|
Muslim-christian dialogue
Hüdaverdi Adam[*]
It is still not possible to offer a generally agreed upon definition of globalization, despite its having been one of the most popular subjects of discussion since the end of the last century.
As a term, globalization has its equivalents in all Western languages. Its dictionary meaning is “embracing the whole world” or “applicable to the whole world.” In this sense, it is a concept that has to be considered in connection with virtually every area of life. What we want to do in this paper is to try to understand Said Nursi’s views on globalization in the context of Muslim-Christian dialogue, and to study dialogue within this framework.
* * *
Islam is a system that establishes the balance between individual rights and freedoms, and social order and harmony, and preserves that balance. The word Islam is derived from the word “silm,” which originally meant a high rock on which shepherds would put their provisions so as to be out of reach of animals. The rocks could be climbed by ladders. The word “sullam” means the ladder they would make by tying together the branches of trees. Later the word “salâm”, meaning security or soundness, began to be used as a greeting. Once two nomads used this greeting on meeting, they could not harm one another even if there was a blood feud between them. As for the Qur’an, it commands that everyone both gives and returns this greeting, thus imposing a general peace. Previously, the normal state had been one of war and peace was the exception; Islam made peace the norm, and war the exception. That is, formerly people would make peace if there was a reason for it, otherwise they were at war. Then Islam ordered war if there was a cause for it, otherwise people were to live in peace.
As is well-known, there are two fundamental laws in force in living beings; one is the law of conflict whereby beings always contend with one another and the weak are eaten, and the strong feed on the weak, grow fat and thrive. The balance here is established on a conflict of interests. It is called ‘the system of force.’
On the other hand, there is co-operation and mutual assistance between many living beings. For instance, human cells do not clash although they are all different living beings; on the contrary, they exist supporting each other. We call this “the system of rights.” That is, each being receives its due without clash or conflict. Joint living allows for development and preservation. The principle of ‘parallel interests’ is in force here.
Islam wants all mankind to live in a state of co-operation and for there to be no conflict of interests between people. However, it states that anyone who does not accept this system and causes conflict should be met with equal force.
Islam introduced four mechanisms to ensure the balance between individual rights and freedoms and social order and harmony. These are the institutions of interpretation of the law (ijtihâd), arbitration, contract, and authority or power (imâra).
Animate beings other than man either devote themselves entirely to their collectivities their groups meet all their needs, as with bees. Marx proposed system like this for humanity; or each individual being lives its own life governed by its instincts and it meets its own needs, like the system Adam Smith proposed.
The system Islam introduced is a synthesis of these two types of life. That is, on the one hand it protects the rights and liberties of individuals like the animals that live freely and independently, and on the other it secures the ordered harmony of the collectivity like the social animals. There are no animate beings other than men that live in this way. The above-mentioned four institutions that Islam introduced to ensure this are not found among the animals. They have no interpretation of the law, contracts, or arbitration, but they may have leaders. Only there are differences between human leaders and animal ones. Human beings may change theirs; if the decisions of the person in power turn out to be harmful, people can apply to the arbitrators to rectify the situation.
People are not free by being told they are thus; on the contrary, they are only free if they are free to act as they wish. They have therefore to be given the opportunity to exercise their freedom. Society gives this. That is to say, in Islam society or the group exists not to restrict individual freedom but to allow the possibility of its being exercised. It is because of this that the state is not “the ruler” but “the servant.”
According to the system of ijtihâd, people can live and work according to their own rules, thus preserving their freedom and rights. Society cannot interfere in these rules. They themselves however are obliged to abide by them once they have laid them down, for in this way social order is maintained. People themselves know who did what when, and how they should behave. They thus are protected from their harms and may benefit from their advantages. It was for this reason that Allah laid down his laws that are known as the laws of nature.
It is only by virtue of this that we can benefit from our environment and preserve ourselves from harmful things. For if fire sometimes burned us and sometimes warmed us, we could neither protect ourselves from being burnt nor heat ourselves. Similarly, if people did not have good characters and did not act according to fixed rules, we would not be able to profit from them or to defend ourselves against their harm. Westerners call this system democracy, which means the people governing themselves.
There are four proofs or evidences (dalîl) in the interpretation of the law (ijtihâd) that Islam introduced: the Qur’an, the Sunna of the Prophet, consensus (ijmâ) and analogy (qiyâs). However, each person is responsible and answerable only to God for conforming with these or not conforming. If a person declares that he has made an interpretation of the law, society does not interfere with him and demand proof. This is a matter of great importance in life.
Regular, ordered behaviour creates a better system. If a person regularly bathes once a week, when the time for a bath comes he starts to itch. And a person who is accustomed to eating at the same time, feels hungry when the time comes round. And the bodies of those who poison themselves by smoking also get accustomed to the habit. This means that even bad habits have to be ordered and regular so that the body functions properly. Regular behaviour applies not only to harmonious social behaviour, therefore, all the cells of the human body also act in regular and ordered fashion.
Beings passing from a condition in which there is no co-operation between them although they resemble one another to another in which they do co-operate and are in more need of each other although there is no resemblance between them is called evolution. Social evolution began after the appearance of humankind. This is a progression from people being isolated and separate towards their living together and assisting one another. The only means ensuring this is ‘free contract.’ This is a rule particular to human beings. By means of these contracts new partnerships are constantly formed. Those who are successful as a result of these experiments become models for others, and the experiments become widely applied. When in the course of time they become obsolete and fail to meet people’s needs, new experiments, new assemblages develop. There is no other species of animate creature that experiences social evolution and therefore none has free contracts. Islam introduced these contracts together with the institution of ijtihâd.
When people lived their lives separately and apart, their needs all differed, but when they started to live together their needs increased. Such problems as health and environmental problems emerged and came to threaten all humanity. We can only find the solutions to such problems through co-operation and working together. Ijtihâd and contracts can also be utilized. For instance, it is no use preventing environmental pollution by means of prohibitions. Solutions may be found by utilizing free contracts and founding trusts and co-operating and pooling efforts.
Islam laid down certain rules for contracts. The community cannot uphold contracts that are contrary to laws established through consensus. But it may uphold through co-operation those that conform to them. Thanks to co-operation, if a person suffers injustice in a society, it is accepted as having been inflicted on all and it is jointly removed and reparation is made. The community is ruled by contracts, not by individuals.
