The Vice-President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, revealed that there are efforts being undertaken by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Foundation in Jordan to hold a conference next June with a number of Muslim scholars and Pope Benedict XVI. Bin Bayyah remarked, in a special statement to Al Watan, that if any Pope of the Vatican fails to engage with the Muslim world, his mission would be a total failure.

He stressed that he could not imagine a global peace without the existence, first, of peace between Muslims and Christians. Bin Bayyah pointed out that the Royal Aal al-Bayt Foundation sent some negotiators to the Vatican to make the necessary arrangements for this meeting, saying: “It cannot be affirmed that the dialogue would be useful.”  Bin Bayyah commented: “As yet, there are not enough signs to identify the real intentions of the Pope with regards to his relationship with Muslims.”

We spoke in a previous article, and we will continue to consider in subsequent articles, about the difficulties in communication between the Islamic and other civilizations. In this article we wonder: What is the purpose of communication?

The purpose of this particular form of communication is to search for points of convergence through logic, reason and understanding. It looks to reach a common ground, based on mutual interests, that reveals the falsity of bigotry deposits that distort the image of Islam and Muslims. The other purpose is acculturation and intellectual cross-fertilization, which creates a mutual effect. This replaces the haughtiness and superiority, exuded by a large sector of leaders of free thought in the West, with that of tolerance. Their approach can be summarized in the exclusion of the other, as explained by the French writer Sophie Bessis in her book TheWest and Others.

Thus, our purpose is also to alleviate the extremism of those calling for a clash of civilizations. We hope to remove the prevailing image of a Muslim sector that considers the entire West ‘a devil’ whose friendship is impossible and all his notions refutable, even if they might be useful to humanity.

As a result of the West’s outward perception of haughtiness, western civilization endeavors to impose its vision on others, failing to recognize the right of diversity and difference. Whoever does not accept such a vision is considered to belong to the camp of ‘evil’, because the world is so simply divided into those two camps; good and evil. This is the basis on which the idea of clash of civilizations is founded. Such an idea considers Islam to be the only civilization which still resists western containment and modernity, as stated by Fukuyama who resembles Samuel Huntington’s opinion in this regard.

The suggestion of the ‘inevitability’ of a clash of civilizations as a result of diversity is merely proof of the failure by one of the two civilizations to recognize this right of diversity. Such a right would be the basis for dialogue and a means to know one another. Thus, the concept of communication proceeds to face the concept of a clash. Some western bodies have invented what they called “critical dialogue” with some countries.

The ultimate goal of dialogue and communication is to create a breach in the wall of this extremist visualization. Without this breach, such extremes will only breed further radicalism and clashes. As the saying goes: “he who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.” The clearest example of this contrast is the attitude of many intellectuals in the West regarding the cartoons aimed to harm the image of our master, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If they do not support the abuse openly, they resent the reaction of the Muslim world and consider what the newspaper has done to be normal or freedom of expression. The violent behavior, however, of some Muslims in reaction to this incident does not serve the cause of communication.

The process of communication will try to overcome the cultural and psychological barrier by extending bridges between civilizations to make alternatives available, instead of the perpetual and sterile conflict. What are the next steps? These five steps will be considered in another article.

We mentioned in the previous article that the process of communication tries to overcome psychological and cultural barriers to extend bridges between civilizations. It looks to provide alternatives for the perpetual and sterile conflict that we find ourselves in. We pointed out that achieving this requires five steps. We will mention some of these steps in this episode of articles dedicated to the treatment of the problem of communication between Islamic civilization and other civilizations. So, what are some of these steps? We summarize some of them below.

The first step is to convince the parties who hope to communicate, or who are still hesitant, that there is no substitute for dialogue. Both parties must be persuaded that wars and mutual hatred can be replaced by peace and harmony. Wise men must behave accordingly by replacing enmity with channels of communication. When consciences recover from tyranny and souls recover from vanity there is an opportunity to take advantage of globalization by exchanging the manufactured with natural products, as well as intellectual, literature, legal and philosophical products. In this era of shrinking distances and globalization of communication, transportation and technology, none will win through war or the process of instability and threat. The victorious party will also lose. The awareness of this fact will be the first step to dialogue.

The second step concerns goals and objectives. The linking of communication and dialogue with goals and objectives will organize the process and steer the path to communication; even though the path may appear crooked. On the contrary, the idle and undetermined dialogue, which has no goal or purpose, is just dialogue for dialogue’s sake. It might be acceptable at the beginning of the road to explore arenas of communication and clarify aspects of its problems. But it should not be permanent, rather, the interlocutors must seek certain stations to reach, which attract and push them to reach their goals, thereby making difficulties easy and enabling  them to overcome obstacles. Therefore, this regulation is central in the process of communication and exchange that prevails in the global arena.

