Islam and the Clash of Civilizations
Queries
Sometime ago Zindagi, an Urdu weekly magazine from Lahore published an interview (16-04-2000) of Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, the Chief Editor of ‘Renaissance’. The questions mostly related to the views of the German Muslim scholar Dr Murad Wilfred Hoffman. This interview has been rendered into English by Mr Razi Allah Lone and is being reproduced here. (Editor)
Can the Western Civilization become a Global Civilization?
Question: Javed Sahib, you must have viewed the translation of some of the articles written by Dr Murad Hoffman in the previous issues of Zindagi. The topics of these articles are ‘Clash of Civilizations and Islam in the 21st century’ and ‘Islam and the ideological crisis of present age’. We desire to find out your analysis of these articles for the readers of Zindagi, and also your point of view on these topics. Our first question is that Professor Huntington, to whose views Dr Hoffman has alluded in his first articles, is not very hopeful about the global conquest of western civilization. He says: West is, without doubt, unparalleled but not universal. In this context, kindly elucidate the meaning of predominance of western civilization in the present age; does this civilization hold the possibilities of becoming a global civilization?
Answer: The western civilization is in reality a stage in the evolution of human culture. In this respect, it possesses certain qualities, which can be regarded useful for mankind. It has gathered adequate resources for the solution of the problems that human culture could have encountered. The extraordinary development of scientific studies, its compatibility with the diverse circumstances of human economics and the stability of democratic values are the main features of western civilization. But despite of all this, it is absolutely true that western civilization does not hold the possibilities of becoming a global civilization. In my opinion, there are a few reasons for it:
The first reason is that religiosity is innate in humans and not something extraneous to the nature on which the Almighty has created them. Unfortunately, as a result of the clash, which the west had with the church, it is unwilling to recognize the significance of this consciousness. So the situation is not that the west has swerved from religion, the situation is that the western mind is not even willing to perceive the worth this consciousness should be given in human civilization and the role it should play in society. Accordingly, it is faced with the predicament that it is not becoming possible for it to establish a relationship of man’s inner self and his moral being with the material evolution. Now, western civilization is left with only two alternatives: one is that it should concede this reality of human nature and the other is that with a new technology, it should change human nature.
The second reason is that for universality, there is a need for certain fundamentals that, in diverse human civilizations, can serve the purpose of unification. The problem of the western civilization is that, even after the realization of this unity, it is insistent on the political, social and sociological division of people in this world. The reason for this is its theory of nationalism. This idea of nationalism has impeded the paths leading to the unification of human civilization. Rather than highlighting the concept of collectivity of mankind by making use of new means of communication and discovery of new fields of knowledge, the individual concept of nationalism is being entrenched. The thought and philosophy of the west, in spite of realizing the need for collectivity, is not ready to relinquish nationalism.
The third reason is that the west is incessantly refusing to make the economic system subservient to ethics and morality. Global civilization will surely be ethical. This is the requisite of human nature. If a civilization is not ethical, then even at the epitome of material advancement, it can only enslave human bodies and cannot conquer their hearts and minds. Man becomes contented with material luxuries and mental inquietude for some time but veritable and enduring serenity can only be obtained through moral values. It is, indeed, beyond doubt that the western civilization -- in collective life -- has become the flag bearer of certain values which, in all respects, are worthy of admiration, but they are not ready to adopt this point, as a fundamental rule, that the settlement of dissension, in any case, should be on the basis of moral values.
These are the three reasons on the basis of which I agree with the point that the western civilization, even after possessing so many qualities, has remained incapable of developing the fundamentals needed to become a universal movement.
What is a Modern Society?
Question: The common point of view is that modernism and westernization are inseparable. Huntington disagrees with it. In his view, a society can be non-western and still be modern. Which society, in your view, is a modern society?
Answer: I believe that if a society keeps the doors of criticism open to itself, does not make every opinion, every point of view, every custom and tradition a thing of worship, not only endures disagreement but also provides a conducive and amiable environment for it, does not start persecuting the proponents of a new point of view, affords them free opportunities to have a discourse and all the time remains vigorous in the pursuit of unveiling the possibilities which nature has concealed in the heavens and the earth, then it is a modern society. Modern society is not the name of some distinct emblem, nor is it the name of a particular dress or some distinguished etiquette and customs, rather it is the name of cognizance of facts. Whichever civilization acquires this cognition, will be worthy of being called modern. If the oneness of age, the unity of life and the unity of universe do not accept duality, then the decision of the modern and the ancient will also be on the basis of facts.
