As analysts ponder and proffer views on the real and potential impact from revolutionary tsunami in Egypt, it is essential that we in the U.S. also learn valuable lessons presented by this teachable moment. One such lesson is the fallacy of the "clash of civilizations" theory.
For two decades politicians, pundits, preachers, and some scholars have explained the tumultuous international conflict as evidence of a "clash of civilizations." We have heard this mantra so many times that many people assume it somehow describes the dynamic interaction between "the West" and the Middle East and Islamic cultures.
One of the most frequently asked questions since 9/11 -- "Why do they hate us?" -- has served to reinforce this simplistic and dangerously misleading framework for understanding. How many times have we heard seemingly intelligent people answer the question by declaring, "They hate our freedom. They hate our way of life."?
The "why do they hate us" question, like the "clash of civilizations" theory presupposes that there is an "us" and a "them," that somehow "the West" and "the Islamic world" are homogeneous and monolithic. They are neither.
The world's 1.5 billion Muslims are dispersed on six continents, speak dozens of languages, and have been influenced by vastly different histories and traditions. Tunisia is not Turkey; Iraq is not Indonesia; Egypt is not Iran. And yet, the simplistic stereotypical, self-serving framework has been widely embraced and employed.
Until now.
The massive media coverage in Egypt has helped to educate everyone across the political spectrum -- from viewers of FOX News to the CNN and MSNBC faithful. Sound-bite questions and answers have given way to powerful truths. And these truths demand new and more coherent frameworks for understanding what in the world is going on ... and why.
We can now see clearly that the values and aspirations for which hundreds of thousands of Egyptians risked their lives -- freedom of expression, basic human rights, participatory government, economic opportunity and an end to systemic corruption -- are values that most people in the U.S. hold dear. Rather than "us" versus "them," it is now obvious how much "we all" have in common.
Many pundits and preachers promote Islamophobia by claiming the true goals Muslims desire require them to convert or kill Christians and Jews and establish a new caliphate under which Muslims can rule the world. While a small minority of extremists speak in grandiose terms about global Islamic rule, the vast majority of Muslims worldwide seek to improve their lives and the lives of the families and neighbors within the established nation-state system.
For all who were paying attention to the 24/7 coverage for three weeks in Egypt, the presence and participation of Coptic Christians alongside their Muslim compatriots in Tahrir Square was eye opening. How is it that more than 7 million Coptic Orthodox Christians live in Egypt and some 8 million more Christians live and worship in Lebanon, Syria, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan? If Muslims are required to convert or kill Christians, it appears the overwhelming majority in the Arabic speaking Islamic heartlands failed to get the memo these past 1400 years.
Having lived in Egypt and traveled throughout the Middle East some 40 times over the past 35 years, I share both the hope for the new day that is dawning and the awareness that the coming weeks and months are fraught with uncertainty and danger. But I am heartened by lessons that can help move us all forward on the precarious road ahead.
The compelling events in Egypt have created a rare opportunity to challenge conventional wisdom, rectify misleading assumptions, and dismantle stereotypical images. We can and must discard the "clash of civilizations" narrative and stop assuming "Why do they hate us?" is a key question.
The people of Egypt -- Muslims, Christians, doctors, vendors, construction workers, students -- do not hate Americans. Rather, they long for the freedom, rights and opportunities we enjoy. But many in Egypt and elsewhere have been angry and frustrated by disconnect between the values the U.S. government espouses and the actual policies that too often have empowered "useful autocrats."
Herein lies another powerful lesson that Americans and Egyptians must both embrace in pursuit of a more healthy future. We must all hold our respective governments accountable for consistently protecting the values we cherish and facilitating the aspirations that we all share.
Charles Kimball is Director of the Religious Studies Program at the University of Oklahoma and author of the forthcoming book, When Religion Becomes Lethal: The Explosive Mix of Politics and Religion in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Jossey-Bass).
The Clash of Civilizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Clash of Civilizations? | Foreign Affairs
The Clash of Ignorance | The Nation
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: How to Win the Clash of Civilizations - WSJ.com
While a small minority of extremists speak in grandiose terms about global Islamic rule, the vast majority of Muslims worldwide seek to improve their lives and the lives of the families and neighbors within the established nation-state system.
================
President Carter fell for similar pap when he welcomed Ayatollah Khomeini's arrival in Iran.
Mr. Kimball, in your business it is proper to preach the importance of loving your enemy. The Clash of Civilizations is hard headed political science based on a clear eyed history of civilizational and cultural competition. Civilizations produce ideologies and they inevitably try to dominate. All ideologies do this, including Christianity.
I also have lived in foreign countries and have found that foreign hosts (especially in the Middle East) rarely consider complete frankness and honesty about the visitor's country or civilization to be good manners. Did you think otherwise?
Professor Huntington's original paper was written in the early 1990's. Try to find another template for the future he predicted and we are now living that has been half as accurate. Certainly not Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man".
I agree that "Why do they hate us?" is the wrong question--they (Islamists) don't hate us. They are convinced they are superior to us in every way and want to take our place as the dominant civilization. It's the oldest motivation in the world, and they are very unlikely to explain that to a visiting American teacher.
The problems raised in this are, of course profound.The reality is that Islam and the West share a common tradition rather than a clash of civilization.
Differences of opinions do exist and must exist. After all, there are huge differences of opinion among the Cgristians too.
From the time of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims have recognised the common tradition of the Abrahamic faiths. But the many in the west refuse to accept it.
Today, some Muslims are beginning to turn against the cultures of the People of the Book which have humiliated and despised them.
The West should understand that a healthy and functioning Islam is crucial because it helps Muslim people to cultivate decent values and ideals which people in the west cherish. Muslims like the Europeans are committed to tolerance and compassion viewing the pain and distress in the Muslim world (Middle East)
Islam is not going to disappear or wither away. It would have been better if both cultures work hard to prevent the so called clash of civilizations.
What is fallacious are the various definitions and labels which are used by the profane to defend their actions against the sacred.
Dr. Wafa Sultan (an Arab educator) explains in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJo1tpQvl2w
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zrzbdPKnhk&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
(goes down like delicious hot chocolate)
I agree the U.S. has made some bad foreign policy decisions. The Middle East is riddled with such a legacy, and the unmooring of dictators’ responsibilities to their subjects has clearly been disastrous (just another corrupting aspect of oil, but I digress).
There are some pretty incredible platitudes here: “the vast majority of Muslims worldwide seek to improve their lives and the lives of the families and neighbors within the established nation-state system.” Meaningless.
It’s difficult not to feel as if this is a step in the right direction, but we’re not all holding hands and singing kumbaya yet. And unfortunately, the ones most acutely aware of our differences are “them.” There are very dangerous, very toxic memes circulating throughout the Muslim world at a much higher rate than any secular nation should feel comfortable with. We need to be realistic about that.
1) To make the past christian attacks on local Native American Indians, Aboriginals, Polynesians, Black Africans, Eskimos and other pagans - dusted under the carpet and focuses on trying to integrate the christian minority in Egypt - to stake a piece of claim in the new forming govt. - I throw the challenge - why couldn't have the christian group of Egypt - joined the protests from day 1? - they just joined when they saw that the protests were actually taking a strong hold - the egypt christians are mere opportunists - who are making a fool of both the egyptians and the world media.
2) The author tries to project that only the middle east and the america are having problems and that by reconciling in the matter of Egypt - some how, usa could just get away with its past deeds without paying any compensation - for the matter of fact - Egypt is no India - India could have left the union carbide men without any punishment - but people know the strict laws of sheria.
The author cunningly tries to portray the negative stereo type of muslims and assumes again that the whole of egypt wishes to have usa type of freedom - may I ask the author what poll he did to arrive
That was explained to Thomas Jefferson a long time ago.
"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams sat down with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, to discuss the unprovoked attacks of the Barbary pirates on American ships. Jefferson and Adams were understandably confused as to the motivation for the pirates to attack American ships when the Americans had no quarrel with them. They recorded Ambassador Adja's response to their inquiries; in a letter to Congress, Jefferson and Adams noted "that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." The justification contained in this passage never mentions economic goods like oil or political issues like Israel, most notably because the first was not relevant at the time and the second did not exist. The central driver of the war was the religious duty of Muslims to subjugate the infidels. "
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/16/radical-islam-nidal-hasan-fort-hood-opinions-contributors-blake-hall.html
:) You mean Tim McVeigh had nothing to do with this.
The link you quoted is a right-winger that regurgitate from the same anti-Islamic and Islamophobe web-site. His argument is irrelevant since they basically geared to demonized all Muslim.
He also, seem to suggest Anderson Cooper is has no journalistic integrity, and that he more qualify to comment on Islam. The same usual nonsense that come from the baggers against President Obama.
You may not like the reality, but that's what it is.
Also found in the historical record here.
"Diplomatic correspondence of the United States of America , Volume 2"
United States. Dept. of State
http://tinyurl.com/4zglgru
"As Samuel Huntington explained, however, there are two senses of “civilization.” One assumes that all human beings, all cultures, are essentially the same and share the same concept of the higher form of life — that there is only one real civilization. The other holds that different cultures have very different ways of looking at the world — that there are several different civilizations, and what is an affront to one may be a convention to another.
The underlying premise of the democracy project is the former sense of “civilization.” As I argued at the time, the real world is the latter."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260155/death-apostates-not-perversion-islam-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy
kellygreen and others have been arguing here for the first of Huntington's definitions of civilization--the distinction being between civilized and uncivilized human beings. As Mr. McCarthy says, the difference that counts now in the democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan is that between Islamic Sharia civilization and Western liberal democratic civilization.
The article is also worth reading on the subject of apostasy in Islam.
There are plenty of representatives of both groups in all parts of the world. I consider one group to be civilized, the other less so.