All sides are completely free when a contract is drawn up, and once it is concluded it has authority and everyone is obliged to abide by it. However, if its meaning is unclear, it is subject to ijtihâd. All those bound by the contract, interpret it as they apply it. Here too the rule of ijtihâd is in force. No one may dictate to others and no one is bound to follow someone else’s interpretation. However, there may those who suffer injustice as a result. Moreover, people have rights and duties over and above the contract, and they have natural rights in addition to the rights gained through the contract; rights arising from family relations, neighbours, and expended labour. The limits of these have to be defined. In the event of dispute an arbitrator is chosen. All sides abide by his decision. Since it is the sides in the dispute that chose the arbitrator, everyone’s rights and liberties are protected. And because they have to abide by his decision, the peace and order of society are preserved. In the West this is called the inviolability of the law. Westerners also believe that the law should be independent and unbiased. But they leave the decision-making to the judge’s conscience. Islam solved this problem with the arbitration system.
Moreover, a number of joint actions have to be performed in order both to protect people’s rights and freedoms, and to maintain the order and well-being of society. The main one is compelling those who do not abide by the arbitrator’s decision to do so. The people therefore chose a head both of the tribe and of the clan. Those who remain with the tribe and clan are bound to abide by the contracts ratified by their consensus. They continue to abide by them so long as they remain there. The chief takes decisions about the future. The arbitrators take decisions to remove the injustices of the past. The people chose the tribes and clans. That is to say, they can change tribe and clan without suffering any injustice. But they have to comply with the social order and chief’s decisions wherever they are. If anyone considers the decisions of the arbitrator or chief to be unjust, they migrate elsewhere. That is how democracy is established. According to these rules of ‘chiefship’ people have the right to establish new sites and to move from site to site. Thus, democracy is ensured by right to move when and where a person wants, not by elections once every five years.
Belief is a sense of responsibility; a person feeling responsible for his actions and preparing for the day when he will have to answer for them. This responsibility is before God. That is, sooner or later he will have to give account to God. However, He entrusted His rights to society, and people are responsible and answerable to society. This means being responsible to God. Nevertheless, everyone is answerable to God and not to individuals. To put it another way, everyone is responsible to society, they are not responsible to persons, even if it is the chief.
Islam means living in peace with others. Any disputes are solved by arbitrators. It is ‘parallel interests’ rather than ‘conflict of interests.’ It means that people do not interfere with one another. If people had been created to live separately, this would have been enough. But they were created to live within a collectivity while preserving their own characters. A person would not exist if he had no parents. Humans, many animals, and some plants reproduce. A chick hatches from the egg and itself grows. But mammals and birds raise and tend their young. Humans are completely different; the parents together raise the children till they are fifteen to twenty years old. They assist each other during difficult periods such as puberty or sickness. Then when they grow old, their children look after them. They practise co-operation and mutual assistance with their families throughout their lives.
People who live together with others socially are obliged to co-operate with the others in many respects. People also live together for defensive reasons. Their co-operation means that if one of their number suffer difficulties, all unite to remove them. If someone falls ill, his partners perform his tasks for him. Thus the ill have insurance. In sickness, war, and other calamities, people apply the principle: ‘If someone murders you today, tomorrow he may murder me. So I should help this disaster-stricken person so that tomorrow someone will help me.” This logic keeps the community going.
People have to act justly within the community if there is going to harmony and order. For justice, everyone is given duties according to their qualifications, authority according to their duties, responsibility according to their authority, and rights according to their responsibility. Thus, rights arise not from labour, but from responsibility. Social service is based on responsibility, not on labour.
Islam means being at peace, and belief leads to co-operation. In Sufism, a person surrenders to Allah and believing that both good and evil are from Him, is not unduly upset at the results of things, if bad; or unduly happy if they are good. He is happy or sad only to the extent he gains, or does not gain, God’s pleasure. He greets difficulties happily since he believes them to be a test in patience. The positive effects on health of belief are often forgotten. Excessive emotion wears out a person physically and mentally. A person’s health is tied to moderation. In the science of kalâm, belief in God and the hereafter is dealt with in accordance with the findings of positive science and belief in truth. That is, it is right and true to accept the findings of science. It is a part of belief to accept what is true, useful, just, and good, and face death even. It has laid down criteria for what is good. Existence is better than non-existence, balance is better than imbalance.
In politics, belief is not related solely to the rights of citizenship. If a person joins a community, he does so by trusting in it, that is, by believing in it. The citizenship that Islam accepts is based entirely on declaration (beyan). A person is whatever he says he is. If he says he is a Turk, he is a Turk. If he says he is Armenian, he is Armenian. And so on. Everyone has a personality and character as a human being. His rights are protected. An addressee is found, and there is a plaintiff and defendant. A person’s declaration about himself is sufficient for him to benefit from the rights proceeding from social groups. If his actions are contrary to this, the law decides. Chairmen or chiefs are named temporarily, but what is fundamental is his declaration. If anyone claims the opposite, he has to prove it. With regard to health, a person benefits from health rights of whatever community he joins, and takes on himself the attendant responsibilities.
Man has beeen given right of disposal over the face of the earth (mulk) in return for his cultivating it. Cultivation means making it possible for ever greater numbers of people to be supported during longer lifetimes. Thanks to this, men cultivated the earth and became civilized. Civilization is human and comprises the institutions of science, religion, economy, and government. Today, six thousand million people live on the earth, and this has been made possible through mankind cultivating it throughout history.
There are around a hundred countries on earth in which live people who share the same cultures. Co-operating, they defend their countries against outside enemies. Among living beings there is co-operation on the one hand and conflict on the other. The balance of life is established in this way. Other sorts of animate beings clash with members of other species and co-operate among themselves. Thus the balance of existence is preserved. But because the human species is very powerful, there is no other species to make it preserve the balance. Human beings are divided up into nations. There are clashes on an international scale and co-operation nationally. But if nations comply with legal systems and accept the rule of law, the earth is broad and the universe large; they can live without clashing with others. Mankind could never fill it. Nations have countries because they defend them against outside threats.
