Haroun Er Rashid

Huntington’s Prediction
Refuted

Samuel Huntington, in “The Clash of Civilizations?”, pre-

dicted continuous and escalating wars of religion disguised as
wars of civilizations—a predictable assumption given Huntington’s
initial impulse to blame Islam for all the ills of the modern
world.1 Before we assess Huntington’s prediction in light of recent
world events, however, we must examine the words “Islam” and
“Muslim.” Huntington and most Western scholars—and, indeed,
many Muslims—use the terms interchangeably. They are distinct,
however; Islam is a religion, the core of which the Quran explains.
Muslims have accepted Islam as their religion, but they have not
necessarily fulfilled all the conditions of Islam. This distinction ex-
plains how different Muslims can use Islam to justify both pacifism
and aggression.
The difference between Islam and Muslim becomes critical when
one considers the differences among Muslim societies. Muslims,
like all people, are shaped by their historical and economic circum-
stances and their educational systems, which vary so greatly across
Muslim societies that Muslim groups differ not only between poli-
tical states but also within themselves. For example, Islam is deeply
concerned with rectifying social injustice, and this concern assumes

The Journal of The Historical Society II:2 Spring 2002 179

 The Journal

preponderance in poorer Muslim societies. And yet, the definition

of injustice and the dispensation of social justice vary widely from
society to society, and no uniform standard exists to apply across
Muslim societies. Education provides another example. Modern
education, especially the education of girls, undoubtedly serves as
one of the most important factors of change in Muslim societies,
and the divergent educational and decision-making opportunities
that Muslim societies provide for girls and women testify to the
vast differences among Muslim countries’ interpretations and enact-
ments of Islam.
Muslim societies differ greatly within and among themselves, but
Islam is immutable. Islam is an ideal that very few Muslim groups,
let alone societies, can hope to achieve. Therefore, it is inappropriate
to call Muslim countries Islamic. Governments and leaders may use
Islamic symbols when it suits their political purposes, as Iraq did in
1991, but such transparent manipulation obviously abuses religion
for political purposes. There are no Islamic countries and no Islamic
societies, only countries and societies that are Muslim, and their
failings cannot be attributed to the religion of Islam. Islam does
not fail; Muslims, who may or may not strive to achieve the ideals
of Islam, do. Parvez Manzoor has rightly suggested that the term
Islam should be “reserved for something transcendent, universal
and pertaining to the norms of the faith,” while Muslim should
denote “everything else that is concrete, historical and immanent”
(Manzoor 1999).2
Huntington, who confuses Islam and Muslims, uses phrases such
as “throughout Islam” and “Islam is divided among competing
power centers”—as if Islam is a continent, a tangible entity, rather
than a religion. This viewpoint, perhaps amusing in its error, also
provides the source for dangerous generalizations. For example,
it suggests that the Muslim world is limited to countries with
a Muslim government or a Muslim majority among the popula-
tion. The Muslim world does consist of countries where Muslims

180
 Huntington’s Prediction Refuted

comprise a majority of the population, but it also contains many

areas, large and small, where Muslim minority populations play an
important role. Bosnia and India come readily to mind. In India,
which is not a Muslim nation, hundreds of areas contain large mi-
norities or even majorities of Muslims, and their total number within
the Indian population now runs past 120 million. Even in countries
where their numbers are relatively small, Muslims can play a major
role in government and society. The religion of Islam may touch al-
most every corner of the world, but “Muslim” describes the diverse
peoples, cultures, music, art, and architecture that express Islam in
these different contexts.
Does Osama bin Laden represent Islam or the Islamic religious
establishment? The answer is a resounding “No.” Bin Laden had
no right to issue any fatwa (edict), and he enjoyed no locus standi
to call all Muslims to a Jihad against America. Even when there
was a Khalifa, a leader of Islam, such proclamations were made
after much consultation with jurists and due consideration of the
consequences. Bin Laden, however, issued one call for Jihad after
another without considering the consequences for those who might
suffer, and no evidence exists that he even considered the six million
Muslims who live in the United States of America. Therefore, one
must completely reject him as a spokesperson for Islam.
We cannot, however, reject Bin Laden as the voice for a considera-
ble number of Muslims and non-Muslims who find the American
lifestyle profligate, American attitudes arrogant, American business
interests aggressive, American political interests utterly selfish, and
American charities self-serving. Marxist and Muslim ideas of Islamic
social justice converge in these views, so that one finds the same
charges leveled against America from Caracas to Kolkata. Bin Laden
may be outrageous, but his adversary is not pure.
This brings us to the heart of the matter: Why does America ignite
so much antipathy? This question bewilders most Americans, who
believe that the American way of life is the most precious product of

