Deliberative Dialogue is a tool we recommend being used when people may have some trouble discussing challenging or opposing concepts in a matter which is challenging. The entire document is included below, however we have pasted the content that we think is most relevant which would be number 6.0 The Rules and Roles of Dialogue. After this section the entire document is included below it.
6.0 The Rules and Roles of Dialogue
The rules of dialogue may vary depending on what is being considered and for what purpose the dialogue is being convened. The basic rule is truthfulness, and along with that, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Any number of other rules may be added to ensure that the process can complete its intended task.
If a group is going to formulate policy or take a decision that has official and legal standing, then the rules of dialogue would of necessity have to be more formal then if two friends enter into dialogue to decide where they want to go fishing. If an official decision is to be made, then there are all kinds of parliamentary rules that may be employed so that a legal binding decision is arrived at that will have the merit and respect of law.
A simple set of rules applicable to most dialogue sessions would be:
1. Only one person shall speak at a time
2. No one shall interrupt when another person is speaking
3. There shall be no side conversations
4. Each person shall express his or her own views rather than speaking for others
5. There shall be no invidious reference to official post held, either currently or in the past
6. No shall make personal attacks or issue statements blaming others for specific actions or outcomes (i.e. criticize ideas, not persons)
7. Each person shall make every effort to stay on track with the agenda and avoid grandstanding and digressions inn order to move the deliberation forward
8. Each person shall strive to maintain a sense of humor, listen well with the bent towards agreement as an ally
9. Be open minded
10. Each person shall communicate concerns, interests and ideas openly, and make the reasons for disagreements clear.
Any other rules may be added to these basic rules depending on the purpose for the dialogue session. For example, if an official decision is to be made, then the parliamentary procedures must be agreed to in order to cover that part of the session. For highly complex issues a rules committee may be appointed to make detailed plans including rules for the session.
By Abdul Alim Muhammad
26 August 2007
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Definitions
3.0 Purpose
4.0 Issues and Problems
5.0 Rules of Dialogue
6.0 Roles and Responsibilities
1.0 Introduction
This manual is written to assist the Nation of Islam fulfill its divine mission of the resurrection and restoration of the lost-found people of North America, the so-called Negros. This work is the culmination of many countless hours of dialogue and deliberation the focus of which was the resolution of many outstanding issues and problems that confront the Nation of Islam (NOI) in its present configuration. The primacy of dialogue and the power of dialogue emerged in a very natural way out of the sincere efforts of a group of people who convened dialogue meetings on a regular basis beginning in 2001. The work of that group itself was the result of prior dialogue that occurred in November 2000 between the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and his National Spokesman, Abdul Alim Muhammad along the banks of the Potomac River. The productive dialogue between those two has continued up to the present day.
Out of this on-going dialogue came the Commission for the Restructuring and Reorganization of the Nation of Islam (CRR) in 2001 through 2003; the Executive Committee which met three times in 2005 and the now up-coming new phase of operation of the Nation of Islam beginning with the ‘Making His Word Bond’ conference in 2007. In fact it is this conference that is the specific reason this little book is being produced.
Dialogue is being established as the preferred methodology for the NOI’s future work, therefore this manual is needed to assist in the training of the NOI Laborers and Believers. It is hoped that this rather small volume will be a big help and will in the future evolve into a larger more comprehensive work. It is the authors contention that without the skill of dialogue the NOI will not be able to meet the challenging work that lies immediately ahead.
I wish to thank all of those whose works and words contributed to this little book. In part they include my wife, Ma’Shala and son, James, but also major input of Brother Michael Muhammad, Obiozor Okeke Muhammad, David Muhammad, Shawn Muhammad, and so many others. All of the 36 original ‘Commissioners’ are to be thanked and those members of the Executive Committee as well. But I am truly grateful to all of the Believers whose enthusiasm and unshakeable faith has been an inspiration to me over many, many years.
Most of all we have to thank Allah, in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad and His Messenger, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad who began this great dialogue in September 1931. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad is quoted as having said: “It’s a wise God Who comes asking questions.” It is the questioning of Master Fard Muhammad that began this dialogue process amongst us, and it is through a continuing process of dialogue that we invite His Presence and Guidance among us today that will produce the Hereafter of His Own Vision and Desire.
