Introduction to Islam Islam is a Semitic religion, which has over one billion adherents all over the world. Islam means “submission to the will of God”. Muslims accept the Qur’an, as the word of God revealed to His last and final prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam states that Allah sent messengers and prophets throughout the ages with the message of Unity of God and accountability in the Hereafter. Islam thus makes it an article of faith to believe in all the earlier prophets, starting with Adam, and continuing with Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and Jesus amongst many others (may peace be on them all).

Concept of God

• The Most Concise Definition of God

• Surah Ikhlas – the touchstone of theology

• What does Islam say about ‘god-men’?

• By what name do we call God?

• God does not take human form:

• God does not perform ungodly acts:

• God only performs Godly acts:

• Philosophy Of Anthropomorphism

• The Creator prepares the instruction manual

• Allah chooses Messengers:

• Each attribute of God is unique and possessed by Him alone:

• Unity of God

• Tawheed

The Most Concise Definition of God

“Say: He is Allah,

The One and Only.

“Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.

“He begets not, nor is He begotten.

And there is none like unto Him.”

[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]

The word ‘As-Samad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (SWT), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (SWT) is not dependent on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependent on Him.

Surah Ikhlas – the touchstone of theology:

Surah Ikhlas (Chapter 112) of the Glorious Qur’an, is the touchstone of theology. ‘Theo’ in Greek means God and ‘logy’ means study. Thus Theology means the study of God and to Muslims, this four-line definition of Almighty God serves as the touchstone of the study of God. Any candidate for divinity must be subjected to this ‘acid test’. Since the attributes of Allah given in this chapter are unique, false gods and pretenders to divinity can be easily dismissed using these verses.

What does Islam say about ‘god-men’?

India is often called the land of ‘god-men’. This is due to the abundance of so-called spiritual masters in India. Many of these ‘babas’ and ‘saints’ have a large following in many countries. Islam abhors the deification of any human being. To understand the Islamic stand towards such pretenders to divinity, let us analyze one such ‘god-man’, Os ho Rajneesh.

Let us put this candidate, ‘Bhagwan’ Rajneesh, to the test of Surah Ikhlas, the touchstone of theology:

1. The first criterion is “Say, He is Allah, one and only”. Is Rajneesh one and only? No! Rajneesh was one among the multitude of ‘spiritual teachers’ produced by India. Some disciples of Rajneesh might still hold that Rajneesh is one and only.

2. The second criterion is, ‘Allah is aeternaland eternal’. We know from Rajneesh’s biography that he was suffering from diabetes, asthma, and chronic backache. He alleged that the U.S. Government gave him slow poison in prison. Imagine Almighty God being poisoned! Rajneesh was thus, neither absolute nor eternal.

3. The third criterion is ‘He begets notbegottenHe begotten’. We know that Rajneesh was born in Jabalpur in India and had a mother as well as a father who later became his disciples.

In May 1981 he went to the U.S.A. and established a town called ‘Rajneeshpuram’. He later fell foul of the West and was finally arrested and asked to leave the country. He came back to India and started a commune in Pune which is now known as the ‘Osho’ commune. He died in 1990. The followers of Osho Rajneesh believe that he is Almighty God. At the ‘Osho commune’ in Pune one can find the following epitaph on his tombstone:

“Osho – never born, never died; only visited the planet Earth between 11th December 1931 to 19th January 1990.”

They forget to mention that he was not granted a visa for 21 countries in the world. Can a person ever imagine ‘God’ visiting the earth, and requiring a visa to enter a country! The Archbishop of Greece said that if Rajneesh had not been deported, they would have burnt his house and those of his disciples.

4. The fourth test, which is the most stringent is, “There is none like unto Him”. The moment you can imagine or compare ‘God’ to anything, then he (the candidate to divinity) is not God. It is not possible to conjure up a mental picture of the One True God. We know that Rajneesh was a human being, having two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, and a white flowing beard. Photographs and posters of Rajneesh are available in plenty. The moment you can imagine or draw a mental picture of an entity, then that entity is not God.

Many are tempted to make anthropomorphic comparisons to God. Take, for instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the famous bodybuilder, and Hollywood actor, who won the title of ‘Mr. Universe’, the strongest man in the world. Let us suppose that someone says that Almighty God is a thousand times stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger. The moment you can compare any entity to God, whether the comparison is to Schwarzenegger or King Kong, whether it is a thousand times or a million times stronger, it fails the Qur’anic criterion, “There is none like unto Him”.

Thus, the ‘acid test’ cannot be passed by anyone except the One True God.

The following verse of the Glorious Qur’an conveys a similar message:

“No vision can grasp Him

But His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension,

Yet is acquainted with all things.”

[Al-Qur’an 6:103]

By what name do we call God?

The Muslims prefer calling the Supreme Creator, Allah, instead of the English word ‘God’. The Arabic word, ‘Allah’, is pure and unique, unlike the English word ‘God’, which can be played around with.

If you add ‘s’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Gods’, that is the plural of God. Allah is one and singular, there is no plural of Allah. If you add ‘dess’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Goddess’ that is a female God. There is nothing like male Allah or female Allah. Allah has no gender. If you add the word ‘father’ to ‘God’ it becomes ‘God-father’. God-father means someone who is a guardian. There is no word like ‘Allah-Abba’ or ‘Allah-father’. If you add the word ‘mother’ to ‘God’, it becomes ‘God-mother’. There is nothing like ‘Allah-Ammi’, or ‘Allah-mother’ in Islam. Allah is a unique word. If you prefix tin before the word God, it becomes tin-God i.e., fake God. Allah is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with. Therefore the Muslims prefer using the Arabic word ‘Allah’ for the Almighty. Sometimes, however, while speaking to non-Muslims we may have to use the inappropriate word, God, for Allah. Since the intended audience of this article is general, consisting of both Muslims as well as non-Muslims, I have used the word God instead of Allah in several places in this article.

