Content uploaded by Spahic Omer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Spahic Omer on Nov 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Why is Civilization a Problematic Concept, and is Western Civilization a
Failed Experiment?
As an idea and a wide variety of perceptible realities and phenomena, civilization is the holy
grail of the modern world. It is its mantra too. There is virtually no pursuit - individual or
collective - that is not somehow associated with it, and that is not undertaken either in the
name of, or for the sake of strengthening and expanding, it.
The modern man lives for civilization, embodying its disposition and multidimensionality. He
flies its flag in whatever he does and wherever he goes, on the planet earth and beyond.
Hence, the most ideal manifestation of civilization will spell what Francis Fukuyama calls
“the end of history and the last man”.
The idea is synonymous with the end of human evolution, denoting a human condition, as
well as a socio-politico-economic system, that will fulfil the deepest and most profound
yearnings of man. The end of evolution corresponds to the pinnacle of civilization, whereas
the presence of the last man accords with mankind’s final evolutionary phase – and the end of
it - together with mankind’s reaping of the fruits of its long civilizational journey.
Several earlier philosophers, such as Hegel and Karl Marx, both German, posited that the
progress of man and his society was not open-ended. It would end when mankind achieves its
most perfect ideological state, and when it becomes what it always craved for – both
consciously and subconsciously – and was intrinsically meant to be.
For Hegel, that condition was the liberal state, while for Marx it was a communist society.
The “end” here means perfection, fulfilment and contentment. The natural cycles of life at all
levels will continue unchanged, with many important events still taking place, but “there
would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions,
because all of the really big questions had been settled” (Francis Fukuyama).
For Fukuyama, on the other hand, the emergence of liberal democracy signifies the “end
point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government”. It
managed to conquer rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently
communism, advocating blanket civil liberties, the rule of law and economic freedom. As
such, liberal democracy, or Western democracy, as a political ideology and a form of
government, constitutes the “end of history” and the “last man” (Francis Fukuyama).
Civilization and culture
The soul and benchmark of all historical developments is civilization. Civilization is the
overall way of life of a productive and progressive people, involving their values, norms,
standards, institutions, modes of thinking, and development in all critical life sectors. Thus, to
Samuel Huntington, “human history is the history of civilizations. It is impossible to think of
the development of humanity in any other terms.” It is either civilization or otherwise: un-
civilization, barbarism and savagery.
It is owing to this universal meaning of civilization that many identify, or closely relate, it
with culture. Civilization is a cultural entity; or a milieu (a whole) that encompasses a number
of nations and their cultures (parts); or the inevitable destiny of culture; or the external
indexes and conclusions of culture and its visionary as well as creative potencies.
Culture shapes the behaviour of society, and propels and also sustains its civilizational
ambition and performance. Accordingly, culture is the mind and soul of society, while
civilization is its configuration and form. They are different but the same, unified by fulfilling
the pressing organic and ideological needs of society.
However, inside Germany, before and now, there is a clear distinction between culture and
civilization. “Nineteenth-century German thinkers drew a sharp distinction between
civilization, which involved mechanics, technology and material factors, and culture, which
involved values, ideals and the higher intellectual artistic, moral qualities of a society. This
distinction has persisted in German thought but has not been accepted elsewhere” (Samuel
Huntington).
Oswald Spengler (d. 1936), a German historian and philosopher of history, for one, not only
separated between culture and civilization, but also expounded that culture precedes
civilization. It eventually comes to its phase, which however signifies culture’s autumn and
decline.
Some anthropologists have gone so far as to reorder the relation. They conceived of cultures
as characteristic of primitive, rude, static and nonurban societies, whereas more complex,
refined, developed, urban and dynamic societies were perceived as civilizations (Samuel
Huntington).
Be that as it may, since the nineteenth-century German thought was extremely advanced and
influential, the propagated differences between culture and civilization, even though failing to
catch on globally, left their mark. As a result, people are still grappling with reference to the
precise definitions and scopes of each of culture and civilization, and where exactly they
unite and part company, theoretically and in actual fact. They also struggle to come up with a
unified set of criteria which would make individuals – and nations en bloc - cultured and
civilized, or otherwise.
Separating - or not - civilization from culture entailed some greater implications and far-
reaching consequences than it at first glance might have seemed. Since the concept of
civilization was a Western construct, in order to at once intensify and justify the colonization,
cultural imperialism and westernization of the “Other” – as will be explained later – it is no
wonder that a close especially ideological relationship between civilization and culture was
championed by most Westerners. In that case, colonization was intended to be as much a
process of civilizing as a process of acculturating. Total domination and authority were
ensured thereby. It was a two-in-one operation.
Alternatively, those who espoused separation between civilization and culture rendered
colonization and everything that went with it - both as dogmas and processes – all the more
challenging. The battles had to be fought on two separate fronts, halving the competences and
diffusing the focus. The approach was set to give the victims more impetus and enthusiasm to
resist the onslaughts. Greater leeway was furthermore afforded for audacity and
insubordination. If nothing, some moral victories were always in the offing. Hope was never
lost.
For instance, it is rightly said now and then that when the Europeans started systematically
colonizing the Americas from 1492, while they were more “civilized” than the indigenous
peoples, the latter were more cultured than them. The same holds true with regard to the
colonization of the Muslim world. Despite the fact that Western colonizers were far more
superior in terms of military establishment, weapons, machinery, technology, and other
material factors (“civilization”), Muslims in every colonized land were much better than their
adversaries in respect of spirituality, morality, values, and even intellectuality and art in
relevant fields (culture).
In any case, it seems logical that the entire civilization-versus-culture dialectic was in part
premeditated and closely monitored. It was aimed to serve a clandestine set of colonization-
and westernization-related objectives.
The etymological origin of the word “civilization”
The word “civilization” did not exist in Middle English, which is a form of the English
language spoken from the 11th to the end of the 15th century. It entered the language in the
early 18th century.
It was firstly used as a technical legal term possessing both a specific and general meaning. In
its more limited sense, it defined “a law, act of justice, or judgment, which renders a criminal
process civil; which is performed by turning an information into an inquest, or the contrary”.
Generally, however, the word referred to the process of “assimilating common law to civil
law” (George Caffentzis). The earliest use of such sense, which is now obsolete, was in 1704
(etymonline.com).
