In the name of God
Less than 20 years after the theory of “clash of civilizations” had been raised, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, which were typical of the U.S. economic influence, collapsed in a terrorist attack, killing thousands of people. Pentagon, too, which is the symbol of the U.S. military power, was another target of attacks. Humans were involved in provoking and triggering the attacks.
In the aftermath of the event, an air of horror and insecurity dominated the world as a consequence of the U.S. military and economic policies. Drums of hatred were beaten by both sides (of the conflict). It is noteworthy that all these incidents took place in a year named the Year of Dialog Among Civilizations, upon a proposal raised by a person from the Orient and the world of Islam and supported by a huge consensus.
Did what happened vouch for the accuracy of the theory of “Clash of Civilizations” and the illusiveness of the “Dialog Among Civilizations” theory? I stress firmly that these bitter statements will not harm the possibility of dialog but intensify it as an inevitable option that can save humanity from the current awkward situation.
At a critical junction in history, when human relationships are becoming more complicated and closer every day, with the destiny of countries and nations becoming more and more interdependent and the world having turned into what is commonly referred to as a global village – at a moment like this the theory of “Dialog Among Civilizations” was presented in the hope of serving as an example and paradigm for humans who can no longer tolerate oppression, cruelty, discrimination, tension and insecurity and instead long for peace, peaceful coexistence and justice.
Force, oppression and repression were the paradigms predominant in a world where two destructive World Wars, regional conflicts, the Cold War, occupation, repression, discrimination and homelessness had cast a shadow on the lives of people. In the end of the 20th century, the repulsive phenomenon of terrorism, which already existed, was terribly intensified, worrying and threatening humans all over the world more than any time.
The “Dialog Among Civilizations” theory, which was complemented after 11 September by a project named “Coalition for Peace on the Basis of Justice” to take the place of the “coalition for war” -- it haplessly fell on deaf ears at an atmosphere filled with hatred and threat – would have made humans hopeful toward a better future at the threshold of the Third Millennium. Nevertheless, what happened at the first decade of the 21st century once again led fear and panic take the place of hope. Ladies and gentlemen, now I would like to take this opportunity to address this very issue for a few minutes.
The issue of “dialog” has been spoken about to a large extent since Socrates. A great many theories have addressed various aspects of dialog in areas of philosophy, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, politics and other branches of humans’ science and intellect. Genuinely speaking, as the proposer of the “Dialog Among Civilizations” I not only firmly believe in the possibility of dialog but also recognize it as a necessity that can save humanity from the crisis that dominates the East and West of the world – a crisis that would destroy whatever connected to humans’ civil life if it continues. The global circumstances today help us realize the essentiality and significance of dialog among cultures and civilizations.
However, the question is among who should the dialog take place and in what area? And what would help a dialog to lead to effective results?
What I propose is that dialog should take place among cultures and civilizations in the first place. And as a first step, I would suggest that it not be the politicians to represent cultures and civilizations but philosophers, scientists, artists and intellectuals who represent culture and civilization. As a result, dialog should not be mistaken with negotiation, which is mostly what takes place among politicians and is aimed at winning interests and repelling harms. Negotiation, throughout history, has mostly secured the interests of the powerful side and been to the loss of the weaker side and has eventually led to war where no results have been achieved.
Dialog is also different from debate – which is a form of discussion among scientists and theologians over scientific and ideological subjects.
Dialog of Civilizations is apolitical in nature. Nevertheless, at a time when walls of politics envelope the whole human life – and unfortunately the politics of our time is the politics of war – one can’t not speak of politics. The link between politics and dialog is that the latter calls for our contemplation of the former.
Dialog, however, opens windows of exchanging ideas and sympathy with others rather than seeking to impose one’s tastes and interests on others. There is no intention of humiliating the other.
If there is supposed to be a dialog among cultures and civilizations, will any other civilization than the predominant Western civilization – the non-Western civilizations specifically – be of any impact? Will they have something to say?
