۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

First of all I would like to express may thanks and

indebtedness to my professor Mr. Mouzane Aziz for his
acceptance to the topic of my paper, for his precious instructions,
and for his efforts to correct my paper and check out even its
smallest errors and mistakes.
I also thank my classmate Messaoudi Mohamed for his help;
I was looking hopelessly for one of the basic references for my
paper (this was “The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of
World Order” by S. Huntington), and at the end, he handed it to
me to make a copy with pleasure. Thanks for him again.
Also I am highly indebted to my brothers and sisters within
the English’s Committee for Dialogue and Communication
(E.C.D.C.). Their being beside me has, directly or indirectly,
encouraged me to carry on with my research.
My special thanks are given to my sister, Monssif Aziza, a
training teacher in CPR, Casablanca. Her frequent calls and care
about my project has motivated me to continue with much more
hope and patience.
Finally I should not forget to pass my thanks and respect to
Manuela Glander, a Christian student from England. My
conversations with her, through “skype”, have provided me with a
great data and experience as far as the topic of my research paper
is concerned.

۞ ۞ 1۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

My interest in global issues, culture, religion, and dialogue has prompted

me to choose such a topic to shed light on the conditions of civilizational
dialogue by highlighting two controversial paradigms about the international
relations: the first one is “the clash paradigm”, and the second one is dialogue as
an alternative to conflict.
The clash paradigm is the claim that the cultural differences among nations
and civilizations will be the source of the most prolonged conflicts among them.
And the dialogue paradigm is, in contrast, the belief in the possibility of bringing
together people of different cultural background, by calling for their common
human values and similarities.
This paper is hereby divided into three parts: the two ones deals with the
clash and dialogue paradigms, and the third one provides the major short comings
and conditions for the international dialogue; the first part deals with
Huntington’s clash paradigm. It seeks to cast light on his concept and the causes
of the clash of civilizations. The second part, however, is meant to approach
Elmandjara’s dialogue paradigm, its prerequisites and reality on the international
scene
I believe that this issue is of grave importance due to the sophisticated
troubles our present world is sinking in. Nations and even individuals are in need
of establishing as many as possible of bridges of dialogue and communication.
Therefore, I hope this humble paper will satisfy the reader’s curiosity to know
about the seriousness of the world we live in as well as the required and
fundamental conditions of dialogue among nations.

۞ ۞ 2۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

۞ ۞ 3۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

The clash of civilizations is a controversial hypothesis that people’s cultural

and religious identity will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold war.
This view has been pointed at by many thinkers since nineties, and it was more
popularized by Samuel P. Huntington in his 1996 book, “The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington argues that the trends
of global conflict after the end of the cold war are increasingly emerging at the
distinctive lines between civilizations. He also argues that the widespread western
belief in the universality of the west’s values and political systems is naïve and
that continued insistence on democratization and such “universal” norms will
only further antagonize other civilizations. He sees that the west is in a step
decline identifying a major shift of economic, military, and political power from
the west to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he
identifies as two “challenger civilizations”, the Sinic and Islam. These two,
Huntington argues, are culturally asserting themselves and their values against
the west. The rise of China and the “the Islamic resurgence”, Huntington
believes, pose one of the most powerful long-term threat to the West.
These assumptions are however based on Huntington’s preconception about
“civilization”, its nature, and the various causes and features that he thinks they
activate the conflicts within and between civilizations.

1-The concept ‘civilization’ in Huntington’s

perspective
If we cast an eye over ‘civilization’ in its historical development, we will
undeniably recognize how broad and complex this concept is. It has been interpreted
by many historians and thinkers many years ago, and all perspectives are diverse as the
nature of human history itself. “Civilization, in its general concept, is the fruit of any
effort Man does to improve his material and spiritual conditions” (.Hussein Moaniss,
1998). The nature of civilization is thus similar to that of human being; they both
consist of a physical part and a spiritual one. The physical side of a civilization is
embodied in terms of its agriculture, industry, trade, business, and technology; while
the spiritual side of a civilization is represented by its system of beliefs, values,

۞ ۞ 4۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

ideologies, philosophies, and ethics. It is on this abstract side that Huntington focused
to define “civilization”. As he aptly put it: “civilization” is a cultural entity”
(
Huntington, 1993). By this, Huntington means that:

“Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all

have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneities. The
culture of a village in southern Italy, but may be different from that of a
village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture
that distinguishes them from Arab or Chinese commonalities. Arabs,
Chinese and westerners, however, are not part of any boarder cultural
entity. They constitute civilizations” (1993)

Till now, Huntington concentrates on “cultural entity” as the unit or trend that
differentiates, from the local level to the continental one, between diverse cultural and
geographical frames. “It sounds, then, that Huntington does not make any clear
distinction between the concept ‘culture’ and the concept ‘civilization’, and he often
use them as synonymous. Therefore he is against the German intellectual and
philosophical tradition, which heavily separates between both concepts. Broadly
speaking,

“A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the

broadest level of cultural identity people have, short of that which
distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common
objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs,
institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people”
(Huntington,1993)

On the light of this quotation, Two standards are to be taken into account in
Huntington’s definition of civilization: First, common objective element like language,
history, religion, customs, institutions .Second, subjective self-identification, which is
that sense of belonging by which people define their identities with varying degrees as
Roman, a Catholic, a Christian, an Arab, a Muslim, a European, a Westerner…In other
words, “the civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with
which he identifies”(Huntington,1993).

