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

Box 5.5
The Circle of Dialogue
Thomas Banchoff
Thomas Banchoff is Associate Professor of Government <strong>and</strong> Director of <strong>the</strong> Berkley Center for Religion, Peace,
<strong>and</strong> World Affairs at Georgetown University. His most recent book is Democracy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Religious
Pluralism (editor).
Who’s in <strong>and</strong> who’s out? Organizers of events designed to improve Muslim-<strong>West</strong> relations cannot escape this question.
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression, but not everyone has a right to a platform or to join every discussion.
Dialogue programmes, whe<strong>the</strong>r conferences, roundtables, seminars or online chats require effort <strong>and</strong> resources.
An invitation to participate is an investment in someone. It is meant to fur<strong>the</strong>r a purpose, <strong>the</strong> sharing of knowledge
<strong>and</strong> experiences, for example, or <strong>the</strong> promotion of shared approaches to economic, social, or political issues of
common concern. How to draw <strong>the</strong> circle of dialogue, who to leave in <strong>and</strong> who to leave out, is not always obvious.
To make events public <strong>and</strong> allow for feedback from <strong>the</strong> audience does not resolve <strong>the</strong> problem. The question of <strong>the</strong>
principals – who is on stage – can be critical.
How to define <strong>and</strong> deal with extremists is a particularly difficult issue. What makes someone an extremist? Is it hatred,
like that of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ophobe or <strong>the</strong> anti-Semite? Is it <strong>the</strong> glorification of violence? Or is <strong>the</strong> threshold higher: complicity
in <strong>the</strong> killing of innocents? Dialogue can be a way to reach out to, <strong>and</strong> potentially transform, extremists of all three
kinds. But such efforts come with significant risks.
Providing a platform can lend legitimacy, as it recognizes someone as an interlocutor who might have something to
teach us. But those who glorify or perpetrate violence – outside of legitimate self-defense – have taken up arms instead
of arguments. To invite <strong>the</strong>m to a dialogue may, paradoxically, endorse <strong>the</strong>ir repudiation of dialogue <strong>and</strong> provide <strong>the</strong>m
with a platform for a hateful monologue. Yes, a dialogue setting allows for critical questions <strong>and</strong> public scrutiny. But in
deciding how to define <strong>and</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r to include extremists, one must proceed with caution.
The promise of dialogue is squ<strong>and</strong>ered when <strong>the</strong> term extremist is applied not to hate-mongerers or inciters of violence,
but to those with whom we disagree. The fate of Tariq Ramadan provides a vivid illustration of this danger. An Egyptianborn
intellectual <strong>and</strong> fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford, Ramadan has written <strong>and</strong> spoken widely on <strong>the</strong> challenges
facing <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> Muslims in Atlantic democracies. He insists on a critical engagement with core <strong>West</strong>ern values <strong>and</strong>
institutions – not <strong>the</strong>ir rejection. Ramadan is an outspoken critic of Israeli policy towards <strong>the</strong> Palestinians, but he is not
an advocate of violence. He has written against suicide bombing <strong>and</strong> Muslim anti-Semitism.
Ramadan had agreed to assume a position at Notre Dame University in 2004 when <strong>the</strong> US State Department revoked
his visa under <strong>the</strong> “ideological exclusion” provision of <strong>the</strong> Patriot Act. No specific offense was cited. In fall 2006 a US
official linked <strong>the</strong> visa denial to contributions Ramadan made to a charity with links to Hamas over <strong>the</strong> period 1998-
2002. Ramadan points out that <strong>the</strong> contributions were made before <strong>the</strong> charity was blacklisted. Someday we may
know why Ramadan still cannot enter <strong>the</strong> United States. For <strong>the</strong> time being, most Americans can engage <strong>and</strong> debate
with him only at a distance.
Since 2005, Georgetown University has twice invited Ramadan to come to campus, <strong>and</strong> twice he has been unable to
obtain a visa. In April 2007, students, faculty <strong>and</strong> members of <strong>the</strong> Washington, DC community ga<strong>the</strong>red in <strong>the</strong> historic
Gaston Hall for satellite conversations with Ramadan on topics ranging from democracy <strong>and</strong> human rights, to interreligious
underst<strong>and</strong>ing.
When governments draw <strong>the</strong> circle of dialogue too tightly, global communications can help to keep <strong>the</strong> conversation
going.
<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 Religion, Ethics <strong>and</strong> Ideology
67