* * *
Globalization is one of the main topics of discussion at the present time, on the eve of the millennium, and in the debates of those claiming to read the future, the concepts associated with globalization are confused with one another.1 It is important therefore to clear this matter up.2
In distinction to such words as “post,” “turbo,” “progressive,” “developed,” and “supra,” widely used to describe the age we live in,3 globalization is a new term unrelated to any existent ones. It is true to say that there is no definition that everyone is agreed upon. This stems from the concept claiming to express both the current situation and a certain process.
Globalization as a concept, not the phenomenon itself, may be said to have been born on 20th June, 1969,4 when Neil Armstrong looked down on the earth as “a globe.” Then the debate on nuclear weapons that began in the 1970’s and events like Chernobil, were signs of globalization in respect of the threats and dangers it posed to the world. And with the revolution in information technology and spread of television the world shrank to become like a village. This was followed by such advances in technology as the computer, and in communications, with the telephone and Internet. The latest stages of the process have been marked by the effects of the above on business and financial circles, and on people’s life-styles.
What is usually understood by globalization is economic activities becoming interdependent on a world scale. When considered in this context, it is an economic and political project whereby capital, management, employment, information, natural resources, and organization all cease to be national and become completely interlinked on a world scale.5
When considered from this angle, the concept of globalization can be expressed in terms of five processes: the centralization of the means of credit and their distribution and use, and related to this the increased control of big finance over production; the increased importance of information and expert systems; the gradual increase in the importance of the global oligarchy; the emergence of a class of transnational businessmen; and the globalization of the nation-state, and the development of transnational diplomacy.6
For this reason, besides those who see globalization as “related to the processes of all the people in the world uniting in a single world society,” are those who try to explain it as “all the world crystallizing as a single village, the emergence of conditions conducive to global man and to a world consciousness.”7
Sociologically, globalization may be defined as “a process whose value system has not yet been found, in which local cultures are disappearing and traditional social bonds are dissolving, the defining power of nation-states is decreasing, all sorts of relations between groups and individuals are growing easier and more widespread, production and distribution are undergoing fresh transformations, the danger of the proliferation of social and inter-social conflict is greater than ever before, the importance of boundaries and traditional figures is decreasing, a new sort of individualism is developing, traditional social institutions are losing their functionality, and co-operation is lessening.”8
The salient characteristics of globalization, whose existence we accept, are such things as increase in trade and in foreign investments and the activities of multinationals; head-spinning advances in communications and transportation; the disappearance of limits on people, property, services, and capital; technology providing the opportunity to produce and market goods everywhere; the domination of Western culture; and uniformity and the emergence of single types.
Globalization is making the world into a single village in which the consumer sstereotypes, institutions and groups all resemble each other. In this sense, globalization is making everything uniform on a grand scale.9 In other words, it is making other life-styles more difficult. A process of everything becoming uniform is being experienced in numerous fields from eating habits to dress, and from amusements to leisure.
With globalization, multi-cultural societies are emerging, and although a tolerant attitude is dominant in social life, ethnic and cultural clashes are becoming more violent. Radicalizing modernity is causing a disintegration of society,10 but this is said to be an exception in the general process, with the main cause being fundamentalism, and chiefly Islam.
Efforts to build new communities combining all possible forms (localism-integrism), as well as religiosity and fundamentalism, are among the characteristics of the age in which we live. The first examples of ‘modern’ communities to spring to mind as confidence is lost in institutions in the West, are a type of Christianity divorced from the Church,11 Scientology,12 and the Moonies, while in the Islamic world an understanding of religion prevails that is mainly political, with a sort of partisanship particular to it.
Globalization foresees excessive individualism. With the breaking up of institutions like the family, village, and group with their solidarity and co-operation, moral and ethical references have become invalid, and the individual person now expects help or support from no one. In this situation, characterized by alienation, lack of confidence, and faceless relations, modern social life will be reordered in respect of time and space.13 The breakdown of traditional social relations and lack of confidence and anxiety becoming widespread on the personal level signals a considerable danger.14
As mobility increases with advances in communications and transportation, the bonds between individuals and their families and relatives, and native countries are weakening. What is important are universal, homogenous cultural values. Obsessions with national culture are incomprehensible in a world which is becoming a single market. The boundaries of social systems do not coincide with those of nation-states. In sociological analyses, it is no long possible for the phrase “Turkish society” to refer to the social structure formed of the people within the boundaries of Turkey.15
The individualism and disregard for social norms caused by globalization has ppaved the way for people losing their belief in social institutions and loosening their ties with them. The influence of all such institutions is decreasing. For globalization requires atomized individuals rather than institutions. For this reason, it is predicted that in the future it is more likely that authoritarian systems will maintain social unity.16
While Erol Güngör considers culture to be: “A combination of all the behavioural systems and material means a community utilizes as ways of solving their problems,”17 the simplest way of defining it is “the total legacy, material and non-material, that societies inherit from their histories.”
It is suggested that globalization signals the emergence of a “world culture” that will create uniform ways of life, at the base of which will be the national cultures it has eroded and destroyed, and which will guarantee world peace.18 Some data suggests clearly that they are faced with a process of assimilation that far exceeds the cultural diffusion of different worlds. Means of mass communication, tourism, lively world trade, and cultural circulation all indicate a move towards a universal, homogenous cultural structure at the base of which is Western culture. Generally accepted common values produced by the West such as humanism, opposition to racial discrimination, basic rights and liberties, political participation, and democracy have emerged in this process.19
It is felt that in this process the aim is to impose a new value-free culture, or religion even. Based on increased consumerism, this global mono-culture, taking in tow the means of mass communication, technology and capital, intends to eliminate national cultures, and moreover, says that this is in the best interests of mankind, and that mankind is bound to undergo this transformation and become uniform.
Culture is acquiring new means due to technological advances. On the one hand, these strengthen its power to express itself, while on the other it is spreading to ever greater numbers of people. If this situation does not balance itself out, means will replace ends; in fact, many things that are the end or aim of true culture are becoming the means of means.20 The modern individual is acquiring information by way of transfer, not through his own experiences. And this is achieved and shaped by the means of mass communication.
