The subject of the clash of civilizations seems to be getting important lately. Almost everyone is trying his or her best to convince the masses that there is no clash of civilizations as in Islam versus the West. And, since this is the case I kind of wonder if there is really a clash of two civilizations here. Why bother with such a task if there is no such a clash, or its possibility?
My guess is that there is such a clash, and my worry now is where Turkey should stand in such a clash. Both the Ottoman Empire, in its last decades, and Turkey, in the beginning, were in the forefront of the struggle between the Westernists and the Islamists, which at the time, resulted in the almost total victory of the Kemalist forces. Then came not so religious states of the Middle East, and so on.
Today, it looks like, we are witnessing another revival of the political Islam. And, this revival is once more, as it was before, predominantly anti-West. I would not try to approach this whole thing in terms of the strict dichotomy of West versus Islam. There are probably a lot of gray zones. After all, not every Muslim is like bin Laden. Yet, there is still something out there that gets people to act against the West in unison either in Islamic terms or in the name of Islam. There seems to be, if not plain hatred, strong dislike towards the West, and this dislike, this strong reaction, is finding the ability to come forward through Islam. This is the case even for those who are not really so religious, who may not even know the basics of their religion.
What is this new Islam all about? The question that what this new political Islam is about makes sense, since the movement is not really about just true believers, but also others who may be in it because of the feelings associated with this clash of civilizations thing. If there is a clash then what kind of clash are we going into?
Timucin,
You say there is strong dislike toward Western civilization. Don't you think there are prejudices, sterotypes and dislike in Western culture toward Islam as well? It takes two.
Is this something started to happen 1in 1980's or was it already there when Crusaders took the cross to defeat the army of Satan or was it already there when muslims were invading Spain and Balkans?
You know the history pretty well. So you know what Europeans said regarding Turks and Muslims when the Ottoman Empire was crushing meanwhile trying to reform itself, "Inept Turks etc".
Jews do not think Jesus Christ was the savior. This infuriated Christians many times. Christians think Muhammed was a pseudo-prophet and do not consider Islam as a real religion. Why shouldn't it infuriate muslims as well? This is kufr for muslims. You must have seen inter-faith dinners in your area. Don't those dinner consist of Jews and Christians? Where are muslims?
No, they are out, excommunicated, disapproved socially.
They are out. So what should we do now?
Not only dinners, probably (I don't know), but a lot of everything. I'd say it's because most Muslims I've seen abroad, no matter what the country, will try to convert you the first instance you try to discuss theology with them. Nothing worse to spoil a good dinner... Well, they earn their reputation themselves, right? If they think of their other kindred who want to participate in such, perhaps they should tone it down a bit.
I'm not saying such treatment of every Muslim as garbage is right, but trying to preserve your nervous health is natural defense. For example, whenever my aunt's husband's relatives pay a visit (and they are fakking yobaz), I just eat my meal with them and then ask leave and beat the hell out of there, because I can't stand their talk. I can't help but approach the other relatives with suspicion - and steer out of their way.
I really believe that Muslim intellectuals are very few - which is why you get the image above. Intellectuals in Turkey just aren't Muslim, just as nominal as they get.
In the article Winston has posted ("in your face, OsBumli!), it talks about Muslims scientists calculating how much energy they can harness from genies (and OsManli says that "God's creating man from nothing" has to do with the mass of an electron with regard to that of the whole atom - what a bum!). Now imagine trying to have a conversation with such people. My observation is that they predominate, especially among Pakistanis (I studied in two Pakistani schools, a total of six years). What are yours?
Why? Incapable, thieves and low lives run around in government, with a military defacto in the background watching the muslims in turkey.
The biggest problem is the military who I regard as the similar to ancient greek gods, sitting in their luxurious places, looking down on the masses.
Just like Pharoh, the end is near for the military kemali worshippers. Their time is running out because the people can take only so much tyranny before figuring out what they really are.
