TruthBook Religious News Blog

February 20, 2007 12:05 PM

The survey of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries conducted for the BBC by GlobeScan, a polling firm, and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland is the most substantive study on grassroots opinion vis-à-vis the divide between the Muslim World and the West that has been conducted so far. The survey is very enlightening when looking at the detailed results in each and every country where the survey was conducted. It also does a good job at probing the reasons behind the divide in public opinion as well as whether it is seen to be bridgeable or doomed to end in a head-to-head clash. The results are of great scientific importance to those of us who are engaged in projects to bridge the divide, but the conclusions made by the survey are designed to show hope rather than promise the abyss and therefore are better suited for public consumption. A good example of this is how the conclusions drawn from the survey declare that “the global public believes that tensions between Islam and the West arise from conflicts over political power and interests and not from differences of religion and culture..” and “most people see the problems arising from intolerant minorities.”

The conclusion remarks continue to declare that “the idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike. While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that "common ground can be found."

There is no question that the majority of people on both sides of the divide still believe that common ground can be found, and would advocate finding it; what we didn’t know is how large the number is on the other side! The fact that almost a third of people surveyed think that “violent conflict is inevitable” is alarming because it is proof that the divide has grown wider. There was never any sign of it shrinking, but when a third of the World’s population expects doom, the threat is as serious as it can be.

...the Lebanese overwhelmingly (68%) believe common grounds can be found between the Muslim World and the West while only 54% of Egyptians and 49% of Turks do. Further away by around a 10-hours plane ride, the majority of Indonesians (51%) believe that violent conflict is inevitable. We have discovered through action on the divide that even in Europe, the divide between the British Muslim community and the rest of society there is very different from that in France, Germany or other countries. Europe’s divide in turn, is very different from that in the USA. What is common however, and which gives the impression that it is the same animal, is the umbrella they all exist under: Muslim vs. non-Muslim. This in turn bundles different groups under one “identity.”

When Samuel Huntington came out with his “Clash of Civilizations” theory in a paper published in Foreign Affairs, and later in 1996 in the form of a book, he wasn’t arguing that such a clash is inevitable. What Huntington was pushing for is simply that after the fall of the Soviet Union (therefore the fall of communism) differences among nations will be based on culture rather than ideology. So Chinese culture which is vastly different from that of the West will be competing with the West, and so would the Muslim World.

There is enough out there to argue for it or declare with alarm that this theory is too simplistic in nature. An example is during the Cold War, the Muslim World was divided (in line with the rest of the world) into three categories: Pro-West in the form of capitalist of sorts, Pro-Soviet Union in the form of socialist or communist and of-course the Non-Aligned; the latter described as a movement and therefore a third option which strived to dealing with both powers but they weren’t independent from such powers in practical terms.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is still around today after the fall of the Soviet Union. Why? What is the purpose of NATO? Is China communist today? If not, then what is it? Is Iran’s conflict with the USA due to religion or national interest and which factor is fueling the divide between the two countries? Before it was all about the two superpowers competing and therefore dividing the world into pro, anti, or middle-grounders. What is it about now? Today the game has changed and philosophers need to create new rules for competition, if not to help run the world, at least to create understanding of what is happening on the ground. Such understanding, however, will not only influence what will be, but will become the norm in the head of the grassroots worldwide and therefore the new reality we have to live with.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Islamism, including the radical forms as manifested by Al Qaeda, it is easy to divide the world based on religion. To argue against Huntington’s theory or that of the fundamentalist Islamists, the Muslim World is not united in culture by any means. It enjoys the basics of religion as a common ground. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Muslims whether they are Lebanese, Saudi, Pakistani or Indonesians have the same culture. They don’t. But that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t under the threat of danger or the power of ideology and new thought.

Similarly, the Western nations are collectively the “other” in the equation from a Muslim World’s perspective, even though they do not have the same culture despite the Christian majority in Western states. If the Muslim World is to unite against the “Western Evil” then the West will unite to defend itself. Religion based ideology has infiltrated and influenced culture to a degree that it is possible to forge a united power against the other and therefore walk towards a clash of civilizations; a violent one indeed. This is where the danger comes because this is what Al Qaeda and its type are pushing amongst Muslims, and the hard religious right is pushing in the West.

The point of this exercise is to emphasize what Huntington has always been rightfully focused on: Identity. Huntington followed his Clash of Civilizations book with another in May 2004: Who are we? The Challenges to America’s national identity. What Huntington is not right about is how adamant he is in his latest book on defining American culture as “Anglo-Protestant,” therefore pushing the principle that identity is “religion based.”

On the other side of the globe, the fundamentalist Islamists are pushing a unified identity of “the Umma” (the nation of Islam as a united identity despite race, culture and geography) to justify the principle of “us against them.” Yet, in a clear clash with that concept that is being pushed liberally in the Muslim World and the West alike, is the principle of National Interest; not in term of an “Umma” or “the Christian West” but in terms of the political state and the nation that belongs to its boundaries; whatever is the religion of the individual in that state. Those of us who want to ensure that no violent clash ever becomes a reality between the Muslim World and the West, do not want to see a religious identity develop further to exacerbate the divide and take us to the abyss. It all starts with answering the question: who am I? This also is the answer to the future of this world, and the survey proves that about the third of earth has fallen into the pit of “I am my religion.