One of the characterstics of global culture is science and culture being spread by way of sponsors. International capital controls sponsorship and naturally supports increased consumerism and activities which aim to spread Western culture. People who work in the fields of science and culture are becoming dependent on the resources that such firms allot to projects, programmmes, publications, prizes, and incentives, as they call them. Those who adapt to this arrangement vvoluntarily and those who want to profit from it gradually become indistinguishable from one another. If people do not live as they believe, they come to believe as they live. Thus, one should not be surprised to see many foreign giant firms like Coca-Cola and Camel behind numerous large organized activities in our country. Sponsorship and its activities should therefore be closely scrutinized, and Turkish state or private financial institutions should support and encourage Turkish culture. And the main incentives of those who dedicate themselves to Turkish culture should be national feelings rather than the prizes, material and otherwise, they receive from sponsors.
A widely held view among the people of this country is that there are three ways of approaching globalization: “isolation,” “joining the caravan,” or “modernization without Westernization.” With certain exceptions, the second way seems to be most popular. However, if one looks at history, a horizontal understanding is more accurate than a linear and determinist one. Thus, a thorough analysis of history might show that more than one way is possible.
Some of the processes the West has undergone, this country has not experienced at all, while others it has experienced over different lengths of time. How it will be affected by globalization, therefore, is tied to the measures that are taken. The main aim here is that in the globalization process it should not play a passive role in respect of economics, sought after by the giant multinationals because of its cheap labour and raw materials, and then suffer cultural erosion; thorough investigation should be made of the ways in which the country can actively influence this process. Taking into consideration both our historical dynamics and cultural roots, and present-day conditions, answers must be found that will be beneficial not only for us, but for all humanity and “the world” in the sense it was discussed above.
Despite all the discussion and debate, a systematic theory has still not been developed for globalization, as a subject or as a concept. It is a fact that life is always a few steps ahead of theories.
Most probably in this globalization process countries that have had experience of world empires like America, Britain, Holland, and China even will be at an advantage, while countries that have only been nation-states or have appeared recently on world stage like Germany and the Balkan countries will adapt only with difficulty. Since Turkey has had experience of being not an empire but a world state, it has an advantage over these others.
It has been suggested that there is no culture in the world that has developed the notable human attributes held in common by all humanity, and spread them to the extent of Turkish culture,21 and that the world is in need of its distinguishing characteristics its ability to organize and govern, the desire to rule, and its justice, compassion, dignity, courage, self-sacrifice, devotion, and spiritual depth.22 For example, one of the most crucial matters of the new era is the world rreaching the point of self-destruction due to the spoiling of the ecological balance, and the attendant threats and dangers reaching world proportions. Attempts are being made to form new values so as to reduce the threat. But these artificial, imposed programmes are meeting with little success. Turkish culture, however, springing from its nomadic way of life and from the religion of Islam and its world-view, its authentic characteristics of frugality, simplicity, economy, nearness to nature, and view of the world offers the best answers to the ecological threats.
Globalization is spoiling the institutional arrangements whose purpose was to “socialize” the influences of capitalism that caused the polarization and division of society. It looks on the social security institutions and social state as a burden. While Western societies have failed to find solutions for these developments, Turkish culture abounds in elements, such as mutual assistance, the desire to do good, parents’ rights, the institution of pious foundations, adaptability, and versatility due to the inefficiency of social institutions, that will facilitate its continuance.
Having noted the characteristics of Turkish culture relevant to globalization, the following points may be made concerning the process as it is being experienced:
One matter of vital importance for Turkish culture and the process of globalization is the split between intellectuals and the mass of people. Although foreign culture in the form of dress, art, food, drink, and so on, have made excessive inroads, the local culture, which the people represent, is still going strong. Their reactions are confusing. Even if they do not realize it, they are not permitting too much damage to be done. Even Turkish workers who go abroad have strong feelings of superiority. The elite, who pass off for intellectuals, are ‘marginal,’ somewhere between local culture and Western culture.23 Unfortunately, they are less advanced than the ordinary people in regard to both universalizing Turkish culture, and internalizing universal values. For they identify with such concepts as justice, human rights, and equality only as long as they boost their own position. It is necessary therefore to define precisely universal values and the elements of culture. It should not be forgotten that culture and civilization are not the same thing. National cultures consist of various vistas of civilization.24
Formal changes in matters of culture are unacceptable to Turkish people and will be fruitless. Since “the thermometre shows a rise in temperature when the room warms up, but if it shows this because the thermometre was heated, the room temperature won’t change,”25 it will be useful to assess the usefulness of at such attempts at modernization as education in foreign languages, which is all the rage, and mass introduction of computers. Furthermore, to internalize these elements of universal culture thoroughly, it is essential to keep Muslim-Turkish culture alive and healthy.
When considered from the point of view of this culture, we see that global thinking is not foreign to us. God Almighty sent the Prophet Muhammad “as a mercy to all the worlds,”26 not only to Muslims. His message, therefore, is addressed to all peoples everywhere. Since physically he is no longer in this world, in his place his Umma and the religious scholars, who are members of his community and are called “the Prophet’s heirs,” will convey his message to others, seeing that they are in dialogue with them. Since this cannot be achieved in isolation, they will have to seek them out and try out various ways of establishing cultural contact with them.
Actually, this was exactly what the hundred thousand Companions did, who heard the Prophet’s Farewell Sermon at his last Hajj. Very few of them were buried in Mecca and Madina. They dispersed to the four corners of the earth to teach, instruct, guide, and conquer. It was for this purpose that Abu Ayyub al-Ansari went to Anatolia and Umm Haram went to Cyprus. With virtually no means at their disposal they went as far as China to spread the universal message of the Qur’an, which is “a reminder for all peoples,”27 and “an admonishment.”28
The Ottoman Sultan-Caliphs looked on the earth a single whole. Their being “Allah’s Shadow on Earth” is a particularly Turkish belief. In a letter from the Uygur KaĞan to Mahmud al-Ghaznawi, written in 1027, he says: “God gave us dominion over the countries of the earth.” While the Seljuqid Sultan Sanjar said: “Allah entrusted the earth to us so that we might rule over it. All its rulers are at our command.”29 While KaracaoĞlan expressed this as follows:
“I supposed the world to be the infinite universe,
But I saw it to be a place ruled over by Sultans.”
