Big Think

Stephen Salas on January 29, 2008, 12:00 PM

It is hard for me to accept the idea of the Clash of Civilizations as presented by Samuel Huntington, and I agree with Reza Aslan challenge to it. I don't see the advantage or purpose of drawing conclusions about people based on broad generalizations, and then using this knowledge as a stepping stone to judgment. Definately not foreign policy. The more I look beyond my own culture, the more I realize the diversity of the human condition. We can use conceptions to divide in our mind who people are, but this seems arbitrary and less conducive to understanding ourselves and others.

Stephen Salas on January 29, 2008, 5:00 PM

It is hard for me to accept the idea of the Clash of Civilizations as presented by Samuel Huntington, and I agree with Reza Aslan challenge to it. I don’t see the advantage or purpose of drawing conclusions about people based on broad generalizations, and then using this knowledge as a stepping stone to judgment. Definately not foreign policy. The more I look beyond my own culture, the more I realize the diversity of the human condition. We can use conceptions to divide in our mind who people are, but this seems arbitrary and less conducive to understanding ourselves and others.

Roberto Monteiro on January 30, 2008, 12:35 AM

I do agree with Reza Aslan's general point of view. Civilization mean people, even different in their traditions and customs (and I am refering to both cultural and religious traditions and customs, wich I respect profoundly), should share their rich cultural, social behavior and tradition diversity with eachother so we can all learn and apreehend its own unique identity. Even though, I have a question that needs to be solved: how can we understand different countries, or as Reza Aslan mentioned, different civilizations, such as western civilization and islamic civilization, knowing that, in fact, we are not as equal as we wish we should be – we do have different ways of life, different points of view (other economic other social points of view), different beliefs (even western cicilization has problems on their owns),…?
I believe the answer may not be far from this thought: every civilization is made (through several centuries) from what people believed it would be the rightest thing to do in order to preserve teir own identity, their own culture, their own trditions and customs, their own beliefs!
So we should all be able to understand and to accept the differences of other civilizations – we can not hide those differences, but we can live with them if we try to do so, peacefully!
We can make a small exercise: try to look at your neighbors – they seem all different from eachother and probably it is not so easy to understand and accept their differences; now we can look to the entire world and see that we all share boundries with "neighbor nations" and most likely they might be different from ourselves as well!
Just think on this Big Thought!
Thank you!

Roberto Monteiro on January 30, 2008, 5:35 AM

I do agree with Reza Aslan’s general point of view. Civilization mean people, even different in their traditions and customs (and I am refering to both cultural and religious traditions and customs, wich I respect profoundly), should share their rich cultural, social behavior and tradition diversity with eachother so we can all learn and apreehend its own unique identity. Even though, I have a question that needs to be solved: how can we understand different countries, or as Reza Aslan mentioned, different civilizations, such as western civilization and islamic civilization, knowing that, in fact, we are not as equal as we wish we should be – we do have different ways of life, different points of view (other economic other social points of view), different beliefs (even western cicilization has problems on their owns),…?
I believe the answer may not be far from this thought: every civilization is made (through several centuries) from what people believed it would be the rightest thing to do in order to preserve teir own identity, their own culture, their own trditions and customs, their own beliefs!
So we should all be able to understand and to accept the differences of other civilizations – we can not hide those differences, but we can live with them if we try to do so, peacefully!
We can make a small exercise: try to look at your neighbors – they seem all different from eachother and probably it is not so easy to understand and accept their differences; now we can look to the entire world and see that we all share boundries with “neighbor nations” and most likely they might be different from ourselves as well!
Just think on this Big Thought!
Thank you!

Ailea Stites on January 30, 2008, 4:15 PM

I agree with Reza Aslan 100%, and would also like to add that our "civilizations," if you accept the definition that the "West" is Western Europe and the US, and that the the other civilization concerned is the Middle East, we have to remember that there has been and continues to be trade between these two civilizations. It is not fair to say that there is a clash of civilizations when the West has peaceful coexistence with the kingdom of Jordan, for example. What's going on now is most definitely NOT a clash of civilizations; to call it that is cheapening and essentially dumbing down a situation that is inherently complicated. I definitely agree with James Gelvin's views on the subject (he's a professor at USC; check out his book "A History of the Modern Middle East").

P.S. (Reza Aslan rocks my world.)

