Shafaqna English- “A Stylistic Re-reading of the Conduct of Imam Ali al-Ridha (AS) in the Horizon of Contemporary Interreligious Dialogue”, by Dr. Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the holy see:
On the threshold of the birth anniversary of a radiant sun that rose from the horizon of Medina and reached the peak of its manifestation in Khurasan, history once again calls us to a profound reflection—a reflection not merely on a sacred figure, but on a mode of being, speaking, and understanding. Imam Ali al-Ridha (AS) was not simply an Imam situated in a distant geography; rather, he was a voice that, amidst the tumult of differences, opened a path toward genuine dialogue—a dialogue grounded not in domination but in understanding, not in silencing the other but in truly listening to them.
In an age where the boundaries of belief, language, and culture have turned into arenas of confrontation, returning to that voice signifies a return to a forgotten possibility: the possibility of a dialogue in which truth and dignity are simultaneously preserved. The sīra of that Imam, like a lucid stream, flows from the heart of historical debates into our own age—an era that, more than any other, stands in need of the art of perceiving the “other” not as a threat, but as a horizon for the expansion of understanding.
This essay is an attempt to hear that voice once again—a voice that, within the fabric of history, established a distinctive style of dialogue. A style in which rationality is intertwined with humility, and argumentation with respect, opening a path toward a deeper comprehension of both the human being and faith. If dialogue today has reached both latent and manifest impasses, perhaps in the mirror of that sīra we may discover not only an answer, but also a method for a renewed beginning.
Interreligious dialogue in the contemporary world has moved beyond the level of diplomatic interaction and has become one of the fundamental necessities of shared human existence. Yet, the central challenge in this domain is not the principle of dialogue itself, but rather the manner of dialogue. More precisely, the current crisis of interreligious dialogue is a crisis of style and method. In this context, a re-reading of the conduct of Imam Ali al-Ridha (AS)—as one of the most prominent historical models of rational and religious engagement with other faiths—can open new horizons for designing an effective, truth-oriented, and practically applicable model for the modern world. The significance of this issue lies in the fact that the period of his Imamate coincided with the height of formal debates among followers of various religions within the Abbasid caliphal court—a milieu in which dialogue was not merely an option, but a socio-political necessity (Ibn Bābawayh, 1404 AH, vol. 2, p. 173).
The dialogical style of Imam al-Ridha (AS) must first be understood through its epistemological foundations. The first fundamental component of this style is truth-orientation. In the reported debates of the Imam, the primary aim is not to defeat the opponent, but to unveil truth through reasoning and persuasion. This elevates dialogue from the level of theological disputation to a deeper level—that of a “shared process of discovering truth” (al-Ṭabrisī, 1403 AH, vol. 2, p. 426). Such an approach stands in sharp contrast to many modern models that either lead to epistemological relativism or devolve into identity-based confrontations.
The second component is dignity-centered interaction. In the Imam’s conduct, even in encounters with staunch opponents, no trace of humiliation or personal disparagement can be observed. This demonstrates that dialogue, before being a cognitive process, is fundamentally a human relationship grounded in respect for the ontological dignity of the other (al-Kulaynī, 1407 AH, vol. 1, p. 160).
The third component is structured rationality. The Imam’s arguments are not presented in a fragmented manner, but rather within a coherent logical framework, tailored to the intellectual system of the interlocutor. This reflects a form of “dialogical engineering,” wherein the structure of reasoning is as significant as its content.
From a methodological perspective, the dialogical conduct of Imam al-Ridha (AS) encompasses elements that can be analytically reconstructed as a model applicable in the contemporary context. One of the most significant of these elements is internal understanding—that is, comprehending the conceptual framework of the interlocutor from within their own intellectual tradition. In the Imam’s debates with the Christian Catholicos and the Jewish Exilarch, it is evident that he formulates his arguments based on the sacred texts and accepted presuppositions of his interlocutors (Ibn Bābawayh, 1404 AH, vol. 2, p. 165).
This method finds a parallel in contemporary philosophical hermeneutics, particularly in the thought of Hans-Georg Gadamer, under the notion of the “fusion of horizons”; however, in the Imam’s conduct, this concept is not merely an abstract theory but a purposeful and lived practice (Gadamer, 2004, p. 305).
The second element is conceptual translation. The Imam articulates complex theological concepts—such as monotheism or prophethood—in a language comprehensible to non-Muslim audiences, without succumbing to reductionism. This skill remains one of the central challenges in contemporary interreligious dialogue, as the faithful transmission of religious meanings requires mastery of two distinct semantic systems.
The third element is question-centered dialogue. In many instances, instead of providing direct answers, the Imam poses carefully guided questions that prompt the interlocutor to reconsider their own presuppositions. This method fosters active participation and transforms dialogue from a one-sided discourse into a dynamic and engaging process (al-Ṭabrisī, 1403 AH, vol. 2, p. 430).