2.0 Definition
Dialogue is the natural consequence of the human thought process and the innate desire and ability to be expressive and communicative. The impulses of intelligence that arise within us, due to our interaction with Creation, produce a need to communicate with others.
Man is invited to dialogue with God by God Himself:
40:60 And your Lord says: Pray to Me,
And I will answer you.
Those who disdain My service
Will surely enter hell, abased.
The means of Man’s proper relationship and eventual salvation is prayerful dialogue with God.
Man is made the final repository of the words of God, the names by which Creation is produced:
2:31 And He taught Adam all the names…
And therefore he is also endowed with the distinct ability above all creatures to articulate truth revealed to him by God:
15:26 And surely We created man of sounding clay…”
55:3-4 He created man,
Taught him expression.
Thus Man is created the exponent of Truth: the one who is able to discover the truthful principles that under-gird all of Creation,
46:3 We created not the heavens and the earth
and all between them save with truth…
who is then able to utilize such discoverable truths to subdue and master Creation:
31:2 See you not that Allah has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth…
90:8-10 Have We not given him two eyes,
And a tongue and two lips,
And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?
Man is created to be an exponent of Truth, and taught by God to stand in His place as Ruler on the Earth:
2:30: And when thy Lord said to the angels,
I am going to place a ruler in the earth,
They said: Wilt Thou place in it such as make mischief
in it and shed blood?...
He said: Surely I know what you know not.
Our experience in God’s creation makes us intelligent and on the deepest levels reveals the meaning of our existence. It is the desire to share this meaning that gives rise to dialogue. In fact, the word dialogue, from the Greek, quite literally refers to the flow of meaning, i.e. (dia: through) plus (logos: word, speech).
Superficially dialogue may appear to be about talking, words, etc but on the deepest level it is the way that ultimate meaning is conveyed from person to person or amongst a group. It is the way in which mere knowledge or facts is transformed into understanding, becoming in the process a creative force that builds up the content of the Universe as a whole.
It builds trust, respect and love amongst those engaged in dialogue and accelerates learning and promotes the sharing of values. It produces exponential rates of learning beyond just the mere conveyance of knowledge, but operating on the plane of experience, develops common ground and understanding upon which all can stand and work.
The field of dialogue is the field of thought itself. Not just thinking thoughts and expressing those thoughts, but giving concentrated attention to the process of thought: the process by which thoughts are conceived, emerge, have life and activity and interact (combine) with other thoughts. Dialogue builds up the creative Word in Man that has the power and intention to expand the potentiality of Man in the Universe, Man in the image and likeness of God. In this way dialogue is a living mind that is shared among people who are working together from the standpoint of a common need, seeking a way forward in quest of a common purpose that does the greatest good for the greatest number of persons.
Therefore dialogue is to love what blood is to the body. Without the flow of blood, the body dies. Without the flow of meaning via dialogue, the love among people dies along with the power of their being and their ability to do. A people without dialogue is a lifeless mass, lumps of flesh with no clear identity, purpose or means of achieving anything, except what they are driven to by the whip. Without the divine process of dialogue they can only remain without true inner principles. They cannot develop relationships amongst themselves as true friends to support one another as friends ought to do, nor will they be able to rise above ignorance, fear or oppression. They will be unable to learn from their mistakes and therefore will be unable to change and improve their condition. Without dialogue they remain as mute beasts who cannot aspire to a higher order of being that would, if achieved, make them immortal co-Creators with God. The specific means of ascent is through the Word of which the process of dialogue is wholly concerned.
[Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word, that proceeds from the mouth of God]
Another integrally related part of dialogue is deliberation which is the phase of dialogue that exercises in a very precise way reason and logic for the purpose of arriving at a consensus on truth and decision making. This phase of dialogue is characterized by critical listening (for the sake of agreement) and a reasoned argumentation that leads to thoughtful decision making.
