Western world and Islam in the 21st century
Dialogue or confrontation?

Col (Retd) dieter Kilian gives an excellent analysis of the present situation.

For more than fourteen centuries the relationship between the two world religions has been formed and influenced mainly by misunderstandings and confrontations. There were, however, also periods of tolerance and co-operation. But the terror attacks of the 11th September 2001 have revived and enhanced these old mutual pre-occupations. In the Western world there is a deep-rooted fear of a militant Islam threatening world peace and Muslims are afraid of a mental hegemony of Western ideas poisoning their old traditions. They are also angry about the Western hypocrisy and arrogance. If we accept this predominance of opinion as an unavoidable development, we support those theories which make us believe that our children will face the continuation of our hostile past, with fatal consequences. But in reality, there is a real chance of a new and fruitful co-existence. The vast majority of those more than one billion Muslims have nothing to do with extremist ideas. And in Western countries and especially in the Christian churches there are also many people who want to improve the relationship with their Muslim brethren in peace and friendship. But there are also some bias developments on either side which cause concern.

Historical burden
First of all, both sides should be aware of the historical burden. Until the 12th century when the Holy Quran was translated into Latin, the first foreign language, the Islam remained an unknown religion for the Christianity. The European culture has profited immensely by Muslim culture and inventions, there was an intensive exchange of ideas. The crusades belong to the darkest chapters of Christianity. The fall of Byzantium, also called “Eastern Rome,” in 1453 was a major advantage for “Western Rome”, i.e. for the pope. With the assistance of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, he got rid of his Christian opponent who has caused severe problems for more than a millennium. The Ottoman invasion of Southern Europe marked a new phase of confrontation. Vienna resisted twice in 1529 and 1683 but the fear of the Muslim capital Istanbul did not vanish. The collapse of the last Muslim Empire after the First World War and the Western colonialism destroyed the hopes for reconciliation. Now the Western arrogance grew. Apart from a few countries like Turkey, the majority of the then Muslim world became a prey to the colonial powers which caused an inferiority complex.
The co-operation between Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Al-Husseini, until today often quoted as an outstanding example of co-operation, was based on a symbiosis of military interests. Hitler’s and Al-Husseini’s expectations were directed towards a mutual military relief and assistance for their operations against Great Britain. However, finally, Hitler misused the Arab sympathies and the heavy toll of lives without equivalent support.
After the end of World War II, the foundation of Israel initiated new conflicts. The expulsion of the Palestinian population and the occupation of Jerusalem, Al-Quds, the third sanctuary of Islam behind Mekka and Medina united the Muslim world. But the Umma remained helpless despite the strong emotional support and did not achieve any progress. Since then the situation for the Palestinian people has remained hopeless — another example of Western hypocrisy. Until October 2002, the Security Council of the UNO has issued 1,436 resolutions, out of them 158 were focused on Israel and Palestine — without progress. The Western world, especially the USA, eager for implementing international law and human rights at all costs, failed whenever Israel was involved.
The East-West antagonism was exploited for their national and economical interests by all parties, the superpowers as well as the nations concerned, countries like Egypt, Syria, Algeria and Iraq were amongst them. But the negative result was that these Muslim countries could not develop national and independent security structures because their national integrity and external security was guaranteed and safeguarded mainly by the world powers. It was a strategy of security patronage whose deficiencies do exist until now. In the 1970s the militarily weak Palestinians realised the strength of a strategy, always used by the weaker party: terror. Hijacking of planes and bombing forced world-wide attention. Egypt overcame the trauma of military inferiority and succeeded in achieving a brilliant surprise offensive. The oil crisis paved the way for the final turning point: after a long identity crisis, the Muslim world regained its self-confidence but remained militarily weak.
In 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned home after many years in exile as triumphator. The Shia leader became an idol even for Sunnites because he revived the old link between religion and politics. At the end of the same year, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The country became involved in the East-West confrontation and the Mujahideen were the heroes of a short-living Afghan freedom. In 1989 the Soviet Union lost this war and finally also collapsed as a super power. In Camp David Sadat and Begin, pushed by the USA, achieved an intermediate step of reconciliation.
In 1980 Saddam Hussein tried to solve unsettled border disputes with the Iran by military means leading to a long bloodshed between two Muslim nations. Ten years later he occupied the small neighbour country Kuwait, violating the Holy Quran and the charter of the Arab League as well. For the first time in history soldiers from Western countries fought side by side with their Muslim comrades in order to protect and to liberate a Muslim nation — a hopeful development. A couple of years later, when the Muslim population was attacked by Serbs and Croats on the Balkans, the support of the Umma for their brethren was poor. Thus, for a second time within less than a decade the Western world reacted and rescued the Muslims. In winter 2001/2002 when quick aid became vital for the survival of the tortured Afghan nation, the Muslim world again kept silent. But one must also concede that this Western assistance was not selfish. The maintenance of national interests played a major role.