God does not become a human being:

God does not take human form:

Some may argue that God does not become a human being but only takes a human form. If God only takes a human form but does not become a human being, He should not possess any human qualities. We know that all the ‘God-men’, have human qualities and failings. They have all the human needs such as the need to eat, sleep, etc.

The worship of God in human form is, therefore, a logical fallacy and should be abhorred in all its forms and manifestations.

That is the reason why the Qur’an speaks against all forms of anthropomorphism. The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:

“There is nothing whatever like unto Him.” [Al-Qur’an 42:11]

God does not perform ungodly acts:

The attributes of Almighty God preclude any evil since God is the source of justice, mercy, and truth. God can never be thought of as doing an ungodly act. Hence we cannot imagine God telling a lie, being unjust, making a mistake, forgetting things, or having any such human failings. Similarly, God can do injustice if He chooses to, but He will never do it because being unjust is an ungodly act.

The Qur’an says:

“Allah is never unjust In the least degree.” [Al-Qur’an 4:40]

God can be unjust if He chooses to be so, but the moment God does injustice, He ceases to be God.

God does not make mistakes good can make mistakes if He wants to, but He does not make mistakes because making a mistake is an ungodly act. The Qur’an says:

“…my Lord never errs.” [Holy Qur’an 20:52]

The moment God makes a mistake, he ceases to be God.

God does not forget good can forget if He wants to. But God does not forget anything because forgetting is an ungodly act, which reeks of human limitations and failings. The Qur’an says:

“…my Lord never errs, nor forgets.” [Al-Qur’an 20:52]

God only performs Godly acts:

The Islamic concept of God is that God has power over all things. The Qur’an says in several places (Al -Qur’an 2:106; 2:109; 2:284; 3:29; 16:77; and 35:1):

“For verily Allah has power over all things”

Further, the Glorious Qur’an says:

“Allah is the doer of all that He intends.” [Al-Qura’n 85:16]

We must keep in mind that Allah intends only Godly acts and not ungodly acts.

PHILOSOPHY OF ANTHROPOMORPHISMMany religions at some point believe, directly or indirectly, in the philosophy of anthropomorphism i.e. God becoming a human. They contend that Almighty God is so pure and holy that He is unaware of the hardships, shortcomings, and feelings of human beings. To set the rules for human beings, He came down to earth as a human. This deceptive logic has fooled countless millions through the ages. Let us now analyze this argument and see if it stands to reason.

The Creator prepares the instruction manual supposed I manufacture a video cassette recorder (VCR). Do I have to become a VCR to know what is good or what is bad for the VCR? What do I do? I write an instruction manual: “To watch a video cassette, insert the cassette and press the play button. To stop, press the stop button. If you want to fast forward press the FF button. Do not drop it from a height or it will get damaged. Do not immerse it in water or it will get spoilt”. I write an instruction manual that lists the various dos and don’ts for the machine.

Holy Qur’an is the instruction manual for the human being:

Similarly, our Lord and Creator Allah (SWT) need not take human form to know what is good or bad for the human being. He chooses to reveal the instruction manual. The last and final instruction manual of human beings is the Glorious Qur’an. The ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ for human beings are mentioned in the Qur’an.

If you allow me to compare human beings with machines, I would say humans are more complicated than the most complex machines in the world. Even the most advanced computers, which are extremely complex, pale in comparison to the myriad physical, psychological, genetic, and social factors that affect individual and collective human life.

The more advanced the machine, the greater the need for its instruction manual. By the same logic, don’t human beings require an instruction manual by which to govern their own lives?

Allah chooses Messengers:

Allah (SWT) need not come down personally for giving the instruction manual. He chooses a man amongst men to deliver the message and communicates with him at a higher level through the medium of revelations. Such chosen men are called messengers and prophets of God.

Some people are ‘blind’ and ‘deaf’:

Despite the absurdity of the philosophy of anthropomorphism, followers of many religions believe in and preach it to others. Is it not an insult to human intelligence and to the Creator who gave us this intelligence? Such people are truly ‘deaf’ and ‘blind’ despite the faculty of hearing and sight gave to them by Allah. The Qur’an says:

“Deaf, dumb, and blind,

They will not return (to the path).” [Al-Qur’an 2:18]

The Bible gives a similar message in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” [The Bible, Matthew 13:13]

A similar message is also given in the Hindu Scriptures in the Rigveda.

“There may be someone who sees the words and yet indeed does not see them; maybe another one who hears these words but indeed does not hear them.” 1

[Rigveda 10:71:4]

All these scriptures are telling their readers that though the things are made so clear yet many people divert away from the truth.

Attributes of God:

To Allah belong the most beautiful names:

The Qur’an says:

“Say: Call upon Allah, call upon Rahman:

By whatever name you call upon Him, (it is well):

For to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names.”

[Al-Qur’an 17:110]

A similar message regarding the beautiful names of Allah (SWT) is repeated in the Qur’an in Surah Al-A’raf (7:180), in Surah Taha (20:8) and Surah Al-Hashr (59:24).

The Qur’an gives no less than ninety-nine different attributes to Almighty Allah. The Qur’an refers to Allah as Ar-Rahman (Most Gracious), Ar-Raheem (Most Merciful), and Al-Hakeem (All Wise) among many other names. You can call Allah by any name but that name should be beautiful and should not conjure up a mental picture.

