I am flabbergasted by certain religion apologists whom I label “Jingo-Liberals”. Holier-than-thou pseudo-intellectuals who seem to tow the middle-ground and try, albeit in vain, to disallow any resolution in the inevitable clash of civilizations. Although at first glance the term “clash of civilizations” might seem over-stated, I believe that in light of recent developments, it is indeed befitting the current state of affairs.
The clash of civilizations that I am referring to is not between the “West” and the “East”. Nor is it between countries, nationalities or religions. These are outdated categorizations that are no longer valid in a world where hard-core communism seems to out-capitalist the West and Religious Fundamentalism in the United States seems to “out-fanatic” the Middle-Eastern fanatics. Ideology is no longer relevant in its traditional context. A rigid set of rules and definitions that underpin certain aspirations for a hyper-idealistic world conceived by bronze-age prophets, no longer hold water. Ideology has become nothing but a device in the power game among those whose world view has neither legitimacy nor validity.
Religious ideology may have helped bronze-age societies crawl out of barbarism. Revolutionary ideologies may have been relevant to help post-middle-ages societies crawl out of feudal and religious despotism and aspire towards justice and equality. Both variations of the “Ideology” proved to be nothing more than catalysts for inevitable social evolution. Mere reagents that sparked change along the evolutionary path of human civilization. Neither variation of Ideology, be it Religious or the proverbial ideological Cain and Abel of Capitalism & Communism, hold any water in addressing or resolving the problematics of current and future societies. Gestalt is not static, it rides on the time-space continuum.
The real clash of civilizations is where Modernity stands against religious despotism. I intentionally refrain from using “religious Fundamentalism” as the term is redundant. The clash is between a “civilized” Civilization against a backward and corrosive “uncivilized” Civilization. One aspires to celebrating diversity and change, universal freedom and equality, and non-authoritarianism, while the other aspires to impose social homogenization, limitation and abhorrence of rights and liberties, and a vulgar, self-righteous authoritarianism that corrodes the very essence of humanity. The real clash of Civilizations is between a world view that celebrates and values life as it is and another world view that considers life as a mere transition towards the after-worldly heaven, if and when a right of passage is granted by the celestial dictator who watches over us. (With a tip of my hat to dear Hitch!). This clash of civilizations is between an exclusive group of clubs who have contrived variations of a Heaven for themselves and a Hell for the rest of us to burn in eternally, for non-compliance.
The discourse outlined above is a mere tip of an enormous iceberg that shall stretch for centuries on either side of history. Like many others, I have no qualms with personal beliefs or how people find peace in their lives. We also don’t hesitate to gamble on that eternity of flaming hell in the afterlife that is contrived by the believers. Some of us even aspire to deserve such an eternity should one exist, as long as we can live our lives how we choose to, here and now. We are equally happy with the eternal heavenly bliss sold to the believers, in any variation that they choose to believe in, or have been promised. Seventy-two virgins for an eternity is just as good as rivers of honey and eternal praise and service by the angels. Deep down, I wish I could have numbed my senses with such nonsense but this does not diminish my respect for the rights of those who believe and choose to aspire to Heaven. They have a right as I do, to believe what they want to believe.
The problem-set underlying this modern clash of civilizations is unrelated to the interpretations of monotheistic beliefs and practices. Whether it is 72 virgins or raisins is a futile argument and limits the issue to sensationalistic propaganda. One valid argument made by the religion apologists is that religion is subject to interpretation. (That, I believe, is part of the problem.) One man’s Jihad through suicide bombing is another man’s perpetual good samaritanism. One man’s eye for an eye is another man’s turn the other cheek. An endless confusion that is perpetuated by ignorance at best and opportunistic maliciousness at worst. This confusion is not limited to inter-faith contradictions. Even within each religious denomination, there is little agreement over the most mundane issues. (See Sam Harris‘ writings in this regard.) To nitpick on religious doctrine is a futile and irrelevant exercise.
We must focus on the core of the problem. The lowest common denominator of a backward and irrelevant world view that cannot address the real issues and problems of the world we live in. At its core, religion stipulates that there is a universal, all powerful almighty who not only created everything, but is engaged in every detail of what goes on, what will go on and how it will end. This almighty is said to have devised a few mechanisms for a circular journey from his bosom (or in some cases loins) back to his bosom. The almighty breathes life into his clay toys, sets them loose, tests their integrity and when disappointed in the flawed nature of his creation, he expels them out into the wild so they can follow the yellow brick road and reach him on the other end. Wiser, more appreciative and eternally thankful for the punishment imposed upon them.
There is no need to engage in this futile argument over interpretation of details or the various manifestations of the word of God. It doesn’t matter if it is turning the other cheek or and eye for an eye. The number of virgins, their sexual orientation or even if they were actually raisins and misinterpreted as virgins is irrelevant. Whether it is the first born that must be sacrificed or a mere ram is beside the point. How many times a day and in which direction do we externalize our devotion does not change the nature of the core problem. The isolationist promised land strategy or the expansionist power of the sword strategy, is not and should not be our concern. Our concern in this clash of civilizations is whether those of us who do not subscribe to these beliefs have a right to live our lives in peace and liberty without being affected by some holier than thou intruder into our lives. I would like to live free of the thought that around every corner, there is someone who believes that I am a filthy infidel who is on his way to hell. It is the constant intrusion into our lives by the believers that sparks the clash of civilizations. I would like to argue with our dear religion apologists that there is no such thing as a pacifist theist. There is an inherent arrogance in the theistic point of view that licenses the believer to to look down on the non-believer. Irrespective of denomination, a believer is on a trajectory. Expelled from Heaven for their sins and aspiring to gain entry back into Heaven through worldly sacrifices. These worldly sacrifices often include dissenters, critics and even innocent bystanders. Anything that stands in their way is a problem and must be dealt with, not avoided. For those whose memory does not reach beyond September 11, 2001, I suggest reading the holy books from any of these theistic ideologies.
