Introduction of the Dialogue of Civilizations:
Just as the pursuit of mono-cultural, single religion, territorial and oppositional states has proven problematic since the demise of the Middle Ages, so has the increasingly singular pursuit of the American example of democracy for the post-Cold War world in the twenty-first century. The American type of democracy may function within certain societies with special conditions, but it is not the only or exemplary way to achieve a peaceful, productive, pluralistic and culturally dynamic society. After the refutation of the Clash of civilizations, there was the introduction of a wiser theory from the Muslims by Sayyed M. Khatami. The call was made prominent by the Iranian President in his keynote address at the opening of the United Nation in 1999. This call for a grand dialogue at the demise of the 20th and the inauguration of the 21st century was timely. Cultures have already encountered each other on religious journeys, modern holidays and vacations, military conquests, business transactions and intellectual exchanges and excursions.
The idea of the Dialogue of Civilizations cannot be rejected by a humble civilized human being, nor disapproved by an astutely religious individual. One should get beyond the various forms of contemporary fundamentalism and extremism wherever possible. Muslims today should operate with epistemological modesty, as no one can deny that great civilizations have been built by wise non-fundamentalist leaders like the Greeks, Chinese, Persian and Muslims.
The Qur’anic principle supports such a civilized approach, and we may quote the following Qur’aic verses:
"إذ قال لصاحبه وهو يحاوره، أكفرت .... الآية."
“His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?” Qur'an 18:37
"أدع الى سبيل ربك بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة وجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن."
“Invite to the Way of the Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching."
Qur'an 16:125
Also in a narration we read:
"إن الحكمة ضالة المؤمن، فحيث وجدها ألتقطها، فهو أحق بها."[1]
“Wisdom is the ultimate goal of the believer, and wherever he finds it, it is his prerogative to acquire it, as he deserves it more than anybody else.”
Many Muslims among the religious minorities seem to have succeeded in dealing with cultural contradictions presented by others, and in conceiving themselves in tolerant, complex and realistic terms. Also, religious minorities, such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, live in a number of Islamic countries, and for instance in I. R. Iran under the Wilayat Faqih regulations are a model of cosmopolitanism. Yet superiority is still not manifested in each and every different way. These religious minorities, for example, don't pay the jizyah (the religious taxation upon non-Muslims within an Islamic State), while maintaining the application of the Islamic Shari'ah Law. Some of them are not so favoured in other Islamic countries.
On the other hand, some Muslim communities living in the Free-World do not share an elevated position within the society, and are deprived of certain rights in a smooth smart way. Some of them have, consequently, remained on the hard shoulder of the main highway. The reasons are many and varied; some stemming from psychological seclusion, stigmatization of faith and humiliation of their holy figures during the last few decades. Appropriateness of the society's popular faith, such as Christianity, is so excessively focused and extremely emphasized to possibly cause a number of civilisational conversions, despite being increasingly abhorrent to the Muslim community. These social limitations, which have caused a number of nominal conversions to Christianity or other faiths, have had a negative impact on the status of sociology of the Free-World, regardless and notwithstanding its positive attributes.
The exclusion, conversion and attempted elimination of Muslims sensibilities and devotion will not help any healthy society to flourish. Rather it contributes to the instability of free societies. It is, therefore, wise to promote the Dialogue of Civilizations in order to minimize tensions and decrease elevated levels of confusion and misunderstanding. However, this peaceful idea, despite its many advantages, has not appeared to have been welcomed by arrogant individuals and atheistic Mega Powers.
An intellectual thinker marked the idea with a presentation designed to show that we are in a transitional phase from the "Rise and Fall" model to the "Dialogue" model. According to him:
“The implications are far reaching, not the least, a new understanding of civil society, cultural achievements by human beings of different nationalities and cultural manifestations.” [2]
He also rightfully insists that Gibbon’s study on the Rise and Fall of Civilizations contributes to the topic of our discussion. He, therefore, advises a further study of the theory of ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’, as it lacks much sense without further investigation of the various technical terms implemented:
‘We must, in a dialogue of civilizations, investigate exactly, if historical records and archaeological evidence permit, why and how civilizations constitute themselves and fall apart and transform themselves into another form of civilization, or simple drop dead and become another chapter in the book on world history….
‘Much interdisciplinary research must be done in the Dialogue of Civilizations to achieve a kind of sense, so as to come to terms why and how any type of form of civilization emerges, flourishes, and ultimately dies.’[3]
While analyzing the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire – despite the fact that it had adopted the Christian religion - Gazo quoted Gibbons to blame the very same adopted religion as the main cause for its decline. He writes:
‘Gibbons, hitherto, is read for his literary style, for an example of the enlightenment attitude towards Rome and Christianity, and ultimately, for the Rise and Fall paradigm, inherent in his narrative. Of course, everyone somehow knowledgeable of a little historical reading knows Gibbons verdict: The basic reason for Rome’s fall and decline was Christianity.’[4]
It seems, as he, himself, realized, there is a fault in generalizing the cause to be a ‘Religion’ or any religion, and he could not help adding, therefore, that even Gibbons, the very same theoretician, cannot put Islam under the same category. However, he presented it in the form of a smart political manoeuvre:
Gibbons, as a figure from the enlightenment, needs no apology for his version of Rome and the Christian subversion. The enlightenment thinkers themselves were, as is well known, not positively inclined toward the Roman Catholic Church. Again it is no surprise that Gibbons and his friends should be benignly inclined toward Islam.’[5]
By these quotes we find ourselves not entrapped into rejecting the role of ideology or religion, especially Islam, as some previous American thinkers have, but rather encouraged to further study our theory as the workable alternative to the Marxist Material Contradiction, the New World Order and to both the Clash of Civilizations and the Dialogue of Civilizations.
