Peace and Security Cluster, 7 Sept. 2004 Asia-Europe People's Forum.

Peace and Security Cluster, 7 Sept. 2004 Asia-Europe People's Forum.

DIALOGUE OF CIVILISATIONS, CULTURES AND RELIGIONS IN EUROPE AND ASIA

Hegemony and Civilisation Interaction

by Chandra Muzaffar
JUST, Malaysia

I shall begin with some general observations about the concept of civilisational interaction.
How hegemony impacts upon civilisational interaction will become clear in the course of my
analysis.
Civilisations as such do not interact with one another. It is groups and individuals within one
religious or civilisational community that interact with groups and individuals within another
religious or civilisational community. Most of the time these interactions have been peaceful.
Indeed, they often revolve around concerns which are not religious or civilisational in the
way in which these terms are understood. In most multi-religious societies for instance it is
the ordinary transactions of life which almost always engage the attention and the energies of
individuals and groups from different religious backgrounds as they interact with one another
in the private realm or in the public square.
Even when religions or civilisations appear to be in conflict, the conflicts seldom stem from
matters pertaining to religious doctrine or religious practice. In fact, what have been
described as ‘religious conflicts’ are often rooted in political or economic causes. If
anything, they seem to centre around power and perceptions of power. Hence, the main
thesis of this presentation : to understand the relationship between one religion or
civilisation and another, one has to understand their power relationship. Nowhere is this
better illustrated than in the encounter between Islam and the West : that one civilisational
encounter which has had – and which will continue to have – the greatest impact upon the
destiny of the human race.

Emerging Power
To grasp the dynamic of the encounter between Islam and the West, one has to begin at the
beginning. When Islam emerged in the Arabian Peninsula in the early part of the seventh
century, it questioned some of the principal tenets of the Christian faith such as the Trinity,
the status of Jesus as the son of God, the crucifixion and the resurrection and yet there was no
bloody conflict between the two religions. On the contrary, the Prophet Muhammad (May
peace be upon him) through the famous Charter of Medina recognized that Christians had
rights and responsibilities that were equal to those bestowed upon the Muslims. He also
offered protection to the Christian monks living in the midst of the nascent Muslim
community, and their monastery, in a treaty he forged with them called the Treaty of Najran.
It was only a hundred years or so after the Prophet’s death in 632 A.D. that Christian attitudes
towards Islam began to change dramatically. Islam had defeated the Eastern Roman
Christian Empire and replaced Christianity all along the Mediterranean and North Africa
right up to Spain. The new religion was now a world power and this created anger and
bitterness within the elite stratum of the vanquished Christian community. By the end of the
eighth century – as the late scholar-diplomat, Erskine Childers once observed – Islam was
already being portrayed in Christian literature as a violent religion spread by the sword. Of
course, such a distorted portrayal camouflaged the real reasons for the rapid spread of the
religion.

According to the British writer, H.G. Wells, Islam prevailed, "because it was the best social
and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically
apathetic peoples, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganized and it found
selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest,
freshest and cleanest political idea that had yet come into actual activity in the world and it
offered better terms than any other to the masses of mankind."

The Crusades
But the power and potency of Islam reflected in its accomplishments in medicine and the
sciences, commerce and culture, only served to further fuel the hatred and antagonism of
Christian elites especially in Europe towards the religion. It reached a crescendo with the
crusades that Church leaders, backed by kings and princes, dukes and barons in Europe
launched against Islam and Muslim lands. Starting in 1095 and stretching for almost two
hundred years, the primary objective of the crusades was to recapture Jerusalem for
Christianity. However, except for a period of 92 years, Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands
until the early part of the twentieth century. The failure to regain control over Jerusalem and
indeed, the failure of the crusades as a whole, exacerbated negative feelings towards Islam
within Christian Europe to a point where religious prejudices became deeply entrenched in
the psyche of the people. It was obvious that by the end of the thirteenth century, the
phenomenon that is known in modern parlance as ‘Islamophobia’ was very much a part of the
European worldview.

