Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Civilizations?
Book Review of Samuel Huntington’s
(1996) The Clash of Civilizations:
Remaking of World Order
This paper was written to fulfill course requirements for the course ‘International
Communication’ at the Center for Media and Communication Studies, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This essay will attempt to put into current perspectives Samuel Huntington’s theory
that the world is facing a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. It will focus on the relationship
between the United States and the Muslim world after the tragic terrorist attacks of 11
September 2001 (9/11). I will begin by summarizing certain important concepts and
points made in Huntington’s 1996 publication of The clash of civilizations: Remaking
of world order. This will be followed by a lengthy discussion of how the post 9/11
world supports Huntington’s thesis of serious a clash between the West and the
Muslim world. The essay’s conclusion will explain that despite its vital role as the
turning point of history, 9/11 is not really the watershed that signifies the division the
West and the Muslim world. Finally, I will discuss the profound implications of post
9/11 developments on the coming world order.
2.1 Civilizations
According to Huntington, a civilization is the ultimate grouping of human beings
based on shared values, histories, culture and a multitude of other common
characteristics that transcend geographical boundaries. Islamic civilization
encompasses peoples in Southeast Asia, different cities across Europe, isolated
territories in China and Russia, and throughout the Americas. Similarly, Western
civilization is not just peoples of Western Europe, but also Australia, South Africa, and
of course, the United States, the manifestation of modern Western civilization.
Events following 9/11 highlight some of these bitter issues. The main issues
are of course Islamist terrorism and Western hegemony. Along the lines of these two
issues, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and control of oil wealth are also
defining Muslim – Western conflict.
2.2 The Islamic Resurgence and identification with the Muslim Ummah
Huntington believes that Muslims all over the world are becoming increasingly
Islamic as they begin to see Western norms and ideals as an imposition on Islam as a
way of life. This Islamic Resurgence encompasses all aspects, from practicing rituals
(like prayers, fasting, abstaining from alcohol), to mobilizing Islamic welfare
organizations to the setting up of Islamically-compatible social institutions such as
Islamic banking and syariah courts.
3
On the every day basis, Islamic Resurgence in these spheres are very much
apparent, and probably are not considered as mortally very threatening to the West
(although Islamic banking and business practices may be taking over certain economic
niches formally dominated by Western-style institutions).However, resurgence in
identification with the Muslim Ummah is the most critical sphere of Islamic revival in
terms of civilizational clashes. Insofar as this Islamic Resurgence is occurring on a
mainstream level, and not just among fundamental Muslims or Islamists, it
demonstrates a universal Muslim consciousness of their Islamic identity.
This identification with the Muslim Ummah sensitizes the Muslim to both the
plight of Muslims in other lands, and also to the corrosion of Islamic values in the face
Western cultural hegemony. Hence the magnetic pull that empowers individuals to
defend his Muslim brothers and Islam as a way of life.
This realization for the need of a Muslim military, of course is also driven by a
deep commitment to the Muslim Ummah that crosses ethnic and national boundaries,
and even supplants the family unit as men and boys willingly leave their countries,
their jobs and their families for jihad.
The war against terror gives the United States free reign to strike anyone and
anywhere it wants.
Two years into this war has seen two Muslim countries attacked, two Muslim
governments overthrown, hundreds of Muslim men held in limbo in the tightest
security facility in the world, thousands more imprisoned in their own countries, and
thousands upon thousands of Muslims homeless, impoverished, traumatized, maimed
and dead.
If nothing else proves it, the War On Terror certainly proves that the US has its
hands full striking the Muslim world. And even in the two decades leading up to this
war, the US conducted over 17 military operations against Muslim states, groups and
individuals, more than against any other target (Huntington 1996: 217).
That many in the US administration and the media are familiar with
Huntington’s views on the civilizational clash between Islam and the West is highly
probable. Perhaps Huntington’s thesis is a self fulfilling prophecy, directing the CIA,
FBI and Pentagon to reflexively place responsibility on Muslim terrorists. Or perhaps,
the instinctive finger-pointing merely strengthens Huntington’s thesis that the West
sees the Muslim world as a great threat. But that is beside the point.