“The term’s definition changed in the last half of the 18th century. The 1828 edition of Noah
Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language defined ‘civilization’ as ‘The act of
civilizing, or the state of being civilized, the state of being refined in manners, from the
grossness of savage life, and improved in arts and learning’. Webster made it clear that the
legal definition was a secondary one, and he placed next to it a cautionary ‘not used’”
(George Caffentzis).
Civilization in the sense of “civilized condition, state of being reclaimed from the rudeness of
savage and primitive life” was first recorded in 1772, probably from French civilisation. It
served as an opposite to barbarity and savagery (etymonline.com).
The term’s precursor, also in the 18th century, might have been the word “civility” (George
Caffentzis), which means “formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech.” However,
“civilization”, from “to civilize”, was deemed more appropriate in the sense opposed to
barbarity, as it indicated the outcome of a process, which civilization in reality is. It is a
process of either becoming civilized, or transforming someone from savagery and barbarity
to civilization. “Civility” is not only less abstract and less versatile, but also more attributive
and more definite, than civilization.
The root word of “civilization” were the Latin words “civitas” and “civis”, which mean
“city” and “citizen” respectively. The English words “civic”, “civics”, “civil”, “civilian”,
“civilization”, “civilize”, “citadel”, “citizen” and “city” are all derived therefrom.
However, it should be observed that in Latin, two separate words were used for the physical
aspects and features of the city, and the body of citizens together with a milieu wherein they
live and operate as such.
For the former, the word “urbs”, which means “stronghold”, was employed. In English, it
produced such words as “urban”, “urbane”, “urbanity”, “urbanize” and “urbanization”, all
being related to, characteristic and designative of city; that is, to become “urbanized”,
“physically developed”, or “citified” (Dominik).
Whereas the word “civitas” (“city”) was used for the large body of citizens and the milieu of
their lives and functions. This word is more abstract and more substantial than “urbs”. It is
also more humanistic, pertaining to the immediate and more innate interests of the lives of
people. It can yet be receptive of some spiritual undertones.
The example is St. Augustine’s best-known work “the City of God” (Civitas Dei). He uses the
word “civitas”, rather than “urbs”, as he talks in spiritual and ethical terms about the
Christian church and its relationship with Rome (Dominik). To St. Augustin, the City of God
is marked by people who forgo earthly pleasures to dedicate themselves to the eternal truth of
God. The Earthly City (Civitas Terrena), on the other hand, consists of people who have
immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world (Taylor).
Civilization and urbanization
As a small digression, it becomes clear why city is the essence and at the same time
receptacle of civilization, and why urbanization and physical development are its main
characteristics - while prominent elements of culture can be found elsewhere, like in small
townships, rural communities and even nomadic tribes, which nevertheless without
civilization tend to be significantly undermined and undervalued.
It likewise becomes clear why - because being “civilized” was good and highly sought-after,
and being “uncivilized” was bad and highly detested – advanced cities were always favoured
over other forms of settlements. Living in cities was equated with being civilized,
sophisticated and even cultured. Living elsewhere was less so: the smaller a settlement, the
reduced amount and extent of its civilization. Non-cities were unconducive to civilization.
This in turn triggered the phenomenon of the steady population shift from rural to urban
areas. The trend caused a series of massive problems to which different societies reacted
differently. The trend, moreover, became global in nature with the global spread – and
imposition - of Western civilization and values. The heavy rate of migration from rural to
urban areas kept increasing over the years, showing no signs of abating.
Rapid and pervasive urbanization became the most recognizable feature of the modern
civilization. According to the U.N., from 2008 half the world’s population live in urban areas,
and about 70 percent will be city dwellers by 2050.
Uncontrollable urbanization became one of the most painful realities of this civilization.
Being initially the source of its pride and identity, urbanization eventually turned into a bane.
It became a direct and indirect cause of the problems that beset humanity most nowadays,
such as high population density, slums, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, lack of
affordable housing, flooding, pollution, environmental degradation, vice, crime and poverty.
All of a sudden, cities and their uncontainable urbanization techniques grew into the breeding
grounds for the antitheses of civilization (and culture). They became caught in a vicious
circle: they could exist and “prosper” only if they were impregnated with the spirit and
modules of civilization, functioning as the latter’s physical loci, but the more assertive and
more civilized they became, the unhealthier and more off-putting they turned out to be, with
their long-term futures giving the impression of being ever uncertain and bleak.
Cities may in the end become the embodiments of everything civilization is not and should
not be. They may yet become the modern man’s and his civilization’s undoing. If cities were
both the cradles and objects of the modern civilization, they may still, ultimately, come to be
its necropolis and resting place. As if Civitas Terrena is set to emerge victorious over Civitas
Dei. As if the idols of the mind, ego and vain desires, furthermore, were set to subdue and
prevail over the considerations of Heaven.
It is hardly surprising then that the main civilizational conundrum of the modern man and the
main focus of his endless civilizational interactions, exchanges and discourses revolve around
the newly coined notions of sustainability and sustainable development. The crux of the
matter is how to ensure the continuity of quality existence and how to ensure as well as
sustain the wellbeing not only of the present but also future generations, while maintaining
peace with the natural world, people and the self. In short, the concern is how to ensure the
survival of civilization.
How and why did the concept of civilization become opposed to barbarism?
At its face value, the concept of civilization appears totally innocent and positive. It oozes an
aura of enthusiasm, progressiveness and drive. However, taking a closer look reveals that
such is not entirely the case. There is more to civilization – albeit seriously problematic and
questionable – than it seems. The concept has widely been misconstrued, manipulated and
abused.
Thus, there were scholars who declared that they had for some time rejected the notion of
civilization because of its “discriminatory implications”. Questions have also been raised
concerning the ethical inclinations and contents of civilization (George Caffentzis).
For instance, is the deliberate and systematic perpetration of horrid crimes sufficient to make
an individual or a society uncivilized? If the answer is in the negative, what is then the true
meaning and raison d’etre of civilization? Civilization will lose its credibility if it keeps
contradicting itself and defeating the purpose of its existence. It cannot coexist and share the
stage with calculated evil, cruelty and injustice.
But if the answer is in the affirmative – as it should be, for all intents and purposes – never,
after the witch-hunt, the slave trade, bloody colonial history, Palestine, Auschwitz, Hiroshima
and Bosnia, “could we bring ourselves to speak of Western civilization”. None of the peoples
and countries characterised as civilized are genuine embodiments of that ideal state (George
Caffentzis). Just as none of the peoples and nations described and targeted as uncivilized are
completely worthless, regressive and barbaric. Their sheer humanness is their – and everyone
else’s – greatest asset and value. Everyone’s life and wellbeing matter.
