Who Speaks For Islam Report

7/29/2019 Who Speaks For Islam Report

1/132

WHO SPEAKS FOR ISLAM?

WHO SPEAKS FOR THE WEST?


2/132

A program of New York University, Dialogues: Islamic

World-U.S.-The West emerged from the tragedy of

September 11th, 2001, which highlighted the need for

greater communication among and about the United

States, Europe, and the Muslim world. The program

was founded as a forum for constructive debate betweenthe various religious, intellectual, economic, and

political sectors of American, European, and Islamic

societies. Dialogues brings contentious issues between

the Islamic world and the West into a more rational

plane and promotes this approach to a wide audience

that includes the important constituencies of policy

and decision makers, policy analysts, the media, and

educational institutions.

Dialogues is committed to a number of academic,

policy, and outreach activities, including conferences

on a variety of topics of critical importance todaytheclash of perceptions, elections, the nature of

authority in the Islamic world and in the West,

Muslims in the West, the role of the media, and

education, among othersthat result in the develop-

ment of policy recommendations. Our conferences

are based on solid scholarly background material and

bring together policy analysts, policy makers,

scholars, religious leaders, business and nongovern-

mental organization leaders, and media decision

makers, with the goal of altering public perceptions

and effecting policy change. In addition, findings

from the program are published as policy papers aswell as in book form and are disseminated to educa-

tional institutions worldwide for use by students,

faculty, and researchers. Moreover, Dialogues is

creating a network of leaders who will continue to

communicate with and consult one another formally

and informally for years to comea valuable network

for negotiating peace in times of crisis. Ultimately,

dialogue should extend to the general population,

thus allowing the widest possible scope of participa-

tion and expression.

ABOU

T

DIALOGUES

Cover: Arches at Tin Mal mosque,

Morocco (c. 1156)

Photo: Kim Zumwalt


3/132

WHO SPEAKS FOR

ISLAM?WHO SPEAKS FOR

THE WEST?

Report of the Conference organized by

Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S.-The West

in cooperation with

the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 10-11, 2006

Funded by the governments of Malaysia, the United Kingdom, and France; the

MacArthur Foundation; and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund

REMARQUE INSTITUTENEW YORK UNIVERSITY


4/132

ii

WH O S P E AK S FO R IS L A M ?

WH O S P E AK S FO R TH E W EST?

Copyright 2006 by Dialogues:

Islamic World-U.S.-The West.All rights

reserved. No part of this publication

may be used or reproduced in any manner

whatsoever without written permission

except in the case of brief quotations

embodied in critical articles and reviews.

For more information, address

Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S.-The WestRemarque Institute

Faculty of Arts and Science

New York University

194 Mercer Street, 4th Floor

New York, NY, 10012-1502


5/132

iii

CONTENTS

Directors Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Message from Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General . . . . . . . . . x

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Opening Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Session IImproving Mutual Perception Through the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Session IIThe Impact of Globalization on the Muslim World. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Session IIIThe Challenges Posed by Science and

Technology to the Muslim-Western Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Session IVWhat Is the Future Framework for the

Muslim-Western Relationship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Closing Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Notes to Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendix I: Conference Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Appendix II: List of Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix III: Mustapha Tlilis Opening Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Appendix IV: Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawis Keynote Address . . . 52

Appendix V: Background PaperWho Speaks for Islam? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Appendix VI: Background PaperWho Speaks for the West? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88


6/132

The conference Who Speaks for Islam?

Who Speaks for the West? represented

more than two-and-a-half years of sub-

stantive and administrative preparations,

during which time Dialoguesstaff refined

the core intellectual concepts behind the

conference, drafted and translated back-

ground materials, liaised with the

government of host country Malaysia,

and continued to raise funds.

Evolution of the Conference Theme

The original idea for the conference

emerged from a recommendation at

Dialoguesfirst international conference,

Clash of Civilizations or Clash of

Perceptions? in Granada, Spain, in

October 2002. Most participants felt

that questions central to defining Islam

required further discussion.1 Many

participants felt strongly that the intra-

Islamic debate should take precedence

over the cross-cultural debate. It was thus

suggested that a conference be held that

would invite Muslims of conservative,

modernist, Islamist, and secular thought

to sit together to discuss their views on the

nature of religious authority. This task

was considered especially important at a

time when the official ulama (religiousscholars) appear to be under attack, in

part from youth and women, and when

radical fundamentalists are attempting to

establish their own religious monopolies.

The Granada participants believed that

iv

DIRECTORS PREFACE


7/132

v

this debate could well help foster a valu-

able exchange of opinions within the

Muslim world, which was regarded, in

turn, as an integral step toward achieving

wider dialogue with the West. But it soon

became clear that the question of who

speaks for Islam begs its counterpart:

who speaks for the West? This new

dimension of the debate reflected the

confusion in the West that mirrors the

confusion in the Muslim world with

regard to the sources of authority. Dia-

logues thus adopted a two-prongedconference theme, questioning both

Muslim and Western systems of legiti-

macy, not only for the sake of taking a

balanced approach, but also with an eye

toward advancing the quest for under-

standing between Islam and the West.

Over the course of the two-and-a-half

years of planning, the conceptual prem-

ise of the conference was continually

refined through exchanges with various

thinkers and policy makers in the United

States, Europe, and the Muslim world,

including at a preparatory committee

convened in Amman, Jordan, on

December 6-7, 2004, and hosted and

chaired by His Royal Highness Prince El

Hassan bin Talal. Our most sincere grat-itude goes to His Royal Highness for his

generosity and his steadfastness on behalf

of the cause of peace and understanding

between the Muslim world and the West.

Background Material

In keeping with Dialogues tradition of

grounding its conferences in solid schol-

arly research, its staff assembled two

working groups to draft background

papersone on Who Speaks for Islam?

and the other on Who Speaks for the

West? The papers are meant to offer

analytical, politically neutral surveys of

those who claim to speak with authority

in either world and thereby offer a foun-

dation for debate among the conferenceparticipants in Kuala Lumpur. Over a

two-year period, the papers were drafted

and revised with the objective of produc-

ing the most accurate, comprehensive,

and informative documents that the pro-

gram could produce with its resources.

The papers were translated from English

into Arabic, and both versions were made

available to the participants prior to the

conference. In addition to Mustapha

Tlili; Shaanti Kapila, Dialogues special

assistant; and Shara Kay, Dialogues

editorial consultant, the Islam working

group was also composed of Hassan

Abedin of the Oxford Centre for Islamic

Studies and Mohammed Ayoob, Uni-

versity Distinguished Professor ofInternational Relations at James Madi-

son College, Michigan State University.

The West team included Lisa Ander-

son, dean of Columbia Universitys

School of International and Public


8/132

vi

Affairs; Tony Judt, Erich Maria Remar-

que Professor in European Studies and

director of the Remarque Institute

at New York University; and Scott Mal-

comson, journalist and author. Our

thanks go to all of them for their unspar-

ing efforts in pursuit of accurate

knowledge, clarity of expression, and

elegance of style.

Liaising with the

Malaysian Government

We came to an early decision that the

conference should be held in a non-

Arab, majority-Muslim country, and in

September 2003, I met with the then-

prime minister of Malaysia, Dr.

Mahathir Mohammed, and proposed

that the Malaysian government serve as

host and cosponsor. As a centrist, plu-

ralist, multicultural democratic country

with a majority-Muslim population,

Malaysia seemed a fitting choice.

Although Dr. Mahathir strongly sup-

ported the idea and agreed in principle

to host the conference, Abdullah Ahmad

Badawi replaced him as prime minister

on October 31, 2003, and the govern-

ments decision was thus not formallydelivered until January 2005. Although

the Institute Kefahaman Islam Malaysia

(IKIM) was initially designated by the

Malaysian government as the cosponsor

organization in 2004, in September

2005, the Malaysian government turned

over local responsibility for the confer-

ence to the Institute of Diplomacy and

Foreign Relations Malaysia (IDFR), an

agency within the Malaysian Ministry of

Foreign Affairs that provides formal

training to Malaysian foreign service

officers. IKIM Chairman Tan Sri Dato

Ahmad Sarji bin Abdul Hamid and IDFR

Director Fauziah Mohd Taib, as well as

her colleagues, deserve our most sincere

thanks.