Religious disputes
Naturally there are many religious differences between Christianity and Islam. Muslims deny the trinity of God and the redemption, Christians doubt the Hadith-collection and the Shari’a punishments, just to mention some crucial points. How difficult a rapprochement is, can be simply demonstrated by the relationship between Catholics and Protestants. It took half a millennium to reach a status of at least respecting each other. The three monotheistic religions belong to the “Ahl al-Kitab”, the “Family of the Book”. But unfortunately this has neither led to a minimizing of conflicts nor to an improvement of the dialogue. After the Second World War the Christian churches redefined their attitude towards Islam. The Papal Declaration “Nostra aetate” (In our times) of the Roman Church in 1965 opened a new phase. For the first time in history, the pope emphasized the common interest and expressed the high esteem and respect for Islam — a hopeful language. He pledged for common efforts to protect and foster social justice, moral values, peace and freedom for all peoples. And this is exactly the level where religious ideas are congruent.
The indefatigable initiator of this movement is Pope John Paul II. In 1982, for the first time, a pope called the Quran the “Holy Book”, and he was the first pope whoever visited a mosque. In the ancient Ommayyad Mosque in Damascus in 2001 he addressed “his Muslim friends” stressing the importance of an inter-religious dialogue. Additional elements are the close diplomatic relations and contacts between the Holy See and Muslim countries. In 1970 the number was small but nowadays the Vatican maintains diplomatic relations with almost all Muslim nations.
There are many positive signs, for example the exchange programme between the Papal University Gregoriana and the Islamic faculty of the University in Ankara, or those contacts maintained and supported by the famous Al-Azhar University and the King of Jordan. In 2001, the Catholic faculty of the University of T¸bingen granted the honorary doctorate to Prince Hassan of Jordan — unique in the history of Catholic universities. Unfortunately, these examples of co-operation and dialogue are seldom published and brought to the attention of the public. It is not sufficient to practice such a dialogue in small religious circles only. No doubt, the intellectual elites have to initiate this process but thereafter the population must know about it. The more it is rooted in the peoples, the more effective it will be. One obstacle of a fast progress is the fact that neither within Christianity nor in Islam a central and supreme authority exists which represents all groups of believers. From this point of view, the term “the” Western, “the” Christianity and “the” Muslim world are simplifications which do not reflect the reality because of the lack of homogeneous structures.
Never before in history there was such a degree of co-operation in Europe and especially in Germany between Christians and Muslims. The width and depth of the dialogue made progress. The aim of a religious dialogue is not the creation of a mixed religion, abandoning values of either side but finding a modus vivendi in mutual respect. Christians and Muslims will only be credible partners in this dialogue if they stand firmly on their belief, not concealing differences where they are but respecting each other. In the times of globalization there are spheres of common interests between the religions. One, for example, is the mental threat imposed on all religions by an increasing atheistic attitude, especially amongst the youth alienating them from their cultural roots. The excavation of traditional values is dangerous because it destroys the necessary basis for ethnic and moral survival. Any co-operation between the religions would be an important improvement of world peace and world justice.
In 1998 the Iranian President, Ayatollah Seyed Mohammed Khatami said in an article that no religion knows the absolute truth, a sensational statement of one of the highest Shia authorities. In 2000 he paid a state visit to Germany where he stressed the common roots of the two religions and discussed another difficult problem of the inter-religious dialogue, the question of critical interpretation (exegesis) of religious sources, often regarded as taboo.
“I think, one can have newer perceptions about the Holy Quran and religion. During the various periods of time we have observed that sometimes there have been moderate, sometimes rougher interpretations and perceptions.”
These were encouraging words but their effect remained limited. They also reveal that stereotypes like “axis of evil” as used by the US president do not reflect the real situation in those countries. They are contra-productive because they sound arrogant. However, if one compares these attempts on the religious level to establish better relations, one realises an unsymmetrical situation on the debit of the Muslim world. There is a backlog as far as its dialogue readiness with the Christianity is concerned. The situation of Christian minorities in many Muslim countries has deteriorated during the last decades even in countries where a peaceful co-existence prevailed in former times. The freedom of faith is violated in many Muslim countries, arguments for those Christian hardliners who refuse any inter-religious co-operation. Of course, there is also some resistance for example in Germany, when Muslim communities wanted to build a mosque beside a church. But mostly they succeed in constructing their houses of worship, if not by conviction of the local authorities then by court decisions. Today there are about 2,000 mosques in Germany.