۞ ۞ 5۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

2-Clash in Huntington’s perspective

On the basis of the previous considerations, Huntington distinguishes between seven
or eight civilizations. “These include western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu,
Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. Along the cultural
faults lines separating these civilizations from one another, the most important
conflicts of the future will occur due to a variety of cultural, civilizational, religious,
economic and political reasons.

a-Civilization distinctiveness
According to Huntington’s hypothesis, differences among civilizations are basic. They
are one of the fundamental reasons that separate between civilizations and generate the
most prolonged conflicts. In this respect, Huntington states:

“Differences among civilization are not only real, they are basic;
civilizations are differentiated form each other by history, language,
culture, tradition and, most important religion.” (1993)

History, language, culture, tradition, and religion are among those basic objective
elements, which shape people’s identities and conceptions. They are basic because
they are rooted in themselves giving them a sense of what they are, and defining their
way of action, reaction, and interaction. Religion, for instance is one of the major and
most causes leading the groups of people from distinct civilizational backgrounds to
conflict with each other. This fact finds a supporting argument in the Noble Koran
showing up the Jews and Christians’ insistence to make Muslims leave their religion
and convert into theirs. The Almighty Allah says warning his messenger, Muhammad
(PBUH):

“Never will the Jews or the Christians be pleased with you (O

Muhammad) till you follow their religion Say: “Verily, the Guidance
of Allah (i.e. Islamic monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if
you (O Muhammad) were to follow their (Jews and Christians)
desires after what you have received of knowledge (i.e. the Koran),
then would have against Allah neither any Wali (Protector or
guidance) nor any helper” (The Noble Koran, 120, Surat 2 Al-
baqarah / part1, P.34)

۞ ۞ 6۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

The idea is that people, in the name of their faith, culture, and other civlizational
identifiers, tend, peacefully or aggressively, to globalize their own civilizational
model. Therefore,

“What ultimately counts for people is not political ideology or

economic interest. Faith and family, blood and belief, are what people
identify with and what they will fight and die for” (1993)

Culture is thus what we die for, and it is the major factor that intensifies people’s
consciousness and brings about the most prolonged conflicts.

b- The growth of civilization consciousness

Due to the enormous communicational changes humanity knew during the recent
decades of the twentieth century, the globe has become as a small village. The World
Wide Web (w.w.w.) has brought people together, created a world psychological
room, and made no need of travels any more. Being a part of this net, people’s
interactions with each other increase their civilization awareness bringing about
more and more invigorated disagreements and animosities. For instance,

“North of African immigrants to France generate hostility among

French men and at the same time increased receptivity to immigration
by “good” European Catholic Poles. Americans react for more
negatively to Japanese investment than to large investment from
Canada and European Countries” (Huntington; 1993)

The question of transnational immigration makes it hard for the immigrants to

integrate in societies within civilizations different from their own. They may face
racism, discrimination, restrictions of their freedom of self-expression, and deprivation
from their basic economic, political, and cultural rights. Muslim women, being
deprived by the French government of putting on their Hijab in schools and other
administrative institutions are a tangible example which manifests a sort of clash with
religious, political and civilizational dimensions. Such confrontations, which often
take the form of contests and demonstrations, “intensify civilization consciousness and
awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations”
(Huntington, 1993).

۞ ۞ 7۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

c- Economic modernization and social change

Since the decline of the Soviet Union in nineteens, the world has gone through a large
sophisticated process of economic modernization and social change. People have been
separated from their local identities, and they are no longer able to escape the crisis of
cultural schizophrenia; westernization as a secular movement has usually contributed
to the emergence of a controversial movement referred to as “fundamentalism”. The
later is no more than a manifestation of people’s identity consciousness and their
rejection of any sort of cultural or civilizational assimilation. Thereby civilizations are
living in a phase where the nation state is no longer enough to satisfy people’s sense of
identity. What makes it serious is that,

“In most countries and most religions the people active in

fundamentalist movements are young, college-educated, middle class
technicians, professionals and business persons. The“unsecularization
of the world”, George Weigel has marked, “is one of the dominant
social facts of life in the late twentieth century. “The revival of
religion”, “la revanche de Dieu”, as Gilles Kepel labelled it, provides
a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national
boundaries and unites civilizations.” (Huntington, 1993)

The civilizational and religious belonging is rather filling that gap paving the way for
“the revival of religion” and “the unsecularization of the world” we live in.

d- Demographic disequilibrium
Huntington believes that the civilizational conflict in its aggressive and intense form
will be a result of the demographic vitality in the south, namely that of the Islamic
world. In contrast, the demographic growth of the west is in decrease. This
demographic gap is seen to be one of the basic sources of rivals in the world. Really all
these rivals are not done by the Muslims who may turn into targeted victims, as the
Jews were before; it remains difficult to not believe that there is something in the
Islamic world, which causes this violence; and this thing is the enormous demographic
growth of the Islamic peoples in the recent years. The population growth has witnessed
an attractive increase especially in Balkan, North Africa, and the middle Asia
(Huntington, 1996).