When the Western world was in higher spirits and in a dominant position, before the very foundations of its civilization were seriously questioned by “Modernism,” Western thinkers were convinced that non-Western civilizations had too little to say and that they were only ears desperate to hear and surrender. In other words, the chief concern was that the West owned a dynamic and dominant civilization being surrounded by the debris of civilizations whose time had come to an end and that it was incumbent on the West and Westerner to civilize today’s human with the elixir of their civilization. Which was the very mindset that led to the hideous phenomenon of colonialism and justified the conduct of the West at time of colonialism.
Today, however, that mindset has lost its influence. The degree to which non-Westerners have found themselves enthused by their identity, traditions, culture and civilization on the one hand, and on the other hand, the challenges Westerners have been faced with in the context of their civilization coupled with the serious questions targeting the very foundations of the Western civilization in spite of its wonderful achievements, have all led the Western human to be at a position more appropriate for dialog. Let us not be worried about a big number of illusive politicians who are not yet prepared for dialog.
It seems that never in history have conditions been prepared for dialog more than today. Dialog will lead to a common language and a common language will culminate in a common thought and this one will turn into a common approach to the world and global incidents. And for this very reason, the result of dialog will eventually be an exchange of good-will ideas and sympathy.
The “Dialog Among Cultures and Civilizations” approach will open up human and social relations where they are blocked, as it seeks to replace itself for the choice of force in national and international arenas. Practical clarification of and elaboration on the concept of “Dialog Among Civilizations” can open new horizons in intra- and extra-cultural areas.
The dialog of cultures scheme puts cultures rather than individuals at the forefront of action. Based on this very idea, the major subject in this model is collectivity rather than individuality. However, since dialog is in need of opening up, listening and empathy, it stresses the acceptance of plurality, variety and independent individuality on both sides of the dialog. Therefore, naturally an important condition for the materialization and success of dialog is that the parties to that dialog recognize and respect one another.
Now if one side of the dialog is a world that identifies itself as the superior side and even considers its universe the end of history; does not acknowledge humans could achieve perfection as a goal unless that goal is set inside the frameworks of its culture and civilization; deems history is at the end of a journey toward perfection; and does not recognize other cultures and civilizations; or the other side of the dialog that condemns the other party as being decadent and declining, attributing his hatred of that civilization and colonial and arrogant hegemony of its politicians to the very civilization and culture itself, the road to dialog and exchange of ideas will be closed.
In an atmosphere of dialog, neither side considers themselves as being in a position of power and would not speak from an upper position. Should there be feelings of power and dominance at one side and a sense of despair and privation at the other side, a dialog would never materialize. Advocates of these two ideas are two political groups who think things should be settled with force. Even the one who is denied the power is of the conviction that unconventional use of force would help them to secure their right. Under such circumstances, this closed and destructive cycle of hegemonic tendencies at one side and terrorism at the other side, the earth, which was heralded by leaders of the Western civilization to become the Heavens promised by religions, would become a burning hell that will burn indiscriminately.
Without doubt, advocates of the ancient civilizations can learn many lessons from the new civilization and enjoy its achievements. On the other hand, the new civilization too has been faced with many problems and great Western thinkers have found faults with this civilization. It can learn lessons from the huge gaps – especially spiritual ones – that mark the civilization and the fact that the dignity of humans has been on a decline in this civilization.
On the other hand, all advocates of non-Western civilizations long for development. They are attached to those interpretations of their culture and civilization that are more flexible to the advancements and developments in the world. Beyond their habits, they are enthused about values and realities in their culture and civilization that can be compatible with such developments and help them build a livelier world.
Both sides have come to the realization that each civilization has a great many things to say and that there will be ears to hear them, as they have heard others.
Hafiz, the prudent and profound Iranian poet, speaks a language, which Goethe, despite inappropriate translations, can hear. And the Japanese Izutsu speaks of the possibility of exchange of views between the greatest Islamic Gnostic Mohieddin Arabi and thinkers in the Far East.