Fund-Raising

Fund-raising is always essential to suc-

cessful conference planning. Generous

annual contributions from the Rocke-

feller Brothers Fund in 2004 and 2005

enabled Dialogues to undertake initial

steps, including the drafting of back-

ground papers, the convening of the

preparatory committee, and planning

missions to Kuala Lumpur. With the

formal approval of the Malaysian govern-

ment to host the conference secured in

January 2005, Dialogues stepped up

fund-raising efforts. In addition to

Malaysias important financial support,

significant contributions from the For-eign and Commonwealth Office of the

United Kingdom, the MacArthur Foun-

dation, and the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of France enabled Dialogues to

convene the conference in February 2006.


9/132

vii

To all of these supporters we say thank

you, and we hope that this report shows

the importance and far-reaching effects

of your contributions.

Context of the Conference

Two weeks before the conference was

convened, the world witnessed the erup-

tion of an international crisis prompted

by a Danish newspapers publication of

satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet

Muhammad.

On September 30, 2005, Denmarks

largest circulation and historically right-

wing newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, printed

12 drawings of the Prophet Muhammad,

including one showing him wearing a

turban shaped like a bomb and another

showing him with devil horns. On Octo-

ber 19, a delegation of ambassadors from

Muslim countries posted in Denmark

attempted to meet with Danish Prime

Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to dis-

cuss the issue. The prime minister rejected

the request on the grounds that the gov-

ernment could not interfere in a free

speech issue. Frustrated by the lack of

response, a delegation of Danish Muslimleaders traveled to Cairo to present the

matter to the scholars of Al Azhar

University, a theological institution

renowned throughout the Muslim world

as an authority on Islamic faith and prac-

tice. Meanwhile, as the controversy was

building, a Norwegian publication, Mag-

azinet, reprinted some of the images on

January 10, 2006.

The cartoons offended millions of Mus-

lims around the world who perceived a

willful violation of the proscription on

visual depictions of the Prophet, exacer-

bated by the linking of Islam with

terrorism. With further reprintings, the

controversy became a crisis. On February

1, newspapers in Belgium, France, Ger-many, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland,

including France-Soir, Die Welt, and

Courrier International, reprinted the car-

toons on their front pages as a sign of

solidarity with the Danish paper. On

February 8, the French satirical weekly,

Charlie-Hebdo, published a special issue

with the full set of cartoons, adding new

ones in the same vein.

Numerous demonstrations took place in

early February, with the largest and most

dramatic occurring in Palestine, Syria,

and Lebanon. Subsequently, thousands

of protesters took to the streets in

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt,

France, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia,Mauritania, Morocco, New Zealand,

Pakistan, Qatar, the Sudan, the United

Kingdom, and Yemen. While some

protests were peaceful, others were

violent; 13 people died in total in


10/132

viii

Lebanon and Afghanistan. Danish

embassies were stormed by angry mobs in

Beirut, Tehran, and Damascus. In Saudi

Arabia, Bahrain, and much of the Gulf,

Danish products were boycotted and two

Danish factories were temporarily closed.

The intense reaction around the Muslim

world, coupled with equally intense reac-

tions among European populations,

made the issue a top international news

item, with politicians and heads of state

called on to weigh in with their opinions.Several Western leaders expressed their

strong commitment to freedom of the

press while noting the need to exercise such

liberty with care. U.S. President George

W. Bush, for instance, stated that with

freedom comes the responsibility to be

thoughtful about others. 2 In France,

President Jacques Chirac denounced all

manifest provocations that might dan-

gerously fan passions.3 In Vienna, the

then-president of the European Union,

Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel of Austria,

condemned the spiral of reciprocal

provocations and insults that fuels the

flames of intolerance.4

The conference took place in the midstof this controversyimmediately after

the embassy burnings in the Levant and

before the major demonstrations in

Afghanistan and Pakistan. The cartoons

affair, which pushed the Muslim and

Western worlds to confront familiar

issues of respect, freedom, and tolerance

in new, concrete circumstances, thus

informed panel debates and lent an added

sense of urgency to the conference.

This report offers the findings of both

our preparatory efforts and the confer-

ence itself. My gratitude goes to

Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohame-

dou, associate director of the Program

on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict

Research at Harvard University; ShaantiKapila, Yale University graduate and spe-

cial assistant at Dialogues; Shara Kay, a

graduate of Harvard University and Dia-

logues editorial consultant; Marisa

Menna, a New York University graduate

and Dialoguesintern; and Andrea Stan-

ton, a doctoral student at Columbia

University, all of whom worked tirelessly

under my supervision to make this report

worthy of your time and consideration.

At this critical moment in the Muslim-

Western encounter, we hope to have

made an informative, provocative, and

useful contribution to the dialogue.

Mustapha Tlili

Founder and Director

Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S.-The West

Remarque Institute

New York University


11/132


12/132

x

I am delighted to send my warmest wishes

to this international conference on Islam

and the West.

We all are aware that this is a time of

sharply increasing intolerance, extrem-

ism, and violence, which have strained

relations alarmingly between the Western

and the Muslim worlds. They have exac-

erbated misconceptions about each other

among peoples of Islamic and Judeo-

Christian or secular traditions. There is a

danger that the essential dialogue betweencultures and societies is being reduced to

an angry exchange between the fringes,

with each side assuming that extremists

speak for the other side as a whole and in

turnallowing its own extremists to

frame its own hostile response.

The extremist tendency to divide

humanity into mutually exclusive groups

or categories, and to treat anyone who

tries to cross the dividing lines as a trai-

tor, is one of the greatest threats that we

face in the world today. Muslims have

perhaps suffered most from this ten-

dency, but they have not suffered alone.

Extremist slogans have gained ground in

East and West, inciting misperceptions

and threatening peace and security allover the world.

The truth is that no one voice can claim

to represent an entire faith or a whole

civilization. Nor can any one individual,

MESSAGE FROM KOFI ANNAN,UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL

5


13/132

xi

any single organization, or any particu-

lar government claim to speak for either

the Muslim world or the Western world.

Instead, it is up to each of us to speak for

ourselves and for our values.

That is why the question your conference

asks is so timely and so pertinent. It is

time for the voices of understanding and

acceptance of diversity to show their

strength. It is time for every one of us to

speak up, rather than let others speak for

us or to assume that the menacing voicesof extremists are empowered or man-

dated to speak for their societies.

And yet the question of who speaks for

each of us in this dialogue begs another,

equally important, question: to whom do

we choose to listen? Surely the hallmark

of any genuine dialogue is not only the

respectful and constructive tone of the

discourse but also the manner in which

that discourse is received by others.

We cannot insist on the civility of dis-

course unless we give serious attention

to what is said. History teaches us that

grievances expressed peacefully, and yet

ignored, will eventually manifest them-selves in ever-more forceful and violent

ways.

And so, as we ask who speaks for Islam

and who speaks for the West, we must also

ask whether we are listening. A more civil

discourse that fails to resolve long-stand-

ing grievances will ultimately lose the

support of the most aggrieved among us

and cause many to call into question the

usefulness of civility in itself. This is a

sure path to increased rancor and

renewed violence.

Our shared challenge is therefore twofold.

First, we must embolden the voices of

tolerance and understanding engaged in

this dialogue. Second, we must foster agreater receptivity and will to give atten-

tion to what those voices say to us.