The decision thus arrived at is usually for the purpose of taking an action by the group to resolve the particular problem or situation under consideration in the first place. This methodology assures that the decision arrived at is a consensus decision that has no reasonable opposition thereby eliminating all internal friction or resistance. This leads to the possibility of maximum success of the action taken. It ensures maximum buy-in by the members of the group since all views have been heard on an equal basis, and nothing of relevance has been ignored or left out of the dialogue and deliberations. This is a very powerful position from which to launch an action program.
3.0 Synergy: The Product of Dialogue
The vital and therefore, mysterious, aspect of the dialogue process is synergy. Synergy is from the Greek, synergos, which simply translated, means working together. However, synergy is more that simply working together. One begins with the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but beyond that it means that the behavior of a system as a whole is completely unpredictable from the behavior characteristics of any of it parts.
Dialogue produces a synergy of ideas, concepts, values and thoughts. The synergetic product of dialogue is completely unpredicted from the elements of the dialogue. These elements are the people and what they know or express from their own limited viewpoint. The excitement of dialogue is that one never knows what the final result is going to be, except the assurance that whatever it is will be better by far then any element that is being brought to the process itself.
In ways that may seem miraculous or even magical, a higher idea or hypothesis, a greater or expanded conception of truth is produced by the dialogue process that is not the product of any one mind, but is as it were, of the higher mind of the group itself. Dialogue produces this higher mind. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says of the First God:
He was the only One in the entire dark Universe. He had to wait until the atom of Life produced brains to think what He needed...
Our Saviour Has Arrived, page 40
The appearance of this higher mind or intelligence occurs when the participants in the dialogue have truthfully expressed to the best of their ability their opinion or viewpoint with all the others. A new, higher viewpoint emerges within the group. This new higher idea self-assembles/self-creates itself in the sacred womb of dialogue and makes itself known through the dialogue itself to the group for recognition and acceptance. At this point, in an honest dialogue, all opinion holders will surrender their individual viewpoint in favor of the new conceptus that has been created in their midst by them. This is the manifestation of God in the midst of them. The Presence of God is the highest goal attainable, and is only attainable by a group in lawful dialogue that invites God’s Presence. This is the specific scientific reason that lying, or other forms of dishonesty cannot be allowed. This ruins the possibility of the Settling of the Spirit of the Holy One amongst His people.
This occurrence thereby transcends the egotism of individuals and imparts to the group a new, more sublime identity and power that they did not possess before. The group will have arrived at a place of knowledge and understanding that was wholly unimaginable to any member of the group before the group began dialogue. The levels of trust, respect and the sense of love and integrity of the group soars. All are over-awed by the majesty of the act of creation in which they have participated and to which they have contributed.
The synergetic product of the dialogue becomes the higher mind of the group and is the possession of the group, not of one individual. It is the maximum solution or resolution of the problem or question under consideration. It is an experience that is exhilarating and at the same time partakes of the sacred that testifies to the presence within us all of the spark of Divine Reason. As Jesus said…
[…the Kingdom of Heaven is within you…]
[Come let us reason together…]
Dialogue is therefore the way of comprehending and producing the Kingdom of God or Hereafter and bringing it into view for all to see. The Law of Synergy means that as individuals we don’t have it all or know it all, but We, working together in dialogue, have it all, know it all, and therefore can do it all! Dialogue is therefore a wonderful and indispensable tool with which to do our Work.
4.0 Purpose
The purpose of dialogue is to resolve conflicts and contradictions and to understand complex issues and problems. Dialogue is the way to bridge divides among people and overcome the barriers that separate or alienate us from one another. Dialogue fosters innovative solutions for the good of the group in ways that do no harm to anyone. In true dialogue, disrespect, vanity, pride and self-aggrandizement play no role. Fear, anger, hatred, envy and jealousy are banished. The hypocrite can not be hypocritical in a dialogue where each must speak truth. Lying is instantly recognized by all and is dealt with.
Dialogue helps to reach agreement and consensus even on difficult matters and allows us to come to the point of decision for the launching of effective successful actions. Through dialogue we have the perfect way to make recommendations and make policy decisions.
