It’s called a clash of civilizations. We accept Islam as it is: to date, incompatible with liberal democracy
But will it not be the case, after the umpteenth French massacres, to brush up on the expression "clash of civilizations", made famous by Samuel Huntington and highly criticized by many intellectual circles in the West? Many do not do it because they fear – almost all – of violating the rules of politically correct and one-way pacifism that has crept so deeply into our culture that it has become part of the common language and feeling. In short, we see the world as we would like it to be, not as it is.
Yet, that a clash of civilizations is taking place is evident, also taking into account the fact that the incredible massacres that took place in France are only the latest in a series, alas , very long of episodes, with beheadings, cuts of throats and severed heads exhibited such as victory trophies.
There is a well-founded fear that Islamic victory will eventually come, given the numbness that seems to annihilate the Western world. And, this time, the impression is even greater because the events took place in the heart of Europe itself, and not in some desert land in the Middle East.
Even an Algerian philosopher, some time ago, did not hesitate to use the above expression, "clash of civilizations", commenting on some episodes of Islamist terrorism. "There is a clash of civilizations and we are in the middle," he said.
His name is Hamid Zanaz and he wrote a book that caused him a lot of trouble, to put it mildly. Title: “Secular challenge to Islam” . Lecturer at the University of Algiers, after the publication of the volume he had to pack up in a hurry and take refuge in France. And what is his fault? Having clearly written that philosophical activity, by its very nature, can lead to embrace atheism or agnosticism. This was enough in Algeria, a country which by the way is not even the worst in terms of the spread of fundamentalism, to be immediately branded as an enemy of Islam and of the nation itself.
How is it possible, one wonders, that a person born and raised in an Islamic context speaks of a clash of civilizations, while those who live in the West must be careful, since resorting to this concept immediately implies being branded as reactionaries, obscurantists, Islamophobes or , worse, fascists?
Something is wrong, it seems clear to me. We are victims of a short circuit that has burned all resistance and is leading us, slowly but inexorably, to surrender, to abandon everything that Western culture has produced in recent centuries. Not only complete freedom of expression, a priceless treasure, but also the distinction between philosophy and theology, respect for the opinion of others, tolerance towards world views different from ours.
I immediately state that, in my opinion, the connection between philosophical (and also scientific) activity on the one hand, and atheism or agnosticism on the other, is not at all obvious. There are plenty of philosophers and scientists who claim to be believers, and this has never been a problem in the West. At most, atheists and agnostics start arguing with believers. Their arguments are advanced and no one dreams of expelling the "adversaries" from the community of scholars. The discussion goes on relentlessly since it is perceived as an instrument of mutual enrichment.
In the Islamic world this is not the case, and it is as true for fundamentalists as it is for so-called "moderates". When the university where I teach conferred an honorary degree in philosophy on the famous Swiss theologian Hans Kung, he pointed out in his lecture that the Islamic world has never had an enlightenment, and that the word "secularism" continues to be considered anathema . The attempts at secularization, such as that made by Ataturk in Turkey, ultimately failed due to the persistent submission of the masses to a clergy who have never given up, at any time, to consider the sacred book as the only source of truth (and of law) and, as such, unchangeable and not subject to criticism.
We have deluded ourselves, adopting an indistinct and barrier-free multiculturalism, of neutralizing a danger which, after all, we have always understood the danger. The results can now be seen very clearly. David Cameron, years ago, was attacked with violence only for saying that multiculturalism has failed. Unfortunately he was right, even if it is perhaps too late to find effective remedies. Lessons are always valuable, as long as they can be received in good time. If, on the other hand, you go out of time, disaster occurs and you reach the point of no return. This is exactly what is happening, with the prospect of falling into a black hole of which it is impossible to see the bottom.
The post It's called a clash of civilizations. We accept Islam as it is: to date, incompatible with liberal democracy appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/si-chiama-scontro-di-civilta-accettiamo-lislam-per-come-e-ad-oggi-incompatibile-con-la-democrazia-liberale/ on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 03:45:00 +0000.