Ismail Serageldin Website

Reflecting on a Glorious Past to Build

a Brilliant Future

An address to a seminar organized by

the Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs

and

Religions for Peace

Oslo, 20 June 2007

Ismail Serageldin

Thank you for inviting me to deliver this important address. There has never been a time when the polarization of feelings has been as acute, and the stakes for the promotion of common understanding and mutual respect as great as right now. The advocates of the ostensible "clash of civilizations” who want to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, find ample comfort in the statements and actions of the extremist few. The media amplify the statements and views of those who do not want to know better, and the voices of reason are drowned out in the cacophony of images and messages that preach hatred and destruction.

First, What is the nature of this perceived clash between “Islam and the West”? In this we must remain cognizant that the terms “Islam and the West” are themselves burdened with a luggage

Second, What is the status of the thinking within this rich mosaic that we call the Muslim World? For there are as many, if not more, clashes that pit Muslim against Muslim, as there are that confront Muslim and non-Muslim.

Third, What are the prospects that Muslims in the countries where they predominate, as well as in those countries where they are a minority, will adopt democratic ways of governance?

As I mentioned, the terms “West” and “Islam” are terms lacking precision, and are usually misused and abused in the popular press. For most Muslims, including myself, something is termed Islamic if it relates to the faith, and Muslim if it relates to the activities of people who profess to be Muslims. Here we are undeniably talking of the activities of people, and hence Muslim would be more appropriate. Thus, it is perhaps better to talk of the Western and Muslim Worlds, the worlds of peoples who identify themselves as “Western” or “Muslim” in terms of their cultural identities. Even then this is somewhat dangerous since it does not recognize the enormous diversity that exists in each of these two worlds, and tends to promote the kind of unitary identities referred to by Amin Maalouf as “murderous identities”.

As was noted in the important report issued by the High-level Group (HLG) of the Alliance of Civilizations in November 2006, the main confrontations between the Muslim and Western worlds are political, not religious or ideological. If you look at the quintessential conflict, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Palestinians include both Christians and Muslims. Furthermore, at the heart of the matter are issues of refugees, self-determination, occupation, human rights, land, and security.

All are political issues. It obscures the issues to cast the conflict in terms of ideological world views or in terms of religious confrontations.

In fact, the HLG went further, underlining that the only beneficiaries of casting the issues in this manner are Al-Qaeda

and similar groups that want to promote a “clash of civilizations”, claiming the inevitability of conflict and the need for total war.

That said, we need to confront some serious misunderstandings in the perception that the Western media have promoted about Islam as a religion and about the role of Muslims throughout history. In much of what I will say in this presentation I will be speaking of both the Arab and Muslim worlds. They overlap but are not the same. What connects the Arabs is language. There are many Muslims who are not Arab, and many Arabs who are not Muslim. Yet the Arab world plays a privileged role within the Muslim world for harboring the birthplace of Islam and its most holy shrines. Islam, as a religion, and as a cultural force, has played a central role in shaping the history of the Arab people.

A different world, but equally important is the world of Muslim minorities in the western countries. In many countries today, Islam is becoming the second religion in terms of number of adherents. These minorities can one day play an important role in changing the overall climate of thought in the whole Arab

and Muslim worlds as we know them, especially if Turkey ultimately joins the EU and continues to thrive. They will be part of the western reality and polity and will have to adapt and rethink many of the positions and reject many of the dogmas that are being advocated in Arab and Muslim worlds. Likewise, the minorities in Asia and Latin America will have unique experiences that will be worthy of careful monitoring and study. However, all that is for another discussion. I will today focus on the vast expanse of the countries where Muslims predominate from the Atlantic to Indonesia, and from Central Asia to Northern Nigeria.

Whichever way we define it, these societies are in crisis today. Their predicament is the topic of the second section of my remarks. But before I address that, allow me to focus on a few of the more important issues in terms of western media misrepresentation of Muslim realities.

The history of early Islam in the seventh century AD is totally contrary to the many popular notions about it, especially the notions frequently represented in the Western Media.