۞ ۞ 8۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

e- Basic cultural differences

Cultural differences among peoples and nations are likely to be overcome in contrast
to the political and economic ones. In this context, Huntington argues that,

“In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the
rich can become poor, but Russians cannot become Estonians and
Azeris cannot become Americans. In class and ideological conflicts,
the key question was “which side are you on?” and people could and
did choose sides and change sides.” (1993)

In case the conflict is in between civilizations, However, the question is “what are
you” That is a given that cannot be changed. In this vein, Huntington gives one plainer
example arguing that,
“A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even
a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and
half-Muslim.” (1993)

Cultural differences are therefore hard to compromise, and no identity determiners are
more powerful and prolonged than cultures, religions, and civilizations.

f- The increase of economic regionalism

On the one hand, Huntington argues that the importance of economic regionalism
is likely to continue, and consequently the civilization consciousness grows up. This
economic movement, which seems to create more integrated economic blocs, is
widespread mainly in North America, Europe, and Asia. On the other hand,

“Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a

common civilization. The European community rests on the shared
foundation of European culture and western Christianity. The success
of the North America Free Trade Area depends on the convergence now
underway of Mexican, Canadian and American cultures.”(1993)
This also shows us how culture and religion reinforce the successful economic
regionalism. The more nations share in cultural commonalities, the more they have the
chance to form successful regional economic blocs. Thus, culture and religion also
form the basis of the Economic Cooperation Organization, which brings together ten
non-Arab Muslim countries: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

۞ ۞ 9۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

The increase of such regional economic integrations has resulted in the

emergence of economically, politically, and culturally different competitive powers.
Most important,

“The efforts of the west to promote its values of democracy and

liberalism as universal values, to maintain its military predominance
and to advance its economic interests engender countering responses
from other civilizations.” (Huntington, 1993)

Thus, the clash of civilizations, Huntington argues, occurs at the fault distinctive lines
between different economic, political and religious regional entities. These conflicts
are often aggressive, and they take place at both micro and macro level.

۞ ۞ 10۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

In the speech he delivered in the 18th General IPRA Conference Challenges for peace
in the 21st century, Tampere, Finland, 2002, the professor Mahdi Emandjara shed light
on the question of the international dialogue and its implications. Dialogue, which is

۞ ۞ 11۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

“the capacity to listen to the other” (Elmandjara, 2002) has always been one of the
major concerns of Elmandjara. In this chapter, the light will be focused on his
perspective about the requirements of “the true dialogue” as well as its reality and
future prospects.

1-Dialogue in Elmandjara’s perspective

a- Cultural communication
As for Elmandjara, communication among cultures is the best way to maintain
understanding and preserve cultural diversity. It is the backbone of dialogue and the
keyword by which to avoid more civlizational wars. As he clearly put it:

“Dialogue necessitates communication especially cultural

communication- that is a mutual understanding and respect of the
values of the other in addition to a capacity to listen because dialogue is
an unending learning process. It is the best prevention against
misunderstandings and ‘clash’” (2004)

Dialogue is, thus, a vehicle for the maintenance of peace and tolerance. It is further a
basic ingredient for peace and survival because it is an essential condition for the
preservation of diversity. In contrast, “The absence of communication and cultural
tolerance is what threatens peace in the next coming years” (Elmandjara, 2007). For
Elmandjara, dialogue, and not clash of civilizations, is “an ideal without which we can
not ensure the conditions for a viable survival” (2001, p.51).

b- Cultural humility
The other condition on which Elmandjara put stress on is cultural humility. It is one of
the basic requirements of cultural communication. As he broadly suggested it:

“‘Since wars have become the expression of cultural arrogance, cultural

humility is now the new name of peace’. Cultural humility is important
because it enhances the capacity to listen to the other. Our concern
today is with dialogue as related to civilization hence to cultural values.
They determine the form and the content of that dialogue and condition
the search for peace” (2001, p.49-50)

On the light of this citation, dialogue is synonymous with peace. It is the password to
get into the world of mutual understanding. Yet when one part claims to be superior to

۞ ۞ 12۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

the other exerting his cultural arrogance over him, then no peaceful dialogue would
take place. Dialogue, if it is to give its fruits, should prevail on an equally common
ground. The later, which is the international scene in this case, must welcome all the
participants no matter what their civilizational roots are. Wars have recently begun to
reflect a sort of cultural arrogance, and, therefore, we should insist on the
establishment of cultural humility. The rejection of any civilizational superiority,
Elmandjara assures, is the right key for peaceful co-existence (1996, p.97).

c- Freedom
According to Elmandjara, “freedom is the basic data which a living organism uses to
defend itself” (2001, p.18). Freedom as a concept must get rid of any conceptual
sophism which tends to keep it as an ink in the papers or in the programmes of
governments and parties. Freedom rather exists in mind. “It is lived as a personal and
collective initiative within a free atmosphere either in houses, universities, or other
elbows where people meet” (Elmandjara, 2001, p.17).

