Contents

Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations:

Premises and Prospects

Dr. Mohamed Al Mokhtar Ould Bah(*)

There has been much talk about the dialogue among cultures these days and many attempts have been made to manage it and to pinpoint the concepts related to its content and to the parties involved. The treatment of the issue sways between two approaches: one advocating dialogue, its crucial character, its literature and its multiple virtues, and another arguing for the inevitability of a clash of civilisations. More explicitly, the first view is held by a party trying to appease some confrontations through negotiations with the aim of building upon a common ground, while at the same time attempting to limit the effects of the subjects of contention. On the other hand, the second approach is represented by a party believing that the clash is a matter of fate, which consequently grids itself to win the battle. In this regard, we ought to try to answer the following questions:

1- What is meant by civilisations and cultures?

2- How did the notion of dialogue emerge; what are the parties involved??

3- What are the expected goals of dialogue?

4- What results has dialogue brought in?

5- What about the future?

1- Civilisations and Cultures

I should like to recall that the answer to this question was given in a number of academic studies and debates. All these studies agree that history has witnessed a large number of civilizations associated with well-known nations and peoples. Among these are the Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Islamic and modern Western civilizations respectively. Each of these civilisations incorporates all the achievements of these nations in science, industry, arts and religious and moral values. The succession of these prosperous civilisations has made it possible for the later ones to benefit from the legacy of their predecessors, to such an extent that we could talk of a global civilisation bearing the contribution of all nations.

Culture, on the other hand, is used to describe a single nation. It consists of the specific characteristics of a nation’s civilisation and the process of its making. When it is associated with individuals, culture may designate the possession of knowledge with the capability of developing it. Furthermore, describing individuals as civilised suggests they are aware of the need to coexist with others and to treat them well. A full-fledged human being is therefore one who combines knowledge and civilised behaviour.

This behaviour comprises a set of human values, namely the preservation of religion, life, intellect, procreation, religion and dignity. These are sacred values in Islam, whose maintenance is a civilizational must and one of the foundations of the Islamic culture. They represent, therefore, a referential framework that prevails in case of confusion, conflict or divergence.

It is noteworthy that these values are not considered as such by Muslims alone. In fact, scholars believe such ideals are common to all religions. They fall under the principle of reciprocal knowledge, and "holding to Allah’s rope", as provided for by the Quran, which also calls on all believers to be understanding, and to help one another in righteousness and piety, not in sin and rancour, and urges all human beings to be tolerant and merciful to each other. In this respect, there is a famous hadith in which the Prophet said: “have mercy on those who are on Earth, you shall enjoy the mercy of He Who is in heavens; the merciful among you will verily enjoy the mercy of the Most Merciful.”

2- The Parties concerned with Dialogue

The answer to this question suggests a confrontation between the West -representing the modern civilisation, and aiming to impose its culture through globalisation– and the Islamic World, which tries to secure a foothold in the realm of modernity without forsaking its cultural authenticity.

It would be unfair to mention the scientific and technological progress of the western civilisation without evoking the backwardness of the Islamic world owing to the fact that its peoples have failed to adopt adequate educational programmes, to fulfil the vital objectives of solidarity and accord and to overcome the situation created and aggravated by the western occupation. However, the differences between these two civilisations should not entitle western leaders to claim a civilizational supremacy in terms of material welfare since the balance would certainly change should we take spiritual values into account.

While my aim is not to stigmatise the western, theoretical human values, I would like, however, to make some remarks on their field of implementation. The West has produced the declaration on human rights providing for the freedom of cult, political choice and ownership as well for equality before justice and democratic government. These values, were, in fact, brought by the French revolution and developed to be subsequently adopted by the United Nations which gave them a universal look. However, their implementation is marred by discrimination among human beings. Indeed, these values originate in Ancient Greek laws that bestowed full rights on citizens but denied them to aliens and slaves.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of World War II, the European civilisation has fallen under the sway of the American dominion after the USA saved Europe from the Nazi coalition during the war and helped with its economic take-off under the famous Marshal Plan. America then developed communication links with Europe through the NATO and in the realm of the anticommunist struggle. But NATO’s raison d’être soon faded with the fall of the Soviet Union. As such America cast its dominion over western civilisation leaving the Old Continent tottering with timid attempts to assert a few cultural differences.