Islam was NOT spread by the sword. It was largely spread by the power of example in a peaceful way. Indeed, in 13 years of the Prophet’s efforts to spread the message of Islam in Mecca, confronting persecution and maltreatment, he had only a few hundred converts. He fled to Medina in 622 CE, and the phase of open struggle started. In Badr, the first battle with the Qurashites, he could marshal only 300 men. Despite being the master of a secure base in Madinah, six years of war led to his coming to Hudaybiyah with some 2000 men. He made a peace that appeared to be very onerous on the Muslims. A peace that would be broken by the Qurashites, not by the Muslims two years later. But in those two years of peace, Islam spread like wildfire. When the Qurashites broke the peace, the Prophet marched on Mecca with 10,000 men, took the city without bloodshed, and declared a general amnesty for all his enemies. The following year saw delegations from all the tribes of Arabia come to declare their conversion to Islam (‘Am al wufud) and by the time of the Prophet’s death the following year, all of Arabia had converted to Islam.

His close companions invented the system of Caliphate, and appointed Abu Bakr, the first convert to Islam, as the Caliph (Khalifa), or the successor to the Prophet as a ruler of the Muslims. But shaken by Muhammad’s death, some of the newly converted tribes rebelled against the Caliph, and decided to redefine Islam as they pleased or simply revoke it. It led to a bloody 18 month war known as the wars of sedition (hurub al riddah). The Muslims won, but at a heavy price. Muslim armies were to conquer a vast empire within a decade! In those conquests many see the expansion of Islam by the sword. That is not so. Non-Muslims in the conquered lands were offered very generous terms, and were not forced to convert, nor were they pressed into service to fight in the Muslim armies. They had to pay an extra tax, called the Jizya. Indeed, when Egyptians wanted to convert to Islam in droves, Amr Ibn Al'As, governor of Egypt, sought to prevent them, lest that lucrative tax revenue diminish. The Caliph ‘Umar sent him a terse message reminding him that “God had sent Muhammad as a messenger, not as a tax collector”!

One could marshal many more stories, including how Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world today, was largely converted through contacts with traders and scholars, but I invite you all to read the details of our history and make up your own minds on this point.

Sharia is the application of the finally revealed principles and rules given in Islam as elaborated by the practice of the prophet into a codified system of laws for governing the transactions

of knowledge of jurisprudence that has been built up through centuries of interpretation and practice. It is therefore a source

of inspiration for legislation, much as one would argue that rural law, natural law or the French civil code could be such an interpretation. But it is important to underline that it is an accumulation of opinions and rulings that represent the best judgments and interpretations of men. It is thus subject to interpretation in our contemporary times as much as in their times.

By and large, that legacy is remarkably progressive. Indeed, Muslims should be very proud of the legislation that was produced at the time of the early Muslim empire by Umar Ibn

El Kahtab, the second Caliph in Islam. Umar's philosophy was incredibly progressive for someone who ruled in the seventh century (634-644).

The presumption of innocence, Omar's instructions to the judges he appointed started with the sentence: the burden of proof is on the accuser, from the accused, only the declaration of innocence under oath is required. This is unbelievable in the seventh century, if we look back at the history of jurisprudence throughout the Middle Ages, people would use torture to extract confessions from the accused.

Evidence gathered illegally is not acceptable as evidence. Umar ruled that an accusation made by a person breaching the rights of privacy, was void; you cannot break the law in the name of maintaining the law. This is of course to this day a major issue in law enforcement in advanced countries such as the United States where questions about the rights of due process and the guarantees of adequate systems of gathering evidence were already foreshadowed by Umar Ibn El Khatab 1300 years ago.

Justice delayed is justice denied; Umar ruled that time must be fixed, for justice that is not swift is unfair. The rich can afford

Confronting the accuser; Umar ruled that the accused should be able to confront his accuser, before witnesses and a judge. This principle was essential to ensure fairness in the opinions of the judge after hearing the opinions of all concerned.

Umar extended the social security system of his time (public treasury, alms and taxes, revenues of which were distributed

of interest laws. He could also be remarkably merciful, he recognized underlying attenuating circumstances. In the year

al-Ramada), he decreed that no severe punishments should be enacted because no one knew if people who stole, stole of need or not and he could not review every single case.

Reflecting on that body of jurisprudence coming out of a small village Al Madina in Arabia, in the seventh century of our era is indeed eye-opening. Far from thinking of it as retrograde, there is much in Sharia that lends itself to contemporary and modern interpretations, if we are to have but a small fraction of the courage of those early Muslims.

