Islam the Main Argument Set

ISLAM

The main argument set forth by Edward Said in "The Clash of Definitions" has much to do with countering the conclusions of political scientist Samuel P. Huntington whose "Clash of Civilizations" maintains that cultural and religious ideologies and differences will serve as the major source of conflict in the 21st century. Overall, Huntington puts forth the suggestion that all future conflicts, whether based on political, social or economic differences and attitudes, will revolve around the "clash" of various cultures with each attempting to come out on top of the other, resulting in one culture being subdued by another. As Huntington sees it, the main source of conflict within what some call the "New World Order" with the United States as the dominating power will occur between various national states and systems and those who control these states and systems, whether as a governmental body, a conglomerate of powers or as a single powerful group, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and other Islamic militant groups spread out across the Middle East and other world "civilizations."

According to Huntington, the major cultures and/or civilizations which will play pivotal roles in this "clash of civilizations" include Western civilization (i.e., the United States, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, the Pacific Island groups and Latin America, the Orthodox nations of Greece, Romania, Serbia, Russia, the Ukraine and other Central European countries, the Asian "civilizations" of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other Far East nations, the Hindu "civilizations" of India and Nepal, the "civilizations" found in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Buddhist "civilizations" of Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Tibet, and a number of "lone" or solitary nations spread across Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Of course, many of these civilizations" are currently experiencing great political and social turmoil, such as Nepal/Tibet, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, the Sudan and Iraq, just to name a few. Interestingly, almost all of these "civilizations" in conflict are now attempting to re-define themselves with new forms of government, particularly democracy, and all share one tremendous barrier, being their individual religious systems and ideologies.

Huntington also includes the Muslim "civilizations" of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and others in and outside of the Middle East. In contrast to Huntington's theory, Edward Said maintains that these "abstractions" support and propagate nothing less than pure nationalism, a term which generally refers to the loyalty and devotion of individuals or citizens to a particular nation through a sense of national consciousness that elevates one nation above all others. In addition, nationalism reinforces an emphasis on the cultural aspects and interests of one nation as opposed to those of other nations or groups.

One very important aspect of Said's counter-argument against Huntington is related to the questions "Exactly who or what is going to define what these cultures and/or civilizations are?" And "Who or what is going to define the true enemies and/or threats against these civilizations?" For the most part, it is Western "civilizations" or nations that currently define cultures outside of its sphere or arena, due in part to America and Great Britain's "Manifest Destiny" fervor of the 19th century, but in truth, it is the "civilizations" themselves that define who they are and what they stand for. Thus, it appears that the true problem lies with religious nationalism, meaning that various religious entities are at war with each other, due to wanting to define how a person should think, act and behave based on religious tenets and principles, ranging from Christianity in the West to Islam in the Middle East.

In today's America, the Muslim population continues to expand and is made up of Muslims from all over the globe, especially from the Middle East, India, Pakistan, China and the former Soviet Union which collapsed as a result of America "winning" the Cold War. There are also American converts to Islam, a situation which has created some major problems linked to cultural identity and the definition of what exactly constitutes a Muslim. On one side, we find an Islamic "culture" of people united by a common religion, being Islam; on the other side, we find communities or entities of Muslims who are American-born and raised and descendants of immigrants. It is here where the true "clash" of civilizations occur, meaning that the old ways are clashing with the new. A number of historians and Islamic scholars have shown that the two key problems facing both the "Old World" immigrant and new native-born Muslims are based on how they will live an Islamic life in America and how they can bring together two divergent views without destroying one or the other.

Another group of Muslims in the United States which is only exacerbating the problem is the growing sub-culture of young Islamic Americans, torn between the "Old World" and the "New World Order." These are mostly the children of immigrants who came to the U.S. In the turbulent 1960's and 1970's in order to escape from political bigotry, prejudice and tyranny. Overall, these children, now mostly adults, are determined to create an integrated identity that is both Muslim and American. By attempting this, they are calling into question the usual stereotype of Islam as a foreign faith and are vigorously trying to find new ways to formulate this foreign faith into something less "cultural," i.e., to arrive at new definitions for their faith which does not conflict with any other religious denominations. In essence, can such a thing ever be accomplished?

Traditionally, Islamic religious laws and tenets were designed to cover every aspect of life for Muslims, such as a person's involvement in the secular arena, public and private behavior and how one should treat non-believers. Thus, Muslims who live in non-Muslim cultures, such as America, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France and other "civilizations," must decide the extent to which full adherence to Islamic law is possible or desirable. For example, Muslim law as described in the Holy Quran forbids the payment or receiving of interest on money, yet since many American Muslims use the current American banking system, this obviously becomes very difficult to practice. Muslim law also forbids the consumption of pork and alcohol and many American Muslims make very conscientious efforts to abide by these ideals, yet in the face of American consumerism and the freedom to decide one's own lifestyle, this too creates much tension and conflict, especially between the "Old World Order" and the "New World Order." Thus, exactly how these new American Muslims will go about defining themselves in a world full of misconceptions, prejudice and downright ignorance is not known at this time and perhaps Edward Said is correct with his view that definition is far more important and consequential than Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations."

Annotated Bibliography

Corbett, Julia M., Ed. The Coming Religious Wars. Boston: G.K. Hall, 2003

Although this topic has been discussed many times over past decades, Corbett has managed to provide a number of new viewpoints based on some very substantial scholarship and an examination of past religious wars, such as the Crusades and what she calls the coming war between Christianity and Islam, due to the events of 9/11 and the further actions of Al Queda and other terrorist groups.