Your gathering seems well-qualified to

embark on such a dialogue. Your diverse

backgrounds and experiences should

enable you to make an important contri-

bution to the Alliance of Civilizations,

which I launched last year at the initiative

of the Spanish and Turkish prime min-

isters. This initiative is intended to

respond to the need for a committed

effort by the international community

in both its intergovernmental and its civil

society formsto bridge divides and

overcome prejudices, misconceptions,

and polarizations that potentiallythreaten world peace. Meetings such as

yours will be essential for its ultimate

success, a goal made all the more urgent

by recent alarming events.


14/132

xii

Are the Muslim and Western worlds

monoliths? How can we improve percep-

tions of one civilization by the other?

These and other critical issues were

addressed at Who Speaks for Islam?

Who Speaks for the West?a conference

convened in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, by

New York Universitys Dialogues: Islamic

World-U.S.-The West and the Institute

of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations

Malaysia on February 10-11, 2006.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawiof Malaysia opened the conference,

which brought together 50 eminent per-

sonspolicy makers, religious leaders,

scientists, economists, news media pro-

fessionals, and other opinion makers

from 17 Western, Muslim-majority, and

other countries. Those attending included

former president of Iran Mohammad

Khatami, Grand Mufti of Bosnia-

Herzegovina Mustafa Ceric, Oxford

University historian Timothy Garton

Ash, president of the Rockefeller Broth-

ers Fund Stephen Heintz, and director

of the Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratorys Center for Global Security

Research Ronald Lehman. Participants

engaged in lively debates aimed at con-

veying the diversity within each tradition,dispelling misperceptions that can cloud

members of each traditions understanding

of the other, and developing strategies to

promote a better relationship between

the Muslim and Western worlds.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


15/132

xiii

Participants tackled such timely issues as

the impact of globalization on the Mus-

lim world and the challenges that science

and technology pose for the Muslim-

Western encounter. The conference

concluded with a policy-oriented session

devoted to laying the ground for new

frameworks for a better relationship

between Islam and the West.

The conference reached the

following conclusions:

Freedom of speech is a universal value.

It is the oxygen of liberty, and, as such, it

should be encouraged rather than stifled.

The collision of opinion is a healthy, if

uncomfortable, process, resulting over

time in improved intercommunal

understanding. Yet free speech should be

exercised in a manner that is balanced,

fair, nuanced, and contextualized. Free

speech cannot be unlimited. Every soci-

ety sets certain legal limits defined by

knowledge of and respect for local cus-

toms. The boundaries placed on free

speech should be minimal, however, and

should mostly serve to prevent libel, pro-

mote respect for individuals, and avert

violence. In keeping with this approach,individuals and institutions responsible

self-restraint in the exercise of free

speech is of paramount importance.

Ultimately, there are legitimate and ille-

gitimate ways to address the relationship

between free speech and mutual respect.

The illegitimate option is through vio-

lence. Legitimate options include the

precise application of judicious law,

responsible journalism, and promotion of

the visibility of minorities and others

views.

The media play a key role in transmitting

socioeconomic and political informa-

tion, which impact both societies and

individuals perceptions. That role, a

form of power, can be used positively toencourage civilized debate. It can be used

negatively when dissemination of such

information is unbalanced or skewed to

allow the few to speak for the many.

Today the Western and Muslim worlds

diverge in their expectations of the role

of government regarding media account-

ability. Western media coverage of

Muslim affairs has historically focused on

sensational issues. In so doing, it has

often failed to portray the full reality of

normal life in the Muslim world. Con-

versely, the media in Muslim countries

have often presented the policies of some

Western countries as driven by animus

toward Islam, oil interest, and the ideo-

logical designs of conservative andneo-conservative political groups. These

skewed portrayals foster both Islamopho-

bia and fear of the West, two genuine

threats to open communication between

the Western and Muslim worlds.


16/132

xiv

Globalization is a complex phenomenon.

It encompasses the internationalization

of capital and new information tech-

nologies, as well as the transformation of

culture and, in particular, the massive

transfer of taste. Globalization is

shaped by the economic and political life

of individuals and communities around

the world, but it is also determined by the

different social environments in which

people live and operate. That variety

creates tensions and opportunities.

Globalization puts the same challenges toMuslim and non-Muslim countries,

although capital, industrialization, and

technology have tended for the past 200

years to aggregate in the West. Given this

historical reality, the Muslim world,

which in previous eras led the world in

scientific learning, needs a new push

toward science and technology to level

the global playing field and reap the ben-

efits that globalization can offer. It also

needs to reconcile its rich tradition with

the demands of the modern world. The

impact of 21st-century globalization on

the Muslim world has thus far varied by

nation. Generally, however, gender equal-

ity, participatory governance, education,

and peace are necessary requirements forsuccessful globalization in the Muslim

world. The importance of such reforms is

acknowledged in most Muslim countries,

but carrying them out has proven a dif-

ficult and often politically sensitive task.

The injustice characterizing the inter-

national economic and financial system

remains problematic. Fundamentally,

this challenge concerns the process of

international governance. Globalization

is not a one-way street. It is a process of

sharing power, information, knowledge,

and rewards. Without a genuine share of

the rewards, excluded nations will give

rise to greater trouble and violence. The

coming years will see a pressing need to

focus on energy efficiency and restructure

the worlds energy usage in terms ofrenewable resources rather than fossil

fuels. Only by easing competition over

increasingly scarce fossil fuels can the

world avoid major economic and politi-

cal crises between nation-states and

global blocs.

Technologyhas become a driving force

behind the world economy. Moreover,

science as a discipline offers possibilities

for building bridges and improving lives

around the globe. Applying scientific

research to practical human problems

produces challenges as well as opportu-

nities, for which open societies are better

equipped. There is no contradiction

between Islam as a religion and the sci-entific pursuit of knowledge. The ethical

issues that do arise, such as cloning,

relate to specific technological applica-

tions of scientific knowledge, and are

issues with which other faiths wrestle as


17/132

xv

well. Sadly, despite the importance of

science and technology in todays world,

the Muslim world has few loci of scien-

tific research or technology production,

whether university, public, or private

sector. This dearth hurts the Muslim

world economically and creatively, by

spurring the brain drain of scientists who

find training and employment in the

West. The proud tradition of the Islamic

golden age of scientific enlightenment is

not borne out today. Instead, the widen-

ing technology gap makes it imperative toplace renewed emphasis on technology in

the Muslim world.

Genuine intercivilizational dialogue is

of paramount importance in a world that

feels smaller by the day. The debates

about culture and identity that take place

within each world and traditionWestern

and Muslimneed to be recognized as

part of a global conversation; the visibil-

ity of these internal dialogues may matter

as much as their content. True dialogue

brings out uncomfortable truths, which

cultures must be ready to address con-

structively. Specifically, Muslims should

consider reopening the interpretation of

religious texts; stressing critical thinkingand openness to remedy the narrowing of

public education that has impoverished

so many nations schools; and fostering a

healthy civil society able to challenge

official authorities. The West, for its

part, should address the double stan-

dards that have informed Western

nations assumptions and policies; rec-

ognize the contribution of other

civilizations to science and technology;

and work cooperatively to define com-

mon, cross-cultural principles.

Critical societal introspection and

self-criticism are the sine qua non of

internal and collective progress. Muslims

tend to approach this issue in two ways:

through criticism and self-criticism.Criticism, although a natural first

response, results in feelings of self-vic-

timization and blaming outside forces

for all that goes wrong in the Muslim

world. Self-criticism, while a more dif-

ficult process, invites Muslims to cast a

critical but forgiving eye on domestic

problems, which may result in pragmatic

reforms. At its most effective, self-

criticism relies on freedom, equality,

incisiveness, and tolerance. The West is

also faced with two options: turning a

deaf ear to honest grievances or listening

with an open mind to the Muslim point

of view. Both the Muslim and Western

worlds should endeavor to unequivocally

protect individuals and groups from actsof intolerance and discrimination; pro-

tect societies against the actions of

extremists; and intensify dialogue to

address misunderstandings on the basis

of improved, shared knowledge.


