elations
between Muslims and the West are a hotly debated subject today. Many
western intellectuals and political leaders are acutely aware that these
relations have rapidly deteriorated in recent years and that they urgently
need to be improved. Most Muslim intellectuals and leaders feel the same
way too. Both sets of intellectuals and leaders are deeply conscious of
the fact that if relations between Muslims and the West continue to remain
tense or further deteriorate, it would prove disastrous for Muslims and
the West alike. Improving these relations is thus a formidable challenge
that both of them today face.
In this regard, intercultural dialogue assumes particular
importance. Several steps have already been taken in this regard by some
groups and organisations. At the same time, the fact cannot be overlooked
that many Muslims look at such dialogue with suspicion and have deep
reservations as to what they perceive is its actual agenda. They regard
such dialogue as a new weapon wielded by the West to pursue its own
interests. This way of thinking is not restricted just to the ulema or
other Islamic groups but is also to be found among a large proportion of
secular-minded Muslims as well.
The basic cause for this is not just the memory of the
colonial past but also the present-day, continuing western imperialist
aggression directed against numerous Muslim countries. This cannot be
ignored, particularly the vexed issue of Palestine, which in fact is the
most potent cause for widespread anti-western sentiments among Muslims
across the world. Without a just solution of the Palestinian question, it
is simply impossible for relations between Muslims and the West to witness
any major qualitative transformation and improvement. Those who seek to
promote genuine dialogue between Muslims and the West must keep this
uppermost in their minds.
A major disease plaguing the West today is the evil of
egotism. It is an insurmountable barrier to changing the West’s attitude
towards, and behaviour with, Muslims. The West is convinced of what it
believes to be the utter superiority of its way of life which it wants to
impose on the rest of the world. George Bush was an extreme case of such
cultural imperialism but he was no isolated exception. It can safely be
said that the vast majority of westerners still fiercely uphold such
supremacist beliefs, consciously or otherwise. Obviously, and needless to
say, this is a major hurdle in the path of any respectful and sincere
dialogue between Muslims and the West.
The basis of meaningful dialogue between Muslims and the
West must be a willingness on the part of both to sincerely seek to
understand each other, not through their own lenses but rather,
empathetically – that is to say, to see the ‘other’ as the ‘other’ views
itself. In this regard, one must mention that the Muslim world has not
seriously sought to understand the West in this way. In contrast, the
West, one might say, has sought to understand Islam and Muslims but the
purpose in doing so has been by and large to exploit the Muslim world and
to promote western interests and also to project Muslims as a foil against
which to assert western claims of superiority. Underlying this quest to
understand the Muslims and Islam was a marked feeling of hostility or even
downright enmity, so much so that even positive aspects of Muslim culture
came to be projected as faults in the western imagination.
This attitude on the part of both Muslims and the West
needs urgently to be changed if we are to make any progress towards
genuine dialogue. Gaining the confidence of the ‘other’ would be
impossible without this. The main responsibility in this regard falls on
the shoulders of the West because it is presently so much more powerful.
In the middle ages, the context of which was vastly different from our
own, numerous negative developments in the Muslim world did indeed serve
to build up anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic prejudice in the West. In today’s
vastly different world, different forms of western imperialism and
aggression, open and hidden, have led to a heightening of anti-western
sentiments across the Muslim world.
The West continues with this policy but at the same time
mouths lofty slogans about dialogue with Muslims. It poses simultaneously
as champion of dialogue between civilisations and as champion of the clash
of civilisations. It may be that there are more advocates of inter-civilisational
dialogue than of inter-civilisational conflict in the West but it cannot
be denied that among the former are many for whom dialogue is simply a
means for advancing their own interests or those of the West more
generally.
For dialogue between Muslims and the West to succeed, both
parties must be clear, and should also make it clear, that they also have
the goodwill and welfare of the ‘other’ in mind. Further, both parties
should be accepted as equals and the principles and outcomes of dialogue
must apply to them equally. It cannot be that one party is excluded from
abiding by the demands of serious dialogue and insists that the other does
its bidding. Both parties must accept each other’s rights, cultural
identity, religions and other such differences. One party cannot be
allowed to force anything on the other, including in the name of adherence
to a particular ideology.
A necessary aspect of mutual recognition and understanding
that dialogue must be based on is mutual respect. Each party must respect
the beliefs of the other and where there are differences seek to address
them through peaceful persuasion rather than through force. The minimum or
basic form of tolerance or acceptance in this regard is to listen, study
and seriously seek to understand the views or beliefs of the other, no
matter how different they may be from one’s own.
Another essential step that must be urgently taken if
dialogue efforts between Muslims and the West are to succeed is for
western powers to give convincing assurances to immediately halt their
imperialist offensives against Muslim countries and for Muslim leaders to
prevail upon extremist Muslim groups to immediately halt their violent
activities against the West. This, of course, is easier said than done,
especially since today many Muslim governments are themselves victims of
violence unleashed by such Muslim groups. It is imperative that Muslim
governments, intellectuals, ulema and civil society groups work out a
strategy to halt violent attacks against the West by such groups.
At the same time, there is an urgent need to dialogue
precisely with these groups as well. For this to happen, the policies and
attitude of the West must also change and become more flexible. The West
must realise that while it can subordinate governments in most Muslim
countries to its will, it cannot do this with regard to the Muslim public.
Needless to say, for Muslim public opinion to be transformed, the West’s
policies towards Muslim countries must suitably change.
One cannot deny the fact of considerable difference in the
world views of Islam and that of the West in general. On certain aspects
there are deep contradictions between the two. Rudyard Kipling’s famous
lines, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet”
hold true at least as far as these aspects are concerned. Efforts to
promote dialogue between Muslims and the West cannot ignore these aspects.
The only feasible way to deal with them is to refrain from employing one’s
own world view as the criterion for others.
Both Muslims and westerners have the right to hold on to
their world views but at the same time they must understand that the world
view of the other is not wholly without anything positive, contrary to
what extremists on both sides might claim. It is not proper nor even
feasible to seek to condemn wholly and outright the world view of the
other. In fact, both can learn and profit from the positive aspects of the
world view of each other and their contributions to bettering the
conditions of humankind.
Reviewing traditional understandings on several issues,
particularly those related to the rights of non-Muslims in Muslim
countries, is indispensable if Muslims are to be properly equipped to
engage in meaningful dialogue with others, including the West. If Muslims
demand equal rights in non-Muslim countries, it is but to be expected that
non-Muslims should enjoy equal rights in Muslim countries.
According to Prophet Muhammad, one should desire for
others what one desires for oneself. Both the West as well as Muslim
countries need to introspect and change in accordance with this principle.
For the West, this required change is more in terms of practical action
rather than ideology, for this principle is by and large accepted in
theory in the West. For the Muslim world, the required change is more in
terms of ideology, particularly since, despite this principle being
enunciated by Prophet Muhammad, many rules of traditional fiqh, or
Muslim jurisprudence, clearly militate against and violate this principle.
The need for dialogue between Muslims and the West is
particularly acute today, given the context of heightened conflict and
violence between them. Most Muslims and westerners realise that they
cannot live in isolation from each other. In fact, they both need each
other. Consciousness of that need must be translated into positive
practical action based on sincere dialogue to counter misunderstandings
and to work together for a better world.