Questo scritto è tratto dal sito
ResetDoC - Dialogues on Civilizations
Abstract
This abstract is rewritten after the presentation to
include the ensuing debate. This is to elucidate the
basic ideas with a reference to Hasan
Hanafis presentation in which a strong sentiment
of accusation of the West as well as a preclusion of
the possibility of a real intercultural dialogue among
asymmetric parties prevailed. The overall theme of my
presentation is a dealing with the contrary sentiments
of opening and closing of mind in an intercultural interaction
with the cultural other. The presentation made included
four parts and it is introduced by five remarks:
1. Dialogue is a means of communication between the
world of Islam and the West in a conflict-ridden situation.
It is not “l’art pour l’art”,
but rather an instrument for a) an exchange and borrowing,
as well as b) for peaceful conflict resolution. Therefore,
it is argued that the style of accusation and self-victimization
leads to nowhere and it distorts the dialogue and hampers
any communication at the very outset.
2. Shared discourse and knowledge are a prerequirement
for a successful dialogue in order to be able to address
the pending issues and communicate over them.
3. We not only need to go beyond Orientalism and Occidentalism
as well, but also beyond polarization and dichotomy
through discursive communication.
4. Muslims need to look at themselves critically in
the mind of the Quran’ic verse “God does
not change people unless they change themselves”
to stop blaming the others for their own shortcomings.
The Qur’an says the truth.
5. There can be no general talk about Islam as a civilization
due to the existence of rival and varying traditions
within Islam. In short, there is no uniform Islam, but
rather competing Islamic traditions. One of them is
rationalism (Ibn Rushd and Averrroism) contrasted with
the rival one of fiqh-orthodoxy (Ibn Taimiyya).
Following these five major statements the presentation
includes in its first section its framework, as it is
outlined. The premise introduced in the introductory
section is based on the assumption that we live in a
global village in an age of ”the cultural turn”.
In this context, culture moves to the fore. The implication
can be phrased in the formula that a cultural accord
over basic values is lacking, even though it is a basic
prerequirement for world peace. It follows that dialogue
is needed and the pitfalls addressed above are to be
dealt with in a productive manner. In contrast to the
benign view on the allegedly harmonious relations between
cultures this paper does not overlook the dimension
of cultural conflict, however, bewares of the trap of
any essentialization and is committed to just and peaceful
solutions. In addition, it views the needed cultural
accord over some basics. This is a tenet of a dialogue
aimed at pursuing justice and a peaceful conflict resolution.
Clearly, conflict is a way of life and does not mean
more than disagreement over the issues, however, if
related to power relations, then disagreement becomes
a real problem. In establishing common rules and in
reaching a basic consensus over essential values people
of different cultures can manage to deal with these
power relations and to live in peace with one another
and to interact in a way that could be enriching instead
of any damaging patterns of disagreement.
In the 2nd part of this paper an effort is made at applying
the premise outlined in the 1st section, and the preunderstanding
of dialogue articulated in the preliminary five statements.
The related assumptions on which this thinking is based
are applied to Islam and the West. At issue is an inquiry
into the Euro-Islamic relations without falling into
the trap of wishful thinking. In this pursuit, one can
state a simultaneity of conflict and incomprehension
on both sides. The work of translation is a concrete
issue area for dealing with these questions. In earlier
encounters between both civilizations there were great
activities of translation. The first prominent Muslim
to study in Paris, Rifa’a Tahtawi, engaged upon
his return to Cairo in translating dozens of major European
works into Arabic, then launching herethrough a wave
of cultural borrowing for facilitating both interaction
and comprehension. In contrasting Tahtawi of early 19th
century with the present intellectual activities of
the most influential contemporary Islamist Yusuf al-Qaradawi
one encounters a closing of the mind of Muslims at present
vis-à-vis the cultural other. The opening and
closing of mind within cultures is not only between
the self and the other, it also affects a dialogue among
Muslims themselves. The closing of mind among Muslims
themselves leads to the lack of inner-Islamic communication.
