"Conference About Who Speaks for Islam and Who Speaks for the West"

The Mirror, December 6, 2006

New York

By Tahira Muhammad

At a recent forum held at NYU, diplomats and ambassadors came together to summarize the conclusions that were raised at February’s convention held in Malaysia entitled, Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West? The convention was an effort to try to bridge the growing gap between the both the Western Nations and the Islamic World. Many of the perceptions of the west by Islamic Nations have been poisoned by both politics and the media. The forum at NYU was made up of panel speakers Munir Akram, Ambassador of Pakistan to the UN, M. Javad Zarif, Ambassador of Iran to the UN, Karen Pierce Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Lisa Anderson Dean of Columbia University’s School of International Affairs and Isobel Coleman Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at of the Council on Foreign Relations. Each member of the panel was given the opportunity of ten minutes to give their feedback on the conference and give their input on what could be done to improve the relationships between the Islamic World and the West. Brother Mustapha Tlili, a member of Dialogues, the organization who hosted the conference opened up the panel discussion with various key points. “The need for mutual understanding between the west and the Islamic world is now more prominent then ever,” he stated. He introduced the discussion with asking the various panel members “Who is qualified to speak on behalf of the west and who is qualified to speak on behalf of Islam?”

Lisa Anderson expressed her viewpoints on how the media plays a role in the dialogue factor. Oftentimes the media will amplify both the stereotypes and the voice of the extremists views, and ignore the middleman voices or viewpoints. This creates a huge problem in the dialogue process, because then each side judges the other based upon what they see in the media. A Muslim living in another country who has never visited America only gets to see the side of America and the soldiers in which they have a conflict with. An American who knows nothing about Islam or has never been in contact with an American Muslim only sees the extreme of the behavior of terrorists and suicide bombers.

Ambassador Munir Akram agreed with Ms. Anderson, but emphasized that he felt the root of the problems lies on the various political issues. “The factors lie in between the real causes and the perceptional causes and sometimes the two melt together.” He brought up the examples on how the West has played a major role in the suppression of Muslims such as Palestine and Isreal, Kashmir, and both the recent Iraq and Lebanon wars. Not to also mention the crises in African nations such as Sudan. He mentioned that there has been a great sense of a double standard on the Western Nations and their approach to these issues. He also agreed that the media does not help when it comes trying to make efforts to increase positive dialogue but the media rather obstructs it. “The media has both a political and an emotional agenda which seeks to provoke and feed off of feelings of anger and hatred from the general masses.” He related this to the example of the derogatory Danish cartoon of Prophet Muhammad(saws). “This is also an example of when does the right to exercise Freedom of Speech become abusive.”

Ambassador M. Javad Zarif agreed that dialogue was important but agreeing to disagree was even more important. “I have been a UN representative for almost twenty years and we never actively listen to each other at meetings!!! We wait until the person says one thing and then we pick an argument based on that one thing that person has said” He said that this was an example of how lack of respect for difference in opinion is a big problem amongst decision makers such as government officials and entities. “We cannot have dialogue if we are just talking to ourselves and not each other.” He also stated that it is very important in giving more scrutiny towards who should be involved in the dialogue process. The issue of extremists being perceived as the mainstream voice for both sides does not help to bridge the gap either it just makes problems worse. On the other hand he also pointed out that one major problem is that the west has a monolithic point of view about Islam. “Islam cannot demonize the west and the west cannot demonize Islam we have to overcome these preconceived notions about each other before dialogue can even begin.”

I asked the government officials two questions. The first one was with all the decisions being made by government officials on both the western and the Islamic side where do I fit in as an American Muslim in the dialogue process? The second question was would I as an American Muslim traveling to a predominately Islamic nation, with a US passport be judged on the actions of the American government and the atrocities that they have committed in these nations, or will I be seen first as a Muslim sister? Both the Ambassador Zarif and Ambassador Akram, assured me that I would still be most welcome as an American Muslim traveling to Pakistan and Iran and I would not be judged by the actions of my government. They also stated that dialogue should come from everyone and be open to everyone not just elected officials.

The conference ended with many questions and more food for thought on the realities that are facing ahead with us as American Muslims. I was glad to see that there were efforts being made to have dialogue with Muslims and the Western nations on these issues. My greatest concern is that the common people want change, but are the heads of state willing to listen to the concerns of the common people?

Back to the top.

Press

Donate Now

How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues

Donate

Site Map

Site by Bianchi