Civilization was a Western construct and paradigm. Initially, it featured rather restricted and
obscure origins, together with its subsequent compass and influences. Because its genesis is
generally ignored, the concept of civilization is viewed as a timeless ideal, rather than a
specific historical process.
People normally perceive civilization as something to be aspired to, and as a “truth” few ever
question. But if the history of “civilization” were better known, “we might be more cautious
in granting this term our unquestioning seal of approval” (George Caffentzis). Civilization is
relative, instead of absolute. It is an ideal, but whose actualization is determined, to a large
extent, by the sway of the vicissitudes of time and space factors.
The trajectory of the notion of “civilization” from its linguistic origins to its final end point,
portraying “the highest form of social existence”, occurred in the geographical, socio-
political and cultural domains of Scotland, and by extension in the domains of Great Britain
(in 1707, Scotland and England formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain).
According to George Caffentzis, an American political philosopher, in his article “On the
Scottish Origin of ‘Civilization’”, “the development of ‘civilization’ is genetically intertwined
with that of the British financial system, with the subjugation of Scotland to the British
Crown, and the eighteenth-century social struggles in and out of Scotland. Thus, ‘civilization’
originally referred to three different but interconnected processes: the rationalization of intra-
capitalist relations (civilization qua reason); the disenfranchisement of the English workers
from their ‘traditional’ rights and liberties (civilization qua repression); and the destruction of
communal relations in the Scottish Highlands, resulting in the integration of Scottish society
into the orbit of Britain’s imperial economy (civilization qua progress from barbarism).
Fundamental to each of these processes was the assimilation of the English Common Law to
the Scottish Civil Law, the first meaning, in the English vocabulary, of the term
‘civilization’.”
In other words, “civilization” meant giving preference to the importance and rule of law in
general, and civil law in particular. It also meant bringing all facets of society, including the
noncompliant and rebellious ones, under the influence of (civil) law. That denoted
domination, control and authority, which in turn was regarded as a process and procedure of
civilizing those facets.
So long as some people, or some aspects of society, remained outside the jurisdiction of
(civil) law and authority (civilization), they were considered barbarians and law-less, that is,
uncivilized. As such, they and their unpredictability posed a threat to the political
establishment – and civilization. They thus needed to be civilized. They needed to be
contained by law, controlled and their threats mitigated. They needed to be rendered “equal”,
on the same page and the same wavelength as those who have already become civilized.
Non-civilization (barbarism) was perceived as a source of danger to civilization because the
latter was affiliated with refinement, luxury, lack of carriage and martial spirit, commerce,
unmovable property, softness, sluggishness, indifference and even effeminacy. Non-
civilization (barbarism), conversely, was associated with heroic and martial spirit, toughness,
courage, resilience, rawness, simplicity, movable property, impermanent settlements and even
manliness.
While civilization and its people proved vulnerable and had everything to lose, non-
civilization and its people, on the other hand, were more impervious and had nothing to lose.
In any confrontations between the two, non-civilization could only gain and civilization only
suffer.
Describing how and why the 1745 invasion of the Scottish Lowlands and England by the
Scottish and Irish Highlanders happened, Adam Smith, as reported by George Caffentzis,
wrote: “Another bad effect of commerce is that it sinks the courage of mankind, and tends to
extinguish martial spirit…The defence of the country is therefore committed to a certain set
of men who have nothing else ado; and among the bulk of people military courage
diminishes…This is confirmed by universal experience. In the year 1745 four or five
thousand naked unarmed Highlanders took possession of the improved parts of this country
without any opposition from the unwarlike inhabitants. They penetrated into England and
alarmed the whole nation, and had they not been opposed by a standing army they would
have seized the throne with little difficulty.”
The problem was blamed on civilization, whereas the success of the barbaric Highlanders
was ascribed to the lack of it. Nonetheless, inasmuch as the civilized English and Scottish
population was not going to give up its civilization status, the only way forward was to
civilize, and so, weaken, subjugate and control the barbarians (George Caffentzis). Hence,
civilization became identifiable with authority, repression, usurpation, proselytization and
control. It was anything but contract, convention, freedom, or democracy. It was not an
innocent or good thing at all.
It is interesting to note - in passing - that Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) – arguably the father of such
modern disciplines as sociology, historiography, economics and demography – made some
fascinating and similar observations on somewhat comparable topics.
He said, for example, while analysing the laws of history and of socio-political development:
“Obstacles on the way toward royal authority are luxury and the submergence of the tribe in a
life of prosperity”; “While a nation is savage, its royal authority extends farther”; “As long as
a nation retains its group feeling, royal authority that disappears in one branch will, of
necessity, pass to some other branch of the same nation”; “The vanquished always want to
imitate the victor in his distinctive mark(s), his dress, his occupation, and all his other
conditions and customs.”
From Scotland and Great Britain to the world
The Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th and early 19th century - which was a period of such
intellectual and scientific accomplishments that propelled the country to the forefront of
Europe’s scholarly movements – and the Industrial Revolution also in the 18th and 19th
century – which was taking Europe and the United States by storm – turned Scotland into an
intellectual and commercial hub.
One of the effects of this was that by 1750, with an estimated 75% level of literacy, the Scots
were probably the most well-read nation on earth. Voltaire, a French Enlightenment
philosopher, historian and author, was compelled to remark: “It is to Scotland that we must
look for our idea of civilization” (Welsh). And the title of American historian Arthur
Herman’s book says it all: “How the Scots Invented the Modern World: the True Story of
how Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It”.
Scotland’s rise to prominence, and its intellectual as well as scientific impact on the world,
were undoubtedly aided by its becoming since 1707 an integral part of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain. With the latter’s role as a leading world empire and a foremost global power
- described while at its height as the “empire on which the sun never sets” and the “workshop
of the world” – many seminal ideas of Scotland’s intellectuals were able to enjoy wide
currency, locally inside the whole Kingdom and abroad.
Following the Union, thousands of Scots, mainly Lowlanders, took up numerous positions of
power in politics, civil service, the army and navy, trade, economics, colonial enterprises and
other areas across the nascent British Empire. Scotland lay at the core of Britain, especially
pertaining to the latter’s economy (Wikipedia).
One of the principal ideas that needed to be popularized, “globalized” and its latent
significations optimized, was the idea of civilization.
