Clash of Civilizations-Your Views-Are really in a us versus them scenario?

[gambit]

There isn't any clash of civilization. There's competition between nations to overpower each other and gain resources. That is an eternal source of conflict.

The clash of civilization is a convenient excuse to point out foes based on ideology. For example, none of those grouped civilizations are monocultural. The Islamic ones are not for sure, Eastern Europe, again not, Western Europe hardly. If the clash of civilization were true, it wouldn't be possible for migrants from one group to go to live in the other (because the civilizations clash). This is proven rubbish. There is only a clash of civilization when people make one.

The timeframe does make it a bogus concept imo.

If in one timeframe the clash is with Pagan, then it switches to Communists, then it switches to Muslims, that shows that something else is causing the clash in civilization other than culture.

You are not living up to the standards alleged to your group. People are naturally biased in many ways at many levels. The most basic is the family unit and the loyalties rises from there. The issue here is whether a person chose to subordinate his cultural biases and affiliations to his political ones, or to his ideological ones, or to his religious ones. No one is saying that the Americas and Europe are monocultural, but we do share the same religious foundation that came from 'The Old World'. During The Cold War, many chose to subordinate this commonality to their ideological beliefs and the result was an ideological conflict between 'The West' and the 'Communist bloc'.

It is about the subordination of one set of moralities to another in the face of a threat that may defeat many sets of moralities. China recognized this a long time when Mao considered China to be the leader of 'The Third World'. What is 'The West' -- or any other bloc for that matter -- is increasingly notional rather than geographical, although geography does influence the formation of these blocs. At the very least, the notion is at a par with the geography in terms of importance and identification.

Conflicts between civilizations are already happening in the UK and in Europe where conclaves of Muslims decided to at least attempt make their communities' customs and laws affiliated with Islam to be at par with the laws and customs of the host countries, if not outright superior. You cannot do that unless you have already identified that which is hostile to your own belief systems. The next logical course of actions would be to enact protective measures for your own community.

 

[XTREME]

That is what I mean to the Islamic Civilization.

 

[Imran Khan]

if they fight i will go far away in jungle live alone in peace and let them fight .

 

[roadrunner]

You are not living up to the standards alleged to your group.

Original. Try coming up with something new.

People are naturally biased in many ways at many levels. The most basic is the family unit and the loyalties rises from there. The issue here is whether a person chose to subordinate his cultural biases and affiliations to his political ones, or to his ideological ones, or to his religious ones. No one is saying that the Americas and Europe are monocultural, but we do share the same religious foundation that came from 'The Old World'. During The Cold War, many chose to subordinate this commonality to their ideological beliefs and the result was an ideological conflict between 'The West' and the 'Communist bloc'.

It is about the subordination of one set of moralities to another in the face of a threat that may defeat many sets of moralities. China recognized this a long time when Mao considered China to be the leader of 'The Third World'. What is 'The West' -- or any other bloc for that matter -- is increasingly notional rather than geographical, although geography does influence the formation of these blocs. At the very least, the notion is at a par with the geography in terms of importance and identification.

To summarize, you're saying that religion and culture becomes subordinate to any perceived threat (in this case the Soviet Union). Great. That's what I was saying. (it is non existent). Finally.

Yes, Europe and the Americas are multicultural as a unit, they are secular, they united together (NATO). The clash of civilization that was World War 2 did not exist under this strong unity. What should this tell you? That the clash of civilization is a weak man-made creation that doesn't have any real basis in the world. (non existent).

Therefore what is the clash of civilization but a political creation that changes from generation to generation?

Conflicts between civilizations are already happening in the UK and in Europe where conclaves of Muslims decided to at least attempt make their communities' customs and laws affiliated with Islam to be at par with the laws and customs of the host countries, if not outright superior. You cannot do that unless you have already identified that which is hostile to your own belief systems. The next logical course of actions would be to enact protective measures for your own community.

Rubbish. There is no clash of civilization in Europe. There are small minorities of idiots in each community that the media portrays as representative of the wider communities.

 

[gambit]

Original. Try coming up with something new.

If it works, no need for anything new.

To summarize, you're saying that religion and culture becomes subordinate to any perceived threat (in this case the Soviet Union). Great. That's exactly what I was saying .

Yes, Europe and the Americas are multicultural as a unit, they are secular, they united together (NATO). The clash of civilization that was World War 2 did not exist under this strong unity.

Therefore what is the clash of civilization but a political creation that changes from generation to generation?

And why is that wrong? Do you deny that conflicts due to irreconcilable differences, from religious to petty political ones, do occur on a regular basis?

Rubbish. There is no clash of civilization in Europe. There are small minorities of idiots in each community that the media portrays as representative of the wider communities.

They certainly do not claim to represent themselves. They do it 'in the name of Islam'.

 

[roadrunner]

Point 2. It's wrong to call it a clash of civilization when it isn't, obviously. Political conflicts are frequent and override whatever religious conflict there might be. It's true everywhere. You gave the example above of Western Europe uniting during the Cold War. Religious differences were not relevant (Orthodoxy had more in common with each other but politics triumphed). Religion is a tool for politics.

Last point is too weak to bother.

 

[roadrunner]

Anyhow if in one timeframe the clash of civilizations is between Christians and Muslims, then it switches to a fight against Fascism where one entity can be Christian or Muslim, there is no basis for any clash of civilization, except for a man-made one during a particular timeframe.

Explain why you disagree with this. if you don't then you would agree that the basis for the clash of civilization isn't rooted in cultural ideology, but in political goals.