Colonialism
It was partly because of the fear of Islamic power and the desire to crush it at all costs, that
European elites embarked upon their colonial conquests. From the end of the fifteenth
century till the middle of the twentieth century, European colonial powers – now
scientifically and militarily more advanced than the Muslims - conquered and ruled one
Muslim country after another. Colonial dominance, needless to say, widened the chasm
between the coloniser and the colonised. The subjugated Muslims who were now powerless
began to develop antagonistic attitudes towards Europe and Christianity.
In the Middle East in particular, colonial subjugation generated feelings of betrayal and
humiliation among the Muslims which had no parallel elsewhere. Under the Sykes-Picot
Agreement of 1916, the British and the French colonizers decided to carve out significant
chunks of Arab territory for themselves – after the British had promised the Arabs that they
would be given Independence if they helped them to defeat the Ottoman Empire. It is a
betrayal that the Arabs have not forgotten. Neither have they forgotten the humiliation that
they suffered when the British through the 1917 Balfour Declaration promised the Jews of
Europe that they would be given ‘a Jewish Home’ in Palestine - a land which the
indigenous Palestinians had tilled for thousands of years. It is this betrayal and humiliation
that Osama bin Laden referred to in a video tape broadcast over Al-Jazeera shortly after
September 11. In his words, "Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and this
degradation for more than 80 years."

Hegemony
Even in the post-colonial era, Western dominance of much of the Middle East has continued.
The United States, as a case in point, exercises inordinate control over the oil producing Gulf
Sheikhdoms. There is no need to emphasise that it is oil, more than anything else, which has
driven Washington to exercise hegemonic power over the region. Its invasion and occupation
of Iraq and even its war on Afghanistan and the extension of its tentacles over the Central
Asian republics and the Caspian Sea are proof of this. Of course, Israel and Zionism have
also played a major role in pushing US foreign policy in the Middle East in the direction of
greater hegemonic control.
Since occupation of territory is the starkest expression of hegemonic power, one can argue
that both the Israeli occupation of Palestine and now the US occupation of Iraq, have created
tremendous anger and resentment against the occupying states among Arabs in the Middle
East and Muslims in general. So has the establishment of US military bases in various
countries in the region. Remember, it was the establishment of a US military base in Dharan,
Saudi Arabia, following the 1991 Gulf War which triggered off Osama’s hostility towards the
US – a nation with whose Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) he enjoyed close ties in the
eighties when they were both working together to defeat the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. In a sense, even the other dimensions of US hegemony, especially its cultural
manifestations, have evoked strong negative reactions from significant segments of the
community. Here again, let us recall the way in which one of the leading Bali bombers,
Amrozi, inveighed against Western cultural imperialism during his recent trial in Indonesia.

Violence
A fringe within the global Muslim community has chosen to respond to US hegemony and
Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people through violence and terror. In the reckoning of
these fringe elements, killing civilians is legitimate as long as it serves their cause. Even if
their strategy brings some immediate gains, what they do not realize is that it will not succeed
in destroying the structures of power that sustain global hegemony. More specifically, by
destroying the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York on 11th September 2001, Osama and
the AL-Qaeda have not made a dent upon the global economic system. By damaging the
Pentagon , they have not been able to curb the expansion of US global military power since
911. Similarly, the bombing of a night-club in Bali on 12th October 2002 has not stemmed
the tide of so-called ‘decadent Western cultural influences’ from overwhelming Indonesia
and other Asian countries.
Besides, the deliberate killing of civilians in pursuit of one’s political goals is anathema to
Islamic teachings. For in Islam even when one is resisting aggression and oppression one
should not harm non-combatants, or children or women or the elderly or the infirm. Indeed,
the religion demands that Muslim soldiers engaged in warfare protect even livestock and
vegetation. This is why leading Muslim theologians had condemned not only 911 but also
the Bali Bombing and other such episodes. In this regard, it is important to recollect that at
the height of the struggle against colonialism, most Islamic oriented movements had refrained
from murdering the innocent because of their fidelity to Islamic ethics. Even when they
captured soldiers of the colonial army, they often treated them with decent respect. In this
connection, we should remind ourselves of an episode in the film ‘The Lion of the Desert’
when the followers of Umar Mukhtar, the morally upright leader of the Libyan resistance
against Italian colonial rule, seek his permission to apply to the Italian soldiers they had taken
captive, the same torture techniques that the Italians had meted out to the Libyans. Umar
rebukes his followers with these words, "Why should you emulate your conquerors? They
are not your teachers."

It is not just the terror tactics of militant groups such as Al-Qaeda that make them so
abhorrent. These groups subscribe to a Manichean worldview which divides the inhabitants
of the planet into ‘virtuous Muslims’ who will triumph in their struggle against ‘evil infidels’
who should be eliminated. Their views on women, law, culture and pre-Islamic history are
equally repugnant and retrogressive. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan for instance which
hosted Al-Qaeda epitomized this sort of bigoted, extremist, atavistic approach to Islam –
which was why it was shunned by the Muslim world. Only 3 out of the 57 member states of
the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) – namely, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) – recognized the Taliban regime when it was in power from
1996 to 2001.