Ailea Stites on January 30, 2008, 9:15 PM

I agree with Reza Aslan 100%, and would also like to add that our “civilizations,” if you accept the definition that the “West” is Western Europe and the US, and that the the other civilization concerned is the Middle East, we have to remember that there has been and continues to be trade between these two civilizations. It is not fair to say that there is a clash of civilizations when the West has peaceful coexistence with the kingdom of Jordan, for example. What’s going on now is most definitely NOT a clash of civilizations; to call it that is cheapening and essentially dumbing down a situation that is inherently complicated. I definitely agree with James Gelvin’s views on the subject (he’s a professor at USC; check out his book “A History of the Modern Middle East”).

P.S. (Reza Aslan rocks my world.)

David Anderson on February 2, 2008, 7:12 PM

What could be more demonstrative of a clash between civilizations than Osama bin Laden sending his suicide pilots into the World Trade Center? Unless you characterize radical Islam as uncivilized, this attack and al Qaeda's continuing call to arms is as glaring an example of such a clash as could possibly exist. This war — clash is too mild a term — is rooted in the incompatible values underpinning the competing factions: Western secularism and Islamic theocracy.

David Anderson on February 3, 2008, 12:12 AM

What could be more demonstrative of a clash between civilizations than Osama bin Laden sending his suicide pilots into the World Trade Center? Unless you characterize radical Islam as uncivilized, this attack and al Qaeda’s continuing call to arms is as glaring an example of such a clash as could possibly exist. This war — clash is too mild a term — is rooted in the incompatible values underpinning the competing factions: Western secularism and Islamic theocracy.

Jonathan Lovell on February 4, 2008, 6:40 PM

Do you really think this has anything to do with culture or ethics or religion?
The people who drive these problems you speak of do it for the control of money,drugs and oil. In that order.
Please stop putting a religious bent on this and deal with the problem.

Jonathan Lovell on February 4, 2008, 6:47 PM

Those who earn money from hate will keep your children asking the same questions.
How can we (the people) change this?

Jonathan Lovell on February 4, 2008, 11:40 PM

Do you really think this has anything to do with culture or ethics or religion?
The people who drive these problems you speak of do it for the control of money,drugs and oil. In that order.
Please stop putting a religious bent on this and deal with the problem.

Jonathan Lovell on February 4, 2008, 11:47 PM

Those who earn money from hate will keep your children asking the same questions.
How can we (the people) change this?

Jason Monborne on February 7, 2008, 2:57 PM

Aslan is angry. Evidently. But his conclusion about the absurdities of the differences between the West and the Muslim world is right on the level that he argues, which is one of politics, economics, and history. But there is a divide, and it is one of perception of change. For millenia the greater Muslim world has been left behind the West in terms of scientific advancements; indeed, until there was the oil boom over the last half century in Arabia and Asia, the majority of Muslim nations could have been categorized as third world countires, and indeed many still are. The acceptance of change, in temrs of scientific advancement, and all that necessarily follows—individuality, equality, secularism—is frightening to many in the Muslim world. The Western world has had many wars, and countless arguments over such means of change, that the ends have only recently become less controversial. Willing the Muslim world to accept these ends without the conflict of the means that the West has undergone is troubling, and bound to cause conflict. Time is the only remedy for not accepting the inevitability of a changing world; and it is the perception of the passage of time that is different. The solitary landscape of the desert world lends itself to an idea of permanence, to a patience that many in the West cannot embrace, let alone understand. And unless we learn it, we may fail in our attempts at a compromise with the Muslim world.

Jason Monborne on February 7, 2008, 7:57 PM

Aslan is angry. Evidently. But his conclusion about the absurdities of the differences between the West and the Muslim world is right on the level that he argues, which is one of politics, economics, and history. But there is a divide, and it is one of perception of change. For millenia the greater Muslim world has been left behind the West in terms of scientific advancements; indeed, until there was the oil boom over the last half century in Arabia and Asia, the majority of Muslim nations could have been categorized as third world countires, and indeed many still are. The acceptance of change, in temrs of scientific advancement, and all that necessarily follows—individuality, equality, secularism—is frightening to many in the Muslim world. The Western world has had many wars, and countless arguments over such means of change, that the ends have only recently become less controversial. Willing the Muslim world to accept these ends without the conflict of the means that the West has undergone is troubling, and bound to cause conflict. Time is the only remedy for not accepting the inevitability of a changing world; and it is the perception of the passage of time that is different. The solitary landscape of the desert world lends itself to an idea of permanence, to a patience that many in the West cannot embrace, let alone understand. And unless we learn it, we may fail in our attempts at a compromise with the Muslim world.

Trevor Jones on February 21, 2008, 3:10 PM

I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Aslan. If he is attempting to equate Islam and his vague "human condition" (whatever that might mean, he doesn't explain) with Western Civilization's Renaissance, Enlightenment and tradition of democracy coupled with scientific inquiry, Islam and the "civilization" of the East have much work to do.