5.0 Issues and Problems
Dialogue is a process for solving problems. Unsolved problems produce all the suffering and dissatisfaction among people throughout the world. Problems go unsolved either because they are not recognized as problems to be solved in the first place, or they themselves are the failed solutions to other problems. Failed solutions generate more and more problems.
Heaven would be where all problems are solved (or at least solvable). This would reduce anxiety, grieving, and all kinds of insecurity and anti-social behavior that result from people not knowing the way to solve problems. This also relates to people not knowing or realizing that the purpose of their brains to solve their problems so they can know happiness. This ‘not-knowingness’ is one of the biggest problems.
We are in Hell when there are problems and no solutions. If we generate more problems through false-solutions then problems accumulate more and more until we are over-whelmed. At this point we may decide to give up.
When we have individual problems we solve them by the proper use of our brains (minds). We think the problem through until we thoroughly analyze the problem, and thoroughly understand the cause and effect relationships involved in the problems. When we correctly identify the cause of the problem and how to remove it, then we have the solution. If we properly implement the solution then we actually solve or remove the problem. In this whole process we learn a lot. In the end we may end up thankful for the problem, without which we would never have gained so much knowledge and experience. What would we do if we didn’t have our problems? We might go mad.
If we observe the mental process inside our heads as we go about solving our problems, we discover it to be a kind of dialogue. We notice is that there is a community of voices, a community of Self that is engaging in conversation. If the conversation is lawful the chances of a solution emerging is great. If the conversation is unlawful then more confusion and problems will arise. If we contend that no such conversation is going on inside our heads, then we are either lying or we are a brain dead zombie-slave.
The conversation inside our heads is a dialogue and the elements of the dialogue are the component parts of Self, aspects of our personality, attributes of our Person. Some of these ‘people’ within us arise from our own self-development. Others are imports and composites from outside, which is to say, we are emulating some other person or persons. It is quite natural and common for a person to have the presence of a parent, or a great teacher or friend who resides on the inside. We can for example hear the voice of our mother, or even some character from a movie or book in our head. These outside characters that may be in our head will exhibit the characteristics of the person they represent, whether good or bad… only now these other people are speaking in our name. If they are good people then that may be alright, but sometimes we have ‘people in us’ that are no good at all and they should never speak for us. This is how we say we ‘hear’ the presence of someone else inside a person, and can sometimes even identify who it is. “Boy, you sound just like your no-good hoodlum friends. You better leave them alone before they get you in trouble.” Good advice. They get you in trouble because they have taken over the control apparatus of a person, who does not recognize that someone else is now speaking for him. When they can once again hear their own voice speaking then they are on the way back to self and self-control. Even influenced that are good should be recognized for what they are: outside persons who have a presence within.
When a problem is recognized to exist, then the Self, the true self, should convene a meeting of Self. All the components of Self should attend and participate in a dialogue of Self. The question or problem should be clearly stated and framed by the convener, the true self who then allows all of the aspects of self to have their say. This is an internal dialogue and is the way we solve our internal problems. Sometime the enemy to self is there and has to be asked to leave or even forced to leave, and permanently banned on penalty of death. Then all the true and truthful aspects of self can dialogue and deliberate until consensus is achieved and a decision leading to action can be taken. This is the successful way to solving a problem that affects one individual: start the dialogue within.
Individuals are always a part of some group and groups also have their problems. The same dialogue process will solve the group’s problems too. A meeting must be convened and the problem clearly stated, usually in the form of a question. For example:
How strong is the foundation? Can we survive?
All legitimate members of the group or their representative shall then truthfully share their view on the topic. Following the simple rules dialogue which speak mostly to common courtesy and respect, after a time the solution to the problem will be arrived at by the group and group action of a concerted nature can be taken.
In both cases the most important thing is to clearly define what the problem is. It must be important to all participants and resonate with them all. Great care and consideration must be given to finding the exactly appropriate expression of the problem or issue. Confusion in the statement of the problem means the dialogue is doomed before it gets started. Sometime the first dialogue has to be:
“What is the problem?”
Then after identifying what the problem is, the problem solving can begin. Complex issues will need to be broken down into smaller pieces, each of which becomes a dialogue topic of its own. Complex problems are therefore solved by a series of dialogues.