That is to say, in distinction to recently formed cultures, Turkish culture is a global culture. Its sense of responsibility, viewpoint, and ability to plan, and its grasp of matters and so on are all at a global level.
One of the most unfortunate things that has happened to Islam at the present, is that it is not properly known, or is very little known, or to put it another way, it is not known as it is. Thus a duty of the utmost importance is to erase the false images in people’s heads and to show Islam in all aspects as it is in reality.
In recent times, Islam’s world-view has to a large extent been neglected, and efforts have been made to instil ideas whose roots are non-Muslim. The reverse of the Islamic world-view is their approach to freedom of thought and belief, a problem of the greatest importance. The civilized world did not conquer man when it conquered space. Whereas man is the universe’s most important being. It is a sad fact that the valuable messages Islam has for humanity, and the extensive rights it accords man, have still not been granted in the contemporary world, and people are still being slaughtered because of their religion, race, ideas, and beliefs, and their dress is still being interfered with; oppression becomes more severe with every passing day, and there is no end to torture and distress. Although it is bruited by every means that the answer lies in democrary, it is perfectly obvious that this is not the solution.
Islam accorded man all rights, as is required by his nature. It makes no distinction between rich and poor, rank and position, the sexes, or people of different colours. This is not because it makes man the measure. The reason he is given this worth is seen in this verse: “O mankind! We created you from a single [pair] of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is [he who is] the most righteous of you.”(49:13)
It may be said that a single civilization dominates today’s world.30 There is a tendency to accept this fact although some people avoid naming a single geographical area,31 but it is generally accepted that this is Western civilization. Every civilization that has existed in history has had its own paradigms. For example, until the emergence of modern Western civilization, all the twelve to twenty civilizations in history were centred on religion. Although outwardly they were all different, they shared some characteristics.
It is generally accepted that one of the two bases of the sub-structure of Western civilization is religion, despite its showing itself to be a civilization that is without religion. For this reason, contrarily to the prognostications of the futurologists who predicted that religion would disappear from the life of society and would remain in people’s consciences, which is where it should be, it has continuously made its presence felt in society and it was felt that a future without religion was unthinkable, particularly after the 1970’s. This was true in East and West, and in the Far East, although there was variation in emphasis.
Because of the connection between religion, civilization, and different cultures, and the relationship between culture and religion, in a world where it is hoped peace will prevail, religion is bound to be one of the most important fundaments of peace and perhaps the most important, necessarily making dialogue between civilizations and cultures, interreligious dialogue. Dialogue is certainly a necessity, but most useful will probably be firstly to embark on dialogue between religions/cultures/civilizations that share roots and share certain concepts and ideas, and then to enter into dialogue with others, again in questions in which concepts and ideas are shared.
Most appropriate will be dialogue between what are called the semitic or Abrahamic religions, which have common historical roots and more in common than the others. The same may be applicable to the Far-Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zen Buddhism, and Shintoism, which share the same roots and use similar conceptual frameworks.
The Qur’an was not revealed for a single people or society. If we look on it as “divine condescension to the minds of men,” we may see it as a dialogue rather than a monologue. What we mean by this is the Muslims presenting the problems they are experiencing upward. We may think of the Qur’an as a text that came into being as a result of this dialogue. What traditional commentators wanted to say when expounding the immediate reasons for the revelation of certain verses (asbâb al-nuzûl) is what I’m trying to say. A result of this dialogue was that the Qur’an divided the people it, and the Prophet, were addressing into two: the believers and the unbelievers. Then it divided the believers into three: Muslims, People of the Book, and idolators. It included among the People of the Book the groups it mentioned as having been inspired by divine revelation. The ones who most clearly have a place in this group are the Jews and Christians. It addresses them both by name, and refers to them together as the People of the Book. It also mentions the Sabeans among these groups.32 As for the idolators (mushrik), they are included in a different group, although they believe in God. Among the unbelievers are the atheists (dahriyûn), which we could equate with the materialists of today.33
If one of the main reasons Islam spread so rapidly throughout the Arabian Peninsula and Middle East was the religious fervour it inspired in people and their wish to communicate it to others, then another was the struggle between the Sassanids and Byzantines, and the efforts of the non-Muslims in the places Islam spread.
As is described in the works they wrote, the reason Christians helped the Muslims against their own co-religionists was the oppression and persecution they suffered because they did not compromise their beliefs. Islamic society is multi-religious and multi-cultural. In the Middle East all religious groups have a place in it. Muslims are dominant in the state, but from the point of view of freedom of life, property, religion, and conscience, there is no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims. If the occasional unrest displayed by non-Muslims because of their position is disregarded, for the great part they were in a good position in Islamic society, as has been stated by Westerners and Muslims alike.34
Nevertheless, since both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions dispute between them is inevitable. It was because of this that from early times down to the present a type of literature has appeared that is based on refutation. The oldest documents are those written by Christians. The earliest written by Muslim date from the tenth century.
The Muslims’ first criticism of other religions and particularly the People of the Book is to be found in the Qur’an. In places, the Qur’an both criticizes some of their beliefs, and backs them up against the idolators and atheists.
The first association of Muslims and Christians in the religious sense was when the Prophet Muhammad received a delegation from Najran in his Madina mosque, and disputed with them over religious questions and invited them to accept Islam. The delegation did not accept Islam but did pay the jizya tax and then left Mecca. Subsequent religious debates between Muslims and Christians took the form of discussions which recalled this first example.
The oldest refutations of Christianity we have today written by Muslims are the works al-Radd alâ al-Nasârâ and al-Dîn wa’l-Dawla by ‘Ali Rabban al-Tabari.35 The texts pre-dating him, apart from giving a few facts about Christianity, appear to consist mostly of tales current amongst the people. ‘Ali ibn Rabban and other converts to Islam began to augment Muslims’ knowledge of the Bible. But this does not mean that all works about Christianity were of this sort.