Here we can certainly find roots and areas common among big faiths, and particularly Islamic faiths, to address global issues. And all these make dialog easier.
Whether or not we want, today we are more dependent on one another than any other time. This is why we are in dire need of a global form of discipline and ethics. We should be able to open our minds to one another and respect and apply a culture of unity in the interest of the global community and environment.
The main question begins here: On what basis and from what aspect can we create this cultural opening – the result of which will be a political opening – in spite of differences and plurality?
I assume the very first response should be sought in the area of ethics. If we cannot follow a global form of ethics to reach a better global discipline, then making a reference to sources of our culture and civilization can be a firm and promising step in materialization of dialog and making it be successful.
It is incumbent on all of us to get to work to build justice, freedom, peace, actual progress in human rights, and protect the environment and our planet.
We are responsible for building a better global discipline. And this cannot be achieved by justification, contracts or law. Achievement of peace, justice, freedom, tolerance and a sustainable environment will largely depend on the insight of all men and women and their intention to lead a fair life. And such preparation is in need of achieving and adhering to global ethics that is compatible to the new reality. Rights without ethics will not materialize fully and comprehensively and without realistic global ethics one cannot achieve a peaceful coexistence in the light of a better global discipline.
Global discipline does not imply the dominance of one global ideology over all others or even a certain religion over others. What is intended by global discipline is a major collection of essential values, irrevocable criteria, and useful individual conducts. This collection can be considered as a value which all Divine religions have called for.
We should not be living solely for ourselves. We should be at service of others too. No society or individual should be abused in a way or another. We should take an effort to create a just social and economic discipline in which every one can have equal rights to others in order to be able to use his or her capabilities to achieve as much in their lives as a human.
The principles and framework of such global discipline exist in the depth of religious teachings, particularly those of Ibrahim’s and specifically Islam. Such principles can – with the assistance of wisdom and willpower – alleviate the pains of humans. From among religions, one can extract the basis of consensus for the global discipline. This very subject in itself can turn into a subject of dialog of civilizations and cultures – and more specifically dialog of religions.
And my final statement is that without having major consensus on a global form of ethics, one cannot immunize human communities against threats of despotism, discrimination, humiliation and confusion. All these elements are the most important areas that trigger extremism and violence in today’s world.
Besides what has been mentioned so far, what seems most urgent to accomplish in the tightly connected world of today is to identify common pains and reach an appropriate definition of a common goal. We should then make a reference to the roots of cultures and civilizations to find the route for reaching the common goal before we set our foot on the path.
Today humans suffer from enormous pains. The pains in the developed world are not the types of pain people exposed to privation and despair suffer from. However, we can spot one common pain and that is insecurity.
Insecurity does not particularly affect one nation alone. If one day, certain people suffered from a lack of security caused by poverty, ignorance, diseases, humiliation, repression and homelessness, today people living in the most developed countries of the world feel unsecure too. In addition to previous forms of insecurity, humans do not have security in New York, Washington, London and Madrid or other parts of the world either. This insecurity has not only injured the soul of humans, but will also be a source of massive agony to the whole world if it is not stopped. We can make “insecurity” -- as humans’ common pain in today’s world -- the subject of our dialog and seek a common solution to it.
In spite of the painful world, we can reach a common goal, which is “peace” and we all know peace will not be achieved unless it is based on justice, in the real sense of the word. Seeking peace and justice can be traced in the context of all cultures and civilizations, particularly big religions. It is no more sensible to hesitate. Beyond different tastes, views and interests that can lead to conflicts and clashes, those people holding well wishes for humanity can begin a dialog in the interest of freeing humanity from insecurity and building peace based on justice. They can use substantial cultural and civil sources to build a just discipline in the world, which will lead to peace. Such an initiative will not appeal to extremists. We should proceed hand in hand and unite against extremism and violence in whichever part of the world.