Clash of Civilizations-Your Views-Are really in a us versus them scenario?

[Raja.Pakistani]

identity are not regional a muslim from deccan maharashtra is totally different from an arab and as has consider difference from the other indian muslims (groups)too, instead we are closly linked with the hindus of maharashtra after all we are brothers by blood and our ancestor were one ,as muslim's get educated and study about their origin they will find the truth and the truth is that religion is a personal identity,were as regional identity is which you cant change so it is the original one "thou I m proud to be a follower of ISLAM,but if you ask me who i am, my ans is MARATHA and rather than ARAB MUSLIM i consider HINDU MARATHA's to be my BROTHER's

Dont agree with it. When you open your eyes into this world, you hear azaan and you dont hear jai Maratha. You cannot marry with Hindu Maratha while you can marry with Muslim arab lol You can eat halal meat given to you by arab but you cannot do same with your Hindu Maratha. If nationality was stronger than religion then there were not any Hindu vs muslim conflicts in India and Muslims of Indian sub continent would have not demanded separate land for themselves. Land dont unite peoples but its belief which unite us together. Its harsh but its truth.

 

[gambit]

A Muslim nation allying itself with a Buddhist nation. This would not be possible if the clash of civilization was true. Yet it exists.

The reason is that there is no clash of civilization that is rooted in religion or culture. There are differences that arent so important. Though there is the desire of some civilizations to dominate the others through economic superiority, resources etc. This is based on cultural competition instead of any inherent ideological clash

A 'civilization' is comprised of religion, politics, people, economy, interests, and so on...A conflict between nation-states may have those nation-states share the same religious foundation but irreconcilable political interests may elevate those political interests to the highest and to the fore but that does not mean irreconcilable religious interests cannot be the primary motivating factor for such a 'clash', as in the Crusades as how Muslims generally categorize that conflict.

 

[harshad]

Pakistani Muslims want to have an Islamic society. Hindus would never let provinces where Muslims in the majority have autonomy. Had the Muslim majority provinces had autonomy, the Muslim majority provinces would be run by legal codes that are obligatory in Islam that Muslims must apply.

The Hindus knew at that point, in a united India, Muslims would have the clear advantage.

RR, of-course Muslims and Hindus can get along in a "secular" India.

However in an Islamic society, a Hindu can never be the leader of an Islamic society.

Hence there could never be a Hindu governor of a Muslim majority province in a united India, because Muslims in Muslim majority provinces would want Islamic legal codes to be applied.

Hindus would never accept that.

the law of the land applies to all of india except j&k ie-it applies to all religions,casts,etc,one cannot have two seperate legal systems in one country it will cause problems between judiciary proceedings and there are many muslim leaders in the parliament so i dont know what you are getting at

 

[pmukherjee]

Nationalism is confirmed within the Qur'an Fascism is forbidden by common sense

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------



ANy particular reason you mentioned filopinos? Many are just wannabe americans

Oh simply because it is a Christian majority country. Nothing insidious.

 

[pmukherjee]

The fundamental mistake in your analysis is that Islam CREATED a civilisation. Ancient Arab-Persian-Turkic civilisations were united by Islam and created its own unique civilisation

My contention was that the constituent cultures that make up the Islamic world are so distinct, unique and different from each other that when taken together, they do not conglomerate into a civilisation. The same goes for the Christian 'civilisation'. These religious identities which vary in their cultural roots so vividly can not constitute a civilisation. Yes, religion does unite people of different civilisations but only when the continued relevance or the very survival of that religious identity is questioned. A civilisation based solely on religion which faces no existential threat (percieved or real) will soon have its constituents reverting back to their cultural roots. Religion, any religion, is merely an artificial bond that unites under 'external pressure and temperature'. When this stimuli is removed, people revert back to their cultural, racial and genetic types. You may say that it is the pride or the chauvinism of ancient civilisations, cultures or races which prevent people from truly bonding with each other despite belonging to the same religious denomination.

Clash of civilisations? Oh yes, it has been going on for ever but not on religious lines, though religion was often used to snuff out the weaker civilisations. The clash between the west and the communist was never a civilisational clash. Neither was the world war -2 a civilisational clash. The clash between the Conquistadors and the indigenous Mayas or Azrecs or Incas was a civilisational clash. The European colonisation of Africa and Asia was a civilisational clash, in many cases proselytisation was the means of trying to demolish the indigenous civilisation.

Just my two bits.

 

[roadrunner]

Pakistani Muslims want to have an Islamic society. Hindus would never let provinces where Muslims in the majority have autonomy. Had the Muslim majority provinces had autonomy, the Muslim majority provinces would be run by legal codes that are obligatory in Islam that Muslims must apply.

The Hindus knew at that point, in a united India, Muslims would have the clear advantage.

RR, of-course Muslims and Hindus can get along in a "secular" India.

However in an Islamic society, a Hindu can never be the leader of an Islamic society.

Hence there could never be a Hindu governor of a Muslim majority province in a united India, because Muslims in Muslim majority provinces would want Islamic legal codes to be applied.

Hindus would never accept that.

That is where the Clash of Beliefs was.

RR, you have found "holes" in the Clash of Civilizations theory. Should different sects of the same religion be considered different civilizations?

Perhaps Samuel P. Huntington made mistakes, but his basic idea of having different beliefs can lead to disagreements, and disagreements can lead to conflicts is unavoidable.

For example since Shias in Iran disagree with Sunnis from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia , would this put Iran in a different civilization due to a Clash of Beliefs?

