Fr. Thomas Michel's Official Website

The topic of the “dialogue of civilizations,” responds to a widely-felt need in the world today.  It is well expressed by the Chinese scholar, Liu Binyan, Director of the Princeton China Initiative.  Dr. Liu asks, “Will the 21st century be an era when, through interaction and consensus, civilizations can merge, thus helping peoples to break old cycles of dehumanization?  This will require using the best of all civilizations, not emphasizing the differences between them.”

The need for a dialogue between civilizations has, in recent years, been expressed by those who desire to give a thoughtful and positive response to the rather pessimistic view of the future pre­sented by Samuel Huntington in his 1993 article, “The Clash of Civilizations?”  The fact that thinking people around the world have given great attention to Huntington’s thesis does not mean that the scholarly consensus is in agreement with his views.

When I reflect personally on Huntington’s thesis of “the Clash of Civilizations,” it is not as a political scientist or a scholar of international affairs.  My own background is in religious studies, firstly in Christian theology, secondly in the area of Islamic thought, the field in which I did my doctoral thesis.  Even more influential in shap­ing my approach to the question has been the almost 30 years in which I have been involved in Muslim-Christian dialogue.

I have spent most of my adult life living in predominantly Muslim settings, in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the southern Philippines where I teach, in Lebanon and Egypt where I studied Arabic and Islamic thought, and in Turkey where I taught an introduction to Christian theology in various Turkish universities.  As former head of the Vatican Office for Islam, my work brought me into frequent contact with individual Muslims and Muslim organi­za­tions in most countries of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

My experiences have deeply shaped my thinking on the dialogue of civilizations.  I am convinced that an intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims is not only possible - I have had personal experience of such dialogue both in intellectual circles and at the grass-roots level - but it is a necessity in the modern world. 

What impresses me most is not the difference between Islamic and Christian civilizations, but the broad areas of agreement.  As two communities of be­liev­ers who are immersed in life in modern societies, Muslims and Christians share a broad range of common concerns on many basic human issues.  They face similar challenges as they try to live their lives in the modern world, where it is often not easy to live out an active faith in God.  They have similar experiences as they seek to apply values in accord with God’s will to the complicated and often frustrating social, political, and economic situations of the societies in which they live and seek to influence for good.

Common concerns

Both Islam and Christianity teach that human societies should be based on the principles of love, solidarity and mutual assistance, in sharp contrast to “modern” views of the world as an economic jungle, with each person fighting it out for one’s own advantage, and nations seeking to dominate the others.  Both Christians and Muslims believe that God has taught not only what pertains to worship, but God has also given guidance on the best way for humans to live in this world.  Human philosophies that seek to base civilizational goals on the self-fulfillment of the individual are bound to clash with the God-centered and solidarity-oriented approach that is proposed by these two religions.

The main concerns facing people do not revolve around ideology or civilizational attitudes. They are rather issues of jobs and wages, personal and familial security, the availability of affordable and adequate education, health care, facilities that can alleviate some of the burdens of aging, and the preservation of a moral climate in which one can confidently raise one’s children.  These are issues that unite Muslims and Christians, men and women, rich and poor, rural and urban inhabitants, and people living in diverse civilizational regions.

Most people are indifferent to political ideologies, but they want governments that can manage the economy, provide jobs, control inflation, and stabilize prices.  They want crime prevented so that they are safe in their homes, streets, and neighborhoods.  They want defense against territorial incursions, but they do not want to live in fear of those very forces - police, armed forces, etc. - that are supposed to protect and defend them.  Most people, of whatever civilizational group, are not greedy, but seek a basic level of well-being.  They desire that basic services such as education, health care, and basic infra­structure function effectively, at costs they can afford.  They do not want to live with the insecurity that a major illness of a member could bankrupt the family for years to come.

