Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West?
continued
Isobel Coleman then took the floor, responding first to Ambassador Akram’s comments on the differences between the Muslim and Western narratives about “the other.” Although the generally accepted definition of the Islamic world includes those countries with majority Muslim populations, there is much debate within the West as to how the concept “the West” should be defined. Samuel Huntington defined the West to include Bosnia, for example, but is that the West?
Another debate raging within the West is that over freedom of speech, its limits, and whose voices should be considered legitimate. Efforts to understand the appropriate barriers to freedom of speech are just beginning. Both in the Islamic world and in the West, extreme voices from the other side are held up as mainstream. So how can we determine which voices are legitimate? Coleman recounted an interview she gave to Al Jazeera on the much-publicized case of an Afghan Muslim who had converted to Christianity and faced execution under Afghanistan’s shari‘ah law. Al Jazeera led into its story on the American reaction to the case by citing inflammatory comments that, within the United States, would certainly be dismissed as extremist. Such alarmist coverage only exacerbates the divide; but Coleman acknowledged that the centrist position, although representing the majority, does not play as well in headlines. The problem is that 50 million Muslims rely on Al Jazeera as their news source, yet very few Americans have any idea of how they are being portrayed to Al Jazeera’s predominantly Muslim audience. This is why it is crucial that each side understand the other’s narrative.
Coleman disagreed with Ambassador Akram’s position that the root causes of the Muslim-Western divide are entirely political. Central issues like terrorism and violence in the name of Islam transcend political disputes, although there is no doubt that extremists who would commit these acts are energized by political conflicts.
Isobel Coleman agreed with Ambassador Akram on the need for improved education, especially within the Islamic world. The Middle East has the youngest population of any region in the world; there are global consequences to the type of education these young people receive. Many countries are struggling to provide quality education, not only to train youth with necessary intellectual and vocational skills, but also to teach tolerance, teamwork, and views of “the other” that are compatible with working in a global setting.
In conclusion, Coleman reiterated the need for general dialogue. She referred to the controversy that erupted over former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s comments objecting to the niqab (full-face covering) among Muslim women in Britain. Mr. Straw raised the issue in a way that was trying to be respectful, she believed, and started a conversation that has to happen. Too often we shy away from difficult conversations because of the fear of giving offense. Yet, Coleman insisted, a whole religion should not be out of bounds, and we must continue to look for the appropriate boundaries.
Ambassador M. Javad Zarif spoke next and declared that he intended to be more provocative in his remarks to see how we can engage in dialogue. Ambassador Zarif agreed with the previous speakers that neither side is a monolith, that the media sensationalize the divide, and that extremism reinforces extremism. However, the real question is, do moderates represent each side? We want to believe that they do, he said, but if so, we would not experience the problems we have today.
To avoid the trap of speaking to ourselves, Ambassador Zarif maintained, it is essential that we conduct inclusive dialogue that encompasses different points of view. We must accept differences, including on freedom of expression, and respect diversity. Assimilation is not the answer. We must respect that there is indeed another side, while recognizing that difference need not lead to enmity and clash. Ambassador Zarif expressed his discomfort with the term, “alliance,” because it has within it the concept of exclusion. We must engage in a paradigm shift, he said, by changing our mentality from that of alliance to that of dialogue.
Ambassador Zarif insisted that there is a learning procedure to dialogue consisting of several steps. First, both sides must have self-respect. Neither Muslims nor Westerners should start from the point that what each represents must conform to certain agreed values. Second, both sides must be prepared to learn and listen. Third, we must all be willing to try to look at ourselves through the eyes of others. This is an important beginning for understanding because only by stepping outside of ourselves can we uncover assumptions and begin to examine them. Only after all these steps have been accomplished should we consider our commonalities—that huge pool of shared experiences that bind humanity together.