Just Relationship
But the tragedy is that in a hegemonic global system in which gross injustices have become
so pronounced, terror groups like Al-Qaeda have a constituency – especially when peaceful,
non-violent ways of combating hegemonic power have yet to capture the popular
imagination. No Arab or Muslim government or leader has come up with a viable alternative
to the viciousness of violence. What is worse, the vast majority of them are totally
subservient to Washington’s dictates. The UN too has been utterly helpless in the face of US
hegemony. Even global civil society, for all its potential, could not stop the US and Britain
from going to war against Iraq—a war which the late Edward Said described as "arguably the
most unpopular and unjust war in history."
Nonetheless, it is within global civil society that there is greatest awareness of, and the
strongest determination to act against, hegemonic power. There are scores of activists and
intellectuals all over the world who realize that hegemony is inimical to inter-religious and
inter-civilisational amity and accord. For hegemony breeds imperial hubris which in turn
induces the hegemon to adopt a condescending, often supercilious, attitude towards those
who are the victims of its dominance and control. Besides, there is always a tendency on the
part of the hegemon to use its dominant power to coerce others to submit to its might.
Though the victims of hegemonic power often surrender to the will and the wish of the
hegemon, it creates resentment, anger and hatred among them. What this means is that if the
hegemon has no respect for its victims since they are subservient to its will, neither do the
victims have any regard for the hegemon whom they view as a bully and even as a tyrant.
Needless to say, these negative attitudes on both sides do not conduce towards the building of
bridges between religions and civilisations. There is no need to emphasise that it is only
when the power relationship between religions and civilisations becomes more equal and
therefore more just, that the encounters between them will also become less antagonistic and
more amicable.
This is why the US should cease to be a hegemonic power in the Middle East and elsewhere.
There is no reason why a nation which has size and strength on its side should be hegemonic.
It is important to observe in this connection that past and present leaders of China have
always understood and appreciated this point. A little more than a year before his death, the
distinguished Chinese scholar-statesman, Chou En Lai, reiterated his opposition to hegemony
in a memorable conversation with the Japanese intellectual, Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. He remarked,
"China will never become a superpower, I believe ... But if some day in the future it should
and if it seeks to dominate the world, I would hope that the people of the world would join
hands with the people of China to topple that regime."

Transforming Religion
Of course, if hegemonic relationships cease to exist between religions and civilizations there
is no guarantee that genuine peace and harmony will prevail – if by peace and harmony we
mean a condition that goes beyond the lessening of inter-religious antagonisms or the mere
reduction of global tensions. Religions in particular will have to undergo a profound
transformation if they are to play a major role as a positive force for global peace. All
religions—or more precisely their interpreters and adherents - without exception will have to
become less exclusive and more inclusive, less sectarian and more universal, less ritual
oriented and more values based in their approach and orientation.
The imperative need for a more inclusive, universal, values based approach to religion is
underscored by the increasing influence of the exclusive, sectarian, ritual oriented
interpretation of religion in the contemporary world. This is one of the most formidable
challenges confronting almost every religion. In Hinduism for instance the narrow Hindutva
ideologues with their chauvinistic articulation of the religion are seeking to repudiate the
inherent universalism of the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a small segment of
the clergy is now attempting to present the religion in dogmatic terms – thus betraying the allembracing
enlightenment of its founder. Within the Jewish community there are Rabbis who
have adopted a bellicose stance towards the ‘infidels’ without any regard for some of the
universal notions of justice contained in Judaism. Some Christian evangelists today are
trapped in a distorted, perverted understanding of the religion which negates Jesus’ central
message of love and mercy for the whole of humanity. Likewise, among Muslims, as we
have seen, there are bigoted elements who are trying to hijack a religion whose very name is
linked to peace and which describes God as ‘The Compassionate and The Merciful’ in every
Chapter of the Quran.
It is only too apparent that there is a struggle of singular significance unfolding within each
and every religion. It is a struggle that has serious implications for inter-religious encounters.
For those who subscribe to an exclusive view of religion have very little interest in
communicating with the religious ‘other’ let alone establishing empathy with her. Those who
espouse an inclusive approach to religion, on the other hand, are willing to transcend
religious boundaries and embrace the whole of humanity - especially in their quest for
universal justice and dignity.
This shows that the encounters between religions and civilizations in the future will be
determined to some extent at least by the struggles taking place within religions and
civilisations today. There is no reason to doubt that this will also be true of the encounter
between Islam and the West.