They want a measure of representativity in public life. They want their views, as individuals and as special groups to be taken seriously.  They want their communal voice considered, whether it be that of regional or ethnic groups or that of social interest groups such as women, the aged, or the handicapped.  They want fair opportunities in life and feel outraged and betrayed by corruption, nepotism, or preferential treatment based on caste, color, gender, religion etc.

How to achieve these fundamental but often illusive goals?  How to define and enunciate these desires?  It is here that the need for civilizational dialogue lies.

No culture, no political, social or economic system is perfect.  In any part of the world, there are successes, but also defects, abuses, and lacunae.  Contrary to the historical optimism popular in the early part of this century, we must recognize that sometimes things get better, but at other times they get worse.  Societal and political structures can be improved, but they can also be allowed to atrophy and grow ineffective.

It is only through a dialogue among civilizations that people’s basic needs and desires can be restated and new solutions sought.  Islamic civilization, as it has formed and influenced various national and ethnic cultures, has much to teach Christians and others from the West, just as it is true that Christians, having grappled with modernity for over a century now, have much to share with people of other cultures from their happy, and less happy, experiences with modernity.  It is only through dialogue that we can share our insights and benefit both from the successes and failures of those of other cultures.

The Role of Religion in the Dialogue of Civilizations: Said Nursi

One of the first tasks of religious believers at any time and place must be to analyze and critique the civilization in which believers find themselves.  On the part of Muslims, one of the earliest thinkers to announce this task was Said Nursi, the well-known Turkish scholar of the 20th Century.  Said Nursi regarded the values of “modern” civilization that first took root in Europe and were later spread throughout the world by the U.S.A. as two-sided.  That civilization contained positive values for humanity which were rooted and preserved in the Christian tradition that is part of European heritage.  However, European civilization also put forth negative, destructive values which found their origin in the materialist philosophy that has dominated European thought since the Enlightenment.  To the first, Nursi makes no objection; against the second, he feels that Muslims and Christians must together raise their voices.  He states:

Europe is two. One follows the sciences which serve justice and right and the industries beneficial for the life of society through the inspiration it has received from true Christianity; this first Europe I am not addressing. I am rather addressing the second, corrupt Europe which, through the darkness of the philosophy of naturalism, supposing the evils of civilization to be its virtues, has driven mankind to vice and misguidance.

In proposing a dialogue between true Christians, those whom he regards as following faithfully the teaching and way of life of the prophet Jesus, and true Muslims, whose values and way of life derive from the teaching of the Qur’an, Nursi is effectively redrawing the scope of the dialogue of civilizations.  He does not look at the modern world as a clash between “Christian civilization” and “Muslim civilization,” but rather as a conflict between the values of a religiously grounded world-view and that of a secular, irreligious humanism.  In Nursi’s creative redrawing of the civilizational map, true Muslims and Christians find themselves on the same side in confronting the destructive value system offered by Enlightenment philosophies.

This demands a rethinking on the part of both Christians and Muslims.  For Christians, Muslims are not the “enemy,” representatives of an alien and dangerous civilization that threatens their way of life.  For Muslims, Christians are not the “enemy” to be opposed and resisted.  The real enemies of humankind, which Muslims and Christians must unite to oppose boil down to three: ignorance, poverty, and disunity.

Struggling against ignorance puts the emphasis on education, not merely in the sense of equipping students with the tools and information needed to find good jobs, but education in the sense of building character, moral values, and a God-centered orientation to life.  Struggling against poverty means not only the effort to eliminate the degrading reality of material poverty through practical efforts in human development, but also the poverty of spirit brought about by life in a godless, consumer-oriented society.  This Nursi hoped to achieve by forming Muslims through the study of the Risale-i Nur to arrive at a spiritual regeneration which would spiritually enrich the whole society.  The struggle against disunity means the involvement of Muslims and Christians in efforts to overcome the centuries-old antagonism between the two communities of believers so that they might work together to build peace within and among nations.          