18/132


19/132

1

The conference opened with the hosts

welcoming participants and outlining the

purpose and aims of the event. Mustapha

Tlili, founder and director ofDialogues:

Islamic World-U.S.-The Westat New York

University, thanked the government of

Malaysia for cohosting the event and the

governments of the United Kingdom

and France, as well as the MacArthur

Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers

Fund, for their generous financial

support.

Given the simultaneous international

developments and renewed global discus-

sion of the relationship between Islam

and the West, Mr. Tlili stressed the time-

liness of the gathering. He noted that

forces of irresponsibility, insensitivity,

and intolerance have been combining to

endanger that relationship, infusing it

with misperceptions and mistrust. This

tension is underscored by cruel realities of

economic and military inequality, social

dislocation, and political repression.

Yet, Mr. Tlili noted, the very combina-

tion of these formidable challenges and

the volatility of the current political cli-

mate creates a window of opportunity for

positive action. The conference, he said,should capitalize on this opportunity to

launch a new dynamic of constructive

engagement between the two cultures.

That engagement relies on critical self-

reflection and investigation of which

OPENING SESSION


20/132

2

individuals and institutions, if any, can

claim the authority to speak on behalf of a

civilization. Mr. Tlili urged participants

to consider these issues and suggest prac-

tical ways to remedy misunderstandings,

chart new channels of communication,

and, ultimately, deepen mutual under-

standing.

Fauziah Mohd Taib, director general of

the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign

Relations Malaysia, which cosponsored

the conference, spoke next. Echoing Mr.Tlilis appeal for a conference that engages

substantively with todays critical issues,

she stressed the importance of a forum

for intercivilizational dialogue, remarking

that unity can be found in multiplicity.

Mr. Tlili and Ms. Taib then welcomed

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah

Ahmad Badawi, who was introduced by

Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid

Albar.

In his remarks, Mr. Albar noted that the

primary challenge facing the assembled

scholars and practitioners is to remedy

the lack of tolerance. This task is partic-

ularly arduous, he commented, in themidst of sobering moments of intoler-

ance such as the current one.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

opened his address by returning to the

two questions asked in the conferences

titleWho Speaks for Islam? Who

Speaks for the West?and noting their

pertinence at a time when the Muslim

and Western worlds combined comprise

51 percent of the worlds population.

Attempting to address these consequen-

tial questions in a fresh but productive

way, he said, would mean working from

three postulates: (1) blame cannot be

assigned to any one side, (2) neither civ-

ilization is monolithic, and (3) a loud

but small number of extremist voices donot represent the silent majority of the

Muslim world or the West.

According to the prime minister, those

who can legitimately claim to speak for

each side are those honest individuals

who strive to live by universal principles

of tolerance, upholding justice and

dignity, fighting tyranny, rejecting

oppression, equalizing opportunities,

redistributing wealth, and being inclusive

in word and deed.

But as the prime minister pointed out,

what is most visible to each side today is

the perceived hostility each side has of

the other. Large numbers of Muslimslook to the West and see only subjuga-

tion, domination, selective persecution,

and hegemony. Similarly, many West-

erners look at Islam and find only

violence, terrorism, and intolerance.


21/132

3

Such misperceptions have serious conse-

quences, he insisted, and redressing

them is the challenge facing this gather-

ing of bridge builders. Animosity and

antagonism between the Muslim and the

Western worlds must come to an end.

Reciprocity and equality should become

the rule, heralding a harmonious rela-

tionship ultimately characterized by

Muslims speaking for the West and West-

erners speaking for the Muslim world.


22/132


23/132

Among the first sessions central objec-

tives were conveying the diversity within

each tradition and dispelling mispercep-

tions. Since the media in both the

Muslim world and the West exercise

enormous influence in disseminating

information that shapes mass percep-

tions of the other, participants aimed

to develop a strategy to promote better

understanding between the Muslim and

Western worlds through the media.

Session chair Iqbal Riza, special adviserto the secretary-general of the United

Nations on the Alliance of Civilizations,

opened the session by reading a state-

ment from UN Secretary-General

Kofi Annan to the conference. In his

statement, the secretary-general acknowl-

edged that we are at a critical moment in

the Muslim-Western encounter. Extrem-

ists on both sides threaten to overwhelm

the dialogue between cultures, which is

why this gathering of tolerant voices is so

timely. He urged participants to bear in

mind that how we receive and act on the

discourse of the other is as important as

what is said; respectfully put, grievances

that are not addressed will eventually

spark violence. The conference is well-

equipped to make a real contribution tothe UNs new Alliance of Civilizations

initiative, which was established to over-

come prejudices and misunderstandings

that potentially threaten world peace.

5

SESSION I

IMPROVING MUTUAL PERCEPTION

THROUGH THE MEDIA


24/132

6

Mr. Riza then turned to the theme of the

first session, stressing the medias

important role in strategic communica-

tion of information. Whereas educated

elites can turn to other sources to cor-

roborate, clarify, or dispute information

found in the local press and televised

media, the average person relies solely on

this information, believing it to be the

full story on any issue. The ability to

convey or withhold information repre-

sents the medias greatest power.

Freedom of expression is critical to themedia, but it is also vital to societies in

general as a means of fostering progress,

limiting the power of the state, and pro-

tecting the rights of citizens. However,

this freedom can be dangerous, particu-

larly at a time of troubled relations

between the Muslim and Western worlds.

This is especially salient with regard to

the media, whose power can be used neg-

ativelyparticularly when unbalanced,

misleading, or inaccurate information

promotes stereotypes. Such abuses pro-

duce a situation where the fewthose

whose voices are taken up by the media as

sourcesspeak for the unheard many.

The key question regarding the promo-

tion of accurate information andinformed dialogue is how to balance the

need to limit the power of the media to

shape opinions while protecting the free-

dom of expression that allows for a

healthy exchange.

The first speaker, Timothy Garton Ash,

director of the European Studies Centre

at St. Antonys College, Oxford Univer-

sity, started by identifying the current

moment as a time of opportunity, thanks

to the many fast-paced transformations

that define and redefine the world today.

Whereas in earlier times different com-

munities could express local customs and

views in a relatively isolated manner, cul-

tural globalization has ushered in a

constant awareness of other places, other

cultures, and other eyes, which has beenreinforced by accelerated migration. For

the majority of the world, a purely local

existence and a mostly local awareness are

thus no longer possible. This evolution

from local to global is reinforced by the

proliferation of round-the-clock, 24/7

mass media.

Given the global context of todays world,

how can the medias role as a protector of

human freedom be understood and sup-

ported, Mr. Garton Ash asked? Perhaps

the best approach, he suggested, is to

start from the expression that freedom

of speech is the oxygen of liberty. This

is a universal value that is not attached to

a specific culture. Just as modernizationis not synonymous with Westernization,

the right to speak freelythough prac-

ticed more consistently in that part of the

worldis not a value confined to the

Western world. Freedom of speech is that


25/132

7

healthy collision of opinion of which

John Stuart Mill wrote the following:

I do not pretend that the most

unlimited use of the freedom ofenunciating all possible opinions

would put an end to the evils of reli-

gious or philosophical sectarianism.

Every truth which men of narrow

capacity are in earnest about, is sure

to be asserted, inculcated, and in

many ways even acted on, as if no

other truth existed in the world, or at

all events none that could limit or

qualify the first. I acknowledge thatthe tendency of all opinions to

become sectarian is not cured by the

freest discussion, but is often height-

ened and exacerbated thereby; the

truth which ought to have been, but

was not, seen, being rejected all the

more violently because proclaimed by

persons regarded as opponents. But

it is not on the impassioned partisan,

it is on the calmer and more disin-terested bystander, that this collision

of opinions works its salutary effect.