Most of subjects treated in books (monologue), or in mutual communications, Muslim-Christian dialogue, consist of Muslims’ assertions about Christianity, or their criticisms of it, or subjects they expected answers to. Examples are the doctrine of the trinity and its refutation; Christian sects with differing beliefs about the trinity; proofs of Jesus’ being human and a prophet; the crucifixion and atonement for sins; the question of the corruption of the holy texts; and prophecies about the Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.36
The hostile ideas about Christianity that began with the Enlightenment spread to include all religions. The 19th century saw intense missionary work, which led to a prevalently negative view of religion generally and also of Islam. The studies of Islam that commenced at this time greatly added to the West’s store of knowledge. Simultaneously with widespread European colonialism and missionaries, Islamic studies centres multiplied and Orientalism, an independant academic discipline developed, together with its scholars, known as orientalists.
However, although serious studies were carried out on every aspect of Islam, including its history, art, beliefs, and spirituality, reflecting Descartes’s method oof breaking down the subject of research into small parts, Islam was broken up but the necessary work was not done, deliberately, to make a synthesis and create a fresh approach. Or if such work was done, an objective image did not emerge since it was designed to distort rather than understand.
“Although down the centuries there has never been any lack of conflict and enmity between Christians and Muslims, the Holy Council calls on everyone to forget the past, sincerely strive in mutual understanding, and to defend and secure social justice, moral values, peace and freedom for all humankind.”37
In consequence of this order to establish good relations with non-Christian religions, the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions was founded in 1964. It was headed by a top-ranking Cardinal, and working together with bishops from various regions and experts in relevant fields, it still continues to function. It is based in Rome. Its first President was Cardinal Marella (1964-1973), who was succeeded by Cardinal Pignedoli (1973-1980), and then Monsignor Jean Jadot (1980-1984). Later was Cardinal Arinze, present President of the secretariat, which is the Pontifical Council for Interfaith Dialogue.38 Since its founding in 1974, it has a section dealing with Islam. For its first ten years in existence, Father Coug acted as President, from the Association of African Missionaries. Following him was the Syrian Abou Mukh, and he was succeeded by Thomas Michel, who continues in office. Between 1964 and 1969 there were no activities connected with dialogue; only after this did the process begin, after the necessary institutions and infra-structure had been established. This latter consisted of a process of dialogue between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christians, and the World Union of Churches, founded in Holland in 1948, and a conference in 1971 in Addis Ababa.
The activities connected with Muslim-Christian dialogue, which thus began in 1969, still continue and consist of mutual visits, joint conferences, the publication of journals dedicated to these relations, and the search for areas of possible co-operation. However, relations are not trouble-free. The related activities sometimes come to a halt in dead-ends, and these impasses form an obstacle to the process continuing fruitfully.
Muslims’ Expectations from Dialogue
Thanks to both their historical experiences, and their sacred texts, Muslims are in a favourable position to enter into dialogue with members of other religions, and particularly Christianity. For the Qur’an states that human beings are created in various groups so that they might get to know one another.39 The texts prohibit forcible conversion to Islam, and enjoin courteous relations with people who do not accept it,40 saying, “Your religion is for you,41 and mine is for me,” permitting them to remain as members of the Islamic society through the dhimma contract.
These basic Qur’anic principles were practised in history, and Muslims always lived together with non-Muslims in Islamic societies. One of the first examples of dialogue, though perhaps not in the modern sense, took place in these societies and was between Timotheos and the Caliph Mahdi.
It may be said on examining relations between the two religions, that throughout history there has been a situation conducive to their confrontation in both the theological and political senses. However, Islam inherited a structure that did not reject cultural and religious pluralism, for which reason it granted religious and legal freedom to members of other religions and tried to build a society on foundations of justice.
Christians suffered terrible persecution in the early days, but strangely, once Christianity was declared state religion it did exactly the same thing to members of all other faiths, and for a greater part of history did not hesitate to carry out the same persecution on those of its own adherents that it declared heretics. It did not permit members of other religions to live in the regions it was dominant. Thus, if one keeps in mind Christianity’s historical past, its attitude now towards dialogue can be seen as a turning-point, for the sake of humanity. It simply is not possible to evade interfaith dialogue of this sort on whatever pretext. To evade dialogue on grounds of religion is a grievous error towards humanity.
For by degrees religion is becoming more and more topical, and people are trying to preserve their identities in a globalizing world. Since identity is formed of history and culture, and religion is a major factor in both history and culture, its definitive character is increasing in importance. One could say a lot about the things forming the substructure of this phenomenon: things like the modern world trying to satisfy people solely with material goods; education, entertainment, and the production of consumer goods aiming create a monotype life and monotype individuals, and eliminate individual differences; means that the differences between people springing from their history and roots are disappearing.
To neglect dialogue will truly have serious consequences for Muslims. For in a situation in which the creators of the political climate produce theories like “the clash of civilizations” which with the intention of plunging mankind into bloodshed, look to war and conflict rather than dialogue, calls like this which look to a future in which light and peace will prevail, should certainly be responded to. If the preliminary moves towards this dialogue are not made and the necessary measures taken, Huntington’s theory will gain legitimacy.
For Muslims, Dialogue is an Opportunity which should not be Missed
The starting-point of all these understandings, as with the equivalents of Muslims, is that those who are the objects of image-making do not have any say in their making. That is, these images are theoretical, lacking any objective base. Since religious and political interests impinge on the process of image-making, what emerges is false and distorted. Thus, this is a long-sought, golden opportunity for Muslims, and the same goes for Christians, to explain themselves as they themselves think they are. To miss such an opportunity for whatever reason, will most probably lead to regret.
The creation of conditions conducive to people listening to each other and learning from each other, will lead to the artificial images either disappearing, or being modified, or to the differences between the people becoming more obvious, and these are all valuable in their own way.
The Christian world looking on such activity as Christianization does not change the above fact, as we tried to emphasize. Even if the underlying aim is not to communicate Islam, it is implicitly. For if considered from this point of view, the Muslim’s duty to communicate Islam is this.