Nonsense. A Hindu may not be able to lead Pakistan (a Muslim won't be able to properly lead India either), but that isn't a clash of civilization. A clash of civilization would be something like a Hindu wanting to own diseased cows against the law. It doesn't happen much.

 

[roadrunner]

A 'civilization' is comprised of religion, politics, people, economy, interests, and so on...A conflict between nation-states may have those nation-states share the same religious foundation but irreconcilable political interests may elevate those political interests to the highest and to the fore but that does not mean irreconcilable religious interests cannot be the primary motivating factor for such a 'clash', as in the Crusades as how Muslims generally categorize that conflict.

The Crusades werent a clash of civilization. There were political, economic motives. If politics was removed, there'd have been no crusades. So it wasn't a clash of civilization. It was a convenient way to polarize the world at the time.

 

[PakShah]

The Crusades werent a clash of civilization. There were political, economic motives. If politics was removed, there'd have been no crusades. So it wasn't a clash of civilization. It was a convenient way to polarize the world at the time.

RR, tell us what does the Clash of Civilizations theory means to you.
The world is polarized today.

RR, I don't know what the Clash of Civilizations theory means to you, but do you believe there is a "War for Ideas."

 

[KruelRage]

Dont agree with it. When you open your eyes into this world, you hear azaan and you dont hear jai Maratha. You cannot marry with Hindu Maratha while you can marry with Muslim arab lol You can eat halal meat given to you by arab but you cannot do same with your Hindu Maratha. If nationality was stronger than religion then there were not any Hindu vs muslim conflicts in India and Muslims of Indian sub continent would have not demanded separate land for themselves. Land dont unite peoples but its belief which unite us together. Its harsh but its truth.

Well, i really dont remember what I heard when I was born but its pretty amazing that you do..

Secondly, a person can eat meat with both an Arab or a Maratha Hindu, difference lies in the fact that it would be lot easier for him to communicate and start a conversation with a Maratha because of the same language and culture. Consider this, my mother tongue is Haryanvi & his maratha, we could eat meat together but conversing(without english) would be pretty difficult.

It isnt nationality or religion that is stronger, its culture.

As far as marriage is concerned, saying from what I see, there are a lot more eg's of inter-religious marriages in India rather than inter-nationalites and of an an Indian-Arab, none comes to mind.

The truth is, if nationality was stronger, partition of India would'nt have happened or if religion was stronger, Pakistan wouldnt have been divided.

But today, we are together because we want to be together, Indian first, alwayz first.

Pakistani Muslims want to have an Islamic society. Hindus would never let provinces where Muslims in the majority have autonomy. Had the Muslim majority provinces had autonomy, the Muslim majority provinces would be run by legal codes that are obligatory in Islam that Muslims must apply.

Considering this to be true, has Pakistan achieved it. After 65 years of independence & with no 'Hindu-hindarance', has Pakistan formed an Islamic society? Are your provinces runned by the legal codes of Islam?

 

[roadrunner]

RR, tell us what does the Clash of Civilizations theory means to you.
The world is polarized today.

RR, I don't know what the Clash of Civilizations theory means to you, but do you believe there is a "War for Ideas."

Since it doesn't exist, I don't know what it is. It looks like some concocted theory to give a name to global competition for resources.

The clash of civilization according to the map shown takes for example, the Middle East or Islamic areas as one group, Eastern Europe as another, China as another, Western Europe as another, Subsaharan Africa as another.

According to the clash of civilization, all these cultures cannot co-exist with one another without clash. Yet we see co-existence between those groups everywhere. Eastern Europe to Western Europe, subsaharan Africa to North Africa, there are Christians and Muslims that live in relative peace. Political catalysts have sometimes caused clashes, notably in Yugoslavia which wasnt along religious lines.

You tell me what it is since it's too bogus a theory to even try to explain.

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

The clash of nations is a more accurate phenomenon maybe.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

[/COLOR]The clash of nations is a more accurate phenomenon maybe.

The author of the theory confused himself between --Nation-states and civilizations.

 

[Kadamba]

Pakistani Muslims want to have an Islamic society. Hindus would never let provinces where Muslims in the majority have autonomy. Had the Muslim majority provinces had autonomy, the Muslim majority provinces would be run by legal codes that are obligatory in Islam that Muslims must apply.

The Hindus knew at that point, in a united India, Muslims would have the clear advantage.

RR, of-course Muslims and Hindus can get along in a "secular" India.

Dont contradict yourself.

And you mean every conflict from Indo-Pak partition to quarrel between 2 neighbours in a village as clash of civilization ? Dont you think there can be other reasons for conflict ?

However in an Islamic society, a Hindu can never be the leader of an Islamic society.

Hence there could never be a Hindu governor of a Muslim majority province in a united India, because Muslims in Muslim majority provinces would want Islamic legal codes to be applied.

Hindus would never accept that.

That is where the Clash of Beliefs was.

True.

RR, you have found "holes" in the Clash of Civilizations theory. Should different sects of the same religion be considered different civilizations?

Perhaps Samuel P. Huntington made mistakes, but his basic idea of having different beliefs can lead to disagreements, and disagreements can lead to conflicts is unavoidable.

For example since Shias in Iran disagree with Sunnis from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia , would this put Iran in a different civilization due to a Clash of Beliefs?

Now on that note I agree with you that conflicts/clashes are/were part of Human Nature and which does not have defined code or rule; not static in nature; can be ideological,cultural, religious, civilizational and based on many more factors but ultimately boils down to securing self-interest.

Thats why I think the scenarios predicted by huchington is more fictional than real, where he conviniently ignores fault lines within civilizations and Intra-Civilizational clashes/conflicts.