Report of the International Conference:
“Issues Related to the Concepts of Ethics and Dialogue in Contemporary Thought”.
The Project of the Philosopher Taha Abderrahman as a Sample 2016
In collaboration with Caddi Ayad’s Knowledge Integration and Translation Laboratory, Ibn Zoher’s Translation and Education Search Team, Chouib Dokkali’s Laboratory of Translation, communication and literature organized the third international conference honouring Taha Abederrahman. The event took place on 3rd and 4th of May 2016 in the Faculty of Letters and Humanities, El Jadida under the them: “The relationship issue between dialogue and ethics in contemporary thought, The project of the philosopher Taha Abderraham as a sample” Opening session The opening session began at 9 am at the National School of Administration and Management under the chairmanship of the dean of El Jadid’s Faculty of Letters. The session opened with the recitation of some verses from the Holy Quran. In his opening address, the president of (Chouaibdokkali) highlighted the significance of the celebrated professor Taha Abederrahman’s attendance,and regarded it as an added value to this scientific forum. Then, the chairman of the scientific council in El Jadida took the floor to welcome the participants and extend his gratitude to the organizing committee for their invested efforts. He also seized the opportunity to recall some of the good memories he had with the professor TahaAbderrahman. Following this statement, the chairman of the scientific council in Sidi Benour spoke about TahaAbderrahman’s thought expressing his admiration towards the professor’s encyclopedic knowledge. He considers him as one of the most esoteric scholars of Morocco. He carried on his speech by underlining the major traits that characterize Taha Abderrahaman. Amongst them is teaching his students methods of scientific research. He also reminded the participants of some of the professor’s scientific accomplishments. The dean of El Jadida’s Faculty of Letters and Humanities took the floor and spoke about some aspects of Taha Abderrahman’s scientific history. Moreover,he drew the participant’s attention to the years in which the professor taught logic in the Faculty of Letters in Rabat. Right after that, the floor was given to Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid, director of the Translation and Knowledge Integration Laboratory in Caddi Ayad University-Marrakech. His word was characterized by the creative spirit and profoundly moving poetic aspect and it was warmly applauded every now and then. The opening session closed with two speeches delivered by Dr Yahya Benkhedda and Dr Ahmed Al Baibi who reminded the participants of the fourth International Conference that would take place in the following year in Errachidiya if God be willing. The first scientific session Following the opening session, the first scientific session was convened with a lecture by DrTahaAbederrahman under the title: “Dialogue practice between Responsibility and Trusteeship “. It was chaired by Dr Mohamed Addibaji, who is a professor at (Chouaib dokkali and Mohamed the fifth University. He started with mentioning his friendship with Taha Abderrahman and their scientific pathways. In this lecture, Dr Taha Abderrahman discussed the jurisprudence of some of the towering figures in the Philosophy of ethics in the realm of western pragmatics. This French philosopher of Litwanian origin is called EmmaneulLevinas. Dr Taha Abderrahman started his lecture by stating that dialogue practice is not only one form of speaking, but it is rather the origin of its existence. He approached this practice by means of a name derived from the linguistic substance known as ‘questioning’, which is considered to be the dialogue whereby the responsibility of the interlocutor is determined. The professor did not tackle the concept of questioning from a political perspective where a man holding a position of responsibility faces questions from people’s representatives. He preferred to tackle this issue from a religious angle or as he termed it ‘religious dialogue’ where the human being received his/her first question from God before he/she received it from any person. His arguments are based on two main sources: the first one taken from Torah (Genesis:4) and the other of Quranic origin (Alaaraf: 172-173) Dr Taha explained that he would talk more particularly, using criticism and exposition mechanisms, about one of the major leading figures of the philosophy of ethics in the field of western pragmatics; Emmaneul Levinas and especially his two famous books: ”Total existence and the infinite other” and ”opposing existence”. He stressed that the reason that made him replace the concept of “questioning” with “encountering”, which is a way of questioning oneself about doing ones’ duties. As for referencing the Quranic source, this it goes in line with talking about “trust”; it is the questioning in which a human being is asked about the convention that has been taken of