Contents

Ideas for a Successful

Dialogue among Civilizations

Dr. Ezzedin Ibrahim(*)

Excellency Dr. Mohamed El Aziz Ben Achour

Excellency Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri

Gentlemen,

As the allotted time is short, I will concentrate in my address on four remarks, derived from this symposium and previous symposia organized by ISESCO on the subject of “Dialogue among Civilizations”, since I had the opportunity to participate in most of them.

The remarks are as follows:

First: simplifying the main cultural terms used in these symposia, especially those requiring eludication and explanation.

Second: on the substance of previous symposia on “dialogue among civilizations” and its connection with the title and content of the present symposium.

Third: on the proposed requirements to really shift civilizations from dialogue to alliance, acording to the objective of this symposium.

Fourth: on a proposal which is essential to ensure continuity and follow up, lest this symosium would be the final one.

First remark:

Two terms of those used in this series of symposia are in non Arabic languages and at least three in Arabic. The disparity in the definition of terms often leads to ambiguity and confusion.

The non Arabic terms are: Culture and Civilization, whereas Arabic terms are: “Alhadara”, “Attaqafa”, and “Almadania” (civilization, culture and urbanism). The problem is raised at the level of definition and translation. The Minister Ben Achour added another term which is “Athaqafa”, with a stress on “q”, as if he reminds us of the original word “thaqafa” (culture) as mentioned in the “muallaqat” (ode) of Amr ibn Kaltum to signify straightening out “the curve of the javelin”. However, its uses have been extended, according to the Arabic uses pointed out by Ibn Jinni, from the material to the moral use. Therefore, any straightening out of intellect or behaviour or action would be “tathqeef” (acculturation).

On the other hand, Mohamed Farid Wajdi, Jurji Zaydan and others used the terms “urbanity” and “urbanism”. May be those who opted for these terms were influenced by Ibn Khaldoun, who was the first to use ‘al-imran almadani”(urban civilization). Ibn Khaldoun stroke a balance between the features of “albadawa” (rural life) and “alhadara” (urban life) after cities were settled, buildings constructed and civilization expanded. Abdelhadi Boutaleb, the Morocan thinker, pointed out to this issue when he quoted in one of his essays a stanza written by Almutanabi about the beauty of the countryside and the city:

The quality of urbanity is artificial,

whereas in bedouin life there is an artless beauty.

In view of the multiplicity of these terms and their meanings, the following question is raised: do these terms have the same connotation or are some of them more general and others more specific as stated by Ms. Khalida Toumi, the Algerian Minister of Culture? The late Ahmed Amine tended to use the term culture, as it is written in his book “Doha al-Islam”. Sayid Yassine, the comtemporary Egyptian thinker, tends to distinguish between civilization and culture when he says: “there is one human civilization and many cultures”.

This interference between the terms “civilization” and “culture” prompted two American researchers, Kroeber and Kluckholm, to write a book about the two terms and ended their book by throwing the reader in a state of confusion!

Anyway, the problem is not so serious, as the Arabs say “no need for controversy about names when their designations are clear”. Therefore, let’s be tolerant with those who consider “civilization” more general than “culture”, as well as with those who consider “culture” more general than “civilization”, provided that the meaning is clear. ISESCO has well done in this symposium when it joined together the two terms under the title of “Dialogue of Civilizations and Cultures”.

After consultation of dictionaries and the books of sociology and anthropology, as well as the most widespread literature, I have modestly concluded that:

- “civilization” is the largest framework that includes everything;

- “culture” is one part of it and focuses on the intellectual, literary and artistic aspects;

- “urbanism” refers to the architectural, practical, and external aspects.

Every one listening to me is free to adopt what he likes, but without error, dispute or omission. Have I managed to elucidate the confusion between the three terms? Or have I rendered them more complicated even, as Koeber and Kluckholm did? Anyway, I wanted to clarify the meanings and call attention to the importance of distinguishing between the different uses of researchers.

Second remark:

President Mohammed Khatami was right when he tried to end the confusion of “the clash of civilizations” by proposing in 1999, on behalf of Iran and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in the General Assembly of the United Nations, to conduct international and regional dialogues under the title of “Dialogue among Civilizations” with a view to fostering mutual acquaintance, understanding, rapprochment and peace among mankind. This led to the proclamation of the year 2001 as “the International Year for Dialogue among Civilizations”. In this regard, UNESCO played an active role on the global level, and ISESCO on the Arab and Islamic level.

We commend ISESCO’s efforts to hold seventh symposia, in addition to this eighth symposium of Tunisia; their titles and dates are as follows:

- 1999: (in Tehran) “Dialogue among Civilizations”;

- 2000: (Berlin) “Dialogue and Coexistence between Civilizations and Cultures”;

- 2001: (Rabat) “Dialogue among Civilizations: Theory and Practice”;

- 2001: (Damascus) “Dialogue among Civilizations for a Peaceful Coexistence”;

- 2001: (Tunisia) “Dialogue among Civilizations: Theory and Practice”.

- 2002: (Liechtenstein) “Dialogue among Civilizations and Cultures for Mutual Acquaintance and Understanding”;

- 2003: (Frankfurt) “Dialogue among Civilizations for Complementarity”.