Any problem is solvable by dialogue. Another name for dialogue is the scientific method. The scientific method is used by scientists all over the world to understand the problems of and the nature of the Universe. Dialogue takes place among scientist in many different ways: in universities, via seminars and tutorials, as well as in published material in scientific journals. This is how scientists the world over talk to one another about what they think is true.
Dialogue may be oral or written. In the world of science and philosophy a good part of the dialogue is written down, so that there is permanent record of the dialogue. Dialogue on very important issues may span cultures and languages that are different or even generations and spans of time measured in the thousands of years. People are still responding to what men wrote thousands of years ago.
Easy problems have easy solutions. Difficult problems take more time and more effort to resolve. None the less, all problems have solutions and all will yield the solution to some form of the dialogue process.
6.0 The Rules and Roles of Dialogue
The rules of dialogue may vary depending on what is being considered and for what purpose the dialogue is being convened. The basic rule is truthfulness, and along with that, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Any number of other rules may be added to ensure that the process can complete its intended task.
If a group is going to formulate policy or take a decision that has official and legal standing, then the rules of dialogue would of necessity have to be more formal then if two friends enter into dialogue to decide where they want to go fishing. If an official decision is to be made, then there are all kinds of parliamentary rules that may be employed so that a legal binding decision is arrived at that will have the merit and respect of law.
A simple set of rules applicable to most dialogue sessions would be:
1. Only one person shall speak at a time
2. No one shall interrupt when another person is speaking
3. There shall be no side conversations
4. Each person shall express his or her own views rather than speaking for others
5. There shall be no invidious reference to official post held, either currently or in the past
6. No shall make personal attacks or issue statements blaming others for specific actions or outcomes (i.e. criticize ideas, not persons)
7. Each person shall make every effort to stay on track with the agenda and avoid grandstanding and digressions inn order to move the deliberation forward
8. Each person shall strive to maintain a sense of humor, listen well with the bent towards agreement as an ally
9. Be open minded
10. Each person shall communicate concerns, interests and ideas openly, and make the reasons for disagreements clear.
Any other rules may be added to these basic rules depending on the purpose for the dialogue session. For example, if an official decision is to be made, then the parliamentary procedures must be agreed to in order to cover that part of the session. For highly complex issues a rules committee may be appointed to make detailed plans including rules for the session.
7.0 Roles and Responsibilities
There are also many roles that may be a part of the dialogue process. Formal roles must be assigned to qualified persons in order to assure the integrity of the process. A simple dialogue process will have fewer formal roles that are needed. Dialogue for formal, official purposes will need a full complement of role playing to prevent future challenges to the validity of the process.
In the past, the formal dialogue sessions of the CRR, involving 36 persons seated according to the pattern of the enneagram, used the following 9 roles and responsibilities:
Presentor
Responder No. 1
Responder No. 2
Facilitator
Recorder No. 1
Recorder No. 2
Time Keeper
Parliamentarian
Chairman
A formal Session Face Sheet is to be prepared for each session that lists the name of the session (topic), a brief topic summary that states the reason for the session and the intended outcome, the Session Number asssigned, the time, date and the names of each of the participants and the roles that they are to play during the session. The time limits and rules of the session shall also be listed and any special session rules adopted, or references to previously held related sessions. Such Session Sheet is the title page of the official record of the session and is to be signed by the Chairman.
A Session Summary Sheet is to be prepared at the end of the session that indicates that the session was officially adjourned, or paused or interrupted and lists the disposition and record of any voting or decision made, and is signed by the Chairman and attached to the Session Face Sheet. Time and date of adjournment is listed. These two sheets are in due course attached and filed with the entire session record. In addition, a certification that these are the authentic and true records of the session is signed by the Chairman and the Recorders.
The Chairman uses the gavel to formally open the dialogue session with a clear statement of the question or topic under consideration. He also reminds the participants of the rules being used for the session and the time limits and introduces the others who are to play the various roles.
The Chairman is the guardian of the integrity of the process and the session and sees to it that the session is conducted according to the rules and that it stays on topic so that the purpose or intention of the session is being accomplished. Using the gavel, the Chairman may interrupt at any point to maintain order and to ensure that the session is accomplishing its stated goals.