Britain was generally the most powerful and most active colonizing power. The population in
its African territories was about 52 million in 1913, in Asia about 330 million, in the
Caribbean about 1.6 million, and in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand about 18
million. The total population of the Empire was 412 million - ten times as big as Britain
itself. About 24 percent of the earth’s total land area was under its control (Maddison).
The civilizing mission
To civilize was the mission of rampant colonization, the latter ostensibly being rationalized,
justified and encouraged thereby. The biggest culprits, apart from Britain, were also French,
Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish governments. Hence, the concept of “civilizing mission” was
created. It is rendered in French as “mission civilisatrice”. The concept tells the kernel of
colonial policies and goals.
Later, the United States also jumped on the bandwagon, seeking its share of the available
riches. Its continuous purported democratization - as an expanded and modernized version of
civilization - of the world, especially of the Middle East and North Africa, is a recent and
good case in point.
The colonial powers felt it was their duty to civilize the colonized peoples whom they
regarded as backward, incapable, primitive and barbaric. To add an extra legitimacy to their
unholy enterprises, the colonizers often infused them with nationalistic and religious zeal as
well. Hence, “to civilize” was habitually perceived as equivalent to “westernizing”,
“proselytizing”, “Christianising”, “integrating” and “assimilating”.
The intellectual origins of the “civilizing mission” can be traced back to the Christian
tradition dating from the Middle Ages, when Christian evangelism, missionary work and
proselytization were disseminated. Some progressive thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment,
like Nicolas de Condorcet (d. 1794) from France, believed that it was a holy duty incumbent
upon the civilized nations of Europe to help the colonized backward nations by civilizing
them. He said that “these vast lands are inhabited partly by large tribes who seem to require
nothing, in order to civilize themselves, but to receive from us the means, who wait only to
find brothers amongst the European nations to become their friends and disciples” (Pitts).
Condorcet’s faith in the superiority of European civilization and a disdain for non-European
cultures were unparalleled. He also trusted that the enlightened (civilized) morality of the
Europeans could and soon would replace the benighted cultures of other parts of the world
“through a non-oppressive process of tutelage” (Pitts).
It is because of this rather “advanced” French Enlightenment thought that the term
“civilization” in the 18th century might have commenced to be used almost concurrently in
the English and French languages.
Some contend that the first known use of the word “civilization” in French was in 1757 by
Victor de Riquety Marquis de Mirabeau, a French economist, and the first use in English was
in 1767 – ten years later - by Adam Ferguson, a Scottish philosopher and historian of the
Scottish Enlightenment, in his influential book “the History of Civil Society” (Wikipedia).
The civilizing mission of the European colonizers was two-fold. It was aimed to bring the
colonized peoples to the rule and sway of the new law(s), institutional (governmental)
policies and systems, and to thus gradually divest them of any abilities, qualities and
unpredictability that could potentially cause danger to the colonizing masters. The mission
was all about institutionalized power, control, hegemony and suppression. It was a poisoned
chalice.
Secondly, the civilizing mission, at first site, also entailed an affirmative aspect. It targeted
the extermination of benighted and inept indigenous cultures, values and lifestyles, replacing
them with better Western values and culture in areas such as industry, science, technology,
politics, government, economics, lifestyle, values, norms, law, customs, traditions,
philosophy, language, alphabet, clothing, diet and religion.
As outwardly appealing as it was, the second dimension of the civilizing mission was as
devastating and painful as the first one. It was designed but to achieve absolute conquest and
domination through the prospects of alienation, westernization, assimilation and integration.
It spelled a cultural death and a future civilizational existence on a Western life support. This
was to be realized by means of governmental apparatus and the hierarchy of its institutions.
No wonder that Adam Ferguson stressed that it was impossible for a people to be (more)
civilized “till they have established some regular government, and have courts of justice to
hear their complaints.” He also emphasized that civilization means “the state of nations in
respect of their laws and government; and men civilized were men practiced in the duty of
citizens.” Men civilized, in addition, were “scholars, men of fashion and traders.”
The definitive climax of this intellectual and ideological penchant was modernity, both as a
historical period and an aggregate of norms, values, practices and phenomena. Modernity was
a natural consequence of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment Age, which displayed
utmost disdain and tried to destroy everything that was traditional, old-fashioned,
conservative and “different”. To many observers, therefore, the modern notions of
globalization and the Information Age are no more than the modified and upgraded versions
of colonization (neo-colonialism), westernization, Western imperialism and “civilization”.
Adam Ferguson and his book “the History of Civil Society”
By way of illustration, Adam Ferguson mentions in his seminal book the word “civilization”
and the verb “civilize” (in its past tense) eight and eleven times respectively. He does so in
relation to standards of politeness, civility, progress, refinement, happiness and moral
certitude of human nature. He contrasts civilization with rudeness, barbarism, savagery,
impoliteness, corruption and vice. To him, civilization is the goal of human existence. Not
only is it that “the individual advances from infancy to manhood, but also the (human)
species itself from rudeness to civilization.”
Adam Ferguson moreover employs the words “modern” as an adjective and “modern” as a
noun thirty six and three times respectively. He does so in his references to “(modern)
Europe”, “(modern) nations, states, governments and arms”, “(moderns of) Europe”,
“(modern) race and conquerors”, “(modern) literature”, “(modern) gallantry, fable and
heroes”, and “(modern) history and times”.
Where are Muslims?
However, it should also be remarked that Adam Ferguson speaks about the (global) history of
civil society “from rudeness to civilization”. He does so after the “civilization” of Islam and
Muslims had dominated the world stage in varying degrees of intensity and success for about
a thousand years, and was set to remain a force to be reckoned with for about an additional
century or so following his death.
In spite of this, he, in essence, completely overlooks the subject. Only once does he mention
the “Saracen Empire”, in the context of the Crusades when “our ancestors” partook of the
former’s spoils (parenthetically, before being called Muslims in the West, Muslims were
called Ishmailities, Saracens and Mohammadans).
He furthermore refers to the Arabs only four times, implying that they were uncivilized, wild
and tribal. No surprise that one of his references on the Arabs is D’Arvieux’s “History of the
Wild Arabs”. While indirectly referring to the Arabs and their alleged cultural “double
standards”, he writes: “Every tribe of warlike barbarians may entertain among themselves the
strongest sentiments of affection and honour, while they carry to the rest of mankind the
aspect of banditti and robbers.”
