Can Islamic and Christian Civilisations Coexist Today?

You are aware of this, right? Dear readers, with my articles that I continue to write, I have been trying to bring to the attention of the public opinion a polarisation between the Christian and Islamic worlds that is deepening day by day. Yes, I know you are aware of it too. It is clear that there is a sharpening hatred, a Christian-Islamic conflict that is diverging, becoming increasingly hostile and polarised. From the point of view of the Western world, this is clearly not a "fear of Islam" but anti-Islamic "Islamophobia". Islamophobia has been integrated with hatred of Islam to such an extent that the Protestant-Catholic conflict in the Christian world of the past is felt in all its aspects. 

As you know, Samuel Huntington's famous 'Clash of Civilisations Theory' was theorised in 1981 during the Cold War. Huntington argued that the deepest cause of the post-Cold War conflicts would be the difference in civilisations, or at least that the conflicts between civilisations would be bloodier than others. This initiated the debate on whether the transition period would be "bloody or bloodless", which continues to this day. On 13 April 1994, two weeks after the 27 March elections, at the Welfare Party Parliamentary Group meeting, Necmettin Erbakan put forward a similar argument for Turkey:

"Now a second important point is that the Welfare Party will come to power and a just order will be established. What is the problem? Will the transition period be harsh, will it be soft, will it be bloody, will it be bloodless, I don't even want to use these words, but I feel obliged to use these words so that everyone can clearly see the reality in the face of their terrorism. Turkey has to decide one thing right now, the Welfare Party will bring a just order, this is a definite condition, whether the transition period will be soft or harsh, sweet or bloody, sixty million will decide this!" (1) 

In fact, the main problem between Islamic and Christian civilisations stems from their desire to encompass and assimilate each other, in other words, to dominate. This is a view that prevails mostly in the West. You can even call it swallowing. In fact, Orientalists are also in favour of this. According to them, with Gorbachev and Reagan, the old history ended and a new era began. Although the Middle East, Africa and Asia are no longer ruled by foreign powers, they are not ruled as they should be. The Islamic state governments are to blame for this. The Islamic governments in power have not been able to implement the rules of Islam in this process and have constantly called for the rule of foreign powers. Again, according to them, now that this process has come to an end, if conflicts continue to be produced, there is only one reason for this. The main reason for today's chaos in the conflicted regions is the resumption of the old fights and conflicts of faith in these regions after the West withdrew its hands from these regions. The old conflicts they refer to are the Persian-Arab conflicts, for example, the conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites, such as the Iran-Iraq war, have flared up again for these reasons. After the second US invasion of Iraq, when the US invaded Iraq, the Shiites, with their own synergy, shouted the motto "La Shi'ism, la Sunniyah, Wahde wahde Islamiyya", "There is no Shi'ism alone, there is no Sunnism alone, the only way is Islamic unity" on the first Friday. Why? Undoubtedly, it is possible to make the following prediction; especially some people call it a war, but what kind of a war is this, this is a direct unilateral occupation movement. It is the staging of conflicts based on ethnic and religious divisions. However, they constantly avoid even mentioning this. As if it is not the West itself that has constantly stirred up the region and created a fire for its own interests, the West's withdrawal from the region is now cited as the cause of the conflicts. How interesting is this?

The Roman Peace "Pax Romana", in other words, the western sovereignty, which was integrated with the "Romanum Imperium", as the Orientalists call it, had found a middle way that ended religious and racial conflicts and, most importantly, there was no bloodshed. It is very interesting that the Roman Peace and the Ottoman Peace "Pax Ottomana" of the Ottoman Empire were and are praised with similar discourses. Indeed, one of them brought peace to the geographies under their sovereignty for almost two centuries and the other for 5-6 centuries. There is no doubt that this is how history has unfolded.