The New Chance
Europe grows and is going to be extended towards the East. Its traditions are not only based on Christianity, humanism and the antique Roman and Greek times. Also Islam and Judaism have formed the European identity. These roots, however, were assimilated and destroyed. There were three regions where Islam found a fertile soil: in Spain, on Sicily and on the Balkans. Two of them failed. Only on the Balkans, the living together of these two religions survived despite many problems and its fragility until the outburst of hostilities in the nineties.
According to the Holy Quran, Christians and Jews who live amongst a Muslim majority enjoy a special treatment as “dhimmis,” protected by the ruler but with limited rights. In Europe there live millions of Muslims, a unique situation for them because for the first time, they live and work now as a religious minority in a “Christian” environment (“Dar al-Harb”) and not in their original “Dar al-Islam.” This, however, does not reflect the reality due to the fact that religion does not play a major role in Western societies. Muslim citizens like all other inhabitants are protected by laws which guarantee their rights. But the major threat for their mental survival and their culture comes from a broad variety of non-religious external influences, like lifestyle and media, spheres beyond a strict legal regulation and control. Muslims who want to practice their way of life, have to bridge many obstacles. They have to live their faith in a strange environment, sometimes even contradictory to their traditions and which, therefore, considered as threat. Within the frame of a permanent living together without tensions it is also necessary to increase the level of compatibility between religion and Western way of life, the political system and the principles of the constitution. The separation of politics and religion has to be accepted. The Muslim community in Western societies has to find solutions without abandoning religious fundamental principles. Without making compromises such a solution cannot be achieved. It is not easy to walk on such a sharp edge between extremism and absorption. The success of this adaptation will be a proof how capable of reforming the Islam is in order to face the competition with the Western ideology. In the middle ages, the Muslim empires formed the most progressed world. One reason was the unprejudiced scientific approach and the tolerance practiced.
The Western world, especially the European countries cannot afford to neglect the large number of Muslim citizens. The migration has changed the situation. More than 10 million Muslims live in Europe and in Germany, the Muslims are the third largest religious community now. This is a challenge which has to be mastered. The dialogue is an indispensable function of internal stability. Europe got a new chance but it has to be grasped.