At the level of stylistic analysis, several key features can be identified in the dialogical practice of Imam Ali al-Ridha (AS), each carrying significant implications for contemporary application. The first is linguistic adaptability—that is, the Imam addresses each group in accordance with their conceptual and cultural language. This goes beyond mere multilingualism and reflects a form of multi-horizonal awareness, whereby the speaker is capable of moving within diverse intellectual frameworks.
The second feature is the balance between reason and revelation. In the Imam’s conduct, neither reason is presented as an autonomous instrument detached from revelation, nor is transmitted knowledge (naql) treated as beyond critical engagement; rather, a dynamic interaction between the two is established, resulting in arguments that are both robust and persuasive for the interlocutor (al-Kulaynī, 1407 AH, vol. 1, p. 25).
The third feature is the avoidance of identity-based confrontation. The Imam never reduces dialogue to a binary of “us versus them”; instead, he strives to establish a shared horizon for mutual understanding. This characteristic is of particular importance in the contemporary context, where dialogues frequently devolve into ideological conflicts.
The fourth feature is gradual persuasion. In the Imam’s method, persuasion unfolds as a layered and progressive process, through which the interlocutor is guided step by step toward the acceptance of truth.
The contemporary application of this style requires its transformation into an operational model. Accordingly, four fundamental stages may be proposed, derived from the dialogical conduct of Imam al-Ridha. The first is the phase of understanding, in which the dialogical agent must acquire a deep knowledge of the beliefs, sacred texts, and cultural contexts of the other. The second is the phase of horizon-alignment, involving the identification of shared conceptual and value-based grounds. The third is the phase of reasoning, wherein arguments are articulated within a framework intelligible to the interlocutor. The fourth is the phase of co-creation, whose aim is to transform dialogue from confrontation into intellectual collaboration directed toward a deeper apprehension of truth. This model, while remaining faithful to religious truth, avoids falling into the traps of relativism or superficial tolerance.
In comparison with modern models of interreligious dialogue, the Ridhaian paradigm exhibits a fundamental distinction. Whereas many contemporary approaches, in order to preserve dialogue, tend to dilute truth-claims, in the conduct of Imam al-Ridha, truth is not only preserved but remains the central axis of dialogue. Yet, this truth is not imposed; rather, it is presented through rational argumentation and persuasive engagement. This feature enables a meaningful reconciliation between commitment to truth and respect for the other—a reconciliation that constitutes one of the central challenges in contemporary theories of dialogue.
In conclusion, it may be stated that the conduct of Imam Ali al-Ridha (AS) is not merely a collection of historical debates, but rather a stylistic paradigm of dialogue in which epistemological, ethical, and communicative elements are coherently integrated. This paradigm, grounded in internal understanding, structured rationality, human dignity, and truth-orientation, can serve as an effective model for reconstructing interreligious dialogue in the contemporary world. In an age marked by religious misunderstandings and identity-based tensions, returning to this model is not a nostalgic retreat into the past, but a theoretical and practical necessity for shaping a future founded upon mutual understanding and meaningful dialogue.
What emerges from a reflection on the dialogical conduct of Imam al-Ridha (AS) is not merely the re-reading of a set of historical disputations, but the discovery of a mode of presence in relation to the other—a presence in which the human being appears not as an adversary, but as a comprehensible interlocutor worthy of respect. This conduct transcends the instrumentalization of dialogue—which reduces it to a means of domination or superficial persuasion—and instead guides us toward a horizon in which dialogue itself becomes a path for the disclosure of truth.
In the contemporary world, where interreligious dialogue often oscillates between the two incompatible poles of the imposition of truth and the suspension of truth, the Ridhaian model offers a third possibility: one in which truth is neither abandoned nor imposed, but is disclosed and communicated through a rational, gradual, and dignity-centered process. It is precisely at this point that the Imam’s dialogical style becomes a living and reproducible paradigm—one capable of meaningfully bridging the gap between fidelity to religious convictions and the necessity of global coexistence.
From a stylistic perspective, the Imam’s conduct demonstrates that dialogue is determined less by its content than by its mode of articulation and mode of understanding. Internal comprehension of the other, conceptual translation, avoidance of identity-based confrontation, and gradual persuasion are all stylistic elements which, if properly understood and reconstructed, can liberate contemporary dialogue from superficiality and latent impasses. In this sense, the conduct of Imam al-Ridha (AS) is not merely a heritage, but a methodological resource capable of exerting meaningful influence across contemporary domains—from academic discourse to religious diplomacy.
Ultimately, returning to this model does not signify a nostalgic return to the past, but rather a conscious movement toward a future in which differences, instead of becoming sources of rupture, are transformed into opportunities for deepening understanding. If dialogue in today’s world requires redefinition, such a redefinition can only be achieved through paradigms of this kind—paradigms in which truth speaks in the language of wisdom, and the human being, in the light of rationality and respect, rediscovers the capacity to listen and to understand.