In her essay entitled “Comparison between the Eschatology of Paradise of Abu l-‘Ala al-Ma’arri and Dante Alighieri”, published this year also in its English and French translation, the author Milena Aziza Rampoldi presents some parallels as well as some differences between two great works of universal literature: the “Divine Comedy” of the Florentine poet Dante Alighieri on the one hand and the “Epistle of Forgiveness” of the Abbasid poet Abi’ Ala al-Ma’arri on the other hand.
In her reflections on the subject, the author uses comparative literary research to promote interreligious dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In this context, she also explains the foundations of the philosophical worldview of the two authors. According to the author, the theme of these parallelisms is mainly eschatological or soteriological and concerns the vision of paradise.
The author, an Arabist of Italian origin, is convinced that works like this, at the crossroads of literature and philosophy, can contribute to renewing and advancing the dialogue between two major world religions, Christianity and Islam. If we draw on the literary heritage of the tradition of these two religions and look at their similarities but also their differences, we will be able, in the current historical context and in the context of today’s political work, to avoid on the one hand pseudo-tolerant attitudes and, on the other hand, an extreme dialectic.
Pseudo-tolerance is a term that the author already describes in her “Manifesto”. In this text, on the complexity of the interaction between tolerance and intolerance in the soul of each person, the author writes:
“ProMosaik focuses more on differences than on similarities, which may be irritating in various ways: on the one hand on an aesthetic, aural, philosophical, and ideological, but also on an ethical, linguistic, ethnic, and religious level.
However, this is the method chosen by ProMosaik to counteract pseudo-tolerance, which is often based on superficial and well-intentioned pseudo-empathy.
People assume that tolerance is like a dress you can simply put on. A smile, a friendly interaction and the right word and the right silence in the right place make up what is called the social virtue of tolerance. Tolerance is “in” and becomes a so-called trendsetter.
Tolerance has different forms of expression depending on the environment. The whole thing can be embarrassing if someone does not know the limits of his/her own tolerance and then the masks fall, especially if the pseudo-tolerance does not show its chromatic nuances in this colourful world.
What ProMosaik would like to achieve by focusing on differences, diversity and distinguishing features is precisely the development of true tolerance with its limits and its deep understanding of the multi-layered complexity of true tolerance and its opposite, which is intolerance.
In the sense of ProMosaik, tolerance also means tolerance of the limits of one’s own tolerance and in dealing with these dimensions. Because the colours of this colorful world can overstrain the eye, make you want to close your eyes, look away or turn around.
This also includes the courage for true tolerance, which sometimes needs a break, a reflection, a self-reflection, which consists in the open exploration of our intrinsic pseudo-tolerance or intolerance and in dealing with these dimensions.
As soon as we reach the limits of our tolerance, we get to know the seeds of the discriminatory and racist thinking that hides inside us like a blind spot in the Johari window. We penetrate the dark, unethical side of ourselves and grow on it.”
On the theme of universality in the literary field, which imposes itself independently of cultural and religious differences, Rampoldi in this essay asserts the following:
“In my opinion, the theme of these parallelisms is essential both eschatologically and soteriologically and concerns the vision of Paradise. I would like to support this endeavour with the following article, in which I will discuss, among other things, the biography of the two poets, their views on the psychology of religion, their subjective attitude towards the transcendent and the tradition of their religion, their fatalism and their sceptical attitude.”
In summary, we can mention two major differences between the two authors of universal literature who dealt with the theme of the subjective experience of the afterlife.
On the one hand, al-Ma’arri is well outside of traditional patterns. He seems fresher and innovative, and in part even more brazen than Dante, who completely submits to the school tradition of Thomas Aquinas and, so to speak, “dogmatizes” his subjective experience. The theme that al-Maa’rri cites in the title of his work, namely forgiveness (in Arabic: ghufran), can be highlighted as the culmination of the dogmatic difference between Christianity and Islam when it comes to soteriological issues.
The episode reported in the Book of Genesis and the forgiveness granted to Adam and Eve in the Qur’an cannot be reconciled in their dogmatic differences, because Islam does not recognize original sin, while the latter is deeply rooted in Christian soteriology.
The second difference concerns the dialectic between poetry and truth/revelation in Dante, contradicted by al-Maa’rri, who, in his work, introduces pre-Islamic poets without “filtering” them from a religious and dogmatic point of view.
In conclusion, however, the author states how al-Maa’rri escapes any dogmatic categorization, because “the problem with these comparisons lies mainly in the impenetrability of al-Ma’arri’s personality and worldview, which, unlike Dante, seems much more complex and contradictory”.
However, genuine peace between religious communities should not fail because of these differences, which should simply be highlighted without creating conflicts based on intolerant positions. Peace is not based on equality, but on respectful acceptance and a realistic focus on differences. Comparative literature can help us show the dogmatic differences between Christianity and Islam to cultivate creative discussions and authentic assessments of differences.