These symposia have much used the expression “diversity within the framework of unity”. The French thinker Jack Berge used the expression “the cultural mosaic”. His contemporary the French Muslim Roger Garaudy used the expression “symphony of civilizations”. Muslim researchers have similarly pointed out to the verse number 13 of Al Hujurat Chapter of the Holy Quran “... and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another...”

Then, we have been surprised by this symposium organized by ISESCO under the title of “Dialogue among civilizations and cultures: from dialogue to alliance”. I felt from the very beginning that this title tends to be optimistic, and I attributed it to the impact of the beauty of Tunisia on our pioneer in these symposia, Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, whom I know as a refined romantic man of letters and a perspicacious intellectual. I learnt afterward that this title has been jointly coined by other eminent parties that have an influential weight in the political and intellectual arena, such as the Spanish Prime Minister Mr. José Luis Zapatero, and before him the Tunisian President Mr. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali who has previously used it and has some old references in Tunisian traditions to which he pointed out in this symposium’s opening speech. Accordingly, there is a wide agreement on this title which is worth being accepted.

After deep reflection, I think that this step toward alliance is essential and practical at the same time. It is essential in the sense that we can in the name of “alliance” combine the objectives underlying the titles used in previous symposia in one paradigm that considers acquaintance, cooperation, coexistence, complementarity and diversity within the framework of unity as programmes of action to achieve passive communication between human beings in their different civilizations and cultures. On the other hand, it is also practical as in the name of “alliance” we can propose the procedural mechanisms and steps that help turning the dream into a reality and invite theoreticians and decision makers to lead humanity forward toward peace.

Third remark:

It concerns the requirements that should be met to move civilization from the stage of dialogue to alliance. To this end, I think that three conditions need to be fulfilled:

First condition: the necessity of undermining three theories that have become widespread in the last decade and constitute obstacles to alliance. The first is “the end of history” of the American Japanese Fukuyama who sees that humankind has ended up in one last option, which is the liberal capitalism, after the demise -in his opinion- of the competing options, such as communism. Then, comes Samuel Huntington’s theory “clash of civilizations”, which claims that the future clashes would be among civilizations, starting with the clash of the Western civilization with the Islamic civilization, then with the Confucian civilization of China. The last assumption is the use of “terrorism” to attain political and social interests. It originates from various sources in Northern Europe, Latin America, Spain, some Islamic countries and the Far East.

Concerning the allegation stating that history has reached its end and humanity has stopped in the stage of liberal capitalism, it is invalidated by the fact that man’s existence is dynamic, innovative and experimental in its nature. Therefore, it cannot stop at a specific stage; otherwise, this would be a kind of stagnation leading to extinction. Actually, “liberal capitalism” is not adopted or accepted in some Asian countries that are about to become a global pole, if we can say so. It is rejected through a democratic vote in Latin America, and some countries privilege the third way between socialism and capitalism. They accept liberalism, but with some cultural reservations. There are some serious studies today about the internal erosion of capitalism and the necessity of subjecting democracy and its polititical framework to correction and improvement in light of cultural diversity and peoples’ experiences in the last decade.

Concerning the theory of “clash”, its justifications and claims are very weak compared to the calls for peace. Scientists are supposed to lay their theories, especially those leading to wars and destruction, on true facts and to be keen on providing solutions to avoid the lurking dangers. They have to incite on mutual understanding between civilizations instead of clash and conflict, bearing in mind that civilizations do not provoke war but it is the states who resort to them according to the interests at stake. Hence, the recent war that broke out in Iraq was not the result of a civilizational animosity between the West and Islam, but because Western countries imagined that Iraq possessed the weapons of mass destruction that can be used within 45 minutes and can be directed toward the United States that are thousands miles far from the Middle East. Then, they came to a conclusion, when it was too late, that the specter of weapons of mass destruction was merely a fallacious illusion. It has been also confirmed that Iraq did not have the intention to deprive the West from oil, which is the strategic product of Iraqi economy and a commercial product sold in international markets without reservations.

Concerning the use of “terrorism”, it is a fanatic vision that is harming its perpetrators rather than serving their interests. With the exception of the resistance of oppressed people against aggression and occupation, which is a legitimate self-defence in all legislations, terrorism directed against civilians living in peace and exercising their daily activities, commercial, tourist or other, is a crime bannned by all faiths and laws. The worst error is when terrorism perpetrated by individuals is faced with another terrorism undertaken by states under the name of “the war on terror”. The cycle of evil should be fought and terrorism committed by individuals should be combatted by laws. In this regard, international organizations have to establish justice between countries and peoples and prevent individual and state terrorism.

Second condition: civilizations should adopt all the calls that have been expressed before: acquaintance, mutual understanding, cooperation, complementarity and peaceful coexistence.