There is also a GOLDEN GENERATION in Turkey, forming as we speak. These are talented, smart, dedicated people which are going to be turkiye's only hope.
Yesterday's Achievements Were Golden; Today, Reason Has Been Eclipsed
By Pervez Amir Ali Hoodbhoy
Sunday, December 30, 2001; Page B04
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- If the world is to be spared what future historians may call the "century of terror," we will have to chart a perilous course between the Scylla of American imperial arrogance and the Charybdis of Islamic religious fanaticism. Through these waters, we must steer by a distant star toward a careful, reasoned, democratic, humanistic and secular future. Otherwise, shipwreck is certain.
For nearly four months now, leaders of the Muslim community in the United States, and even President Bush, have routinely asserted that Islam is a religion of peace that was hijacked by fanatics on Sept. 11.
These two assertions are simply untrue.
First, Islam -- like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion -- is not about peace. Nor is it about war. Every religion is about absolute belief in its own superiority and the divine right to impose its version of truth upon others. In medieval times, both the Crusades and the Jihads were soaked in blood. Today, there are Christian fundamentalists who attack abortion clinics in the United States and kill doctors; Muslim fundamentalists who wage their sectarian wars against each other; Jewish settlers who, holding the Old Testament in one hand and Uzis in the other, burn olive orchards and drive Palestinians off their ancestral land; and Hindus in India who demolish ancient mosques and burn down churches.
The second assertion is even further off the mark. Even if Islam had, in some metaphorical sense, been hijacked, that event did not occur three months ago. It was well over seven centuries ago that Islam suffered a serious trauma, the effects of which refuse to go away.
Where do Muslims stand today? Note that I do not ask about Islam; Islam is an abstraction. Maulana Abdus Sattar Edhi, Pakistan's preeminent social worker, and the Taliban's Mohammad Omar are both followers of Islam, but the former is overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize while the latter is an ignorant, psychotic fiend. Palestinian writer Edward Said, among others, has insistently pointed out that Islam holds very different meaning for different people. Within my own family, hugely different kinds of Islam are practiced. The religion is as heterogeneous as those who believe andfollow it. There is no "true Islam."
Today, Muslims number 1 billion. Of the 48 countries with a full or near Muslim majority, none has yet evolved a stable democratic political system. In fact, all Muslim countries are dominated by self-serving corrupt elites who cynically advance their personal interests and steal resources from their people. None of these countries has a viable educational system or a university of international stature.
Reason, too, has been waylaid.
You will seldom see a Muslim name as you flip through scientific journals, and if you do, the chances are that this person lives in the West. There are a few exceptions: Pakistani Abdus Salam, together with Americans Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979. I got to know Salam reasonably well; we even wrote a book preface together. He was a remarkable man, terribly in love with his country and his religion. And yet he died deeply unhappy, scorned by Pakistan, declared a non-Muslim by an act of the Pakistani parliament in 1974. Today the Ahmadi sect, to which Salam belonged, is considered heretical and harshly persecuted. (My next-door neighbor, an Ahmadi physicist, was shot in the neck and heart and died in my car as I drove him to the hospital seven years ago. His only fault was to have been born into the wrong sect.)
Though genuine scientific achievement is rare in the contemporary Muslim world, pseudo-science is in generous supply. A former chairman of my department has calculated the speed of heaven: He maintains it is receding from Earth at one centimeter per second less than the speed of light. His ingenious method relies upon a verse inthe Islamic holy book, which says that worship on the night on whichthe book was revealed is worth a thousand nights of ordinary worship. He states that this amounts to a time-dilation factor of 1,000, which he puts into a formulaof Einstein's theory of special relativity.
A more public example: One of two Pakistani nuclear engineers recently arrested on suspicion of passing nuclear secrets to the Taliban had earlier proposed to solve Pakistan's energy problems by harnessing the power of genies. He relied on the Islamic belief that God created man from clay, and angels and genies from fire; so this highly placed engineer proposed to capture the genies and extract their energy.