him. Therefore, dealing with the religious origin of questioning differs as these two images differ. However, operating in the context of confronting is based on’ disguising’ to the requisites of this religious origin and this what Taha Abderrahman termed as “absenting”, while dealing with this religious origin in the context of ‘trust’ is based on remembering the religious origin and this has been called “Tash-heed”. The first lecture was two folds: the first one presented the theory of Levinas “the dialogue of confrontation”, and the second one was devoted to discussing the very theory in the light of “entrusting theory” whose fundamental tenets were elucidated by Taha Abderrahman in his three books;” Rouh Eddine” “Bouass Eddahrania” “Shoroud ma Baad Eddahrania”. Taha Abderrahman’s theory of ethics is built upon the definition of Levinas’ dialogue while being so influenced by the “the Nazi holocaust incident. He concludes that the origin of ethics is the other (or otherness in Taha Abderrahman’s terms) and not the quest for perfection, harmony or striving for fantasy as in the previous theories of ethics. As a result, Levinase’s ethics is equally the same as the status or rank of the early philosophy. This made Taha Abderrahman clarifies the theory of the aforementioned philosopher and criticizes it on a much deeper level. Taha Abderrahman stressed in the first axe that Levinas’ responsibility of confronting means the responsibility in which the enquirer asks the interviewee to answer two questions; one of them is to answer his question and the second one is to answer the enquirer in the hope to label this kind of responsibility as “response responsibility” or the notion of “responsory”. Abderrahman, then, considers a group of notions pertaining to Levinase’s jurisprudence indicating that his primary concern behind this presentation is to illustrate some aspects of absenting, bearing in mind that absenting for Taha Abderrahman is a disguise practice which consists in adding divine perfections on human ego that are neither virtually seen nor perceptually conceived by minds to elevate him/her to the status of deities. Taha Abderrahman considered that the theory of confrontation developed by Emmanuel Levinas has enjoyed a number of special features as far as the practice of absenting in the sphere of dialogue is concerned, on top of which is ignoring the confrontation relationship. He also brought to the participants’ attention, in this context, that the adjectives Levinas attributed to the confrontation relationship between the ego and id is derived from the adjectives by which the rhetoric relationship is depicted between human beings and God. On top of that, Levinas, as Taha Abderrahman believes, has gone far beyond this and casted on the ego a number of adjectives that are used to describe human beings in their relationship with the creator, and bringing the human beings’ way of treating one another into what they are entitled to perform before their god. Amongst these traits are: Entrustment, submission, helplessness and possessor ship. Moreover, Levinas extended the process of absenting by means of adding human attributes to God’s ones, such as “impoverishment”, “debility”, “loneliness” in the hope to repudiate the relationship with god to the relationship to the other. Taha Abderrahman ended up this axe by demonstrating some aspects of absenting that Levinas did at the level of language, this absenting covered three ranks; ego, attributes and actions. Taha Abderrahman spoke about the four pillars of trusteeship theory of dialogue in the second axe of the lecture. These are: covenant, fidelity, testimony and sociability. He exhibited these four pillars in a preliminary postulate which is that trust specializing in two correlative and overlapping dimensions. These are extension and height; extension dimension of the dialogue of the persons who put trust in each other is concerned with material and spiritual affairs of this world, and for dialogue to proceed in highness extension guidance and orientation is demanded in the same way that is demanded in nocturnal journey for signification and direction. Therefore, the extension dimension is to be established (royal) in every pillar of the above-mentioned over the height dimension (divine). The pillar of covenant; Taha Abderrahman considers that dialogue relation is primarily based on the first covenant that was taken of the human in a witnessed dialogue when the creator glorified and exalted be testified humans addressing them “Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?”