5
The point to be made here is that Muslim fundamentalism was not given the
benefit of the doubt. The now forgotten Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 is a case in
point. Muslim fundamentalist were immediately held responsible, although later
investigations revealed that it was the work of an extremist American.
And to the greater extent that non-Muslim terrorists are rarely, if ever, branded
as Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Confucian-terrorists, it also reflects an inherent Western
animosity towards Islam. This indiscriminate association of terrorism with Muslims
highlights the conflict between the West and Islam.
Even Muslim allies have not been spared the brunt of American criticism.
Pakistani and Egyptian governments for example are criticized for being inefficient
and corrupt and thus causing massive dissatisfaction among its citizens who in turn
support local fundamentalist Islamic movements, a political development that the US
is not happy about because of their possible links to terrorist groups.
Another case in point is Saudi Arabia. The US believes that 9/11 was the
indirect result of the Saudi government’s leniency towards its fundamentalists,
allowing their hatred of ‘Western infidels’ to reach the masses through religious
sermons and education. The US also charges the Saudi government of allowing funds
to reach these fundamentalist groups to finance their terrorist activities. Dore Gold
exemplifies this American condemnation of the Saudi ruling house in his critically
acclaimed book Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia supports the new global
terrorism.
Thus despite US insistence that it is not fighting a war against Islam, whatever
war that it is waging against terrorism is grounded in its disapproving depiction of
Muslims, Muslim governments and Islam in general.
7
There are two points to be made concerning this. Firstly, equating American
iconic buildings with humanity underlines American arrogance. Secondly, not
similarly equating Afghan deaths with death of humanity, underlines American
disregard for other ways of life.
‘humanity’. Clearly, the Afghan way of life, Afghan livelihood, and for that matter,
their very lives are in no way comparable to that of people in America. That is why the
US had no qualms in bombing Afghan villages in search of al-Qaeda members, who in
all likelihood knew nothing about 9/11 anyway.
This disregard for Muslim life is even more apparent in the recent US
unilateral invasion of Iraq, and is also exemplified in US support for Israeli policies of
target -killing Palestinian leaders (which also results in the deaths of civilians).
This may still hold true today, but a more jolting driving force is powering
Islamic Resurgence in the post 9/11 world.
At the same time, the plight of Afghans and Iraqis who suffer the aftermaths of
American air strikes and continuing ground battles, and the plight of the Palestinian
people under American-backed Sharon also feed Muslim rage against the US
specifically, and the West generally.
This collective anger stems from Muslim identification with the greater
Muslim Ummah. And also cyclically reinforces identification with the Ummah and the
greater Islamic Resurgence. Muslims are beginning to realize the need for solidarity.
Jihadis have long banded together, and now Muslim governments are making an effort
to work as one.
This was true immediately following 9/11 when Pakistan and Iran among
others, allowed Western nations to use their countries as bases to launch an attack on
10
the Taliban in Afghanistan, and when the Northern Alliance battled the Taliban. This
was also true over a year later when several Gulf states allowed the US to use their
countries as bases to launch an attack against Saddam’s regime in Iraq, and Kurds
battled Iraqi Arabs.
This was also true in between and after these two short but bloody wars.
Southeast Asian Muslim governments, despite strong official opposition against US-
led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have openly and willingly collaborated with the
US on anti-terrorists measures such as the setting up of an anti-terrorists center in
Kuala Lumpur recently, and Indonesia’s detainment of suspected JI members. The
ensuing death penalty on the mastermind of the Bali attack, and the 4-year prison term
of the supposed leader of the JI underscore Indonesia’s commitment to fight terrorism
that targets Western interests. It may be noted that Indonesia’s history has seen other
senseless violent acts committed against civilians, but intensity on finding and
punishing the perpetrators are comparably lower than with al-Qaeda linked – JI
suspects.
Identification with Muslim brethren clearly takes a backseat when it comes to
terrorists. Even the notion of non-intervention is taking a backseat when Muslim
governments allow their captured terrorist suspects to be questioned by US FBI
agents. There is dwindling notion of ‘we’ll punish our own criminals ourselves, thank
you.’
above, Muslim nations are used as military bases for these attacks, and certain Muslim
groups have also joined the fighting on the side of the US-led ‘coalition’.
