This question came to my mind when I was listening some of the speeches delivered at a conference in Cairo last week. The conference, entitled “Islam, West and Modernity,” was organized by the Abant Platform, a civil society initiative that aims to ease ideological tensions within Turkey. So far it has been successful in bringing together intellectuals from different perspectives -- liberals, Islamists, conservatives and nationalists -- to discuss common problems in Turkey like democracy, the status of religion and education. Indeed, the platform has recently begun to travel to capitals like Paris, Washington, Brussels in order to play the same role to the world, which is facing the challenge of the clash of civilizations. From a political point of view, speaking against a vague concept of the West may be in line with the feelings of people in the Middle East. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrullah is the most popular figure on the Egyptian street now. Hence it may even serve short-term political interest.
It is not that difficult to find grounds to attack “the West” when there is the American occupation of Iraq with all its tragic results, when everyday people watch the barbaric scenes from Abu Ghraib or from Guantanamo, when Israel continues occupying Palestinian lands and continue to get support from “the West.”Despite these facts, I think that demonizing “the West” is not in line either with Islamic principles or humanitarian values. First of all, it is not correct to see the West as a homogeneous entity. Yes, there is a set of cultural, historical and religious values that can be called Western civilization. But within that large picture, there are many different colors.
For instance, despite religious proximity, is Russia part of the West or something else? In terms of political orientations, the Iraq war demonstrated the wide gap between two parts of the West, Europe and America. Even the European continent itself is divided as old and new Europe.
Before the Iraq war, the biggest anti-war demonstrations took place in Western capitals like London. In Washington, many people have criticisms of the Bush administration similar to the ones that one may hear in Middle East capitals. Look at the European position toward Turkey’s EU membership. It is not a unified Christian club as some portray it. There are those who favor Turkey, and those who are against it on different grounds.
Secondly, unlike Judaism and like Christianity, Islam is not a religion special for a race or a nation. It is a universal religion speaking for all people irrespective of their race, color, language or geographic location.
There is nothing that makes the East more Islamic than the West in Muslim understanding. This notion of universality is very clear in the following verse from the Quran: “The fools among the people will say: ‘What hath turned them from Qibla to which they were used?’ Say: To Allah (God) belong both east and west: He guideth whom He will to a way that is straight (The Cow, 142).”
Thirdly, Islam is not a religion founded on the basis of a reaction to another belief system. In contrast, it sees itself as continuation of a big tradition starting from the very first human being and the first prophet Adam. Its holy book is full of stories related to Jews and Christians. And believing other prophets is one of the pillars of Islam.
It is correct that today Islam is the strongest mechanism of mobilization in the Muslim world. But the attempts to change the nature of Islam and redefine it in terms of an anti-thesis of any other ideology or religion will not be successful. Muslims in the past had never felt an inferiority complex while borrowing good things from others. Look at the domes of Ottoman-style mosques in Turkey. They did not hesitate to study Greek philosophy and introduce it to Europe. The Prophet Mohammad himself said that “knowledge is a lost camel of a Muslim. Get it wherever you find it.”
Fourth, the Muslim world and the West are not two separate entities as imagined: each contain important elements from the other. There are a lot of Muslims living in the West as citizens. And in Muslim countries there are many people who are tied strongly to Western values. Muslims borrowed from Plato; they borrowed from Avicenna. Every civilization has made a contribution to the current values and no one has the right to claim monopoly. Think about whose products and concepts we are all using today: numerals, coffee, paper, the alphabet, money, algebra and the compass.
To sum it up, mistakes emanating from the West have to be criticized, but the address must be specific, as we ask them not to label all Muslims for the mistakes of a few bad. While discussing relations between civilizations, differences should not be the only thing underlined. Muslims should not make the mistake of defining themselves on the basis of “anti” theories. And they should not imitate the mistakes of others. In history, they did not take the crusaders as teachers, and did not behave like them. Why should they respond differently toward Huntington?
Benzer Haberler 