Through globalisation, America is seeking a uniform model of civilisation and modernisation, according to its own perspective that considers its general experience as the best pattern to be adopted by humanity. This view was summed up by the French leader, Michel Rocard, in a paper to a colloquium held in Rabat on dialogue, wherein he said: “(..) the American cultural imperialism is inherent in America’s vast land, diverse resources and stable security. America has developed an imperialistic way of thinking as represented by the current President, George W. Bush. After it had solved the problem of slavery, it launched an efficient yet whitewashed cleansing campaign against the Indian natives. Rocard’s view had been expressed earlier by Marc Augé who summed it up in the theory of the President’s assistant, State Secretary Henry Kissinger who said: “the economic and political interest of America resides in the use of English as a world language, and in asserting the acknowledged values of America as a reference”

The same conception was taken up by State Secretary Colin Powel in his initiative dubbed the Middle East Project. Among the objectives of this initiative is an American-style political reform combined with a liberalisation of the economy and an educational reform privileging girls’ education and whose curricula are to be patterned on the American model.

It is no surprise that such ideas favouring top-imposed agendas exclude dialogue which seeks understanding and consensus, although dialogue has always been the most civilised way to solve disputes throughout history.

3- The Idea of Dialogue

Dialogue among civilisations has always existed and had different objectives and forms. One of its oldest examples in the Islamic context documented in the Quran through the famous argumentation, when Allah revealed to his messenger the following verses: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than Allah.” The Holy Quran has thus laid down the rules of dialogue among religions. It basically stipulates that debate should be handled “in ways that are best and most gracious” and that the main rule should be the oneness of Allah, and the pursuit of knowledge and tolerance among human beings.

The key objective of dialogue as such was the pursuit of truth along with evidence on it. In the history of Islam, a movement of dialogue evolved among Muslims themselves, which pushed scholars to organize it into what was known as the rules of Munadharah (two-party debate) based on the principles of theology and jurisprudence. The main rule had it that the parties to the debate agree on basic principles, determine the ways of argumentation, evaluate analysis and exclude offence. It was natural that tolerance should prevail in such debates among coreligionists, which was well expressed by Imam Al Shafi’i who said: “I believe that my opinion is right, but bears possible wrongness; and that the opinion of my opponent is wrong, but bears possible rightness.” Furthermore, Muslim scholars believed that any opinion showing signs of intolerance was considered as contrary to the rules. In the 2nd century A.H. Muslim-Christian intellectual confrontation ran high. A case in point was that of Yahya Dimashqi and his opponents. Such debates were among the most intense and took place under the rule of Islam. They were firmly regulated as each party tries to shake its opponent’s convictions. However, in those debates, tolerance and the freedom of expression prevailed and Muslim interlocutors, with their strong faith, showed an easy-going attitude as to the contemptuous statements of their opponents.

In this respect, poet Al Akhtal Al Thaghlibi says:

I never fasted Ramadan in my life

And I’ve never eaten immolation meat

Nor did I stand like others

To call for dawn prayers

I’ll rather drink it (wine) fresh

And sleep at the crack of dawn

Non Muslims had, thus, the right to express themselves freely. And the State was keen to protect the nation’s unity against the rebellion of the Kharijites, and the danger of those who preached Nadiqa. Furthermore, at times, Sunnite Muslims were adamant about the rejection of the theory of the creation of Quran. In spite of all that, intellectual tolerance remained the key word in the Islamic State. It was never reported that Ahmed Sulaimane Al Maari was ever subject to any persecution for his subversive thoughts, even as he said:

Christians and Hanifah (Muslims) have gone astray

Just like the Jews of Hira and the magus

The world is made of two factions:

One having intellect but no religion;

The other is religious with no intellect.

4- Today’s Dialogue

These were the advantages and drawbacks of the situation in the past. So what about the current situation?

For decades after direct colonisation was over and the crusades confined to history, and with the advent of the communication revolution, Arabs and Europeans organised a number of meetings for dialogue. A large number of these meetings were organised by and held in the countries of the Arab Maghreb, such as Tunisia and Libya. Intensive contacts were also initiated by Morocco and Algeria with Europe, with the participation of Arab universities and parliaments. However, everybody was astounded at the drumbeat in the United States of America on the clash of civilisations.

Many were astonished by this call and gave it multiple interpretations, ranging from an attempt by the West to create a new enemy to defeat as it did with communism, to a desire of the United States to shape the world into the American style. Some suspected a Zionist input in it reflecting the opinions of the neoconservatives whose influence on the American administration is very remarkable. But, what counts more here is the reaction of the Islamic World.

All Muslim thinkers have come to the conclusion that this call targets Islamic faith and the civilisation of Muslims. So how was their reaction to it? I think that the Islamic society was divided into two blocks. One overcome by despair after having realised the truth of the deceptive promises and the coercive practices of the West, and, on the other hand, the majority of Muslim leaders who, notwithstanding their strong opposition to the call for confrontation, refused to resort to the means prohibited by Islam and its clear teachings enjoining for the respect of the other and prohibiting aggression against sanctities. This party responded by resorting to dialogue among civilisations, in a civilised and calm manner, the aim being mutual understanding and tolerance, and the settlement of problems through peaceful negotiations. Thus came the Tehran Declaration in December 1997, adopted by the Summit of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the OIC Member States in 1999. The Declaration was subsequently adopted in October by the Standing Committee on Culture and Information and later on in December by the Islamic Summit.

