On November 16, 2025, the interfaith platform of the canton of Vaud organized a celebration at Lausanne Cathedral under the motto “Peace, dialogue and hospitality”. The aim? Based on the figure of Abraham, to build peace in a spirit of hospitality.

The undertaking had a lot of merit, because living in the same society with different religious narratives is not self-evident. So it was natural to look to Abraham as the common denominator for Jews, Christians and Muslims. And when you look at the photo of the town councillors who took part in this interfaith celebration, hand on heart, you get the feeling that Abraham succeeded in uniting them all around him.

Surprise

But then came the moment when the imam presented himself to the congregation to read two passages from the Koran in Arabic, then in French. Calmly and solemnly, he let the audience know that Ibrahim, the Abraham of the Koran, had a very different message to proclaim than the consensual discourse they might have expected from him.

Listening carefully, rereading afterwards the verses of the suras he quoted (2.127-134 and 3.64), we had to face the facts: Ibrahim was reproaching this audience, and not in the least. He reminded him that he, Ibrahim, had agreed to submit to Allah and that he had urged his descendants to do the same. He also prayed to Allah and asked Him to send a prophet – Muhammad – to recite Allah’s verses to the Arab tribes, teach them the Book and purify them from their polytheism.

A call to conversion

All this could pass for a simple historical reminder of the beginnings of Islam. But the passages quoted were aimed at a wider audience. One verse stated that only fools could dislike the religion of Abraham (Islam), and Sura 3.64, read in conclusion, called on Jews and Christians to adopt the Koran as their common Word, and to take no Lord but Allah. Clearly, conversion to Islam is the shortest route to peace!

Read also: Brotherism and its networks

A misleading speech

In complete contrast to the imam’s readings, the representative of the Union vaudoise des associations musulmanes delivered a soothing speech to the audience. He emphasized that the spirit of peace and hospitality were values shared by all the religious traditions gathered for the occasion. More importantly, he emphasized that Abraham “is also the one who welcomes, who opens his tent to the stranger, who offers bread … without asking his visitor where he comes from or what he believes. He embodies that radical hospitality which is the beginning of all lasting peace. In short, a call to benevolence and not to worry about the scope of the verses the imam had just read.

See also: Taqîya: caution and concealment

The forgotten rules of interfaith dialogue

After the ceremony, probably none of the participants thought of thanking the imam for having told us so clearly how, “based on the figure of Abraham”, Islam conceived of “building peace in hospitality”. Now, everyone can understand: Allah gives his peace only to those who, like Ibrahim, submit to him.

This interfaith celebration, the high point of Lausanne Cathedral’s ^750th anniversary celebrations, could mark a historic turning point. It is to be hoped that, from now on, the interfaith platform will have a more lucid approach to relations between religious communities. Indeed, when we speak of “peace”, have we taken the time to define what we mean? Is it a “peace” imposed by one religion, reducing all others to insignificance, or is it the fruit of a political organization that recognizes the freedom of each religion to worship? And when we invoke Abraham as a figure common to Jews, Christians and Muslims, are we sure we’re talking about the same person? Is the Ibrahim who went to Mecca to build the Kaaba with his son Ishmael, and whom Muhammad presents as the model of the monotheism he himself preached, really the Abraham of the Bible?

No hegemonic religion

These are unpleasant questions to ask. But as we always come to recognize, peace can only be built on the freedom to believe differently. If the imam who spoke at the cathedral – to his credit – did not alter the meaning of the Koranic message, why should those who base their faith on the Bible or another book alter theirs in front of Muslims?

But how do we live together? This is where a difficult apprenticeship begins: freely expressing our convictions while respecting the freedom of others to believe otherwise or not. A restraint that members of “universal” religions don’t always know how to observe, and which is often attempted by the fusion of religion with politics. For all its faults, secularism still has a few things to offer us.