Each attribute of God is unique and possessed by Him alone:

Not only does God possess unique attributes, but also each attribute of Almighty God is sufficient to identify Him. I shall clarify this point in detail. Let us take an example of a famous personality, say Neil Armstrong. Neil Armstrong is an astronaut. The attribute of being an astronaut possessed by Neil Armstrong is correct but not unique to Neil Armstrong alone. So when one asks, who is an astronaut? The answer is, that there are hundreds of people in the world who are astronauts. Neil Armstrong is an American. The attribute of being American possessed by Neil Armstrong is correct but not sufficient to identify him. So when one asks, who is an American? The answer is, that there are millions of people who are American. To identify the person uniquely we must look for a unique attribute possessed by none except that person. For example, Neil Armstrong was the first human to set foot on the moon. So when one asks, who was the first man to set foot on the moon, the answer is only one, i.e. Neil Armstrong. Similarly, the attribute of Almighty God should be unique. If I say God is the constructor of buildings, it is possible and true, but it is not unique. Thousands of people can construct a building. But each attribute of Allah is unique and points to none but Allah. For example, God is the creator of the universe. If someone asks who is the creator of the universe, the answer is only one, i.e. Almighty God is the Ultimate Creator. Similarly, the following are some of the many unique attributes possessed by none other than the Creator of the universe, Almighty Allah:

“Ar-Raheem”, the Most Merciful

“Ar-Rahman”, the Most Gracious

“Al-Hakeem”, the Most Wise

So when one asks, “Who is ‘Ar-Raheem’, (the Most Merciful)?”, there can only be one answer: “Almighty Allah”.

One attribute of God should not contradict other attributes:

Besides the attribute being unique, it should not contradict other attributes. To continue with the earlier example, suppose somebody says that Neil Armstrong is an American astronaut who was the first human to set foot on the moon and was an Indian. The attribute possessed by Neil Armstrong of being the first man to set foot on the moon is correct. But its associated quality of being an Indian is false. Similarly, if someone says that God is the Creator of the Universe and has one head, two hands, two feet, etc., the attribute (Creator of the Universe) is correct but the associated quality (in the form of a human being) is wrong and false.

All attributes should point to the one and same God:

Since there is only one God, all the attributes should point to the same God. To say that Neil Armstrong was an American astronaut who first set foot on the moon, but he was born in 1971 is wrong. Both these unique qualities belong to the same person, i.e. Neil Armstrong. Similarly to say that the Creator of the universe is one God and the Cherisher is another God is absurd because God possesses all these attributes combined.

Unity of GodSome polytheists argues by saying that the existence of more than one God is not illogical. Let us point out to them that if there were more than one God, they would dispute with one another, each god trying to fulfill his will against the will of the other gods. This can be seen in the mythology of the polytheistic and pantheistic religions. If a ‘God’ is defeated or unable to defeat the others, he is surely not the one true God. Also popular among polytheistic religions is the idea of many Gods, each having different responsibilities. Each one would be responsible for a part of man’s existence e.g. a Sun-God, a Rain-God, etc. This indicates that one ‘God’ is incompetent in certain acts and he is also ignorant of the other Gods’ powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities. There cannot be an ignorant and incapable God. If there were more than one God it would surely lead to confusion, disorder, chaos, and destruction in the universe. But the universe is in complete harmony. The Glorious Qur’an says:

“If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both!

But glory to Allah,

The Lord of the Throne:

(High is He) above what they attribute to Him!”

[Al-Qur’an 21:22]

If there were more than one God, they would have taken away what they created. The Qur’an says:

“No son did Allah beget,

Nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were any gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created,

And some would have lorded it over others!

Glory to Allah! (He is free)

From the (sort of) things

They attribute to Him!”

[Al-Qur’an 23:91]

Thus the existence of one True, Unique, Supreme, Almighty God, is the only logical concept of God.

TAWHEED

Definition and Categories:

Islam believes in ‘Tawheed’ which is not merely monotheism i.e. belief in one God, but much more. Tawheed means ‘unification’ i.e. ‘asserting oneness’ and is derived from the Arabic verb ‘Wahhada’ which means to unite, unify or consolidate.

Tawheed can be divided into three categories.

1. Tawheed ar-Ruboobeeyah

2. Tawheed al-Asmaa-was-Sifaat

3. Tawheed al-Ibaadah.

A. Tawheed ar-Ruboobeeyah (maintaining the unity of Lordship)

The first category is ‘Tawheed ar-Ruboobeeyah’. ‘Ruboobeeyah’ is derived from the root verb “Rabb” meaning Lord, Sustainer, and Cherisher.

Therefore ‘Tawheed-ar-Ruboobeeyah’ means maintaining the unity of Lordship. This category is based on the fundamental concept that Allah (SWT) alone caused all things to exist when there was nothing. He created or originated all that exists out of nothing. He alone is the sole Creator, Cherisher, and Sustainer of the complete universe and all between it, without any need from it or for it.

B. Tawheed al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (maintaining the unity of Allah’s name and attributes):

The second category is ‘Tawheed al Asmaa was Sifaat’ which means maintaining the unity of Allah’s name and attributes. This category is divided into five aspects:

(i) Allah should be referred to as described by Him and His Prophet

Allah must be referred to according to how He and His prophet have described Him without explaining His names and attributes by giving them meanings other than their obvious meanings.

(ii) Allah must be referred to as He has referred to Himself

Allah must be referred to without giving Him any new names or attributes. For example, Allah may not be given the name Al-Ghaadib (the Angry One), even though He has said that He gets angry because neither Allah nor His messenger has used this name.

(iii) Allah is referred to without giving Him the attributes of His creation a reference to God, we should strictly abstain from giving Him the attributes of those whom He has created. For instance, in the Bible, God is portrayed as repenting for His bad thoughts in the same way as humans do when they realize their errors. This is completely against the principle of Tawheed. God does not commit any mistakes or errors and therefore never needs to repent.

The key principle when dealing with Allah’s attributes is given in the Qur’an in Surah Ash-Shur

“There is nothing

Whatever like unto Him,

And He is the one that hears and sees (all things).”

[Al-Qur’an 42:11]

Hearing and seeing are human faculties. However, when attributed to the Divine Being they are without comparison, in their perfection, unlike when associated with humans who require ears, eyes, etc. and who are limited in their sight and hearing in terms of space, time, capacity, etc.

