Abstract
In the contemporary world, due to the growth and spread of various technologies, intra and inter cultural communication have become much more possible. Individuals with different religions and cultures struggle to express their religion and culture, which is why the concept of dialogue is generally used and emphasized. Also, because of the importance of religion and the possibility of influencing on various social groups, policymakers try to fully design and implement their policies through the interfaith dialogue study. This article, using the documentary method, aims to examine the conceptualization of interfaith dialogue and the collection of its various types. In this regard, according to the indicators of dimension, style, type, dialoguers and the topic of interfaith dialogue, 54 types in the similarity of the dialoguers and 162 types in their non-marital status are extracted. It is clear that in view of the severe shortage of Persian sources in this field, achieving a comprehensive pattern of interfaith dialogue typology can be an innovative and an introductive to cultural and communicative policy making of interfaith dialogue.The explanation of these indicators as components of species is as follows:
1- Dimension: interfaith dialogue can be an insight, a tendency, or action. In the first place, insights containing rational beliefs are the subject of interfaith dialogue. These beliefs often include the specialized concepts of religious theology. The form of manifestation of this kind can emerge in comparative theology. The second type focuses on the emotions and motivations of interfaith dialogue in the dimension of orientation. Accordingly, the path to the full realization of interfaith dialogue will be a heart understanding of the parties to the dialogue over the religion of the other side. So while the rational form of interfaith dialogue focuses on acquired knowledge, it focuses on in-person knowledge. Third, it seeks to present the practical aspect of interfaith dialogue in the form of social cohesion. In this view, interfaith dialogue is considered as a tool for solving and reducing social problems. Perhaps this type of interfaith dialogue can be regarded as an operational-functional dialogue. In this sense, policymakers use the functions of religion in the form of interfaith dialogue in describing the problem and prescribing a solution for it.
2. Method: Each of these three types can be arguable, emotional, and behavioral in order. In the ordinary way, the rational, cardiac, and intellectual forms of interfaith dialogue choose reasoning, emotional and behavioral methods, respectively. Of course, the combination of these dimensions and methods should be possible together, which will cause the complexity of the species. This means that the rational species (based on dimension) may use an emotional (method-based) type. This possibility is unlikely due to its occurrence. Moreover, in addition to this, simultaneous use of two or three methods can be found in interfaith dialogue for one or two dimensions.
3. Type: This indicator can be formal, semi-formal or informal. This type also relates to dialogue with the dialoguers who can be leaders and officials, elites or ordinary people. In this regard, the direct connection of these three dialoguers is often rare. Thus, in most cases, the type of dialogue is on a level, that is, for example: thinkers with thinkers. Often, the type of interfaith dialogue will be officially held, if the dialoguers are leaders and officials. However, if the intellectuals are the two sides of interfaith dialogue, the kind of dialogue will be realized in the form of a semi-official. The third type, informal, also occurs when the dialoguers are the general public.
4. dialoguers: It seems that, as seen in practice, there is a similarity between the dimension and methodology and the dialogue. It is natural that the dimension of insight and the method of reasoning often occurs in dialogue between thinkers and elite. On the other hand, people-to-people interfaith dialogue often takes place in the context of normal social behavior and actions. Therefore, the axis or issue or area in the dialogue is important and fundamental. Of course, the complexity of the dialogue may even be the difference between intellectual paradigms - the way dialogue people even appear in a religion and beliefs.
5. Subject: The subject of interfaith dialogue can be religious or non-religious on the basis of the affinity (ie, religion) that is the subject of dialogue. Religious talk is about comparing commons and differences of a subject from the point of view of different religions. These varieties The dialogue with the general purpose of the conversation, which is further understood, is consistent, although the discussion of a subject from the point of view of one's religion to another can open new horizons in understanding its own religion. On the other hand, the subject can be non-religious. In this sense, there are issues or common problems such as justice, security, creativity in the context of justice and war, poverty, and so on. The level of these problems can also be urban, national and international.
It becomes clear that in view of the severe shortage of Persian sources in this field, achieving a comprehensive pattern of inter-religious dialogue typology can be an innovative and prelude to cultural-communication communication policy in interfaith dialogue.