The following is the translation of an excerpt from the excellent book, The Inevitability of the Clash of Civilisations issued by global leadership of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Safar 1423 Hijri (May 2002 CE).
Download full book
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
THE MEANING OF
CIVILISATION (HADHARA)
A civilisation (hadhara)
is a collection of concepts about life; it can be divine—from god—or it can be
from man. The divine civilisation emanates from a doctrine ('aqeedah);
for example, the Islamic civilisation emanates from the Islamic aqeedah. The
man-made civilisation may emanate from a doctrine or it may not. The western
capitalist civilisation is a collection of concepts about life emanating from
the doctrine of separating religion from life. Conversely, the Shinto, Greek,
Babylonian and Assyrian civilisations do not emanate from a doctrine. This type
of civilisation is simply a collection of concepts that a people or a group of
peoples have agreed upon, it is called a man-made, or national, civilisation.
It is possible for a
people or peoples to have a religion (deen) and a doctrine, but for the religion
to have no concepts regarding life; this is the case with the religions like
Christianity and Buddhism. Because their doctrine doesn’t produce these
concepts, people instead agree on a set of concepts about life that are
specific to them and these concepts form their civilisation. This civilisation
does not have any relationship with their religion because it does not emanate
from it. So their civilisation is not a divine one, despite the fact that they
have a religion. Hence, it is possible for various peoples to associate in one
civilisation, despite the difference of their religions like the Japanese,
Hindus and Sikhs and French; their religions are different but their
civilisation is one, namely capitalism.
Material objects
that are used in life's affairs are not part of civilisation, even though they
sometimes result from it. There is nothing wrong with giving the technical
term, ‘madaniyya’ to these tangible material objects, so as to
distinguish them from the collection of concepts for which we used the term, ‘hadhara’
(civilisation). If these material objects resulted from—and are specific to—a
particular civilisation, like statues for example, then they are part of the
specific madaniyya. However, if they resulted from science and
industry; like television, rockets, planes and penicillin for example, then
they are from the universal madaniyya. So madaniyya can be
specific, and it can be universal. The nature of the madaniyya is
different to the nature of civilisation, in that civilisation cannot be
anything but specific. The meaning of specificity is
related to our [the Muslims’] adoption. So it is not permitted for us to adopt
that which is specific, whereas it is permitted for us to adopt anything that
is universal.
The distinction
between civilisation (hadhara) and madaniyya must be observed at
all times, similarly it is imperative to distinguish between the madaniyya
that is derived from civilisation and the madaniyya that is derived from
science and industry. This is in order to observe the distinction between the
types of objects when adopting madaniyya. There is nothing wrong with
adopting the western madaniyya that is derived from science and
industry. As for the western madaniyya that is derived from the western
civilisation; it is not permitted to adopt it in absolutely any case. This is
because its doctrine (‘aqeedah) contradicts the Islamic civilisation,
and this doctrine is the basis upon which it is built. Our doctrine is
different from their doctrine (which is built upon a compromise solution and
the separation of religion from life) in its outlook on life (i.e. criterion
for actions), which is the halal and haram for us, and benefit
for them. Our doctrine is also different in what it means by happiness (i.e.
permanent tranquillity), which is attaining the pleasure of Allah for us, and
attaining the bodily pleasures for them.
In order that we
become fully aware of what we adopt from others and what we leave, it is
necessary to distinguish between civilisation and the madaniyya, and
between the madaniyya that results from civilisational concepts and the madaniyya
that results from pure sciences and industry.
If it is said; “Why
did you adopt the term, ‘hadhara’ for concepts and the term, ‘madaniyya’
for the material objects instead of the reverse?” The response to this is; the
linguistic meaning of, ‘hadhara’ is to reside in a civilised region
(like a town), while ‘al-hadhir’ is the one who is from the town or
village. Al-Qatami said; “Whoever is pleased with residing in towns. Which
Bedouin men will see us?”