d- Dignity
The establishment of dialogue among nations also necessitates the sense of dignity.
The later is tightly connected to the previous element, which is freedom. As for
Elmandjara, dignity exists when people are given the right to practise their freedom,
express their views and also live within just and respectful conditions. When these
conditions are absent, humanity is exposed to a serious ethical crisis. As Elmandjara
aptly put it:
“We are living a real ethical crisis, which magnifies the bad effects of
all kinds of humiliation, and it is the result of poverty, illiteracy,
disease, the absence of fully social justice, and the deviation of
human rights”(2005, p.10)

Dignity, therefore, is a human component and a preliminary condition for dialogue and
cultural communication. Thus, the “war on values” in terms of cultural assimilation,
deprivation and violation of human rights constitutes what Elmandjara describes as
most dangerous because it involves a war against the values system and properties.

e- Preservation of diversity

۞ ۞ 13۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

Being an expert in prospective studies, Enlmandjara assures that the preservation

of cultural diversity is one of his major concerns. The cultural dominance of the north
over the south creates a huge gap between the two, and herby communication often
turns into a sort of crisis in the identity of the powerless whose financial capacity is not
enough to preserve and promote the prospects of his culture. Having described the
cultural difference between the North and the South, Elmandjara suggests three ways
for the promotion of prospective studies as far as the preservation of cultural diversity
is concerned:
e-1 Democratization of prospective studies
In order to develop and preserve cultural diversity, prospective studies should be
democratised. They should not be limited to the technocrats who don’t consider
the wills and prospects of the citizens (Elmandjara, 1996, p.40). Therefore, the
question of cultural diversity pertains to the democratization of prospective
studies at the national, regional and international level since there is a huge gap
between precedence and participation..
e- 2 Special pedagogic efforts
Also the preservation of cultural diversity requires that more special pedagogic
efforts are made. As Elmandjara aptly put it:

“The emphasis on cultural diversity in prospective studies requires

special pedagogic efforts. It needs the adaptation of mind’s structures”
(1996, p.41)

By this Elmandjara means that in order to preserve cultural diversity a nation in

terms of its politicians should have a clear vision about how to manage the
diversity of its cultures and avoid the marginalization of one on behalf of another.
This, Elmandjara argues, is of grave importance as far as the development of a
country is concerned.

f-3 Freedom

۞ ۞ 14۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

In addition to the previous conditions, Elmandjara assures that the preservation of

cultural diversity will flourish if there is no freedom, which opens new horizons
for cultural diversity to grow up. As he briefly put it:
“Without freedom there is no diversity” (1996, p.41)
Freedom, therefore, is a “human accumulation” without which diversity would
never exist. It is the key to the proliferation of various rich human perspectives.

2-The present reality of dialogue on the

international scene
Many reasons have contributed to the decrease of the values of dialogue on the
international scene today. In his declaration about this issue, Elmandjara noted that
“there is very little universal dialogue presently on the international scene” (2001,
p.41). The main reason behind this has been the western economic, political, cultural,
and technological domination over the third world countries. This, of course, has
several aspects, and it involves a set of arrogant practices that enlarges the gap
between the North and the South, the rich and the poor, the western and the non-
western…

a- Exclusion and marginalization

One of the problems that deter dialogue among the North and South, Elmandjara
argues, is marginalization. A short look at the international scene is enough to come up
with the huge and unbalanced relationship between the industrial and non-industrial
countries. In this vein, Elamndjra says:

“The most tangible dialogue going on in the world today is the one
among the « haves » between themselves bilaterally and regionally. As
a consequence, the feeble tradition and practice of the universal
dialogue which evolved very slowly within the praxis of the United
Nations is shriveling” (2001, p. 41)

This quotation shows us how the scope of dialogue is limited to one part over the
other. Hence communication lacks one of the basic requirements in whatever dialogue:
participation or involvement. Elmandjara continues saying:

۞ ۞ 15۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“We find an even more marked pattern of unbalanced and non-
universal decision making at the economic and financial level. An
ensemble made up of the World Bank, the International Monitory Fund
and the “G8” (the eight most industrial countries) monopolizes the
major part of the assessments, the pronouncements and the
international actions in these key areas while 80% of mankind watches
passively on the sidelines” (2001, p. 41)

All of this leaves very little room for a serious dialogue between the “haves” and the
“have-nots”.

b- Globalization and social injustice

Elmandjara defines globalization as “simply the Americanization of the globe”*. It is
the manifestation of the American and western domination over the third world
countries. Among the aspects that stamp the reality of dialogue on the international
scene are globalization and the social and economic injustice in the international
relations.
“Twenty percent of the richest people of the world consume 85% of the
48 least developed countries is inferior to the assets of the three richest
persons in the world. The total amount required to provide basic
education for everyone in the world is 6$ billion dollars- it represents
75% of what the Americans spend on cosmetics and 50% of what
Europeans spend on ice cream. It is not appropriate to raise the issue on
the insolvency of “the development” ritual and its policies and
programs. Disparities of such proportions pave the way for numerous
forms of clashes” (2001, p.46)