- They said: “Yea! » (surahala’raf 172). He mapped out the major characteristics of this relationship in three points: first, it can encompass every rank. Second, it can encompass all the creatures. Third, it is based on the mutual trust between the contractual parties. The pillar of trust; Taha Abderrahman stressed that the second (divine) basis was underscored in the verse of responsibility “We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains” ( surah of the parties, verse 72” determining the dialogue relationship between the contractual parties based on three major trusteeship characteristics: the characteristic of trusteeship relationship from both sides no matter what the ranking difference is. the depository not possessive relationship. The characteristic of spiritual rational relationship. He states that there is a characteristic in the contents of the second trusteeship characteristic lying in the fact that the origin of things (whatever they are) is deposit not possession. The pillar of testimony: it is a cornerstone that relies on a divine basis which is that of divine Sha’hidiya. Thus, the dialogue relationship between the contractual parties is determined by the four testimony characteristics that are as follow; the visual relationship characteristic in so much as it is an utterance relationship. Perspicacity characteristic relationship in so much as it is a sight relationship, and testimony relationship characteristic in so much as it is observation relationship. Lastly, the characteristic of the involvement of the sight of the supreme observer. Sociability pillar: Their divine bases are the names of god. The dialogue relationship between the contractual parties is determined by the following four ethical characteristics: the characteristic of ethics genesis, the characteristic of cooperation to assume responsibility and reach refinement. Ultimately, the characteristic of cooperation to attain mercy. Taha Aberrrahman summed ended up this particular topic by staing that the dialogue space, which is based on divine testimony; is a space of mercy with great distinction. Taha Abderrahman concluded his lecture by a summary in which he stated that the dialogue theory of ethics responsibility and the dialogue theory of trust responsibility are two dissimilar theories even though they link between the two worlds (royal and heavenly). The first theory makes use of absenting attributing the divine perfections to human as if he belonged to the unseen world, while the second theory makes use of testimony by extracting spiritual meaning rooted in the human nature to the testimony world. Therefore, the theories are contrastive. The second scientific session Professor Abdeljalil Hennouche from the University of Cadi ayyad- Marrakesh chaired this session, and It contained five talks. The first talk was entitled “acknowledgment and dialogue values in the pragmatic Islamic space” by professor Nathir Habil (from the university of Telmsan Algeria). The professor Habil tried to focus on the universality that characterizes Taha Abderrahman’s thought, namely dialogue universality and ethics universality, deducing that the project of the philosopher Taha Abderrahman is primarily ethical for he endeavors to an Arabic Islamic philosophy that goes in line with our particularity. The second talk was entitled “acknowledging the religious other and his ethical and religious requisites” delivered by the professor Mohamed Ikkij from the supreme judiciary institute in Morocco. He tackled the notion of “other” from a religious perspective. He deems that going back to origins enables people to extract ethical requisites and shapes up mankind. The third talk was under the title of “the Islamic dialogue; reality and challenges the principle of acknowledging the other” delivered by professor Solaiman Ben Salem Ben Naser Alhosaini (from Nazwa university- Oman). He focused on the renouncement of division and discord, fanaticism and non practice of charge of unbelief or discord-sowing that Islam preached. The fourth talk was entitled “the full-fledged ethics and its perception” delivered by the professor Souad Kaab (from university Mohamed V, Rabat). First, she talked about ethics in the western thought and in the Arabic Islamic tradition, deducing that ethical values are realized by means of religion to bring the welfare to mankind, considering that jurists separated the mind from the religion. The professor added that believing in the absolutism of mind was the cause of enslaving the human being.
The third scientific session; This session was headed by professor Abbas Rhila (from university of cadi Ayyad- Marrakesh). It contained four instances of taking the floor: The first talk was entitled “the sufi-experience and the rationality of advocacy; a view in the opsonic project, delivered by professor Tarek El Alami (from Mohammedia League of Ulama/ scholars). The participant teacher started his talk by a problematic question about the extent of availability of rational reasons in Sufism in order to assure that a number of opinions tend to negate this. But he refuted these claims by citing a wide range of opinions disseminated in the publications of the innovative philosopher Taha Abderahman, which alerted to many fallacies in understanding the Sufi experience. He concluded that Sufi experience is a rational and effective experience. And amongst its principles; the confluence of knowledge with deeds, the scientific