Acquaintance and mutual understanding are enshrined in the sacred message of the Holy Quran “... and (We) made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another...” .The use of causality here is not meant to justify the creation of mankind into nations and tribes, but means that human beings were created to know one another in their nature and for their own benefit, even if they are divided in the aforementioned way. Moveover, Iran has well done when it held dialogue with ancient civilizations (Egyptian, Greek, Indian and Chinese) that are often forgotten. The Western civilizations had in fact stood on the foundations of ancient overlapping civilizations which Arabs and Muslims absorbed and improved, then transferred to Europe through Spain and the Mediterranean.

Complementarity constitutes the comprehensive “civilizational symphony” of mankind. As musical symphony is constituted of “movements”, the comprehensive universal civilization is also composed of “cultures” and “specificities” that cannot be ignored and ought to be preserved. Since humanity agrees on the “generalities”, there would be no harm if it disagrees on “details and particularities”.

Cooperation unites visions to face the challenges, and strengthens mutual assistance between civilizations. The USSR stood alone in sending Gagarin to space in 1960; then, the United States of America stood alone in launching Apollo programme in 1961. Nevertheless, the civilizational maturity has been achieved only when space shuttle missions were constituted of multinational astronauts in recent years.

Peaceful coexistence is the only framework which is convenient for human beings’ existence. We wish that the latter would reconcile among themselves as they are living in our extremely tiny globe in comparison with the extremely huge universe that mankind is sounding out and knows that he is “a tiny celestial body in this huge universe”. The world has experienced wars throughout history, for many years and some times for many decades, and experienced the Roses and nuclear bomb wars. It experienced the walls and the borders between communities, starting from China’s Great Wall to Roman walls in Europe, and from Berlin’s Wall to Sharon’s wall. The world experienced Machiavellic fake alliances that lasted for a while and not for ever. Man has enjoyed relief only when he opted for the peaceful coexistence through the governmental international organizations and local-community organizations that adopt dialogue and peaceful negotiations in their way of dealing with countries, nations, and civilizations. This option has been the subject of these symposia.

Third condition: alliance has to be fruitful and not only a “laudatory speech” between civilizations, despite the necessity of this “laud” as a first step. Civilizations have to work to counter the challenges facing mankind and find the appropriate solutions for them.

We have to stop the ferocious war led against “nature”, through disclosed and undisclosed nuclear tests. The outrageous calamity is not limited to the probability that Iran and North Korea might succeed in what is believed they are conducting, but the big mess lies in accumulating arsenals, on land and in sea, of launchable weapons, and conducting improvement, magnification and diminution experiments, in the East and the West and even in the Middle East, in Israel. We have to stop the causes of global warming that has been scientifically proved to contribute, in addition to other elements harmful to nature, in the disturbance of seas, wild lands, and the depths. We suffered from the Tsunami in Asia, tornadoes in America, desertification and draught in Africa, and earthquakes and cleavages everywhere in the world.

Poverty, starvations and foreign debts, which cannot be paid, exhausting poor countries, are among the big challenges facing humanity. Meetings have been held by governments, especially in the most industrialized countries, called “G8”, and jointly between governments and civil institutions, that meet in Davos in Switzerland which require of the participating institution a minimum turnover of one billion dollars.

I think that the one-million gathering in the gardens of Scotland and others, in reply to the invitation of the British singer Bob Geldof, had the most influential effect. It acted as a loud speaker for poor and starving people of Niger, Uganda, Somalia, Eritrea, and others, whose voices are not heard. The allied civilizations have to adopt the motto loudly expressed by these gatherings: “Make Poverty History”.

The allied civilizations have to face a long list of challenges, including: the achievement of development in underprivileged societies; providing science, technology and information technology; combating epidemics and diseases; providing medical care and treatment worldwide; protecting human rights and women; and establishing justice and international law in international institutions and protecting them from the hegemony of superpowers, and others, as reiterated in many reform-oriented and futuristic writings. Therefore, we have to meet the three aforementioned conditions; otherwise, our call to “alliance” will be a mere wishful thinking and an illusionary mirage.

Fourth remark:

I conclude my speech with the fourth remark concerning the required mechanisms to promote dialogue among civilizations at all levels, especially the level of ambition to achieve alliance.

The required mechanisms are numerous and their implementation hinges on governments and peoples alike, international organizations, and civil society bodies. The first of these mechanisms is establishing a follow-up system representing civilizations and stakeholders. In this regard, I can but call for the establishment of a system for coordination, reminding, and incitement. If the influential powers in the world, on the political and economic level, have agreed on setting up “G8”, as a comprehensive political system and “Davos” for economic issues, why not creating a similar body to promote alliance and dialogue among civilizations.

From ISESCO’s present symposium, held in Tunisia, I call for the establishment of this body and I suggest inaugurating its headquarters in “Rabat”, where ISESCO is based, or in Tunisia as it was the first, as far as I know, to create a university chair about dialogue among civilizations at its main university; or in any other place. We recently heard some news about the desire of some leaders and intellectuals to set up centres for this purpose in Geneva, Paris or others.

Finally, I implore Allah, Who alone grants success, to fulfill any of these projects for the benefit of civilizations and humanity worldwide.

(*) Cultural Advisor in the Ministry of Presidential Affairs, the United Arab Emirates.

Publications of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

-ISESCO- 1428H/2007 A.D