(iv) God’s creation should not be given any of His attributes refer to a human with the attribute of God is also against the principle of Tawheed. For example, referring to a person as one who has no beginning or end (eternal).

(v) Allah’s name cannot be given to His creatures some Divine names in the indefinite form, like ‘Raoof’ or ‘Raheem’ are permissible names for men as Allah has used them for Prophets; but ‘Ar-Raoof’ (the Most Pious) and Ar-Raheem (the Most Merciful) can only be used if prefixed by ‘Abd’ meaning ‘slave of’ or ‘servant of’ i.e. ’Abdur-Raoof’ or ‘Abdur-Raheem’. Similarly ‘Abdur-Rasool’ (slave of the Messenger) or ‘Abdun-Nabee’ (slave of the Prophet) are forbidden.

C. Tawheed al-Ibaadah (maintaining the unity of worship):

(i) Definition and meaning of ‘Ibadaah’:

‘Tawheed al-Ibaadah’ means maintaining the unity of worship or ‘Ibaadah’. Ibaadah is derived from the Arabic word ‘Abd’ meaning slave or servant. Thus Ibaadah means servitude and worship.

(ii) All three categories are to be followed simultaneously.

Only believing in the first two categories of Tawheed without implementing Tawheed-al-Ibaadah is useless. The Qur’an gives the examples of ‘Mushrikeens’ (idolaters) of the Prophet’s time who confirmed the first two aspects of Tawheed. It is mentioned in the Qur’an:

“Say: ‘Who is it that

Sustains you (in life)

From the sky and the earth?

Or who is it that has power over hearing sight? And who

Is it that brings out

The living from the dead and the dead from the living?

And who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?’

They will soon say, ‘Allah’.

Say, ‘Will you not then how piety (to Him)?’ ”

[Al-Qur’an 10:31]

A similar example is repeated in Surah Zukhruf of the Glorious Qur’an:

“If thou ask them, who created them, they will

Certainly say, ‘Allah’: how then are they deluded away (from the Truth)?”

[Al-Qur’an 43:87]

The pagan Meccans knew that Allah (SWT) was their Creator, Sustainer, Lord, and Master. Yet they were not Muslims because they also worshipped other gods besides Allah. Allah (SWT) categorized them as ‘Kuffaar’ (disbelievers) and ‘Mushrikeen’ (idol worshippers and those who associate partners with God).

“And most of them believe not in Allah without associating (others partners) with Him!”

[Al-Qur’an 12:106]

Thus ‘Tawheed al-Ibaadah’ i.e. maintaining the unity of worship is the most important aspect of Tawheed. Allah (SWT) alone deserves worship and He alone can grant benefit to man for his worship.

SHIRK

A. Definition: The omission of any of the above-mentioned categories of Tawheed or deficiency in the fulfillment of any criteria of Tawheed is referred to as ‘shirk’.(Please note that the Arabic word ‘Shirk’ has the same sound as in the English word ‘ship’ and not as in the English word ‘shirk’, which means ‘to evade’

‘Shirk’ literally means sharing or associating partners. In Islamic terms it means associating partners with Allah and is equivalent to idolatry.

B. Shirk is the greatest sin that Allah will never forgive:

The Qur’an describes the greatest sin in Surah Al-Nisa’:

“Allah forgives not

That partners should be set up

With Him; but He forgives anything else, to whom He pleases; to set up partners with Allah's to devise a sin most heinous indeed.”

[Al-Qur’an 4:48]

The same message is repeated in Surah Al-Nisa’:

“Allah forgives not

(The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgives whom He pleases other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah,

Has strayed far, far away

(From the Right).”

[Al-Qur’an 4:116]

C. Shirk leads to hell fire:

The Qur’an says in Surah Ma’idah:

“They do blaspheme who say:

‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ:

‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord

And your Lord’. Whoever joins other gods with Allah –

Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers no one to help.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:72]

D. Worship and Obedience to none but Allah:

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Ali-’Imran:

Say: “O people of the Book!

Come To common terms between us and you:

That we worship none but Allah;

That we associate no partners with Him;

That we erect not, from among ourselves,

Lords and patrons other than Allah.”

If then they turn back,

Say ye: “Bear witness that we (at least)

Are Muslims (bowing to Allah’s Will).”

[Al-Qur’an 3:64]

The Glorious Qur’an says:

“And if all the trees on earth were pens and the Ocean (were ink), with seven Oceans behind to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (In the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.”

[Al-Qur’an 31:27]

Our analysis of the Concept of God in various Religions shows that monotheism is an integral part of every major religion in the world. However, it is unfortunate that some adherents of these religions violate the teachings of their scriptures and have set up partners with Almighty God.

An analysis of the scriptures of various religions, reveals that all scriptures exhort mankind to believe in, and submit to One God. All these scriptures condemn the association of partners to God or the worship of God in the form of images. The Glorious Qur’an says:

“O men! Here is a parable set forth!

Listen to it! those whom, besides Allah,

You call, cannot create

(Even) a fly if they all met together for the purpose!

And if the fly should snatch

Away anything from them,

They would have no power to release it from the fly.

Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition!”

[Al-Qur’an 22:73]

The basis of religion is the acceptance of Divine guidance. A rejection of this guidance has serious implications for society. While we have made great strides in science and technology, true peace still eludes us. All ‘isms’ have failed to provide the much-vaunted deliverance.

The scriptures of all major religions exhort mankind to follow that which is good and eschew that which is evil. All scriptures remind mankind that good will not go unrewarded and evil will not go unpunished!

The question we need to address is, which of these scriptures provides us with the correct ‘instruction manual’ that we need to regulate our individual and collective lives?

I hope and pray that Allah guides all of us towards the Truth (Aameen).