In the Qur’an are verses that begin “O you who believe!” and others that address all mankind: “O you people!” Such verses deal with matters concerning everyone, whether they believe or not, putting forward precepts that concern all humanity. Below are some examples of these:
1. All human beings are born without sin. Guilt and punishment are applicable only after puberty.
2. All human beings are descendants of Adam and are born with equal rights.
3. Every animate being has the right to life and freedom.
4. Life, property, and honour are inviolable.
5. Justice is the basis of life in this world; everyone has the right to his share of justice.
6. People’s dwellings are inviolable, and may not be entered without permission.
7. So long as they do not harm others, it is prohibited to interfere in other people’s business.
8. Personal responsibility is fundamental. No one is responsible for what others do.
9. Everyone has the right to think as he wishes and express his ideas.
10. Everyone has freedom of belief.
11. No one’s property may seized illegally.
12. Everyone has the right to work and earn; no one should live off unearned income.
13. Everyone has the right to participate in politics.
14. Every sort of oppression, torture, and injustice is prohibited. Not to oppose them is also prohibited.
15. Everyone has the right to study and learn. They also have to right to teach others what they have learnt.
16. Everyone has the right to testify and seek testimony to protect their rights.
17. Obedience to parents is a fundamental duty.
18. Everyone who works for the state or privately has the right to receive from their employer a wage consistent with current conditions.
What is important in the globalizing world is to predict what will happen and what our country and beliefs will either gain or lose, and come up with the necessary ideas to deal with this. If the world is going to continue to shrink with the spread of information technology, and societies, beliefs, and cultures are going to grow closer together; and coherent, logical, and healthy cultures are going to influence other one; and if oppressive ideologies disappear and freer and more tolerant systems become more widespread; and more spiritual systems develop, and natural things become more popular and people again have recourse to nature’s pharmacy, and they understand the need for both physical and spiritual well-being; and if there are going to be fewer instances of double-standards in the question of human rights, and civil initiatives multiply, and true democracy in the widest meaning is practised; and if Christianity is purified of false beliefs and draws closer to Islam, and Islam’s worth becomes understood and its truths are seen as scientific facts; and if those who struggle against religious beliefs and sacred matters fail in their efforts, and interest in metaphysical things increases and space travel excites longing for eternity; and if those who study science and technology advance and those ignorant of them are despised and crushed why should we be frightened of globalization?
What we have to do is to be ready and prepared. And if we are worried about remaining on our feet, what we have to do is to put into practice what Umar Mukhtar said in the film Desert Tiger: “If we have any weak points, we to strengthen them!” Looking from this viewpoint, we may assume that good things will happen for our country and beliefs in the globalizing world.
* * *
Said Nursi points out that with advances in communications and transportation the world has become like a single town. And he said: “Now, with the development of transport the world has become like a single town. Similarly, through the means of communication and exchange of ideas like the press and telegraph, the people in the world have become like members of a single council.”42 He notes how the world has shrunk saying that “the globe” has become “a village.”43
Here, Said Nursi is discussing a phenomenon and particular situation. For with the extraordinary advances in means of communication, firstly the telegraph was discovered, now today with television, telephone, Internet, and other means of telecommunication, our daily lives have been turned upside down and have changed amazingly. A new era has been entered up in world history (what we call globalization).44 This phenomenon, which we cannot remain outside of, brings us both blessings and hardships. We all share the same world, making it impossible for us to pretend not to see it or not to be affected by it. We are obliged, therefore, to analyse this actual situation, see the consequences, and take up a position suitably to our beliefs.
Like in many subjects, intellectuals who have studied globalization in depth fall into two groups; those in favour, and those against. For everyone looks from his own standpoint and through his own spectacles, and sees one side of the matter. In his works, Nursi mentions both points of view and ways of thinking, relatively, without adhering fiercely to either. He says that the current flowing from Europe produces two results, one positive and the other negative. For in situations that are not conformable with the Muslim identity, Muslims are not free to use their wills and cannot be productive even if their intentions are good, so they imitate blindly and become unconscious tools in the West’s hand. This is the negative side. Or, they may take and apply practical things like technology that do not clash with Islam’s basic principles and put them into an acceptable form, which is its positive side. In the latter situation, the West does not have the awareness to transform Islamic societies. And anyway such things are not forbidden by Islam.45 If matters are considered from this two-sided viewpoint, it will be possible to make balanced assessments of the West. Thus, while acquiring technology, which is among the blessings of globalization, an awareness will have been gained of its immorality, disbelief, and hegemonic tendencies.
With these considerations, Nursi does not look on European civilizaton as consisting of a whole, but with a balanced approach divides it into two, a good and a bad: “The first Europe,” which “follows the sciences which serve justice and right and the industries beneficial for the life of society through the inspiration it has received from true Christianity.” And “the second corrupt Europe which, through the darkness of the philosophy of Naturalism, supposing the evils of civilization to be its virtues, has driven mankind to vice and misguidance.” It will be noted here that in defining the first Europe, he draws attention to its useful industries, that is, technology, its justice, and its sciences, that is, its scientific research and applications, all inspired by “the true religion of Jesus.”46 These values are anyway present in Islam. It does not matter who discovered them, for they are of themselves good. And something good is good everywhere. It does not change the nature of them whether they are in the West or in the Islamic world.
Bediuzzaman is putting forward a values system here. Whether these values are in the Islam world or in the West is not important. In any event, God’s Messenger brought the divine message to all humanity, not to any one people or a particular geographical area. He was sent as Prophet to all peoples. His community therefore consists of all humanity. But those who accept his call and message are called “the Umma that responds,” and those who do not, “the Umma that is yet to be called.”
When considered from this point of view, the blessings and means of globalization, its positive consequences, may be seen as means of serving the prophetic message. When the Prophet was living, he sent envoys with his messages to all the societies of the time, and the Companions followed the same path and were dispersed through every part of the world. It is clearly of the utmost importance tthat Muslims should take advantage of globalization in this sense. Envoys were sent to Heraclius, the Byzantine Caesar; to Ashama, the Abyssinian Najashi; to Khusrow Parviz, the Persian ruler; to Muqawqis, the Egyptian Pharaoh; to Hawza ibn ‘Ali, the Yamama chief; and to Munzir ibn Haris ibn Abi Shamir, the Ghassani king. Similarly, after the Prophet’s death, the main aim of the conquests was to convey the Prophetic message to the most distant human communities.
