Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West?
By Shaanti Kapila
On November 29, 2006, Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S.-The West hosted a panel discussion on “Who speaks for Islam? Who speaks for the West?” to debate the findings of the report from the February 2006 Dialogues conference. The panel was moderated by Lisa Anderson, Dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and featured Munir Akram, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations; Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; Karen Pierce, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations; and M. Javad Zarif, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations.
Mustapha Tlili opened the evening’s discussion by summarizing the backdrop of world events against which the panel took place. These are critical times in the history of the Muslim-Western encounter, he said, times characterized by mutual suspicion, fear, extremism, ideologies of hate, disproportionate use and misuse of power, occupation, terrorism, Holocaust denial, double standards on both sides, disregard for international law, Islamophobia, demonization of the West…The list goes on and on. The question, he asked, is what can be done to reverse this trend, which, if unchecked, could lead to global catastrophe in this age of nuclear proliferation and frightening advances in technologies of mass destruction.
Mustapha Tlili asked panelists and the audience to consider the conclusions of the report on “Who speaks for Islam? Who speaks for the West?” which, if heeded, could set the two venerable civilizations on a path towards civilized alliance and peaceful coexistence. These include: 1) the unanimous affirmation that freedom of speech is a universal value and the oxygen of liberty, and as such should be encouraged rather than stifled -- acknowledging the responsibilities inherent in the exercise of this fundamental right; 2) the recognition that the media play a major role in the relationship between Muslim and Western societies and that the media should refrain from fostering Islamophobia, on one the one hand, and demonization of the West, on the other; and 3) the paramount importance of genuine inter-civilizational dialogue in a world that feels smaller by the day. Such dialogue implies critical societal introspection on both sides. Debate and self-criticism within the Muslim world is as important as criticism of the West and must find its way into Muslim educational systems.
At the same time, Tlili emphasized that the core tension between the two sides is political, a point on which the conferees agreed. Without resolution of outstanding political differences relating to Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as issues that contribute to Muslims’ feelings of victimization by the West, very little will change regardless of goodwill, appeals to reason, and mutual respect. Tlili directed the audience to the report of the High-level Group of the Alliance of Civilizations (available online at www.unaoc.org), which stresses the centrality of the political dimension of the Muslim-Western divide and urgently calls for a solution to the political issues if there is any hope of stemming the tide of extremism and radicalization. The report appeals to international institutions, national governments, civil society at large, and individuals everywhere to open their eyes to the dangerous path on which we find ourselves, and to contribute to a positive outcome through solutions to the political differences, as well as through education, youth programs, new perspectives on migrant communities, the promotion of women’s rights, and more responsible media.
Tlili then turned the floor over to Lisa Anderson, co-chair of Dialogues’ Advisory Board, to introduce the panelists and moderate the discussion.
Lisa Anderson noted that, with regard to the Pope’s expression of support for Turkey’s entry to the EU, the moment was an auspicious one for this conversation. The interaction among the communities we are talking about may well be changing. After several years of increasingly hostile rhetoric, including the Danish cartoon crisis and mounting Holocaust denial, this day may be an opportune time to reflect on who speaks for each side and what they should be talking about.
Anderson then introduced the distinguished group of panelists and asked them to consider the conclusions drawn up by the conferees in Kuala Lumpur in February, taking into account the events of the intervening months. Who gets to speak on behalf of Western and Muslim civilizations and why do they get to speak, she asked? What is the role of media in amplifying stereotypes? What roles do economic and political trends have in shaping civilizational discourse?
The first panelist to take the floor was Ambassador Munir Akram, who declared that the purpose of dialogue is to clarify issues and crystallize possible solutions. This is a moment of crisis, he said, and therefore we need to be clear in our exposition. It is evident that the root of friction between the Muslim and Western worlds is political. But there are also causes that are a matter of perception, and the real and perceptional sometimes meld. From the Islamic perspective, he said, the root problem arises from historical memories of colonialism, kept alive by political realities. Muslims also perceive the West to be indifferent to the oppression of Muslim people in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, the Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Many Muslims feel that they are victims of double standards, and accuse the West of negligence with respect to the crises in the Muslim world. There are also economic and cultural issues exacerbated by the processes of globalization and migration.
Ambassador Akram then turned to the Western narrative with regard to what is wrong with the Islamic World – not only terrorism, but also the rise of extremism, “jihadi” groups, and the perception that the Islamic World is generally opposed to Israel.
The media, said Ambassador Akram, fuel the perceptional causes of the divide. Both sides bear responsibility although the West has a greater grip on the international media. For the media, bad news is good news in terms of ratings; therefore, many journalists seek to provoke and precipitate feelings of anger.
Alluding to the Danish cartoon controversy earlier this year, Ambassador Akram said such abuse of free speech should teach us that there must be clear-cut restraints on this liberty. For example, free speech should not be used to hurt the feelings of others. In the United Kingdom, libel laws enable the courts to take action against hurtful speech. Similar laws exist in other countries, but their application must be more consistent; if punishment is meted out for denying the Holocaust, then there should also be punishment for insulting the Prophet. The same standard should apply in the Islamic World as well.
Ambassador Akram also placed responsibility on intellectuals, religious figures, and political leaders for provoking the clash. These public figures must take care to avoid stating views or using language (such as the term “Islamofascism”) that exacerbate misunderstanding.
The question, then, is: what can be done? Dialogue is meaningful only if it is result-oriented, Ambassador Akram insisted. In Pakistan, President Musharraf has proposed a policy of “Enlightened Moderation” to bolster development and improve education with the help of the West, while at the same time aiming to address the root causes of the Muslim-Western divide, namely the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Beyond this strategy in Pakistan, there must be concerted action on three fronts. First, within both the Islamic and Western worlds, steps must be taken to improve education about “the other” through schools and the media. Second, the West must commit to address the North/South economic asymmetry by helping the Islamic world gain greater access to trade, finance, and technology. Third, unless there is genuine political will at the international level to resolve gnawing issues in Palestine and other places Muslims feel injustice, then all talk will be circular. It is incumbent upon the Islamic world that any strides toward peace include the normalization of relations with Israel and comprehensive action to address problems of terrorism. Ambassador Akram concluded by citing the Alliance of Civilizations as a good platform for institutionalized dialogue and to foster joint universities, training of diplomats and professors, and combined initiatives in civil society.
.
Back to the top.
Recent Event ...
Launch Event of Conference Report of Bridging the Divide Between the United States and the Muslim World through Arts and Ideas: Possibilities and Limitations.
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
