Agree to Differ

[

] 31

Clearly, the very idea of ‘value’ cannot be monolithic or objec-

tive. People will always value different things and place different

relative and subjective weights on their valuations; but such differ-

ences are not necessarily impediments to social cohesion and to

a positive sense of community. What is striking in the findings of

many recent studies is that the subjectivity of cultural differences

can be transcended by higher, objective principles derived from

our shared humanity – trust, neighbourliness and community

spirit. It is surely such higher principles that enable unity within

diversity and the coexistence of different perspectives within an

overarching respect for what it means to be fully ‘human’.

In this discussion, we might therefore begin by deciding

whether we want to make a clear distinction between ‘values’

and ‘principles’. Do we conceive of an ‘alliance of communi-

ties’ as being based on the convergence of higher values or on

the convergence of higher principles? How do ‘ideals’ differ

from value and principles? Words and phrases like ‘shared

values’ are repeated so often in public discourse that they can

become formulas that carry little meaning. Vigilance about

the meaning of words is of course vital. The title of this book,

‘Agree to Differ’, as noted at the beginning, is therefore only

offered as a provisional one to catalyse a discussion.

In recent times there has been a noticeable shift in emphasis

in public discourse on the themes of pluralism and national

identity. Concerns about loyalty, citizenship and social cohe-

sion have generated an ongoing critique of the long-standing

model of multiculturalism ideally based on coexistence and

tolerance between separate communities. This model is

perhaps most strongly associated with the situation in Europe.

Many influential scholars, religious leaders, policymakers and

commentators are increasingly questioning whether such a

model successfully reduces friction between communities,

arguing instead that, at its worst, it produces a society of

divisive and conflicting ghettoes, isolated encampments and

defensive fortresses, adversarial and self-interested pressure

groups, and non-intersecting lives of mutually exclusive and

incomprehensible perspectives and belief systems.

On the other hand, the Islamic concept of ‘adab’ (correct

behaviour and deep courtesy) has obvious resonance with the

‘civility’ which many people would associate with traditional

Europeanness, even though civility is, to my knowledge, never

referred to in official lists of core values. The same convergence

of values might be found in that famously European stoicism

and level-headedness which, combined with those other arche-

typal values of application and endurance, seem to have much

in common with the Islamic virtue of ‘sabr’, that patient endur-

ance which is constant in both easy and hard times.

Clash of civilizations

Over the last two decades, historians, social workers and

political scientists helped debunk many misperceptions about

Islam and Muslim societies. Research highlighting profound

historical, cultural and scientific interchange between Muslims

and non-Muslims helped discredit the widely-held view that

the ‘Muslim world’ and the ‘West’ are distinct, monolithic

cultural blocs fatally set on a collision course.

Despite advances in scholarly writings, however, the ‘clash of

civilizations’ narrative remains prevalent in public debate and

in the media, shaping many people’s understanding of relations

with Muslim peoples and societies. The challenge before us is

not simply to dispel misconceptions and discredit myths, but to

reshape the way in which we think about ‘the other’.

Image: OIC

The challenge before us is not simply to dispel misconceptions and discredit myths, but to reshape the way in which we think about ‘the other’

gree

iffer