Not the violent conflict between parts

of the truth, but the quiet suppres-

sion of half of it, is the formidable

evil: there is always hope when peo-

ple are forced to listen to both sides;

it is when they attend only to one that

errors harden into prejudices, and

truth itself ceases to have the effect oftruth, by being exaggerated into

falsehood.6

The difficulty comes in translating free

speech from the abstract into its concrete

application, including its limits in any

particular society. Which subjects are

taboo, for what reasons, and with what

consequences should they be raised

regardless? As much as the answers vary

across cultures, all societies must avoid

leaving the definition of forbidden sub-

jects to those espousing extremist

positions. The limits of free speech must

be defined by those who wish to keep such

limits to a minimum. Tolerance, whichmakes free speech palatable as well as pos-

sible, likewise requires patience with views

that initially appear divisive. The colli-

sion of opinions may seem at the outset

to inflame passions, but in the long run it

informs and enriches debate. Providing

civilized dialogue based on the open

exchange of views is one of the free medias

most important functionsand it is for

this reason that restrictions upon it must

be applied cautiously.

The second speaker, Max Boot, senior

fellow for national security studies at the

Council on Foreign Relations, echoed

Mr. Garton Ashs comments regarding

the timeliness of the topic. He stated thatwhat the West and Islam are experiencing

today is not so much a clash of civilizations

as a divergence of assumptions. For exam-

ple, many in the Muslim world assume

that governments can and should be held


26/132

8

accountable for the actions of their

national media, while in the West these

are assumed to be two separate spheres.

Referring to the cartoons controversy,

Mr. Boot noted that some media had cho-

sen to contribute to the problem rather

than work for its resolution and increased

intercommunal understanding. He noted,

however, that generally speaking, the

Western media have made efforts to avoid

offending Muslims. For instance, both the

news agency Reuters and the BBC eschewthe phrase Muslim terrorist when

reporting the use of force by militants or

insurgents. These efforts notwithstand-

ing, ignorance of Muslim sensitivities,

coupled with sensationalist tendencies in

the popular Western media, has enabled

negative reporting. Portrayal of the rich

reality of the Muslim world and coverage

of the normal are sorely missing.

The danger of simplistic narratives of

Muslim terrorists and other stereotyp-

ical views is that, when promulgated

through the media, they can become the

dominant prism through which people

perceive Islamic civilization. The news

media, in particular, should work toprovide a more accurate depiction of

each civilization so that the debate within

and among civilizations can be based on

solid facts.

For their part, Mr. Boot continued, the

media in Muslim countries have tended

to filter news reporting through the

point of view that American foreign pol-

icy is motivated by animus toward the

Arab and Muslim world, the pursuit of

oil and other commercial interests, and

Zionist and neoconservative lobbies. Mr.

Boot attributed this in part to the diver-

sity of opinions that is prevalent in the

West, which can create a situation

wherein a view that is considered mar-

ginal within the West is picked up byforeign media and gains greater currency

outside the West.

The third speaker, Boutheina Cheriet,

professor of sociology at the University of

Algiers and former minister of womens

affairs, spoke from the desire to ground

policy discussions in a theoretical under-

standing of the history behind the

current situation. She suggested that an

adequate response to the cartoons crisis

required investigation of the meaning

that the Western and Muslim worlds have

each attached to free speech. Mills col-

lision of opinions is also a collision of

thought. Further examination reveals,

for instance, that a number of greatWestern thinkers carried and promoted a

negative image of Islam and Muslims.

Although not explicitly cited in contem-

porary media coverage, their opinions

often inform a common sense subtext


27/132

9

of understanding. As an example, Ms.

Cheriet mentioned Max Weber, the emi-

nent German sociologist, who wrote in

The Sociology of Religion that Islam is

a warrior religion that displays a

feudal spirit, champions the subjugation

of women, and simplifies ethical

requirements.

Western thinkers have also often exhib-

ited Manichaean thinking vis--vis the

Muslim world. Ms. Cheriet referred to

sociologist Ernest Gellners work, whichpointed out Western historians tendency

to represent human conflicts in a binary

way: two opposites in confrontation with

one another.7 This way of viewing the

world has certain negative conse-

quencesas may the very formulation

who speaks for Islam and who speaks for

the West. Rethinking the universal legacy

that history, as the chronicle of human

events, has to offer humanity will enable

more objective representations of the

other, which will in turn produce better

journalistic accounts of conflicts and

civilizations.

Former Iranian President Mohammad

Khatami spoke next, stressing the time-liness and overall importance of

reexamining civilizations, which he

explained is as difficult to accomplish

globally as within the Islamic tradition.

The importance of dialogue among

cultures is paramount. Today there are

great opportunities for this dialogue,

although it is jeopardized by various

threats. For example, true dialogue can-

not tolerate that the prophet of one of

the worlds great religions be insulted.

Islamophobia is also a danger, and steps

must be taken to eradicate it. Mr.

Khatami cautioned that the signs of

growing Islamophobia ought not to be

taken lightly by the West.

By the same token, the urgent need forself-examination and intercultural dia-

logue should encourage Muslims to

consider how their identity fitsand is

perceived by othersin a globalized

world. The social dimension of iden-

tity is what matters most when it comes to

communication. However, identity is

neither predetermined nor preexisting;

it is created and shaped by time and

spacetoday, possibly, more than ever.

In other words, Muslims willingness to

take an impartial, critical, but respectful

view of their own tradition can foster the

development of a creative and flexible

identity in a democratic paradigm.

Absent such a dynamic, frivolity and vio-

lence will continue to proliferate.

Mr. Khatami also pointed out the diver-

sity that characterizes Islam, which

is evident from Arab, Asian, African,

Persian, and Turkic influences on


28/132

10

religious teachings, practices, and cul-

tural expressions. This multiplicity of

Muslim voices must be reflected in the

media. The panels discussant, Feisal

Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba

Initiative, concurred, noting also that the

current boundaries of the Muslim world

are not the product of its own history but

have been imposed by the West. Simi-

larly, recent Muslim thought has been

shaped by and expressed in Western

modalities. In classical Islam, the ques-

tion, who speaks for Islam? would notarise. God speaks for Islam, and man

interprets Gods words. A nuanced pic-

ture of the historical development of

Muslim ideas is therefore necessary to

understand the heterogeneity of Islamic

thought. Mr. Abdul Rauf maintained

that Islam does not have to be defined by

a binary relationship that sets it against a

presumed universal secularism. Since

religion and identity are largely matters

of perception, the media must play a

leading role in finding solutions to the

problems of misperceptions of other

cultures and traditions.

Following these remarks, the floor was

opened to general discussion includingconference participants and observers.

Kamar Oniah Kamaruzaman, associate

professor at the International Islamic

University in Malaysia, asked for a defi-

nition of freedom of expression and

wondered what kind of professional

ethics guided the media in the cartoons

controversy. Mr. Boot responded that

freedom of speech is often defined as the

right to express any views that one wishes,

adding that although there should be

limits to that right, they should be min-

imal and concerned mostly with

preventing libel and the espousal of vio-

lence. He went on to say that although

offensive speech should be limited, gov-

ernmental policing of the press ought

always to be kept to a strict minimum. Asis often stated, the best remedy for speech

deemed offensive is more speech. Pro-

fessional ethics do exist, and they are

recognized by the media and the general

public, with the exclusion of radical

groups. Media lacking such ethics ulti-

mately lose credibility and thereby their

audiences.

Richard Bulliet, professor of history at

Columbia University, added that the

work of the media is often informed by a

number of common sense cultural

myths. One of the most powerful in

recent years has been the theory of the

clash of civilizations, which, he noted,

is not grounded in empirical facts. Mr.Boot agreed, indicating that the clash is

within Islam, rather than between Islam

and the West.


