Is there a clash of civilizations or is this a strictly political notion? Why is hostility growing between "native” Europeans and Muslim immigrants? Why is Islam troubled by what they see as an expansion of the Western lifestyle? Yevgeny Shestakov, host of the Discussion Club, interviews writer Viktor Yerofeyev for a new section called "The Islamic factor in today’s world.”
Yevgeny Shestakov: During your address at the Valdai Club meeting you spoke about your visit to Iran. When in Iran, did you get the sense that the country uses Islam for political ends?
Viktor Yerofeyev: I should probably start by saying that I think there is a clash of civilizations in the world right now between the Western and the Islamic worlds. Of course, we can also call it a clash between a secular and a religious civilization.
Initially, Christianity and Islam were very close to one another in terms of moral and religious values. Obviously they differ in how they worship God. The similarity is found in their general disposition to life. Back then these two shared certain moral absolutes.
But they began to diverge. Islam remained mythical and archaic while Christianity has been liberalized to various extents in the different branches. But almost all its branches have been secularized to a certain extent, and as a result, in the West and Russia we do not have a religious civilization. This is why there is unease among Muslims about the expansion of Western civilization and Western lifestyles into Islamic countries. They see an inevitable clash of values.
Which side is right? This is obviously a rhetorical question because none can be impartial. All points of view are biased. Taking a broader look at the problem, we see that both types of civilization see the imperfection of human nature.
Western civilization shows us that humanity cannot be guided by moral absolutes all the time. Blaise Pascal called this a distraction from the truth, and this is what we see happening. Meanwhile, Islamic thought, which emphasizes religious values, turns them into instruments of power. Again, moral absolutes can be used as tools because of the imperfection of human nature. These absolutes lose their original meaning. This is the essence of the conflict, to my mind.
Iran has made these traditional religious values the foundation of its culture. As Iranian culture is very ancient and influential, Iran’s example poses a significant challenge. We should watch this culture closely not to copy it but to see what we have lost ourselves. This holds a lesson for us. In Iran I saw the clash of these human values. On the one hand, there is a desire to enjoy life, a tendency to see one’s own self as more important than everything else. This is the Western approach. And then there is another approach in which people are subordinate and pray to God on their knees. This is how they obtain forgiveness, joy, a future and eternal life.
Iran now says that this clash of values cannot be resolved because both civilizations stubbornly hold that its values are true. The West with its money, power, weapons, alliances and other things believes that Iran is a mistake. Western countries offer many arguments, including about human rights abuses, the suppression of democratic institutions, the isolation of the Iranian regime and others. Western countries use allegations that Iran is secretly attempting to obtain nuclear capability to substantiate the claims that their Western values are right. This is quite easy to understand. Obviously, Iran is not the ideal model for humanity. However, Iranian leaders believe that they will be able to shield their country from a civilization that destroys the most sacred in an individual - the individual’s connection with God and eternal life.
The West believes the Iranian regime is criminal, while for Iran it is the corrosive Western lifestyle that is criminal.
Shestakov: Which view do you support?
Yerofeyev: Does the Western lifestyle destroy metaphysical values? Yes, it does and the West makes no secret of this. The West has acknowledged Nietzsche’s declaration that God is dead and is prepared to accept it. In any Western country you’ll see that the church has become an organization that mechanically advocates certain moral values. On the other hand, I would not say that the new values introduced during the religious revolution in Iran in 1979 will become the beacon for humanity. Clearly, a 21st century individual who knows about free thinking through philosophy, literature and education will not accept the Quran’s metaphors. They are rejected as archaic thinking. And this conflict cannot be resolved because both parties insist that their system is true. This is why searching for an alliance of civilizations that can allay this rivalry is quite possibly the most important goal of the 21st century.
Shestakov: Some Russian imams say there is no clash of civilizations. But there is a group of dissenters who preach militant Islam to achieve political ends.
Yerofeyev: There are various ways to defend your values. There is an Islamic movement whose followers say that you don’t need to protect anything at all - you only need to carry Islam inside yourself: do not fence off your treasure, it is inside you. It is one of the oldest traditional Islamic movements. Naturally, we can idolize people like this and treat them as great wise men. But there are too few of them to make this movement a real force.
