InsightNovember December 2006

The Conflict of Civilizations from an Islamic Perspective

Dr Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri

Introduction

One of the most widely used expressions and concepts during the last decade of the 20th Century is presumably the concept of “the Conflict of Civilizations” and its counterpart “the Dialogue of Civilizations”, be it at the general level of print in newspapers, magazines and the other media such as radio, television and various internet sites, be it at the particular level of research, study and discussion in circles of research, studies and decision support, be it in faculties and universities, in intellectual forums, in political and cultural encounters, or in specialized and non-specialized conferences dealing with the international issues on the international scene at this stage which was and still is unquestionably one of the delicate and decisive stages in the history of mankind. The concept of “the Conflict of Civilizations” has become a proper noun at this stage. It is still imposing itself in the context of research in international issues, be they intellectual or cultural, political or social, economic or developmental.

We may measure the spread of the concept of “the Clash of Civilizations” against the concepts that were widespread during the Cold War with ideological charge and political content. These were the intellectual commodity exposed for marketing at the international level in that era following World War II up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the ensuing total disintegration of Eastern Europe.

Hence, the study of these phenomena which are most widespread and which influence most the political life and the intellectual and cultural arenas in which the Muslim Ummah has to fight, became a requirement for dealing with intellectual phenomena prevailing in the world today, and a condition for the analysis of their contents, and searching through their substance, following their tracks and calling to mind their dimensions, especially at this stage where our Ummah is looking forward to its future in the 15th Century Hegira. Chief among these is the intellectual phenomenon springing from the widespread expansion of the concept of “the Conflict of Civilizations” and its counterpart “the Dialogue of Civilizations”.

The meaning and significance of conflict

Our understanding of the meaning of conflict is a prerequisite for understanding the significance of this concept. In Lissanul Arab it is noted that “Saraa” means to throw to the ground. The usage of the term is restricted to human beings. Sa’raahu saraan and ser’an and the object is masrou (defeated) and sari (killed), the plural thereof is sara. Musraa and sirae is wrestling and fight. Sar stands for epilepsy and sarie means insane. Masariu lkawmi means the battleground where they were killed. In the hadith, “suraah” stands for a person who controls himself in anger. It also means the invincible.(1) The Holy Koran mentions once “saraa", where it says : "So that you could see men lying overthrown (destroyed)". The meaning is overthrown on the ground and it is said of Man(2).

The concept acquired a widespread political connotation and took the character of a theory in the 19th century where it appeared in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Ingles. Al Mawsoua Assiyassiya (The “Political Encyclopedia”) notes that the modern conception of the conflict of classes dates back to the era of the French Revolution, but the theory as such is taken from the ideas of Marx and Ingles as they define it in the Communist Manifesto when they affirm that : “The whole history of mankind thus far has been one of conflict of classes”(3). We notice here the use of the word “whole” which means summing and negates exception, definitely and categorically. This is a fixed attribute of the totalitarian thought whenever and wherever it is found, be it communist or capitalist.

The very concept appears in the writings of the Western thinkers propagating today the idea of the conflict and clash between civilizations and cultures.

The idea of conflict dominated the European thinking in all its stages. This forced victory cost the European peoples dearly and they suffered greatly from civil wars, last of which was World War II which was ignited by a racist doctrine and a despotic leaning that marked it with the blood-tainted character of conflict.

At the intellectual, doctrinal and political levels, the great ideas which had deep effects on European societies during the 19th and 20th centuries were conflict-based, such as communism based on the principle of the conflict of classes which is a higher level on the conflict ladder. This holds true even for capitalism which itself was established on the principle of conflict against the obstacles and hindrances which prevent the capital to set free from barriers. capitalism wages a merciless war on the circumstances which do not go in tandem with the capitalist doctrine, even if the application of the said doctrine harms the interests of poor peoples. To reach prosperity, abundance and economic boom, nothing prevents the exploitation of other peoples and dominating their potentials. This is what led and is still leading to the destabilization of modern societies, including the capitalist societies.

Roots of conflict in the European thinking

As a first step we have to shed light on a fact in the current Western civilization: the idea of conflict is deep-rooted in this civilization which may be traced back to the Greek era, then the Roman period which were dominated by the concepts of conflict with varying meanings and significance, starting from what was known in the ancient Greek thinking as the doctrine of “the conflict of gods” based on the multiplicity of gods leading to clashes between them; “the conflict of power and weakness”, “the conflict of good and evil”, “the conflict between Man and Nature”, as well as “the conflict between man and the gods”.

The Greek thinking was marked by conflict in its religious, philosophical, literary and artistic aspects in the same way the Roman thinking was marked by conflict in its legislative, legal, political and civil aspects. The idea of conflict totally dominated the Greek and Roman thinking, marking the Greek and Roman mind with conflict as a fixed fundament of life in this world and in the hereafter.

Conflict is an unchanging fundament of modern Western civilization which is the inheritor of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It is a fixed root of the European thinking in its successive historical stages.

The same holds true for the Phoenician and Ancient Egyptian civilizations which have witnessed the idea of conflict at different levels. One of the recently unveiled facts which have been unknown thus far is that the Greek and Roman civilizations have taken their fundaments and principles from the Ancient Egyptian civilization. This refutes the theory of the centrality of the Western civilization which is for the Western historians the first origin of all human civilizations. This original civilization was itself dominated by the idea of conflict.

At the level of religious beliefs, the Old Testament is not free of the spirit of conflict; the Torah in which the Jews and a group of Christians in the West believe today, reflects this spirit which flows in a book considered a revelation from God. It penetrated in religious beliefs, philosophical principles and literary and art works. As a result, the religious and philosophical thinking fell under the influence of this idea which has become an integral part of the European thinking and of the Western civilization as a whole.

The idea of conflict in the Western thinking took shape clearly in the Age of Enlightenment the strongest aspect of which was the exacerbation of the conflict between the community of scientists, thinkers, philosophers, writers and literary men and the Church.

Looking closely at the general international situation today, we find out that the system of globalization in which the United States pioneers and seeks to impose on the world through a host of procedures and systems based on the international legitimacy via a number of world summits on issues and subjects fitted in an international mold to push the system of globalization toward invading new ground and impose itself on the world as a whole. This system is an expression of the idea of conflict and a reflection of its spirit. Likewise, the war against terror from the American perspective has turned into a war for hegemony and domination and imposition of the American concept by force, despite the disagreement of international positions on the concept of terrorism, how to fight it, how to deal with its causes and how to uproot it. This is why we see the American administration categorizing the states and peoples of the world into a duality of good and evil. There is the “axis of evil” most of it Muslim, as against the “axis of good” led by the United States, comprising the European States. And it paradoxically comprises Israel which is leading in terrorism, hostility and violation of international law.

The idea of “struggle for survival” appeared in the 19th Century in Europe replacing in Darwin’s theory the previous theories on natural concordance. It was widely believed in scientific and intellectual circles that even nature has a great deal of conflict, and that the latter is a characteristic of nature. The fundamental idea on which the European thinking was centered was that there is no total resemblance between nature and society. True there is a great deal of conflict within society, yet this conflict between people is not for survival, but rather for achieving better opportunities for enjoyment and evolution(4).

European scholars and scientists of the second half of the 19th century and the first half of 20th Century developed the idea of conflict and established theories in the field of pure science or in the field of human sciences on the basis of the idea of conflict between Man and Nature, and between all creatures. The humanities, psychology, letters and arts’ share of influence by the idea of conflict was great.

Summarizing with exactitude and precision the intellectual situation in Europe in what is known as the Renaissance, the intellectual W.T. Jones says: “In the Renaissance Age Man became more important than God and interest in Man’s relations with his fellow men became greater than interest in his spiritual connection with God. Man set nature and humanity, rather than metaphysics and divine perfection as his goal. More important became what Man could achieve in his life, rather than what is awaiting him in the hereafter. All Man was seeking in this life is, generally speaking, a rich personality, developed intellectual capacities and moral abilities, exploiting various aspects of beauty and a life adorned with worldly blessings and graces. In this way, Man moved from being the mirror of Divine Providence and an unchanging incarnation of Man into a stage where natural forces fight and struggle. Man has therefore no choice but to join this ring of rivalry(5).

That is a doctrine which is latent in the Western psyche and a complex that is deep-seated in the West’s thinking and culture.

Conflict in international relations

These intellectual, doctrinal and historical outsets of the idea of conflict were the fundament on which were established international relations in the era of the Cold War. An apparent and latent heated conflict opposed the two great poles, and its repercussions and effects reached most parts of the world. Each pole spared no effort to intensify conflict on the international scene, aspiring to acquire new spheres of influence to strengthen their respective international positions. What was known in the international political practice as “the Game of Nations” was based on the intensification of the conflict by each party to the “game”, starting from the assumption that the more intense the conflict, the easier it becomes to widen the sphere of political, economic, intellectual and cultural influence. This intense conflict caused the attrition of numerous capacities, potentials and efforts, and led to the loss of a number of opportunities which were liable to reorient international relations and to contribute effectively to the stability of the world and to the establishment of world peace and security.
This conflict in international relations was not weakened following the fall of the rival pole. The United States became the sole leader of world politics and the unique force controlling and dominating international relations, paying lip service to the United Nations Charter, which had as a result the naming of a new enemy of the West and the launching of a huge propaganda campaign to depict it as frightening and compromising to the West’s interests and future.
Amid these unstable world circumstances and within the framework of these developments which have altered the balance of power in the world, it took on a new shape, that of the conflict of civilizations. It has been given origins in the intellectual laboratories in the United States of America, which confirms firmly the involvement of the unique pole seated on the crown of international politics in what one can describe as an unfailing premeditated plan to force the whole world into intellectual battles, religious conflicts, political crises and cultural and civilizational conflicts, the aim being to strengthen the bases of the new world order manufactured by the most influential power in the world, and to pave the way for the system of globalization which falls under its control in order to extend its influence and domination to the whole world.
With the idea of the clash of civilizations entering the battlefield of political struggle at the international level in a new form shaped academically and appearing as an intellectual theorization which has no relation whatsoever with political decision-making of the Superpower, the war of ideas has entered a new phase, where a predominant feature is putting the Islamic civilization in the category of civilizations opposing the Western civilization, and one which enters, or will definitely enter, according to this theorization, in a clash with this civilization in the foreseeable future. This leads us to question the motives behind the ignition of conflict between civilizations and targeting the Islamic civilization and the Islamic world in this phase in particular ?
The conflict of civilizations : Is it inevitable ?

A number of Western thinkers, especially Americans, present the idea of the conflict or clash of civilizations as being inevitable, hence falling in the trap of the theory of historical predestination which turned out to be incoherent and became a legacy of humanity’s intellectual heritage in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the forefront of these intellectuals comes Samuel Huntington who published in 1996 his famous book “the Clash of Civilizations and Shaping the New World Order”, and Francis Fukuyama with his equally renowned book “The End of History and the Last Man”.

The inevitability of the conflict or clash of civilizations runs counter to history and is in opposition with the very nature of civilization; for the latter does not have a racial character, nor is it related to any race or belongs to any people whatsoever. Civilization, however, can be, for the sake of identification, attributed to a particular nation or a given geographical location in the world, contrary to culture which is a symbol of identity and subjectivity, and an expression of the characteristics of a given nation or people.

Civilization is a melting pot of various cultures with different origins and sources that have merged and cross-bred to form the characteristic features of the civilization that is an expression of the human soul in its manifestations and illuminations, and a reflection of the general principles which are common to all sources and tributary streams.

Each civilization is based on general principles derived from a religious faith or positive philosophy. Although faiths and philosophies may vary, civilization’s distinguished features are taken from the faiths that are most firmly established, the most possessive in the hearts and minds and the most influential in public life. Civilization is thus marked by and attributed to this faith, and attribution becomes accurate for it is based on accurate principles. The Islamic civilization is an example of this.

The great civilizations witnessed by the history of mankind vary according to their position on materialism and spirituality. Some are more materialist, others are rather more spiritual, while others strike a balance between materialism and spirituality. This is, therefore, a successive series of civilizations everyone leaving the ground for the following civilization, which made a number of researchers in the study of civilizations go for symmetry and conformity between numerous civilizations(6). And symmetry and concord leave no room for conflict.

Therefore, civilizations do not clash but rather cross-breed and succeed. They complement each other, succeed and continue, for they are the synthesis of human intellect, man’s creativity and the movement of history which is, in the Islamic conception, God’s law in the Universe. The clash of civilizations is irrelevant, for the course of history follows God’s Will and because history is God-made. And man who influences the course of history, makes and shapes it is God’s noblest creation.

Competition among civilizations is a Quranic concept encompassing meanings and significances which confirm the nullity of the clash of civilizations from its very basis. God says in the Qur’an : “And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief”(7). And it is said also in the Qur’an : “For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down”(8). God orders His servants to repel with one that is better in all circumstances. It is said in the Qur’an : “Repel (the evil) with one that is better, then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity will become as though he was a close friend”(9). God also says : “Repel with one that is better the sin. We know better what they say”(10).

God’s checking one set of people by means of another annuls the clash and nullifies its assumption. For this competition between civilizations is what prevents the corruption of earth. In this context, we have to be aware of the nuance between “corruption of earth” and “corruption on earth” : the first meaning contained in the holy verse number 250 from the Surrat of Al Bakara, concerns the corruption of earth through the disturbance of the system set by God Almighty for the life of man on it. Once this system disturbed, the earth is corrupted. And this is an aspect of conflict, a situation resulting from the axcerbation of conflict between civilizations and cultures. Whereas the second meaning, i.e., corruption on earth, concerns corruption resulting from human actions and the nature of things.

Human life is established on “God’s checking one set of people by means of another”. This is the everlasting law of humans on earth, and it is God’s way which will never change. Hence the refutation of conflict claims and fallacy of its assumptions and the incoherence of its inevitability.

On the basis of the above, the destiny of civilizations has not been throughout history one of conflicts and clashes. Rather, it has been, in essence and origin, one of competition. It has always been sustainably moving in the direction leading towards the prosperity of life through the accumulation of civilizational production in various fields, and towards causing the ascension of man, whom God has assigned the task of peopling the earth. Whereas conflict leads to corruption on earth.

We may infer from this that the conflict of civilizations is not a history-imposed predestination, as it is assumed by the Marxist theory and as it is alleged by the contemporary theorists who formulate the policy of hegemony, despotism and violence to subdue the peoples of the world.

Interaction between civilizations is the alternative to conflict :

The vitality of the Islamic civilization and its inner force driving it towards progress, evolution and creativity, has had a strong effect on the transfer of civility to the West through the force of civilizational interaction. This fact is recognized and attested by most of Europe’s writers, historians, and intellectuals who harbour no self interests. They have written in all objectivity about the quality of civilizational interaction in the Islamic civilization. And this is Christopher Dossen who states in his book “the Genesis of Europe”, that the Islamic civilization has remained at the vanguard since the early Middle Ages onward, not only in the east but also in Western Europe. Western civilization has developed in the shadow of the Islamic civilization which was then more advanced. And it was the Arab Islamic civilization, not the Bizantine civilization, that helped the Christian world in the Middle Ages to regain its share of the Greek scientific and philosophical heritage(11).
We may not be exaggerating if we affirm here that Islam, God’s call to humanity as a whole, and God Almighty’s message to the world, is a religion that expressly and strongly advocates and calls for interaction between civilizations, considering that dialogue which Islam advocates is in its nature, essence and message, a civilizational interaction. This goes without saying.

Tolerance on which Islam is based has paved the way before the Islamic nation for close interaction with other nations and peoples, and encouraged the Islamic civilization to interact with all cultures and civilizations. By religious tolerance, specifically, we mean that each faction of the Islamic society should enjoy the freedom to perform its religious rituals, and that all be equal before the laws of the Islamic state. If we consider Islam in its genuine principles and teachings, we find that it is the most sublime of religions as regards the adherence to the principle of tolerance which is the primary rule of interaction between civilizations(12).

Interaction between civilizations in the Islamic thought is based on the principle of competition between civilizations, rather than conflict of civilizations. It is a pure principle of the Qur’an whose root is found in the following word of God : “And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief”(13). Another meaning is contained in God’s saying : “Repel (the evil) with one that is better, then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity (will become) as though a close friend”(14).

Interaction, therefore, from the Islamic perspective, is a process of competition not one of struggle, i.e., a process of mutual dialogue instead of fighting. Interaction is life, conflict is utter destruction. To our thinking, interaction between civilizations is a continuing and sustained dialogue aspiring towards good, truth, justice and tolerance for humanity as a whole, and does not cause mischief on earth(15).

Interaction between civilizations saves humanity from “civilizational decay” which results in a “civilizational crisis”. And that has been the dilemma of man since the last decade of the 20th Century up to now. All the great historical philosophers of the last century, from Oswald Spingler in his book “The Decay of Civilization”, to Arnold Toynbee in his book “A Study of History”, to Bekrim Yurokin in his book “The Social and Cultural Dynamics and the Age’s Crisis”, believe that the dominating Western human secular civilization, despite its material richness and military supremacy, suffers from severe pains, since it has lost the force that led to its power of attraction. On the other hand, the forces of disintegration and decay have dominated the forces of mutual assistance and cohesiveness. And the harbors that have helped fix the vessel are now decaying, and the values that have unified people together are suffering from turmoil. Ills are no longer limited to a single sector or a restricted number of sectors; rather, the whole river of life is polluted(16).

It is by civilizational competition that the river of life and civilization is purified from the pollution that results from conflict, clash, and dominance of anti-religious secular materialistic thinking over thoughts, words and deeds, practices, modes of behavior, systems of thinking and life styles. We therefore maintain that civilizational competition is the alternative to conflict.

The conflict of civilizations from an Islamic perspective

Human relationships from an Islamic perspective are based on acquaintance and cooperation in virtue and piety given the unity of the human race and of its origin derived from the Divine Will. God Almighty says in the Qur’an : “O mankind, We have created you from a male and female, made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another, verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has At-taqua (the pious)”.(17) Acquaintance in the Qur’an goes beyond the immediate linguistic meaning to acquire deeper and wider meanings. God has created people and made them into numerous peoples and dispersed tribes living on earth for a sublime end goal set by the Almighty Creator : To know each other in a way that rises to a higher level which is one of “exchange of knowledge” with the deep linguistic, cognitive and human significance of the two concepts. For the wider the sphere of knowledge shared between peoples and nations at all levels, the narrower the sphere of discord and difference. The latter retreats and loses the ability of negative influence which causes the worst of damage to human societies.

Piety which is the second foundation of human relationships and which man has been charged to advocate and to help one another to realize, is, as Cheikh Mahmoud Chaltout, may his soul rest in peace, describes it : “As to piety and God-fearing, its general meaning amounts to man’s guarding against all that may be harmful to him and to his fellow men, and keeping away from all that prevents him from reaching noble objectives and perfection as much as possible in this life and in the hereafter. Piety is not peculiar to a type of submission to God, nor is it restricted to a given aspect. Rather, it is, as we said, man’s guarding against all that may be harmful to him and to his fellow men, and keeping away from all that prevents him from reaching noble objectives and perfection as possible. One of the fruits of piety is man’s ability to distinguish between that which is good and that which is evil, between the harmful and the beneficial in life. For genuine science, power, beneficial work, noble behavior, etc…, and piety, are the tree, and the power of discerning good from evil is the fruit”(18).

This deep and all-encompassing conception of piety which brings together all kinds of good and nobleness of dutifulness, sorts of benefaction and the noble deeds, is what confirms the value of human cooperation in virtue and piety. God Almighty says : “Help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqua (virtue, righteousness and piety), but do not help one another in sin and transgression”.(19) For Acquaintance leads to cooperation in virtue and piety, which are the combination of good and human benefits in all times and places. They lead to man’s felicity in life and in the hereafter. Whereas sin and transgression are results of the alliance between evils, damages and abnormalities that affect the straight natural disposition, leading to wars and conflicts and exacerbating the conflict which is destructive to human civilization.

In Islamic thought, competition of cultures – and not the clash or the conflict of cultures – is God’s law in His universe. This does not mean that life moves according to a preordained and progressive plan where the purposes and interests of all people are achieved in all circumstances and that good and evil do not enter into conflict. It rather means that competition eliminates conflict, that good defeats evil and that cultures communicate and complement each other. God says : “But Allah will bring His light to perfection even though the disbelievers hate (it)”(20). God’s light in this Kuranic context is God’s will, belief in God and rallying round the believers. It is good, justice, virtue, decent conduct and peace. These are the components of a civilization that seeks the welfare of humanity. God says : “And Allah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not ”(21). God’s Affair in this context is His dominating will. It is good and justice, the two foundations of a civilisation in which human beings live in prosperity, invent, populate the earth and seek the good of humanity.

In Islamic thought, conflict is an incidental occurrence. It is an exception to the rule and is not a natural behaviour because it is in contradiction with the human nature and contrary to the cultural interaction upon which civilization was built. Furthermore, it is the logical alternative to the confusion that prevails in the world’s cultural and political circles because of the prevalence of erroneous concepts, confused approaches and flawed analysis that result in hazards that threaten the present and future of humanity.

Disseminating the idea of the clash or conflict between cultures serves the interests of a category of people who wish to impose their domination over the whole world. These interests are contrary to the noble human aspirations that originate in the cultural values that aim at constructing the human civilisation.

Conclusion

The Islamic view of the relationships between the peoples of the world is marked by moderation, temperance, comprehensiveness and depth. The Islamic conception of dialogue between civilizations is characterized by tolerance and sublimation, originating from the doctrine of monotheism and belief in the unity of human origin.

The conflict of civilizations from an Islamic perspective is an incidental occurrence in the course of history. The forces and currents of good fight against, and eventually defeat, the forces of evil. Conflict is a call for and a source of evil, whereas dialogue between civilizations is a call for good and a source of peace and coexistence under all circumstances.

As we see it, conflict from an Islamic perspective is the opposite of dialogue and not an alternative to it. And the opposite is triumphed over since it is a deviation from the origin in the life of human societies. Although conflict may seem to impose itself, it is inevitably heading towards extinction no matter how long it may live on, whereas dialogue is a firmly established origin for it is in agreement with human nature.

The Muslim Ummah possesses the ingredients and prerequisites for civilizational revival to resume its role in the construction of contemporary civilization and contribute to saving humanity from today’s threats of disintegration and collapse. It is better placed than any other nation to play an extremely distinguished part in the world civilizational and cultural battleground via its illuminated vision, its practical conception, and its ever-continuing civilizational message. This imposes on it the adjustment of its internal situation and setting aside of its marginal disagreements and harnessing of its great potentials within the framework of Islamic solidarity and spirit of Islamic brotherhood.

The world stands today at the crossroads torn between the sweeping waves of globalization, and pulled back and forth by the idea of conflict of civilizations which has become a source of fear at the world level and a threat facing the peoples, nations, governments and states, pushing them to submit to the will of the sole world superpower which has lost the civilizational requirements for leading humanity, leadership to achieve all that is good for its people and for the peoples of the world as a whole.
 

Notes:
  (1) Lissanul Arab, by Ibn Manthoor, Volume 3, p. 430, Yussuf Al Khayyat, Darul Jeel, Dar Lissanul Arab, Beirut, 1988.

(2) Al Haqa Surat, 7.

(3) Al Mawsua Assiyassiya, p. 344, Supervised by Dr. Abdul Wahab Al Kayabi and Kamil Azuhayri, Arab Institutions for Studies and Publishing, first edition, Beirut, 1974.

(4) Franklin, L. Bowemer, Modern European Thought : Communication and Change in Ideas from 1600 to 1950, third volume, p. 98, translated by Dr. Ahmed Hamdi Mahmoud, Egypt General Book Authority, Cairo 1989, Al Alf Kitab Series (II).

(5) Dr. Mohammad Khatami (of the Islamic Republic of Iran) Madinatu Siyassa, Fussulun min Tatawooril Fikri Siyassi Fil Gharb, pp. 183-184, Darul Jadid, first edition, Beirut, 2000.

(6) Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri : Islamic Civilization Specificities and Future Prospects, publications of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), Rabat, 2000.

(7) Al Baqara Surat, 251.

(8) Al Haj Surat, 40.

(9) Fussilat Surat, 34.

(10) Al Meuminoon Surat, 96.

(11) Genesis of Europe, Christopher Dowsen, translated and revised by Said Abdul Fattah Ashoor and Dr. Mohammad Mustapha Ziyadah, Al Alf Kitab project : 642, Cairo, 1967, pp. 202-203.

(12) Yawmul Islam, Dr. Ahmad Amine, Darul Kitab al Arabi, Beirut, 1952, pp. 180-181.(13) Baqarat Surat, 251.

(14) Fussilat Surat, 34.

(15) Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, dialogue for Co-existence, pp. 22-23, Dar Shuruq, Cairo, 1998.

(16) Dr. Khurshid Ahmad, Al Insan wa Mustaqbalul l’hadarah min Manthurin Islami, series of “Al Insan wa Mustaqbalul hadarah : Wijhat Nadar Islamiya”, p. 615, Al Bayt Lil Fikril Islami, Amman, Jordan, 1994.

(17) Al Hujurat Surat, 13.

(18) Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot, Tafsserul Quran Alkarim, p. 571, Darul Qalam, Cairo, undated.

(19) Maida Surat, 2.

(20) Assaf Surat, 8.

(21) Yussuf Surat, 21.

Tags
Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close