There isn't much of an argument to be made imo.

 

[nasser07]

The land that you are calling the 'Islamic civilisation' actually encompasses very ancient civilisations. The Egyptian civilisation is more than 4000 years old as is the Mesopotamian and the Persian civilisation. The land on which Pakistan exists today is the one over which the Indus Valley Civilisation flourished 4000 years ago. All these civilisations predate Islam by nearly 2500 years. Does religion imply civilisation? I think not. If that be the foundation of your thesis, then why not paint all of Russia and South America in deep blue and call the whole big blue blob the Christian civilisation?

Religion does not make up a civilisation, it is a very small component of it. Tell me, how can Indonesians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Turks and Bosnian Muslims be part of the same civilisation? Just because they are all Muslims?
Are Russians from Vladivastok, Americans from Boston, Peruvians and Filipinos part of the same civilisation because they are all Christians?

As a Bengali Hindu, I find that I have more in common with Bangladeshis than I have with say, a Malayali from Kerala or someone from Goa. Religion is not an issue here at all.

The fundamental mistake in your analysis is that Islam CREATED a civilisation. Ancient Arab-Persian-Turkic civilisations were united by Islam and created its own unique civilisation

 

[nasser07]

Excerpt from Prophet Muhammad's(pbuh) last sermon:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

No such thing as nationalism in Islam. Only one Ummah.

 

[gambit]

Point 2. It's wrong to call it a clash of civilization when it isn't, obviously. Political conflicts are frequent and override whatever religious conflict there might be. It's true everywhere. You gave the example above of Western Europe uniting during the Cold War. Religious differences were not relevant (Orthodoxy had more in common with each other but politics triumphed). Religion is a tool for politics.

No, it is not wrong to call it so. Religious moralities and principles usually set the intellectual and moral foundations for political relationships. If political differences compelled nation-states to war against each other, it will because irreconcilable differences created a more immediate threat to their earthly way of life and that immediate threat made any religious differences temporarily irrelevant. If there is a threat common to Catholics and Protestants, the IRA will ally with the Christians.

Last point is too weak to bother.

More like too afraid to confront.

 

[roadrunner]

Excerpt from Prophet Muhammad's(pbuh) last sermon:



No such thing as nationalism in Islam. Only one Ummah.

Islamic civilization is not culturally all the same. Why would the Ottomans fight in World War 1 alongside a Christian nation in what was a western european war, for example?

 

[gambit]

Anyhow if in one timeframe the clash of civilizations is between Christians and Muslims, then it switches to a fight against Fascism where one entity can be Christian or Muslim, there is no basis for any clash of civilization, except for a man-made one during a particular timeframe.

Explain why you disagree with this. if you don't then you would agree that the basis for the clash of civilization isn't rooted in cultural ideology, but in political goals.

There isn't much of an argument to be made imo.

See post 55.

 

[nasser07]

Islamic civilization is not culturally all the same. Why would the Ottomans fight in World War 1 alongside a Christian nation in what was a western european war, for example?

I never said we were culturally or politically homogeneous. But our religious identity will always prevail all other things. This is what non-Muslims dream of destroying, our sense of religious belonging. But the Ummah will always live.

 

[roadrunner]

No, it is not wrong to call it so. Religious moralities and principles usually set the intellectual and moral foundations for political relationships. If political differences compelled nation-states to war against each other, it will because irreconcilable differences created a more immediate threat to their earthly way of life and that immediate threat made any religious differences temporarily irrelevant. If there is a threat common to Catholics and Protestants, the IRA will ally with the Christians.


More like too afraid to confront.

A Muslim nation allying itself with a Buddhist nation. This would not be possible if the clash of civilization was true. Yet it exists.

The reason is that there is no clash of civilization that is rooted in religion or culture. There are differences that arent so important. Though there is the desire of some civilizations to dominate the others through economic superiority, resources etc. This is based on cultural competition instead of any inherent ideological clash

---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

I never said we were culturally or politically homogeneous. But our religious identity will always prevail all other things.

An opinion. As valid as Muslims that are nationalists or culturalists claiming their viewpoints.

 

[PakShah]

Muslims could easily live with Hindus in India. This wasn't a problem. Already 250 million Muslims live there, minus the odd genocide like in Gujerat.

Political representation would be the problem. Why should Pakistan which was historically seperate from India be a part of India? There was no reason.

Pakistani Muslims want to have an Islamic society. Hindus would never let provinces where Muslims in the majority have autonomy. Had the Muslim majority provinces had autonomy, the Muslim majority provinces would be run by legal codes that are obligatory in Islam that Muslims must apply.

The Hindus knew at that point, in a united India, Muslims would have the clear advantage.

RR, of-course Muslims and Hindus can get along in a "secular" India.

However in an Islamic society, a Hindu can never be the leader of an Islamic society.

Hence there could never be a Hindu governor of a Muslim majority province in a united India, because Muslims in Muslim majority provinces would want Islamic legal codes to be applied.

Hindus would never accept that.

That is where the Clash of Beliefs was.

RR, you have found "holes" in the Clash of Civilizations theory. Should different sects of the same religion be considered different civilizations?

Perhaps Samuel P. Huntington made mistakes, but his basic idea of having different beliefs can lead to disagreements, and disagreements can lead to conflicts is unavoidable.

For example since Shias in Iran disagree with Sunnis from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia , would this put Iran in a different civilization due to a Clash of Beliefs?