While Huntington’s thesis of a clash between the West and Islam is evident, so
is his thesis on intracivilizational clashes within the Muslim world.
To be fair, not all Western nations are always in full agreement with American
policies toward Muslim nations and Muslims. Traditional American ‘allies’ like
France, Russia, Germany and even to a small extent, Canada, among others have
voiced great opposition to a unilateral American operation to militarily bring about
regime change in Iraq.
However, this opposition comes only in the form of rhetoric protests. No
European military coalition was dispatched to Iraq to prevent American invasion, and
no meaningful UN sanctions were implemented against the US.
Huntington stresses that in the clash of civilizations, countries will band with
other countries of the same civilization. When disagreements occur concerning
countries of other civilizations, in the end, ‘kin’ will stand by ‘kin’.
The trial of the Bali bombing suspects exemplifies this in a chilling way. As
the ‘Smiling Bomber’ claims, the deaths of the 200 Western tourists avenges the
deaths of thousands of Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya and
else where at the hands of non-Muslims. The impossible task of delivering a striking
blow to the American, British, Australian, Indian and Russian militaries was met by
attacking non – Muslim civilians.
The US sees (or illustrates) 9/11 as an attack on all the cherished American
ideals by people who do not value democracy, freedom and secularism. And hence it
has not only a right to response, but even a moral obligation to declare a war against
terrorism. It is defending people who value those ideals from future attacks from
people who abhor those ideals.
Muslims, or rather Islamists, on the other hand, see the war on terror as an
unwarranted attack on weakened Muslim nations and as unjustified harassment of
Muslims in America and Europe. Not only that, greater American intervention in the
13
While not all Islamic schools share the same ideology or curricula, Islamic
education is still essentially the Quran – whose contents are sacred beyond words, and
the Prophet’s Hadiths – highly revered and greatly consulted. To question the Prophet
is deplorable, and to interfere with the words of God is sacrilege. Some Muslims find
it highly offensive when other Muslims interpret the Quran differently (hence the
divisions among moderates, extremists, fundamentals and secularists, not to mention
the different mazhabs), it is even more unacceptable for non-Muslims to interfere with
Islamic teachings.
Huntington points out that the West’s ideological domination of the rest of the
world arises from the notion that Western values are universal. The West sees the
adoption of pluralism, democracy, and the free market as signs of modernity. It also
sees itself as the defender and champion of these ideals which it seeks to export to
other civilizations. The West’s opinion that its values are universal leads it to impose
those values upon others who may find them conflicting and alien. The Muslim world
is one civilization whose concept of ideals differs from the West. Western ideals
emanate from the rights of the individual, and stress the notion of choice. Muslim
ideals are firmly grounded in the Quran and the Hadiths, and emphasize the rights of
the Ummah, and most importantly complete submission to God.
14
The conflict between these two competing ideologies manifests itself in the
greater clash between the West and the Muslim world. Much of the American way of
life belies the ideals of individual rights, pluralism and the like, while Islam as a way
of life is practiced upon the foundation of supplication to God, and striving towards
the greater good of the Ummah. Imposition of Western ideals upon true Muslim lives
threatens Islam as a way of life.
Carrying the clash of civilizations into the realm of international media, the
Muslim world hit back at Western media through al –Jazeera, most notably in its
coverage of Iraq and Palestine. It is clear that al – Jazeera follows Huntington’s
pattern of identification with and rallying behind the Muslim Ummah.
15
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 9/11 a watershed?
A valid question considering that 9/11 has made the world a frightening place to live
in. It is frightening to the Western man because terrorists seem to be lurking in every
corner. It is frightening to the Muslim man because the war against terrorism may well
reach his neighborhood. It is frightening to the non-Muslim non-Western man because
he might just be caught in the middle. And it certainly proves Huntington’s decade old
thesis; Islam and the West are at war.
