The Clash of Civilisations?
This week’s events in Libya have overshadowed the death of Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan.
Bhatti died in his car on Wednesday, cut down in a hail of bullets.
Bhatti was a Christian, and a committed one at that – you have to be in Pakistan. He was the first Christian to take the post as the Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs in Pakistan. He campaigned to protect minorities from the excesses of Sharia Law. In 2002 he banned the expropriation of property of minorities under investigation by law enforcement officials. He promoted campaigns for interfaith harmony. He succeeded in achieving prayer rooms for non Muslims in prisons. He proposed courses on comparative religions be run in schools, and more.
But it seems likely that his fate was sealed by his campaign against Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws, which can carry the death penalty.
He foresaw his own fate, and spoke of the forces he knew were plotting against him.
Despite that, he carried on.
As columnist Peter Preston wrote this week,
Bhatti’s assassination is in bleak and bloody counterpoint to the to the dignity and unity with which Egyptian people mounted their semi revolution, Christian (for there is a significant Christian Coptic minority) and Muslim, men and women, united in largely non violent protest and which speaks of a progressive and democratic future.
Bhatti’s fate highlights a dark strand of ideology within Islamic thinking, the strict and fundamentalist Wahhabism which demands the re-instatement of the Caliphate and the suppression and persecution of all non believers.
Let me let me be very clear that I am specifically referring only to this interpretation of Islam. I have had the pleasure of passing through many parts of the world which although devoutly Islamic are as tolerant and open minded as the west.
But the Wahhabist ideology strain is aggressive, virulent and brutal.
It is this ideology which finds its poster boy in Osama Bin Laden and its expression through Al Quada and the Taliban (who have claimed responsibility for Bhatti’s death).
It is a powerful ideology because of its rigidity, simplicity and clarity – utter obedience to the will of God as expressed in the Koran – its sense of the legitimacy of violence in support of this moral certainty, and its belief in supremacy over the non believer. These are the classic components of ideologies which throughout history have proved seductive, particularly to the male psyche, and which inevitably result in calamitous, indiscriminate bloodshed. One might say the same, for example, of Nazism.
It appeals to the poor, the ignorant and the disenfranchised because its speaks of riches in the afterlife and payback to the perceived oppressor and “the foreigner”; it can attract the criminal and the wastrel with its sense redemption, brotherhood and purpose; and it plays to the ego of the intellectual and the former playboy such as Bin Laden himself with its sense of moral superiority and, I suspect, the power and glamour which comes with instilling fear.
Although this strand of ideology is most perhaps most violently expressed at the moment in Pakistan and Afghanistan, its wellspring is Saudi Arabia. The supposed stability of the Saudi state had long been the product of an unholy horse trade. The ruling family have power and unlimited riches; the mullahs are given freedom to preach fundamentalist Islam, and more, to fund the Madrassas of Pakistan and elsewhere. The West has turned a blind eye, dependant on its fix of oil.
A few years ago the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington advanced a theory popularly known as “the Clash of Civilisations.” In crude terms, he argued that in the post Cold War world, the predominant conflict would break out between cultures, rather than between the great ideologies of Capitalism and Communism. This theory has been interpreted as meaning in particular that there is going to be a head on clash, an ultimate showdown, between “Islam” and what may loosely be called “the West.”
It has been fashionable to decry that analysis, particularly amongst the leftist intelligentsia, ever paralysed by guilt over “imperialism.”
I am afraid that I find it all too real and likely. The civilisation of the West is soaked in blood and religious bigotry to be sure; but Christianity is tempered by the New Testament, which does not preach the annihilation of the none believer. And further, with the intellectual furnace of the Enlightenment the West has moved on, although ultimately ending up in the hands of some in the muddled moral relativism of the modern liberal elite.
This, though, is an issue which does not permit of moral relativism.
The democratic, tolerant and largely secular state cannot co-exist with this version of Islam, because their true values are inimical. The true values of the West – freedom of thought, freedom to choose, freedom to mock, freedom to be wrong, freedom to determine one’s own destiny, freedom to choose who rules, freedom to be gay or straight – are inimical to the values of Wahhabism. In this ideology “Islam” means “submission” both metaphorically and literally. Submission to the will of God. Democracy, self determination and tolerance of opposing views are thus by definition blasphemy and heretical must be treated accordingly.
