Introduction
On May 24 – 27, 2009 a group of seven Mennonite and seven Shi‘a Muslim scholars met at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) in Qom, Iran, for Dialogue IV on the topic of peace and justice. The three previous dialogues covered the following topics: modernity, revelation and authority, and spirituality. The fourth round on peace and justice had us delve into a topic that required significant trust and grace, perhaps because there was much at stake personally and politically with this topic. Both religions have sacred texts and a rich heritage of teachings and practices on this subject and both have unique ways of framing the connection between peace and justice. Both see peace and justice grounding their religious communities. During the four days in the warm environs of a bustling city we met to read and discuss theological essays. The Mennonite delegation felt particularly blessed with the generous Persian hospitality of a double welcome, first, by a major Iranian institute, and, when the formal dialogue ended, by being hosted in the homes of several dialogue partners. For the hosts in Iran, as well as their guests, the conference was an opportunity to deepen friendships, exchange ideas, and to advance knowledge.

In addition to the fourteen papers presented at the conference (seven Muslim, seven Mennonite), two other essays that were presented are
included in this collection. The first is a presentation of welcome delivered by Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Mahmūd Rajabī. He extended a generous invitation to all the dialogue participants and set out the framework for the Islamic teaching on peace and justice. The second paper, presented by Professor Monoucher Mohammadi, focused on the politics of international relations. He discussed an alternative paradigm to Samuel P. Huntington’s model of the “Clash of Civilizations,” a model he called the “Clash of Domination.”

The fourteen essays on inter-religious dialogue cluster around three general topics. The first is peace, war, and protection. Mennonites and
Shi‘a Muslims have somewhat divergent views on peace and war. Yet Muslims too argue that war is wrong and Mennonites too find ways to reassess the justice implications of pacifism. The papers in this section also address the topics of just war and the philosophical meaning of peace. In the discussions, participants were able to invite those outside their own traditions to explore issues of controversy that normally are discussed among coreligionists. We were thus challenged to consider how those with different scriptures and theologies would approach common problems pertaining to peace and justice.

The second group of essays focuses on how our sacred texts inform our views of peace and justice. Of course, most of the papers explicitly draw on the authoritative texts that shape our faiths, yet those in this section pay specific attention to how the Qur’ān and the Bible contribute to our understandings of peace and justice.

The third section explores several themes that have become significant in our respective traditions. All religions require traditions that occupy real social space. These traditions express practices and customs that give content to the faith. Clearly, peace and justice are not disembodied ideas; they are expressed in social realities, in concrete practices that have long shaped our theological identities, and in views of history. Hence, notions such as ecclesiology, eschatology, martyrdom, jihad, political theology, and peacemaking practices become vehicles through which peace and justice become meaningful. Without careful attention to these sub-themes, peace and justice remain incomplete and abstract.

It must be said that the parallelism and the shared themes within Muslim and Christian theology are not a neat match. Nor should we
attempt to make them that. Some themes, like ecclesiology, for example, do not correspond to anything in Islamic theology. Other themes, such as martyrdom, have been discussed extensively through the ages by both Christians and Muslims, but with different emphases and interpretations. Observations of our differences and similarities prove that neither faith can be fully grasped in the language of the other, and that we do a disservice to religious understanding by assuming we already know what others mean because of superficial similarities and by assuming that where there is no correspondence, there is no point in discussing the matter. These alone are noteworthy lessons.
The term “religion” itself is problematic. Western scholars have questioned its usefulness and the Arabic term used to translate it, dīn, requires a very different analysis. So, one might question whether the practice of which our conference is an instance should be called “inter-religious dialogue” or “religious dialogue” or, perhaps “cross-denominational conversation.” By whatever name, it is a practice that few are experts at and many of us are not very good at. It is in fact not always clear what we are doing when we engage voices from other faith traditions. Are we engaged in religious propagation? Are we defending our beliefs? Are we trying to identify common elements, or irreconcilable differences? Are we bearing witness? Sometimes uncertainties about these questions seem to arise in the course of our discussions. At base, dialogue is an encounter with difference that pushes boundaries and sometimes even the comfort levels of those engaged in it.

Clearly not all that happens in such dialogue can be grasped or categorized intellectually. This makes dialogue a rather unusual event, especially for academics who are used to resolving differences through careful thinking according to the intellectual norms of their own traditions.Indeed, the most cherished product of such dialogue may be much closer to something called friendship than intellectual advance. So while the goal of inter-religious dialogue is sometimes thought to be a single religious understanding, that proves to be a mistake, and a dangerous one, because of its tendency to impose closure not warranted by intellectual honesty. The current dialogue is lodged in another pursuit: of freely giving each person the voice to speak for his or her faith tradition. We come together and try to explain some of our most deeply held convictions for colleagues of our own denomination and for other colleagues whose perspectives on what we have to say is largely unknown. This requires a posture of very attentive listening in respectful openness, and a care with our own expressions in recognition of the fact that we cannot just assume that what we mean will be understood. This mode of presence with the other is rooted in the shared conviction that God has given all of us hearts, minds, and searching spirits and that the voice of truth may be lodged in places stranger than we might ever have imagined.

This posture of open engagement might be said to be a mode of peacemaking; a way of engaging difference that is very far from the all
too common view of the other as dispensable enemy. The dialogue over the past ten years is in fact testimony to the refusal to permit the powers of division to define for us who our enemies are. To put it positively, it is an admission that we have become friends and that difference does not negate the possibility of trust and deep and lasting friendship.

This volume is dedicated to Professor A. James Reimer who has been involved in the dialogue from the beginning in 2002. In addition he has
lectured in Christian theology at IKERI and several other institutions of higher education in Iran, he has given leadership to the Mennonite Central Committee sponsored student exchange program in Toronto, and has directed the dissertation of an Iranian student who completed his doctorate at the University of Toronto. Jim often said that he was drafted into this exchange and once in he could not leave it because of its richness. Jim has also written the preface to this volume which summarizes the history of the dialogue. His untimely death made it impossible for him to submit the final version of his essay and hence it was completed by the editors in consultation with his wife Margaret Loewen Reimer. His essay, “Pacifism, Policing, and the Responsibility to Protect,” relies heavily upon a chapter in a posthumous publication entitled “Policing, Human Security, and the Responsibility to Protect” in Christians and War: A Brief History of the Church’s Teachings and Practices published by Fortress Press. Jim’s death in August 2010 has created an irreplaceable loss for this theological exchange.

The publication of these essays represents part of a growing legacy of work made available to a larger readership. It takes its place alongside the publication of other papers, the latest being, On Spirituality: Essays from the third Shi‘i Muslim Mennonite Christian Dialogue, edited by M. Darrol Bryant, Susan Kennel Harrison, and A. James Reimer. All of these essays, those in this volume and those that came before, are written out of deep religious convictions in a time when waning respect for religious diversity is all too evident. In such a climate, reading with care, attention, and respect are more important than ever.

Harry J. Huebner
Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen