Dialogue

Further to yesterday’s post on the excellent Spectator debate, which I urge you to download, a few thoughts occur.

One of Tariq Ramadan’s favoured rhetorical ploys, employed during the debate, is to blather at length about the need for “dialogue” and “discourse” (as if no-one else had thought to suggest such a thing), before denouncing as “arrogant” almost any statement, question or discussion that might realistically address the fundamental issues. In response to this manoeuvre, Douglas Murray asks how a “dialogue” might begin:

“Where does [the dialogue] start? Would it start, for instance, with making a joke? Contra Mr Khomeini – not a funny man. Or, would it start with an article, perhaps? Would it start, perhaps, with a film? It did, a few years ago, with Submission, and Theo van Gogh was killed. Could it start with making a joke, perhaps? A joke in a cartoon? Well, apparently not, because we know there were burnings and killings and lootings and rioting across the globe in reaction to those cartoons. If you’re going to start a dialogue, what could you do that would be smaller than drawing a cartoon? This dialogue which we keep on being offered is not reciprocated.” 

Indeed. The “dialogue” Ramadan forever alludes to, somewhat vaguely, is by implication a dialogue on strictly Islamic terms – which is to say, on terms that are censorious, often circular and profoundly unrealistic. In this, Ramadan is far from alone. I’ve lost count of how many people seem to imagine that it’s somehow possible to challenge jihadist ideology and related horrors without mentioning Muhammad’s rather central role in the origination, sanctioning and perpetuation of those horrors, and without offending an apparently endless menu of other ‘sensitivities’. But if one cannot – dare not – draw attention to the link between sacralised atrocity and the exhortations of Islam’s founder, then what kind of dialogue is likely to be had?

Related. And. Also. Plus.

Comments

[georges]

Quick reaction to the debate:

Best speaker - Ibn Warraq. He values every second he's allowed to speak. There's no boilerplate with him.

The flaw in the motion is the word "Western". What's really meant is "liberal, secular". "Eastern" India, Japan, South Korea embrace liberal, democratic, secular values. "Western" societies like Franco's Spain, Greece under the Colonels, Hitler etc clearly did not. Most of Glass & Dalrymple's contributions dissolve once this distinction is made. They don't actually advocate illiberal, Theocratic values. They simply point to examples of Western badness (Glass) and Eastern goodness (Dalrymple). All good points, but irrelevant.

This is also why Islam - rather than Confucianism, Buddhism etc - dominates the discussion. In 2007 it's really only in Islam that significant figures argue loudly and directly that illiberal, Theocratic values are inherently superior to liberal, secular ones. I've heard several Islamist spokesmen in Britain say there is a fundamental problem with "man-made laws", as opposed to the allegedly "God-made laws" of Sharia, and that democracy is inherently ungodly. There are plenty of other anti-democrats in the world, of course, but none is as brazen.

Tariq Ramadan - I just don't know. At times I think he's trying that most difficult of manoeuvres - to turn Islamic societies around 180 degrees while pretending he's not changing anything. If that's what he's about, I have some sympathy. Sometimes reformers have to play that game. Gorbachev's Perestroika was like that. And maybe that is really what he's doing. I wonder...

[David]

Georges,

“Best speaker - Ibn Warraq.”

Agreed. And Douglas Murray is very good too.

“The flaw in the motion is the word ‘Western’.”

Well, the term “Western” is addressed during the debate. It’s also been addressed at length here in much the same way. To call the values in question “Western” (which I generally avoid, except in quotation marks) is perhaps misleading; but once suitably defined it’s just a shorthand of sorts. These ideals may have been codified and pursued most vigorously by Western societies, often with dramatic results, but they’re really a synthesis of what works well and are ultimately drawn from a number of cultures and precedents. Indeed, as Ibn Warraq says, this synthesis, curiosity and critical re-evaluation are among the values being debated.

[David]

Georges,

As for Ramadan’s “most difficult of manoeuvres”, I can only suggest you read his lectures and statements to Muslim-only audiences and see how they contradict his statements to non-Muslim audiences. (See below.)

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/squinting_at_ex.html

If one gives Ramadan the benefit of the doubt, which I wouldn’t, he’s simply a careerist opportunist, stringing out a mannered rhetorical fudge that can never really be resolved, while basking in the limelight. And the basic question remains. What does Ramadan’s use of two distinct and contradictory narratives say about the compatibility of his two - apparently distinct and contradictory – audiences?

[georges]

Do you think it would have been a more interesting discussion if they had invited, say, a member of Hizb ut Tahir to argue that a Caliphate based on Koranic literalism would be superior to liberal democracy? Would that, perhaps, have thrown the issues into starker relief?

[D.J. Grothe]

Excellent debate. I know Ibn Warraq personally, so I am biased, but I find his arguments incredibly compelling. Islam (but not only Islam) is a violent religion from its origins, and is incompatible with Western values as a result.

[David]

Georges,

Well, having debated at length with a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, I can’t say the experience was rewarding. Talking to fantasist bigots rarely is. Dissembling, evasion and barefaced dishonesty were a large part of the exchange, and other exchanges I’ve seen suggest this isn’t at all unusual. It would, I think, be unwise to assume that a member of Hizb would be willing to debate in good faith or alter his position. Though the attempt might reveal to an audience what one is dealing with.

[Ophelia Benson]

What D.J. said. I too know Ibn Warraq (slightly) so I too am biased, but all the same, he rocks.

[georges]

Now I'm thinking. Of course democracy is better than tyranny. But it does have to fit local circumstances. The bloody partition of India was prompted by the imminent arrival of democracy. Suddenly the Muslims of India faced the prospect of being a permanently out-votable minority, and they didn't fancy it much. Ireland, Cyprus and Yugoslavia all show how the arrival of greater democracy can prompt panic and violence.

Democracy only works where there is a realistic possibility that people will not vote tribally, and may change their vote from one election to the next. In heavily sectarian societies every election is merely a census - it tells you how many Protestants and Catholics, Greeks and Turks, or Muslims and Hindus there are, and nothing else. It's obvious that Iraq is that kind of a society.

[David]

Georges & Ophelia,

In his article, Douglas Murray says: “Today we assume that any assertion of superiority must lead to assertion by force. But it need not be so. Rights are spread as much by confident example as by force.” What concerns me is that we have conflicting ideas on the same turf here at home. For that conflict to be resolved, at least in terms of law and broad cultural propriety, ideas may have to be tested quite vigorously. That’s how progress usually happens. Ideas collide and bits may break off in the process. Some ideas – bad ones – will not survive. But, like many others, Ramadan lays out preconditions on how a hypothetical “dialogue” might proceed – what cannot be said, what will cause umbrage, what is “arrogant”, etc. This is often done to suggest some ignorance or hubris on the part of those who are willing to actually test ideas, if necessary to destruction, or at least widespread disrepute.

During the debate Douglas Murray asks how Ramadan’s dialogue might realistically begin, and no answer is forthcoming. Evidently, films, novels, articles, scholarly lectures and cartoons aren’t promising avenues, and statements of historical fact can be a wee bit dicey too. And the “interfaith dialogue” of which we hear so much is very often an empty and dishonest endeavour, lagged as it usually is with polite fictions and endless careful omissions. But serious dialogue (as opposed to Ramadan’s bavardage) would, practically by definition, have to include points like those outlined by Andrew Bostom in the article linked below:

http://tinyurl.com/3yq3vh

[AntiCitizenOne]

Democracy only works, with a demos (a group of people who share a culture).

That's why multi-culturalism is such a threat to the country.

[Chris Wallis]

Ophelia-
Indeed- Democracy and Tribalism don't mix. Anyone got a better idea for governing a tribal society?

[Dr.Dawg]

I am inclined to be slightly more charitable to Ramadan than others here. It's my trade union background. I think he's genuinely trying to mediate between two antagonistic parties.

I know how mediators work. Of course they talk differently to the employer than to the union. With us, he'd come in. looking grim, tell us we were being unrealistic here, and here, and here, and that the employer would never go for this, and that, and the other. And to the employer, I'm informed, he'd say that the union will never accept this, isn't too keen on that, and will go to the wall on the other. Eventually, we settled.

This is only an imperfect analogy. But I think that there may, as noted, be a more benign interpretation for his audience-specific discourses. Incidentally, someone expressed displeasure that Ramadan has stated he shook women's hands. That's hardly worth articulating to us, but it's a big deal for some of the Believers. And this is how mediation works--a little bit at a time.

Who appointed him mediator? Why, no one, which may account for some of the wrath against him. (What is the Islamic side saying? Do they like him, or do they doubt his bona fides?) But maybe--just maybe--he's trying to get a dialogue going. I hope one might be possible. Some here think it's impossible. But where does the latter lead?

[EBD]

"Some here think (debate is) impossible."

Names, please. Otherwise everyone's left wondering which of the previous eleven posts you are referring to.

I agree with Tariq Ramadan on one thing: asserting the superiority of our values to others abroad is counterproductive. If we're going to assert our values, we'd best assert them where we can: at home, where we have every right to -- you'd think -- and to assert them in the, uhh, transitive verb sense, as in, asserting authority jurisdictionally, as opposed to asserting a point in a negotiative debate with those from other jurisdictions who question our right to have jurisdictional authority in our area over, say, the right to draw editorial cartoons without being murdered.

On that very note, when Ramadan says, in that royal *we* western proponents of Islam tend to use when they're talking to us on our own soil, that 'we' are scared of something, that 'we' are losing something of our identity, he's frankly and openly chastising us for our ill-informed conceit that there even is a 'we'. Yet you just know that there's a 'we' inherent in the Muslim faith -- it's kinda the whole point -- and that Ramadan himself would certainly use the word 'we' when he's addressing a Muslim-only audience. So when asks us in a chastising tone "Who is this 'we' we are talking about?" it should be considered not a reasonable point, let alone an applause-worthy one, but rather a pointed object-lesson for any westerner who feels unprepared to cede western freedoms -- cartoons, did I mention cartoons? -- in order to assuage Islamists' feelings.

Debate is always possible, but certain demands -- a ninety-five percent wage rollback, say, with a twenty-hour workday, I'm sure you understand, Dawg -- are not debatable.

[David]

Dr Dawg,

“I am inclined to be slightly more charitable to Ramadan than others here… I think he's genuinely trying to mediate between two antagonistic parties.”

If that’s the case - and I very much doubt it – Ramadan’s approach and criticism is strangely loaded and unilateral. And it doesn’t seem to be achieving much in the way of changing minds on the side of the argument where minds need changing most.

Still, it’s your big generous heart that makes us love you so.

EBD,

“Debate is always possible, but certain demands… are not debatable.”

Indeed. I’m not exactly sure how some have arrived at the idea that, domestically, there’s anything to be bartered or negotiated. What do people imagine they might give up in order to coexist under British law (or Dutch law, or Swedish) and with a broadly shared culture? When did free enquiry, on which progress tends to depend, become a bargaining chip?

[mr.shifter]

Fabian Tassano has a very interesting take over at Mediocracy.
I think you all should take a peek...

http://inversions-and-deceptions.blogspot.com/2007/10/values-what-values.html

[David]

Mr Shifter,

Thanks for that. From the above:

“Self-criticism of a specific kind is popular in the West, but it is confined to questioning capitalism and bourgeois concepts. The real cultural hegemony (leftist anti-bourgeois ideology) is not criticised to any significant extent.”

Indeed. We’ll have to work on that.

[Vitruvius]

Here's an excellent criticism of leftist anti-bourgeois ideology, though it's a few hour's read:

Gees' First Case
http://www.munseys.com/diskfive/geesfirst.htm

[Dr.Dawg]

EBD:

"Debate is always possible, but certain demands -- a ninety-five percent wage rollback, say, with a twenty-hour workday, I'm sure you understand, Dawg -- are not debatable."

As I said, it was an imperfect analogy--I was getting at the notion of mediation. But to continue the analogy, I might suggest that the 100,000 or more Iraqi dead thanks to the invasion, not to mention large numbers of chuldren dead because of prior sanctions ("It was worth it" said Madeleine Albright) could be seen as unacceptable concessions. And then some commentators I have seen demand that the other side renounce violence.

Look, I don't know if Ramadan is practising taqqiya or not. But I'm not troubled that he says different things to different audiences. It all depends on his motives.

David:

"And it doesn’t seem to be achieving much in the way of changing minds on the side of the argument where minds need changing most."