The fact is, multiculturalism and a tolerance of a plurality of views are a trademark of Western civilization's development; Islam has yet to provide a model for human rights, egalatarianism, equal rights for women and gays, and an open society.

Indeed, there will be no clash; inevitably, Western civilization will usurp and assimilate all world culture, as it should.

And for those who disagree, may I suggest you read some Thomas Paine?

Trevor Jones on February 21, 2008, 8:10 PM

I couldn’t disagree more with Mr. Aslan. If he is attempting to equate Islam and his vague “human condition” (whatever that might mean, he doesn’t explain) with Western Civilization’s Renaissance, Enlightenment and tradition of democracy coupled with scientific inquiry, Islam and the “civilization” of the East have much work to do.

The fact is, multiculturalism and a tolerance of a plurality of views are a trademark of Western civilization’s development; Islam has yet to provide a model for human rights, egalatarianism, equal rights for women and gays, and an open society.

Indeed, there will be no clash; inevitably, Western civilization will usurp and assimilate all world culture, as it should.

And for those who disagree, may I suggest you read some Thomas Paine?

Jacoline Loewen on February 23, 2008, 8:12 AM

Aslan comments that the Muslim world and the west have different ideas and customs but are we in a war between social customs?
Gulliver%u2019s Travels written centuries ago by Swift was a satire about the human ability to find difference in something as facile as which end of a boiled egg your culture opened first and the degree of offence that the other culture did not follow that same custom. The clash was enough to cause a long standing war.
Let%u2019s use Swift%u2019s cultural tradition of which end of the egg your culture accepts as the ONLY way.
What were the consequences of that idea? Was there any public debate challenging the age-old tradition? Did this attitude of our social custom is the only correct custom help different groups accept that underneath it all, we are the same?
Giving humans the ability to see how groups of people with different identities behave towards their partners, their children, the vulnerable people within their traditions and towards outsiders is what causes change.
Swift's fictional societies stopped their core ideas, traditions and social customs from being discussed, questioned and even changed. The consequence was a clash.
I would value finding out more about the Muslim world's attitude to those who do not follow their social customs because from a small, daily task – such as opening an egg – grows a whole attitude towards the clash of civilizations.

Jacoline Loewen on February 23, 2008, 1:12 PM

Aslan comments that the Muslim world and the west have different ideas and customs but are we in a war between social customs?
Gulliver%u2019s Travels written centuries ago by Swift was a satire about the human ability to find difference in something as facile as which end of a boiled egg your culture opened first and the degree of offence that the other culture did not follow that same custom. The clash was enough to cause a long standing war.
Let%u2019s use Swift%u2019s cultural tradition of which end of the egg your culture accepts as the ONLY way.
What were the consequences of that idea? Was there any public debate challenging the age-old tradition? Did this attitude of our social custom is the only correct custom help different groups accept that underneath it all, we are the same?
Giving humans the ability to see how groups of people with different identities behave towards their partners, their children, the vulnerable people within their traditions and towards outsiders is what causes change.
Swift’s fictional societies stopped their core ideas, traditions and social customs from being discussed, questioned and even changed. The consequence was a clash.
I would value finding out more about the Muslim world’s attitude to those who do not follow their social customs because from a small, daily task – such as opening an egg – grows a whole attitude towards the clash of civilizations.

Ike Eslao on February 27, 2008, 11:43 PM

From empirical observation, people tend to group themselves into opposing world-views: the 'rejectionist' versus 'rejectees'. They gravitate around any cause that fit their 'world-views' regardless of civilizational affiliation or historical timeline. The rejectionists believe that diversity is an anomaly and should be suppressed. The rejectees believe that the world is ruled by rejectionists and the game is destroy-or-be-destroyed. This is the divide that generate the 'clash' and it does not matter which civilization you are in.
To take one example: Reason – for the rejectionist, any deviation is a problem and therefore must be eliminated; for the rejectee, reason is subservient to a higher goal which is survival.

Ike Eslao on February 28, 2008, 4:43 AM

From empirical observation, people tend to group themselves into opposing world-views: the ‘rejectionist’ versus ‘rejectees’. They gravitate around any cause that fit their ‘world-views’ regardless of civilizational affiliation or historical timeline. The rejectionists believe that diversity is an anomaly and should be suppressed. The rejectees believe that the world is ruled by rejectionists and the game is destroy-or-be-destroyed. This is the divide that generate the ‘clash’ and it does not matter which civilization you are in.
To take one example: Reason – for the rejectionist, any deviation is a problem and therefore must be eliminated; for the rejectee, reason is subservient to a higher goal which is survival.

eileen fleming on March 2, 2008, 12:42 PM

"Shameful, offensive and fear mongering, but why are accusations of being linked to Islam seen as so detrimental for Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama?"

