do you think that dialogue is the first active steps to coexistence?

This is a complicated time for this sort of dialogue, which should have been going on for centuries. Perhaps when this current conflict is over and the bullets stop flying, Muslims and non-Muslims can engage in dialogue that isn't poisoned by current events.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

This is a complicated time for this sort of dialogue, which should have been going on for centuries. Perhaps when this current conflict is over and the bullets stop flying, Muslims and non-Muslims can engage in dialogue that isn't poisoned by current events.

That is a good summary of what is holding back any dialogue.

Now it is true dialogue is a very important step for co-existance. But it is not the first step. An error is to jump into dialogue before the problems that prevent dialogue are solved.

The first step is not dialogue, the first step is to rmove the barriers to dialogue. People are talkers, without barriers dialogue will happen. The questions are not how to bring about dialogue, the questions are how to tear down the barriers.

some things that need to be done,

Common language must be established
Active conflicts must cease
We must see each other as individuals


That is just the very minimal easiest seen barriers. It appears to be a circular thinking process. We can see the barriers to dialogue, yet the first tool we attempt to use is dialogue to break down the barriers to dialogue.

Sadly, somebody is going to have to risk all and for the sake of dialogue is going to have to accept the fact they will initialy be conqured.

Some major power is going to have to start as strictly one sided within themselves. Believe that world dialogue is more important then their own existence. Call an end to all hostilities and throw down all weapons of war and defense. Of course they will be immediately over run. But the result will be a single nation emerging as the only world power and then the people withing the single super power can begin dialogue on a one to one basis. I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Until all barriers to dialogue are eliminated, we will have conflict. All we can do is try to keep any conflict conflned until the means to continue conflict are exhausted and all the is left is dialogue.

So my answer to the poll that while dialogue is the most important step for coexistence, it is not the first step that needs to be taken.

Yes, barriers to communication must be broken down for any productive dialogue to take place. The old school way to break down barriers to communication has always been to pound your enemy to the point that they have no other choice. Of course this path always leads to mass death and hatred. The problem just seems so overwhelming sometimes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Yes, barriers to communication must be broken down for any productive dialogue to take place. The old school way to break down barriers to communication has always been to pound your enemy to the point that they have no other choice. Of course this path always leads to mass death and hatred. The problem just seems so overwhelming sometimes.

Ironicaly, historical that has been the only tried means that has shown any level of success. The history books show that the paths of peace have been paved with the bodies of war victims.

I am still an optimist and I believe that Peace will occur. But, the only time I see it possible is when we have a super strong Leader that can unite all of the world and finaly get people to sit down long enought to listen.

Both Christian and Muslim scriptures agree that this will not happen until the Return of Isa(as) and acccording to Islam the coming of the Mahdi.

However, we should not stop trying. we may not have much control over what nations do. But, we do have control over how we treat our next door neighbor.

I think an underground movement from both sides is required and I think new technology, such as the internet will make it possible.

I do not know what the state of technology and internet is in Iran, Syria or other Islamic US-targetted countries, but if it is good or if it could get good, then discussions between average non-government programmed americans and average non-government/religoin programmed Iranians could lead to a bond.

Such a bond would prevent Bush's war dogs and the Iranian governments war-dogs from engaging without massive public outcry on both sides.

I think that is the solution to this mess. The more we can see each other as people and not distant demonized statistics, the better off we shall become.

I myself live in a very multi-cultural society. I am surrounded by people of many walks of life, and we all get on together ok, because we know each other as people first, and labels second, instead of the other way around. I don't look to my next door neighbour and think "Muslim" (which he is). I think Salim, the guy with the really well kept garden.

I have a friend who lives down in the southern US who thinks of Muslims as terrorists to be. It isn't so much because she's a bad person, but because the only exposure she's ever had to muslims is the TV reports.

I think forums like this one here help a great deal. Reading through posts here I can see that most of you are people just like me. Only a rare few appear remotely threatening to me or my way of life.

I spoke once to my friend about me posting on a muslim web forum and noted that sometimes I've gotten into debates with muslims. She actually told me I should be careful and feared that one of you may show up at my door with a bomb strapped to your chest or something insane like that. Its amazing how the media can distort an image and project a blatantly and offensively false one like that - yet she wasn't being malicious in that concern - she was merely programmed by the media. Likewise, I have heard of people in Iran who see average Americans as horrible people out to kill them (the great satan and all that)

The internet can dispel these myths. I think that is the first step to peace and co-existence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I think an underground movement from both sides is required and I think new technology, such as the internet will make it possible.

I do not know what the state of technology and internet is in Iran, Syria or other Islamic US-targetted countries, but if it is good or if it could get good, then discussions between average non-government programmed americans and average non-government/religoin programmed Iranians could lead to a bond.

Such a bond would prevent Bush's war dogs and the Iranian governments war-dogs from engaging without massive public outcry on both sides.

I think that is the solution to this mess. The more we can see each other as people and not distant demonized statistics, the better off we shall become.

I myself live in a very multi-cultural society. I am surrounded by people of many walks of life, and we all get on together ok, because we know each other as people first, and labels second, instead of the other way around. I don't look to my next door neighbour and think "Muslim" (which he is). I think Salim, the guy with the really well kept garden.

I have a friend who lives down in the southern US who thinks of Muslims as terrorists to be. It isn't so much because she's a bad person, but because the only exposure she's ever had to muslims is the TV reports.

I think forums like this one here help a great deal. Reading through posts here I can see that most of you are people just like me. Only a rare few appear remotely threatening to me or my way of life.

I spoke once to my friend about me posting on a muslim web forum and noted that sometimes I've gotten into debates with muslims. She actually told me I should be careful and feared that one of you may show up at my door with a bomb strapped to your chest or something insane like that. Its amazing how the media can distort an image and project a blatantly and offensively false one like that - yet she wasn't being malicious in that concern - she was merely programmed by the media. Likewise, I have heard of people in Iran who see average Americans as horrible people out to kill them (the great satan and all that)

The internet can dispel these myths. I think that is the first step to peace and co-existence.

Hi Pygoscelis:
I am completely agree with you .. but I have a point to explaine:

No one can throw away his belief when he dialogue with the other, but the most important condition that can make this dialogue successful is to understand the other even If his opinion is different.

finally, I hope you watch this wonderful word about the same topic by moez masoud .. only 5 minute
http://www.amrkhaled.net/multimedia/multimedia931.html

Iam waiting for your opinion about it ..

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

The first step is not dialogue, the first step is to remove the barriers to dialogue.

Actually I want to vote "yes". But after reading this, I'll vote "No".

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you mariam.



The first active step towards coexistence is prayer, if we can pray for peace and justice for each other then we shall have the will to coexist.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

Before we can actually pray for each other, I think the ability to have a decent discussion about the weather should take place first.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;


I hope I am not taking your words too much out of context, but do you mean we should discuss "weather" we should pray for each other? Or do you mean we should only pray for each other when it is not raining?

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

I was trying to inject some humor. Dialogue must usually start with small steps. Having a polite and peaceful conversation about the state of the weather seems a good start.