The clash of civilisations

The death has been announced of the famous political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. He introduced the hypothesis that in the post-Cold War world the primary conflict would be between cultural and religious identities.

The wars in Israel and Palestine, Chechnya, ex-Yugoslavia, India and Pakistan and, more especially, the coordinated suicide attacks by Muslim hijackers of commercial aircraft on the United States on September 11, 2001, were quoted as evidence that this conflict was already dominating world politics. The last incident brought about the adoption by the US Administration and a number of like-thinking governments of a policy of war on terrorism. On a number of occasions President George W. Bush in his speeches inadvertently used the word "crusade" to describe these new wars. A grave mistake he tried to avoid later on so as not to further hurt the sensibilities of Arab countries.

Huntington warned that Western civilisation may, in this scenario, decline. The West, taken up as it is with materialism and selfishness, is facing unprecedented dangers. The birth rate in Western countries is decreasing to alarming levels. European countries are already becoming heavily dependent on foreign labour. In this state of affairs, it is very possible that illegal immigration will soon no longer be frowned upon by these states but, somehow, sanctioned as, otherwise, the West will be economically and socially immobilised.

Western civilisation, which so far has been triumphant, will soon be overtaken by other civilisations. In France, for example, Islam has become the second most important religion and its adherents are enthusiastically pushing forward their conceived rights, which they would otherwise deny to others in their own countries.

Sir Kenneth Clark, in his much-acclaimed TV serial Civilisation: My Personal View, gives his opinion on why Rome declined. He asks and answers: "Why did Rome decline? Hundreds of years of no change breeds exhaustion and boredom. They succumbed to the same weakness as the people they conquered. After the collapse of Rome it was sealed off from its roots by Islam surrounding it".

Europe should heed these signs. Pope Benedict XVI, in his speech at the University of Regensburg in 2006, quoted from a letter written by the last Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in 1391 about the effects of Islam on humanity. The conclusions by the emperor were quite severe such as to induce the Pope to admit that the emperor was "astoundingly harsh" in his assessment.

However, this negative reflection is also shared by others. P.P. Read, in his book The Templars states: "Where Jesus had preached love and non-violence, Muhammad converted with the sword. Where Jesus had blessed the meek and poor in spirit, Muhammad honoured the triumphant warrior. Where Jesus insisted that his kingdom was not of this world, Muhammad founded a theocratic empire. Where Jesus asked his followers to take up their cross and embrace suffering, Muhammad offered booty, concubines and slaves. Jesus promised paradise in an afterlife, Muhammad prosperity in this life and paradise in a world to come".

In the context of all this, and perhaps Pope Benedict had this in mind, it is also fair to state that to the founder of Islam one can attribute several positive developments to the moral and social life of his adherents. He raised the ethical standards of the society he lived in. He insisted on the care of the more vulnerable; he condemned infanticide and preached honesty, frugality and humility. He created a unifying social and family structure and gave social security to nomadic peoples who had never known stability in their history. He founded a great religion and civilisation that are as fresh today as they were in their heyday.

But the contrasts between these famous religions and civilisations are there and they are all-embracing and widespread. In the hands of fanatics and zealots these differences could prove to be extremely dangerous. Indeed, to the pessimists the clash between civilisations seems inevitable.

In these circumstances, one should ask: Should dialogue between the religions continue or should we give up and face the inescapable fate as Huntington seems to suggest in his thesis? The answer to all these questions is quite simple: Yes, of course, let us maintain dialogue and, indeed, let us increase its intensity since the alternative is a dangerous slide towards continued conflict, hate and enmity.

These great religions have some unifying factors around which the basis of dialogue and meeting of minds could revolve. They all believe in one almighty being - to some it is God, to others it is Jehovah, to others it is Allah. All of them believe and hope in the triumph of good or evil. All seek to live in peace and tranquillity. Given this situation, should we not seek these common grounds to establish compromise solutions, a modus vivendi, between peoples and nations whatever their race, society, culture, religion or civilisation?

At the beginning of a year that promises to be more traumatic than ever, these are provoking thoughts that we, the common people, but most especially the leaders of nations who sometimes dictate our destinies, should be addressing with great urgency.