Radical Muslims are not fighting Western civilization, but against global civilization

The thesis of “the collapse of civilizations” seems to be experiencing a rebirth. Many experts, politicians and ordinary citizens believe Syrian civil war, the establishment of I The SIS, Brexit and the instability of the European Union are all the result of the clash between the Western “Western citizenship” and “Islamic citizenship”.

Western efforts to impose democracy and human rights in Muslim countries brought a sharp Islamic response; and a wave of Muslim immigration, coupled with terrorist Islamic attacks, prompted European voters to abandon multicultural dreams in favour of local xenophobiaic identities.

According to this aunt, mankind has always been divided into various civilizations whose members view the world in irreconcilable ways. These improper worldly views make the conflicts between civilizations seem inevitable. As in nature, various kinds of civilizations struggle for survival, according to the ruthless laws of natural selection.

The thesis of “impacting civilizations” has broad political implications. Its supporters claim that any attempt to reconcile “West” with “the Muslim world” is doomed to fail. Muslim countries will never accept Western values, and Western countries can never successfully assimilate Muslim minorities.
But this is misleading. Islamic fundamentalistism can truly present a radical challenge, but <x0] urbanization” it challenges is a global civilization, not a unique Western phenomenon. The Islamic state has managed to unite Iran and the United States against it. Even Islamic fundamentalists, in spite of all their medieval fantasies, are more based on contemporary global culture than in Arabia of the 1st century. 2 / 1

They fuel the fears and hopes of modern-aged youth rather than Middle Ages villagers and businessmen. Most importantly, the analogy between history and biology, which supports the theme of the “collapse of civilisations”, is false. Human groups ranging from small tribes to great civilizations are completely different from animal species, and historical conflicts differ greatly from natural selection processes.

Animal species have objective identities that remain the same for thousands of generations. If you're a chimpanzee or a gorilla, it depends more on genes than on your beliefs, and different genes dictate different social behaviors. Chimpanzees live in mixed groups of men and women. They race for power, building coalitions of supporters from both genders.

Meanwhile, among gorillas, a single dominant male creates a female harem, and usually rules out every adult male who can challenge his position. There's nothing like it among people. Yes, human groups may have distinct social systems, but these are not genetically defined, and they rarely exist for more than a few centuries.

For example, think of the 19th century Germans. In less than 100 years, they were organized into six very different systems: the emperor of the Hohenzoller dynasty, the Vajmar Republic, the Third Reich, the German Democratic Republic (East Communist German German German German German German German Republic), and most recently re-united democratic Germany.

Of course the Germans preserved their tongue, and their love for beer and cream. But is there any particular German essence that distinguishes them from all other nations, and remains unchanged from Wilhelm II to Angela Merkel? And if you find anything, did it exist 1000 or 5,000 years ago?
Yes, democratic ideas have been part of European culture for centuries, but they were never everything. Despite its glory and influence, Athenian democracy was an experiment that survived only 200 years in a small corner of the Balkans.

If European civilization for the past 25 centuries is defined by democracy and human rights, what should we do with Sparta and Julius Caesar, Crusades and conquistadores, the Inquisition, and the slave trade of Louis XIV and Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin? Were they all elements introduced by some foreign civilization?
In fact, European civilization is everything Europeans do, just as Christianity is everything Christians do, Islam is everything Muslims do, and Judaism is everything the Jews do. And they have done wonderful things out of it over the centuries.

Human groupings are more defined by the changes they submit to, but still manage to create ancient identities for themselves, thanks to their confessional skills.

Even an individual can establish personal revolutionary changes, in a consistent and powerful life story:” I am the one who was once a socialist, but then I became a capitalist; I was born in France; and now I live in the United States; I got married, and then I got divorced; I was cancer, and then I healed”.
Similarly, a human group like the Germans may be able to define by the very changes they have been subjected to:” when we were Nazis, but we learned our lecture, and now we are peaceful Democrats”. These radical transformations are exactly what the German identity is.

People often refuse to see these changes, especially when it comes to major political and religious values. People still have different national beliefs and identities. But when it comes to practical things, how to build a country, an economy, a hospital, or a bomb almost all of us belong to the same civilization.

There are disputes, of course, but then all civilizations have their internal conflicts. In fact, they are determined by such differences. When trying to describe their identity, people often make a list of common traits. This is wrong. They would be much more accurate if they made a list of common conflicts and dilemmas.

For example, until 1618 Europe did not have a single religious identity. It was determined only by religious conflict. Similarly, in 1940, Britain and Germany had very different political values, but they were part of the “European citizenship”.

Hitler was no less European than Churchill. Rather, the war between them determined what it meant to be European at that particular historic moment. On the contrary, a kung fu hunter in 1940 was not European, since the internal European clash about race and empire would have had little meaning for him.

The people we fight most often are members of our family. Identity is determined by conflicts and dilemmas, more than by agreements. What does it mean to be European in 2018? It means having white skin, believing in Jesus Christ, or supporting freedom. Rather, it means vigorously debating about immigration, the EU and about the borders of capitalism.

It also means asking yourself, “What determines my identity”? And to worry about an aging population, rampant consumerism and global warming. In their conflicts and dilemmas, the Europeans of the 20th century are different from their ancestors of 1618 and 1940, but they are increasingly similar to their Chinese and Indian trade partners.

Whatever changes await us in the future, they will likely include a brotherly struggle within a single civilization rather than a clash among foreign civilizations. The great challenges of the 20th century will be global in nature. What will happen when climate change causes ecological disasters?
What happens when the computer dominates people in more and more jobs, replacing them? What will happen when biotechnology enables us to improve people's health and extend longevity? No doubt, we will have serious and bitter debates on these questions.

But these arguments and conflicts are unlikely to isolate us from each other. On the contrary, the opposite is true. They will make us increasingly interdependent.

Although mankind is far from creating a harmonious community, we are all members of a global civilization.