Clash of Civilizations

Clash of civilizations was the topic of an interview on Fox News Channel with Fouad Ajami.  Discussing Bernard Lewis and his "Islam and the West -- A Clash of Civilizations", Mr. Ajami pointed out that Americans make the mistake of asking, "Why do they hate us?    What have we done to deserve being hated?"  According to Mr. Ajami, and apparently Mr. Lewis, the question isn't even logical and our failure to realize that 'they hate us because of WHO WE ARE' will certainly be our undoing.

(Title of article:  "I'm right, ... you're wrong, ...  go to hell!")

For a long time now it has been our practice in the modern Western world to define ourselves primarily by nationality, and to see other identities and allegiances—religious, political, and the like—as subdivisions of the larger and more important whole. The events of September 11 and after have made us aware of another perception—of a religion subdivided into nations rather than a nation subdivided into religions—and this has induced some of us to think of ourselves and of our relations with others in ways that had become unfamiliar. The confrontation with a force that defines itself as Islam has given a new relevance—indeed, urgency—to the theme of the "clash of civilizations."  by Bernard Lewis  source

What civilizations are we talking about (the great civilizations of China, India, Greece, Rome, Persia, and the ancient Middle East?). Are civilizations determines by religion, or ethnicity, or region? What exactly does civilization mean (civilized vs UN-civilized?).  What particular 'clashes', because there are surely more than one.  Israel vs Palestinians?  The West vs. the East?  Christianity (and Judism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) vs. Islam?  One radical vs. another type radical"  Latin America vs. North America? 

... the medieval Arab historian-philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), ... what he discussed was not civilizations but states—or, rather, regimes. The concept wasn't really adapted to civilizations until the twentieth century. . . .

German historian Oswald Spengler, built a philosophy on this perception, captured in the phrase "the decline of the West"—Der Untergang des Abendlandes. His two volumes under this title were published in 1918 and 1922. In these he discussed how different civilizations meet, interact, rise and decline, and fall. His approach was elaborated by Arnold Toynbee, who proceeded with a sort of wish list of civilizations—and, of course, also a hit list. Most recently Samuel Huntington, of Harvard University, has argued that the clash of civilizations, more than of countries or governments, is now the basic force of international relations.  source

Mr. Lewis puts a very interesting definition on the word 'tolerance', in speaking of tolerance to another civilization or specifically to another religion, and what this ultimately means for this 'clash'.

Tolerance is, of course, an extremely intolerant idea, because it means "I am the boss: I will allow you some, though not all, of the rights I enjoy as long as you behave yourself according to standards that I shall determine." That, I think, is a fair definition of religious tolerance as it is normally understood and applied. . . .

... from a Muslim point of view, Judaism and Christianity were both true religions at the time of their revelation, but they were superseded by the final and complete revelation of Islam; although they are out-of-date—last year's model, so to speak—they are not inherently false. Therefore Muslim law, sharia, not only permits but requires that a certain degree of tolerance be accorded them.

In the clash between Islam and Christianity, Mr. Lewis discusses in depth the importance 'languages' plays in the situation, it is worth the read.  He concludes with this:

Today we in the West are engaged in what we see as a war against terrorism, and what the terrorists present as a war against unbelief. Some on both sides see this struggle as one between civilizations or, as others would put it, between religions. If they are right, and there is much to support their view, then the clash between these two religiously defined civilizations results not only from their differences but also from their resemblances—and in these there may even be some hope for better future understanding.  source

These 'resemblances' that Mr. Lewis mentions are worth reviewing.  But when we look at the world today, we see Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and similar governments taking over businesses and private property, making threats against their neighbors, specifically true democratic countries.  Iran is making threats against Israel and the United States while they continue defying the free world with their nuclear program.  Hamas and Fatah cannot even get along without having their separate security forces to protect themselves against each other.  The Muslims in Sudan are killing each other.  China and Russia have such strong trade and business connections with countries like Iran, they are not willing to vote with other free countries in the United Nations against Iran.  And on and on...  Are these ALL clashes of civilizations, and if not, the what?

I think world conflicts today are much more complicated that a 'clash of civilizations'.  What is the answer?  Well, there are lots of things that can be done, but a little conversation between individuals.  I try to do this.  I have corresponded with Ali R. Rabi (as well as others), chairman of the Middle East Citizens Assembly (MECA) as well as many other organizations, faculty at Tehran University, author of articles including, "Coalition of Civil Societies Against the Clash of Civilisations: Euro-Mediterranean Dialogue on Terrorism and the New War".  He has commented on this site and believes that communication between INDIVIDUALS is the key to solving world-wide disputes.  It is a a valuable belief, but how practical will it be in the long-run?  Can it be that simple?  I don't know.  Clash of civilizations or misunderstanding between individuals?  Either way, unless something is done we are headed toward more conflicts, no matter how we describe them.

Related posts:

Venezuela Expels U.S. Embassy Attache as a "spy" and warned that he will kick out the rest of the military component of the diplomatic mission...

Spain sending military equipment to Venezuela ... 12 military planes and eight patrol boats to Venezuela in a $2 billion deal

Stuff I've Heard point out that finally Bush realizes that this war is, in fact, World War III.

US President George W. Bush has said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III". In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Mr Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field. But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war, World War III". Mr Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III. "It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.

GOP Vixen has her "Quote of the Day":

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

    "We are for peace, tranquility and spirituality."   ... and turning Israel into a parking lot...

Now if that doesn't show a 'clash of civilizations' I don't know what does?  Just today, "Iran ups rhetoric on quitting atomic treaty".  Powerline has,  "Contra Iran":

Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz conducts an interesting interview with "a longtime Iranian-born opposition activist who, among other efforts, is a member of the National Union for Democracy in Iran, a three-year-old, US-based opposition group..."

How worried should the West be by the nuclear drive and horrible rhetoric?

Extremely worried. They should not be sleeping at night. If they are sleeping at night they are fools. They should take Ahmadinejad at face value. This is no rhetoric for political consumption, or domestic consumption, or international consumption. He means what he says and says what he means. And when I say "he" I mean "they" - the regime. Go read it all here

Love America First via    The Price of Freedom  and also posted at Knickerbocker News, has the story of "Iran's Sahand University Students Strike"

The Intelligence Summit lists all the bad things that have happened in Iraq and other places, like many sites to.  The Lone Voice has a daily post on what's going RIGHT in Iraq.

Infidel Bloggers Alliance has an excellent article on Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Moussaoui trial.  How we deal with terrorists and potential terrorists, says a lot to the rest of the world.  (I personally wanted the death penalty for him.)  We hear so much about judges these days not doing their jobs, not listening to the jurors, but Judge Brinkema did a great job under very difficult circumstances.

Linked with Diggers Realm open trackbacks

Comments

[freedom]

enzo: clap clap!

[enzo]

Clash of civilizations is when you actually have two civilizations competing against each other. I fully understand that making us to believe that there is a clash of civilizations is a step towards acknowledging that, opposing the western civilization, there is an arabic one. How convenient! What a faux pas! May I ask: what contribution have we had in the past few centuries from arabic luminaries or scientists? What contribution towards democracy and civil rights have we had from Muslim regimes? On the contrary, what we are seeing today is the strenuous efforts of the western world to defend itself from the Muslim entity, while trying generously to export the basic elementary values of civilization to parts of the world which have forsaken them since the time of good old Hammurabi.