That was my earlier question: what do Muslims think of Ramadan? Is he popular or suspect? Indeed, were it the latter, I'd be inclined to push my hypothesis a little more than I'm prepared to do at the moment.

"Still, it’s your big generous heart that makes us love you so."

Gosh. I'm touched. But perhaps in this discussion we should stick to heads.

"I’m not exactly sure how some have arrived at the idea that, domestically, there’s anything to be bartered or negotiated. What do people imagine they might give up in order to coexist under British law (or Dutch law, or Swedish) and with a broadly shared culture? When did free enquiry, on which progress tends to depend, become a bargaining chip?"

I don't see mediation in this case as an aid to "bargaining" in the union sense, but to mutual understanding. Rather than asserting the "superiority" of this or that, why not find a less offensive starting-point--better vocabulary? That doesn't entail giving up anything.

"The real cultural hegemony (leftist anti-bourgeois ideology) is not criticised to any significant extent."

The author should look up "hegemony." Oh yes, and "cultural."

[David]

Dr Dawg,

As far as I’m aware, Ramadan has fairly strong support among many European Muslims, particularly in France, and among several Islamist movements - for perhaps obvious reasons, given his ancestry. His admirers among some UK Muslim groups and the left-leaning media have been noted in earlier posts. And, again, the contradictions between Ramadan’s exchanges with, say, the Guardian and his lectures to Muslim audiences raises a fundamental problem. Given the contradictions, which Ramadan narrative should we assume is the ‘authentic’ one, assuming one exists?

“I don't see mediation in this case as an aid to ‘bargaining’ in the union sense, but to mutual understanding.”

Then why are we so often being asked to make concessions in one sphere or another, or being told to make concessions in no uncertain terms? Why, then, are we regularly having debates about free speech, or multiculturalism, or the open testing of ideas? Why have we heard veiled threats from the MCB’s past and present Secretaries General? For example, Mr Bari’s claim that “negative attitudes” towards Muslims would result in Britain being faced with “two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London.” It seems to me we’re very much being expected to trade *something* for a quiet life. And some of us already have a fairly workable understanding of orthodox Islamic belief and its political connotations. Regarding bargaining, mutual understanding and “better vocabulary”, I refer you to Andrew Bostom’s article linked above. His wording is hardly inflammatory and is suitably direct.

[georges]

As I trust everyone here appreciates, there's a distinction to be made between Islam and Muslims. If we're debating Islam, David is absolutely right to raise the question of the violent injunctions in the Koran, and Muhammad's own reported violent actions. But there are plenty of individual Muslims who are model UK citizens. I have Iranian and Turkish friends for whom being Muslim simply means not drinking alcohol (though ecstasy and other narcotics unknown in the 7th century are fine!). When I see Sarfraz Manzoor on the telly, he seems about as integrated as anyone could ask him to be. He thinks deeply about the issues, and recently made an excellent radio programme arguing against Muslim faith schools.

Unfortunately such people aren't the whole story. "Undercover Mosque", and other sources highlighted at this blog, reveal a more worrying side to the attitudes of some Muslims in the UK. My question is, what do we do about it? Do we simply write critical anonymous comments at Comment Is Free for each of their two or three daily Islamist blogs? Do we simply hope that in the long run the seductions of western materialism will trump Islamic piety? This, as I read it, is Michel Houellebecq's view in his novel, "Platform". He thinks decadence is ultimately more powerful than asceticism. I like a bit of decadence myself, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I wonder if the answer might be more immigration, but from more diversified sources - genuine "Benetton advert" multi-culturalism as the antidote to Western/Muslim bi-culturalism. It's harder to ride an Islamic supremacist wave if you're competing with east European and Mexican Catholics, Burmese Buddhists and Zimbabwean Christians to be the most self-important minority. Just a thought...

[Dr.Dawg]

"My question is, what do we do about it?"