29/132

11

If free speech is a universal value, argued

A. Riawan Amin, president director of

Bank Muamalat Indonesia, so too is

respect. Given the interrelated nature of

the two, what is the ultimate criterion by

which they should be prioritized? The

cartoons controversy, which drew in

various media outlets, government agen-

cies and officials, and ordinary citizens,

raises the question of the degree to which

the nation in toto and the government in

particular are responsible for regu-

lating free speech. What is painted as adismissible myth (in this case, the repre-

sentation of the Prophet Muhammad) by

some members of the European media,

governments, and citizenry is an urgent

reality to practicing Muslims.

Jean-Pierre Langellier, Le Monde corre-

spondent in the United Kingdom and

Ireland, took exception to Mr. Amins

characterization of the current situation.

He reiterated that freedom of speech is

the oxygen of democracy, and thus its

expression is nonnegotiable except in

relation to the law and the respect of

individuals. To be deprived of that free-

dom is to be metaphorically asphyxiated,

to feel the painful privation of an essen-tial component of democratic life. The

critics right of irony extends even to

blasphemy, which has been confirmed by

the European Court of Justice. Though

Mr. Langellier admitted that there is

a thin line between a right and how it is

perceived by others, republicanism and

the French constitution regulate this

matter by providing for legal recourse.

Furthermore, from a French republican

perspective, religions are mere beliefs

that can be criticized and deconstructed.

It is indeed a form of progress to do so.

Given that the Arab press habitually pub-

lishes anti-Semitic materials to no public

protest, Mr. Langellier said, and that

some Muslim countries are open to revi-

sionism about the Holocaust, what isworse for the reputation of Islam, he

askeda caricature in poor taste or a sui-

cide bomber at a wedding in Amman?

Returning to Max Webers derogatory

remarks about Islam, a participant com-

mented that there is a long list of such

assaults on the part of some of the great-

est Western minds. These respected

philosophers and scientists have articu-

lated all manner of demeaning thoughts

on Islam (as well as Hinduism and Bud-

dhism, for that matter). Yet one seldom

finds similar attacks on the West

expressed by leading Muslim scholars and

intellectuals. In Islam, one does not

defame another religion. Though free-dom of expression is absolute, such a

right cannot in and of itself condition

our morality. If one is legally free to blas-

pheme, what is key is the moral question

ofwhetherto blaspheme.


30/132

12

Expanding on Mr. Garton Ashs discus-

sion of cultural globalization, Farhan

Nizami, director of the Oxford Centre

for Islamic Studies, noted that the reason

communities can no longer live with

their local prejudices is that they are

readily visible to others, primarily

through the globalized media, raising

new questions of responsibility for media

organizations. There must also be con-

sistency in the dynamic between free

expression and restraint. Western soci-

eties and their media cannot be strictregarding some issues and lax on others.

In the context of the relationship

between Islam and the West, this also

brings to the fore the persistent question

of individual rights versus communal

rights.

Craig Charney, president of Charney

Research, remarked that globalization in

effect ends up creating a dilemma of

transparency whereby the more people

are exposed to other cultures, the more

they have to object to.

Responding to Mr. Langelliers com-

ment on the republican principles,

Mohammed Arkoun, professor emeritusof Islamic thought at the Sorbonne,

noted that while the French constitution

states that religious commands do not

supersede French law, many constitu-

tions around the Muslim world stipulate

the exact opposite, namely, that civil law

cannot contradict the sharia (Islamic

law). Both sides hold their truths to be

self-evident, and their media merely

reflect that logic. It is precisely in such

polarized conflictsthe Danish cartoons

incident being merely the most recent

episode in a long list of controversies that

included the Salman Rushdie matter, the

affair of Talisma Nasreen8, and the ques-

tion of the veilthat we have to inquire

about the nature (and usefulness) of the

intellectual tools that are available to us.Mr. Arkoun argued that scientists have

long demonstrated that reality and our

perceptions of it are socially con-

structed; it is fundamental differences

in our social realities, rather than partic-

ular events, which underlie the debate.

On a separate note, he continued, we

must place newfound investment into

scientific research, which in turn would

be transmitted through a reinvigorated

educational system in which hard knowl-

edge, an open perspective, and a

commitment to literacy could vastly

improve the relationship between Islam

and the West.

The session closed with Mr. Garton Ashhighlighting the alleged clash of civiliza-

tions as a doctrine that has already done

serious damage to relations between

Islam and the West. Mr. Garton Ash

insisted that it is therefore key to portray


31/132

13

the conflict properly, as a clash of values

rather than civilizations. He suggested

that an efficient means of fighting partial

or distorted knowledge is increasing vis-

ibility of the other. In that sense, the

West must redouble its efforts to portray

the richness of the debate within the

Muslim world.


32/132


33/132

The second session, moderated by

Chandra Muzaffar, president of the

International Movement for a Just

World in Malaysia, addressed various

aspects of globalization and the changes

globalization has engendered in recent

years. Participants discussed the impact

these changes have had on Muslim

countries and societies.

Mr. Muzaffar opened the session by not-

ing the complexity of globalization as

a phenomenon that goes beyond theinternationalization of capital and infor-

mation technologies. Globalization also

involves cultural and moral values and

has had particular impact on taste.

Though revolutionary in significant

ways, the current globalization is not sui

generis. History has seen previous waves of

globalization, with the most recent one

taking place during the colonial era.

Similar to todays movement but on a

smaller scale and at a slower pace, the

Muslim world itself was a major source of

one such wave of globalization, which

rippled out from the Mediterranean

basin several centuries ago, bringing

about transfers of goods, people, infor-

mation, and technology.

The impact of the current globalization

on the Muslim world has been varied,

with positive and negative outcomes for

different nations. Whereas Malaysia, for

15

SESSION II

THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION

ON THE MUSLIM WORLD


34/132

16

instance, has benefited enormously from

one particular aspect of globalization,

namely, trade, the interwoven interna-

tional financial networks proved

disastrous to the Indonesian economy

during the 1997-1998 Asian financial

crisis. The globalization of communica-

tion technologies, for its part, is exerting

tremendous impact across the Muslim

world, particularly on youth.

The first panelist, Ralf Fcks, member of

the executive board of the Heinrich BllFoundation, also stressed the complexity

of globalization, which, he concurred,

was not concerned solely with financial

matters. The societal dimension of glob-

alization has been essential in shaping the

economic and political life of citizens

around the world. By the same token,

globalization itself is shaped in turn by

different sociopolitical and cultural

environments. While some would argue

that the phenomenon is a U.S.-driven

equalizer that diminishes local speci-

ficities, Mr. Fcks pointed to its capacity

to promote diversity. One of the vehicles

of that variety, he remarked, is brought

on by global migration and the accompa-

nying visibility of a plethora of culturalmores (articulated through food, music,

films, and religious practice). Conse-

quently, as goods are transported and sold

all over the world, companies are also

assembling multicultural workforces. Yet

such variety can also create tension,

which can lead to additional gaps between

nations and civilizations, as in the case of

Islam and the West.

The Muslim world is reacting in manifold

ways to recent global transformations,

with some countries and populations

appearing to be able to engage with

the new realities more successfully than

others. What is certain is that key com-

ponents of that successful engagement

human liberties, rule of law, equalopportunity, independent mediaare

universal rather than merely Western val-

ues, and that, as the 2004 Arab Human

Development Report indicated, these

elements are often lacking in Muslim

societies.9 Mr. Fcks expressed hope that

the next wave of globalization would offer

avenues to lastingly remedy these short-

comings, allow a fair say to the global

South, and multiply ways to avoid civi-

lizational conflict.

The next speaker, Kurt Seinitz, foreign

editor of Die Kronenzeitung, commented

that for all the talk of globalization bring-

ing increased diversity, most Westerners

continue to demonstrate a widespreadlack of basic knowledge about Islam. That

lack is compounded in the West by social

secularization and the accompanying

death of religious taboos, which decreases

interest in and empathy with non-Western


35/132

17

religions. Similarly, many Westerners

view Islam as a monolith, and indeed the

demonstrations that took place in the

wake of the cartoons controversy were

regarded as confirmation of this.