knowledge with existence and the principle of integrating relation with excess. The second talk was entitled “the limits of mind in the system of ethics in the thought of Taha Abderrahman” delivered by professor Salwa Mohamed Nasrah (from university Ain Chams- Egypt). The professor underlined that the processing of the notion of mind, in the eyes of Taha Abderrahman, is different from the previous approaches. To explain, he links it to the purposes and goals, and he links the word with action. She also considers that his project is characterized by taking into account the Arabic Islamic particularity which makes the project more practical. Taha Abderrahman’s talk about the mind from the research perspective is based on ethics, because he considers the latter as a determining factor through which he distinguishes a human being from a non-human one. This conviction incited him to criticize the advocacy of secularism whose major aim is to separate the mind from religion. The third talk was under the theme of: “dialogue as ethics of thought: rationality of dialogue in Taha Abderrahman’s thought” delivered by professor Abdelmalek Boumenjal (university of Mohamed Stiff 2- Algeria). The professor mentioned in the introduction of his research the reason behind choosing that very topic. He also determined the approach adopted by Taha Abderrahman in his publications. It is an approach which is primarily based on ethics, mind and dialogue. The professor aimed in his research at inciting researchers to link philosophy to the scientific and practical value. To make the talk more practical, the speaker marked out its axes in an introduction that tackles the need of philosophy to a conversational ethical rationality. The professor talked in the first axe about Taha Abderrahman as a dialogue theorist. In the second axe he talked about conversational reality in Taha Abderrahma’s publications. The speaker saw that Taha Abderrahman was the most researchers theorizing for dialogue. The major principles of Abderrahman’s theory of dialogue are: origin in mankind is plural not singular and origin in word is dialogue and the latter contains rights and obligations, the word is speech and the latter is treatment, treatments are ethics. Professor, also, indicated three cornerstones of dialogue for Taha Abderrahman; linguistic cornerstone, deductive cornerstone and ethical cornerstone. Moreover, professor Abdelmalek praised the eloquent language of the thinker Taha Abderrahman, asserting that he learnt a great deal of things from his writings. The fourth talk was entitled “ethics of dialogue and dialogue of ethics: a study of the concept as viewed by Taha Abderrahman, delivered by Ahmed Bezoui (university of Chouaib dokkali- Eljadida). The professor sees that Taha Abderrahman’s thought is still progressing and needs someone to carry it on. In his talk, attention was paid to determining characteristics of the thought of the creative and innovative thinker Taha Abderrahman, among these: his unique ability to create new concepts and the power of his creative language. Other characteristics of this thought are; Taha Abderrahman’s bravery to indulge into self criticism as well having the ability to criticize any other work,pride of belonging to the Islamic civilization, his project is distinctive in terms of its liberation , independence and the call for an integral view to sciences without over-sanctifying our heritage for it embodies the rumination of previous opinions. The speaker also talked about some issues related to Taha Abderrahman’s method displayed in his publications. Amongst these is his discovering new mechanisms such as linking philosophizing to logic and relying on the critical constructive reading and bringing together the Arabic and foreign tradition in a way that enables creativity with mechanisms taken from our tradition. The fifth scientific talk was entitled “translational creativity of the philologist Taha Abderrahman” delivered by Professor Ahmed Baybi (university Moulay ISmail –Errachidia). The professor started by expressing his happiness to talk about the philologist Taha Abderrahman. He called on the linguists to restore the adjective “philologist”. After that the professor mentioned the three axes of his speech. He summed them up as follows: rooting translation, translation and joined creativity and translational creativity and the heavy word. Professor Baybi thought that aspects of creativity in translation act performred by Taha Abderrahman are spread out in his books, publications and lectures. Taha Abderrahman divided translation into three distinct types: • Achievement translation: according to Baybi, it is equivalent to literal translation in translation studies ‘or transposition In Salem yafout terms’. In this kind of translation, the translator prioritizes linguistic considerations over knowledge ones. Thus, his primary concern is the agreement of the SL and TL in terms of dictionary to achieve conceptual parallelism or in terms of syntax to achieve confirming