Questioner: I would be very interested to hear your reflections about the problem of inter-religious dialogue and especially your comments about the intent of the Ahmadiyya movement when engaging into inter-religious dialogue. There are many discussions going on, especially in the Christian churches, in World Council of Churches and other major Christian institutions, about the problem of how to reconcile inter-religious dialogue and proselytism, and I see, for instance, the Ahmadiyya movement is coming to the West and proselytizing, but at the same time open to inter-religious dialogue. So my concern, for instance, is to know when the Ahmadiyya movement is holding a seminar or is holding a lecture in some European center, is the intent of the Ahmadiyya to use inter-religious dialogue as a means toward converting people or is inter-religious dialogue an end in itself? Thank you.
Translator: [German Translation]
Huzoor (rh): This is a very interesting question, asked with a slightly wrong emphasis, I should say. The way you said, do you intend to convert people, had a connotation of threat. No, no, not from you to me, but from me to you. If that is the purpose, you hold these dialogues, then we should rather be away from them, than attend them under the simple innocent impression that perhaps you mean to hold the dialogues for the sake of dialogues and not with any other purpose. Now this is the question as I understand. I am a simple religious person and I am not a diplomat, so my answer will be straight and honest. I believe that a dialogue without the purpose of converting people to the viewpoints of the speakers, or the participants of the dialogue is a meaningless exercise, is an exercise in futility. If anybody claims that is the object, I consider this is simply hypocritical. Because dialogue is meant to convert, in political dialogues, in scientific dialogues, in every other dialogue, this is the purpose and nobody minds.
So why should religious people mind, if a dialogue is held with the purpose of converting others to your viewpoint? The only thing wrong about conversion is, if you use underhand means, if you use oppression, if you use threats, the use of sword and things, then of course it is barbaric, it is inhuman and every such attempt which is accompanied by force and coercion must be totally condemned and rejected. But if the dialogue is held in the spirit of humane attitude and courteous and civil attempt to put yourself across so that you win converts to your way of thinking, then it is not only essential, it proves the honesty of the person who holds a particular idea. If I believe that Ahmadiyya view of life and Ahmadiyya way of life is good for the mankind, then I have a right to stick to it and I have also not a right but obligation to put my ideas across because I stick to it because I find it good. Why shouldn’t I give opportunity to others to join a good way of life and a good idea? This is simply what I understand conversion to be. So my purpose in coming here as well is this, to convert you to my way of thinking. So if anybody is threatened, he should take note of it for the future invitations.
Translator: So next [German translation] “I am not a diplomat but a religious person and I am of the opinion that any form of dialogue, be it on political, scientific or other areas, without the goal to convince others of their own thoughts, is not only senseless but deceptive. In every dialogue there is an intention that everyone who expresses a certain thought, has the intention to bring this thought so close to the other that the other person accepts and takes over this thought. And in this sense I am also here. This is also my intention. I am convinced that my view of the world and the way I see this world as Ahmadiyya is good for the mankind and I try to convince you of this intention of mine and to make this intention clear to you. So if anybody is threatened by my efforts to convince you of my thoughts, he should take note of the kind of invitations you have received today.”