The same applies to the Persians. Adam Ferguson’s interest chiefly pertains to ancient Persian
empires and the perennial conflicts with their Greek and Roman counterparts. Not even once
does he mention, for example, the Safavid dynasty, one of the greatest Iranian empires, or any
other dynasty that preceded or succeeded it in the region.
By the same token, mighty Ottomans and their cosmopolitan and affluent Constantinople
(Istanbul) are hastily mentioned only once each.
All this is understandable, though, in that both the Renaissance and Enlightenment –
including their subsequent modern and post-modern sequels – virtually completely
sidestepped the presence of Islam and Muslims on the world’s cultural and civilizational
scenes, trying to connect directly with classical culture, that is, the cultures of ancient Greece
and Rome.
The sources of inspiration and guidance were the concept of Roman Humanitas (embedded
virtues of humanity or human nature) and the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy. This
in turn led to the emergence of a new worldview which synthesized the humanist and
naturalist ideas of God, reason, humanity, life, knowledge, beauty, nature, happiness and
humanity. The worldview gained wide assent in the West and “instigated revolutionary
developments in art, philosophy and politics” (Britannica).
Apart from a few enlightened European nations: the torchbearers of civilization, civility and
liberty, to Adam Ferguson and his many Enlightenment associates everyone else was
barbaric, savage, ignorant, rude and dull: “From one to the other extremity of America; from
Kamschatka westward to the river Oby; and from the Northern sea, over that length of
country, to the confines of China, of India, and Persia; from the Caspian to the Red Sea, with
little exception, and from thence over the inland continent and the western shores of Africa;
we everywhere meet with nations on whom we bestow the appellations of barbarous or
savage” (Adam Ferguson).
Distorting history
Unfortunately, this tactic led to the significant distortions of history. Many historical episodes
with many leading protagonists were simply omitted and others gravely misrepresented.
What was intended to be projected thereby is that in the fields of science, technology,
philosophy, art, civilization and industrial progress, nothing remarkable happened between
the end of classical culture or classical antiquity, marked by the fall of the Western Roman
Empire, and the advent of the Renaissance, followed by the Enlightenment and the Age of
Reason - which is an epoch of about nine centuries.
Such deliberate perversions, certainly, constitute crimes against history, science, common
sense and, of course, civilization. Premeditated gaps in history have been thus created that
keep puzzling a great many inquisitive researchers and students.
Parenthetically, filling those gaps is the primary objective of an outstanding project called
“1001 Inventions: Discover a Golden Age – Inspire a Better Future”. The project is
conceptualized and run by Salim al-Hassani, Emeritus Professor of mechanical engineering at
the University of Manchester, and his dedicated team.
According to its website: “‘1001 Inventions’ is a British based, award-winning science and
cultural heritage organisation engaging over 400 million people around the world. It uncovers
a thousand years of scientific and cultural achievements from Muslim Civilization from the
7th century onwards, and how those contributions helped create the foundations of our modern
world.”
In his article titled “1000 Years of Missing Industrial History”, Salim al-Hassani writes,
quoting John Glubb and his book “History of the Arab People”: “Modern oriental studies
have proved the falsity of this historical propaganda (the idea of the 16th-17th century
Renaissance, and that nothing happened between the 450s, the fall of the Roman Empire, and
such Renaissance), although the latter is still widely believed by the general public.
Unfortunately, a great part of the educational world still adheres to these ancient taboos and
the period of some five or six centuries, which separates the decline of Rome from the
Norman invasion of England, is omitted from school curricula and from public examination.”
“As is always the case, this falsification of history for propaganda purposes has injured us
more than anyone else, and has largely been responsible for the many political errors, which
our governments have committed in the Middle East in the last sixty years. The history of
‘progress’, the rise of man from a primitive state to his modern condition, is a fascinating
story. The interest is lost, however, when the continuity is concealed by the omission of
periods of several centuries and the presentation of bits and pieces of history, gathered from
here and there, in accordance with our own emotional prejudices or our national vanity”
(Salim al-Hassani).
Civilization as the self-consciousness of the West
As stated by Norbert Elias - whose book “the Civilizing Process” (1939) is universally
regarded as a fundamental treatise in the fields of philosophy and evolution of civilization -
the concept of civilization expresses the self-consciousness of the West. It likewise involves
the national consciousness. It sums up everything and every existential aspect wherein
Western society of the last two or three centuries sees itself superior to earlier societies or
“more primitive” contemporary ones. “By this term, Western society seeks to describe what
constitutes its special character and what it is proud of” (Norbert Elias).
It was believed that human society progresses in a straightforward or linear mode. This
evolution moves from savagery and barbarism, arriving finally at the stage of civilization. To
that final stage the Europeans arrived first. They then became duty-bound to help others and
to expedite their own progress. In this manner, a “gospel” of civilization was born, and was
preached alongside other religious and political “gospels”.
Since its inception in the 18th century, predominantly in the corridors of the British and
French philosophical and political thought, the concept of civilization provided a standard to
the Westerners by which to judge other non-Western and non-European societies. The aim
was to distinguish between civilization and barbarism on the basis of being – or otherwise –
settled, urban, literate, cultured and enlightened in the Western (European) senses.
The aim was also to identify positive and negative traits, together with good and bad sides
(guys), sending the aphorism “might makes right”, concerning the origin and compass of
morality, into full swing.
Moreover, during the nineteenth century, “Europeans devoted much intellectual, diplomatic
and political energy to elaborating he criteria by which non-European societies might be
judged sufficiently ‘civilized’ to be accepted as members of the European-dominated
international system” (Samuel Huntington).
Historically, the concept of civilization underwent several changes in its connotations, which
sometimes were very positive and forward-looking. That was done in response to changes in
the social, political, economic and cultural arenas of the world. However, the concept never
betrayed its essential purpose and disposition; nor did its main central characters.
Brett Bowden, a professor of history and politics at the University of Western Sydney, sums
up the sentiment: “At its inception, the idea of civilization was imbued with a sense of
progress, peace, and optimism. The historical record, however, belies much of this sense of
optimism. Somewhat paradoxically, civilization has come to be closely associated with
conflict and conquest. In the two-hundred-and-sixty years since the term was coined, many
things have been done in the name of civilization; sadly, among them are such grave matters
as war, conquest, and colonialism.”
And so, both colonization and civilization never ceased to be questioned. Both before and
nowadays, they could be marketed and sold only to such as have lacked a true identity and
self-worth, were collaborators, and had vested interests in what was going on.
