Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue

<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>: <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on <strong>the</strong> State of Dialogue
12
Introduction
Box 1.2
The Meaning of Dialogue
Karen Armstrong
Aleadingexperton<strong>the</strong>Abrahamicfaiths,KarenArmstronghaswrittenextensivelyon<strong>the</strong>opportunities<strong>and</strong>
challenges posed by interfaith dialogue. Her most recent book is The Bible: A Biography.
Writing shortly before <strong>the</strong> 1956 Suez Crisis, <strong>the</strong> late Wilfred Cantwell Smith issued a warning that was prophetically
prescient. Unless Muslims managed to come to terms with <strong>West</strong>ern society, it would be impossible for <strong>the</strong> religion
that was so necessary for <strong>the</strong>ir spiritual well being to flourish. But Christianity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong> also suffered from a
“fundamental weakness” – “an inability to recognize that <strong>the</strong>y share <strong>the</strong> planet not with inferiors but with equals.”
If this impasse continued, he argued, Muslims <strong>and</strong> <strong>West</strong>erners would both fail <strong>the</strong> crucial test of <strong>the</strong> 20th century.
The atrocities of 9/11 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir disastrous aftermath show that nei<strong>the</strong>r had learned <strong>the</strong>se essential lessons. If we continue
in this failure to accommodate each o<strong>the</strong>r, we are unlikely to have a viable world to h<strong>and</strong> on to <strong>the</strong> next generation.
Compassionate <strong>and</strong> respectful dialogue is essential. But what exactly does dialogue require? I suggest three disciplines
for encounters between <strong>the</strong> various faith traditions.
First, dialogue can never be simply a matter of expressing our own views to ensure that <strong>the</strong>y <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y alone prevail.
We must also listen. We are not very good at listening in our chronically talkative society. In parliamentary debate or
televised panel discussions, participants do not engage fully while <strong>the</strong>ir interlocutors are speaking, but concentrate instead
on <strong>the</strong>ir own clever riposte. This is not dialogue; <strong>the</strong> alternative viewpoint simply becomes a foil for our own argument.
Listening means that we not only hear <strong>the</strong> words of our partners in dialogue, but that we attend closely to <strong>the</strong> underlying
pain or confusion that informs what <strong>the</strong>y say. This is essential when our own nation or faith may have been responsible
for inflicting this distress. There can be no progress if <strong>the</strong> crimes, atrocities <strong>and</strong> prejudices of <strong>the</strong> past are systematically
denied in order to buttress our own traditions, institutions <strong>and</strong> policies.
Second, we cannot enter dialogue in order to win. We inherited <strong>the</strong> inherently confrontational, agonistic tenor of our
modern discourse from <strong>the</strong> ancient Greeks, whose democratic courts <strong>and</strong> assemblies were unashamedly competitive.
There is no point in dialogue if we are not prepared to change our minds, alter our preconceptions <strong>and</strong> transcend an
orthodoxy that we have long ceased to examine critically.
In <strong>the</strong> past, despite lamentable failures in coexistence, Jews, Christians <strong>and</strong> Muslims often learned from one ano<strong>the</strong>r.
In <strong>Islam</strong>ic Spain, for example, Jews <strong>and</strong> Christians found that <strong>the</strong> encounter with <strong>Islam</strong> gave <strong>the</strong>m new insight into
<strong>the</strong>ir own religious traditions; scholars from o<strong>the</strong>r parts of Europe came to al-Andalus to study with Muslims, who
helped <strong>the</strong>m to recover <strong>the</strong> classical learning that <strong>the</strong>y had lost during <strong>the</strong> Dark Ages. They thus transformed <strong>West</strong>ern
society. Dialogue aims not to convert our partners to our own point of view, but to cooperate with <strong>the</strong>m in creating
fresh insight.
Finally, dialogue must not degenerate into a cosy colloquy between like-minded people. As in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Irel<strong>and</strong>, a way
must ultimately be found to include those who hold views that we find unacceptable. We can never condone cruelty,
bigotry or criminality, but leaving extremists out of <strong>the</strong> conversation, while we speak only to <strong>the</strong> converted, is surely
not <strong>the</strong> answer ei<strong>the</strong>r.