|
Chairman:
I will just speedily introduce today’s programme and the
speaker with it. I have taken the following introduction
from a few articles in the Muslim News this week on
politics. I think they make interesting reading and aptly
relate to our discussion this evening. One of the points I
took from the articles was that during the 1992 presidential
campaign James Carvil one of President Clinton’s top
advisers coined the slogan :”Is the economy stupid” as a way
of putting the focus on the basic issue of the day.
When Muslims
are asked why they protest against wars in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir or Palestine why do the Western
politicos seek to intimidate them. Why don’t they turn the
other cheek when everything they hold sacred is abused and
insulted. Perhaps the only reply that makes sense, the only
reply is to proclaim again and again is politics stupid?
Dr
Asghar Ali:
Salaam Aleikum. The concept of the clash of civilizations
was promoted by Huntington author of a book by the same
name Clash Of Civilizations. I am of the opinion that
this book was written with a political agenda. I went
through the book and found the treatment of the subject was
highly superficial and I was highly disappointed that a
professor teaching political science at Harvard University
which is considered a top university in America, should
write such a superficial book.
I also came
to the conclusion that it has been written with a purpose.
The approach may be very superficial but the political
agenda is very clear. America always needs an external
enemy. As long as the Soviet Union was there the external
enemy was communism. After communism collapsed they needed
an external enemy and they created one in the Islamic world.
So the
Harvard professor was asked to write a book on this subject
which he wrote and it became the basis of American foreign
policy. There are a number of right wing Christian
think-tanks who are deliberately promoting this. What Bush
says and does is on the basis of advise received from these
right-wing Christian think tanks. The main interest of these
right-wing Christian think tanks is to maintain American
supremacy and to procure oil at any cost. To procure Arab
oil is very important for them.
This morning
I was speaking and one official was disagreeing with me. He
said that America uses only 20 percent of Arab oil. I don’t
know if this is current. As far as I know America is
definitely using much more than 20 – it cannot be 29.
So it is not
a clash of civilizations, it is a clash of interests and
politics in general us based on interest not a values. All
the world’s problems could have been solved. But since it is
not interest clashes . It is as clear and simple as that.
But it is very unfortunate that many academics in Western
countries seriously believe that is a clash of
civilization: Western civilization and Islamic civilization
can never confirm to each other, can never live in harmony
with each other.
I recall Dr
Zaher Hussein from my country who became president of India.
He had gone to inaugurate the centenary of the establishment
of an academy in UP. It was during the 70s. I don’t know
what prompted him to make this comment but he said that
civilizations never clash. It is barbarians who clash. He
made this observation. He was a nationalist, an education
list, a Muslim leader.
Huntington
came on the scene in the 90s and came to be discussed by the
whole world just because he is a Harvard Professor even if
his writing is total nonsense. It got reviews in almost all
journals and today any serious intellectual refers to this
book on this question.
I was
attending one workshop in Rajpur, a town in Gujarat. A
priest from Ram Kirshna mission was present. They are known
to be quite peace loving people who undertake a lot of
social services like Christian missionaries. The workshop
was on communal problems in India. We keep on holding
workshops for promoting inter-religious peace in India. He
described how Islam and Christianity clashed throughout
history, how many wars took place like the Crusades and wars
right up to WW2.
Naturally I
challenged him. If you read the statistics he gave you will
see his understanding is extremely superficial Neither the
Crusades or subsequent wars were truly religious wars. They
were not religious in nature, they were political in nature.
And unless you understand this root cause you will describe
them as religious. And you will neither understand religion
nor the wars.
As opposed to
Huntington’s theory of clash of civilizations, which has
been grabbed by the media and many established
intellectuals, Khatemi from Iran came out with the concept
of dialogue of civilizations. Now who is being unreasonable
and violent? Khatemi proposed a dialogue of civilizations,
not a clash of civilization in the UNO.
And this has
been the spirit of the Qur’an. Qur’an believes in dialogue
not in war or conflict because even when it calls people to
the way of Allah it calls them with wisdom and good labours.
It is the spirit of dialogue. How do we define dialogue?