How can Muslims talk of freedom of religion and then claim that apostates, those who revert from Islam to other forms of belief or even atheism, should be killed? This stupidity derives from a misreading of history.

The argument for killing those who revert from being Muslims (ridda) is based on the extension of a particular decision by

the early companions of the prophet, a decision that is grossly misinterpreted and misused. This totally contradicts the notion of freedom of religion and runs counter to the established positions of the religious doctrine of Islam, as seen in the Quranic injunctions that There is no compulsion in religion

…"Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss: and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs." [Surah Yunus, verse 108]

The origin of this decision comes from the period of the wars of apostasy (hurub al ridda) which followed the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. A large part of those who had converted to Islam said Islam ended with Muhammad and reverted, the others who remained Muslims were locked in fierce combat with them. For 18 months Arabia was the scene of vicious, bloody warfare. In that context, he who reverted from Islam meant a fighter who switched sides in the middle

of the armed conflict of a hot war, and joined the opposing forces. This in today’s parlance would be considered high treason and would be punishable by death in many parts of the world. Hence, the ruling by these early Muslims that he who reverted from Islam should be killed was rooted in a specific historic context and it is foolish for people 14 centuries later

to claim that this is the punishment for any Muslim who decides to convert to another religion. It is this kind of foolishness that requires that we engage in a serious intra-Muslim dialogue

to establish a more enlightened view of what the evolving rulings of Islam should be in today’s rapidly changing world.

it would have been Al Harb Al Mukadasa. Jihad means struggle, it is the same root of ijtihad, which is used as innovate. The true meaning of jihad is to struggle with oneself against our animal instincts and desires, against our temper, against our sense

the highest form of Jihad is Jihad Al Nafs, the struggle with oneself. The second form of Jihad which was highly lauded by the Prophet and said it was the best form of Jihad was to speak Truth to Power. It is to say a word of truth to an errant power (kalimat ‘adl ‘inda sultan ja’er).

That being said, Jihad involves taking up arms. However, jihad in Islamic jurisprudence lays down the rules of when and also how one is allowed to fight. The rules of jihad are clear that the religion of a person in no way constitutes a cause for war against him. Second, aggression is prohibited. Indeed, the use of force is only justified in self-defense, for the protection of sovereignty and in defense of all innocent people. Non-combatants are not legitimate targets. All this is constantly tempered by a call for peace.

Jihad laid down the rules, if Muslims are to fight, of what would be a just war. There were laws governing what was allowed at war. These were the prototypes of the Geneva Conventions,

the seventh century, Muslims ruled that there could be no attack on non-combatants, no destruction of property, no taking

of palm trees and no depletion of wells. This is unbelievably progressive, and was practiced as we know from the entry

of Muslims into Jerusalem in the 7^th century under Umar, where he gave the Christians of Jerusalem a very benign agreement or contract (the Umariyya Covenant), safeguarding all Christian churches allowing them to continue to manage their affairs.

The Muslim law would only apply in cases where there was conflict between Muslims and Christians. Moved by the generosity of the offer, the patriarch asked Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and Umar refused. The patriarch asked 'Do we not pray to the same God?' and Umar said: 'yes, but if I pray in your church my followers will turn it into a mosque'. They crossed the street and prayed into a small vacant land. Now, this is where the Mosque of Umar stands.

Again, that same discipline was seen at the time of Saladin the Great (Salah El Din El Ayouby,1138-1193), who after the battle of Hattin in 1189, entered Jerusalem, and gave safe conduct to all the Christians including the King of Jerusalem Guy de Lusignan and his wife Sibylla. He only executed Raynald de Chatillon who personally killed Saladin's sister. Indeed, it was under his protection that the Jewish community reentered Jerusalem at the end of the 12^th century. Despite the crusaders; slaughters and mass murders—for they killed men, women and children when they conquered Jerusalem in 1099—Saladin granted amnesty and free passage to all common Catholics

and even to the defeated Christian army. This is indicative of Muslims' behavior in Jihad. The Greek Orthodox Christians were treated even better, because they opposed the crusades.

The main point of all these examples is that from its early history to its flowering culture in the middle ages, the societies of the Muslim peoples created Muslim cultures that were remarkably open and tolerant, especially when measured by the prevailing standards of their day. What is direly lacking today is the ability among the Muslim religious scholars and intellectuals to reinterpret this tradition in today’s terms in today’s world, to reclaim the same pinnacles of tolerance, acceptance of diversity and openness to the other that they once held among all peoples of the world.