Hear it for on BBC's "On Reporting Religion" this week:?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/reporting_religion.shtml

What we in the USA need to do is encourage all the faithful to become more educated in their own faith paths and to do that you have to peel away the %u201Ccultural overlays%u201D to get to the word of God.

Jesus promised it is THE PEACEMAKERS who shall be called the children of God; and NOT those than bomb, starve, torture and occupy any other.

May God have mercy upon us all and Godspeed on waking us all up!

Eileen Fleming,

Reporter and Editor WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"

eileen fleming on March 2, 2008, 5:42 PM

“Shameful, offensive and fear mongering, but why are accusations of being linked to Islam seen as so detrimental for Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama?”


Hear it for on BBC’s “On Reporting Religion” this week:?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/reporting_religion.shtml

What we in the USA need to do is encourage all the faithful to become more educated in their own faith paths and to do that you have to peel away the %u201Ccultural overlays%u201D to get to the word of God.

Jesus promised it is THE PEACEMAKERS who shall be called the children of God; and NOT those than bomb, starve, torture and occupy any other.

May God have mercy upon us all and Godspeed on waking us all up!


Eileen Fleming,

Reporter and Editor WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ’Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory”

Producer “30 Minutes With Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”

Cory Marsh on March 10, 2008, 9:36 AM

The interviewee's position that a clash of civilization doesn't exist and is undefinable is laughable. The clash of civilization exists between those who wish to force honor killings, public beheading, stoning disobedient children, sexual enslavement and fatwas for apostates upon liberal democracy through violence and force and anyone with enough spine to oppose them.

This situation is not as complex and abstract as some other liberals think. Sharia law is not conductive to sustaining a healthy civilization. Anyone who thinks that Islam is content without the entire wold living under sharia law has not read the faith document the Koran.

Cory Marsh on March 10, 2008, 1:36 PM

The interviewee’s position that a clash of civilization doesn’t exist and is undefinable is laughable. The clash of civilization exists between those who wish to force honor killings, public beheading, stoning disobedient children, sexual enslavement and fatwas for apostates upon liberal democracy through violence and force and anyone with enough spine to oppose them.

This situation is not as complex and abstract as some other liberals think. Sharia law is not conductive to sustaining a healthy civilization. Anyone who thinks that Islam is content without the entire wold living under sharia law has not read the faith document the Koran.

Musycks on March 11, 2008, 5:04 PM

well, what an oasis of clear thinking Jocoline provides… thank you (I think I'm in love!)..
Anyone that thinks humans are somehow different because of geography or culture, need only travel to another country that seems different in many ways… like I did to China… and find that the similarities are even greater. You think Christianity or democracy are meaningful concepts to 1.2 billion people, many of whom don't know where their next meal is coming from.
I live in an affluent 'western' country of 20 million people, and we have compulsory voting, in a 2 party Westminster system, and it's not easy to engage a literate, educated population in the political dialogue, so what chance do the Chinese have (or Iraq for that matter) and what does it mean?
The Muslim world is full of people like everywhere else, who want to live their lives, love their children, etc.. but people are only as good as the information they consume that forms the basis of their actions. The Muslim world need to have their 'enlightenment', to be able to take criticism and see that it's a worthwhile process rather than submerge their society in aspic and hope for the best.
Even the fact that they share the same God as most of the western world is obviously not enough to smooth the cracks, as their variation on it denies dialogue. So let's assume those in thrall of the supernatural explanations will always be with us (sadly) and agree that people with full bellies are not easily roused to rage about inequalities, or motivated to blow other people to bits because an ancient text says so. I work with many lovely Muslims who are my friends, they are happy contented people who are amazed others interpret the Koran the way they do, and even though I'm a non-believing infidel, they would do me no harm…. no more than the Mormon boys who knocked on my door last week.. I asked them what part of the Bible thay believed in? they said all of it.. I told them then that Deuteronomy instructs them that after I told them I was a non-believer they should kill me… they said "well, maybe not kill you…" We laughed and off they went.