How do we understand dialogue? Dialogue should never be
to convert others. Dialogue means to understand and to
accept the others as they are. This is really the spirit of
dialogue. If I want dialogue with people of other cultures,
civilizations or religions and my motive is to convert
them, we will never have dialogue. We will have two
monologues. I will speak one things, the other person will
speak something else. So it will be two monologues rather
than dialogue.
In order to
have dialogue your spirit should be to understand the other
and accept the other as the other is. But how many people
have dialogue with that spirit. We always think my religion
is superior to the religion of others, my culture is
superior to that of the others, my language is superior.
With that approach we will never succeed if we want to
encourage dialogue.
We say what
we want to say without even understanding each other. Never
try to enter into dialogue with a view of trying to convert
others to your point of view. Your point of view may be
very important but it is important to you because of your
existence, your interests, your approach, everything is
involved in dialogue, in your point of view. Similarly the
other has his or her point of view for their existence,
interests and beliefs. It is equally important to them. The
moment you talk of superiority you loose the spirit of
dialogue. To maintain a spirit of dialogue you must accept
the others as they are not as they should be according to
you.
It is this
dialogue of civilizations, in this spirit which is most
important. Now who is talking of the clash of
civilizations? Those who want to maintain their
superiority, their supremacy over others. That is why they
have to talk of the clash of civilization to get out of a
dialogue of civilizations. Their interests cannot be
maintained, their supremacy cannot be maintained and they
would become equal partners, but they do not want to be
equal partners. A spirit of dialogue requires that both the
parties to the dialogue should be equal partners. The moment
one party to the dialogue adopts an attitude of superiority
the spirit of dialogue is lost.
In all
civilizations, let us remember that civilizations are based
on values, not on conflicts. So how can there be a clash.
There are seven basic values and all religions, all
civilizations emphasise some of these values. They may not
emphasise other values but they support other values as
well. The seven values are equality, justice, truth,
compassion, human dignity, love and sensitivity to others.
These are the seven most important values.
Show my one
religion which goes against any of these values. Islam
emphasizes equality and justice more than other values. But
that does not mean that it rejects other values in any way.
It supports other values. Christianity emphasizes love and
peace but that does not mean in rejects other values. In
Buddhism the central value is compassion but that does not
mean it rejects others.
So all
religions, all civilizations are based on these values. The
seven values are complimentary to each other in all
civilizations and religions. Every civilization is based on
these values. So where is the clash? Actually it is
interests which clash. If my purpose is to rule over others,
naturally my interest will naturally clash with the
interests of others as others may not accept my rule.
Today after
the collapse of the Soviet Union America has become the sole
power. And it wants to maintain that status of super powers.
And that can only be done when it has a superiority of
weapons and a stronger economy to manufacture those weapons.
Its interest is primarily to maintain this status of super
power. It is not interested in democracy anywhere. As Bush
made a false claim that there are weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq but there were no WMD’s and they knew
it.
If there
were WMD’s it is only and with America. It has so many
nuclear weapons that it can destroy Iraq many times over and
yet it still said Iraq WND’s. There was no question of
finding them because they did not exist. Yet everyone
accepted that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Then he came
out with a theory that he had invaded Iraq for regime change
– to bring about democracy. Now is it the way to bring
democracy, to kill 600,000 people to bring democracy, to
rain bombs over a country to bring democracy. The whole
question was how Saddam dare to defy America? We are the
most superior power on earth. You must just follow us,
accept our superiority. It is the political interests which
clash, not civilizations.
The Islamic
civilization has given so much to the world. It was one of
the richest civilizations at one time: philosophy, science,
religion. It has contributed very richly. Naturally no
civilization can make a rich contribution if it is not based
on values. There were certain values on which Islamic
civilization was based. The Western civilization also
contributed a lot to knowledge, science, technology and the
concept of democracy. This is the contribution of the
Western civilization.
The Islamic
civilization originated in very different conditions. Its
contribution was very different but it cannot be
under-rated. Why does the West feel today that it has a
superior civilization? Because of its game of democracy,
human rights, freedom? These are the issues on which the
Western civilization claims superiority.