These features surely reveal that the economic injustice in terms of disparities of
proportions contribute, in a way or another, to the absence of dialogue and cultural
communication among nations of different economic powers. The promises of
globalization have gone with the wind, and the gap between the poor and the rich is
getting more and wider.

c-The incredibility of the international system

The United Nations, which is apparently an embodiment of the international dialogue,
begun to loose its credibility among the international society. In this respect,
Elmandjara argues that,

۞ ۞ 16۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“The serve changes in power relations witnessed during the last decade
have emaciated this basic of the institution, its aura and its
potentialities. We can either recognize this unfortunate development,
draw the conclusions it calls for and think about remedies, or we can
either go on closing our eyes and<waiting wishfully for a wind of
change and reform.” (2001, p.46)

As long as the present huge unbalance of power, resulting from the new unipolarity
persists, the UN system, with the exception of a small number of specialized
agencies and programs, can not be expected to serve as a reliable and credible
framework for a “dialogue of civilizations” nor as an efficient instrument for the
maintenance and the building of peace.

۞ ۞ 17۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

۞ ۞ 18۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

While Huntington put emphasis on clash and founded its theoretical ground,
Elmandjara, though he agrees with the reality and nature of the clash paradigm,
provided a preventive approach to the international relations, laying down the
basic ground for the establishment of a civilizational dialogue. This chapter,
therefore, comes to further highlight the major shortcomings and key conditions
for the sustenance of dialogue among cultures and civilizations of different
peoples and nations.

1- A primary recipe for dialogue among civilizations

Taking a step toward an effective international dialogue requires that all participants
share a set of primary conditional commonalities. These preliminaries include having a
pure will, common references, and democracy whose function is to establish justice
and equality among the “Us” and the “others” all together

a- Pure will
The will which bring about actions and motivates a nation to take an initiative
toward a civilizational goal is the cornerstone to maintain understanding. Having borne
in mind that dialogue among nations should be directed toward a humanistic goal that
is co-existence and not further suppression or denial, all humanistic and peace activists
must believe in the ability of Man to manage conflict and bring about peace. In other
words, all of us must get rid of the assumption that considers conflict a historical fact
and the secret behind survival. In fact, such a pessimistic hypothesis does nothing but
brings death and found the theoretical basis of conflict. During the cold war, the motto
which was raised is the Roman slogan “si vis pacem para bellum” (In English “if you
want peace, prepare for war”). Yet, as peace became a basic necessity, that motto
should be altered to become: “si vis pacem, para pacem” (In English: “If you want
peace, prepare for peace”).
Even the secret behind the creation of Man with social, cultural, national, tribal,
and sexual distinctions is directed toward a humanistic goal. Allah the Almighty says:

۞ ۞ 19۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
“O people, we created you from the same male and female, and
rendered you distinct people and tribes, that you may recognize one
another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous.
God is Omniscient, Cognizant” (The Noble Qur’an, Surat 49. Al-
Hujurat/ Part 26, p.676)

This verse simply reveals that cultural differences in terms of social diversity and
sexual distinctions have no priority over connaisance. Goodness is the only standard of
betterness, and the equal dialogue is the universal human right which all humans have
the right to practice and enjoy. As the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

“O Mankind, your Lord is one and your father is one. You all descend
from Adam, and Adam was created from earth. He is most honoured
among you in the sight of God who is most upright. No Arab is
superior than non-Arab, no coloured person to a white person to a
coloured except by taqwas” (Reported by Ahmed and Al-tirmidh)
This Hadith in turn emphasises human equality and reveals that colour is no longer a
standard of preference among nations. Thart is, ‘Whiteness’ and ‘Blackness’,
‘Civilization’ and ‘Primitiveness’ all are a part of those colonial racist ages which
witnessed the might of the night over the light of the right”.
However, co-existence for which all humanistic labours should be devoted still
calls for an honest will. Edward said noted that:

“There is after all a profound difference between the will to understand

for purposes of co-existence and enlargement of horizons, and the will
to dominate for the purposes of control” (2003)

To coexist and understand one another, nations in terms of people and individuals need
to accept each other showing their purest willingness to co-exist. In brief, the gate of
dialogue should be kept open as there is a will.

b- Common references
Concepts, that are those ideological vehicles by which the American pole
imposes its ‘civilizational model’ over the world, are the very mechanisms that may
activate conflicts among cultures. It is then necessary to know that dialogue in its
international level requires a highly universal frame of concepts which all cultural
components agreed upon. The need of a common reference among nations has reached