Aime Cesaire, a Martinican politician and author, wrote that the colonizers of the past were
predominantly adventurers, pirates and ordinary folks such as grocers, ship-owners and gold
diggers. They were not necessarily interested in civilizing the colonized Other. Colonization
denoted de-humanization and a “thingification”. In reality, it de-civilized both the colonizer
and the colonized (Rash).
Accordingly, Aime Cesaire defines colonization using its proclaimed attributes to present an
account of what it is not: “(It is) neither evangelization, nor a philanthropic enterprise, nor a
desire to push back the frontiers of ignorance, disease and tyranny, nor a project undertaken
for the greater glory of God, nor an attempt to extend the rule of law” (Rash).
The clash of civilizations
Bearing this in mind, one can understand why Samuel Huntington was able to come up with
such a controversial thesis as “the clash of civilizations”, positing that the main axis of
conflict in the future will be along the lines of cultures and civilizations, the latter
exemplifying the highest grades of the former’s identities.
It must be clear, nevertheless, that this thought signifies a culmination of at least a century-
old philosophy. It could yet be interpreted as a form of cumulative thought, for as early as in
1926 there was a book titled “Young Islam on Trek: a Study in the Clash of Civilizations”.
The book’s author was Basil Matthews who, unsurprisingly, composed another book titled
“the Book of Missionary Heroes”. There existed regular usages of the same, or analogous
expressions throughout the 20th century. The phrase is derived from “clash of cultures”, which
was already used during the colonial period and the (La) Belle Epoque (Beautiful Epoch)
(1871-1914) (Wikipedia).
For the reason that the idea of Western civilization, which was planned to be advanced and
imposed as a universal and global civilization, was inextricably tied to colonization, most of
the colonized peoples had no choice but to loathe and rise against both of them. The two were
seen as twins, one supporting the other. There was no subsistence for one without the other.
Thus entangled in a give-and-take relationship, without really considering which one exactly
was the cause and which one the effect, colonization and civilization were primed to rise,
subsist and fall together.
Hence, for the colonized, fighting colonialism also meant fighting the imperial (Western)
civilization. Anti-colonialism sentiments quickly morphed into the enterprises of reviving
indigenous cultures, and reviving as well as advancing traditional and “home-grown”
civilizations. It was a tit-for-tat strategy. “Civilization” qua colonization was opposed with
“civilization” qua fight for independence and freedom.
It all depends on the lens (eyes) through which one wants to see the matter. From a prejudiced
and myopic Western perspective, whatever the nonconforming Other does, that is always
(mis)construed as anti-civilization, anti-humanity and anti-progress. The perspective’s one-
dimensional and monolithic self should not be challenged by anybody.
Since they, more than anybody else, wish to restore their original cultures and civilization,
and live accordingly and freely, Muslims, more than most, ended up being at the receiving
end of this discriminatory norm. And if they further resist, the language is set to change to
something more pejorative and condemning, such as fundamentalism, extremism, fanaticism
and terrorism.
But if civilization is viewed through the prism of a principle that civilization is a universal
ideal and goodness, almost corresponding to the absolute truth, which is meant to be pursued
and shared by all mankind, then the thesis of “clash of civilizations” comes into sight as
highly detested and objectionable. It is as bad as intentionally choosing to remain uncultured
and uncivilized, i.e., to become unnatural. The thesis, additionally, is utterly unethical,
whereas the real essential nature of every civilization ought to be ethics, as affirmed by Albert
Schweitzer in his “the Philosophy of Civilization”.
As a result of this encouraging civilizational normalcy, there are growing initiatives from
diverse corners of the globe calling for “inter-civilizational dialogue, understanding and
cooperation”. They are purposed to put forth and promote the universality and intrinsic nature
of civilization, and to combat the inappropriateness and abnormality of the notion of “clash of
civilizations”.
They are furthermore purposed to combat the latest and most advanced forms of colonization,
which can be proliferated only in the name of civilization and globalization. And that is
where the biggest problem with the West lies. The issue was never in resisting “civilization”,
but in resisting “colonization”, and only those who are determined to hold on to colonization
are inclined to speak about potential clashes of civilizations. They know clashes will happen
as they will generate them.
Doing so is such people’s effective defence, plus diversion, strategy as well. They and their
predecessors live with blood on their hands, resulting from the undue civilizing, modernizing
and democratizing – aka colonizing, controlling and westernizing – processes across the
globe. As such, those people can thrive only in environments of perpetual apprehension,
conflicts and fear. Authentic peace, equality and impartial justice are their nemeses, and exact
opposites of what they propagate and live for. Those qualities could easily prove their
downfall. So, preaching and forecasting clashes of civilization is the only option, connoting
an act of intellectual and moral asylum-seeking, so to speak.
The decline of Western civilization
It is owing to this that more and more people speak about the rapid deterioration, and moral,
spiritual, as well as intellectual, bankruptcy of Western civilization. Some, like Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, even speak of it as a failed experiment.
Undeniably, the edifice of Western civilization is in terminal decline and the first irrefutable
signs of its collapsing have long since come to pass. According to Albert Schweitzer, the age
of Illuminati (in general the Age of Enlightenment and in particular an Enlightenment-era
movement and society based in Bavaria, Germany) and the age of rationalism (the Age of
Reason) were the incubators of Western civilization, which was meant for the world.
The ideals that underpinned the appearance of the civilization phenomenon had begun, “both
in philosophy and in general thought, to get into contact with reality and to alter the general
environment.” In the course of three or four generations, there had been such progress made
“that the age of true civilization seemed to have dawned upon the world and to be assured of
an uninterrupted development”.
But about the middle of the nineteenth century, things started to go downhill. So much so that
in the course of the next few decades – about the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth
century – “without resistance, without complaint, civilization abdicated. Its ideas lagged
behind, as though they were too exhausted to keep pace with it” (Albert Schweitzer).
Albert Schweitzer attributes the abdication of civilization to “philosophy’s renunciation of
here duty”, and to a state when “a real combination of ethical ideals with reality was no
longer possible”.
He then goes on to elaborate that the causes of the collapse of civilization revolved around:
people’s self-deception as to the real meaning and condition of “our civilization”, the collapse
of the worldview on which “our ideals were based”, the crisis in spirituality and morals, the
superficial character of modern philosophizing (a crisis of intellectuality), the undeveloped
condition of the modern man and his lack of humanity. These causes at the same time
revealed a path to the restoration of civilization and its potential hindrances.