Long before 9/11, Huntington outlined the tensions between these two
civilizations based on prior Muslim – Western relationships. The post 9/11 world
merely verifies Huntington’s thesis on Western domination, Islamic Resurgence,
civilization rallying of kin countries, intra-civilization clashes, and several other
hypotheses.
And it is precisely the fact that Huntington’s thesis dates back at least to 19931,
that disputes the notion of 9/11 being the turning point of history. Rather, 9/11’s role in
the remaking of world order is merely that it makes plain the formally more implicit
tensions between the West and the Muslim world.
plagued Palestine (the setting up of Israel) and Iran (the setting up of the Pahlevi
dynasty), not to mention the arbitrary drawing of borders in the Middle East by 19th
century Western colonial masters.
4.2 Introspection
This discussion on the clash between Western civilization and the Islamic world has
been slanted in sympathy to the Muslim world, yet such a discourse is not complete
without acknowledging the various terrorist attacks against Western interests
perpetuated in the name of Islam, especially those in the last two years.
Given the ferocity of these attacks, and their indiscriminate civilian targets, it
is hardly surprising that the West should views Islam as a threat. This perception of
Islam as a threat is descriptive not only of the American government, but also the
American people. A 1994 survey of 35,000 Americans supports this point (Huntington
1996: 215). It would hardly be presumptuous to assume that beyond 9/11, this holds
even truer.
While great PR efforts are made highlight that terrorism goes against the
principles of Islam, these efforts are slapped in the face by extremists who thump the
Quran and cry God is Great in performing their terrorist versions of jihad and by their
adoring masses who celebrate these attacks.
Just as the Northern Alliance battled the Taliban, and the Kurds battled the
Iraqis, the only sure thing that can be said about Islamic terrorism is that it points to a
17
Until and unless Muslim governments are able to stand united, and are able to
convert the minds of extremist, fundamental, moderate and secular Muslims either to
collectively denounce terrorism, or even conversely to collectively embrace terrorism,
despite our numbers, and our oil, the Muslim Ummah will remain the underdog, or
worse, the pariah in the new world order.
security in a unipolar world would step up the search for allies among non Western
states and increase defense budgets; Taliban Afghanistan and Iraq should well serve as
a lesson that under threat of American military strikes, no one will help. North Korea
openly admits to developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan and China are thought to be in
secret cooperation on nuclear testing. Australia, Japan and the Philippines are all
scrambling for joint US military exercises. Even Malaysia is stepping up military
recruitment; despite reassurance that retired military personnel need to replaced, one
cannot help but look beyond Malaysian shores.
Perhaps 9/11 was the excuse that the US has been looking for to exercise its
military capabilities and frighten the world into acquiescence with American
domination. And what better excuse could there be than to flush out Islamist terrorists
at odds all infidels, and to destroy the WMD’s in the secret arsenal of a bloodthirsty
tyrant (who also happened to be a Muslim)?
Reassertion of American might through the war against Muslim terror seems
to be the new world order.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Farish A. Noor. 2003. What are you up to, George? Impact International, Jan – Mar:
48 – 49.
Friedman, T.L. 2002. Longitudes and attitudes. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Huntington, S.P. 1993. The clash of civilizations. An article produced for Harvard
University’s Olin Institute project on “The changing security environment and
American national interests”. (online)
http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS
%2010... (9 September 2003)
Huntington, S.P. 1996. The clash of civilizations: Remaking of world order. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Khalid Baiz. 2003. To Baghdad with love: Bombs, bread and hyperbole.
International Impact, April.
Khalid Baiz. 2003. Beyond Baghdad: Islamic Ummah. International Impact, April.
Liagin, E. 2003. ‘Shock and Awe’ as foreign policy. Impact International, May.
Mustaffa Iqbal. 2003. Welcome to the new empire. International Impact, May: 8.
Muzaffar Iqbal. 2003. For every Pharoah, a Moses: Meanwhile, a question for
humanity. International Impact, June - July: 8.
Muzaffar Iqbal. 2003. The road to freedom: Total faith and total self reliance.
International Impact, June - July: 8.
Said, E.W. 1997. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we
see the rest of the world. New York: Vintage Books.