Andalusia was a marvelous mix of different communities, where Jews, Christians and Muslims consorted together and produced great poetry, architecture, science, philosophy and literature. We are still mesmerized by that legacy as it is reflected in the marvels of the Alhambra, the generaliffe and Cordoba. This contrasts with the conditions imposed by the Catholics after

the defeat of the Arabs in Cordoba (1492), not to mention the infamous inquisition that followed – the Spanish Inquisition set up by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Castile in 1478 with the approval of Pope Sixtus IV. The inquisition was to mark the last part of the middle ages as the Roman Inquisition, set up by Pope Paul III in 1542, supervised all the inquisitions against heretics. The most famous of these trials would be

the inquisition is a sad chapter of western history, a terrible legacy that would blight western history till the enlightenment. Even then, after the enlightenment, the horrors of slavery and colonialism continued. A powerful and hegemonic West

could still turn its technological genius to undertake the most destructive slaughter the world has seen. The mass murders of the twentieth century, from the holocaust to the gulag were not the products of the Muslim world, but of the west. Only the destructiveness of Mao’s China in the East can compare to the scale of the slaughter witnessed in the west.

In a few brief decades, the Arabs had established an empire that stretched from Spain to India, and from central Asia to Sudan. So many people converted to Islam that Arabs became a minority of Muslims. The Muslim societies prospered. They relied on trade, and established a very tolerant system of government based on law.

By the beginning of the ninth century CE, in Baghdad, the capital of the vast Abbasid empire, Al-Maamun, son of Harun Al-Rashid, decided to create Beit Al Hikma, the House of Wisdom. He gathered the knowledgeable and the wise, scientists and poets and launched a vast translation program.

All those who would translate an ancient book into Arabic would receive its weight in gold. Soon, all the manuscripts

that his advisors complained that the scholars were cheating: they were using thick paper and writing in large letters

to increase the weight of their translations, but he recognized that the value of the translations exceeded by far the value

of the gold paid for them. Soon, within less than a century, Arabic became the language of science and knowledge. This vast translation program, gathered all the dispersed legacy

of the ancient library of Alexandria, or at least the many remaining pieces of it that had been dispersed in all the lands.

These early Muslims, when confronting the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, did not call for banning or burning their books. Indeed, they translated them into Arabic, they wrote excellent studies about them, referred to them as Al-Hakeemain (the two wise men), and selected those part of Greek philosophy that suited their needs and interests and rejected the other parts.

Al-Farabi’s brilliant contributions to the foundations of Muslim philosophy, never denied his reading of Plato and Aristotle, nor is his personal contribution diminished by that, any more than Einstein’s contributions would be diminished because he read and studied Newton and Maxwell.

But they added to that enormous legacy their own very remarkable contributions. Islam, open to the east and the west, would bring forth an amazing explosion of knowledge. Science advances on all fronts:

• Al-Razi (Rhazes) - Medicine, Ophthalmology, Smallpox , Chemistry, Astronomy - (864-930)

• Al-Farabi (Al Pharabius) - Sociology, Logic, Philosophy, Political Science, Music - (870-950)

• Abu Raihan Al-Biruni - Astronomy, Mathematics, determined Earth's circumference (973-1048)

• Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics, Astronomy (986-1037)

The Arabs and Muslims made major contributions to the world’s knowledge of the stars. The Maragha Observatory, the famous observatory founded by the Muslims, was established in the thirteenth century in Maragha under the directorship of

Nasir-al-Din-al-Tusi. It served as a model for the large observatory that was built by the Timurid prince Ulugh Beg

The Arabs and Muslms made major contributions to mathematics: the introduction of the Indian numerals including the zero, and the introduction of algebra! Al Khwarizmi’s treatise Kitab al-Jabr-wal-Muqabala, written in the first quarter of the ninth century, is the oldest Arabic work on algebra. In it, al-Khawarizmi tried to provide a theory for the solution of all types of linear and quadratic equations. Partially translated into Latin by Robert of Chester, the text served to introduce the science of algebra to Europe. Al-Khwarizmi’s name gave us

Indeed, contrary to general perception, it was the Arabs and Muslims, who defined the modern scientific method, and who created the climate of openness and tolerance that allowed science to flourish during the middle ages. Names like El Khwarezmi, El Razi, Ibn Al-Nafis, Ibn Al-Haytham, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), are forever engraved in the honor roll of humanity’s benefactors through their efforts at advancing knowledge and rejecting superstition. Listen to their powerful, modern voices as it speaks to us through the centuries.