This idea so motivated the Muslims, that of the hundred thousand that God’s Messenger addressed at his Farewell Hajj, the known graves of not even five thousand are found in the holy places (Mecca and Madina). The rest of the Companions scattered to the four corners of the earth in the campaigns of the conquest, which were the propulsive force behind the communication and spread of Islam, and there they stayed.
If we bear this in mind, it is easy to see how important the means of communication and transport of globalization are for the communication of Islam. Muslims have seized this historic opportunity to spread good and prevent evil. If, taking into consideration the circumstances of the times, Islamic values are presented in contemporary form, and more importantly, if they are lived in their entirety, the broad masses will adopt these universal values, and the prediction that “people will enter God’s religion in masses”47 will again be fulfilled. For with the opportunities of today’s press, media, and means of communication, it should be easier to spread the universal values that the Prophet tried to establish, despite the restrictive conditions of his time.
Said Nursi frequently emphasizes humanity’s need for the Prophet and the message he brought, and explains its universality in terms of the accumulated knowledge of mankind. Since in early ages human communities were widely dispersed and differed greatly as to cultural level, prophets were sent to them with different laws. But in the Prophet Muhammad’s time, people had “progressed from the preparatory to the intermediate level,” no need remained for different laws for they could all learn from the same teacher.48 This was necessitated by divine wisdom.
“... so long as human kind does not altogether lose its mind and a material or immaterial doomsday does not erupt over its head, the broad masses and great states in the world will search out the Qur’an of Miraculous Exposition, and having grasped its truths, will embrace it with all their lives and spirits, just as there are [now] famous preachers in Sweden, Norway, Finland and England working to have the Qur’an accepted, and the important community of America is searching for the true religion. Because in view of this fact, the Qur’an by no means has nor can have any equal. Absolutely nothing can take the place of this greatest miracle.”49
The main task that falls to Muslims here is to profit in the most efficient and productive ways from the opportunities globalization has to offer, find ways of living Islam that are conformable with the present, and present other people with these. If they do not do this, that is, adopt the good things and affect their surroundings, they will be affected by the things surrounding them. This is the negative and undesirable side of globalization. Also, in connection with our values, it is not possible to look on globalization of this sort as positive. In many places in his works, Said Nursi points out the wounds caused to Islamic society by the philosophy that is divorced from religion, and sensitively calls our attention, saying: “With this dissolute civilization making the globe into a village, the veil of heedlessness has grown thick and dense. It needs tremendous effort to rectify it. Moreover, in the human spirit it has opened up numerous windows looking on to the world.”50
Basing it on this, I think that Nursi looked on globalization as “an irresistible process and actual phenomenon,” and that rather than just accepting it, we have to face it fairly and squarely, and let it enter asking for the password, and analyzing seriously and coherently its good and bad sides, profit from the former and avoid the latter, and above all be aware and conscious of all it entails.
1. Ulrich Beck, “Die Eröffnung des Welthorizontes: Zur Sozologie der Globalisierung,” Soziale Welt, 5, (4-1997), 3-16.
2. Cemil Meriç, Sosyoloji NotlarI ve Konferanslar (Istanbul: 1997), 303-9.
3. Ulrich Beck, Politik in der Risikogeselleschaft (Frankfut/Main: Suhrikamp, 1991), 55.
4. Ralf Dahrendorf, “Die Globalisierung und ihre sozialen Folgen werden zur nöchsten Heausforderung einer Politik der Freiheit,” Die Zeit (14.11.1997).
5. Zhigniew Brzezinski, Kontroldan Çıkmış Dünya: Yirmi Birinci YüzyılIn Arefesinde ‚apInda Karmaşa (2nd edn.) (Istanbul: 1996), 155; Ali Mohammadi, “Kültür Emperyalizmi ve Kimlik Sorunu,” in Yusuf Kaplan, Enformasyon Devrimi Efsanesi (Kayseri: 1991), 323.
6. Friedrichs Jürgen, “Globalisierung-Begriff und grundlegende Annahmen,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (1995), 3-5.
7. Habibul Haque Khonder, “Globalleşme Teorisi: Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme,” [Turk. trans. Betül Duman] Türkiye Günlüğü, 44 (1977), 65-78; taken from The Journal of Social Studies, No: 73, June 1996.
8. Mustafa Özel, Değişim ve Kriz (Istanbul: 1995), 32.
9. Dahrendorf, “Die Globalisierung und ihre sozialen Folgen werden zur nöchsten Heausforderung einer Politik der Freiheit.”
10. Gunter Hofmann, “Ein Mann macht sich unbeliebt,” Die Zeit (2.1.1998).
11. “Jesus, allein zu Haus, Glauben ohne Kirche,” Der Spiegel, 52 (1997), 58-73.
12. “Scientology,” Der Spiegel 45 (3.11.1997), 65-7.
13. Dirk Richter, “Weltgesellschaft,” Georg Kneer (Ed.), Soziologische Gesellschaftsbegriffe (München: 1997), 185-204.
14. Antony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: 1991).
15. Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme, Grundriss einer allgemeinene Theorie (Frankfurt/Main: 1993), 571ff.
16. Dahrendorf, “Die Globalisierung und ihre sozialen Folgen werden zur nÖchsten Heausforderung einer Politik der Freiheit.”
17. Erol Güngör, Türk Kültürü ve Milliyetçilik (Istanbul: 1996), 31.
18. Panajotis Kondylis, “Globalisierung, Politik, Verteilung,” Die Zeit (29.11.1996).
19. M. Naci Bostancı, Kültür ve Değişim (Istanbul: 1990), 31-6.
20. Erol Güngör, Kültür Değişmesi ve Milliyetçilik (Ankara:1980), 23.
21. Güngör, Türk Kültürü ve Milliyetçilik, 78.
22. Güngör, Türk Kültürü ve Milliyetçilik, 79.
23. Ero Güngör, Dünden Bugünden, Tarih-Kültür-Milliyetçilik (Istanbul: 1995), 149.
24. Güngör, Türk Kültürü ve Milliyetçilik, 101.
25. Güngör, Türk Kültürü ve Milliyetçilik, 104.
26. Qur’an, 21:107.
27. Qur’an, 68:52.
28. Qur’an, 38:87.
29. Güngör, Kültürü Değişmesi ve Milliyetçilik, 108-9.
30. Previous civilizations dom
|