From this perspective, another important thematic phenomenon emerges as follows.  The global war of domination that is expected to continue between the Muslims and Christians. From this perspective alone, the two sides of the war have their own differences. For example, there is no doubt that Muslims are more enthusiastic and faithful than Christians. Christians, on the other hand, either have none or are much weaker than the Islamic world. You cannot fail to notice this from the fact that churches and cathedrals in Europe are rented out to Muslims during the holy birth weeks. Nevertheless, in this clash of civilisations, the Islamic world is relatively confident, if not very confident. As for the Christian world, this was put to the test during the pandemic, when there was little solidarity among Christians, and when vaccines and masks from other countries were stolen. Whereas Muslims are a relatively disciplined party with a large population, loyal to their faith, Christians are backward, at least in this respect, and are at risk of falling under the rule of a Muslim majority even in their own country. In other words, one of the main dangers for Christians is not the fear of being subjugated by the Muslim population, but the fear of being oppressed. However, the West is also counting on something else. What is that? The Christians' peculiar superiority, their knowledge and the fact that they have introduced freedom into all spheres of life. It is a fact that the Western idea of freedom is spreading and being adopted everywhere, including Muslim geographies. However, it should not be forgotten that the western interpretation of freedom and democracy under the pretext of the "Clash of Civilisations" has developed not the "Arab Spring" but the "Arab Winter". Are there any people left nowadays who threw themselves into the squares saying "authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are falling, democracy and peace are coming!"? At least I don't know. Yes, there is no guidance. 

The point I would like to draw attention to here is that polarisation continues to sharpen. First and foremost, it is obvious that if the polarisation continues in this way, the West may suffer from it. What should be done to prevent polarisation? First of all, however, it is worth mentioning that the US is fuelling this divergence with nationalism in Europe.  So, what should be done in the face of this situation without much delay? 

I regret to say that orientalists and occidentalists are being used by warlords for their own ambitions. Humanity needs orientalists like Edward Said. However, unfortunately, the western world displays a discriminating, separating, modular culture-making orientalist approach towards Islam.  This paradigm is completely wrong. This means trying to bring a rational approach to the East to solve the problems in the East by wearing Western sciences, and rejecting intuitive reason. In other words, it is completely wrong to attempt to solve the problems in the East through Western glasses. The reverse is also true for the Islamic World. Suffice it to say that the Islamic world, which places intuitive reason at its focal point, is dominated by the same feelings of hatred in its approach to the West with occidentalism. In a nutshell, "Humanity needs orientalism and orientalists who combine 'Rational, Vehbi and Kesbi sciences'." The necessity of taking a multidisciplinary look at the current events is precisely the focal point of this analysis. It is the ideas of thinkers such as Goethe, Schiller, Tolstoy and Rainer Maria Rilke, which I tried to express last week, that the West is trying to remove from the curriculum programmes in Western Universities. This week, I will try to introduce to you the German sociologist and philosopher Sigrid Hunke (Born: 26 April 1913, Kiel, Germany-Died: 15 June 1999, Hamburg, Germany), who has ideas that will moderate the Islamic world and the Western world. In Germany he is mostly known as an Arabist and a New Right-wing writer who admires Eastern thought, but in reality he has not only analysed but also examined the influence of Eastern science, culture and art on the West, in other words, the legacy the West has received from the East. His most important book is 'The Eastern Sun Enlightening the West'. Hunke pursued the "Backward East-Forward West" fallacy and tried to show that it was wrong. According to him, this orientalist point of view is the European-centred history thesis. The focus of his work has been to refute this thesis. One of the theses he tried to put forward is the idea that "Whoever strives for science is worshipping God". Look, Hunke describes this issue in his book as follows:

"Prophet Muhammad considered the endeavour for science as a religious duty for "every Muslim, men and women". He said, "Seek science from the cradle to the grave". He repeatedly showed this path to his followers. "Learning science is equivalent to fasting and teaching science is equivalent to worship." The understanding of creation and its sublimity could only deepen the love of the Arabs for their Creator, but for all mankind, according to him, science was to illuminate the path of faith. (...) Because science serves the honour of God. All wisdom comes from God and returns to Him. That is why he said, "Acquire science from whatever source it comes. And even if it comes from China" Yes, for God's sake, "take science even if it comes from the lips of an infidel!" (1)

Yes, dear readers, as Hunke says, apart from what the church and monastic system have done in the otherworldly sphere, it cannot be said that they have done much in the worldly sphere in the name of "saving culture". The Church pulled knowledge and even "Divine Wisdom" out of the snow-like clarity of the Greek Logos (2) and threw it into the suffocating and dark pit of miracles and superstitions. How the spread of those miracles and superstitions blinds man is being experienced today.  

Footnotes

(1) Ali Karahasanoğlu, "Will it be bloody or bloodless?", Akit Newspaper, 12 May 2016; 

https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/yazarlar/ali-karahasanoglu/kanli-mi-olacak-kansiz-mi-14946.html/ Date 16.07.2023/

(2) Sigrid Hunke, Trans. Işık Soner, Batııyı Anlatan Doğu Güneşi, Kaynak Yayınları No 532, 2nd B., Ankara, December 2022, p.260-261