Ambassador Zarif concluded by quoting from the resolution on the Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in November 2001, urging that now is the time to implement it:
Dialogue among civilizations is a process between and within civilizations, founded on inclusion, and a collective desire to learn, uncover and examine assumptions, unfold shared meaning and core values and integrate multiple perspectives through dialogue.1
Ambassador Karen Pierce was the final panelist to take the floor, and she remarked that following Ambassador Zarif is a difficult act, as his remarks reflect the opinion of many British people as well as Iranians. Ambassador Pierce opened by responding to some of the remarks made by previous panelists with regard to the causes of the tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds. She observed that although globalization ought to be bringing societies closer together, economic discrepancies are instead pulling us apart. As for the colonial legacy, from the British perspective, the colonial heritage is a terrible thing. There is an enormous suspicion toward Great Britain, especially from former colonial subjects, many of whom have trouble believing that the British want dialogue based on mutual respect. The challenge is to determine how this legacy can be overcome.
Ambassador Pierce then turned to the issue of freedom of speech versus its limitations. She referred to famous quotations from Voltaire and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., which have both become totemic in Western society, despite their different approaches to the question of freedom of speech.2 She then cited the British philosopher John Locke who drew a distinction between giving offense to others and causing harm. Ambassador Pierce said that she sees the distinction, but understands how others in the world may not feel this difference. There is a deficit in modern education, she said, when students are not introduced to different philosophical trends that can help us understand why differences exist and how to overcome them.
Ambassador Pierce conceded to the charge of Western double standards. It is clear, she said, that Western powers did not do enough to stem the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo—a position generally acknowledged in the West. Why then, she asked, is the violence in Darfur not equally unacceptable? She cautioned that the West must not be fooled by geography into making the same mistake twice.
Ambassador Pierce concluded with a warning against the dangers of well-meaning but ignorant actions to bridge civilizational divides. She recounted her experience working in post-conflict Bosnia in the 1990s when the prevailing wisdom among the donor community led to the creation of separate television stations and separate classrooms for Bosnia’s different ethnic communities. Although this was done with the best of intentions, fifteen years has shown that enormous societal divides result.
Following Ambassador Pierce’s remarks, moderator Lisa Anderson thanked the panelists for their thoughtful comments. Before opening the floor to questions, she briefly elaborated on some of the themes that emerged during the panelists’ remarks. There are important intra-Western debates occurring with regard to freedom of speech and the complexities of deciding where its appropriate limits lie, she said. There seems to be a particularly deep divide between the European Union and the United States, the latter taking a much more absolutist position on what type of speech is allowed. Yet dialogue is predicated on a willingness to entertain novel, even loathsome ideas so as to further understanding. Such ideas are not defeated by suppression and denial but by debate and disputation. Education is impossible without the opportunity to entertain novel ideas.
The first question from the audience was posed by journalist Tahira Muhammad from the newspaper Weekly Mirror International, who asked where the average Muslim fits into this dialogue, given that policy decisions are made by government representatives. Second, she asked, as an American Muslim with a United States passport, how would she be perceived when traveling to Muslim countries?
Ambassador Zarif responded to her first question by saying that dialogue should neither be limited to nor begin with the government. Rather, dialogue should involve individuals from all levels and sectors of society. In response to her second question, Ambassador Zarif assured her that every American is welcome in Iran and the Iranian people differentiate between individuals and the United States government.
Ambassador Akram reiterated that dialogue should be open to everyone and should reflect the diversity of society. There is some concern, he said, about opening dialogue to those who espouse repugnant views, such as advocates of terrorism. On the second question he responded that Americans traveling to Pakistan are always most welcome.
1Article 1 of United Nations General Assembly resolution 56/6, online at http://www.unesco.org/dialogue/en/566.pdf.
2The 18th century French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a staunch defender of free speech, is reputed to have said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the Court’s decision in Schenck v. U.S. (1919) which set limits on the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech, wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”
Back to the top.
Upcoming Event
“Miral: A Palestinian/Israeli Dialogue On and Off Screen”
Film Screening and Panel Discussion
New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts
Thursday, February 2, 2012, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm
(Reception to follow)
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
