The Syrian Fire
Every once in a while, we see events take place in the West that come as insults to Islam and Muslims. If we consider the issue of the blasphemous film that was recently made and distributed in the United States about the Holy Prophet and other cases such as NATO soldiers burning the Qur’an in Afghanistan and blasphemous cartoons of the Holy Prophet in Denmark, we can see that the Western world always places itself in a battle against the Islamic world, an issue which can also be observed in the theory of the Clash of Civilizations. In your opinion, with the current situation in the West and its position with regard to Islam, is dialogue between Western civilization and Islamic civilization possible? It might be better to start with the question of whether these incidents can be defined in the framework of the theory of the Clash of Civilizations.
I must first say that, in Western countries, studies and their results are not always based on fact and research. They are sometimes based on a series of plans, where the results of their studies are based on their interests. Samuel Huntington’s book must be looked at in this same light. You must consider the fact that there are currently some that are looking to fish in troubled waters. Those who benefit from the sale of arms and those with political interests try to show that animosity and hostility between Islam and the West is increasing and is in a critical state. I’d like to point out that I am speaking of the civilizations of the West and Islam, and not those of China, India, and Japan, because Huntington speaks of other civilizations as well in his book. However, our discussion is about Islam and the West. In contrast to the movement in the West which seeks to increase animosity between Western and Islamic civilization, there is another movement in the Occident which rather looks to establish peace and understanding between Western and Islamic civilization. However, due to the fact that this movement does not lead to and killings, it is not mentioned in the media.
What about the production and distribution of the blasphemous film?
Regarding the makers of this film, I must say that Egyptian Coptic Christians residing in the US had a supporting force behind them which helped this film be made. What I’m trying to say is that such a blasphemous film could not have been made by these two people alone, and a strong force has certainly backed them. We must also not forget that, if such a film is able to enrage the Islamic world to this extent, it shows that the grounds for such rage had already been prepared before. No one in the West asks themselves why Muslims are angry at the US. They do not even want to mention such an issue! It is very painful to see that, in such cases, the causes are neglected and opinions are solely based on weak analysis of the consequences. What this recent event has shown us however is that those forces that support the clash of civilizations have gained a huge amount of power, especially in the past thirty years.
Does this mean that, in your opinion, the trend of considering Islam as an enemy for the West and the West as an enemy for Islam is growing?
Yes! As I said, it is now thirty years that these movements seriously justify themselves. The wave of Islamophobia which has spread through the US and Europe is an issue which needs to be reckoned with. Phobia in Greek means fear. But fear of what? All the bombs and planes are in the hands of the westerners, and Islamic civilizations have nothing to be frightened of. Nevertheless, the important thing is that Muslims should be aware of the two forces that, as I mentioned before, exist in the West. Responding to enmity with enmity and hatred with hatred is in nobody's interests and, in the end, one should act wisely and with prudence, for experience has shown that problems will not be solved through shouting.
Perhaps it would be interesting for Iranians to know that the idea of Dialogue among Civilizations is as old as the idea of the Clash of Civilizations, for, in Iran, the public assumption is that the person behind the proposal of the idea of Dialogue among Civilizations is the former president. But you say that similar ideas related to peace and dialogue and coexistence had existed before, right?
Yes! What happened was that Huntington's book was published during George HW Bush's presidency and Huntington's article was written before Iran's former president came to power. Basically, this idea has been proposed in the past. It is a long story which cannot be considered as ideas of Huntington or Iran's former president. When western civilization became complete in the Middle Ages, the only non-Christian civilization which it is aware of was the Islamic civilization. It means that during that time, the only “non-Christian“which existed for the West was Islam. Of course, the only "non-Islamic” for Islam was not the West. Contrary to what modernists say, the beginning of the westerners' hatred of Islam was not during the Middle Ages, but rather the Renaissance. Nevertheless, after the Renaissance era, the era of colonization began, during which the West became egotistical and felt that it is better than other civilizations.
Civilization is civilization! What did the French mean by civilization?
They meant that all civilizations, including ancient Iran and Islam, were primitive forms of civilization, and, in the end, western civilization, with its complete and faultless appearance, not only digested all previous civilizations but also became superior claiming that the main and only authentic civilization is the western civilization, and nothing else! This absolute assumption of western civilization manifested itself in France in the 18th century. Unfortunately, when we use the word “civilized ", we mean the so-called superior western civilization. Experience tells me that, although during the past thirty years, the spread of hatred by supporters of clashes between Islam and the West has grown, willingness for closeness and common understanding between religions and civilizations has not been destroyed. Today, Islamic studies are seriously followed in the West. When issues like production and distribution of the blasphemous film occur, we must not forget that there are people who, with pure intentions, have spent tens of years building communication bridges between religions and preparing the grounds for dialogue among civilizations.
There are numerous challenges facing the dialogue among civilizations. Many outside the western world believe that dialogue is a western matter and as soon as they start the dialogue, they are participating in globalization, the first results of which would be the elimination of cultural and civilization differences. In fact, part of the Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa believe that they should not force their religion and civilization towards dialogue with western civilization, for this would mean the integration of Islamic civilization with western civilization and the West's dominance over the Islamic world. What is your opinion in this regard?
What you refer to is, to some extent, understandable and of course needs some thinking. But, in my opinion, what you stated is not correct. The Holy Qur'an says: "و شاورهم فی الامر ". This verse is related to political issues but, in general, we must consult in all matters. But in the Qur'an and Islamic traditions, there are many references to dialogue. Dialogue has always existed in our civilization. I, myself, have lived my life in creating dialogue among religions and believe that the Holy Qur'an guides us towards having dialogue and we must be able to talk with western civilization, without being dominated by them.