The Features of an Islamic Civilization
Question: In your opinion, is there any reality of an Islamic civilization, and if it does exist, then how different is it from other civilizations?
Answer: If we insist on giving the name of Islamic civilization to a particular civilization, then, in my opinion, any civilization which accepts these three fundamentals can be declared Islamic despite a thousand variations in culture and tradition, way of living and etiquette and customs:
1. Oneness of God
2. Unity of mankind
3. Eternal retribution on the basis of deeds
These three things permeate a civilization as its spirit and, with inconsequential divergences, accept every structure for human civilization. Therefore, the same has happened in the history of Muslims elapsed so far. Islam has played this very role in the formation of civilization. Every civilization, according to its inclination and capacity, adopted these fundamentals and moulded them in their peculiar frame. This is the reason that any particular mould or frame should not be termed Islamic civilization. These fundamentals became conspicuous in the Arab civilization in a distinct manner. Later on, the coalescence with non-Arabs imparted some new colours to it and now if western civilization also accepts these fundamentals, then, with a few divergences, this civilization can also be termed an Islamic civilization.
Cultural Conflict or National Conflict
Question: About the prognosis that in future, conflict will not be on national fronts but on cultural fronts, what is your opinion? The situation in the past, according to Dr Hoffman was no different; in his opinion, wars fought in every era were fought between cultural unities.
Answer: I agree with the point that in the past, conflict has usually taken place between cultural unities but in my opinion, cultural unity is never the cause of conflict. If you study the four to five thousand years history of human civilization, take into account the historical analyses of Ibn Khaldun from the people of old times and Toynbee from the people of modern times, and also take guidance from the historical discernment as found in the revealed scriptures, it will become evident to you that the cause of conflict is always four things.
The first thing is worldly benefits. As they are of individuals, likewise they are of nations. If these benefits continue to accrue, then peace stands firm, and if strife is initiated about them, then conflict arises.
The second thing is the disposition of dominance in mankind. When born in individuals, it makes them Caesar and Alexander, when born in nations, it makes them the empires of Rome and Persia. Halaku Khan, Ghenghis Khan, Babar, Bayazeed Yaldram, Hitler, Mussolini, all are its emblems. In the present time, attempts are being made to bridle this disposition by establishing international values, but it is so obstreperous that nothing can be said when the rein breaks loose and it, intemperately, starts ravaging humans. Presently, since the west has supremacy in various fields of life, so there is more dread of it becoming tempestuous.
The third thing is religious coercion. West has, to a large extent, emancipated itself from it because its cultural upbringing is in reaction against religious coercion. For this reason, it is very gratifying that despise for religious coercion has found its way not only in the roots of the western culture but the west has also become the propagator of it in the world. In Muslims, aside from a few extremist factions, this thing has never gained currency. That is why it apparently seems that there is not much scope of conflict on this basis.
The fourth thing is the implementation of divine retribution through the hands of human beings. This thing has ended with the completion of prophet-hood. There is no doubt that Muslim thinkers born in the previous century have endeavored to declare it the goal of Muslims by erroneously interpreting it, but, by the grace of God, the process of clarifying the fault of this interpretation to people has been initiated, very rapidly, by Muslim scholars themselves. I do not say that this process has been very successful but I would definitely say that in the next two decades, its effects would be quite discernible in Muslim religious thought. So in my opinion, it cannot be the cause of any conflict from the Muslim side.
So in the present time, only two things pose real threat. One is worldly benefits, and the other is the disposition of dominance. If mankind unites and bridles these two demons, then conflict can be thwarted. Otherwise, the sweepings can catch fire any time from the sparks subdued in the instincts of man. So I think that there is no danger of any conflict amongst civilizations. Whenever conflict transpires, it will be because of the mentioned two reasons. I fear that if the occurrence or non-occurrence of conflict vis-a-vis civilizations is examined from an angle of view different from this, then this thing will itself become a cause of conflict.
Coming Closer to the World: The First Step
Question: According to Dr Hoffman, the approach to convey the message of Islam to other civilizations is to determine those values of other civilizations that are also present in Islam, and then an attempt should be made to unite them together. What is your comment on this viewpoint?
Answer: I wholly agree with this point. To me this is the same principle of sagacity in exhortation which the holy Qur’an has presented -- in its immortal style-- in case of the People of the Book: ‘O People of the Book, come to that which is similar between you and us …’ (3:113). Exhortation should always be carried from agreement to disagreement, and accepted to controversial. Those points which the addressee acknowledges, which are not strange to him, starting from their confession and affirmation, movement should be gradual to those matters which are an inevitable corollary of these facts so that the addressee, while moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar, leans, imperceptibly, towards those facts which any advocate of the truth wants to get acknowledged.