“The emperor has no clothes’
Albert Schweitzer’s honesty and wisdom notwithstanding, Western civilization, ever since it
started disassociating itself from medieval scholasticism and the Christian worldview, values
and practices, never reached a notable level of ontological certitude. Its epistemological and
artistic outlooks, compasses and overall legacies, in spite of the proliferation and
diversification of methods, approaches, means and styles, in point of fact, kept going round in
circles. The results were misconstrued and so, misleading. Cultural and civilizational heights
were subjective and slanted. As for ethics, furthermore, it was never Western civilization’s
forte; and to be fair, it was never its preferred goal and destination either.
The initial euphoria, caused by remarkable philosophical enthusiasm and a long series of
scientific advances, was soon overshadowed by setbacks inherent in any sceptical,
nonspiritual and poorly-grounded-in-ethics civilizational undertaking. It was increasingly
becoming evident that the edifice of Western civilization contained little élan vital with which
it could sustain itself in the long run. It had little in the tank to answer the mounting crucial
questions, and to satisfy the pressing multiplying needs, of humanity. It had little wherewith it
could defend itself against itself. With the decline of colonization came the decline of
civilization.
The notions of ethical relativism, liberalism as a moral philosophy, evolution as an ideology,
secularism, agnosticism, scepticism, nihilism, hedonism, rampant materialism, merciless
exploitation of people and nature – are all calculated and otherwise products of Western
civilization. They are at the same time the banes – acknowledged and otherwise – of its
modern and most decadent phases. The modern man slowly but surely suffocates in the
fetters of their mendacity. Overwhelming statistics speak for themselves.
Without a doubt, the writing is on the wall for Western civilization. Which is foreseeable in
the eyes of many cognizant and perceptive observers, for how something can carry on in an
upward fashion, which is hollow, morally and intellectually unsettled, and is contingent on
utter rejection of spirituality and Heaven, and on the exaltation of matter and the deification
of man and his talents.
The whole thing is reminiscent of the parable of “the emperor’s new clothes”. Everybody
knows there is something seriously wrong in the “civilized” and “modern” ways our lives
unfold, but not many dare to question the status quo for fear that they will be branded
regressive and retarded, i.e., uncivilized. Most people still prefer to live in their cocoons and
to keep consoling each other with endless sweet lies. It will take a lot of institutional, rather
than individual, guts to “shout” – and prove – that the emperor, actually, has no clothes.
Oswald Spengler - by way of example – published in 1918 a book called “the Decline of the
West”. In it, he predicted that in about 2000, Western civilization will enter the period of pre-
death emergency. The period will last about 200 years which will be a time of excessive
turmoil marked by Caesarism or political dictatorships. After that, Western civilization will
experience its ultimate collapse.
More recently, in 2018, Shivaji Lokam published a book called “the Fall of Western
Civilization”. In it, the author argues that of late, in matters of culture and civilization, the
West is “tired, hopeless and dying”, and has been “in a self-destruction mode for the past
hundred years”.
The condition of Western civilization and the condition of its ideological frameworks could
be related to the Qur’anic idea of “a bad word” (kalimah khabithah, i.e., a bad, unproductive
and unsustainable ideology, philosophy, thought, system and creed). The “word” is likened to
a bad tree which is barren, unattractive, uprooted from the surface of the earth, and has no
purpose, direction, or stability whatsoever (Ibrahim, 26).
The opposite of “a bad word” is “a good word” (kalimah tayyibah, i.e., a good, productive
and sustainable ideology, philosophy, thought, system and creed), which is, similarly, likened
to a good tree.
Allah says: “Have you not considered how Allah presents an example, (making) a good word
like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed and its branches (high) in the sky? It produces its
fruit all the time, by permission of its Lord. And Allah presents examples for the people that
perhaps they will be reminded” (Ibrahim, 24-25).
A Muslim response
This comprehension of civilization never appealed to the untainted Muslim consciousness.
That is why the same concept made slow inroads into Muslim scholarship. Even the
Westerners were reluctant to associate Islam and Muslims with civilization, which was
logical given that Muslims belonged to the realm of the Other. The relationship between the
West and Muslims was that of occident-versus-orient.
The earliest Western studies concentrated on various aspects of Islamic culture, tradition,
theology, mysticism and law. Such was a segment of Orientalism as a Western scholarly
discipline of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that encompassed the study of the languages,
literatures, religions, philosophies, histories, art and laws of Asian societies (Britannica).
However, the discipline was intricately connected to the colonizing and imperialist powers,
serving their expansionist interests wherever the Other lived.
Perhaps the first example of the use of the concept of Islamic civilization by a Western
scholar was in 1926 in the context of the embryonic idea of “the clash of civilizations” by
Basil Matthews in his book “Young Islam on Trek: a Study in the Clash of Civilizations”. It
was followed by others such as H.A.R. Gibb’s “Studies on the Civilization of Islam”
published in 1962.
Illustrating further the matter, Brill’s first edition of “the Encyclopaedia of Islam” was
originally published between 1913 and 1936. It is said concerning its purpose and scope:
“The demand for an encyclopaedic work on Islam was created by the increasing colonial
interest in Muslims and Islamic cultures during the nineteenth century. The scope of the
Encyclopaedia of Islam (first edition) is philology, history, theology and law until early 20th
century.”
As far as Muslim scholars are concerned, they had to grapple on the intellectual, spiritual and
moral planes with “civilization” and its sundry negative undertones. They were torn between
being utopian, or idealist, and realist. They had to strike a delicate balance between the fast
fading of a great many Islamic ideals - both in thought and practice - and the aggressive as
well as coordinated imposition of Western civilization, philosophy, norms and values by the
Western colonizers in the occupied territories, and by the evangelists and proselytizers of
everything Western in those rare territories that remained politically under Muslim control.
Many scholars were of the view that it was better to be wise and pragmatic, rather than naïve,
clueless and impractical, even if a few compromises had to be made along the way, and one
had to act on the grounds of expediency rather than of principle. Indeed, it was less painful if
people endured in such a state under the guardianship of trustworthy scholars, rather than to
be attracted to and consumed by the false glitter of Western colonization-cum-civilization. It
was as if the Islamic tenet to the effect that “necessity permits prohibited matters” was
partially activated.