Europe and Britain are no longer culturally and physically divorced from the threat of Wahhabism. This week, for example, sees the conclusion of evidence in the inquest of those tragically killed in the bomb blasts of July 7th 2005; a direct expression of fundamentalist rage perpetrated by citizens of this country.
The very significant levels of immigration from the Asian subcontinent over the past few decades have created significant Muslim populations with strong roots in Pakistan and Pakistani culture. In some parts of the country these are not minority communities. With trends in births, these communities will continue to grow in proportion to the rest of the population.
Neither can the West be divorced economically. As the tsunami of popular revolt sweeps through the Arab world, the price of petrol rises inexorably. Those ripples already lap upon the Saudi shore, and if the Saudi oil supply falls into chaos the effect will be drastic.
Will the “Arab Spring” bring more freedom, democracy and humanity for the peoples of the Arab world, or provide the Trojan Horse for men such as the murderers of Shahbaz Bhatti?
I suggest “the Clash of Civilisations” is a misnomer. There is a clash between “Civilisation”, including Arab and Asian on the one hand, and “The Uncivilised” on the other. It is taking place now, at home and abroad.
It will not be won by military means.
It will be the defining struggle of the 21st Century.
Gildas the Celibate Monk
March 6, 2011 at 03:06
-
deep and serious topic this…….
but the essential point is that many of the tenets of Islam are inimical to
the modern liberal democratic principles of the west. Why western liberals do
not denounce Islam at every turn is a complete mystery to me. The traditional
treatment of women by Islam should be enough to convince anyone that there is
no moral equivalence with modern western values.
It is a clash of civilisations – and until a significant number of Muslim
theologians lead their own enlightenment I am afraid we are in for many years
of death and bloodshed.
The “Arab Spring” I am afraid is vastly over-hyped by the western
media.
- March 5, 2011 at 17:57
-
Christians in Egypt are being killed and churches burnt, just like in other
Muslim countries.
MUSLIMS TORCH CHURCH IN EGYPT, SOME FEAR WITH WORSHIPPERS INSIDE……
and more here
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=31238
- March
5, 2011 at 17:47
-
“Gildas the Celibate Monk”
Are not all monks in this condition?
- March 5, 2011 at 21:00
-
A good point, and kind of an in joke.
- March 5, 2011 at 13:11
-
I have to disagree in as much as I see the Arab Spring as you call it in a
totally different light. Neither Mubarak nor Gadaffi are Wahhabists. Sure
their rule was based on a continuous abuse of power but it was not inspired by
a convenient belief in a deity. I do agree that the Saudi royal family came
into power by a bunch of bandits joining up with a fundamentalist Muhammad Ibn
‘Abd al-Wahhab around 250 yrs ago. Osama bin Laden was a billionaire Saudi who
used his money to further his very narrow version of Wahhabism. Narrow in that
it is essentially directed against the US, rather then against all
non-believers.
The Spring is simply hope that springs eternal – in this case hope of being
able to enjoy at least some form of democracy. If you like it’s base is
spiritualism rather than faith. I do not see a real danger of Islamist
extremism replacing despotism
But I do agree with your comments on Shahbaz Bhatti. He was very rare. A
mix of honor, courage and principle. The world should mourn his passing.
-
March 5, 2011 at 14:33
-
No I am not suggesting that they were; my point is only that we do not
know where these “popular uprisings” will lead in due course. We hope for
the best, but will they open the door to extremism?
Thanks for the
constructive comments
- March 5, 2011 at 10:05
-
All religions stem from the same principles, and generally from Paganism,
so why did some grow up while others didn’t?
Although i know a few
Christians who have still got some way to go. But these days they generally
don’t hack you death, they blog you to death instead.
-
March 5, 2011 at 12:18
- March 4, 2011 at 21:02
-
My comment was intended for Electro Kevin…!
- March 4, 2011 at 20:52
-
The conflicts to which you allude are attributable to human nature – not
biblical Christianity : they were usually about political power and control.
