People of different cultures and civilizations undoubtedly need dialogue. “We need dialogue because it is the only way for understanding each other and ensuring peaceful coexistence,” the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, said in his lecture at CDCC, March 3, 2009.

However, what is going on, Ihsanoglu asserted, is not productive dialogue. Addressing a topic “The Muslim World in the Era of Globalization”, Ihsanoglu who is a Turkish historian stated that, “In the Muslim World we have forty years experience of dialogue, but it has not been fruitful. Because, it was not a dialogue. It was two monologues in two opposite directions.” He criticized that many dialogues conducted have not been resulted in any significant change. All sides involved in the dialogues seem still have the same positions after these dialogues—even after forty years. A productive dialogue, he argued, should lead us to be in different positions at the end of dialogue.

This is not, however, an appeal to have an alternative other than dialogue. According to Ihsanoglu, the alternative is a dialogue with a fixed agenda and clear objectives and targets. Such a dialogue requires political commitment on both sides engaged in dialogue.

Responding to this opinion, Chairman of CDCC, Din Syamsuddin, shared the same view. We do need dialogue, he suggested, because without dialogue more conflicts could happen in addition to the existing conflicts. Our main task is to have dialogical dialogue, that is dialogue based on sincerity, openness and frankness to solve any existing problems. In this regard, Ambassador of Palestine, Fariz Mehdawi—one of many ambassadors attending the lecture—added that dialogue needs to be done in a more collective way than in the past.

With regard to interfaith dialogue, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu insisted that there is one important target: historical reconciliation between Islam and Christianity, which is the crux of the tensions between Islam and the West. For a few reasons, such reconciliation should be easier to achieve than one between Judaism and Christianity, he suggested. Din Syamsuddin added that the Muslim World has to give positive response to the emerging tendency of interfaith dialogue and initiative, as well represented for instance in the Muslim Catholic Forum and Congress of Imams and Rabbis.

Specifically, Ihsanoglu praised Indonesia’s success in establishing peaceful relations among different religious groups. “What you have achieved here is what we are trying to reach at the global level,” he said. The concept of living side by side in peace while putting aside religious differences can be easily recognized in Islamic teachings, he explained. Historically, Ihsanoglu said, the Islamic community in the Middle East had lived peacefully for centuries with Christians and Jews, until the age of colonialism and the establishment of Israel. “What you have managed in your country is a tradition of 14 centuries in our part of the world,” he added.

Ihsanoglu also addressed some challenges of OIC, which—with 57 member countries—is the second biggest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. One of its greatest challenges is to change negative perception on Islam and to make every effort to banish extremism or terrorism resulted from wrong interpretation of Islam.

In dealing with erroneous representation of Islam, what OIC has been doing can be summarized in two terms: moderation and modernization. By moderating and modernizing Muslim society, Ihsanoglu believes, extremism could be marginalized.

OIC itself have attempted to reform itself chiefly in the last four years in order to be more powerful and democratic. The radical reform in OIC has come to a point where it now can be more involved in promoting human rights, gender equity, good governance, science and technology programs, humanitarian aids, and having close relationship with civil society/non-governmental organizations.[]