An example for this is the Islamist al-Qaradawi and
the Averroëist al-Jabiri; one can see the difference
between opening and closing civilizational boundaries
in the relationship between both. They do not talk to
one another.
The past and at present are cases in point. The mindset
of Tahtawi of the 19th century was once an expression
of a cultural opening for learning from others while
being committed on one’s own culture. In contrast,
the mindset of Qaradawi of the 21st century is directed
to viewing any cultural borrowing as “hall
mustawrad/imported solution” to be utterly
rejected in favor of what he terms as al-hall al-Islami
being the only authentic solution. This is no less at
work than establishing by Muslims of a Huntingtonian
fault-line between the self and the other. It is asked:
is this the outcome of a closing of the cultural boundaries?
The answer is: Yes. In the 2nd UNDP-report on the Arab
world one reads the shuttering information that per
one million Arabs only one book is translated at present
from other languages into Arabic per year. In short,
this is a closing of the cultural boundary and it unfortunately
reflects a prevailing attitude. The culture of translation
as a means for the transmission of knowledge is not
only a means in that it also contributes to reshaping
the attitudes, the mindset and the worldview of the
recipients in an interaction with the other. If this
potential is taken away, there can be no cultural interaction
at all and thus no opening for a dialogue.
In the third part of the presentation it is asked why
contemporary Muslims are poised to close in the name
of asalah/authenticity the cultural boundaries.
Earlier, be it in the 19th/20th century in the age of
liberal and reform Islam, or earlier in medieval Islam
(cultural borrowing from Greek legacy), in the age of
Islamized Hellenism, Muslims were culturally fully open
to learning from other cultures. The theory of the cultural
turn conceptualizing culture in the light of an age
of structural globalization may provide some explanatory
help for answering this perplex issue and the related
predicament. The cultural turn theory refers to culture
as cultural system of views and perceptions with which
people of a real or imagined cultural community face
the other in an age of globalization as a threat to
them and to their identity. Based on this threat perception
identity politics is thriving. In this context, cultural
tensions arise and contribute – in contrast to
translation – to an incomprehension. The concept
of asalah/authenticity leads to establishing identity
politics of fault-lines. The outcome is a line drawn
between the self and the other. Often religion –
in an age of the return of the sacred – and history
are used in a constructed shape to a politicization
creating sources of tension and conflict, not of a comprehension
for a needed dialogue.
The fourth and final section of the paper focuses on
the search for an exit out of the impasse caused by
this crisis-ridden situation. It is argued that opinion
leaders of the conflicting cultures and civilizations
are ethically obliged to re-establish ways of opening
via translation, and also to communicate with one another
while recognizing the primacy of reason over cultural
and religious particularisms. In contrast, the style
of accusation and of self-victimization is counterproductive
and even more: it is damaging. In this situation it
would be luxury and even more – irresponsible
– to limit the dialogue to either of the two extremes,
on the one hand to an art of harmonious literary exchange
and communication as l’art pour l’art,
or to a forum of accusations. In the present global
crisis-ridden situation we urgently need efforts at
de-escalation and at establishing cultural mechanisms
for a conflict resolution. In our time, this is no more
and no less than fulfilling the task of a responsible
dialogue among the civilizations. At issue should be
a dialogue on the existing problems in pursuit of a
conflict resolution, no blame-games, no accusations,
no self-victimization, but rather a rational debate
underpinned by a shared discourse and honest will to
come to terms with one another. Existing power relations
should not serve as an excuse for excluding a rational
dialogue among the civilizations. With a hindsight,
the Cairo dialogue was restricted to a contribution
to creating an environment for the dialogue. This is
a first step not yet the needed dialogue expected to
follow in the efforts to come and in the long road for
a democratic and just peace in the world.
Beyond
Orientalism and Occidentalism
March 4th/6th 2006 - Cairo, Egypt
Papers
index
|