The leaders of the Islamic countries, especially the former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, exerted continuous efforts to bring this viewpoint before the United Nations, which ultimately adopted it, and declared 2001 a year of dialogue. Meetings, colloquia, declarations and calls followed in Berlin, Rabat, Lichtenstein and Damascus thanks to the action of ISESCO in this direction. One of these meetings was held in New York with the participation of ten heads of State, eight of whom were Muslims. The meeting was also attended by six foreign ministers, including three Muslims.

5- The Outcome

Unfortunately, these efforts yielded no results. The cause of this failure is threefold:

a) The United States, which has become the only international superpower, did not provide a clear definition of the principles of such dialogue, nor has it worked effectively to ensure its success. Worse even, the U.S administration leans much more towards the theory of the clash of civilisations, considering that most of the countries taking part in this dialogue harbour terrorism and reject the principles of democracy and human rights, which according to the USA view undermines its own security and threatens its vital interests. Therefore, it decided to make use of pressure and power, and even a pre-emptive war when applicable, to deal with the issue.

b) Extremists in the Islamic World embraced the American theory. They thought the West had no credibility, excluding any possibility of a common ground of mutual understating with it. To justify their stance, they often refer to America’s constant support to the occupation of Palestine, its huge aids to Israel, and its endeavour to tighten its grip on oil resources. These theories have been concentrated in policies drawing on the experience of Afghan fighters in their American-backed anti-Soviet war.

Amidst these events befell the 9/11 tragedy dealing a heavy blow to dialogue and a new world where extremism is given credibility on both sided, thus giving force precedence over peace.

c) The consequences of 9/11 on the Islamic World were the same as those created by the invasion of Kuwait. The United States waged its so called war on terrorism, starting from Afghanistan, then moving on to Iraq in its presumable attempt to eradicate terrorism, to destroy weapons of mass destruction in rogue States and to spread democracy in the Middle East. Observers can see whether these declared objectives were reached in this destructive war depicted as fair in America, and legal in Britain.

It is lamentable that superpowers endeavour to legitimise destructive wars, turn a blind eye on the root causes of violence and the ensuing hatred, resentment and despair that feed terrorism. This was well depicted by the Spanish Prime Minister as he said: “the seeds of evil grow when sowed in the soil of tyranny, poverty, frustration and despair, as much as they could not grow on the firm rocks of justice, freedom and decent life.” If the West, which dominates the world of science and money, ponders about the hunger, illness and tyranny the peoples are enduring on this earth, it would realise the reasons behind the propagation of terrorism, and the impossibility of eradicating it with force. It would also understand that democracy alone is not a priority for those whose gains are beneath one dollar a day. It might also understand that the possibility of countering terrorism with much more efficient and less costly methods lays simply in dealing with these root causes fed by inequality, oppression and egoism.

At the end, we need to question the usefulness of such dialogue, its results, and its future prospects, bearing in mind that intercultural dialogue would merely take the form of colloquia bringing together intellectuals to discuss theoretical viewpoints with no impact on the spheres of decision making. Furthermore, dialogue as such might have purely cultural purposes; this is the belief held by several western bodies, arguing that the Orientalist literature is a striking example in this regard. Dr. Bernard Flügel, chairman of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation said in a preface to a Nudelk’s book on the history of the Quran: “supporting dialogue among cultures is the major focus of efforts exerted under our international cooperation programmes centered around the values, foundations and objectives of thought, while also focusing on the different approaches to the current problems and on building a common future.”

My aim here is not to play down the importance of cultural dialogue, or to say that its advocators can only run a stream of words in the “desert land” of thought; an opinion which I strongly oppose. I believe that good-mannered dialogue has an efficient value, and I nurture the hope that it would yield its fruits in today’s fear-haunted world. However, the power of the word can give a result only if dialogue is comprehensive, touching on the political issues that shake our world and trigger armed conflicts and their trail of extinction and ruin, as well as on the economic issues which have divided the world into two blocks –a block of the poor who endure poverty and penury, and a block of the rich who amass colossal fortunes in banks and whose prosperity hinges upon serving the debts of the poor, and the environmental chaos that threatens planet Earth and its inhabitants. The word “alliance” could, indeed, hold a spark of hope for those who believe strongly in dialogue, provided this alliance does not turn into a new round in the “dialogue process”.

Thank you.

Wassalamu Alaïkum wa Rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuh.

(*) President of the University of Chinguetti, Islamic Republic of Mauritania. Former OIC Secretary General.

- This paper is distributed at the Symposium.

Publications of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

-ISESCO- 1428H/2007 A.D