Today's sorry situation contrasts starkly with the Islam of yesterday. Between the 9th and 13th centuries -- the Golden Age of Islam -- the only people doing decent work in science, philosophy or medicine were Muslims. Muslims not only preserved ancient learning, they also made substantial innovations. The loss of this tradition has proven tragic for Muslim peoples.
Science flourished in the Golden Age of Islam because of a strong rationalist and liberal tradition, carried on by a group of Muslim thinkers known as the Mutazilites.
But in the 12th century, Muslim orthodoxy reawakened, spearheaded by the Arab cleric Imam Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali championed revelation over reason, predestination over free will. He damned mathematics as being against Islam, an intoxicant of the mind that weakened faith.
Caught in the viselike grip of orthodoxy, Islam choked. No longer would Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars gather and work together in the royal courts. It was the end of tolerance, intellect and science in the Muslim world. The last great Muslim thinker, Abd-al Rahman Ibn Khaldun, belonged to the 14th century.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world moved on. The Renaissance brought an explosion of scientific inquiry in the West. This owed much totranslations of Greek works carried out by Arabs and other Muslim contributions, but they were to matter little. Mercantile capitalism and technological progress drove Western countries -- in ways that were often brutal and at times genocidal -- to rapidly colonize the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco. It soon became clear, at least to some of the Muslim elites, that they were paying a heavy price for not possessing the analytical tools of modern science and the social and political values of modern culture -- the real source of power of their colonizers.
Despite widespread resistance from the orthodox, the logic of modernity found 19th-century Muslim adherents. Some seized on the modern idea of the nation-state. It is crucial to note that not a single Muslim nationalist leader of the 20th century was a fundamentalist.
However, Muslim and Arab nationalism, part of a larger anti-colonial nationalist current across the Third World, included the desire to control and use national resources for domestic benefit. The conflict with Western greed was inevitable. The imperial interests of Britain, and later the United States, feared independent nationalism. Anyone willing to collaborate was preferred, even the ultraconservative Islamic regime of Saudi Arabia. In 1953, Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran was overthrown in a CIA coup, replaced by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Britain targeted Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. Indonesia's Sukarno was replaced by Suharto after a bloody coup that left hundreds of thousands dead.
Pressed from outside, corrupt and incompetent from within, secular Muslim governments proved unable to defend national interests or deliver social justice. They began to frustrate democracy to preserve their positions of power and privilege. These failures left a vacuum that Islamic religious movements grew to fill -- in Iran, Pakistan and Sudan, to name a few.
The lack of scruple and the pursuit of power by the United States combined fatally with this tide in the Muslim world in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. With Pakistan's Mohammed Zia ul-Haq as America's foremost ally, the CIA openly recruited Islamic holy warriors from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally and mentor funneled support to the mujaheddin; Ronald Reagan feted them on the White House lawn.
The rest is by now familiar: After the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States walked away from an Afghanistan in shambles. The Taliban emerged; Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda made Afghanistan their base.
What should thoughtful people infer from this whole narrative?
For Muslims, it is time to stop wallowing in self-pity: Muslims are not helpless victims of conspiracies hatched by an all-powerful, malicious West. The fact is that the decline of Islamic greatness took place long before the age of mercantile imperialism. The causes were essentially internal. Therefore Muslims must be introspective and ask what went wrong.
Muslims must recognize that their societies are far larger, more diverse and complex than the small homogeneous tribal society in Arabia 1,400 years ago. It is therefore time to renounce the idea that Islam can survive and prosper only in an Islamic state run according to sharia, or Islamic law. Muslims need a secular and democratic state that respects religious freedom and human dignity and is founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means confronting and rejecting the claim by orthodox Islamic scholars that, in an Islamic state, sovereignty belongs to the vice-regents of Allah, or Islamic jurists, not to the people.
