In the name of God the munificent the merciful

“The Clash of Civilizations Or Dialogue among them”

Mr. Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) was a political scientist. He is famous of his Theory “The Clash of Civilizations” (1) that first time in 1993 he considered it by writing an article and publishes it in “Foreign Affair” journal. Later on a book with this title, that has become “a classic work of international relations and one of the most influential books ever written about foreign affairs” (2). But why this non-scientific theory became so famous?!!

 When we want to have a look on every phenomenon (especially social or political one) we should see it in its particular context (I mean the time and the situation of its bearing and bearer of it,). Look at 1990s (the time of coming this theory to exist), the Soviet Union is collapsed, long term and strong fight of US-USSR is finished and US loosed its chief and key enemy, now US governing which is organized with the mechanism of cold and hot war with USSR, is faces with the specific hesitation and vacuum,

 On the other hand US and their allies face with the situation that their blocs now have, no necessity to continue their existence more, because their rivals destroyed their counterpart. For example the “Warsaw Treaty” is ended by The East side, and in contrast the demand for ending the “NATO Treaty” is rising,

In this atmosphere that the US desire lead them to continue its forwarding movement toward absolute domination on the other second hand world power, say something else, it suggests them to save their provided mechanism (like NATO), but how it can passible to take high military budget, when you have no enemy?

The other factor was standing on the eve of 21^TH century that “the world” had eagerly awaiting for it, to have a non-violent and pacific century in 21^th and put the bloodiest century (the 20^th) behind. so US face with an obligation to put military system away, but their think-tank says something else, they say that you are on top and peak of power and you are the super power with no equal capacity in front, so why you don’t want to dominate your hegemony all corner of the world?!!.

At this atmosphere Mr Samuel Huntington come to help with the US design-maker to find new enemy and so the continues of pervious situation. He make a theory available that contains so many enemies for the West bloc that for long time the US and their Partners can engage with them. In this collection of enemy that for a first time arranged from civilizations now, the war is not based on traditional economic or political interests, but in this new version of enmity this is the culture that determined who is the “other” and who is “us”.  These enemies cover most or the world nations like china, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic countries, Orthodox part of world, Latin American and African.

So the West surprisingly develops his enemy from the Soviet Union territories to the whole world (except west bloc). At this time nobody can say why NATO is going on and expand it member or for what purpose the West is continue huge military budget?

Mr Samuel Huntington‘s book although is not contain a scientific theory but is face with a vast number of people who buy to read it, because of prediction‘s aspects of this theory. It was the time that world was in the eve of 21^th and nobody knows that what will happen in new century so this theory had vast variation of new world battlefields. So in 1990s‘s darkness future forecasting, a small light in future forecasting is something that has so many devotees that eagerly wait for it to welcome and so Huntington‘s book face with huge readers.

At the early first 21^th decade, When the world realized of new west’s strategy and see it in the practical way by attacking the West to Afghanistan and Iraq and the long waiting list of other nations which will attack in future, we can see the remarkable respond to former Iranian president Mr Syed Mohammad Khatami, asking the world for “dialogue among civilisations” in contrast to clash among them (as Mr Huntington made it necessary for new century). So 2001 get a name by the UN General Assembly as year of dialogue among civilisations. Dialogue as a Seed for a new view of world in new International Relations.

When you have look in Mr Huntington‘s theory you can see the dualism approach as we have in other orientalists as well.  The Other-making and also plus giving way to design-makers are available in the theory.

Mr Huntington‘s theory that is expanded in his article in 1993 is a uncovered West desire and it show that the dualism way of seeing and interpreting of any political event even by west scientists is how. He believes that facing the “West” and the “Rest” is inevitable and the Rest have no chose and have to accept the West values and this is a process that is going on and if not, the clash between them is ready to happen.

 The triangle of the West “power”, “interests” and “values” have very big role in Mr Huntington‘s theory to bow the “Rest” in front of the “West” and the metric which say the size of the west‘s enemy is “other” ‘s culture.

Mr Huntington‘s theory is based on political event analysis and although he announce that the culture have an axis role in future clashes, but there is no sociology element in this theory and he made a homogenous West which confronted with “Rest”.