The third step is the recognition of diversity to reach mutual understanding and achieve harmony. Such recognition is the most important factor for dispute resolution. Thus, it may be convenient to refer to some differences in morals, such as the difference of origin or differing concepts of public order, the latter of which is a custom that determines good and bad conduct in any society.

Due to the importance of the Public Order Theory in the disputable intellectual cases and its consequent results, we will explain this briefly on the next occasion, in addition to the remainder of the steps.

Some time ago, I visited Britain on the invitation of a number of Muslim associations. We were given a two-pronged program: one part included lectures and meetings with the leaders of the Muslim community in London and other cities. The second part of our trip involved meeting with British officials, including Britain’s attorney general and the Minister of State for Middle East and Commonwealth Affairs.

I also held a symposium with senior officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, followed by a meeting at the headquarters of the British police (Scotland Yard). I was not brought there for being accused of a charge! (These were my words to Sir Ian Blair, the then head of the aforementioned body.) Upon meeting Sir Blair – not to be confused with Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister – I was left with the impression that he was quite a gentleman.

I must emphasize here to the reader that I was not carrying intelligence information. I was in fact asked to lecture in a room in the House of Lords on the drafting of laws under Islamic law. A discussion followed on some of the legal opinions surrounding such laws, the issue of security and the covenant of Islam. I then visited an Anglican Church where we exchanged thoughts and came to an agreement on various issues.

Just a few days after my trip to the UK, I was at a conference in Kuwait organized by the Ministry of Justice and Endowments, under the title “We and the Other”. The subject on which I was asked to submit a paper was the “Parameters and Mechanisms of Communication”. I provided valuable research in this regard, which highlighted the desire to find a formula of communication. On the occasion of the conference I, along with a group of scientists and intellectuals, met with His Highness the Amir of Kuwait and the Prime Minister. I have heard from many sources of the sincere desire to find mechanisms for communication, which ultimately means understanding and harmony between civilizations, to put an end to misunderstanding and its causes.

So, what is the relationship between my tour in Britain and the trip to Kuwait?  It is the desire to communicate. I realized that all the individuals I met, at various levels of society, have the same desire to find ways for communication. I say this about Kuwaitis without reservation. As for the British, it is well known that they are the example of wisdom and that their accumulative experience about the Islamic world does not need to be proven. Yet, I think that they have desire to explore other ways to communicate with the Islamic civilization. They deal with their fellow Muslims in a very civilized manner, in comparison to the treatment of other countries.

The question now begs, why is it necessary to search for communication? Communication means the interaction between two or more persons; that is to establish a material or spiritual link. Its first meaning in the dictionary is to establish a relationship with someone. In his bookThe Other Globalization, issued in February 2004, the French writer Dominique Walton draws attention to the fact that the media, for example, does not stand for communication. He states: “There is a difference between the verbs ‘tell and inform’ on the one part, and the verb ‘communicate’ on the other part. This is because the globalization of the media came to inform people of news; but did not make them communicate to understand each other better.”

Communication has become an inevitable necessity and a sacred duty. If seeking to communicate presupposes the existence of problems, obstacles to be overcome, or a misunderstanding that should be removed, then our response must be positive. Communication is necessary in this day and age to avoid the misinterpretation of history. Some of those who falsely construct history include culprits who supposedly belong to Islam, who create false constructs without consultation from the vast majority of Muslims.

Thus, these incidents have accumulated in an historical hatred between civilizations, resulting in grave incidents. The clash of cultures predicted by fortunetellers has come true, and soothsaying has turned into disaster with wars breaking out in more than one country. What is the origin of this misunderstanding or mistrust?  First, let us say: friction is natural between neighbors. This friction can turn into battles, as it has done around the Mediterranean Sea. Neighbors have travelled through this water barrier, or connector, to bring rise to approximately 3000 major battles over the years, as estimated by some researchers.

The advent of Islam came about in the seventh century as a powerful empire, both culturally and spiritually, between Europe, Africa and the borders of Asia. Verily, this and subsequent events that spread across the centuries (beginning with Islam entering the Levant to truncate the southern Mediterranean from the Roman Empire, the seizure of Andalusia and Islam entering Constantinople) made Islam the greatest enemy of the West. This ‘arch-enemy’ needed to be eradicated by all means: military, cultural, and by the use of weapons of insult or defamation.

These obscene words and abhorrent characteristics appealed to the so-called ‘Enlightened Writers’, such as Dante, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and others who drew a bad image for Islam and Muslims. This led to the breaking of the Crusades and Restoration Wars after the call of Pope Urban in 1059 A.C.  The fall of Andalusia at the end of the 15th century and the retreat of the Turkish army at the walls of Vienna in 1683 A.C. marked the beginning of Western colonialism. The rest of the story is well-known. It concluded with the establishment of the State of Israel in the heart of the Arab world, and subsequent events that continue to this day.

Another reason for this mistrust and breakdown in communication has been highlighted by some western writers, namely Marcel Bouzar. He calls it “the knot of relatives”, as our relatives are often the most difficult to understand.