Against this background certain views and positions of such Muslim scholars – who are often
labelled as pioneers of “Islamic modernism” - as Jamaluddin al-Afghani (d. 1897),
Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905), Muhammad Rashid Rida (d. 1935) and many others, are to be
studied. The mosaic of their philosophies and models as to how to deal with the influx of
Western civilization and thought - whether to reject, adopt, Islamize, or ingeniously integrate
them, and how - catches most attention. Among others, nascent ideas about drastic
transformations within “Islamic civilization”, and even the possibility of an “Islamic
renaissance”, were mooted.
At any rate, the first Muslim scholar who explicitly wrote about Islamic civilization was an
Indian scholar Salahuddin Khuda Bukhsh (d. 1931). In 1905, he composed a book titled
“Contributions to the History of Islamic Civilization”.
As one would expect, not only this book, but also the other writings of this author, clearly
show an influence of Western thought and modernism which were unacceptable to those who
had a direct access to Islam and the original works on Islamic history. “He was nevertheless
held in esteem by Western scholars, particularly those of England” (Nadwi).
Abul Hasan Nadwi explains the overall situation and nature of the Muslim response,
particularly in the Indian subcontinent: “Muslim writers of that period, that is, the span
stretching from the later part of the nineteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century,
suffered from the weakness of being unduly impressed by Western philosophy and science,
although these categories were then passing through the stage of infancy. These writers
seemed to be too anxious to explain away the facts of mute reality, miracles and supernatural
events; they tried to harmonize, on the one hand, laws of physical sciences and its discoveries
with the metaphysical concepts, and, on the other, went out of their way to demonstrate
compatibility of the Islamic and Western thought and culture. Their writings were, in a
nutshell, defensive and apologetic.”
Studies on Islamic civilization continued afterwards, intensifying with the intensification of
Western-Muslim “civilizational” interactions. Different, often contradictory, conceptions and
interpretations of Islamic civilization were set forth in the process. Subject to who undertook
the studies, why, where and when, the theme was cast sometimes in pure Islamic, sometimes
in pure Western, and at other times, in joined moulds. The results accordingly varied: from
complete and partial truth, to complete and partial falsehood. Many students and researchers
of Islam, consequently, were lost and confused, without knowing what to do and where to
turn for solace.
This disturbing climate must have embodied a main reason that prompted Sayyid al-Maududi
to write his authoritative book on Islamic civilization titled “Islamic Civilization: Its
Foundational Beliefs and Principles”. The book aims to explain in an emphatic fashion the
central values and standards of Islamic civilization, and to facilitate thereby its proper
understanding and application.
Having repudiated a series of misconceptions about Islamic civilization, al-Maududi explains
the meaning of civilization in general as follows: “Generally, people think that science and
manners, arts and crafts, ways of social life, style of culture and conduct of politics, or a
conglomeration of these things, is called 'civilization'. In fact, this is not civilization, these are
the results and facades of a civilization; in other words, these are not the roots of civilization,
they are branches and leaves. The value of a civilization cannot be determined by its external
appearances and its fancy dresses. For determining the value of a civilization, we should
delve deep into its soul and explore its foundation.”
The actual ingredients of civilization are: the concept about worldly life; the aim of life; the
fundamental thoughts and beliefs; the training and “production” of individuals; and the
collective system of human relations (al-Maududi).
Studying Islamic and Western civilization
It goes without saying that studying at once the Muslim and Western worlds and their
civilizational proclivities, is essential for today’s Muslims. Both are critical for the prospect
of reviving Islamic and Muslim civilizational fortunes.
If the civilizational fate of Muslims was sealed as much by the internal as external factors, the
tasks of regeneration and “renaissance”, obviously, can only be accomplished by navigating
the challenges posed by both domains. To lay the blame for the predicament only at one
side’s door, or to look for answers only from one of them, is a seriously misleading plan.
In passing, many universities in the contemporary Muslim world are ever more passionate
about teaching courses on “Islamic civilization”. This is regarded as a form of paying
ideological and civilizational dues to Islam along with the protracted struggles of Muslims. It
is regarded as an academic exoneration too, after which life could be business as usual.
However, studying Islamic civilization only and in isolation is not a path to follow. Studying
Western civilization as an expansionist and pretentious phenomenon - yet a challenger, as it
were - and to study where exactly the two universes can meet, conduct dialogues and
cooperate, and where exactly they differ, disagree and go their separate ways, is of equal
importance.
Besides, Islamic civilization is not only to be studied, theorized about and romanticized, but
also actualized and applied as a living and extremely dynamic spectacle. Both the ideas that
underlie civilization and their material embodiment are to be taken care of. That is the only
right way to pay homage.
If they are truly sincere, the same Muslim universities should dedicate all their academic
curricula and programs to the missions of properly conceptualizing, comprehending,
generating, promoting and implementing constituents of civilization anchored in the
worldview, values and ethics of Islam. Their faculties and colleges of humanities, social
sciences, law, economics, education, built environment, engineering, science, medicine, etc.,
represent nothing but fields, or life dimensions, for doing so.
Students should not deal with Islamic civilization in an academic subject or two, and then be
nourished with totally different, often discordant, substances elsewhere. This approach,
positively, is a supply line for disoriented, confused and alienated personalities. We should
not only talk the talk, but have to be prepared to take whatever necessary risks and walk the
talk.
The case of Ibn Khaldun
Lastly, it is asserted that within the framework of his diverse intellectual interests Ibn
Khaldun extensively spoke about civilization: its conception, purpose, rise, function, decline
and fall. However, that is not true. It would be grossly unfair and unethical to impute to the
man that which he did not do. In any case, this only demonstrates how complicated and
confusing the subject matter can be.
Ibn Khaldun could not speak about “civilization” because he and his thought predated the
idea by more than three centuries. Rather, he articulated his seminal philosophy of “‘umran”,
together with the ideas of “hadarah” and “tamaddun”. These are purely Arabic-Islamic
concepts, with their origins contained in the messages of the Holy Qur’an and Prophet
Muhammad’s Sunnah (life paradigm).
However the three concepts of Ibn Khaldun are understood and translated, they by no means
should be equated with the Western understanding of civilization. The two are worlds apart,
and the foregoing pages have shown why.
What then is “civilization” in Islam, how it is relatable to “‘umran”, “hadarah” and
“tamaddun”, and where its converging and separating points with Western civilization are -
that requires a whole new study, which is forthcoming in-sha’-Allah.