1.  While significant cultural difference is a permanent and fundamental feature of human existence, internal and cross-cultural understanding is imperative for peaceful co-existence and cooperation. Power relations between relevant actors (within and between cultures) is very important, but to take that as definitive and exclusive of human choice and responsibility is to surrender to a destructive determinism of circumstances. Human willpower has repeatedly been cultivated throughout history to overcome and reverse negative power relations within and between cultures. Since confrontation and hostility are no longer tenable as defining principles of intercommunal and cross-cultural relations, human willpower must be utilized to achieve an equilibrium of power in the interest of peace and mutual accommodation. People can, and do, make a difference through the visions they have and positions they take regarding the options of understanding and cooperation, on the one hand, or confrontation and hostility, on theother. The question is therefore whether it is possible to achieve such a strong reorientation of human societies in relation to the use and abuse of history, and if yes, how that can be accomplished.

2.  People's perception of their cultural (including ethnic and/or religious) identity is a product of continuing dialectical process of conflict and mediation between competing visions of their history. But these visions are, in turn, affected by shifts and transformations in the people's perception of identity. These shifts and transformations reflect the interaction of a wide variety of economic, political, social, psychological, and other factors within each culture, as well as the exchange of cross-cultural influences. But this process is far from deterministic, and is constantly shaped and directed by human choice and behavior.

3.  Intercultural understanding and agreement on universally valid normative insights is possible, indeed essential, for peaceful co-existence and cooperation, but only when seen as a genuinely collaborative project, on the basis of reciprocity and mutual respect, and not as the hegemonic universalization of culturally specific (relativist) models, institutions, and processes.

4.  Cultural difference, including differences in historical thinking, as such do not preclude intercultural understanding, but can be manipulated to that end by ambitious elites for their own political and economic advantage. Given the dynamic of competing visions of history, alternative voices and interpretations of cultural identity and historical experience do exist, and can be mobilized to counter the negative forces of confrontation and domination.

5.  These alternative voices and interpretations should be identified and engaged in internal discourse within cultures, and cross-cultural dialogue, on the basis of mutual respect, and a desire to understand others on their own terms and in their own self-image, through jointly constructed conceptual frameworks and methodologies.

6.  The processes of promoting internal and cross-cultural understanding and agreement on normative insights should include consensus on normative premises and methodologies of the humanities, social as well as physical sciences, and technology. All these and related fields of human knowledge and action should be seen as the product of, and deployed to serve, a universal community of humanity advancing peace and cooperation, and protecting its fragile environment.

7.   The key to the whole process of intercultural understanding is a willingness to question one's own assumptions and motives, an ability to identify and address legitimate interests and concerns of individuals and groups — to come to the arena of understanding in good faith and candor, in search of peaceful and constructive co-existence — because the negative forces and experiences that need to be overcome are powerful and deep-rooted.

In the preceding discussion, I was referring to both the internal and cross-cultural dimensions of the process of understanding and consensus-building. In the next two sections, I will outline the role of historical thinking in an "internal" Islamic context, as well as with respect to Islamic-Western relations today.