To, ‘madana’
in a place means to reside therein, and ‘madina’ means to arrive to the
town (madinah), so the two meanings are close to each other. Similarly
it is said [concerning hadhara] in response to our self-directed
question; hadhara is used linguistically for meanings related to
thoughts, so it is more appropriate to use it for describing concepts. It was
said in Al-Qamus; “Hadhura is like nadusa, which
is the man of eloquence, (bayan) and understanding (fiqh).” In Al-Lisan,
it is said; “a man [is] ‘hadhr’, to mean he is eloquent, and a man ‘hadhir’
if he brought something good.” It also came in Al-Lisan; “and in the
hadith; ‘Say that which yahdhurukum’, i.e. that which is present
and existing in you, and do not burden yourselves with something else.” So hadhara
is closer in meaning, more consistent and more appropriate to use as the term
for the collection of concepts than madaniyya is. Similarly madaniyya
is closer in its meaning and more suitable to be used as the term for the
material objects. It can been said that there isn’t any disputation with
regards to technical terminology (istilah), since what is important is
distinguishing between the concepts and the material objects derived from them,
and between these objects and those derived from pure sciences, inventions and
industry. The objects that are derived from concepts are rejected and it is not
permitted to take them, while it is permitted to take the ones that are not
derived from the concepts.
We have said that
the civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life, and
that either it is a divine civilisation or a man-made civilisation. An example
of the divine civilisation is the Islamic civilisation, and an example of the
man-made civilisation is the Indian civilisation and the western civilisation.
The existence of these civilisations is a definite matter and an incontestable
established fact. Similarly, the difference between them is an established
fact; such that nobody but the liar can deny it. The source of the divine
civilisation, according to its people, is revelation; whilst the source of the
man-made civilisation is the people who agreed upon it. This alone is enough to
show the distinction and difference. Even if there appears to be a similarity in
some of their concepts, it is not actually an agreement, similarity or common
matter. This is because civilisation, when it is adopted, must be adopted
together with the basis from which it emanated, or the basis upon which it is
built. So if the bases of the two civilisations are different, the agreement
between some of their concepts, or the existence of a similarity between some
of their concepts about life, is not worth paying any attention to. This is
because the concept is a branch from its basis, and it cannot be adopted except
with its basis. Both the Islamic civilisation and the western civilisation
allow the eating of fish, the wearing of wool, private property, women to act
as represenatives, accounting the ruler and taking medicine. However, these
ideas and their like are not considered to be from the Islamic civilisation
unless they are adopted on the basis of the revelation from Allah to Muhammad
(saw) (i.e. upon their being Shar'a), whereas in the capitalist
civilisation they are adopted on the basis of their benefit (maslaha) or
rational preference. If the Muslim adopts them based upon benefit or rational
preference, it is not considered to be adopting from Islam.
The difference
between civilisations is a fact that can’t be denied. What concerns us is the
difference between the Islamic civilisation and the other civilisations, in
particular the western civilisation. We also want to see what results from or
is built upon this difference, such as; dialogue [with a view to
reconciliation], the clash (as-sira'a), the possibility of founding one
universal civilisation, the forms and types of clash, and whether the clash
will end, be concealed, or result in victory for one civilisation over the
others? What is the meaning of dialogue between religions in the eyes of those
who call for it, and what is the correct view on it? And what is the difference
between religions and civilisations? And there are many issues besides these.
Religions are of two
types. Firstly there is the religion from which a civilisation emerges—meaning
it has a collection of concepts about life—such as the Islamic deen.
Secondly, there is also the religion from which no civilisation emerges—and
there isn’t a collection of concepts [about life] contained in it—this is like
the Christian religion. Although it has ideals like, ‘Do not steal’, and, ‘do
not commit zina’, it has no collection of concepts covering all aspects
of life. Hence, the Christian religion is an appropriate example of a religion
from which no civilisation emanates.
The capitalist
civilisation does not emanate from the Christian religion; even if it came
about in countries where the majority of the people are Christians. So the
dialogue, clash, or partnership between Islam and Christianity differs from the
dialogue or clash between it and the capitalist civilisation.
THE MEANING OF
DIALOGUE (AL-HIWAR) BETWEEN CIVILISATIONS
When we speak about
dialogue or clash we are speaking about the Muslims, their deen and
their civilisation being on one side, and the Christians with their religion
and the capitalists with their civilisation, being on the other side. It is a
malicious attempt by the leaders and intellectuals of the capitalist
civilisation to differentiate between Islam and its followers i.e. between
Islam and Muslims. So they claim that Islam is great but that Muslims are
backward and some of them are terrorists. They are lying when they propagate
this view, since if they really thought that Islam was great then they would
have embraced it. However, they attempt to delude the naïve from amongst the
Muslims, attempting to reduce the rancour that is generated against them when
they strike the Muslims, or when they try to spread the concepts from their
civilisation among the Muslims. They know that the Islamic aqeedah still
remains in the souls of the Muslims and that it is strong in the majority of
them. So if they openly declare their enmity to Islam, they will stir up the
Muslims and provoke them. So they use these words as a weapon to anaesthetise
Muslims and to deceive them. Some Muslims would swallow this bait and accept
this dialogue in the way it is presented by the Christians and capitalists, or
promoted by their intellectual agents. They concentrate on three matters in
defining dialogue. The first is equality between religions and civilisations in
the dialogue without superiority or preference of a religion or civilisation
over another. The second is that the limit of the dialogue is restricted to
only knowing the other’s opinions without addressing these opinions in respect
of refutation or invalidation. The third is creating an alternative
civilisation through arriving at the common denominators between the two
religions and two civilisations.
This is the meaning
of dialogue as they see it. They claim that its benefit is; “Productive
interaction between cultural peculiarities, to form an alternative, superior
civilisation, that invites to accept the other on the same footing” [Dr Milad
Hanna in a cultural debate held in Cairo on Monday 02/04/2001].
And; “Every
time civilisations seek to find what is common between them and what is human,
they advance, flourish, and peace would spread” [Dr. Jafar Abdussalam, the
Secretary-General of the Conference of Islamic Universities]. One of them went
to the extent of saying that; “Islam is a deen of interaction and a deen of
development, and not like what is said, that it is a deen of obscurity and a
deen of isolation. On the contrary, the golden age of Islam and Muslims was
when the Islamic civilisation interacted with other civilisations in the world,
and when Islam spread in the world, took from and had a room for all the
legacies and other human civilisations and gave them from its legacy and
civilisation. This was the golden age of the Islamic State” Dr. Qasim Jafar spoke, in a study
circle on ‘The First War of the Century’, on Al-Jazeera channel, under the
heading; ‘Are the American explosions an incentive for dialogue or the clash of
civilisations?’ on 29/9/2001. He said; “It is upon us as Arabs and Muslims to
abstain from this problem…it is upon us to possess sufficient confidence in
ourselves, in our civilisation, and in our history and legacy, so as to burst
forth in the world from the position of equality, and not the position of the
follower (tabi')…” [The above-mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera
channel].
Another said; “The
Islamic civilisation was based upon the common denominator between world
civilisations, so it accepted the others and interacted with it in taking and
giving” [Amr Abdulkarim, a political scientist – IslamOnline.net]. Another
person attempted to use the aayaat of the Noble Qur'an as evidence for
the dialogue between civilisations so he said; “And our Book, the Glorious
Qur'an, emphasises the manner of dialogue with the others; dialogue with
polytheists (mushrikeen), ‘If one of the polytheists seeks your
protection, grant him protection until he hears the word of Allah’,
dialogue with disbelievers (kafireen), ‘O you disbelievers’,
dialogue with the current and official religions in the world, ‘Say; O
People of the Book, come to a just word between us and you, that we worship
none but Allah, that we associate nothing with Him, nor some of us take others
as lords’; dialogue with them from a position of equivalence…I view that it
is not possible to speak of eternal struggle because we are Muslims. I point to
the Qur'anic ayah, ‘Come to a just word between us and you’. This
ayah means that it is allowed for us to have dialogue with Christians;
we have dialogue with Jews, and we have dialogue with others. Why [do we have
this dialogue]? It is to come to a common word between us; we do not say that
we [have] dialogue to [bring them to] our word [our views]” [Ata-Allah
Muhajirani, Iranian President adviser for the dialogue of civilisations in the
above mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera].