parallelism. But this type according to Baybi leads to misunderstanding and disorientation results in producing concept strangeness in TL syntax. • Conductive translation; “Approximate translation” in Salem Yafut terms. It is the translation in which the translator seeks to find meanings that make ST closer to TT, then, he makes some modifications at the level of form using different tools such as; editing, and adaptation in order to avoid direct disagreement regarding the origins of the interlocutor’s language. Therefore, this type of translation is described as indirect translation. • Rooting translation; ‘constitutive” in Salem Yafut terms. This type of translation requires, besides linguistic competence, laying one’s fingers on the text intentions, creativity and clarity of goals so that the translator can interact with the translated text and converse with it in the communicative framework of the addressee. This leads to integrating ST in the epistemic and linguistic environment of the interlocutor’s culture to be able to produce and create thought. Thus, translation is neither transformation nor approximation based but it is rather a rooting based one whose major aim is blending in culture with its overall contents. Right after Mr Baybi finished deconstructing translation types elaborately, he moved to talk about the way translation can be a creative one for the philosopher Taha Abderrahman who criticized all postulates related to Arabic translation which started with Rifaa Tahtawi in the reign of Ali Mohamed Bacha. Taha Abderrahman considers that to be inappropriate for this epoch. Translation for Taha Abderrahman needs to be independent not dependent. For this reason Taha Abderrahman poses this question; how can Arabic translation be independent from original texts in a responsible independence that initiates the entrance of the Arabic Islamic thought in the process of creativity? According to the speaker, to respond to this question the philosopher Taha Abderrahman needed to criticize the concept of translation and invited translators to create an effect on the readership the same way writers of the original text do regarding their target receivers. Thus, translation ought to be a creative one. To explain, it should rather be heuristic than cloning wise. Furthermore, translation has to show for the reader new ways of creativity like the ones of ST. In the last axe, the professor demonstrated that translation for Taha Abderrahman is based on a goal; in fact, it must have a goal. The major goal behind translating the holy Quran, being the sacred word, is to provide the receiver with what enables him to be a religious practitioner, and the choice is laid upon his/her hand to practice it or leave it. The translator of the holy Quran has to be a believer in order to be able to achieve his/her goal which is that of enabling the receiver to potentially reach religiousness. The fourth scientific session: The first scientific talk was entitled “dialogue as intellect horizon in the Holy Quran delivered by Doctor Al mokri Abouzaid (Hassan 2 University, Casablanca). The professor started by thanking the presence participating in the conference. He also praised the nation’s philosopher Taha Abderrahman, and stopped at mentioning his scientific excellence and encyclopedic education as well as his uniqueness in creating the concept of dialogue and establishing it. For the latter is a basic tool in managing disagreement between people of all their beliefs and faiths. The speaker posed questions about the quintessence of dialogue and its bases in the holy Quran. He educed the necessity of relying on the holy Quran to establish dialogue whose aim is to widen the scope of thought. He justified that with the term “word” and its repetition with what is derived from it in the holy Quran, its meanings and indications in the holy Quran. This entails us to ponder and cogitate to extract its substantial goals. The speaker mentioned, at the end, the paramount importance of the other in the holy Quran achieving the most suitable levels of dialogue. For this reason it is obligatory to take people into account and benefit from them to achieve peace and renounce violence. The second scientific talk was entitled “the beauty of the Quranic and prophetic dialogue with the dissident”, delivered by professor Ahmed El-Omrani (from university of chouaibdokkali- Morocco). The speaker started by defining the concepts presented in the title of his talk especially the concepts of “beauty” “dialogue” “dissident”. He stopped at the beauty of the style of the dialogue with the dissident that TahaAbderrahman calls for. Eventually, he talked about dialogue types and its importance in human relationships with all their convictions and beliefs. When he finished his talk the speaker thanked everyone who contributed to the success of this conference. The fifth scientific session: This session was headed by professor Mimoun Nakaz (from university Mohamed first, Ouajda),and it featured four talks: The first