181
 The Journal

Western civilization, which in turn represents the highest level any

civilization has ever achieved. For the American people, who have
been nurtured on tablets and tabloids, two-minute TV commentaries
crammed between commercials and Hollywood trivia hold the truth.
No wonder average Americans are only slightly more informed than
their counterparts on the streets of Karachi and Cairo.
The people who inhabit those desperate streets believe America to
be heartless. America killed approximately 200,000 civilians when
it atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but now Americans say
nothing can justify the killing of innocent civilians. America waged
a brutal war in Vietnam and Cambodia that killed approximately
two million civilians, but it offers no national apology. America
aided Afghans in a ruthless war against the Russians, but when
victory came, they just walked away. Immensely powerful and ge-
ographically distant, America has been petulant and self-indulgent
in service to its own narrow self-interests, especially in its bias to-
wards Israel and its cynical use of Saddam Hussein. Immigrants from
Europe and then from Morocco, Yemen, and Iraq, have occupied
and suppressed Palestine; refugees have been displaced; for decades,
Palestinians were refused recognition as a distinct people—these
events seared an image of America as a biased and intolerant country
that blindly supports Israel into the collective memories of billions of
Muslims and non-Western non-Muslims. Muslims are not alone in
this view—a broad spectrum of UN General Assembly and Security
Council members support the Palestinian cause. The immensely in-
fluential pro-Israel lobby in American politics has prevented redress
of Palestinian grievances. This problem strikes at the very core of
American-Muslim tensions, and it must be solved to the satisfaction
of both sides before we can move on to universal peace.
The problem of Iraq also must be resolved. The West cannot con-
tinue to punish the people of Iraq while it pretends to hunt Saddam.
In a cynically transparent game, the West used Saddam to stifle the
growth of a resurgent Iran, and he remains on sufferance to be used

182
 Huntington’s Prediction Refuted

again. Muslims would not mind if Saddam were removed to allow

Iraq to grow into a modern state, but the West must desist from its
game.3
Huntington’s clash of religions does not exist; in its place rages a
clash of cultures and economic interests. In this clash, America will
win most of the battles, at least in the short run, but the war will
not end unless an enlightened administration responds to the basic
causes of perceived injustices in the Muslim world. The violence
will continue as long as Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Richard
Perle, and others who share their mindset manage the conflict. The
democratization of Muslim countries, notably Egypt and Arabia,
is sorely needed and might help to end the conflict, but only the
citizens of these countries can enact such reforms. The United States,
however, can create a viable Palestine, if it is willing to assure Muslim
culture-bearers that Americanism means more than consumerism
and violence. The intellectual community on both sides must engage
in discussions and arrange cultural visits to jumpstart dialogue and
create deeper understanding across cultural and religious divides.
Without a pro-active campaign to share intellectual capital and meet
each other at least halfway, the future could be bleak indeed.

NOTES
1. Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993,
pp. 42–49; and The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking of World Order
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997). For responses, see Salim Rashid, ed., The
Clash of Civilizations: An Asian Response (Dhaka: University Press Ltd., 1997).
2. S. Parvez Manzoor, “Against Reduction of Islam To Governance,” in The Muslim
World Book Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1999.
3. Haroun er Rashid, Conflict of Cultures, Lessons from Bosnia (Dhaka: University
Press Ltd., 1988).

183