Mr. Seinitz added that, to the contrary,

Islam is a globalized world in and of

itself. It is an international community

that includes some of the richest and

poorest countries in the world. Global-

ization presents both these winners and

losers with challenges, much as it doesnon-Muslim countries. By and large,

however, few Muslim countries appear to

have made notable contributions to the

current field of information technology.

One reason is because the basic compo-

nents of a viable and fertile economya

good investment climate, inexpensive

manufacturing, and market availability

are often missing in the Muslim world.

To compete economically, it is hoped

that the Muslim world will renew its

golden age of scientific progress and

enlightenment (during which women

were educated and joined the workforce).

Using China as the prime example, Mr.

Seinitz posited that democracy is not aprecondition for modernization. Glob-

alization itself has no moral values.

(On this point, several participants

remarked that there is a basic tendency

for globalization to strengthen democracy.

Hence, in the late 1980s and early 1990s

we witnessed a so-called third wave of

democratization that accompanied grow-

ing interdependence.) Mr. Seinitz

pointed to examples of effective models

of modernization and development in

the Muslim world, such as Malaysia and

Turkey. What is needed within the Muslim

world, as these examples demonstrate, is

better governance that encourages mod-

ernization and enables Muslim nations

to prosper from globalization, rather

than suffer its losses.

The panels discussant, Mr. Amin, noted

the importance of the Quran as the

source of ultimate authority among Mus-

lims. This model of discourse, he

remarked, is characterized by tolerance

with the rewards going to those who do

good. Currently, the United States dom-

inates the rest of the world in terms of its

wealth, military power, and educational

infrastructure. As long as 20 percent of

the worlds population consumes 80

percent of its resources, there will be

trouble and rebellion among those left

out. To address this imbalance, argued

Mr. Amin, there must be reform of the

world economic system.

The subsequent discussion focused

on the costs of globalization for the

Muslim world. Mohamed Jawhar Hassan,

director-general of the Institute of


36/132

18

Strategic and International Studies

(Malaysia), pointed out that since global-

ization inherently favors the powerful and

tech-savvy, its costs are highest for those

cultures that can least afford them.

Whereas globalization is generally uncon-

cerned with religion, the Muslim world is

primarily characterized by a common,

vibrant religious heritage. Mr. Jawhar

Hassan indicated that Muslim countries

have four institutional challenges to

surmount (1) an uneven and often insuf-

ficient knowledge base, (2) a lack ofempowerment of the female population,

(3) an absence of participatory gover-

nance, and (4) the prevalence of ethnic

conflicts. Imran Ali, professor at Lahore

University of Management Sciences, added

that the distribution of oil revenues must

be addressed before the Muslim world

can better engage with globalization.

Those internal challenges play out in the

context of global problems that are equally

daunting, noted Mr. Fcks, who cau-

tioned against a relapse into economic

and military imperialism. That trend is

materializing not merely in economic

means but also in military terms. At the

other end of the spectrum, we see therise of a novel form of terrorismthe

nonstate, transnational armed group.

These ideologically motivated com-

batants aim to redress injustices by

empowering people rather than states.

Mr. Fcks went on to say that the archi-

tecture of international institutions such

as the United Nations helps maintain

the current global power structure.

Apart from a few cosmetic changes in the

dynamic of institutional engagement

between the World Bank and particular

governments in the South, there has

been no genuine reform of the interna-

tional system. In particular, reform of the

United Nations remains a gnawing, elu-

sive issue. The renewed violence andanger that the world has witnessed in the

first years of this century is evidence of a

severe institutional imbalance. Mr. Fcks

added that if the world is not able to

transition from reliance on fossil

resources to renewable forms of energy,

future generations may be condemned to

further conflicts over dwindling supplies.

Mr. Amin concurred that the inter-

national economic system must be

reconstructed to accommodate for the

effects of globalization. Previous recon-

figurations of the world economy were

brought about by increased migration,

free exchange of goods, and the advent of

common commodities markets. Thechallenge, hence, is not one of capacity

but of rearrangement. Is the West willing

to make another such vast adjustment

today?


37/132

19

Mr. Muzaffar offered Malaysia as an

example of a country that has had success

with modernization despite the pressures

of globalization. This, he feels, is due to

five major reasons: (1) a lasting balance

of power among national ethnic groups;

(2) a socially responsible and relatively

honest political leadership since the late

1950s; (3) a sustained economic growth

accompanied by redistribution to bridge

the gap between indigenous and non-

indigenous peoples; (4) an emphasis on

education, irrespective of gender; and(5) an ever-more ingrained cultural

sense of tolerance at the societal level.

Mr. Langellier expressed that the main

difficulties the Muslim world is facing are

self-imposed. He argued that the rela-

tionship between faith and ideology in

Muslim countries needs to be overhauled

to enable modernization.

Mr. Bulliet, however, noted that these

challenges must be considered from a

historical perspective. The globalization

that occurred between 1000 and 1500

was dominated by the Muslim world and

witnessed a massive movement of knowl-

edge, science, art, and philosophy fromIslam to the West. The Wests leadership

at the timelike some in the Muslim

world todayresorted to violence,

notably the Crusades, to regain power.

Returning to the notion of dialogue, Mr.

Nizami suggested that language itself can

become a barrier. Therefore, the chal-

lenge is to find ways to deploy language in

ways that achieve progress rather than

create more problems. To do so, our dis-

course must be pragmatic, honest, and

dispassionate. An examination of the

assumptions that surround notions of

governance, accountability, and democ-

racy, for instance, could potentially

unearth a wealth of insights into policy

reform.

Mr. Boot interjected that the post-1500s

rise of the West was linked to sophisti-

cated currency practice (interest, bonds,

and stocks) and that adoption of those

practices by the Muslim world would have

huge socioeconomic benefit. Israel, he

argued, achieved its own good fortune by

installing a free market and promoting

education for women. Unlike many Arab

countries, he insisted, Israel does not

blame its problems on others.

Mr. Muzaffar remarked that the impor-

tance of domestic reform is widely

acknowledged throughout the Muslim

world. It is the global dimensions ofthese political questions that need fur-

ther examination. In particular, he

differed with the assumption that good

governance necessarily brings progress.

Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq enjoyed a


38/132

20

first-rate heath care system, high levels of

education (including among women),

and a vast public infrastructure, yet the

countrys leadership made the wrong

geopolitical choices. Mr. Muzaffar stated

that the Middle Easts problems come

from oil and Israels predatory stance,

and it is high time that these be addressed.

Both Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar

at the American Enterprise Institute, and

Mr. Charney took strong exception to

Mr. Muzaffars statement on Israel.

At the sessions close, Mr. Ali stated that

the global transfer of resources must

indeed be put in historical context and

the arrogance that plagues the Western

discourse must likewise be examined.

Mr. Amin concurred, stressing that

Westernization is not necessarily mod-

ernization, nor is democracy a panacea.


39/132

Recent decades have brought extraordi-

nary transformations in information

technology and in biotechnology, the

collective impact of which has been felt

worldwide. These transformations often

reinforce feelings of powerlessness

among those who have not benefited.

This session explored the challenges that

these developments pose for govern-

ments, societies, and traditional moral

authorities, as well as for ordinary citizens.

The sessions chair, Ronald Lehman,director of the Center for Global Secu-

rity Research at the Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory in the United

States, opened by identifying the role of

science in facilitating intercivilizational

engagement and its ability to build

bridges that transcend differences and

to offer shared opportunities to improve

lives around the world. However,

particular scientific discoveries and

applications of technology can create

tensions when they conflict with cultural

practices and religious beliefs.

Mr. Lehman raised four questions to

lead the discussion. First, noting that

participation in the global high-tech sec-

tor is made possible by education that isnot equally accessible to all, he asked how

science and technology can reach out to

the different strata within communities.