In Islamic
civilization there is no negation of these values because
there was a time when Muslim intellectuals, academics,
philosophers, scientists made their contribution. When
Europe was passing through the Dark Ages. It was Muslim
philosophers like Ibn Sina, Farabi, Ibn Rushdt who achieved
excellence in the field of philosophy and they were top in
European universities in the Middle Ages.
They
discovered the entire Greek knowledge on which the
renaissance was ultimately based through the Arabs. H.G.
Wells, the noted historian who wrote a book The Short
History of the World said that the Arabs are the foster
fathers of knowledge because the entire Greek knowledge was
discovered by the Arabs. The Abbasids started Dar Al Hekma,
the house of wisdom, in which entire knowledge was
transported into the Arabic language and it was then
transported to Europe and translated into European
languages. No scholar can deny this contribution.
So when Islam
was going through its hey day it contributed very richly and
these values were its basis. Qur’an upholds mutual
consultation which is the spirit of democracy. You may be
very wise and powerful but you must still consult people,
take peoples opinion into account. Even the holy Prophet is
required to consult his companions. This is the spirit of
democracy. It is unfortunate that the caliph turned into a
monarchy during the course of history and that very basic
value was lost. Islamic civilization developed through the
feudal ages.
Where was
democracy in Western countries during the Middle Ages? It
was all monarchy. Either the pope or the monarchs wielded
power. Then there was a revolt against the church and the
renaissance a Protestant movement took place. That put the
West on the road to material progress. Science and
technology was the result of the renaissance movement.
The problem
with Islamic civilization is that in Islam there is no
church. Who do you revolt against? This benefit also became
a kind of problem. There is no central authority against
which you can revolt. If I don’t agree with one particular
imam, theologian or jurist I can have my school. I have my
views or formulations. There is no question of revolt
against any authority because there is no central authority
in Islam. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam.
So no revolt
ever took place. Reform movements were there in the history
of Islam but no Protestant like revolt against any central
authority. Every civilization which reaches a pinnacle also
starts to decline. Western civilization now it at its
height. There is no doubt about that. Science and technology
has given superiority. Democracies developed in the West as
a result of the development of science, knowledge and
technology and the revolt against the church took place and
led to a democratic way of life. In modern times the West
did develop democracy.
These values
are there in the Qur’an but unfortunately the Muslims lost
them. When Bush says ‘why do they hate our freedom, why do
they hate our democracy?’ this is untrue. No Muslim hates
freedom or democracy. There may not be democracy and freedom
in Muslim countries as there is in the West for historical
reasons.
We should
motivate Muslims to fight against monarchies, sheikhdoms and
all that and establish democracy and freedom. It is pretty
much there in the Qur’an and in Qur’anic teachings. Freedom
of conscience is there in Qur’anic teachings: no force in
religion. These are very important concepts in Islam but
Muslims lost them due to the feudalization of Islam.
I very much
differ with Mualana Mawadudi on most issues but I agree
with on one thing. He wrote a very good book From
Caliphate to Monarchy. The Umayyads represented the
monarchy and all the Qur’anic values were lost. The Khawaraj
re-emphasised the principle of democracy. Of course none of
us agree with Khawaraj on their theology but one thing we
must recognize is that they said they did not want these
monarchs. They said we must keep fighting against all Muslim
monarchs until they are wiped out.
Such
movements did not survive. Then there was the kalamata
movement. They believed in quality and wanted to practice
Islamic values. They were also wiped out. Then there was
Zans revolt during Abbasid times. They gave a very hard time
to the Abassid rulers, for nine years and it was very
challenging for the Abbasid rulers to put it down.
So all such
movements were democratic in nature, but unfortunately they
did not survive. They all point to the Qur’anic value of
equality and justice. That is why it is incumbent on all
Muslims to reflect. They always refer to the Qur’an and
hadith. Why can’t they find these values in the Qur’an and
why is equality and justice lacking in Islamic countries and
societies. It is a moment of reflection for all of us that
we must try to restore these values to Islamic societies and
that will strengthen co-operation between Western
civilization and Islamic civilization. They must co-exit,
they must co-operate, they must be harmonious to each other.
