In the spring of 2003, Jacques Derrida sat down for a public debate in Paris with Algerian intellectual Mustapha Chérif. The eminent philosopher arrived at the event directly from the hospital where he had just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the illness that would take his life just over a year later. That he still participated in the exchange testifies to the magnitude of the subject at hand: the increasingly distressed relationship between Islam and the West, and the questions of freedom, justice, and democracy that surround it.
As Chérif relates in this account of their dialogue, the topic of Islam held special resonance for Derrida—perhaps it is to be expected that near the end of his life his thoughts would return to Algeria, the country where he was born in 1930. Indeed, these roots served as the impetus for their conversation, which first centers on the ways in which Derrida’s Algerian-Jewish identity has shaped his thinking. From there, the two men move to broader questions of secularism and democracy; to politics and religion and how the former manipulates the latter; and to the parallels between xenophobia in the West and fanaticism among Islamists.
Ultimately, the discussion is an attempt to tear down the notion that Islam and the West are two civilizations locked in a bitter struggle for supremacy and to reconsider them as the two shores of the Mediterranean—two halves of the same geographical, religious, and cultural sphere. Islam and the West is a crucial opportunity to further our understanding of Derrida’s views on the key political and religious divisions of our time and an often moving testament to the power of friendship and solidarity to surmount them.
“For the field that I know relatively well, Islamology, I will say with modesty that, without a shadow of a doubt, the principle of secularity is, despite appearances, intrinsic to Islam, and this has been true since its origins. And yes, the uniqueness of the third monotheistic religion resides in the fact that the different dimensions of life – religion and politics, the spiritual and the temporal, nature and culture, the public and the private – if they must naturally be separated in order to avoid confusion and to prevent all totalitarianisms, must not be placed in opposition. Their extreme separation can create a void, which reason cannot be counted on to fill.”
Splendid conversation between Mustapha Cherif and Jacques Derrida on the troublesome relationship between "the West" and "the Islamic world" (around the time of the war in Iraq). Derrida lays out his ideas on how to improve this situation; mainly by an open dialogue between "the two" and coming to an understanding of how there is plurality instead of uniformity (there are multiple "Wests" and "Islams"). The bottom line, he thinks, is that civilization and community are about sameness instead of difference. Articulately he criticizes political islam, terrorism, the war in Iraq, international law, the U.N. and nationalism/sectarianism. His plea for a world with open borders, equality, secularism and democracy is heartfelt and passionate. A testimony to who Derrida was a person and political figure. He will be sorely missed, even today his insight proves vital.
A shallow perspective and lack of knowledge about Islam and Mediterranean world but at the same time good will of two peacemakers. I'll give 3 stars for this book but I consider it very important and meaningful for the future of dialog sessions.
While philosophy is never my go-to genre, circumstances conspired to bring this little book into my hands, and I'm glad to have read it. I've liked Derrida's philosophy since I encountered him in college, and this book gives the reader both a small but potent dose of his philosophy, and an insight into the philosopher himself. The book is based on the 2003 public debate Derrida had with the Algerian intellectual Mustapha Chérif, and it's the latter who also writes the book after Derrida has passed away. During the debate, Derrida not only talks about the plurality of both Islam and the West, the need for secularism, and his idea of the "democracy to come," but also talks about his relationship to Algeria, and what the country means to him. Thought-provoking but concise (probably too concise in some ways), I give the book 3.5 stars.