Second, he inquired whether faith and

science advance together in the Muslim

21

SESSION III

THE CHALLENGES POSED BY SCI-

ENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE

MUSLIM-WESTERN RELATIONSHIP


40/132

22

world and beyond, or whether they are

adversaries. Third, Mr. Lehman won-

dered whether the Muslim world was

transitioning from consumer to pro-

ducer of technology at home and abroad

and the implications of such evolution

for the Muslim-Western relationship.

Fourth, he asked how scientific coopera-

tion between Muslims and Westerners

could contribute to international peace

and security and could mitigate the dan-

ger of dual use technology, such as

nuclear energy.

The first speaker, Imran Ali, prefaced his

remarks by making three underlying

statements about the issue of technology.

He noted, first, that there is no contra-

diction between Islam as a religion and

the scientific pursuit of knowledge. Like

all religions, however, Islam places cer-

tain moral limits on the application of

science, proscribing, for example, the

use of ultrasound technology in the serv-

ice of fetal sex selection. Second, during

the past five centuries, the Muslim world

has been beset by a downturn in scientific

production, while the Renaissance and

the Industrial Revolution led to dramatic

advances in Western technology. Third,the technology gap was reinforced by the

subjugation of most Muslim countries

during the colonial era. As global tech-

nological transformations continue to

accelerate, will the gap widen, or will

there be a breakthrough in the Muslim

production of high-quality, scientific

advancement?

Mr. Ali noted that in quantitative terms

there are many centers of technological

research in the Muslim world, but the

limited quality of their contributions

hinders the Muslim worlds competitive-

ness. While there are many top-notch

individuals in the sciences, they rarely

aggregate into first-rate schools or

departments. With the notable exceptionof Turkey, and, to a lesser extent,

Indonesia and Iran, the Muslim world

lacks industrial clusters that produce and

patent technology. Excluding only the

resource-based sectors (oil and gas),

there are few, if any, companies based in

the Muslim world that could be included

in the top 500 worldwide. These defi-

ciencies urgently need to be addressed.

Mr. Ali felt that current prospects for a

scientific and technological revolution in

the Muslim world are dim. On the eco-

nomic front, where there are advances,

such as in the large and dynamic grey-

market sector, they tend to undermine

the structural profitability of bona fideactivities. Additionally, the removal of

subsidies in many countries, com-

pounded by rising production costs, has

further diminished competitiveness.

Apart from oil-driven activities, Muslim


41/132

23

economies score low in innovation-

based production. The private sector is

still factory based and has not moved to a

more agile, digital platform. This tech-

nological frailty also has military

consequences: most Muslim countries

have no significant technologically

advanced weaponry. The economic,

geopolitical, and strategic implications of

globalization are, hence, linked.

The second speaker, Mustafa Ceric,

grand mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina,began by examining the relationship

between faith and science. He noted that

science is a tool used for achieving

human goals, but it is not a goal in and

of itself. This relationship has always

underscored the interaction between

theologians and scientists. Intellectual

tolerance has been a distinctive feature of

Islam for centuries, including lengthy

periods during which other civilizations

were stuck in their dark ages. The dra-

matic decline of the high scientific

profile of the Islamic world challenges a

staging of a comeback, while avoiding

both assimilation through secularization

and the isolation that would result from

a rejection of globalization.

The next speaker, Rainer Wessel, presi-

dent of Ganymed Pharmaceuticals,

began by highlighting that technology

poses great challenges to us all, regardless

of location or faith. Mr. Wessel stressed

that the current era is witnessing a

momentous technological revolution

fueled by three areas of innovation:

information technology, biotechnology,

and nanotechnology. The publication of

the human genome in 2001 constituted

a landmark event encapsulating this

recent history. While scientists them-

selves have placed ethical limits on their

own research, the overarching challenge

today is closing the gap between fast-

developing technology and legislationthat is not keeping pace. He suggested

that there is a role for nongovernmental

organizations, such as the recently

launched International Council for the

Life Sciences, to provide independent,

field-based regulation.

Mr. Wessel explained that the United

States has led the way in recent scientific

progressparticularly in biotechnology

with Europe and Asia closely following.

As technology has become the principal

driving force behind these economies,

potential abuses of its products also

increase. Technology is inherently nei-

ther good nor bad: what matters is the

use to which it is put. Pressing ethicalquestions regarding the application of

technology have been posed across dif-

ferent cultures, polities, and religions,

with the debate constantly shifting along

with scientific innovation.


42/132

24

Mr. Wessel concluded by stating that sci-

ences seem to flourish better in open

societies. With science now a major driv-

ing force behind successful economies,

he pointed to the need for economic and

political liberalization in Muslim coun-

tries to stir scientific development.

The panels discussant, Mark Smolinski,

director of the Global Health and Secu-

rity Initiative and vice president for

Biological Programs at the Nuclear

Threat Initiative (NTI) based in Wash-ington, D.C., discussed the work of his

organization to improve global capacity

for prevention of and preparedness to

biological threats through enhanced dis-

ease surveillance, early detection, and

response. A consequence of globalization

is that diseases spread quickly and over

great distances, as demonstrated by

recent severe acute respiratory system

(SARS) and Asian bird flu epidemics.

The NTI is working to establish regional

organizations to monitor and respond to

infectious diseases and has launched one

such pilot program in the Middle East

involving Israel, the Palestinian Author-

ity, Egypt, and Jordandemonstrating

that regional cooperation in the arena ofscience and technology is possible even in

a volatile area.

Mr. Bulliet launched this portion of the

discussion by questioning the relationship

between Western-trained Muslim scien-

tists and scientific development in their

home countries. Just as the repatriation

of U.S.-based Chinese and Indian scien-

tists has contributed in no small measure

to these countries recent economic suc-

cesses, could the same not be true for the

Muslim world? Mr. Ali responded that,

at this point, many Muslim scientists

return to their countries of origin only

to find that they cannot make a signifi-

cant contribution in the absence of a

professional environment conducive tosustained scientific creation. With scarce

research possibilities and a culture of

bureaucratic and institutional impedi-

mentsand with no apparent leadership

invested in resolving these problems

Muslim scientists often find it impossible

to live and work in their home countries.

The Islamic world must culturally reinvest

in the sciences to stem this brain drain.

Mr. Bulliet also pointed out that major

scientific contributions during the Mus-

lim golden age took advantage of that

civilizations permeability and lack of

national boundaries. Today, technolog-

ical pursuit is centered nationally,

whereas Muslim scientists might fare bestby creating regional networks.

Hussein Solomon, director of the Cen-

ter for International Political Studies at

the University of Pretoria, endorsed Mr.


43/132

25

Wessels statement about the link between

technology and open societies and added

that changes in educational systems

shifting away from rote learning to critical

inquiryare necessary to foster a revival

of technological progress in the Muslim

world. This must also be supported by

active recruitment of and competitive

salaries for promising scientists. Abdel-

majid Charfi, professor emeritus of

humanities and Islamic studies at the

University of Tunis, concurred, adding

that dogmatic training and memory-basededucation, as opposed to open-minded

engagement, are conducive neither to

proper education nor scientific produc-

tion. Mina Al-Oraibi, a journalist for

Asharq Al-Awsat, noted that these chal-

lenges are compounded by an urgent

sense among Arab youth of having to catch

up with fast-paced global transformations.

Mr. Fcks questioned the existence of

such a discipline as Islamic science.

Religion could be a source for ethical

guidance in science, he offered, but reli-

gion should not interfere with science.

This concern is not unique to Islam, but

one that is relevant to Christianity as

well, with regard to the teaching of evo-lution, for example. Several participants

agreed that Muslims should avoid adding

the qualifier Islamic to science or other

fields, as this demonstrates cultural inse-

curity and does not offer a constructive

solution to the problems faced by

Muslim countries.

Vitaly Naumkin, pre

Documents

Who Speaks For Islam Report