Early Zakir Naik was born on 18 October 1965 to Abdul Karim Naik and Roshan Naik in Bombay, India. He attended Kishinchand Chellaram College and studied medicine at the Topiwala National Medical College & BYL Nair Charitable Hospital and later at the University of Mumbai, where he obtained a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS).^[24]

career 19poorpoor and destitute Muslim youth.^[3]

Naik said in 2006 that he was inspired by Ahmed Deedat, an Islamic preacher whom he met in 1987.^[27] (Naik is sometimes referred to as "Deedat plus", a label given to him by Deedat.)^[27][28]

On 21 January 2006, the Islamic Research Foundation, which Naik heads, founded Peace TV. It is a non-profit Emirati satellite television network that broadcasts free-to-air programming. It is one of the world's largest religious satellite television networks.^[29][30]

In the second half of March 2021, Naik launched Al Hidaayah, which provides educational content about Islam. The platform has thousands of hours of videos of more than 40 renowned Islamic speakers from all over the world including Ahmed Deedat, Yusuf Estes, Hussein Ye, and Bilal Philips. He claimed that this platform is a "halal" version of Netflix.^[31][32]

Lectures and debates unlike many Islamic preachers, his lectures are colloquial,^[14] given in English, not Urdu or Arabic,^[33] and he usually wears a suit and tie.^[14] Naik has held many debates and lectures^[2][5][34] and is said to "have delivered over 4000^[35] lectures around the world" as of 2016. Anthropologist Thomas Blom Hansen has written that Naik's style of memorizing the Quran and Hadith literature in various languages, and his related missionary activity, have made him extremely popular in Muslim circles.^[15] Many of his debates are recorded and widely distributed in video and DVD media and online. His talks have been recorded in English and broadcast on weekends on several cable networks in Mumbai's Muslim neighborhoods, and on the Peace TV channel, which he co-produces.^[36][37] Topics he speaks on include: "Islam and Modern Science", "Islam and Christianity", and "Islam and secularism".

His first debate was in 1994, a debate on the views of writer Taslima Nasreen on Islam in her book Lajja, organized at the "Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh", entitled "Is Religious Fundamentalism a Stumbling block to Freedom of Expression?".^[38] With the presence of four journalists, the debate went on for hours.^[38] In April 2000, Naik debated with William Campbell in Chicago on the topic of "The Qur'an and the Bible: In the Light of Science", one of his most-cited debates.^[39] On 21 January 2006 Naik held an inter-religious dialogue with Ravi Shankar in Bangalore about the concept of God in Islam and Hinduism.^[40] In February 2011 Naik addressed the Oxford Union via video link from India.^[41]

University of Melbourne 2004 Naik, at the invitation of the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia, made an appearance at the University of Melbourne, where he argued that only Islam gave women true equality.^[42] He said the more "revealing Western dress" makes women more susceptible to rape.^[43] Sushi Das of The Age commented that "Naik extolled the moral and spiritual superiority of Islam and lampooned other faiths and the West in general", further stating that Naik's words "fostered a spirit of separateness and reinforced prejudice".^[44]

St David's HaHallinugust 2006, Naik's visit and conference in Cardiff caused controversy when Welsh conservative MP David Davies called for his appearance to be canceled. He said Naik was a "hate-monger", and that his views did not deserve a public platform. Muslims from Cardiff, however, defended Naik's right to speak in the city. Saleem Kidwai, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Wales, stated that "people who know about him [Naik] know that he is one of the most uncontroversial persons you could find. He talks about the similarities between religions, and how should we work on the common ground between them", whilst also inviting Davies to discuss further with Naik personally at the conference. The conference went ahead after the Cardiff council stated it was satisfied that he would not be preaching extremist views.^[45]

Denial of entry to the UK and Canada

Naik was denied entry into the United Kingdom and Canada in June 2010.^[46][47] Naik was forbidden to enter Canada after Tarek Fatah, founder of the openly controversial Muslim Canadian Congress, warned MPs of Naik's views.^[47] He was banned from entering the UK by the then Home Secretary Theresa May after arranging to give talks in London and Sheffield. May said of the exclusion order, "Numerous comments made by Dr. Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behavior".^[46] Naik argued that the Home Secretary was making a political decision, not a legal one, and his lawyer said the decision was "barbaric and inhuman". He also claimed that his comments were taken out of context.^[48] The famous Hindi cinema producer Mahesh Bhatt supported Naik, saying the ban constituted an attack on freedom of speech.^[49] It was reported that Naik would attempt to challenge the ruling in the High Court.^[50] His application for judicial review was dismissed on 5 November 2010.^[25]

Invitation to Gaatin University of the Gambia, Pancha Mi Hall of Paradise Suites Hotel, presidents home village Kanilai, Foni Kansala, and Kairaba Beach Hotel, Kololi. Gambian cabinet ministers, religious leaders, students and thousands of people attended his lectures on subjects including "Terrorism and Jihad: an Islamic perspective", "religion in the right perspective", "Dawah or destruction?" and "the misconceptions about Islam".^[51][53] Meanwhile, he also met with the president Yahya Jammeh along with Gambia Supreme Islamic Council and held an Islamic conference with the Imams of Gambia.^[51][52]

Malaysia

Naik delivered four lectures in Malaysia in 2012. The lectures took place in Johor Bahru, Universiti Teknologi MARA in Shah Alam,^[54] Kuantan and Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, prominent figures, and several thousand people attended the lectures at different places despite protests by the members of HINDRAF.^[55] The organizers of Naik's speeches said their purpose was to promote harmony among people of various religions.^[56]

Naik delivered another six lectures in April 2016. Two of his lectures in Malaysia, entitled "Similarities between Hinduism and Islam" and "Is the Quran God's word?" were objected to by HINDRAF, along with other NGOs, saying that these lectures might provoke inter-racial tensions. With the initial support of the governing authority, the event went ahead as planned.^[57][58][59]

Naik delivered a speech on Islamophobia on 9 August 2019 at the Sultan Mohammad IV Stadium, Kota Bharu, Kelantan which was attended by more than 100,000 people.^[60][61]

Views

Zakir Naik does not claim to be an adherent of a particular school of thought in Islam. Despite his denials, some people believe his views and ideology are similar to Salafis.^[62][63][64]

Naik says that his goal is to "concentrate on the educated Muslim youth who have become apologetic about their religion and have started to feel the religion is outdated".^[15] He considers it a duty of every Muslim to remove perceived misconceptions about Islam and to counter what he views as the Western media's anti-Islamic bias in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States.^[65] Naik has said that "despite the strident anti-Islam campaign, 34,000 Americans have embraced Islam from September 2001 to July 2002". According to Naik, Islam is a religion of reason and logic, and the Quran contains 1000 verses relating to science, which he says explains the number of Western converts.^[66] Some of his articles are published in magazines such as Islamic Voice.^[67]

Supremacy of Islam

Naik said that Islam is the "best" religion because "The Quran says it. No other religious text or scripture claims this fact."^[68][69] He added, "Islam is also labeled as intolerant, and it is indeed, but towards corruption, discrimination, injustice, adultery, alcoholism, and all evils. Islam is the most 'tolerant' religion as far as promoting the human values is concerned."^[70]

Opposition to the partition of India Zakir Naik criticized the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, calling it a tragedy.^[71] Naik holds that those who advocated the creation of Pakistan out of the northwestern provinces of colonial India were "not even practicing Muslims".^[71]

Music

Naik equated music with alcohol and stated that both are intoxicating. He has condemned dancing and singing because they are prohibited in Islam.^[68]

Punishment for robbery

Naik said that guilty people must be punished and accepts chopping off hands for stealing. He has also recommended that the United States implement this logic to reduce its high crime rate.^[68]

Homosexuality

Naik referred to the LGBT community as "patients suffering from sinful mental problems" and said that "It's because they watch pornographic movies. The TV channels are to be blamed".^[68] "According to Quran and Sunnah",^[72] he recommends the "death penalty" for homosexuals.^[72][73]

Biological evolution denying

Denying evolution,^[68] Naik said that the theory of evolution is "only a hypothesis and an unproven conjecture at best".^[74] According to Naik, most scientists "support the theory, because it went against the Bible – not because it was true."^[75] Naik also denies that different hominids have missing links, and claims that the majority of scientists do not accept evolution as a whole.^[76] Naik argues that scientific theories were prophesied by the Quran. For example, he has stated in 2010 that certain verses of the Quran accurately describe embryological development.^[77]

Naik argued, "What Darwin said was only a 'theory'. There is no book saying 'the Fact of Evolution' – All the books say Theory of Evolution." He further added, "There is not a single statement in the Qur'an, which Science has proved wrong yet. The hypothesis goes against the Qur'an – theories go against the Qur'an. There is not a single scientific fact, which is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an which goes against established science – It may go against theory."^[68]

Criticism of media

Naik has called

Naik also said:

If a Muslim woman wears a hijab or veil it is labeled as women subjugation, but if a nun does the same it turns into a sign of respect and modesty. A 50-year-old Muslim marrying a 16-year-old girl (willingly) is a headline, but a 50-year-old non-Muslim raping a six-year-old girl appears as brief news or filler. They say Islam does not give rights to women and is an illogical religion. They portray Islam as the problem of humanity though it is the solution to all man's problems. The same applies to the misinterpreted words 'fundamentalist' and 'extremist' which are western words.^[78] A true Muslim must be an extremist in the correct direction, by being extremely kind, loving, tolerant, honest, and just. While Indians were fighting for their freedom, the British government was labeling them as terrorists; same activity, the same people, but two different labels. The same happened with Muslims who are labelled as terrorists in media, so we should look into backgrounds and reasons for an activity before labeling people."^[70]

Other religions

Apostasy

Naik

Propagation of other faiths in Islamic states

While he appreciates that people of other religions allow Muslims to freely propagate Islam in their country, Naik preaches that the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because he believes that other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 6 instead of 2+2=4.^[68]

viaatin University of The Gambia,^[51][52][78] Zakir strongly condemned the atrocities around the world in the name of Jihad, where innocent people lost their lives, saying "Jihad is misunderstood by both Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad means to strive and struggle to make society better, the best form of Jihad is to strive and struggle against non-Muslims, using the teachings of the Quran; the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him and the Almighty Allah, Islam means peace."^[78] According to Naik, the killing of any innocent person, either Muslim or not is prohibited by Islam, while condemning the double standard, played by the western powers and media who describe Muslims as extremists and fundamentalists. He said in an unequivocal term that, even in Islamic Jihad, there are laid down rules and regulations as to when and how to kill a person, which he noted, totally contradicts what is currently happening around the world, by some groups who claim to fight for Jihad.^[78]

In another lecture given in Al-Khawaneej, Dubai, Naik stated that the most mistranslated and misunderstood word about Islam by non-Muslims and even some Muslims is "Jihad", which, he said, has nothing to do with the phrase "holy war" that is never actually used in the Quran or Sunnah and was first used by the crusaders who killed millions in the name of Christianity. He added the word "Jihad" actually means to strive or struggle against one's evil inclinations, to make the society better, in self-defense on a battlefield, and against oppression.^[70]

11 September attacks and Osama bin Laden

His views and statements on 9/11 have been often criticized. In a lecture delivered on 31 July 2008 on Peace TV, Naik promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming that George Bush was the instigator of the September 11 attacks.^[81] He also said that "even a fool will know" that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" orchestrated by US President George W. Bush.^{[33][82][83][84]}

His opinions on 9/11 have been denounced by the United States and he has been denied entry into the United Kingdom and Canada for speaking engagements.^[85][46][47]

In 2016, Zakir Naik was asked whether Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, he stated that he did not have an opinion since had not done any research on him.^[86]

Views on terrorism later in 2010, Naik said that he had been quoted out of context regarding the remarks on terrorism. "As far as terrorist is concerned", he said, "I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist... What is the meaning of the word terrorist? A terrorist by definition means a person who terrorizes. So in this context, every Muslim should be a terrorist to every anti-social element. I'm aware that terrorist is more commonly used for a person who terrorizes innocent human beings. So in this context, no Muslim should ever terrorize a single innocent human being."^[68][87]

Naik has been at the center of multiple controversies regarding the topic of terrorism, most notably for being seen as an inspiration for terrorists.^[88] In 1996, Naik gave a speech specifically about terrorism and addressing Osama bin Laden. Naik stated that "Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he [Osama] is terrorizing the terrorist, then he is following Islam." Perhaps the most controversial part of his speech was that he called America "the biggest terrorist". In a separate speech, he states that "the western countries say war for peace, the war for peace. It is not a war for peace, it is a war on peace". Naik's comments received significant media attention and the British government banned him based on these comments. Naik's lawyer and IRF argued that the speech was made before 9/11, that the media misquoted Naik and made misleading assertions about the timing of Naik's speech, and that the decision to ban Naik from the UK was "politically motivated".^[48]

Naik stated that Hitler, "who was not a Muslim, is the biggest terrorist in the world as he incinerated four to six million Jews."^[70]

When asked about his views on killings, Naik said "the Quran says so – if anyone kills an innocent human being, Muslim or non-Muslim, it is as though he has killed the whole humanity, So how can any Muslim kill innocent human beings?"^[78][89] It was only permissible, he said, to kill a person who "has killed someone else ... or created corruption in the land."^[90] He also criticized the media for "picking up verses of the Quran or hadiths and quoting them out of context to mislabel Islam as a religion that promotes violence and killing".^[70] He said that "critics of Islam quote Verse 5/9 which reads: 'Wherever you find a non-Muslim, kill him' out of context to malign Islam though it was an order on a battlefield, and Islam always promotes peace as a better option during the war."^[70]

In a press conference via Skype, when Naik was asked for his opinion on suicide bombings he replied affirmatively, saying it was permitted in Islam and said "it is haram if innocent people are being killed. But, if suicide bombing is used as a tactic of war, then it may be permitted. For example, in World War II, Japan used suicide bombing as a tactic of war."^{[69][91][92][93]}

Najibullah Zazi

Najibu

ISIS

Naik called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria the "anti-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and said that the enemies of Islam were promoting ISIS. He also added, "We should not say ISIS, we should say AISIS. Because they are anti-Islamic. I request all the Muslims of the world, as well as the Muslim media: Please don't help the enemies of Islam in attacking Islam." He further added, "If you verify you will know that I am totally against terrorism. I am totally against killing any innocent human being."^[70][89][95] In another lecture in Dubai, he stated, It is, therefore not correct to say ISIS or Islamic State has killed Syrian or Iraqi innocents. He said, "We should say anti-Islamic state kills them as Quran affirms that whoever kills an innocent person is as if he kills all humanity, and he who saves a single person – disregard his religion, is like saving all humanity."^[70]

Orlando shooting

Zakir criticized the media for "linking Islam" with the Orlando nightclub shooting. He accused the media of a "double-standard strategy" saying, "the same [double-standard strategy] is happening with a man related by nothing to Islam but by his name who killed over 50 gays in Orlando."^[70]

BJP and Narendra Modi

In 2016, Naik praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his frequent visits to Muslim majority countries, commenting "if his intention is to maintain unity between Hindus and Muslims and between India and other Muslim countries, I am totally for him". He described Modi's visits as favorable for India, believing it could attract foreign investment.^[96] In 2019, in an interview in Week magazine, Naik strongly criticized Modi and the BJP for what he called false charges and propaganda against him for political purposes and said that he is targeted for his popularity. He stated that he would not return to India while Modi remained in power, drawing parallels with the example of Muhammad in Hijrah.^[97] He also described Modi and the BJP as dangerous for Indian Muslims' security, labeling Modi a "liar" and the "number one terrorist of India according to Google." He also invited Modi to take part in a debate with him about Hinduism.^[98]

Naik claimed on 11 January 2020 that the Modi government approached him in September 2019 through an envoy and offered to provide him "safe passage" to India if he spoke in support of the government's move to abrogate Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.^{[99][100][101]} In a 14 January 2020 tweet, Congress leader Digvijaya Singh asked Modi to clarify Naik's claim of an offer of safe passage to India.^[102]

Reception, awards, titles, and honor snack was ranked 89 on The Indian Express's list of the "100 Most Powerful Indians in 2010".^[103] He was ranked 82 in the 2009 edition.^[104] According to Praveen Swami, Naik is "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India".^[105] Sanjiv Button says he is acknowledged as an authority on Islam but is known for making negative remarks about other religions.^[46] Sadanand Dhume writes that Naik has a "carefully crafted image of moderation", because of his gentle demeanor, his wearing of a suit and tie, and his quoting of scriptures of other religions.^[106]

Year of award/honor name of award/honor awarding organization/government

2013

Sharjah Award for Voluntary Work^[107]

Sultan bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi, Crown Prince and Deputy Ruler of Sharjah

2013

Dubai International Holy Quran Award – Islamic Personality of the Year^{[108][109][110][111]}

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President & Prime Minister of UAE and Ruler of Dubai

2013

Tokoh Ma'al Hijrah 1435/2013 Award^[112][113]

Abdul Halim of Kedah, King and head of state of Malaysia

2015

Service to Islam – King Faisal Prize^{[114][115][116]}

The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Controversies

Naik is currently a wanted fugitive from the Indian authorities on charges of terror financing, hate speech, inciting communal hatred, and money laundering.^[16][17][18]

Naik fled the country in 2016,^[19] and India's National Investigation Agency (NIA), has tried, unsuccessfully, to convince Interpol to issue a red notice for Naik's arrest due to insufficient evidence.^[20]

Based onribunal Restrains Enforcement Directorate From Taking Over Zakir Naik's Assets". NDTV. Archived from the original on 10 January 2018. Retrieved 11 January 2018.