In the context of the clash of civilizations theory proposed by Huntington, Nursi’s critique accepts that modern society’s positivist thrust towards the sensible and the measurable has made possible longer, more comfortable lives for the majority of humans through scientific research.  With Nursi, we rejoice in the benefits to humankind brought by new cancer treatments, organ transplants, and medicines to fight old and new diseases.  New varieties of rice and wheat have helped the human family to avoid famine and reduce malnutrition.  New forms of communication - television, telephone, fax and, most recently, E-mail and Internet - enable people to communicate and obtain information more easily and quickly, both for business and pleasure.  Similarly, the worldwide consensus on the dignity of the individual person, even if this is often violated in situations of war and oppression, has elim­i­nated some of history’s grosser forms of exploitation such as slavery and indentured servitude.

Nevertheless, modern society, left to itself, can produce a closed circle in which the same basic principles, unchecked by reference to other values beyond the sensible and measurable, can cease to liberate, but become self-contradictory and destructive.  Individualism, human rights, free markets, and personal liberty are not absolute values, but can degenerate into selfishness, self-destruction, and societal impasse unless they are viewed in relation to more transcendent values.  This is the “shadow side” of modern civilization against which Nursi was warning.

In the need for transcendent standards by which modern, liberal values can be measured and evalu­ated we find the importance of religion in modern life.  Religion provides a needed “outside control,” an independent criterion from which these values can be judged and assessed.  Every religion offers criteria that transcend both history and culture.  For Buddhists and Hindus, it is egoistic self-assertion that vitiates every human endeavor and makes societies unlivable.  In Islam and Christianity, that fundamental transcendent criterion is the will of God, as known through the revealed Scriptures of each religion.

8. Conclusion

Muslims and Christians need to be in dialogue with each other if we are to be able to apply clearly and effectively the independent judgments that can prevent modern values from degenerating into a self-centered pursuit of “worldly” goals of power, prestige, wealth, and beauty for their own sakes.  Such goals, harmless or even beneficial when viewed in relation to transcendent norms, can become ends in themselves, what the Abrahamic tradition rightly calls “idols.”  They begin as attractive aspirations but end up as cruel dictators.

Thus, the dialogue of civilizations needed today must admit that, while no single civilization has all the answers, every civilization and culture has part of the solution to the problems of modern life.  Every culture, with the religious faith that shapes civil­iz­a­tions and, at the same time, transcends every cultural system, has its own contributions to make to the dialogue.  The dialogue of civilizations seeks a way to discern and support the genuine ad­vances of modern life while, at the same time, maintaining a critical stance towards its destructive values.

We have far to go before such a civilizational encounter can be effective.  Feelings of anger and resentment over past events can keep peoples apart and make them forget Nursi’s dictum that the real enemies of humankind are not other people but ignorance, poverty, and disunity.  Every nation can make a list of grievances they have suffered at the hands of others.  Moreover, inequalities in today’s world can become obstacles to genuine dialogue.  Exclusivist attitudes, by which groups, socie­ties and cultures convince themselves that they have nothing to learn from others, must be over­come. Trust, a requisite of all true dialogue, is often lacking and must be painfully and slowly built up.

In the words of Walter Wink, “the future belongs to those who hope.”  It is “whoever can envision in the manifold of its potentials a new and desirable possibility, which faith then fixes upon as inevitable,” who make the future a reality.  It is those who have a vision of a future, and act as that future were already a present reality, who actually build the future in which they believe.  Once individuals and religious communities give up hope for any real change in the present situation, they no longer influence history.  They become its victims.

I am grateful to the organizers of this Tbilsi encounter on the “dia­logue of civilizations.”  The very fact of our exploring the possibilities of civiliza­tional dialogue shows that people have hope that this can be a reality.  It is evidence that there are those who have not despaired of dialogue, and by longing for a world in which each civilization has the opportunity to make its unique and distinctive contributions, we are in the process of bringing about that kind of world.