Does Islam promote a position of fanaticism and narrow-mindedness; or interaction and dialogue?

Love and justice are the controls of the relationship of Islam with the ‘other’. This is provided that the ‘other’ neither forces us to leave Islam nor expels us out of our lands. The Qur’an explicitly states this concept in the verse that reads: “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.” (Al-Mum’tahanah60:8)

These are the prerequisites of Islamic friendship for other cultures or peoples. The verse is general in its application and includes all people and religions. Islam represents benevolence which embraces all kinds of good treatment, such as maintaining the ties of kinship, righteousness, philanthropy and goodness. As Islam promotes benevolence by placing it on the highest level of human relations, we in turn must find out how to practically put this divine command into application.

Our children should be raised on the values of convergence, just as the western culture should be fair and balanced, so that we may reach a mid-way meeting point. Fanaticism makes a person blind and deaf regarding the other. Therefore, the actual criterion for justly evaluating the behavior of any culture regarding other cultures depends on its actions at times of triumph.

Fanatical behavior takes many forms and colours. History tells us about the organization of genocide and mass displacement against people, performed under the pretext that those people were ‘foreigners’. We will mention some examples of this behavior when we discuss the situation of Islam regarding the ‘other’. There are also many recorded acts of fanaticism, which have included people depriving others of their civil rights, personal and religious liberty by rejecting their views and values. We will provide testimonies of western authors and texts of the Shari`ah (“Islamic law”) that conclusively prove that Islam is historically not fanatic in any sense of the word.

Thomas Arnold once said: “If the Muslim Caliphs made use of one of the two plans, temptation or eradication, they would have easily destroyed Christianity, just as Ferdinand and Isabella did with Muslims in Andalusia, or Louis XIV who punished followers of the Protestant doctrine in France, or like the Jews who were kept banished from England over three hundred and fifty years.” (Da`wah to Islam, p. 99) According to the western thinker: “Muslims should be proud of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who did not cause harm to anyone during the conquest of Mecca. Therefore, the people of Mecca embraced Islam in spite of the great enmity, hostility and wars against him. Rather, he said illuminated words, “This is a day of peacefulness and today the Quraysh is honored.” He said to them while he was standing by the door of Ka’bah and they were fearful surrounding him, “Go, you are free.”

“The policy of religious tolerance adopted by Islamic governments regarding its Christian subjects in Spain and the freedom of mixing between followers of different religion gave birth to a degree of homogeneity and resemblance between both sides and marriage spread between them. Pope Adrian I expressed his concern about this familiarity between Catholics and Muslims.” (Da`wah to Islam, p. 159) These are just some of the testimonies that prove that the claims, that Islam aims to destroy other religions, are groundless. Yet, the texts of Shari`ah indicate a kind of acceptance of the existence and continuation of some cultures and commend their values. Almighty Allah says regarding Christians: “…and you will find the nearest in love to the believers those who say, “We are Christians.”” (Al-Maidah 5:82)

It was authentically reported in Muslim that Al-Mustawrid said to Amr ibn al-As: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying, “The Hour will come while Romans are the greatest in number among people.”” Amr said, “Think about what you said.” Al-Mustawrid replied: “I have said what I heard from Allah’s Messenger.” Amr said: “Have you said that, they have four characteristics: they are the most forbearing people at times of sedition; the quickest recovering after disasters; the first to re-attack after retreat; the most benevolent towards the poor, the orphans, and the weak; and — the fifth and noblest feature-the most resistant to unjust kings?” (Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Fitan)

It is important to point to this commendation of the Romans and their culture, from one ofSahabah (“Companions of the Prophet”) who conquered and ruled Egypt. This indicates an early Muslim view of the Christian culture in the West and a deep understanding of the characteristics of their rival but with an equitable stance nonetheless. Almighty Allah says: “…and reduce not the things that are due to people, and do not commit mischief in the land, causing corruption.” (Hud 11:85) It was reported in a less sound hadith, regarding the end of the two great nations that: “Persia is one or two battles, then it is destroyed. Byzantium is generations, when a generation perishes another one succeeds it. (They are) people of patience, and people of patience are to live to the end of this world. They are your friends so long as living (with them) is good.”

It is reported in the hadith of Ibn Majah that the Sahabah of the Prophet (pbuh) who were in Abyssinia told him about an old Christian nun who was attacked by a young man from Abyssinia. The young man pushed her so that the water jar on her head was broken. She warned him against standing before Allah. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her, “Ratified, ratified.  How Allah sanctifies a nation in which the right of the weak is not taken from the strong.” (Ibn Majah 2718 of the Hadith Encyclopedia)

These words indicate the nomination of virtue, regardless of its origin and that following the example of other nations in their virtues is desirable because “wisdom is the aim of the believer.” That is the position of Islam, which is represented in the interaction of civilizations within a common human scope.