A 19th century Islamic scholar, whose name is sometimes transliterated as Muhammad Abdo, once famously announced that in the West there is Islam without Muslims, and in the Middle East there are Muslims without Islam. He meant that the societal ideals of peace and justice embodied in the spirit of Islam had come to be neglected, to say the least, in the lands of its origin, but were more assiduously sought – and more closely approached – in the West.
There are many Muslims all around the world, from East to West, these days. And those who remain in the Middle East increasingly struggle to find ways to adapt western culture to their circumstances. It is the successful survival strategy.
But the inevitable growth of this phenomenon has sparked a new war, and given impetus to an age-old one. In both, one side assumes it has found, or been vouchsafed, the Truth. It then demonizes the other for failing to submit to the former’s superior vision, and certainly for daring to challenge its position or presume to subject it, or its proponents’ virtue, to examination.
We all know that demons must be destroyed, with neither remorse nor hesitation. And certainly there are no distinctions among them, between “combatants” and “civilians,” fomenters or fellow-travelers. They are all devils, it will be argued, and they all deserve the flames.
And that is just what the self-anointed strive to do. They have done it with the broadsword, the guillotine – even the mighty pen. Masters at forging swords out of plowshares, they use everything – from tyranny to the expedient exploitation of democracy – in their struggle for dominance.
There are many columns to this self-righteous army. They assault us from both without and within.
The 20th century playwright and politician Vaclev Havel is reputed to have advised that you should seek out people who are searching for the truth, but avoid those who have found it. Those who seek it are everywhere in the world, although they thrive in some locales and cultures better than in others. Those fixed in the certainty that they have found it are also everywhere, but they are menacingly adaptable.
Some of the latter are easier to recognize than others. They come from alien lands with their weapons, and it is fitting that we go to theirs with ours. We bring to the fight an always growing array of physical, intellectual, and moral power and ideas which their leaders cannot resist, and in which their followers wish to participate. That’s one of the things Muhammad Abdo was referring to two centuries ago.
Others come from among ourselves. Part of the richness of our society is the degree of open and vigorous debate that characterizes it. Part of the irony in that freedom is that some seem to partake in it with the ultimate and specific aim of restricting its scope and robustness. That’s one of the things Vaclev Havel was alluding to late last century.
But the debate must be kept alive, for freedom’s vigor is no more or less than the intensity, passion, and range of that contest. At the same time, it is useful to bear in mind that the purpose of a debate is not to persuade your debating partner, which is impossible. Neither is it helpful to demonize your opponents, even as you see them demonize you.
Rather, speak to the audience. They hold the power ultimately. You may not see the shift in their attitude, and it may not even be visibly gradual. But it is inevitable. Hold your ground, state your case with determination.
Bear in mind that your opponents’ narrow-minded viciousness is permeated with a brutal sort of integrity. Be sure your words and actions are invested with an integrity that just as uncompromisingly reflects your beliefs and character.
That is what will highlight the differences between you. It will persuade not your foe, but his constituency. It will win the day.
Technorati Tags: West, Islam, Muslim, Middle East, culture, strategy, war, vision, Vaclev Havel, leader, follower, freedom, integrity
Sphere: Related Content
I really enjoyed this post, Jim. Very wise.
What’s always slightly amazed me is your focus on a business audience, since it’s filled with folks who tend not to be all that reflective. Yes I know, some are, (especially some who read your blog) but bottom-line pressures tend to squeeze the sensitive souls out.
The upside with business types is they’re actually more tolerant than many give them credit for – if only because a good deal is a good deal, good business ideas can come out of any corner, money is green everywhere, etc. (And it’s also why I don’t mind helping them create healthier workplaces.)
People pay lip service to the idea of a vigorous debate between strongly held views as being good for all of us, but not that many truly believe it – and, for too many, it’s combat they relish.
But unlike actual war, where a decisive outcome is obvious, (especially to the vanquished,) wars of ideas and values can be morphed into mere wars of words in which no one allows himself to “lose” simply by not acknowledging that it ever happens.
The cost of losing (loss of dignity, “face,” perception of strength) at the symbolic and psychological level is too much to “allow.” Denial is a powerful, ubiquitous tool of human cognitive functioning. And of course, if you try to penetrate that, they’ll deny they’re denying.
Which is why I especially like your point: speak to the audience. That’s where to put the focus and energy.
I confess that I go in and out of believing that strategy will ultimately prevail, but I’m sure hoping you’re right.
Thanks,
Shaun
PS I’ve been away, so I haven’t commented on your use of Tolstoy as grist for discussion, but I’m enjoying the reading.
Hello Shaun,
Your observation that open-mindedness is a natural strategy for business people is excellent – a lot there to think about.
As for reflection, that’s also a very interesting perception. I certainly think that effective and thoughtful assessment of experience is key to true, lasting success. It would be interesting to see how many who have achieved senior decision-making positions can be said to view that sort of reflection as important to their progress. It may well be that, even if it is, the evident bias for decisive, prompt action prevalent in the business world might discourage admission of such a tendency – or even suppress awareness of it.
You surprised me with that comment. Despite certain types of efforts to institutionalize reflection into business practice or insert it by proxy into individual development, I agree that it is generally not accorded the status its value warrants. A lot to think about here, too – to what degree that is true, and why.
It is not reflection, but action, that makes things happen. On the other hand, reflection best makes and guides action. The alternative is to simply shotgun vast arrays of random action into the marketplace and hope something hits the mark. Both are actually strategies employed on each of the micro and macro scales by companies and economies. Perhaps a surfeit of resources drives one to the luxury of action without reflection. Which, of course, sets in motion dynamics that both deplete those resources and calcify the instinct and talent for reflection that will eventually be required to recover them.
You note that so many combatants relish the combat as much or more than the issues generating the contest. That seems to me just the reason why an alert (or reflective!) debater should not simply compete with such a combative debating partner, but use him or her as a foil to address, and more effectively deliver one’s message, to the audience – including the opponent’s nominal constituency.
That’s a pretty big topic, actually, isn’t it? Perhaps worth more elaboration. I meant it in the post, of course, to refer to everything from workplace debates over alternatives of various types, to controversies current in the international scene, largely driven by the events still unfolding as a consequence of 9/11.
I, like you, hope the audience will ultimately show the wisdom so many of its leaders lack. And I hope more of those “leaders” will acknowledge that wisdom when it is expressed.
Thanks so much, Shaun, as always, for your visits, your thought-provoking observations, and your kind words – not to mention your own work!