Listen to the modern voice of Ibn Al-Haytham (965–c.1040), known in the West as Al Hazen:

“He who searches for truth is not he who reviews the works of the ancients… It is the duty of he who reads science books, if he wants to learn truths, that he should set himself up as an opponent to all he looks at.. [accepting only what is supported by evidence and argument].”

Furthermore, Ibn Al-Haytham did lay down the rules of the modern scientific method centuries before the appearance of Bacon, Descartes or Galileo. Listen to his description of how the scientific method should operate, through observation, measurement, experiment and conclusion:

“We start by observing reality … we try to select solid (unchanging) observations that are not affected by how we perceive (measure) them. We then proceed by increasing our research and measurement, subjecting premises to criticism, and being cautious in drawing conclusions…

In all we do, our purpose should be balanced not arbitrary, the search for truth, not support of opinions”.

This is a truly amazing description of the modern scientific method, which was way ahead of its time!

Likewise, listen to the voice of Ibn Al-Nafis on accepting the contrarian view, subject to the test of evidence and rational analysis.

“When hearing something unusual, do not preemptively reject it, for that would be folly. Indeed, horrible things may be true, and familiar and praised things may prove to be lies. Truth is truth unto itself, not because [many] people say it is.”

These are stellar lights in the history of science and in the advance of knowledge. They are our forbearers and we, the Muslims and Arabs of today, should be their proud disciples. We need to recapture that great tradition. It is our tradition, our history, our legacy.

not just related to the scientific work. Contemporary to Ibn Al-Haytham in Egypt, Abul Alaa’ Al-Ma’ari (973-1057) lived in Syria. Al-Ma’ari, a giant of Arabic literature, wrote poetry attacking religion, God and the prophets, and he was not punished for it, even though it generated a certain amount of opprobrium attached to his name. His work was not only published and known in his own time, it has arrived down to us, now in the 21st century without loss. Even more, he was appreciated for his talent as a poet and a linguist even by those who totally rejected his heretical writings.

This to me is the tradition that Muslims and Arabs should be proud of. They took the torch and carried it for centuries, and if today the torch has passed to the west, we should be proud that we have done our share and more in earlier times, and should strive to take our place, by dint of hard work and innovation, alongside our western colleagues at the forefront of the global endeavor to create a knowledge based, just and tolerant society.

How different these enlightened voices from the past sound compared to the frenetic ranting and condemnations of everything that is new and different that we see and hear everywhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds today! Armed with our past legacy, we can push for the modernization of our values so that they become the values of modernization.

of today. Today, the Muslim world is riven with strife. The murderous killing fields in Iraq are fanning the flames of old sectarian disputes. Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Darfur, in Afghanistan and in many other places. Intolerance rules.

Despite these harsh realities, some steps towards a better future, a more open future, a more democratic future are being taken everywhere. Small steps, to be sure, but important ones nevertheless. I will have more to say on this point later. For now let me focus on the intellectual currents that are sweeping the Muslim and Arab Worlds.

There is nothing in Islam that teaches despotism or intolerance. The only reference to organizing the governance of our affairs in this world that is found in the Quran is the injunction to consult with the concerned people. Wa amruhum Shura baynahum. Some like Ali Abdel Razek, (in 1928) has argued that it is a call for democracy. Others have sought councils of learned men to be consulted by decision makers, whether hereditary or elected. But ultimately, there is no religious obstacle to promoting democracy.

as a spiritual guide he was inspired by God and could not be challenged by his followers, but as a temporal ruler, he admitted to being wrong. An important example is when the prophet was preparing the defense of Madina against an impending attack

plan, it was contested by one of his followers who proposed digging a trench and deploying the forces completely differently. The prophet accepted the revision and recognized that the trench was a better proposal. The defense was successful. As in war,

know much about planting. He saw a group of planters, who were pollinating palm trees. He asked why they did that. They answered that if they did not, they would not get dates. He was surprised

and murmured that “surely you do not need to go to all this trouble to get dates”. Thinking that it was an injunction, they stopped pollinating the palm trees, and when the trees did not bear fruit, they ran to the prophet, who was appalled that they took his comment as an instruction. He summed it up to his followers: “You are better informed about the realities of this world.”