Is the Western Civilization Self-Destructive?
Question: Dr Hoffman, while alluding to the Harvard university professor David Bell and a former American diplomat William Aufles, has prophesized that the western world will be demolished once again like communism because no human civilization can exist without spirituality. What do you say about this prophecy?
Answer: I think that the western civilization, by declaring freedom and sovereignty its fundamental values, has provided enough for itself to adapt to a new mould instead of being ravished completely. If these values are impaired any moment, then this can be prophesized. I believe that if Muslims stand at the right place while presenting their religion and opt for the prophetic way of reformation instead of revolution, then the inner self of western civilization can be conquered. But would Muslims stand in such position? I fear that this dream might not come true. Likewise, this point should also be understood that demolition of a civilization cannot occur without the emergence of a comparative civilization which possesses superior moral values. Thus, the question is that have the possibilities of the origination of a superior civilization emerged? I think that these possibilities are not even remotely evident; so no prophecy of any destruction can be made.
Family Life vs ‘Free’ Life
Question: In the west, on the one hand, there is unbridled freedom and on the other, the rules for marriage are so intricate that people establish matrimonial relationship without formal marriage and endeavour to fulfill it throughout their entire lives. Does Islam provide any solution to this problem?
Answer: Amongst the crucial mistakes of the western civilization, one mistake is swerving from the nature on which the Almighty has created man regarding family life. I think that if we present our stance properly and on the basis of arguments, the west will definitely lend an ear. Just as we should accept its experiences, affably, regarding collective life and consider its resplendent aspects our lost treasure, in a similar manner we expect from the west that it should come out of the psychology of reaction and get prepared to listen to us in this matter.
Islam and Terrorism
Question: In the present time, the serious accusation levelled against Islam by the west is that of terrorism. How far is this allegation legitimate? Isn’t west itself involved in international terrorism?
Answer: I believe that, in our society, some flag bearers of forcefully imposing their stance on people have created this impression. Although a large majority of Muslims is against it but because of its silence, this impression has become prominent. We should eradicate this impression with full vigour and should, in no way, adopt the method of accusatory reply that west also does the same. Peace, sovereignty, freedom, and the unity of mankind in the world are our values. We should be pleased with the fact that the west acknowledges the importance of these values. We should tell the western people that presently, whatever is surfacing in the name of Islam vis-à-vis terrorism is the erroneous interpretation of Islam and we can strive alongside the west in order to eradicate it.
Soft Corner for the West
Question: It appears from your conversation that you have a soft corner for west. Why is it so?
Answer: I have an approbation in my heart for every good thing whether that thing belongs to the west or us. I essentially like to see the worthy aspects of something. I have always liked the honeybee that sits on flowers and extracts their juice. I never like the fly that sits on filth.
The Basis of the Islamic Call
Question: As a propagator of Islam, kindly tell us that on the occasion of the inception of 21st century, on what basis should we establish the call for Islam?
Answer: The oneness of God, the unity of man and veneration for established moral principles, only this has always been the message of Islam. It establishes these principles on the basis of belief in the Hereafter. In my opinion, Islam should be presented as a call for the purification of the individual and the collective life of man rather than a system. This is its real introduction. The relationship that we should establish in the entire world with our addresses is that of exhorter and the exhorted. This relationship is of affection, dialogue, and propriety. Clash, subjugation, pre-eminence, conspiracy, dogmatism and other words like these should be expunged from our religious dictionary forever. In the present circumstances, the best examples for us to follow is the life of Jesus (sws) when he preached in Jerusalem and that of Muhammad when he preached Prophet (sws) in Makkah. Bible in the sermon of the mount and the Qur’an in its Makkan Surahs have expounded it masterfully.
The attitude we should adopt is that of patience and forbearance against tyranny and not that of recompense, persecution and vengeance. In tender language, giving heed to propriety and fully taking into account the psychology of the addressee, we have to tell the world that the only lord of human beings is Allah, the Almighty. They are the sons of Adam and Eve. No distinction can be sustained amongst them on the basis of colour and creed or nation and country, and they have to adopt only one course for success in the world and the Hereafter and that is: goodness of deed. I am sure that mankind neither has anything better than this exhortation now, nor will the coming time bring anything better than this. This is the exhortation that can take humankind to the goal of a universal civilization