The Chairman may not directly participate in the dialogue, unless he first relinquishes the Chair to someone else. All speech during the session is directed to the Chairman by all participants and not directly to one another. Appeals for exceptions to rules may be made to the Chairman, i.e., appeal for more time, or to extend the length of the session, etc. To grant or not grant these appeals is at the discretion of the Chairman. His primary motivation is to successfully accomplish the goals of the session.
The Responder speaks first for a specified number of minutes to introduce the full scope and meaning of the topic, highlighting it importance and the major aspects of the problem. The Responder may be a technical expert in the area of the problem whose major responsibility is to educate the participants about the subject.
Responders No. 1 and No. 2 give response to the Presentors remarks. They can be either pro or con, they can agree or disagree. They have the responsibility to flesh out the picture created by the Presentor. They may wish to give an alternative view and point out contradictions and/or flaws in the Presentors viewpoint. Each Responder is generally accorded somewhat less time than the Presentor.
Next the Facilitator takes over. The Facilitator is to engage the dialogue process based on what has been presented by the Presentor and the two Responders. If the topic is complex, he may break it down into smaller questions to be considered separately. Whatever he does, it must be fair and open and consistent with the rules of the session. He may begin the dialogue by pointing out differences in what has been presented in an attempt to clarify and examine further those areas of difference. He may directly question the Presentor and Responder to elicit more information.
Having done that, the Facilitator will next involve the other participants in the dialogue process according to the agreed upon rules for the session. Usually the Facilitator will ensure that participants stay on topic and answer or respond to the question that is on the floor. The Facilitator will also ensure that there is full participation and will use what ever techniques are needed to coax and stimulate participation. In generally everyone must speak once, before anyone is allow to speak twice. The way in which this is accomplished is up to the Facilitator, unless specific rules have been adopted. He may, for example, simply recognize people who raise a hand, or he may just go around the circle in order, or he may follow the internal dynamic of the enneagram (3, 6, 9 and 1, 4, 2, 8, 5, 7).
The Facilitator continues in this fashion until the topic is exhausted and a consensus is reached, or until the time limit of the session is reached. If at that time a formal decision is to be made then a Motion can be made by any participant to that effect on the advice of the Chairman. For example the Chairman may indicate “a state of unreadiness” exists, meaning that in the opinion of the Chairman the issue is not resolved or has too many outstanding deficiencies to allow a consensus decision to be made. Thus, the Chairman’s advise may be to continue deliberations, table the issue, reconvene at another time, review for further study, appoint a special work group to look at the issue further and report back, etc Advise of the Chairman is not binding and is subject to vote by a majority present to be sustained.
If the issue is ready for the vote, then the usual parliamentary procedure is followed. Such procedure is a part of the rules for the session as previously agreed to and is overseen by the Chairman with the assistance and counsel of the Parliamentarian. If any procedural dispute arises, then the ruling of the Parliamentarian is to be followed. If no ruling is available from the Parliamentarian then the matter is tabled until such time as a parliamentary ruling can be had.
The role of the Time Keeper is to monitor and signal the time given to the over-all session, the various parts of the session and to the individual time allowed for participants comments. From time to time the Chairman, or Facilitator or any participant may ask for a time check.
The two Recorders are to record the session by taking notes on all parts of the session. The rules of the session will determine whether the session notes are to be verbatim or in a summary form. Recording equipment may also be employed depending up the rules of the session. The official record of the session is the documents compiled by the Recorders. All participants may review these notes to ascertain that the meaning their own remarks has been captured. Any participant may submit written remarks into the official record within a specified time until the records are approved and closed by the Chairman. Records are to be safe-guarded and to be considered a part of the public record of the people. Such records may from time to time be published under rules adopted for such purpose.
Other participants in any session may be the Audience if there be one and any Special Guests or Advisors that have been extended official invitation through and approved by the Chairman. The Audience role is generally a silent one, but is to sit in Judgment of the session representing the interest of the larger public. Members of the audience may be asked by the Chairman to render critical comments if an official critique is included as a part of the session. The Audience may also be connected via media to the session.