Your assertion, I suspect, is an expression of a value judgement rather than
detailed historical understanding…
- March 4, 2011 at 20:46
-
Please may I offer the following link which is interesting but pretty long.
Apologies if it is well known to all of you.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
- March 6, 2011 at 03:13
-
interesting paper – thanks for sharing!
- March 4, 2011 at 20:12
-
Christianity has evolved over centuries to the moderate and tolerant form
it has today. Islam is 500 years behind and is going through the same
perturbations. But their modern-age Crusade/Jihad is regrettably not
restricted to swords and pikes.
-
March 4, 2011 at 20:22
-
Also important. When “one” constructs these posts “one” (awful phrase) is
aware that it is necessary to be short on topics which need considered
thought. Indeed there have been times when aspects of the Islamic world have
been the leading force in terms of mathematics, philosophy and tolerance.
But it has fallen back.
Why? Worth a book, not a humble blog
post.
Thank you for your comment and insight.
G
- March 5, 2011 at 09:30
-
Good point: 500 years ago the Portuguese, for instance, were busy
slaughtering Muslims for no other reason than they weren’t Christians.
However, Christianity, for all its evolution, is still plagued by extremists
and fundamentalists and you have to remember that even in Islam, the
fundamentalists are small minority, just a well-funded, violent and vocal
one.
- March 4, 2011 at 20:11
-
@annaraccoon2010 Hello from the Abbey! As per instructions…
-
March 4, 2011 at 20:05
-
“The civilisation of the West is soaked in blood and religious bigotry to
be sure; but Christianity is tempered by the New Testament, which does not
preach the annihilation of the none believer.”
A contradiction here. If the West has been soaked in blood and religious
bigotry it can’t be tempered because of the advent of the New Testament. St
Paul can be very damning.
Chrisitianity is tempered because the people here are too free and
enlightened to carry on believing its literal meaning. Even dedicated
Christian adherents pay lip service to it openly stating that the messages are
merely allegorical and symbolic – hence their flexibility when it comes to
homosexuality or the ordination of women.
The problem with the Islamists is a refusal on their part to believe other
than that theirs is the one and only truth.
Until they can be persuaded not to be so literal then we’re stuck with it,
I’m afraid.
In view of the fact that Christianity opened itself to introspection before
Darwinisn and has since adapted to science, we can assume that Islam is not
going to take the same path that Christianity did – particularly as they
continue to ignore imeasurable scientific proofs and advances that Christians
were not privvy to.
Hard religions refuse to grow up. This is entrenched tribalism cultivated
by religious leaders who guard their powers jealously.
-
March 4, 2011 at 20:15
-
An interesting and important insight!
- March 4, 2011 at 19:51
-
You have explained this so well – yet many fail to understand.
- March 4, 2011 at 19:51
-
When you consider that Wahhabism progressed because of Saudi oil – too much
money given to the arabs for nothing, leaving them with nothing to do other
than follow religion to its extremes – we now find ourselves paying to support
them plotting our downfall.
Not pleasant thoughts at all.
- March 5, 2011 at 07:51
-
You do not think for one second, that the westminster dictatorships drive
against alcohol has the SLIGHTEST thing to do with their concern for public
health, do you?
Of course not. It is to please the money givers from Saudi. So that the
oil stays (relatively) cheap, and they keep buying the weapons that the
dictatorship are refusing your own troops.
- March 5, 2011 at 12:12
-
Agreed, it doesn’t have anything to do with public health. But it has
nothing to do with pleasing the Saudis. They don’t care who we are so long
as we pay them loads of wonga. They aren’t so scrupulous, unlike us who
have the left leaning politically correct guilt ridden socialits acting as
our ethical brain (or lack of) who can easily be lead into being useful idiots.
The alcohol banning is all to do with puritianism. See all the other
bannings that are going on. Smoking, eating, driving, photography, etc.
It’ll be living that’s banned next.
As Dick Puddlecoat says, you can’t allow them to ban one
thing because they’ll just go on to the next. Either you have to ban
everything or nothing, there is no half-way house.
- March 4,
2011 at 18:58
-
Excellent post!
I fear you are right, too. It seems we are cursed to live in interesting
times..
{ 23 comments }