The example is most inspiring. Our task today, however, will be to build on that tradition. We must promote the humanist values that see the fundamental human rights of Muslims and non-Muslims, of men and women, as being equal in every way.

To substitute the concept of citizenship in a man-constructed republic for membership in the Umma, however defined.

The modern discourse is not just one of humanism and human rights. It is also one that has internalized what we could term the values of science. Science as a way of thinking, as a world outlook from cosmology to evolution, from quantification to logical deduction, has permeated our outlook and our way of thinking. This is still at odds with the shrill self-righteous discourse that permeates much of the Arab and Muslim worlds today. The advocates of that discourse, try to claim a uniqueness to our societies that would justify this disconnect from the global contemporary discourse. They seek refuge in past achievements to avoid confronting future challenges.

So beyond the need for a profound and pervasive humanism, we must also see science as an integral part of our culture, that informs our worldview and affects our behavior. It promotes fundamental ethical values: truth, honor, imagination, creativity, and a certain constructive subversiveness. It requires engagement with the contrarian view and arbitration of disputes by the methods of logical analysis and empirical evidence. Science requires free enquiry and free speech and dissent from the given accepted views. Indeed, as Bronowski said: “Independence, originality, and therefore dissent—these are the hallmarks of the progress of contemporary civilization... (For)...”Dissent is the mark of freedom as originality is the mark of independence of mind.”

Let us reclaim, as intellectuals, our right to reason, let us liberate the Arab and Muslim mind.

Let us use these liberated minds to create a better future for all. And in that framework, the status of women comes to the fore…

No issue looms larger on the reform agenda than the status of women. It is the ultimate litmus test for whether the Muslim and Arab societies have finally made a transition to the 21^st century.

Global experience highlights the emerging centrality of women. They are the true vectors of development. There is ample evidence that the key to development lies in the education

of girls and the empowerment of women. These are the single most important actions that any developing society can undertake: the education of girls and the empowerment of women…

Indeed, women’s rights are human rights. These must be protected by the rule of law, where all are equal before the law, and no-one is above the law. Speaking from this podium,

as a Muslim Arab man, let me be clear: there is no cultural specificity argument that can be tolerated to justify depriving women of their human rights in the name of tradition, or

But we must engage all men in this endeavor. Men must not just to be made to understand, they must be mobilized. Women’s issues are society’s issues, and men must be involved. We need to breathe with two lungs!

Crimes against women, such as rape, trafficking and honor killings, reflect pathological behaviors by men. I am appalled by such behavior from members of my sex, and it is clearly an issue for both women and men.

Hand in hand, empowered women and enlightened men will build that better future we all dream of. We cannot continue to focus on building the women of tomorrow and not worry about transforming the men of yesterday!

The last few millennia have been one long struggle for the acceptance of human rights, of expanding the scope for freedom of choice and of action … all of which would not have been possible without the freedom of expression, gained slowly and at great cost, and persistently defended again and again, at all times, in all places, against the incursions that are constantly waged against it by the forces of societal repression.

Freedom of expression is today recognized as a universal gain. It was not always so.

We value freedom of expression above all other freedoms because it is the foundation of self-fulfillment.

Without free speech, no search for truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful, and no progress is possible. Without freedom of inquiry, and of expression, there can be no scientific advancement.

“Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless.”

Freedom, as much as imagination and boldness, is at the heart of the search for the truth and the attainment of knowledge. It is necessary to any viable system of self-government. If people are to make decisions and elect their government, if they are to check its excesses and root out corruption, they must be well-informed and have access to different ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for intolerance and bigotry, which in turn leads to oppression and tyranny.

As we discuss the need for a dialogue between the Western traditions and the Muslim people, I believe that we need an intra-Muslim dialogue. Far from the cameras and the headlines, we need to work hard to bring Islamic teaching into the 21^st century, so that we avoid this perception of a need to choose between Islam and pragmatic approaches to our contemporary reality. Such a dialogue, which I am working on with a few friends, would cover all the “hot topics” of today through

various means involving seminars, commissioned papers, survey papers and anthologies of selected writings. Among the topics are: