This paper is an attempt to evaluate an international political
problem from a philosophical perspective in order to see its actual place
within a civilizational phenomenon. How Muslims view Jerusalem and how it
is to be viewed from a historical perspective are the main issues to be
evaluated. The historical approach shall attempt to provide a framework
for treating the problem. This framework includes the concept of
civilization and the phenomenon of the rise and fall of civilizations.
Certain historical facts may lead us to clues for unravelling our
perception of the Jerusalem issue today. We shall then begin our treatment
of the problem from evaluating the concept of
civilization.
The idea of civilization was first introduced by the French
thinkers in the eighteenth century in order to distinguish between
barbarism and a civilized society.
Three main criteria were introduced then to distinguish between a culture
(a primitive society) and a civilization (a civilized society); 1. settled
vs. nomad, 2. urban vs. rural, 3. literate vs. illiterate. If this is the
case, then a civilization cannot be defined conclusively because the
French approach seems to concentrate on how to distinguish the civilized
from the uncivilized, whereas a culture may be perfectly civilized without
being a civilization. Therefore, we need a definition of civilization
which is broader in its scope. If we examine past civilizations we will
see that it is externally hard to distinguish them from cultures except
that they are much broader and include more than one culture; hence, a
civilization is in fact “a universalized culture.” This means
that a civilization is in the true sense a culture which is no longer
limited to its local and national confines. As such it begins to include
within its boundaries many sub-cultures, all of which are very much
colored by the foundational culture that has become an all-embracing
culture, namely a civilization. It is possible to find such a culture in
the ultimate analysis of every true civilization. Our definition of a
civilization enables us to distinguish the following criteria for
civilizations: universality; multi-culturality; having an official
language that characterizes its literature, whether scientific or
artistic. If a culture does not have these characteristics it cannot be
called ‘civilization’. It is clear that the most important aspect of a
civilization is its universality; and in fact all other aspects can be
reduced to this one. That is why we have tried to give our definition of
civilizations in terms of universality alone
.
What is it that renders a culture universal? There are primarily
two phenomena that may elevate a culture to the level of universality: one
is religion, the other is science or scientific activities. Depending on
the foundational culture, either one of these or both together may render
a civilization universal. In case of Islamic civilization, for example, it
is primarily the religion that has universalized the Arab culture into a
universal status. Of course it is not the scientific achievements of the
Early Muslims that eventually rendered Arabic as the official language of
this civilization, but rather the fact that it was the language of
Revelation. As a result of this, all scientific and literary activities
were also carried out in this civilization in Arabic; whether the author
was an Arab or not was irrelevant. Because the Islamic civilization began
to include, as a result of its universality, many other national cultures,
the original Arabic culture, which was universalized in the form of a
civilization, began to lose its Arabic character, it was thus blended with
a universalistic color that made up the Islamic civilization. Since we are
not dwelling upon the characteristics of the foundational Arabic culture
that was universalized in the form of Islamic civilization, there is no
need to point out here that this foundational culture was modified greatly
by the revealed religion Islam.
In the case of the Aegean civilization, on the other hand, it is
primarily the scientific activities that rendered it universal. Since the
original foundational culture of this civilization was the Greek culture,
all scientific and literary activities were carried out in this language,
which then became the official language of this civilization until its
fall. The Western civilization is, on the other hand a more complex
phenomenon which requires more historical analysis that may force us to
modify certain aspects of our definition.
If there is a foundational culture which gradually becomes a
universal culture called ‘civilization’, then there is a process that can
be identified as the ‘rise of a civilization’. On the other hand, just
because there are civilizations in the past that have fallen, we may infer
on the basis of the rise of civilizations that there must be also a
process that can be identified as the ‘fall of a civilization’. In this
context I am more concerned with the dynamic principles which lead to the
rise of a civilization. If these principles are identified correctly,
there is no reason to look for such principles for the fall of a
civilization, because the fall must follow upon the lack or insufficiency
of the dynamic principles that lead to the rise of it. We shall argue,
moreover, that although the course civilizations take for their rise and
fall may vary greatly, it is possible to discern general law-like
principles from their histories that govern their rise and fall. In this
context, without much argument I will try to cite a few of these dynamic
principles in order to utilize for pinpointing the place of the Jerusalem
issue within a civilizational context.
First of all, when we examine the process for the rise of a
civilization, we shall clearly see an element that universalizes the
foundational culture of that civilization. If, therefore, in case of the
Islamic civilization, for example, that universalizing element is the
religion Islam, then it can be identified as a dynamic principle for the
rise of this civilization. Islam as a religion, on the other hand,
includes many things and as such it is a complex phenomenon and therefore,
it would be evading the problem to just point to a complex phenomenon
without analyzing it as a dynamic force for the rise of a civilization. It
must be certain principles which Islam brought that played the role of
these dynamic principles for the rise of Islamic civilization. In fact,
when one examines the Qur’an, one can find certain implications for the
existence of such principles within a society that are identified as ‘sunnatullah’.
Secondly, the universalizing element is able to give a dynamism to
the society into which it is born. This dynamism takes place on different
planes; of which two are extremely important: first is the social plane,
which causes certain unrest and stirring within the society as if the
whole structure of the society is re-shaping itself and thus every social
institution is affected by this dynamism; but most importantly, the
political and educational institutions are re-organized as a result of
this unrest; second is the plane of learning and it is this dynamism which
causes a lively exchange of ideas on scientific and intellectual subjects
among the learned of the community. How this dynamism itself as sunnatullah is produced remains a
very complex phenomenon which must be studied more carefully in relation
to each society.
For instance, in case of Islamic civilization we explain how it was
internally generated by the thought of the Qur’an through its
dissemination within the first Muslim community. But here what we are
trying to look for is whether there are any universal rules governing the
generation of that dynamism, because we are trying to apply it to an
international conflict of our time; the Jerusalem issue. I shall now try
to show that these dynamic forces within the foundational culture are natural phenomena and therefore
they are deeply rooted within the human personality. It is for this reason
that we have included them in the meaning of the Qur’anic concept sunnatullah.
Accordingly, we distinguish so far two fundamental phenomena as
corresponding to what we term ‘the universalizing elements’ as the basis
of social mobility in the original foundational culture: the first one can
be conceived here as moral dynamism, and the other as intellectual
dynamism, both of which fall within the domain of sunnatullah.
This is what we shall now demonstrate
.
With respect to moral dynamism it is possible to divide the members
of a given society into three groups: 1. morally sensitive people, 2. the
common mass, 3. selfish or morally insensitive people. Among these three
classes usually the first and the third group are dynamic. For the former
class struggle to restore morality and good order in a society, whereas
the selfish class remain indifferent to this end by spending their
dynamism to their own ends. The masses, on the other hand, are driven to
either side. In the midst of these chaotic struggles the emergence of
certain intellectual activities is almost inevitable, as both the moral
and the selfish sides will try to justify their ends rationally in order
to draw more supporters. But since for the selfish the end is more
important than the means, they will definitely try to use other attractive
means to draw supporters. Therefore, in this struggle it is still the
morally sensitive that are primarily intellectually and spiritually
productive. This leads to an immense intellectual dynamism. By the
‘intellectual dynamism’ we mean the ‘dynamism inherent within originality
and novelty’ (of ideas and doctrines) such that the
foundational culture had never seen their like before
.
Since we empirically know that there are in every society, without
exception, morally sensitive people, the masses and the selfish, we need
not prove their existence as sunnatullah, i.e. natural. But the
fact that originality and novelty inherently possess dynamism may not be
so easily accessible and in fact this is the main problem with the Islamic
civilization today; hence we must show that intellectual dynamism is also
a sunnatullah. In order to do this we need only to refer to some
previous cases in civilizations where this was demonstrated. In the Aegean
civilization, for example, we claim that if there were not, in each case,
a new and fresh outlook, the intellectual dynamism would have not
flourished and thus the flair of Greek intellectualism would have died out
long before Plato. Moreover, just because there is hardly any original
theory and doctrine after Aristotle, the Greek intellectualism began right
after him to decline. The same is also true for both the Islamic and
Western civilizations, but the way this intellectual dynamism, as a
sunnatullah, is
manifested in all these civilizations of course varies
.
What we are showing here is the idea that originality
inherently possesses dynamism, and as such it can contribute essentially
to the rise of intellectualism which gradually leads to the advancement of
scientific and literary learning, i. e. elements that are universalizing
factors within the foundational culture. Thus without it no culture can be
universalized; but with it alone it is not possible for the foundational
culture to emerge as a civilization as there are other conditions to be
met in this process. One should not, therefore, interpret our claim with
regard to the intellectual dynamism; even if there is a lively exchange of
original and fresh ideas, theories or doctrines it may still not lead to
the emergence of the foundational culture as a civilization. For it is
possible that there may be originality without necessarily leading to a
civilization, because as we have already pointed out, we are examining the
causes of intellectual progress individually, namely without reference to
the other universalizing factors. But within the foundational culture,
these factors produce the desired end only when they are altogether
present
.
All these dynamisms, either together or one after
another will yield what I shall call ‘institutional dynamism’. When these
universalizing dynamic forces are at work, a tremendous social mobility in
the foundational culture begins. It is the dynamism of individuals working
together to lead the society as a whole to a morally better situation that
we call ‘social dynamism’. On the other hand, these social activities will
gradually lead to the re-organization and betterment of social
institutions including the political and economic ones as well. For social
dynamism is reflected necessarily onto the social institutions. How can,
for example, an intellectual who is active in educating the individuals of
his society not attempt reforming his educational system upon observing
that his work somehow is not effective and realizes that this is because
of the structure of his educational system? It is this re-formative and
enlightened efforts at all organizational levels that we call
‘institutional dynamism’. It is clear that all these dynamisms are indeed
the universalizing factors of a culture. When all these universalizing
factors are active together, then the foundational culture is necessarily
set into a scientific progress that follows upon intensive intellectualism
that is present within the culture. Of course besides these universalizing
factors, different societies may exhibit some other different
universalizing factors; such is the case with Western civilization which
has Islamic influences also as a cause for the rise of Western
intellectualism. Whereas in the Islamic case, the causes are found only
within the foundational culture in which a tremendous social mobility is
produced as a result of the newly emerging religion
.
Institutional dynamism as a universalizing factor
takes place at the level of social institutions; the most significant of
these being the educational institutions, a great reform and
re-organization in accordance with the knowledge produced by the
intellectual dynamism is required of all the educational institutions.
Usually there seems to be a relation, although not a necessary one,
between the political body and the educational reform. Either the
political body brings about the educational reform at the request and
directions of the intellectuals, or intellectuals themselves take the
initiative and produce educational dynamism, which may in turn lead to a
re-organization of the political body and thus produce a great political
mobility within the political institutions. These activities, which also
include the legal undertakings, can be called ‘political dynamism’. Among
these institutional dynamisms as universalizing factors we must mention
also economic activities. Similar reformations take place in the economic
institutions yielding thereby improvements in the prosperity of that
society and thus can be called ‘economic dynamism’
.
We have thus distinguished three kinds of
universalizing factors for the emergence of a civilization out of its
foundational culture:
1. The initial
universalizing factors which are necessary prior to the rest of the
factors, and they are two;
a) the moral struggle, and
b) the original intellectual
activities;
2. Social
dynamism;
3. Institutional dynamism,
which is the last step of the process for the emergence of the
foundational culture as a civilization and they are primarily
three:
a) educational dynamism ,
b) political dynamism ;
c) economic dynamism .
The last three dynamisms
include within themselves with a varying degree of intensity all the
universalizing factors explained above, and as such they are the ones that
produce culture. As soon as the universalizing factors are at work
effectively within the original society, then the foundational culture is
no longer what it was before. To give an example, the Medinan Muslim society and the Jahiliyyah culture, which is in
fact the foundational culture of the Islamic civilization,
but as it was in its original state, could have never led to the rise of a
civilization. It was, therefore, greatly modified by Islam which started a
sufficient social dynamism in that society to lead it to the emergence of
a civilization.. Hence, if a culture retains its dynamisms as a result of
these universalizing factors long enough such that the foundational
culture no longer becomes restricted to one society and region, then it
turns into a civilization.
Therefore, cultures are usually restricted to a certain span of
time and region or society. But civilizations cannot be so restricted. But
if a civilization does not retain its dynamism, then all institutions
begin to deteriorate and as a result dynamism in the opposite direction
begins to take place; first, the selfish gain the majority of the masses
and intellectuals become corrupt, then the moral struggle gives in. The
civilization thus collapses and all of its institutions gradually become
corrupt; a phenomenon which can be observed both in the Ancient Greek
civilization and Islamic
civilization of today. If we examine the bygone civilizations of the past
we shall see many similarities between them and the present Islamic
civilization. In fact, today there is no more a civilization that deserves
the name Islamic civilization. A culture can be called civilization only
if it is dynamic morally in the first place and intellectually (namely,
scientifically) in the second place. In the case of the
Islamic civilization, both dynamisms were propelled by the religion; this
leads us to infer that the collapse of the Islamic civilization must have
come upon the collapse of the religion, namely misinterpretation of the
religion or its mythologization which eventually led to the
ineffectiveness of Islam within the civilization. This gradually led to
the downfall of all institutions, including the military and political
ones
.