15 November 2012 - By seyed mostafa mostafavi -  M.A Student - Indian Subcontinent Studies -  Faculty of World Studies - Tehran University

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-    www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Huntington_Clash.pdf

2-    http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/1451628978

+ نوشته شده در پنجشنبه بیست و پنجم آبان ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 14:11 شماره پست: 203

 French School of Orientalism GILLES KEPEL (1955 - )

Base on the late Edward W. Said‘s classification of the orientalists, we are facing with three school of orientalism, One of them is “French orientalism School” that have own way and own style. A yang and well-known French school of orientalism is Professor GILLES KEPEL. He has fairly direct studies on Islam and Middle East and penned so many books and articles about Islam and The Middle East. Some of his Famous articles and book are titled as following:

“The Roots of Radical Islam”

“The Revenge of God: the Resurgence of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the Modern World” 

“Allah in the West: Islamic Movements in America and Europe” 

“Jihad: the Trail of Political Islam”

“The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West”  

“Al Qaeda in its own words”

 “Beyond Terror and Martyrdom: the Future of the Middle East”

 On April 17, 2002, Mr. KEPEL had an interview with Joanne J. Myers, in this interview he speaks about his opinion, especially those which come in his book titled “Jihad: the Trail of Political Islam”. Mr. KEPEL announce that Islamic “political-religious movements” come to exist or appeared when “Nationalism” in Arab world die, it mean that Islamic movement is the fruit of failing nationalism in Islamic world and so on the other hand if nationalism did not failed, now we have no political-religion movement. But I think it is not a fit theory, because sociopolitical aspects are in the heart of Islamic thought and it is not something that somebody adds to it. Islam announces that have program for all stage of human life, so the failure of nationalism cannot be the main cause for coming Islamic political-religious movements to stage.

Although Muslims society maybe had an eye on Muslim nationalists movements, to reach their right, and the failure of Nationalist make an extra motivation for them, to change their direction, and perhaps the vacuum of disappointment encourage them to boost their political-religious movements in 1970^s, but in Islamic world if instead of nationalism any kinds of political approach was active also, the reaction of Muslims were the same and they search for new way to catch their goals.

As Mr. KEPEL declares in this interview correctly that Muslim seeking for “better future” leads them to their Islamic political-religious movements. So I can say failure of “Nationalism” in Arab world or globe cannot be the main reason and Muslim’s unsatisfactory, return them to their Islam and looking solution in own culture not in some imported “ism” like “Nationalism”.

Another mistake of Mr. KEPEL is seeing “Iranian revolution in 1979” in the same direction that Arab movement was going on, at that time. But it is clear that Iranian revolution is rooted in a century struggle of Iranian to achieve constitutional political system instead of absolute King role system and later on the development of, democracy and Republication system and also independent from foreign domination (that in this case they had common goal with Arab movement).

But Arab movement mostly was (and is) related to occupation of their lands (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and especially and mostly Palestine), that is occupied by Israel. They relatively are careless about achieving democracy because, Arab culture is more familiar to ruling of their pious, noble, and honorable class (sheiks) of society and till now also, most of them are adopt kingdom system (now it is one and half year that democracy movement in Arab world is started).

In other hand Mr. KEPEL in his speech brings Afghanistan and Iran together, when he refers to “Osama bin Laden” and his organization. He also relates them to both country but it is clear that there is a confrontation between Al-Qaida (US-Saudi Arabia made Wahhabi organization by Bin Laden) and Iran. So bringing the two, in same category is another mistake by Mr. KEPEL and some orientalist like him. Al-Qaida movement is an artificial and side west-made movement on the real Islamic Movement that unfortunately attracts some Muslim to itself and it just create by West-Wahhabi wing to mislead Islamic and Noble mass movement. And they use Islamic wave and as “Wave rider” by the creation of some kind of group like Al-Qaida to catch their own fish. 

But it is clear that when Mr. KEPEL telling the story of internal discourse in Arab’s Kingdoms countries and also their relation with big world power and the role of “jihadi” groups in between, he shows himself very mellow, well-experienced and mature.

He also (the same as Mr. Bernard Lewis-US scholar of orientalist) picked a group of Muslim (Wahhabi-Salafi) and generalized them to all Muslim Movement in the Middle East and north of Africa. In this interview he speak of using Jihad by Wahhabi and Salafi ideology (he know them as ideology not religion) “the only solution to set up an Islamic State”, but as he mention, this kind of group mostly came to exist when the USA (and following them Saudi Arabia,…) decided to tackle USSR (the USA rival) in Afghanistan and inject of “American Treasury approximately $600 million a year” and also “the (Persian) Gulf countries So a billion-something a year for about eight years to topple the "Empire of Evil," the Soviet Union” was the beginning of this movement by those groups.

 And the mistake of Mr. KEPEL is starts when he brings together the big and right Afghan’s anti-Occupation movement with interference of USA and others in the some part of this righteous and pure honest straggle.

 Another unjust mix by Mr. KEPEL is bringing the anti-Occupation Islamic movement against Israel with Wahhabi and US-led and made Al-Qaeda movement. But in fact and obviously Al-Qaeda beside some rarely speeches of its leaders against Israel, does not have any practical action against Israel till now (for example military operation as they actively have a lot in Islamic country) so how can Mr. KEPEL and other orientalists mix this two, and also generalize them to a vast Islamic Movement. It is show that Mr. KEPEL as well known expert of Middle East also trapped in US-Made Wave.          

This is a fact that other Islamic movement (in Palestine and other Islamic world) use the opportunities and the space that given by the west and their key allies (like Saudi Arabia), during fight against USSR in Afghanistan, to promote himself, but In fact this two movement are different, and you cannot see them in the same spectrum.

This is also a fact that fortunately point out by Mr. KEPEL that Al-Qaida is so suspicious phenomenon that even its funders neither can nor trust them so “King Fahd did not accept” to even protect his country against Saddam Hussein by Al-Qaida fighters and put them away from Saudi Arabia territory and he prefer to use West-Christen warrior instead of Islamic US-Wahhabi made Al-Qaida. So orientalists also cannot put this kind of group that is not trusted by their founder as foundation of their scientific analysis of Islamic political-religion Movement.

Mr. GILLES KEPEL on 11 November 2004 had an interview about his book that titled “The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West” with “OPENDEMOCRACY”. One of the key meanings in Mr. GILLES KEPEL thought is “the Middle East, see violence as the only way to change the present state” that he believe that, this strategy adopted by Islamic Movement. Mr GILLES KEPEL frequently uses as central fact in his thought, this is as given core character for Islamic Movement, but if you look to the contemporary major Islamic Movement, you can see most of them are non-violence. Iranian 1979 revolution (as he exampled as successful one) is completely weaponless. the other main Islamic Movement, that have a Palestine-based subject, also mainly are armless and it is years and the years that its engine is “Intifada” by people and except Hezbollah in Lebanon (that is also is an anti-occupation straggle by Lebanon’s people) are also non-violence (till 2004 the time of this interview). So except US-Wahhabi armed group against USSR, most of real Islamic Movement are non-violence and civil-based and carrying public desire.

Mr. GILLES KEPEL properly Find and senses the hate of civil-society of Middle Eastern against Israel (as Occupier of their land) and have appropriate notice to American Neo-Cons that “As long as this continues, the neo-cons have no chance to win the support of Muslims or middle–east civil societies against radicals and terrorists.”   

—  GILLES KEPEL (2002). “Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam”. An interview by Joanne J. Myers. http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/135.html [Accessed 16/05/08]

—  GILLES KEPEL (2004). “The war for Muslim minds: an interview with Gilles Kepel”. http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2216.jsp

Friday, 09 November 2012

 Seyed Mostafa Mostafavi

+ نوشته شده در جمعه نوزدهم آبان ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 19:37 شماره پست: 201

Preface:

India has great and old history of civilisation. In this area a vast variety of culture, religion, philosophy, nature, comes to birth during ages. Although there is a diversity of believes, but some elements of Indian philosophy are common among this severalty. “Ahimsa” is one of the common and basic cores of Indian culture.

 In this article we will look to the pattern and presence of Ahimsa in different kind of Indian religion and lifestyle.

Although Ahimsa is one of the most fundament and basic rule in the core of “Jainism”, but in “Hinduism” and “Buddhism” also recognised and practise. Although it does not come in their basic text, but especially in Hinduism nowadays is a common and base rule that is practice and observance in general. ordinary Buddhism ‘s people dose not practise Ahimsa, but the Buddhist Monk(1) in their dealing with the path that they should pass to reach to “Nirvana”(2), they practise Ahimsa as well.

 So as we can see Ahimsa is basic element in Indian philosophy that in somehow observe by all three main religion in India and have its effect on their political, social and individually and Group on their  psychological behaviour. So in the main contemporary political movement that lead by Mr Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (3) , well known as Mahatma Gandhi (4), that make “Indian subcontinent” free from ruling of “British colonial system”, you can see ahimsa had main role in between, and became one of the main instrument and the factor of victory for them. Ahimsa as old tradition of Indian philosophy is come to all social and political aspect of Indian revolutionary force by Mahatma Gandhi ‘s initiative and make social forces powerful against Indian occupier, but unfortunately at the eve of victory Ahimsa lose its force and the clash erupt among them and take hundred thousands of life. So Ahimsa against the Outsider works properly, but it loses its powers and functions toward the Insider.

Indian religions(5)  base on formal statement of Indian government(6) (listed as it come in the chart(7)) today with the majority of Hindus (80.5%), and then great minority of Muslim (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%) and other religions with (0.6%) are known. But Indian main religion or lifestyle that born in this area are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and new one Sikhism. The others religions were come from Middle East base on immigration or adopted by Indian during exchange culture later.

Definition of the word Ahimsa :

 Ahimsa has root in “Sanskrit” (Indian ancient and religion) language. It means no harm and no injures, kindness, non-violence towards living being. As they believe if you don’t practice Ahimsa base on “karma (9)” rule it will have bad consequences on your “Reincarnation (10)” circlet. Himsa (हिंसा) means “harm” and “injure” when add “A” to it (अहिंसा) take negative meaning. This philosophy look at being as unity that connects to each other in this world.

Jainism as a main container of Ahimsa philosophy :

Philosophy of Jainism (11) as a main container of Ahimsa among Indian religion is one of oldest but less populated religion in India and its followers mostly live in India. The Jain population in India according to 2001 government census is about 4,225,053 out of total 1,028,610,328. Jains are separated in different states and regions (12) in India. Although most of them live in India and it seem as a local religion, but nowadays it try to find some follower abroad also, for example Jain population in US is estimated to be around 200,000.

Highlighted blue colour is Jains living place in India with 2-7% population

Jain ‘s school of thought :

There are about 110 different Jain communities in India and overseas. They can be divided into six groups based on historical and current residence, but Jainism has two main sects the two main sects of Jainism are:

A)  -  Svetambaras (wearing white clothes)

B)   – Digambaras (Naked - without clothing)

Generally the two are agreed on all the fundamental principles of Jainism

A family Svetambaras devotees

Digambaras (Naked - without clothing)

Ahimsa in Jainism:

          In Jainism, the understanding, implementation and necessity of ahimsa is more radical, honourable and comprehensive than any other Indian religion. Non-violence is seen as the most essential religious duty for every devotee. A statement that is often emphasises in all Jain temples.

 Like Hinduism, in Jainism also the aim of practise Ahimsa is to prevent the increase of harmful karma. When the Tirthankara(तीर्थंकर)(14) Mahavira(13)  revitalized and reorganized the Jain movement (in the 6th or 5th century BCE), ahimsa was already an established, strictly observed rule. In Parshva (15) time  Ahimsa was already part of the "Fourfold Restraint" (Caujjama), the vows taken by Parshva ’s followers.

The Acaranga Sutra (or Acharanga) (16) that is based on mahavira teaches, describes the fundamental need for non-violence as “All beings are loving life; they like pleasure and hate pain, avoid destruction and like to live, they long to live. To all, life is beloved”. Ahimsa is a way of living and thinking which respects this deeply.

In the times of Mahavira and in the following centuries, Jains were at balances with both Buddhists and followers of the Vedic religion (Hindus), whom they accused of carelessness and inconsistency in the implementation of Ahimsa. There is some evidence, however, that ancient Jain accepted meat as charities, if the animal had not been specifically killed for them.

 Modern Jains deny this heatedly, especially with regard to Mahavira himself. According to the Jain tradition either “vegetarianism” is mandatory. The Jain concept of ahimsa is characterized by several aspects. It does not make any exception for ritual sacrifice's and professional warrior-hunters. Killing of animals for food is absolutely ruled out.

 Jains also make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. Though they admit that plants must be destroyed for the purpose of food, they accept such violence only in as much as it is necessary for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants. Jains go out of their way so as not to hurt even small insects and other little animals.

 For example, Jains often do not go out at night, when they are more likely to step upon an insect. In their view, injury caused by carelessness is like injury caused by thoughtful action.

Eating honey is strictly forbidden, as it would amount to violence against the bees. Some Jains abstain from farming because it inevitably needs accidentally killing or injuring of many small animals, such as worms and insects, but agriculture is not banned in general and there are Jain farmers.

Additionally, because they consider harsh words to be a form of violence, they often keep a cloth to ritually cover their mouth, as a reminder not to allow violence in their speech.

In contrast, Jains agree with Hindus that violence in self-defence can be acceptable, and they agree that a soldier who kills enemies in combat is performing a reasonable duty. Jain communities accepted the use of military power for their defence, and there were Jain monarchs, military commanders, and soldiers. Though, theoretically, all life forms are said to deserve full protection from all kinds of injury, Jains admit that this ideal cannot be completely implemented in practice. Hence, they recognize a chain or pyramid of life. Mobile beings are given higher protection than immobile ones.

For the movable beings, they distinguish between one-sensed, two-sensed, three-sensed, four-sensed and five-sensed ones; a one-sensed animal has touch as its only sensory modality. The more senses a being has, the more they care about its protection. Among the five-sensed beings, the rational ones (humans) are most strongly protected by Jain ahimsa. In the practice of ahimsa, the requirements are less strict for the lay persons who have undertaken anuvrata (Lesser Promises) than for the monastics who are sure by the Mahavrata "Great Promises".

Ahimsa in Mahavira ‘s opinion:

Mahavira (the last Jainism teacher) define Ahimsa as “Inflexibility and carefulness to prevent oneself from being the cause of any kind of injury to any living being in any way”. Mahavira‘s suggestion to householder  is :

digvirati “to carryout activities within a restricted (controlled) area and there by desist (stop) from injuring living beings in different places.” bhogopabhogamdna : “to desist from drinking liquors, taking flesh(skin), butter, honey, figs, certain other kinds of plants, fruits, and vegetables, to observe certain other kinds of  restriction  (regarding  time and place of taking meals),” anarthadanda :  consisting of : apadhydna : (stop causing any bodily injuries, killing of one s enemies, etc.),  pdpopadesa (desisting from advising people to take to agriculture which leads to the killing of so many insects), himsopakdriddna : (desisting from giving implements of agriculture to people which will lead to the injury of insects), pramdddcarana (to desist from attending musical parties, theatres, or reading sex-literature, gambling, etc.) siksdpadabrata consisting of : Sdmayikabrata: (to try to treat all beings equally), posadhabrata: (certain other kinds of restriction), All transgressions (misbehaviours) of these virtues (qualitis), called aticdra, should be carefully avoided.

Ahimsa is Mahatma Gandhi ‘s miracle :

Gandhi strongly believes in Ahimsa to avoiding of verbal and physical violence. Gandhi promoted the principle of ahimsa very successfully by applying it to all spheres of life, particularly to politics. His non-violent resistance movement (satyagraha “Soul-Force”) had a vast impact on India, impressed public opinion in Western countries and influenced the leaders of various civil and political rights movements such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In Gandhi’s thought, ahimsa stops not only the act of a physical injury, but also mental states like evil thoughts and hatred, unkind behaviour such as harsh words, dishonesty and lying, all of which he saw as manifestations of violence incompatible with ahimsa. Gandhi believed ahimsa to be a creative energy force, encompassing all interactions leading one's self to find “satya”, "Divine Truth".

Gandhi was religious (he was Hindu) and open-minded, and saw the different religions as paths to the same goal. He was inspired by the teachings of Jesus, in particular the emphasis on love for everyone, even one’s enemies, and the need to strive for justice. He also took from Hinduism the importance of action in one’s life, without concern for success; the Hindu text Bhagavad-Gita says,

 “On action alone are thy interest, / Never on its fruits / Abiding in discipline perform actions, / Abandoning attachment / Being indifferent to success or failure”.

For Gandhi, ahimsa was the look of the deepest love for all humans, including one’s opponents; this non-violence therefore included not only a lack of physical harm to them, but also a lack of hate towards them. Gandhi rejected the traditional dichotomy between one’s own side and the “enemy;” he believed in the need to convince opponents of their injustice, not to punish them, and in this way one could win their friendship and one’s own freedom. If need be, one might need to suffer or die in order that they may be converted to love.

Gandhi’s main tactic in his fight against the British was what he called Satyagraha, which means “Soul-Force” or “The power of truth”. Gandhi developed Satyagraha as the practical extension of ahimsa and love; it meant standing definitely behind one’s ideals, but without hate. Satyagraha took the form of civil disobedience and non-cooperation with evil. Civil disobedience involved breaking a specific law if it was believed to be unjust, and then facing the consequences. The Salt March of 1930, was one of Gandhi’s greatest successes in civil disobedience. Salt was necessary to the life of Indian farmers, cattle, and the British monopoly on salt production had led to massive taxes on the vital substance.

The other element of Satyagraha, non-cooperation with evil, consisted of pulling out all support for an unjust system, such as the British rule of India. This tactic need not break any law, but might include boycotting British products, refusing to work for British employers, pulling one’s children out of British schools, refusing to supply the British with services, and not paying taxes.

In 1920, after the British army massacred 400 unarmed demonstrators, Gandhi organized a nation-wide Satyagraha which used non-cooperation techniques, as well as public demonstrations, in order to “withdraw Indian support from the vast, monstrous Machine of Empire until it ground to a halt.

Although this nation-wide strike hit the British hard, and led to thousands of Indians being jailed, in 1922 it erupted in to violence. A mob of “Satyagrahis” lit fire to a police station, killing two dozen police officers trapped inside. Gandhi called off the entire Satyagraha and apologized for his “Himalayan blunder”; he had mistakenly believed that his followers truly understood non-violence. To examine whether Gandhi’s programme of Satyagraha was a success, we must first look at his objectives. I have already mentioned two of his aims -- to earn Indian independence, and to do it non-violently. In these, Gandhi was successful. India became independent in 1947, with scarcely any violence toward the British, and Gandhi’s leadership was crucial. The struggle had been difficult and long, but, in the end, Britain simply lowered its flag over India and left.

Sadly, however, Gandhi’s dream was not fulfilled. Gandhi was dismayed by Hinduism’s treatment of the Muslim minority in India, and by the resulting calls for the creation of a separate Muslim state of Pakistan. Widespread distrust and hatred was growing between Hindus and Muslims and, on the eve of India’s independence, riots erupted all over India. The country became a bloodbath, in which it was estimated that millions lives were lost. Many believed that Gandhi’s non-violence had failed. “months of chaos and terror,” Gandhi spent his time in the most violent areas: “Each night he preached Peace and Love and prayed, Gandhi walked from village to village through the heart of that violent madness, preaching Ahimsa”. he was a failure In a world seemingly dominated by violence and hatred, Mahatma Gandhi restored the ancient idea of Ahimsa, non-violence, as the only way of living in peace.

"My faith is as strong as ever. There is no hope for the aching world except through the narrow and straight path of non-violence. Millions like me may fail to prove the truth in their own lives; that would be their failure, never of the eternal law.

According to Gandhi, violent action, regardless of the short-term outcome, is destructive and becomes the very cycle of oppression and injustice it seeks to eliminate. By focusing on the Indian philosophical doctrine of karma, of action and causality, Gandhi argued that sustainable peace could only emerge through genuine peace-making, for a violent process would ultimately result in a violent outcome.

"My love for non-violence is superior to that for every other thing (mundane (ordinary) or supramundane). It is equalled only by love for Truth, which is to me synonymous with non-violence; through which and which alone I can see and reach Truth."

"If one has pride and egoism, he is not non-violent. Non-violence is impossible without humility.(modesty) Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification, therefore, must mean purification in all walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to purification of one's surroundings."

Ahimsa is Misunderstand :

Today some Indian politician believe that Gandhi's Philosophy (in which Ahimsa is nucleus) of Ahimsa (non- violence) don’t work with current situation that India face. they evaluate ahimsa strategy as non-serious positioning.

 According to Dr Ambedkar, the doctrine of Ahimsa does not say "Kill not" it says, "Love all". Buddha said "Love all, so that you may not wish to kill any" This is a positive way of stating the principle of Ahimsa

Sri Aurobindo(17) :  criticized the Gandhian concept of ahimsa as unrealistic and not universally applicable; he adopted a pragmatic non-pacifist position, saying that the justification of violence depends on the specific circumstances of the given situation.

(Dr. Ravindra Kumar) (18) : we attribute Ahimsa-the non-violence as a dictum that prescribes non-snatching of anyone's life. Or in other simple words, not to take life of any of the living beings is non-violence But, in reality, this is neither a true meaning of Ahimsa nor it is a complete root pertaining to the concept of it. As Ahimsa is quite opposite to Ahimsa, we can say: "Total non-violence consists in not hurting some other one's intellect, speech or action by own thought, utterance or deeds and not to deprive some one of his life."

To over come current conflict it is absolutely necessary for parties involved in dispute or a particular conflict that they come forward on the basis of following three fundamental points:

•       To be serious;        

•       To accept reality; and

•       To be ready to make sacrifices

Bloodiest century is symbol of violence :

the World War First (1914-8) claimed the lives of more than ten million people. Besides, twenty-two and a half million people were badly injured. Similarly, in the World War Second (1939-45) fifty million people were killed and approximately thirty-five million people were either badly injured or injured. Most of the countries involved in the two wars took ten and fifteen years to stand again on their own feet, or to pave the way of development. And, we know that the warring nations after getting tired of wars and naked dance of violence and death aspired for peace and pacific measures.

Gathered by:

 Seyed Mostafa Mostafavi

A Student of MA Level in Indian Subcontinent Study

Faculty of World Study

University of Tehran

08/08/1391

Foot – article :

1.      Hermit, male member of a religious order

2.      Heavenly state that exists beyond the cycle of reincarnation, freedom from karmic suffering (Hinduism, Buddhism); state of being heavenly, paradise (Slang)

3.      Was born on 2 October 1869 (In 2007 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution as international Day of non - violence) in Gujarat and he assassinated on 30 January 1948 by one of Hindu hardliner and was killed. Commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi (great soul) he led Indian freedom movement from British ruling. At this straggle, His two main strategies was non-violent and civil disobedience. In 1921 became the leader of National Indian Congress in 1930 he lead a protest that was named “national salt tax”. In 1942 he ask British to Quit India his movement take it result in 1947 and India became independent.

4.      Great soul

5.      Census of India 2001

6.      It is likely that the actual population of Jains and Muslim are more and may be significantly higher than the census numbers. About Muslim that is  The Muslim population in India is the third largest in the world some estimate it 20% of India population

7.      http://www.censusindia.gov.in/ (censusindia.gov.in/Ad.../drop_in.../04-Distribution_by_Religion.pdf)

8.      Zoroastrian – Jew - Bahá'í Faith

9.      idea that an individual's actions determine his fate in each successive existence (Buddhism, Hinduism)

10.        rebirth of souls in new bodies, regeneration of souls, re-embodiment

11.        Anekāntavāda -  Aparigraha  -  Syādvāda - Jain Cosmology - Ahimsa - Karma  - Dharma - Nirvana - Kevala Jñāna -Mokṣa - Dravya - Navatattva

12.        Maharashtra (1,301,843)  -   Rajasthan ( 650,493) - Madhya pradesh ( 545,446) - Gujarat (525,305) - Karnataka (412,659) -Uttar Pradesh (207,111) - Delhi (155,122) - Tamil Nadu  (83,359)

13.        the 24 Tirthankars of Jainism are : Rishabha or Adinath - Ajitnath - Sambhavanath- Abhinandannath- Sumatinath -Padmaprabha - Suparshvanath - Chandraprabha - Pushpadanta - Sheetalnath - Shreyansanath - Vasupujya - Vimalnath - Anantnath - Dharmanath - Shantinath - Kunthunath - Aranath - Mallinath - Munisuvrata - Naminatha - Neminath - Parshva - Mahavira

14.        In Jainism, a Tīrthaṅkara (Sanskrit: तीर्थंकर "ford-Maker") is a human being who helps in achieving liberation and enlightenment as an "Arihant" by destroying all of their soul constraining (ghati) karmas

15.        the earliest Jain Tirthankara  (तीर्थंकर) befor Mahavira, whom modern Western historians consider him to be a historical figure, lived in about the 8th century BCE. He founded the community to which Mahavira ’s parents belonged.

16.         the Acaranga Sutra which is used by the Svetambara sect of Jainism it ia based on the teachings of  Mahavira and is include of discusses the conduct of a Jain monk

17.        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo  Aurobindo Akroyd Ghosh Born  (1872-08-15)15 August 1872 Calcutta, British India Died 5 December 1950(1950-12-05) (aged 78) Pondicherry (Puducherry), French India

 18.        Dr. Ravindra Kumar (born 1959) is a political scientist, peace-worker, educationalist and the former Vice-Chancellor of Meerut University. Currently he is the editor-in-chief of the 'Global Peace International Journal', and has more than a hundred books and four hundred articles/talks/lectures on great leaders of the Indian sub-continent, especially Mahatma Gandhi, and on various social, religious, political, educational, cultural and academic issues. 

+ نوشته شده در دوشنبه هشتم آبان ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 22:2 شماره پست: 199

In The Name of God the munificent and the merciful

Professor Bernard Lewis had an Interview on 30^th December, 2001 just few months after terrorist attack to New York City (US). In this interview he obviously declares that dualism and confrontation between Middle East (Islam) and “Christian Europe” were very old and it started long time ago and this attack also is the continuous of that battlefield!

 Maybe base on the mutual influence of Mr. Lewis on neo - conservative government (Bush administrator), this misunderstanding is repeated by President Bush when he mistakenly speaks about “Crusades war” when he wants to start his war against Taliban and Iraq.

 In Mr. Lewis opinion “Ottoman empire” is as whole of Islam and it’s defeating as defeating of Islam against Christianity but everybody knows that the world of Islam is vaster than Ottoman Empire ‘s territory and Muslim who ruled under Ottoman Empire are not whole of Muslim. So Ottoman Empire although was base on Islamic system, but it is not equal with Islam, and Islam is as religion not the Ottoman Empire.

 Mr. Lewis based on his Orientalism approach toward Middle East; see the two sides as monolithic entities. And he recognizes Middle East as every time defeated during the last 3 century toward European Christianity. When Mr. Lewis want to describe the Middle East, he use “they” repeatedly toward them and put this “they” against West as One another side and always “victorious” and one side as “defeated” again and again.

 He sees all the political and social phenomenon in a chain (as historian) and he try to join them together, Then he forgets himself as scientist who should scientifically analyse the political or historical events and he replaces “Christian Europe” by the “we” or “us” in his statements. So when you read his writing or listen to his speaks you will find him as representative of one side not as expert who expects to scientifically analyse the phenomenon.

So As the Islamic world define, the USA current war in Middle East see as religion war against Islam (the things That formally rejected by US administrator even president Obama again and again) Mr Lewis forget US and Russia rivalry or long enmity among and put Russia also in the same front with the west (as he name “us” or “we”) against “They” and obviously characterize it with religion ‘s aspects, But if it is a accepted fact that “al-Qaida” done this terrorist attack also, this military group is not the representative of Islam or symbol of it, and Muslim world and majority the people who Mr. Lewis name them “they” are moderate and  against fundamentalism of “al-Qaida” which every regional country know that “al-Qaida” is made in USA, against “USSR” and before Nato or US start their fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Muslim people had long tough and hard war against them, there because They don’t accept their philosophy and their approach toward Islam. But I don’t know how Mr. Lewis put “Ben Laden” as representative of Islam.

 Mr. Lewis named a vast area like Middle East as “dangerous and unstable region” but he (as historian or expert of the region) should know that instability start when the “we” decide to destroyed Ottoman empire system and then they decide to put their agent in the heart of Middle East land and now a day they make instability in the region because of just “oil” and “Israel”.

In this interview Mr. Lewis show his “black and white” looking way in the way of interact with The “we”‘s enemy or rival, when he want to show the way to his political wing to act against them, he speak about “Get tough or get out” so he does not see any gray space in between. He suggests them to be “tough” because he cannot imagine anything else in between two sides, from being tough till getting out. He never can imagine any compromise or negotiation and middle way between to side. He see an old and endless war that have no solution for it and you should just fight and there is no escape of it and just victory by the “us” can solve it or defeat and got out.

His solution is just “continue the good work that was started in Afghanistan and deal with some of the other countries or groups, terrorists-terrorist groups and countries that help them”.

 so you can feel deep hate toward Middle Eastern in Mr. Lewis when he describe the region and when he give solution to this mater. In his view there is no space for living together between the “they” and the “we” in equal atmosphere. Superiority of the “we” as is always victorious, should recognize by the “they”. In this atmosphere the best or acceptable “they” or the symbol of this acceptable “they” is just Mr. Mustafa Kamal Ataturk that decide to be exactly westernize and but as result you can see this admired system of Ataturk after long time trying to westernize, is not accepted in western club also.

 The Atlantic Monthly | May 2003 published an article by Mr. Bernard Lewis “"I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go to Hell" religions and the meeting of civilization Lewis.
in this article Mr. Bernard Lewis speaks of The “us” that he name it as “the modern Western world” against “others” with non- stop confrontation toward  backwardness, long time defeated Middle East.

 surprisingly he defines themselves primarily by “nationality” I don’t know how he can give Nationality aspect to a vast front that even Russia and Germany are include and he forget the “we” that make 20^th century bloodbath with the World War Second (1939-45) that take life or fifty million and approximately thirty-five million people were either badly injured or injured. How these nation who have such as this bloodbath among them can make a one nation that Mr. Lewis can use nationality word here. The question is this how can see them as nation.

 Mr. Bernard Lewis obviously put “the modern Western world” with confrontation with a force that “defines itself as Islam has given a new relevance—indeed, urgency—to the theme of the "clash of civilizations."

Mr. Lewis know clash between civilization as necessity of modern international relation as he say “clash of civilizations is an important aspect of modern international relations, though probably not many of us would go so far as to imply, as some have done, that civilizations have foreign policies and form alliances.”

In this article Mr. Lewis with retelling Mustafa Kemal Ataturk speech “only one civilization was alive and well and advancing, and it is modernity, the civilization "of our time." All the others were dying or dead. Turkey's choice was to join this civilization or be part of a dying world. The one civilization was, of course, the West.” Say that the only alive civilization is the west civilization.

He recognize two kind of civilization first one is civilization which define itself with exact religion like Islam and Christianity and the other one is define itself base on region and ethnic. He tries to separate religion aspects of civilization and so in the case of Christianity he speak of Christendom and he wish to also separate Islam also from Islamic civilization world, and he speak of creating Islam Dom.

He rightly put his finger on Islamic country weakness in studding foreign language. But his mistake again is that he see Islamic ruler as exact Islam but Mr. Lewis as expert should know that Prophet Mohammad in ruling and, … is completely different with an Ottoman king or a Islamic ruler in Spanish land. And if you compere between sultan Salim‘s aim, way of ruling, morality, policy,… with Prophet Mohammad you can see they are totally different.

 The other thing is that, Mr. Lewis should know that historic reason is not good excuse to capture other nation’s land by the others. Because if it became a ongoing policy in international interaction (in any era of time), so many land in the world in future should be hand over to their historical owner of them. With this unreasonable reason For example U.S resident should be wait to see the powerfulness of local American (Indian) in future to, give America up to them. In the case of Australia, Canada … is also the same. so speaking of power in the hand of Jewish is not good reason to occupy Palestinian land and see it as chain of “conquest and Reconquest” and in the case of Palestine see it as “the great European counterattack into the lands of Islam” it will lead humanity to the endless conflict that power will determine which resident in which land should be stay at a exact time.

It is the fact that US is alive with its enemy, without enemy their outdoor and international policy will be hesitated so they need to have an enemy and in the case of collapsing USSR they were looking for new one and it seem that Islam is chosen in this manner and also some scientist Like Mr. Bernard Lewis or Samuel Huntington … theorized this adopting enemy scientifically. Mr. Lewis with long time study on Middle East with a Jewish background and conservative attitude (all is necessary for coming to political stage in USA), make him famous and player in US Republican time to choose new enemy.

Westerner like Mr. Lewis when they want to analysis the “other” they look to himself and then the deference between The “us” and “others” and they say that everything that “we” have is factors of our succeed and if “others” want to be succeed they should adopt them to be victorious as us. One of them is the separation between church and governing or religion and politics. That is their suggestion to others to separate social ruling from religion. But they don’t have any attention to difference between Islam and Christianity or role of church in medieval period and clergy role in Islam. About the woman is also the same if you see to the picture that belong to 19^th ,18^th century in Europe woman wearing is very different  and they were very covered but by the now they are going to be naked. And this something that is going to be dominates there.

 Also some westerner like Mr. Lewis suggests the others to do the same and they did not have any attention to different culture and the necessity of it. Just they say you have to be same as us if you want to be succeeded.       

Seyed Mostafa Mostafavi

  27^th October – 2012 - Tehran

+ نوشته شده در شنبه ششم آبان ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 14:27 شماره پست: 197