Conflict of
interests will always lead to destruction. I always welcome
conflict of ideas because that leads you forward. I am not
against conflict per se but not a conflict of interests.
Conflict of ideas yes. That is how the West progressed. That
is how the Islamic civilization progressed at one time.
There was a
serious conflict between Imam Ghazali and Ibn Rushdt. Imam
Ghazali wrote a book denouncing Ibn Rushdt. These were
conflicts of ideas which definitely enriched Islamic
civilization. So never denounce the conflict of ideas but
the conflict of interests. What is happening today is a
conflict of interests not a conflict of civilizations or a
clash of civilizations.
Bush
does not represent the spirit of Western civilization. His
actions are undemocratic, against justice. So these two
fundamental values of democracy are denied. Where is
democracy? It is not Muslim who hate freedom and democracy.
It is Bush and people like him who hate Islamic civilization
and lately he came out with the notion of Islamofascism. I
don’t know about his understanding. Does he know what
fascism is? Has he ever experienced fascism?
So it is
reflection of his hatred and my only humble suggestion to
Muslim is don’t use violence. Violence never pays to weaker
people, weaker sections. But apart from that it is a
pragmatic situation. I oppose violence in principle.
Violence, whether of the powerful or of the weak will lead
to destruction. It does not solve any problem. Violence has
never been part of the solution, it has always been part of
the problem.
I will end by
giving an example of Gandhi from my country. I pose one
question to you. How is it that India in the whole of Asia
and Africa is the only democratic country? You will not find
any democratic country in the whole of Asia. Don’t include
Japan because Japan was never enslaved. On the contrary
Japan attacked other countries. You will not find any other
country which is democratic thanks to Gandhi because he did
not allow violence and he mobilized the masses. And that
strengthened the roots of democracy in India. The masse were
involved throughout the freedom struggle, thanks to Gandhi
and his concept of non violence. If he allowed violence the
British, with their superior power, could have put down that
violence but the transfer of power could have taken place to
those who had guns and then there would have been no
democracy.
That is what
happened in Algeria, they fought for their freedom but there
is no democracy in Algeria. Only those who had weapons came
to power. That would have been the fate of India if they got
freedom through violent means. So there was great wisdom in
the use of non violence.
If you lose
non violent methods to fight there are two advantages: power
will never go into the hands of warring groups. You will
have moral superiority over your enemy and the whole world
will sympathize with you. If you resort to violence you lose
world sympathy and moral superiority and being the weaker
section you cannot match your weapons against those who you
are fighting. So you do not succeed in your aim. This is
precisely the spirit of the Qur’an. Unfortunately its
teachings are distorted by those groups who speak of jihad.
Show me one
verse in the Qur’an where jihad is used in the sense of war.
It is qiatal or harb which are used for war. Jihad is a
most glorified term to make maximum possible efforts so that
truth, justice and equality prevail in society and that is
why when the Prophet was asked what is jihad he replied the
best the best for of jihad is speaking the truth in the face
of a tyrant ruler. It requires tremendous courage. On the
one hand we talk of jihad in the sense of war, on the other
we do not have the moral courage and moral superiority to
speak the truth in their face.
*Dr. Asghar
Ali Engineer was born in Rajasthan, India in a Muslim Alim's
family and was trained in Tafsir, Hadith and Islamic
jurisprudence. Later, he pursued further education
obtaining a degree in civil Engineering. Then he returned
back to Islamic learning. He has been involved in
activities relating to inter-religious harmony for the last
40 years. He speaks several languages English, Urdu,
Gujarati, Marathi, Arabic and Persian. Dr Engineer published
51 books on Islam and inter-religious problems in India,
South and South East Asia. He contributes regular articles
to several newspapers and research journals. He was awarded
several awards including the Right Livelihood Award by a
Swedish Foundation also known as the Alternate Noble Award.
He was conferred Hon.D.Litt by Calcutta University and also
by Jamia Hamdard University, Delhi. He has lectured in
several universities throughout the world. | 