talk was entitled “communication philosophy for TahaAbderrahman and the polemical relationship of the nationalist and the universal”, delivered by professor Jalloul Mekkoura (university of Msila, Algeria). At the beginning of the professor’s talk, he paid tribute and acknowledgment to everyone who contributed to the organizing of this conference that celebrated one of the most significant projects in the history of Arabic contemporary thought for it was able to set the scene for a communicative space not only among dissident people but also paradoxical ones. The professor declared that man’s perplexity and astonishment pushes him/her to search for a communicative experience to know his relationship and his destiny with the existence of the other. And the concept of the latter fluctuates between the positive and the negative, and between confirmations using negation or the opposite as well. But the other or the id always remains a means of expressing oneself. Every look at the ego mirrors a look at the other. However, the id does not represent nor epitomize a consistent or deep rooted essence, yet different cases. The issue of communication for an Arab thinker, researcher and reader(student) is propounded based on a civilized level in order to determine the distance between the modernistic other and the western one, either by neglecting this distance and embracing him or by considering him as an enemy and convicting him. The understanding of this issue is related to the understanding of the relationship between the Arab individual and the western other, thinking of the Arabic temporary circumstances in the light of my saying “conflict and communication” depends on the understanding of the relation between them. But this understanding which aims at creating an effective communication between the western other and Arab one faces a big obstacle lying in what the professor called cultural centralization. This means that sanctifying a cultural sample over at the expense of another so that the sacred cultural sample becomes uncontroversial and a source for judgments, knowledge and values. This leads to a cultural differentiation wherein the right of difference becomes unacceptable. The professor made mention of Taha abderrahman’s viewpoint of the issue of philosophical difference, which he divided into two sections (internal and external). The first section is related to the single pragmatic space which is governed by static philosophical facts that can be considered as sources while the second section is related with the comparison of two pragmatic dissimilar spaces. Even though there is a kind of conformity in some branches, yet difference seems to prevail. Therefore, the philosophical difference remains a legitimate right between cultures for the difference of civilizations and cultures leads to a legitimate philosophical difference. To illustrate, every philosophy has its own epistemic culture and a pragmatic space. Philosophy as Taha Abderrahman said is “one of the aspects of civilization”. The philosophy of communication for Taha Abderrahman, according to the speaker, is based on the principle of difference and the mechanism of dialogue as difference demands dialogue which pushes us to interaction which also optimizes “the quality of posing questions” among the various nationalist philosophies. The major aim behind this is to achieve philosophical universality that is not based on individual and hegemony but on the most compelling evidence and the most irrefutable proof. At the end of his talk, the professor hinted to the call of Taha Abderrahman to the right in the philosophical difference by means of understanding the two sayings “nationalist and universal” without neglecting the Islamic view in this issue. The second talk was entitled “philosopher and translation; the question of ethics in the practice of translation as viewed by Taha Abderrahman”, delivered by professor Fadoua El-Hzyti (University of Hassan 2, Casablanca). The professor El-Hzyti started her talk by thanking everyone who has contributed to the organizing of this conference. She expressed her excitement to meet Professor Taha Abderrahman and to participate in his honoring day. At the beginning, she started by raising the importance of the philosophical question in translation particularly, and then the importance of the question in the philosopher’s thought generally. According to the speaker, the translational and philosophical question in the thought of Taha Abderrahman is like threads skillfully sewed and then proliferated, twisted together, and finally got engaged into a mutual explication interpreting one another. This finds evidence in the fact that the single question for the single writer does not acquire its singularity from a number of destinies, and this made Taha Abderrahman start from a postulate “a human being is defined by ethics.” From the viewpoint of the speaker, Taha Abderrahman’s goal behind the philosophical question is to contribute to the creation of a contemporary ethical