A Clash of Civilizations Between Islam and the West: Is it Inevitable?

By Ken Hackett

Is a clash of civilizations inevitable between the West and Islam?

President Barack Obama doesn't think so. In his recent speech in Cairo to the Muslim world, he sought out the common ground and values that unite all people of good will, noting that America and Islam "share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

As someone who leads a humanitarian organization that works in the five nations in the world with the largest Muslim populations, I could not agree more. Whether carrying out education programs enabling girls to attend school for the first time in Afghanistan, rebuilding communities after an earthquake in Pakistan or helping poor families start small businesses through microfinance in India, we have built strong and effective relationships with a multitude of Muslim communities around the globe.

These relationships, built around shared values, are examples of the type of partnership that President Obama spoke of. Such partnerships must be characterized by mutuality and solidarity, recognizing that each partner brings unique resources to the table, such as knowledge, history, finances, expertise and relationships. And, each partner must be accountable to the other for achieving results. Indeed, only through this kind of partnership can our humanitarian assistance and development efforts be successful and sustainable.

In our successful partnerships with Muslims communities, we have found that working together to meet the needs of real people helps demystify our respective religions and cultures and fights attempts to demonize the other. As a result, our staff have benefited from amazing generosity, hospitality, and even protection from those we work with. As the President noted, interfaith dialogue can and should lead to interfaith cooperation in service to others.

Another part of President Obama's speech that resonated was his call for a just and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by ensuring a secure homeland for Israel and statehood for the Palestinian people.

I wholeheartedly support this message of peace for the Holy Land. A negotiated solution to this conflict has long been advocated by my organization, Catholic Relief Services, and by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The legitimate right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live securely and in peace, each in a homeland of their own, must be recognized and supported. Violence must be abandoned, rights recognized, obligations of previous agreements fulfilled, settlements stopped, the humanitarian crisis and lack of opportunity ended and Jerusalem shared by all faiths.

This vision of peace was shared by Pope Benedict XVI during his pilgrimage last month to the Holy Land.

"Allow me to make this appeal to all the people of these lands: No more bloodshed! No more fighting! No more terrorism! No more war!" the pope said. "Let us break the vicious circle of violence. Let there be lasting peace based on justice, let there be genuine reconciliation and healing. Let it be universally recognized that the State of Israel has the right to exist, and to enjoy peace and security within internationally agreed borders. Let it be likewise acknowledged that the Palestinian people have a right to a sovereign independent homeland, to live with dignity and to travel freely. Let the two-state solution become a reality, not remain a dream."

Having supported humanitarian programs in the Holy Land for nearly 50 years--and having relationships with communities there--CRS believes a negotiated solution is the only way to end the growing humanitarian crisis there. We urge President Obama to provide a clear framework for an end to the conflict, help Israelis and Palestinians make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve lasting peace, and hold both parties to account when they fail to honor their commitments.

Ken Hackett is president of Catholic Relief Services, the official overseas humanitarian organization of the Catholic Church in the United States.

Comments

[Doofus]

Really? Does one have to believe in such notions as 'dialectical materialism'
to consider that Islam & (Judeo-)Ch­ristianity are unalterably opposed?
(Maybe Judaism & Christianity also, despite temporary alliances of convenience.)

It's really only the secular side of 'western' culture that has a prayer (!) of getting
along with those in the 'east'. And such 'easterners' detest the secular 'west' even
more than they do the 'people of the book' who are practically their co-religionists.

It's only remotely possible that moderates on both sides may manage to get along
with one another, and we all know how unimportant moderates are in politics.

[arle]

Yeah. You do know that Christians and Muslims live side by side in Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, at least. Right? Used to in Iraq as well... you know, before the US started occupying them.

I think you need to do a little bit more homework there, Doofus.

[post man]

And did these non-muslims have the same rights as muslims they were living beside??How are these non-muslim communities doing??So the US messed it up for the Christians living in Iraq??
You think we were all born yesterday???

[fireW]

When partisan-driven nonsense such as that spewed by con drink tank geniuses like Huntingdon is accepted as legitimate, civilization "clashes" are virtually inevitable. Given that their "Huntingdon"s are as equally incapable of imagining a world where their mindless anthropocentric perspectives don't dominate, one can hardly expect to avoid their contrived conflicts.

[peterg76]

Hardly inevitable - look how hard people had to work to create it.

[andycan]

HUNTINGTON'S SHAMEFUL CRIBBING FROM TOYNBEE

Clash of Civilizations- a useful expression in the line of "actionable intelligence", as Rumsfeld liked them. Put it in the same category as another demagogical imposture: Kipling's White Man's burden.

Devised by Samuel Huntingdon, a Think tank eminence with a PHD, the expression Clash of Civilizations contains enough violence-to trigger further uncontrolled violence. It is ideological manipulation of words with a political objective. The objective was to strike oil-rich countries with cultural values not easily amenable to American consumerist plasticity.

Huntingdon cribbed the concept of civilization from eminent British historian Arnold Toynbee, who had counted twenty-three civilizations since the beginning of writing, however without making value judgments. There is unfortunately a huge hiatus between Toynbee's descriptive and meditative subtlety and Huntingdon's ideological dynamite.
So here we had "actionable" so-called political science from a dubious intellectual flunkey of the military-industrial complex. What a shame that Huntingdon's intellectual bilge was widely publicized and this biased tenth-rate author was so lovingly lionized just preceding and during the Bush years.

[arle]

Wow. Kudos, man.

[realpolitic]

"Is a clash of civilizations inevitable between the West and Islam?" I find the question itself insulting. Of course, no such clash is inevitable. A clash is never inevitable. We can find common ground and have common aspirations. Creating a two-state solution if very, very difficult is most likely the long-term key to easing tensions. Until then, we can use economic aid to bring jobs and development to the Middle East and humanitarian groups and governments can work to ease the suffering.