agree with what the founder of the religion has taught and shown by his example, or have we perhaps been alienated from the spirit and content of his teachings in a way that he would not feel well in our company any more? Developements in history do have their meaning in their time, but would it make sense for us today to take traditions caused by past situations for more important than the roots of our religion as such? Would it make sense to imitate our ancestors uncritically, as it has been criticized in the Qur'an many times over? Should we not rather, learning from our past experience at the same time, build a bridge from the roots to the present and the future? This is certainly not easy. In a most appropriate way, the Arabic term for this endeavour, Ijtihâd, is derived from the verb jahada which means to make an effort, to struggle. Should we not rather learn from each other in mutual exchange, finding our real common cause and building on it not a uniform but an organic unity in diversity?

In the roots of the three great Abrahamic religions I discover, at first sight, a number ob basic elements that they have in common. We believe in the same God to Whom we feel responsible for our intentions and actions - notwithstanding the dogmatic superstructure of the various denominations and differing concepts and experiences of the individuals concerned. There is certainly a similar connection with the Ultimate Reality in other religions as well, say in Buddhism where it is not named, or in Hinduism where it seems, at least at first, hidden behind innumerable images. But in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the similarity is clearly visible and frequently expressed in a common terminology. Moreover, we share the greater part of the history of our religions and a number of prophetic personages whom we know as our spiritual acestors. We share the same ethical values if we consider honesty, sincerity, love, peace, moderation, brotherliness, respect for others and especially for seniors, readiness to help and the like - there are even common or at least similar terms for all these in the original languages of our religions - as desirable, and if we reject what has already been rejected in the Ten Commandments of the Hebrew Bible and has, besides, never been approved of in any civilization of the world. Very often, we even have similar ways of religious expression - as far as they are still alive - like for instance regular daily prayers, periods of fasting, and the duty to do acts of charity. Even in the development of our religious traditions in history, however great the differences may be, we can always find parallels and mutual stimulation.

Dealing with history, we will find that in all communitites throughout the ages there have always been individuals who gave there own intersts in power top priority, never hesitating to enforce them. Without doubt, they succeeded again and again to exploit religion or creed - nowadays it is often the ideology in question - for their purposes, making unsuspecting idealists work for their objects. At present, the resistance against this misuse is so farreaching that it renders people nearly unable to distinguish between right and wrong any longer and to stand up for a case. The Middle East, Latin America and many similar areas on this earth bear witness to this development.

Learning from history and questioning the habits of one's own tradition inevitably leads into some no man's land. There are episodes in our history for which we are ashamed so that we feel like concealing them or attributing the guilt on others, or maybe like falling into the opposite extreme or withdraw into Utopia. There may be a great deal sadness about aspects we lost on our way or which are practiced by others as we should be practicing them. There may be a feeling of insecurity because our object is not clearly visible but we have to do some pioneering.

In this point, there lies the great chance in dialogue. For even if our weak spots sometimes are painfully exposed, we learn more about the greater context of things and possibly find new starting points to realize our own cause. Learning from history does not mean that we should fall into self-pity or total refusal. Nothing would be changed by that. From history, we generally learn two things,

1. that the arrogant attempt to enforce one's own selfish interests, in the long run, does not result in anything but discord and destruction including one's own;
2. that human beings are prone to make mistaked from which again they can learn, and therefore they should always be ready for self-criticism and a new beginning.

Learning from history means to process consciously one's concepts, standards, and patterns of behaviour and to see them in a wider context. We will then soon realize that we are ot living within a lot of arbitrary incidents, confronting them with our own arbitrariness, but in an organic system of which we are part and where everything, living beings, phenomena, laws of nature, ethical standards and social rules alike, have their reasonable place even if they are subject to the changes inherent in life. We find the key to this human experience in the Sacred Scriptures of our three religions and - if we look carefully - in the Scriptures and traditions of other religions as well. If we connect back to these roots and process our history and tradition in interaction with our brothers and sisters from other religions, we temporarily end up, as menitioned before, in some no man's land. But even then we follow the prophetic example. Perhaps it will be possible for us, at this point, to understand their immediate encounter with the Transcendent for which they bear witness, for even if we are unable to reach the same level, we still can share some of their experience in our own modest way when we realize the unity that reveals itself in the diversity. Perhaps we will then find our true identity as human beings. In any case, we will find an immense treasure of impulses at our disposal which will widen our horizon and bring us closer to a real mutual understanding, no longer on a cracked, shaking surface but in a profound depth. So far I cannot but talk about a transcendental unity of religions in spite of all present discord, and I do believe that all human beings are somewhere on a journey to a common destination, the point being that we do not stop but continue the journey persevering and patiently.

I would like to finish with some verses from the Qur'an in which I find that this idea is expressed most adequately.