Islamic philosophy so that he becomes the philosopher of ethics and his philosophy becomes a philosophy of “practicing ethical.” The speaker also said that “The texts of Taha Abderrahman’s philosophy are coherent” and requires great thinking potentials to approach it in order to understand Taha’s philosophical question first and then translation secondly. The professor ended her speech by mentioning Taha Abderrahmna’s practice and regarding translation on the one hand and his moving out from the description of the viewpoint to the description of work on the other. She considered this duality as being the bases that paved the way for the rise of the translational question in the philosophy of Taha Abderrahman. The third talk was entitled “informatory interlocutor ethics; changes in materialistic era”, delivered by professor Abderrahman Fahd (University of Ryad- Saudi Arabia). At the start of his talk, the professor expressed his gratitude to everyone who contributed to the organizing of this conference, and then he tackled the ethics of dialogue in media through the TV program presented at “08:00” by Daoud Achoryan which is broadcasted by “MBC” channel. The professor stopped at three points while analyzing this program. First, he tackled what he called “the linguistic platitude”. That is the use of unethical linguistic and conversational style by the program animator. Secondly, he tackled the issue of discrimination that has become widespread in media in a tacit way. To end with, he talked about the ethical treatment that the program animator uses with his guests. The professor ended his talk by comparing the Arab and western media which whose primary interest is financial gain at the expense of ethics and dialogue. The fourth talk was under the theme “Reciprocity as an ethical horizon for the civilizational dialogue” delivered by Abdessalam Bozebra (University Lmsila- Algeria). Professor Bozebra stressed in the beginning of his talk that the issue of dialogue is a basic saying that attracted the interest of researchers, theorists, politicians and sociologists, but dialogue stems its main substance only through the law of God in his creatures which is the law of reciprocity. Bozebra believes that reciprocity is noticed to have taken two different directions. The first implies dispute while the second implies knowing each other. Thus, reciprocity is the background that should be considered as the main base while digging deep about the issue of knowing each other, coexistence and dialogue between cultures and religions. But investigating the issue of reciprocity is propounded besides the challenges that are facing the Arabic Islamic nations especially under the current circumstances regarding the overwhelming pervasion of what is called globalization. According to the professor, the latter destructed societies’ cultures and ethics. Therefore, the major challenge the nation is faced with is how to ward off these dangers and how can the Arabic Islamic discourse surpass the western inflexible one so that it can avoid its abuses. This made the thinker Taha Abderrahman calls for the flexible knowing rather than the inflexible one which is widespread in the western world. At the end of his talk, the professor stated his conclusions that he has come to in his research. This one displays the significance of reciprocity in creating a universal dialogue of ethics in which the privacy of every culture is respected. Closing session The closing session of the conference was headed by the professor Al Mokri Abouzaid Elidrissi (University of Hassan 2, Morocco). The professor started by giving the floor to professor Solaiman Ben Naser El-Hossaini) who has given a talk on behalf of the guests. He expressed his gratitude for the warm welcome, and the general circumstances in which the conference passed wishing the best for the upcoming meetings and conferences. Immediately, the floor was given to professor Ali ben Houssein Mousa who read the whole recommendations suggested by the conference visitors, and the major ones are as follows; the call for printing the conference papers and to work on opening master and Ph.D programs to study the publications of the thinker Taha Abderrahman as well as compiling specialized dictionary whereby to explain Taha Abderrahman’s terminology and creating a center under his name to introduce him to the coming generations. Ultimately, the floor was given to Taha Abderrahman who delivered a concise and deep talk. He thanked everyone who contributed in organizing this scientific forum and the participant guests who contributed to its success and also the respectable audience. He underlined the importance of this kind of dialogue, considering that the tongue alone does not do well except if it is joined with the dialogue of eyes. For him, eyes converse as tongues do. “If the dialogue of tongue is obligatory, then the dialogue of eyes is more obligatory, for it covers all creatures. If the dialogue of eyes straightens, so it does the dialogue of tongue.”