Musycks on March 11, 2008, 9:04 PM

well, what an oasis of clear thinking Jocoline provides… thank you (I think I’m in love!)..
Anyone that thinks humans are somehow different because of geography or culture, need only travel to another country that seems different in many ways… like I did to China… and find that the similarities are even greater. You think Christianity or democracy are meaningful concepts to 1.2 billion people, many of whom don’t know where their next meal is coming from.
I live in an affluent ‘western’ country of 20 million people, and we have compulsory voting, in a 2 party Westminster system, and it’s not easy to engage a literate, educated population in the political dialogue, so what chance do the Chinese have (or Iraq for that matter) and what does it mean?
The Muslim world is full of people like everywhere else, who want to live their lives, love their children, etc.. but people are only as good as the information they consume that forms the basis of their actions. The Muslim world need to have their ‘enlightenment’, to be able to take criticism and see that it’s a worthwhile process rather than submerge their society in aspic and hope for the best.
Even the fact that they share the same God as most of the western world is obviously not enough to smooth the cracks, as their variation on it denies dialogue. So let’s assume those in thrall of the supernatural explanations will always be with us (sadly) and agree that people with full bellies are not easily roused to rage about inequalities, or motivated to blow other people to bits because an ancient text says so. I work with many lovely Muslims who are my friends, they are happy contented people who are amazed others interpret the Koran the way they do, and even though I’m a non-believing infidel, they would do me no harm…. no more than the Mormon boys who knocked on my door last week.. I asked them what part of the Bible thay believed in? they said all of it.. I told them then that Deuteronomy instructs them that after I told them I was a non-believer they should kill me… they said “well, maybe not kill you…” We laughed and off they went.

Mary Coyote on March 20, 2008, 3:24 PM

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION IS A HUMAN RIGHT

Mary Coyote on March 20, 2008, 7:24 PM

————————————————————————————————————

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION IS A HUMAN RIGHT

————————————————————————————————————

Rufus Polson on April 1, 2008, 11:22 PM

jmunski makes an interesting point, but I think it springs from a common lack of awareness of just what was happening in between the twelfth century or so, when the Middle East was advanced and Western Europe was backward, and today.
If we look at the time of the Industrial Revolution, when change was moving quickly, and at what was happening in the Middle East, we see drastic interventions by powers such as England and France. These interventions often quite calculatedly crushed attempts at modernization by countries such as Egypt or Turkey. The Muslim world was not lost in some dream of stasis, it was to a considerable extent kept in stasis by force. England and France continued their interventions well into the twentieth century, and the United States has continued into the twenty first, propping up corrupt reactionary regimes and destroying more vigorous ones. To now say that the cultural difference is all about their rejection of change has about the credibility of an older brother telling his younger brother "Stop hitting yourself" as he bashes the poor kid's own fist into his face.

Rufus Polson on April 2, 2008, 3:22 AM

jmunski makes an interesting point, but I think it springs from a common lack of awareness of just what was happening in between the twelfth century or so, when the Middle East was advanced and Western Europe was backward, and today.
If we look at the time of the Industrial Revolution, when change was moving quickly, and at what was happening in the Middle East, we see drastic interventions by powers such as England and France. These interventions often quite calculatedly crushed attempts at modernization by countries such as Egypt or Turkey. The Muslim world was not lost in some dream of stasis, it was to a considerable extent kept in stasis by force. England and France continued their interventions well into the twentieth century, and the United States has continued into the twenty first, propping up corrupt reactionary regimes and destroying more vigorous ones. To now say that the cultural difference is all about their rejection of change has about the credibility of an older brother telling his younger brother “Stop hitting yourself” as he bashes the poor kid’s own fist into his face.

Jaime Alberto Galarza on April 5, 2008, 9:39 PM

Apparently the human condition has not had such a wide appeal, especially since the advent of the nation-state. In fact, civilizations do define people to a large extent, and this is because people have the need to identify themselves with a group. This is what civilizations provide. Obviously, on top of this we have a whole "superstructure" of ideas, symbols, institutions and even religions that solidify the civilizations' paradigms. A very powerful "interest group" in this regard is what we call the elites. They have their own agenda, which is furthered through their representatives: the politicians. Thus, a lot of actions taken by nations and civilizations are the result of the elites' trying to influence reality one way or another.

Jaime Alberto Galarza on April 6, 2008, 1:39 AM

Apparently the human condition has not had such a wide appeal, especially since the advent of the nation-state. In fact, civilizations do define people to a large extent, and this is because people have the need to identify themselves with a group. This is what civilizations provide. Obviously, on top of this we have a whole “superstructure” of ideas, symbols, institutions and even religions that solidify the civilizations’ paradigms. A very powerful “interest group” in this regard is what we call the elites. They have their own agenda, which is furthered through their representatives: the politicians. Thus, a lot of actions taken by nations and civilizations are the result of the elites’ trying to influence reality one way or another.