Who Speaks for Islam? Who
Speaks for the West?
continued
SUBSTANCE OF THE CONFERENCE
10. The conference consisted of four thematic sessions devoted to: (i.) mutual misperceptions and the media; (ii.) the impact of globalization on the Muslim world; (iii.) the challenges posed by science and technology to the Muslim-Western encounter; and (iv.) future frameworks for the Muslim–Western relationship. Each session commenced with a panel, composed of three to five speakers and a moderator. Dialogues always strives for balance in assembling panels; in Kuala Lumpur, as in other conferences, we sought a selection of speakers who offered differing — and sometimes controversial — views on the issues at hand. The panelists framed the debate through their remarks and raised questions that were later addressed in floor discussions. This format encouraged frank exchanges between participants who represented a broad array of voices from within the Islamic and Western worlds. On the whole, the sessions struck a balance between honest, no holds–barred exchange and joint investigation of a constructive and long–lasting vision. Participants embraced the basic premise that engaging in candid debate is a necessary step to open improved communication channels between the two civilizations. The session debates, although often intense, produced a number of general agreements.
11. An immediate and widely-shared conclusion was the general rejection of the inevitability of the clash of civilizations, indeed of the notion of clash itself; participants preferred to frame the current tense situation between the Islamic and Western worlds as a “difficult moment” of disagreement and differing perceptions. To be certain, profound differences exist and were acknowledged by participants, notably the interesting paradox that, in the view of some participants, resides at the heart of the relationship between Islam and the West. These participants argued that from a religion devoid of a clergy and intercessionary corps, Islam evolved historically toward more institutionalized forms of practice and, especially, discourse. This is particularly true in modern times, as demonstrated in regional and international policy pronouncements in crisis situations. The West, on the other hand, has moved from centralized and highly organized religious structures, embodied for centuries in the power of the Catholic Church, toward multifaceted practice and no particular cohesion in its public discourse, setting the stage for the contemporary variety in viewpoints on political matters.
12. The second major aspect of the discussion was the identification of the contradictory tendencies and perceptions, including illegitimate ones, that increasingly characterize the exchange between Islam and the West. The “hijacking of discourse” by radicals on both sides was seen as a significant impediment to progress and genuine dialogue. To establish mutual understanding and trust, both sides must work to strengthen educational structures, demand more responsible media, and foster greater tolerance throughout their societies.
13. Third, discussions demonstrated strong existing opportunities for altering misperceptions. Among these, technology and the global community of scientists can transcend the civilizational divide. The apolitical realm of science could be of particular import to the Muslim world, whose global economic performance and level of scientific contribution has decreased significantly in recent centuries.
14. The debates also exposed three major areas of disagreement: the locus of the problem between Islam and the West, the extent of what is negotiable toward its resolution, and prescriptions envisioned. Whereas some, arguing that something had changed and “gone wrong” in the Muslim world, held socioeconomic and technological factors to be triggers of conflict, others regarded political issues as the mainstay of the disagreement between Islam and the West. Colonialism, western overseas expansion, and violent monopoly were the primary causes of the Muslim world’s grievances, noted the Muslim participants, not the absence of democracy and civic reforms, as the Western participants argued.
15. Disagreements also emerged as to what in the distinctive features and compositions of the two civilizations could be affected by any effort to improve the relationship with the other. With the cartoon crisis weighing heavily on all minds, some were adamant that, though not absolute, free speech is preeminent and should suffer no relativisms. Others considered mutual respect a value equal with free speech and argued that, for all its sanctity, freedom of expression could not be allowed to disrupt societal respect of the Other. It appeared, nonetheless, that accommodations were possible on this set of issues.
16. The final area where difference was noticeable was the one of prescriptions. There was no consensus as to which actors or issues could be amenable to positive change. Could change be first effected domestically, regionally, or globally? Is the breaking of long–held practices a sign of positive change and modernization, or is it disruptive and, in the long run, counterproductive?
17. In the final analysis, all concurred that a reaffirmation of the principles of coexistence and civilized alliance were essential to an informed reappraisal and an intelligent recalibrating of the relationship between Islam and the West. The conference’s conclusions constitute an agile platform from which such recalibrating can be pursued vigorously and practically.
Back to the top.
Recent Event ...
Iran and the Middle East: How to Shape a Security Regime Acceptable to All Regional Actors
Panel discussion at New York University on Wednesday, March. 26, 2008 6:30—8:30 pm
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