There are those who call to
dialogue between religions to create common denominators between them, and stay
silent about the points of difference, in order to desensitise Muslims to the
clash. They call to the saying, ‘the sons of Abraham’, to strengthen dialogue
between the three religions on the basis that those who came with them descend
from one father namely Ibrahim (as).
Some Muslims use the aayaat of the
Noble Qur'an that say the Prophets were Muslims as a proof for this, like His
(swt) saying at the tongue of Nuh; “And I was commanded to be the first of
the Muslims” [TMQ 39:12], at the tongues of Ibrahim and Ismail; “Our
Lord! Make us Muslims to you and of our descendants Muslims to you” [TMQ
2:128], and about the people of Lut; “And We did not find therein but one
house of Muslims” [TMQ 51:36], and at the tongue of the disciples (hawariyyin);
“And bear witness that we are Muslims” [TMQ 3:52].
Perhaps there will
come those who say that Christians and Jews are Muslims, and we hear those who
say that the followers of the three religions are believers even though the
Qur'anic texts, which are definitely proven and of definite meaning, are
decisive in charging Jews and Christians with disbelief such as His (swt) saying;
“Verily those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messenger and wish to
distinguish between Allah and His Messenger and say, ‘We believe in some and
disbelieve in others’, and wish to adopt a way in between. Those are in truth
disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating
punishment” [TMQ 3:150-1].
And; “Those
who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going
to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence. A Messenger
from Allah reciting pure pages” [TMQ 98:1-2].
And; “Say; O People of the
Book, why do you disbelieve in the aayaat of Allah while Allah is witness over
what you are doing?” [TMQ 3:98].
And; “Those who disbelieve of the
People of the Book and polytheists do not like that there should descend upon
you any good from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His mercy whoever He wills.
And Allah is the Owner of great bounty” [TMQ 3:105].
And; “O People of
the Book, why do you disbelieve in the aayaat of Allah while you bear witness?”
[TMQ 3:70].
And; “And because of their disbelief and uttering a grave
falsehood (buhtan) against Mary” [TMQ 4:156].
And; “Surely they
disbelieve who say, ‘Allah is the third of three’” [TMQ 5:73].
And; “Fight
those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His
Messenger forbid nor follow the deen of truth among the People of the Book
until they pay the jizyah readily and subdued” [TMQ 9:29].
And; “He it
is Who drove out those who disbelieve among the People of the Book from their
homes at the first gathering” [TMQ 59:2].
So, they are disbelievers (kuffar),
and they are non-Muslims. It is not permitted to term them Muslims. Islam
linguistically means submission and in the technical Shari'ah
terminology, it means the deen that Allah subhanahu revealed upon
Muhammad (saw). If it was permitted to assign the term Islam (with its
linguistic meanings) to the previous Prophets (as) and to those who believed in
and followed them before the mission of Muhammad (saw) and before the
distortion of their books, it was not permitted to do that after his (saw)
mission. So whoever does not believe in him (saw) and his message is a kafir,
and it is not allowed to call him a Muslim or a believer. He ta'ala
said; “And say to those given the Book and the illiterate (Arab pagans); do
you submit yourselves (in Islam)? If they become Muslims, they are guided, and
if they turn away, your duty is only the conveyance. And Allah is Seer of His
slaves” [TMQ 3:20]. And he (saw) said; “By the One in whose hand is Muhammad's
soul, none hears of me of this Ummah, Jew or Christian, then dies without
believing in what I was sent with except he is of the denizens of the Fire.” And
ibn Hibban extracted from the hadith of Anas that Caesar wrote to the Messenger
of Allah (saw); “I am a Muslim”, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said when he
read the letter; “The enemy of Allah lied. He is not a Muslim and he is upon
Christianity.”