Looking beyond the secular conflict, we see a clash of influence and authority. The thing is that the West simply believes its model is the best possible one and wants to see it spread everywhere. The West offers democracy, which is "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried”, as Winston Churchill once put it. The other side rejects it. Again, there are various ways to reject it. One way is to say: "Fine, you live as you want and we will live as we want.” But the influence of the Western lifestyle is evident everywhere. In provincial towns in Iran, young people roller skate and 15-year old girls wear makeup. This model is very simple and very corrosive for Islam.
How can you respond to it? You can respond by aggression. Another way is to throw your hands up and admit that you cannot make your descendants follow your traditions. There is yet another option - that is to encourage children to keep your traditions while also allowing them to roller skate. The last option is a centrist one and the most politically dangerous because it will have to endure pressure both from the left and from the right. There are certain Islamic leaders that try to allay this conflict advocating an individual’s right to his or her own beliefs. But I see conflict in the world, not reconciliation.
Shestakov: Islam is an ancient religion but acts of terrorism and suicide bombings are a relatively recent phenomenon. We never saw them before. How would you explain this?
Yerofeyev: That’s not correct. Islam has been vigorously advocating its values since it began. This is a religion built on conflict right from the start. It has always had the concepts of infidels and holy war - look no further than the Quran for examples. So it’s a mistake to say that all these things began recently. We have seen wars between Muslims and Christians. Russia took part in wars like this, including the Russo-Turkish wars, Russo-Persian wars and so on. So, these tensions have existed since the beginning. The difference is that the world has become globalized. When this happened - when the Internet and television came to our homes and when planes and rockets started flying over our heads - the situation did change. We should have either devised better means of protecting ourselves or found a way to cooperate.
However, I believe that if humanity does not want to be doomed to this painful, historic clash of civilizations with terrorist acts and guerilla warfare then the 21st century, will see a pan-religious revolution. A new understanding of God and religion will emerge that will take into account all the discoveries of the 20th and 21st centuries. However, this change is yet to come. We will continue colliding with one another. Naturally, it would be good if we also understood that apart from followers and infidels on both sides there is the simple human soul that must be saved and protected.
I’m trying to say that a person’s life is much more important than that person’s beliefs and religious consciousness. Unless we can agree on this, there will be bloodshed.
Shestakov: When you were in Iran did you gain any understanding of why Muslims blow up planes and carry out suicide attacks?
Yerofeyev: Starting the 1920s, Muslim philosophers and writers have been portraying themselves as victims of a global, secular civilization. They are resisting it and are prepared to resist until the very end. They are even ready to sacrifice their lives in this fight. Look no further than Russia for an example - the monarchy in Russia was so detested that there were terrorist attacks on members of the tsar’s family. Buddhism is much more tolerant, and you feel it immediately when you come to Nepal or Tibet. They just have a completely different vision of life. Buddhism and Islam are very different.
Shestakov: Are you having déjà-vu? In the Middle Ages there were the Crusades against Islam, and now we have the response.
Yerofeyev: Again, the contemporary crusade is not against Christianity, it’s against secular atheism and agnosticism, which are extremely troubling for any religious system, especially Islam. Indeed, the West is losing faith. It is becoming amoral. Islamists are ready to confront it. It all depends on your point of view. If we look at the situation from the Western point of view, the Muslim world is clearly overreacting - that is, Islam is losing its global influence and becoming militant in its bid to survive. Meanwhile, followers of militant Islam believe that the West wants to destroy their immortal soul.
Based on my experience, Iran is a microcosm of this larger clash because the intellectuals, young people and urban residents see the hard-line Islamic regime as an occupation by an obsolete worldview. They are trying to find their own interests in this regime. I’ve written a large piece called "The Future in the Past.” In it I’ve attempted to sort out what Iranian liberal thinkers say. Is the Iranian government indeed a mask made of oil, concealing its true intentions? Or does it really want to find meaning in the millenary history of Iran and its Islamic tradition? I believe that, as usual, both options are intertwined. But ordinary people lack clarity of thought and as a result suspicions arise. I find it difficult to identify if someone’s motivations are dishonest. I can judge by the results, and the result in Iran is repression. The Iranian regime is very similar to the Bolsheviks. The only difference is that it promises eternal happiness instead of happiness in the future.