The “good believers”, want to have us with them. They want to convince the rest of the world that their world view is the only path to righteousness and glory. The goodness of their nature compels them to want to take the rest of us along their single-minded journey. The “bad believers” hold the non-believers as a threat to their power and livelihood. A threat that must be sidelined, marginalized or even better, eliminated, wiped off the face of the earth. The “ugly believers” sit up there in their tower of righteousness and try to justify the ignorance of the good believers and put makeup on the pig of the bad believers. Either way we on this side of the fence lose. The good, the bad and the ugly all share one common foundation. That of a heaven and a hell which does not kick into action in the afterlife (an ideal compromise for all of us), but determines the insiders against the outsiders right here, right now. I wish they could have just laughed behind our backs and pitied us for the eternal inferno that awaits us and left us alone in this life.
The real clash of civilizations is between those of us who want to make the best of what we are, who we are, where we are, when we are, and those who consider this life, as a bargaining chip in some convoluted game of favors with an almighty up there in the skies. The believers are arrogantly and violently imposing their views on the rest of us. To disagree with their world view is enough justification for the believers to consider our blood as a necessary sacrifice. Neither the good, the bad nor the ugly have any motivation to counter the violent tendencies of the believers as deep down, their absolutist beliefs leave no room for dissent or disagreement.
What flabbergasts me is that the rest of the world seems to be obliged to respect the views and beliefs of these expansionist, arrogant groups who not only consider themselves as the only righteous humans on earth and in history, but they also expect us to live our lives by their rules. This is only one side of the tragedy. The insult to injury is that our political figures feel intimated enough by the thuggery that makes them take sides with the enemy.
I wonder what happened to the ideals that formed the foundation of modern civilization. I wonder what compels us to aspire towards a civilization in which the rights of existence is protected for all human beings no matter what their religion, creed or race. Within a span of one-hundred years we went from sacrificing all for our principals in the fight against authoritarianism, fascism and dictatorship to where we are sacrificing our principals to accommodate authoritarian dictatorships.
Free speech and freedom of expression is only relevant and meaningful if the right to offend, dissent, critique and object is guaranteed. The writing is on the wall and we must not tuck our heads in the sand. The believers agree in concepts and ideas that are fundamentally at odds with democratic principals. This is not a matter of interpretation but a historic fact. Killing human beings for their beliefs, persecuting them, torturing them or considering them less human is wrong and must be stopped. Someone, somewhere has issued a license to kill through bronze-age iterations to a primitive audience that may or may not have been useful or relevant so many thousand years ago. That license expired when we learned that diversity, differences and change are integral to our survival as a species.
In short, while Huntington is right to see religion as a factor in the coming era of world politics, the role of religion will go well beyond serving as a touchstone for culture. Religion is more than culture. It transcends civilizations. In the end, to listen to the believers among us, it will transcend history itself.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West’s failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they allege, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.
Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West’s failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they alleged, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin- countries and a different standard to others.
This is not surprising. We all tend to identify ourselves according to our culture, which includes our political, cultural, and religious heritage. In previous centuries, the major world civilizations were separated from each other. Contact was either non-existent or intermittent. Our global society has put us in contact with each other in ways never before experienced in our history. Cultural differences, therefore, should have a profound effect on how we interact.
We have attempted to give mankind a better understanding of recent world events in the article World History and Developments in the Middle East listed on this website.
When one part of a country looks up to the Arab world as role models while the other adores Europe and USA idols, it’s predictably a clash of civilization. But the political system and the politicians have not helped. The system is erratically structured to accommodate a merge of civilizations. The politicians appear either lazy or ignorant to practically acknowledge that the true cure for this national disease is to merge the civilizations via a practice of true federalism. Many are in denial! Moslems cover their inadequacies with bloody trouble-shooting. Christians fail to accept the reality that Nigeria is simply not a Rome. Christianity is very provocative in Nigeria. Islam is too destructive in the country. These two complement each other in the quest to drown the country in a sea of religious fanaticism. The only differences are that while one is soft, the other is hard; while the other is poor, one is rich, while one is knowledgeably miseducated, the other is unknowledgeably ignorant. The victims appear to be the neutral or reasonable souls inhabiting the country. That is what I have experienced and observed -as a patriotic Nigerian.
Still, no theory is without its flaws, and Huntington’s theory is no exception. He places too much emphasis on civilizations as a whole and does not pay enough attention to the continuing role of nation-states or the possibility that there could be divisions within civilizations, or changes within civilizations, that could make the emerging world order much more complex than “Clash of Civilizations” presents it to be. Still, the theory of clashing civilizations provides a useful framework for looking at emerging trends in the new world order since the fall of the Soviet Union and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be, in Kishore Mahbubani’s phrase, the conflict between “the West and the Rest” and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. n6 Those responses generally take one or a combination of three forms. At one extreme, non-Western states can, like Burma and North Korea, attempt to pursue a course of isolation, to insulate their societies from penetration or “corruption” by the West, and, in effect, to opt out of participation in the Western-dominated global community. The costs of this course, however, are high, and few states have pursued it exclusively. A second alternative, the equivalent of “band-wagoning” in international relations theory, is to attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions. The third alternative is to attempt to “balance” the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions; in short, to modernize but not to Westernize.