۞ ۞ 20۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

its highest peak as the geographical borders begin to completely vanish due to a series
of telecommunicational evolutions that turned the world into a very small village. The
UN charter is apparently an embodiment of such a dialogue; but, Mahdi argues, “The
serve changes in power relations witnessed during the last decade have emaciated this
basic role of institution, its aura and its potentialities.” (2000).
As far as concepts are concerned, a kind of world Dictionary is needed to be the
guide to whom everyone from whatever culture can refer to. In this respect, such a
common repertoire calls for a universal language which can, at least, help nations
achieve mutual understanding. The later, which all humanists long for, may find its
way to existence if, for instance, translators and linguists from every region and branch
try their best to promote translation studies. The later may become bridges through
which to switch from a language/or culture to another without deforming the meaning
conveyed or bringing about misunderstanding.
The American colonial discourse, or even the post-colonial one, is all loaded
with concepts like “ democracy”, “ modernity”, “ freedom”, “ peace”, “co-existence”,
“globalization”, “culture”, “civilization”, “enlightenment” and so forth. This awful
turmoil of concepts is, however, of nonsense as there is no international consensus on
them. The worst of all is that there is a recognizable tendency to Americanize most of
human universal values that every society considers as ideals. This tendency must be
restrained since those values are not unique to a particular region, race or nation.
Instead of going frequently through such a process, all of us, as humanists, must put
stress on the universality of those concepts/values. As Mohamed Saadi aptly put it:

“There is a set of basic human values that are common among all
cultural and religious spaces in the world, and we must invest them and
focus on them to establish the unity of humanity and the unity of
‘human essence’” (2006)

c- International democracy
The international labours to achieve peace among nations in fight have ended
into failure due to the dominance of a voice, which is the American decision, over the
other international voices. This injustice in power relations reelects the absence of

۞ ۞ 21۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

democracy in its international scale. One will not fail to recognize such a kind of
dictatorship even in discourse. In his reaction to the events of September 11 th, 2001,
the present American president George w. bush stated:

« Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you are with
us or you are with the terrorists». (2001)

This short statement is enough to come up with the arrogant ethnocentrism which
stamps the American political foreign policy and narrow the horizons of the
international dialogue.
Culture of ‘the white Man’ still controls the modern American politicians and
drives them, consciously or unconsciously, to look down the outsiders or rather ‘the
foreign devil’. The aspects of such an ethnocentric perspective are embodied in terms
of ‘naming/calling/labeling’ and ‘mapping’. The American DST listing names of
people and parties as terrorists or anti-Americans, its foreign political applications
categorizing countries or nations under terms like ‘the Great Middle East’, ‘ the axis
of the East’ and so on, all these features and nicknames are, ideologically speaking, a
part of what Edward Said calls ‘ imperial perspectives’ ;That is,

“ that way of looking at a distant foreign reality by subordinating its

history from one’s point of view, seeing its people as subjects whose
fate is to be decided not by them but by what distant administrators
think is best for them” (2003)

Such imperial perspectives that distinguish« the sole superpower in the world»
would hinder any freely dialogue among nations and probably drive the international
relations into a series of bloody battles. So in order that civilizational dialogue finds its
gate to existstence, democracy in terms of justice, equality, responsibility, and freedom
of expression must take place on the international scene.

2- Rethinking the role of religion

Throughout the course of human history, religion constitutes a basic component
for all human societies. There were cities without markets, quarters, or shops; but,
there was never a city without a temple. Owing to this, any restriction or persecution
against religious beliefs and practices would be a rock on the way of people whose

۞ ۞ 22۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

comfort is to be felt while they are given the right to express their beliefs and
spirituality within a free and respectful atmosphere.

d- Scientific dogma and the negation of religion

Truth is what we look for. We may differ in the way we think of it, but it is still
that existential concern which will bring us together one day. However what stifles the
project of such a civilizational dialogue and abort any attempt to get near the other and
share concerns with him is that scientific tendency, which often imprisons our mind
and slams the door of knowledge and enlightenment against it. Religious beliefs are
without doubt, the major shapers of our wills and conceptions. Owing to the central
position it holds, religion should be rethought to find out its points of intersection with
the current scientific knowledge. By this, one does not intend to say that the fault is in
religion, but rather in people’s thinking and understanding.
Many atheists, who gossip in the name of science and rational thinking never
stop excluding the unseen off the scientific dispute. The unseen, being the second half
of the whole existence, is always judged by the materialists to be a world of ghosts and
superstitions rather than a world that deserves respect and consideration. One asks: till
when those intellectuals will continue to negate religion as a rational source of
scientific knowledge? Are religion and science contradictory or rather complementary?
Such questions really provokes any believer’s feelings and thought and push him to
argue against such a scientific dogma, which puts science and religion in two opposite
extremes and deceives the weak believers to apply for a science-religion dialogue as if
there is actually a real controversy among them.
“Seeing” does not always “believing”. “Seeing” is “perhaps” and “maybe” and
many other phrases that express the very relativity of human recognition; however,
“believing” is the highest degree at which human recognition changes into faith. By
this one means that it is not reasonable for me to dogmatically deny a truth simply
because my power of recognition is not enough to appreciate it or because the device
used for that recognition does not go with the nature of that truth. The Unseen is
Unknown for the eye, but it may be known by the ear or by any other system of
recognition. Being unseen, the sound waves (S.W.), for example require an auditory