Excellent question--goes right to the heart of the matter. I think dialogue is important, and I don't think such dialogue requires concessions, other than respect for differences. But I also believe that disaffected young people latch on to confrontational theories of everything all the time. They grab the nearest one at hand, and feed their magnificent marginality. Kid stuff, unless you get your hands on explosives--or, on this side of the water, serious automatic weapons. Or unless some guru shows up to turn them into robots. It's not always about Islam, in other words, but Islam does admittedly offer marvellous excuses for all sorts of mayhem. Maybe doing something about the disaffection would be a longer-term solution. If such a solution exists, though, it will not be arrived at by simply being reactive. (I might reference Martin Amis here, despite his admirers claiming he was deliberately misunderstood.)

On a more benign note (and I may have mentioned this before) I see various niqabi walking around swathed head to toe in black cloth during an Ottawa summer, and say to myself, "Their kids won't go for that." And I've seen young women with the khumar--and thigh-high boots. Give this all time. There is no fixed "culture." Perhaps I'm being Panglossian, given the bombing incidents in London, but I continue to believe that there is nothing at the core of Islam--or any other religion--that absolutely requires violence and intolerance. There is plenty of violence in the Koran, of course, but also in the Bible. It's a question of which passages are taken seriously and which are ignored. That's a cultural decision. And a social one.

So--what is to be done? Talk. Get to the kids before the mad mullahs do. Build bridges. And by all means, enforce anti-hate laws.

[EBD]

George, re your 18:52 comment, there's absolutely no doubt that a lot of Muslims privately disagree with their more violent and crusading bretheren. The question is, are moderate Muslims in a position to freely and safely oppose the sort of Muslims spokesmen exposed in the "Undercover Mosque" documentary? The evidence suggests that they are not, and that they are less free to do so, and that it would not be safe.

Dr. Dawg: "I think dialogue is important, and I don't think such dialogue requires concessions."

Well no, no concessions are required when you're already making the same point that the violent Islamists were making about the Danish cartoons -- that the cartoonists crossed the line, and shouldn'a done it.

You made that point repeatedly in comments, Dawg, I'm not sure if it was here or elsewhere (SDA?); I just remember how you stuck to that point.

"And by all means, enforce anti-hate laws."

When you say "by all means" -- is that phrase declarative, or an elision? If it's declarative, what enforcement mechanisms and penalties do you propose for those who, say, publicly scream for the murder of the head of another religion (the Pope)? Please be specific.

[David]

EBD & Dr Dawg,

“I think dialogue is important, and I don't think such dialogue requires concessions, other than respect for differences.”

But “respect for differences” is the tricky part, as Ramadan’s manoeuvres demonstrate. I’m all in favour of civil debate, as I hope is clear, but realistic debate cannot be had without addressing the fundamental issues. As I said in the original post:

“I’ve lost count of how many people seem to imagine that it’s somehow possible to challenge jihadist ideology and related horrors without mentioning Muhammad’s rather central role in the origination, sanctioning and perpetuation of those horrors, and without offending an apparently endless menu of other ‘sensitivities’. But if one cannot – dare not – draw attention to the link between sacralised atrocity and the exhortations of Islam’s founder, then what kind of dialogue is likely to be had?”

Past experience suggests that mentioning such things, however politely, is likely to meet with protestation, indignation and / or dishonesty. Again, I question what kind of “dialogue” Ramadan has in mind. It is, I think, significant that Ramadan takes it upon himself to dictate the terms on which this “dialogue” is supposed to take place.

[Dr.Dawg]

EBD:

I don't advocate using "all means" if that's what you're getting at. I support hate-crime and hate-speech legislation (and you, if I recall correctly, do not). So the same law that punishes the homophobe should be used against Islamist purveyors of hatred. I thought I was being clear, but perhaps this further clarification was necessary.

As to your earlier point, I think publishing the cartoons was a deliberate and unnecessary provocation. It was meant to be offensive, and offence was taken. So European Muslims demonstrated: again if I recall correctly, they did so peacefully. What happened in the ME is another story, but that place is a powder keg as you know.

If it's too much of a concession to avoid deliberately offending people's religious sensibilities, then I'm not certain what acceptable social discourse is becoming, but plainly not civil.

[Dr.Dawg]

David:

Your point is a good one. But perhaps the earlier Suras might be emphasized instead:

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Say, "O you disbelievers.
"I do not worship what you worship.
"Nor do you worship what I worship.
"Nor will I ever worship what you worship.
"Nor will you ever worship what I worship.
"To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."
(Sura 109)