Amr Musa,
Secretary-General of the Arab League, made clear that he does not believe that
one civilisation is better than another civilisation, and from the meaning of
his words the Islamic civilisation is not preferable to the capitalist, Hindu
or Jewish civilisations, for he says; “We do not believe that there is a better
civilisation”, in the exposition of his refutation of the Italian Prime
Minister Berlusconi. One of them attempted to use the aayaat of surat
Al-Kahf as an evidence for accepting others as they are, without
restriction or condition, and without attempting to pronounce judgments against
him; “Religious dialogue is the attempt of the individual encumbered with
precedent values, conventions, and beliefs to discover the other (of a
different religion) – as he is – and understand him and crystallize a
philosophical and unconventional (new and unbiased) view towards him without
resorting to pronouncing prejudiced value judgments against him…The advocates
of religious dialogue raise the slogan of sincere intention. So he divests
himself of all conditions and goals except the desire to understand the other
and view him intellectually…The content of dialogue does not, in principle,
differ with the story that the Noble Qur'an brought in Surat Al-Kahf
(aayaat 32-42) about the dialogue between two men. Allah gave one of
them two gardens of grapes surrounded by palm trees and with crops in the
middle, rivers flowing therein; and Allah increased its owner over the other in
property and children. The tale reveals that the dialogue took place between
the two men without condition or restriction, and the Qur'an brought it with
its complete details; despite the inclusion of the kufr of one of them
in Allah, the other did not interrupt the dialogue because of it. Likewise the
Qur'an did not refrain from mentioning the sayings of kufr, because in their
totality they are able to build and formulate the intellectual examination of
the personality disbelieving in Allah 'azza wa jalla…Religious dialogue
differs from comparative religion and religious competition even if these
concepts commingle in the literature. Comparative religion is a science meaning
study of a religion in comparison with others upon the level of the creed ('aqeedah),
legislation and ritual worships, and its views about man, the universe and life
and the like, of assuming objectivity and the possibility of eliminating
prejudice. Whereas religious competition is a process aiming to prove the
superiority and distinction of a religion over the other; a matter which is not
off course aimed by religious dialogue which a process of understanding only”
[Husam Tammam, researcher and journalist, Egypt, IslamOnline.net, under the
title; ‘Religious Dialogue: A Human Necessity or world Conspiracy’].
These quotations are
necessary in order to know what the advocates of religious dialogue intend by
this expression, which is their technical terminology. The best thing to
guide us to the meaning of this technical terminology is what they themselves
say or write, since the linguistic meaning does not benefit us here. From all
of these quotations, it is possible to crystallize the meaning of this
technical terminology in the following:
Firstly: Equality and equivalence between religions
and civilisations, and non-preference between one religion and another or one
civilisation and another.
Secondly: Accepting the other as it is and discovering
it without pronouncing judgments against it, but rather understanding and
recognizing its views without restriction or condition.
Thirdly: The objective of dialogue between
civilisations is interaction in order to create an alternative superior
civilisation by finding out what is common and good for mankind; a matter that
leads to the advancement and flourishing of civilisations, and the spreading of
peace. The objective of dialogue between religions is to prevent Islam from entering
the arena of the struggle.
All these concepts
completely contradict Islam. There is not a single concept from these that has
evidence or probable evidence for it. They are not from Islam; rather they are
all distortion and deception, and their danger against Islam is certain.
Comments