۞ ۞ 23۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

system to be appreciated. Regardless of whether that system is natural or artificial,

each truth or knowledge has its own system of appreciation.
In looking at the forgoing evidences, scientists in terms of physicists and
naturalists have no right to disprove the Unseen because there studies and researches
are concerned with the field of physics rather than that of metaphysics. Hence if the
materialistic tendency in thinking and judging makes one’s point of view superficial
and incapable to recognize the spiritual dimension of knowledge, then what one cannot
prove at once, he should not disprove it at all.
To sum up, science and religion remain two wings of the same bird. Such a
conclusion does not only correct human conception about the world and truth, but it
also bridges the gap between the “I” and “the other” and makes the horizons of
Civilizational Dialogue more and more spacious.

e-Religious education and the pair (love; peace)

It is worldly known that education, religious or secular, has a heavy weight in
formulating our thought and behaviour. Owing to their fateful impact on our thought
and behaviour, our educational programmes should embody, in their form and content,
those humanistic values at which we have pointed previously.
As for the content, which holds much importance for me, “Religious education”
should a hold a top position. One cannot deny that Religion is more powerful than the
influence a positivistic law may exert on people. This fact is due to the fact that
religion defines our conception of things and directs our relationships with others. At
this point, intellectuals (these include theorists, thinkers, instructors, educators…etc)
who speak and write in the name of secularism are meant to change their minds toward
religion getting free from the historical sophism with which the concept ‘religion’ is
loaded.
By religion one means that omniscient and universal view, which provides a just
and comprehensive perspective about Man’s psychological, social, ethical, economic,
and political affairs. Having understood this, Man’s positivistic thought in terms like
“Marxism”, “Capitalism”, “Darwinism”, and many other currents and directions are no
more than limited and exclusive perspectives. These are referred to as ideologies

۞ ۞ 24۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

simply because they lack universality, and they are driven by personal, regional, or
national interests. Yet religion in its absolute truth aims at reforming Man’s total affairs
making up a humanistic Doctrine which justly serves, in any space and time, the
interests of all nations without exception.
In regard to the previous considerations, “Islamic education”, which the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) adopted and adapted his companions to it, constitutes an ideal
example. The question of peace, which is the prevailing issue in foreign affairs today,
has its roots in the Islamic belief. The Prophet (PBUH), for instance, says:

“None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves
for himself” (Narrated by Albukhari & Muslim)

This Hadith (saying), regardless of its shortness, highlights one of the basic conditions
of a true belief: love. A belief founded on mutual love and brotherhood would protect
the national and international relationship from decay and replace hate with love and
selfishness with cooperation and self-negation. But how love can be maintained? This
question, again, has an answer in the Prophet’s saying:

“Would you like to guide you to something which if you did you would
love each other? Spread out peace among you” (Narrated by Muslim)

The pair (love; peace) can be universalised and, then, pave the way to the maintenance
of a peaceful and durable Dialogue among Nations only if “religious education” is
given back its noble standing. This goes without question.

f- Universal ethics of dialogue: suggested x-model

Ethics are the backbone of civilizational dialogue. Without them, dialogue
becomes synonymous with conflict. As the world is growing more and more diverse,
the calls for a universal law of ethics have begun to proliferate. In his approach to this
issue, the theologian King Hans assumed that such universal ethics necessitate three
basic principles:

“– humanity cannot live and survive without universal ethics.

–There will be no universal peace without peace among religions.

۞ ۞ 25۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞
– There will be no universal peace among religions unless there is
dialogue among religions.” (H.Kung, 1991)

This triad puts stress on religious dialogue. Such emphasis, however, needs more and
more explanation: the word “religion” here is to a far extent synonymous with
“ethics”, and the later in turn, implies those human values, which constitute the very
part of human nature.
Throughout my personally suggested x-model, I tried to highlight three
fundamental attributes without which dialogue, national or international becomes a
mirage. The model in question is summed up as follow:

Honesty Love

Humility Toleranc

f.1- Honesty
As stated before, “truth is what we look for”. It is that ethic of honesty, which
makes our relationships clear and perpetual. Thus, truth, and not interest, should
operate as the common driver and director of the relationships amidst nations.
The first real action to realise a real reconciliation among everybody is to seek
for truth. In contrast, lying and hypocrisy, which dominate the world politics
today, constitute a danger, not only for the future of the international relations,
but also for the future of humanity itself. In brief, seeking for truth and honesty
may push us believe in the diversity of perspectives, the complexity of the
world, and in the importance of the renewing our visions to invent a rich and
effective dialogue between cultures and peoples all together.

f.2-Humility
Humanity, which is “the quality of being humble”(Oxford, 2003), is one
of those fundamental conditions of dialogue among nations. Yet when one

۞ ۞ 26۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

underestimate the other claiming that it is the absolute “good” in which

civilization is centred, and that it is the source from which the light emanates,
the heats of hate break out, and the yearned dialogue goes with the wind.
Therefore, cultural humility, and not ethnocentrism, is quiet necessary. This
finds justification in EL-Mandjara’saying:

“‘Since wars have become the expression of cultural arrogance, cultural

humility is now the new name of peace’. Cultural humility is important
because it enhances the capacity to listen to the other. Our concern
today is with dialogue as related to civilization hence to cultural values.
They determine the form and the content of that dialogue and condition
the search for peace” (2000)

Humility, thus, calls for the promotion of “ear culture” instead of “power” on
which some of them insist to use as the only language of understanding and
solving problems. Such evil inclination and the will-to-power contradict with
the belief-in dialogue principle. Nonetheless,