At this juncture we can ask the question concerning
our conflict today: is the Jerusalem issue an isolated, individual case;
or is it a civilizational case? I am afraid that most Muslims today handle
it as an individual problem, in the solution of which they do not pay
attention to the civilizational problems surrounding this issue. If we
always try in this manner we cannot solve it. The best lesson is again
provided by history; for example, when the Crusades started, the conflict
took place again around Jerusalem. But at that time Islamic civilization,
though it was politically scattered, mainly by the brute force of other
cultures, its dynamic structure was able to handle the problem as an
individual isolated case; hence Jerusalem ultimately remained in the hands
of Muslims. But today we have our civilizational problems; moral
decadence, mythological understanding of our religion which lead to the
weakening of Islamic principles in individual and social life and finally
intellectual decadence which leaves no creative scientific activities. How
can we then solve the Jerusalem issue? I would like to pose another
question in order to demonstrate rather indirectly how we may approach
this international conflict from the civilizational framework
.
What happens if a civilization dies? The most important factor in
Islamic civilization is of course religion, but in order to generalize
this to all civilizations, we shall propose the fact that the moral
dimension dies within those societies that are included under that
civilization. Selfishness rules supreme, individuals think of their own
ends only; as a result, social institutions do not function properly.
Everyone thinks of himself rather than the ideal end, which was the Cause
of Allah, in the Islamic civilization. Everyone prefers himself over his
brother (or sister); ideal
principles such as innama’l-Mu’minun ikhwah become simple words of mouth with great meaning but with no
application in real life. Then, intellectual life also becomes corrupt,
because educational institutions, as we have seen, are an integral part of
a civilization, once they are corrupt no serious intellectual will be
produced; as a result scientific activities will no longer be creative.
This will result in social problems being dealt with inefficiently; and no
new concepts will be invented to express new interpretations of meaningful
phenomena in human life and culture. These concepts may be borrowed from
other civilizations and lead to confusion, as they will not cover all
aspects of human existence within that civilization. The scientific
downfall will lead to technological backwardness which will lead to
military weakness. Every other people around that civilization will try to
get their share from the falling civilization. The people and the
geography of the falling civilization become like a dead corpse of an
animal upon which vultures and many other scavengers rush to get their
share. I believe that this is what has happened to the Islamic
civilization, and the Jerusalem issue cannot be evaluated without a look
into the rise and fall of civilizations. If my presentation seems
realistic, then this problem cannot be solved without a comprehensive
outlook. I am afraid my dismal presentation of the state of Islamic
civilization is historically realistic. This requires us to look into the
Jerusalem problem, and in fact the Bosnian, Azeri, Burmese Muslims, the
Iraqi and even all other international political problems, from this
perspective. We have lost the official language of our civilization, as
well as our identity and integrity. Losing geographical areas is not such
a significant issue when compared to these civilizational
losses
.
What does the civilizational outlook give us? Civilizational
outlook should not be taken as a portrait of a hopeless case. It rather
assigns us more serious duties. We must, first of all, obey the sunnatullah and try to see the
universalizing factors within a culture and try to utilize these factors
in order to revive the Islamic civilization. We must know that we cannot
solve anything by sheer military force, or by acquiring nuclear power or
other technological achievements. These achievements are, after all,
acquired through following strictly the creative universalizing factors
within a society. Every individual should question himself rather than
questioning others; this supreme moral principle was ingrained in the
minds of early Muslims who are lesson-laden for us. In fact the early
process for the emergence of Islamic civilization is a good example for us
to see the universalizing principles of sunnatullah at work. Of course the
aim of early Muslims was not to establish a civilization, but they aimed
at clearing their souls from the evils of human interests and thus
perfecting the human self, which became a foundation stone of a great
civilization. Our aim should also be ridding ourselves from the evil
intentions of our nafs
al-ammarah; all other problems, including the Jerusalem issue, will
gradually be solved through time; and time is also a requirement of the sunnatullah. We must realize that
such civilizational problems cannot be solved overnight. Patient struggle.
i.e., in the way of human betterment will lead us to the happiness of this
life as well as the one to come, inshallah.