Muslims must not look to the likes of bin Laden; such people have no real answer and can offer no real positive alternative. To glorify their terrorism is a hideous mistake: The unremitting slaughter of Shiites, Christians and Ahmadis in their places of worship in Pakistan, and of other minorities in other Muslim countries, is proof that all terrorism is not about the revolt of the dispossessed.
The United States, too, must confront bitter truths. The messages of George W. Bush and Tony Blair fall flat while those of bin Laden, whether he lives or dies, resonate strongly across the Muslim world. Bin Laden's religious extremism turns off many Muslims, but they find his political message easy to relate to: The United States must stop helping Israel in dispossessing the Palestinians, stop propping up corrupt and despotic regimes across the world just because they serve U.S. interests.
Americans will also have to accept that their triumphalism and disdain for international law are creating enemies everywhere, not just among Muslims. Therefore they must become less arrogant and more like other peoples of this world.
Our collective survival lies in recognizing that religion is not the solution; neither is nationalism. We have but one choice: the path of secular humanism, based upon the principles of logic and reason. This alone offers the hope of providing everybody on this globe with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Pervez Hoodbhoy is a professor of nuclear and high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad.
About anti-Western and anti-Islam feelings and discourses
December 31 2001, 8:34 AM
Ceyhun,
Unfortunately, most of the time I write without realizing that I am keeping out quite a lot by concentrating only on one aspect of the problem, and it looks like I did this also in this post.
My purpose was not to say that this is a Muslim fault only, and I agree with everything you wrote in your post. However, I also think that this is not a religious thing only. The unequal distribution of wealth between countries that are inhabited mostly by Christian believers and the ones by Muslim inhabitants has a lot to do with the present day hatred. Had the case been that most of the countries around the world were more or less equally sharing the wealth that was being produced there would probably not have been much hatred between these two religious groups.
I understand we can take the origins of this animosity all the way to the time of the Crusaders. I am not so sure if the hatred that might have existed between these two groups at that time was the same kind of hatred that emerged later on. I think the first one was the kind that operated totally in religious terms, that people hated each other just because they considered each other infidels. The second one was, however, constructed very much by Europe’s anxiety that “coincided with the cultural and intellectual dislocation produced by the encounter with the racial and religious Other” (Matar, 1999:16) as it started marching into the modern period. In my opinion, as Europe started entering the modern period, certain modes of behavior and thinking started becoming simply improper. These improper attitudes and ideas were simply made the qualities of the already existing religiously shaped Other, of Muslims and their main representative, the Turks.
With the decline of the Ottomans, and therefore Muslims, these anti-Muslim and anti-Turk discourses reached their highest point. Then comes the hegemony and superiority of Europe over the Muslim world. And, now, we have the intensification of the economic inequality between the Christian and Muslim worlds. The anti-western feelings of the majority of the Muslims are probably caused by economic difficulties and political frustrations, which are being channeled into religiously articulated popular discourses. As there starts appearing more Muslims in the Christian West and as these people start taking jobs and opportunities from the natives there appears more problems; the old Christian anti-Muslim discourse start becoming the voice of these newly deprived and frustrated groups. We need not think this only in economic terms, but the same thing operates also in social terms, as there starts appearing in these countries socially more successful Muslim individuals, who cause further frustrations and deprivations among the natives.
The whole thing is rather a mess. What can be done is actually everyone’s guess. As religiously and culturally mixed habitats start appearing, I expect that the problem will start disappearing at least in the western countries. Since there are no significant Christian groups in the most of the Muslim countries the same thing will not work on the other side. There will be need to devise different kinds of solutions for the Muslim countries, which are not only more under the control of the radical anti-Western groups and discourses, but are also more deprived of the positive fruits of the Western economic and intellectual advancement.
People here are smart and mature, traits you don't have. Go talk to and make chummy with Muslim fanatics on some Taliban/bin Laden worship forum.
All the Turks here are people who have lived in Turkey for a long time, whereas you have only enough experience (and insight) of Turkey as a foreigner - and some foreigners even better than you.