“Believing in dialogue paves the way for vivacious hope: the hope to
live in a world permeated by the rein of economic indices and
destructive weapons” (Med Khatami, 2000)

f.3- Love:
It is that innocent emotion, which inspires peoples and nations to
communicate without wires or even without having a common cultural
background. Love is what makes us weep and sympathise with anyone
suffering in whatever part of the world. It is the paradigm of peace and safety
among all nations without exception.
“From an ethical perspective, the paradigm of dialogue among
civilizations requires that we abandon the will-to-power and instead
pursue compassion, understanding, and love. The ultimate goal of
dialogue is not dialogue in and of itself, but attaining empathy and
compassion” (Med Khatami, 2000)

Love in terms of sympathy and compassion is, thus, a hidden mechanism

motivating people to talk to each other, go beyond differences and keep the
lamp of hope burning..

۞ ۞ 27۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

f.4- Tolerance:
If people tolerated each other, peace would surely prevail. It would even
reinforce love and create a vast area of dialogue and mutual understanding. But
if everybody went astray bearing in heart a blind hate to revenge against the
other for buried mythical, cultural, or historical circumstances, then nobody
would enjoy the happiness of life. It is crucial here to bring back that moment
when the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) conquered his homeland, Mecca, after
being driven away with his companions from it. At that moment, the Prophet
was extremely powerful; his army esteemed about ten thousands soldier armed
with faith and God’s word. He was then able to sentence his enemies to death
and destroy them one by one; but, he did not. He rather ordered his soldiers to
surround them with mercy and not to cause terror against someone by anyway.
“Go! You are free” the prophet ordered his enemies, the unbelievers of Quraish.
It is at this point that human feeling intersect paving the way for an
honest, humble, and lovely interaction among peoples and nations together.
This intersection is what my personally suggested x-model sought to symbolise.
So let us hope with Muhammad Khatami, who called for dialogue among
civilizations suggesting:

“Let us hope that enmity and oppression should end, and that the
clamour of love for truth, justice and human dignity should
prevail.
Let us hope that all human beings should sing with Hafiz Shiraz,
this divinely inspired spirit, that: No ineffable clamour
reverberates in the grand heavenly done more sweetly than the
sound of love” (2000)

۞ ۞ 28۞ ۞
۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

It is clear by now that the question of clash and dialogue among

civilizations depends more on whether the international society is willing
to bring its member states together or not. Knowing that all human
societies and civilizations share in common human and ethical values is
not enough; there must be a common political will and agreement upon
those values, including the value of dialogue of course, followed by world
campaigns, institutionalization, and work plans to establish and protect
them.
Throughout this paper, I tried, in the two first parts, to uncover the
features that shape Huntington/clash and Elmandjara/dialogue paradigms,
getting near the conceptual and the corner-stones terms and perspectives
of both paradigms. Yet in the third and last part, I did concern myself
more with the dialogue paradigm, which holds much importance for me,
laying out the major comings and key conditions for a dialogue among
civilizations.
The nature of the topic I dealt with requires a rich background about
the international system. I admit that my approach to the issue of
“Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations” is purely cultural, ethical and
humanistic rather than scientific or academic. Consequently, there are
many points which I did not manage to touch. Therefore I premise I will
rethink of this issue again and again, collecting more convincing data so
that I can come up with little more objective views and visions.

۞ ۞ 29۞ ۞
 ۞ Dialogue or Clash among Civilizations ۞

- Elmandjara, Mahdi. “Dialogue, not Clash of Civilizations”, the 18th general IPRA
Conference challenges for peace in the 21st century, Tampere, Finland,
2000.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. Intifadat fi Zaman A-Thuluqratia, Alboukili for edition and
districution, Alqonitra, 2001.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. The Dialogue of Communication, CHIRAA series, Issue N°1,
1996.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. The First Civilizational War, the Arab Cultural Centre, the 8th
Ed., 2005.
- Elmandjara, Mahdi. The Value of Values, Ennajah Aljadida, Casablanca, the 2nd Ed.,
2007.
- Huntington, Samuel. “The Cash of Civilizations”, foreign affairs, 1993.
- Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
Simon and Schuster, 1996.
- Khatami, Mohamed. “Empathy and Compassion”, 5 September, the U.N.-sponsored
conference of Dialogue among Civilizations in New York, 2000.
- Kung, Hans. Projet d’éthique planaire, la paix mondiale par la paix entre les
religions, seuil, Paris, 1991.
- Moaniss, Hussein. Civilization: a Study in the Origins and Factors of its Foundation
and Development, the World of Knowledge magazine, Issue N°237, 1998.
- Saadi, Mohamed. About Dialogue among Civilizations: selected interviews and
articles of Samuel Huntington, Afrique Orient, 2006.
- Said, Edward. “Preface to Orientalism”, Ahram, 7-13 August, issue N° 650, 2003.
- Said, Edward. “Culture & Imperialism”, the Nation, 24 -30 July Issue No. 648, 2003.
- The Noble Koran.

۞ ۞ 30۞ ۞