The Islamic Military Power
The lack of independent security structures within the Muslim countries was a result of the protectorate policy of the major Western nations. But the Umma The lack of independent security structures within the Muslim countries was a result of the protectorate policy of the major Western nations. But the Umma itself was weak, divided and did not have the necessary strength for unification. The Western world had no interest in creating such a trend. In 1945, seven Arab nations founded the Arab League but its security dimension was marginal. The struggle against the colonial powers was based on national motives only, the common religion did not play a major role. All attempts to establish supra-national security structures amongst the Muslim countries had either a short life or were without content, like the Bagdad Pact (later called CENTO). The common religion did not promote the integration in terms of security policy in order to establish a united Islamic military power. The super powers used the Muslim countries to complete the containment of the influence of their enemies but not to improve the union of Muslim countries. All ideas of a Pan-Arabic defence passed away: Nasser’s United Arab Republic between Egypt and Syria, the Islamic Alliance of King Faisal and the numerous attempts of Gaddafi. The “Organization of Islamic Conference” (OIC-founded 1971) with its 56 member states has a very limited security dimension. The charter of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) does not mention the word “common defence” at all. It took more than a decade and the threat by Saddam Hussein that this organization is going to put greater emphasis on common defence now.
A certain number of Muslim countries are militarily well-equipped but only few of them have the status of regional powers — Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. They have strong and well-trained armed forces and an armament industry self-sufficient to a certain degree. If one adds the military potential of these six large Muslim nations, one counts a total of more than 2.4 million soldiers with about 17,000 tanks and 2,300 fighter planes and an additional personnel reserve of more than
2 million soldiers — an impressive might on the paper. But even if these forces were united within the frame of a so-called “Muslim Defence Alliance,” it would be impossible to concentrate this power in a conflict. The reason is simple: all these nations lack of means necessary for an over-regional — let alone a global — power projection, i.e. naval forces, amphibious forces, long-range planes, strategic transport means, space-based strategic reconnaissance, logistical sustainability and a system of global bases. Without such means permanent power projection is impossible. Another weakness is the armament industry. As mentioned before, some of them have their own industrial capacities, but mainly on a limited level. The majority of planes, tanks, spare parts etc. has to be imported from outside which increases the vulnerability in case of crisis or war. Another deficiency is the lack of combined and joint exercises. There is neither a common command language and structure nor an integral air defence and their logistical systems are not compatible. Four years ago, the Egyptian Defence Minister, Field Marshal Tantawi, called for more efforts in creating an Arab military alliance — in vain. Since then, there has been no resonance, certainly because of the recognition of the unbridgeable problems. Until now, the only nuclear power amongst the Muslim nations is Pakistan. In longer terms, the Non-Proliferation policy will fail and more nations will gain access to nuclear means. The only options to master this challenge are containment, diplomatic contacts and regional arms control measures, means which were very effective in Central Europe in the past minimizing the confrontation between East and West.
Internal Islamic Conflicts
The Muslim Umma is far from being united, neither politically, nor militarily or economically. A unification between the Sunnite majority and the Shia minority is as unrealistic, as such a success within Christianity. The register of political disputes amongst Muslim countries is long, and as long is the list of crises, wars and civil wars these countries have faced and waged since 1945. In the first half of the 20th century, Europe was the starting point of many conflicts and two world wars (sketch1). Thereafter, it shifted to the Middle East region (sketch 2) which became the new conflict centre stretching from Morocco to Pakistan, mainly Muslim nations. The reasons are different. There were four major causes: the legacy of colonization, the struggle for regional hegemony, ideological quarrels and the distribution of resources like oil and water. Its internal instability was caused by unbalanced participation of minorities. The deep-rooted distrust amongst them could not be compensated by the common religion. In the numerous resolutions of Muslim conferences, one can hardly find the term “common religion.” The religious strength and common interests are superficial, are a hollow and blunt weapons only. In reality the Umma as a political power does not exist. Those Western analysts who often paint the picture of an aggressive Islam, are wrong. Not the unity of the Umma should cause concern but the political lability of some of these nations and the relationship with Israel.

Conclusion
The Umma does neither have the intention nor the means to launch a large scale confrontation with the West. The often quoted “Muslim threat” does not exist. It is a fiction of some Western politicians and media who would gain profit by a “clash of civilizations”. But there is a danger which derives from militant religious extremists. They cause an immense damage in various respects: it costs the lives of many innocent people, causes world-wide economical disaster and hinders and slows down the reconciliation process. But the impact will always be limited. It cannot jeopardize the foundations of our human cultures and societies. The Western fear of a “Holy War” (Jihad) is groundless. Its double-faced meaning can create confusion in Western brains because the knowledge about it is very poor. Extremists abuse this in order to frighten but the Christians did the very same in the past during the crusades. For the overwhelming majority of Muslims, however, “Jihad” only means the daily and permanent individual fight in their souls in order to fulfil the laws of God to the best. There must be a mental co-operation between East and West to ban terror activities. Terror is a phenomenon which can be contained but not extinguished completely. The key of the battle against terrorism does not lie in Afghanistan but in the solution of the Palestinian problem. Within this frame, the unbalanced relationship between the Western countries and Israel in disfavour of the Muslim world should be changed quickly.
There are many attempts to overcome the old animosity between the two world religions mainly pushed by Christian churches. On the other side, there is a marginally developed readiness, to grant religious freedom to Christian minorities in Muslim countries. This bias situation is regrettable. Muslims also should recognize that compromises are necessary and unavoidable. But these efforts are not enough. Now, parallel political initiatives and actions are urgently required. Unfortunately, since September 11th last year, the so-called “war against terrorism” has been focused on military means only. But as long as some countries use this term to get rid of their political deficiencies and problems and as long as extremist can oversteer political decisions and developments there will be no real progress. Western politicians must recognize that many Muslims are disappointed and angry about this. Blaming Western countries for being hypocritical is not unfounded. One cannot call for justice and peace while supporting disparities. There is a strong obligation to correct them. In order not to be too optimistic: there will be many setbacks and disappointments on either side and the tempo of reconciliation is far from being quick. But we have to think in long-term categories. Dialogue avoids the clash of cultures, and is therefore, a “conditio sine qua non” for the future of our children and offspring.