Often, when we are puzzled by a person or situation, we say we do not understand. Our puzzlement eventually brings us to the conclusion that as an outsider, we cannot somehow come to terms with the world of the insider. Perhaps our understanding might be improved metaphorically by trying to stand in the insider’s shoes. Of course, reaching an understanding becomes even more difficult if there is tension or conflict between these two worlds of the inside and the outside. In modern times, understanding is rendered increasingly difficult by the unsettled conditions in which we live. The great German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) worked on the problem of understanding through much of his life. In a 1970 article titled ‘Language and understanding’ he wrote that the problem of understanding had received increasing attention in modern times. This was ‘not unrelated to our very uneasy social and world-political situation and the sharp increase in tensions at the present time’ and efforts to reach understanding between nations and generations were failing (Gadamer 2006: 13). Because for Gadamer all understanding must succeed or fail through the medium of language, we must attend carefully to the conversations and texts between insiders and outsiders. These basic notions also direct us to the obvious point that translations between the meanings present in different cultures or contexts are always and only approximations. Although Gadamer did not discuss Islam in this context, his hermeneutics are valuable to understanding Islam or any religion. Gadamer can be criticised for failing to pay attention to power relationships in the process of understanding and his focus was more on understanding language and text than a people or a religion. He would respond that paying attention to language is a critical step towards good relationships.

Forms of Understanding

At the outset, I need to distinguish between two types of understanding. First there is the understanding that might emerge through a conversation or dialogue between two different agents or parties whose views do not entirely converge. I may call this Dialogue 1. This form of dialogue is the one I imagine taking place between Christians and Muslims with the intention of arriving at some mutual understanding.