Ahuja, Namrata Biji (28 July 2019). "Interpol again refuses Red Corner Notice against Zakir Naik". The Week. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

"Interpol again refuses Red Notice against Zakir Naik". Hindustan Times. 30 April 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.

"India sends a formal request to Malaysia for Zakir Naik extradition – Times of India". The Times of India. 14 May 2020. Retrieved 31 May 2020.

Write By: Samuel Huntington

INTRODUCTION: FLAGS AND CULTURAL identity on January 3, 1992, a meeting of Russian and American scholars took place in the auditorium of a government building in Moscow. Two weeks earlier the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and the Russian Federation had become an independent country. As a result, the statue of Lenin which previously graced the stage of the auditorium had disappeared, and instead, the flag of the Russian Federation was now displayed on the front wall. The only problem, one American observed, was that the flag had been hung upside down. After this was pointed out to the Russian hosts, they quickly and quietly corrected the error during the first intermission.

The years after the Cold War witnessed the beginnings of dramatic changes in people's identities and the symbols of those identities. Global politics began to be reconfigured along cultural lines.

Upside-down flags were a sign of the transition, but more and more the flags are flying high and true, and Russians and other people are mobilizing and marching behind these and other symbols of their new cultural identities.

On April 18, 1994, two thousand people rallied in Sarajevo waving the flags of Saudi Arabia and

Turkey. By flying those banners, instead of U.N " NATO, or American flags, these Sarajevans

identified themselves with their fellow Muslims and told the world who were their real and not-

so-real friends.

On October 16, 1994, in Los Angeles, 70,000 people marched beneath "a sea of Mexican flags"

protesting Proposition 187, a referendum measure that would deny many state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children. Why are they "walking down the street with a Mexican flag and demanding that this country give them a tree education?" observers asked - why should be waving, the American flag." Two weeks later more protestors did march down the street ':

carrying an American flag- upside down. These flag displays ensured victory for Proposition

187, which was approved by 59 percent of California voters.

In the post-Cold War world flags, count and so do other symbols of cultural identity, including crosses, crescents, and even head coverings, because culture counts, and cultural identity is what is most meaningful to most people. People are discovering new but often old identities and marching under new but often old flags which lead to wars with new but often old enemies.

One grim Weltanschauung for this new era was well expressed by the Venetian nationalist demagogue in Michael Dibdin's novel, Dead Lagoon: "There can be no true friends without true enemies. Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are. These are the old truths we are painfully rediscovering after a century and more of sentimental cant. Those who deny them deny their family, their heritage, their culture, their birthright, their very selves!

They will not lightly be forgiven." The unfortunate truth in these old truths cannot be ignored by statesmen and scholars. For peoples seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enmities occur across the fault lines between the world's major civilizations.

The central theme of this book is that culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world. The five parts of this book elaborate corollaries to this main proposition.

Part I: For the first time in history global politics is both multipolar and multicivilizational;

modernization is distinct from Westernization and is producing neither a universal civilization in any meaningful sense nor the Westernization of non-Western societies.

Part II: The balance of power among civilizations is shifting: the West is declining in relative influence; Asian civilizations are expanding their economic, military, and. political strength;

Islam is exploding demographically with destabilizing consequences for Muslim countries and their neighbors; and non-Western civilizations generally are reaffirming the value of their own cultures.

Part III: A civilization-based world order is emerging: societies sharing cultural affinities cooperate; efforts to shift societies from one civilization to another are unsuccessful, and countries group themselves around the lead or core states of their civilization.

Part IV: The West's universalist pretensions increasingly bring it into conflict with other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China; at the local level fault line wars, largely between Muslims and non-Muslims, generate "kin-country rallying," the threat of broader escalation, and hence efforts by core states to halt these wars.

Part V: The survival of the West depends on Americans reaffirming their Western identity and Westerners accepting their civilization as unique The New Era in World Politics is universal and uniting to renew and preserve it against challenges from non-Western societies. Avoidance of a global war of civilizations depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the

multicivilizational character of global politics.

A MULTIPOLAR, MULTICIVILIZATIONAL world in the post-Cold War world, for the first time in history, global politics has become multipolar and multicivilizational. During most of human existence, contact between civilizations was intermittent or nonexistent. Then, with the beginning of the modern era, about A.D. 1500, global politics assumed two dimensions. For over four hundred years, the nation-states of the West-

Britain, France, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Germany, the United States, and others -constituted a multipolar international system within Western civilization and interacted, competed, and fought wars with each other. At the same time, Western nations also expanded, conquered, colonized, and decisively influenced every other civilization (Map 1.1). During the Cold War global politics became bipolar and the world was divided into three parts. A group of mostly wealthy and democratic societies, led by the United States, was engaged in a pervasive, ideological, political,

economic, and, at times, military competition with a group of somewhat poorer communist societies associated with and led by the Soviet Union. Much of this conflict occurred in the Third

World outside these, two camps, composed of countries that often were poor, lacked political stability, were recently independent, and claimed to be nonaligned (Map 1.2).

In the late 1980s, the communist world collapsed, and the Cold War international system became history. In the post-Cold War world, the most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural. People and nations are attempting to answer the most basic question humans can face: Who are we? And they are answering that question in the traditional way human beings have answered it, by reference to the things that mean most to them. People define themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history,

values, customs, and institutions. They identify with cultural groups: tribes, ethnic groups,

religious communities, nations, and, at the broadest level, civilizations. People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.

Nation-states remain the principal actors in world affairs. Their behavior is shaped as in the past the pursuit of power and wealth, but it is also shaped by cultural preferences, commonalities,

and differences. The most important groupings of states are no longer the three blocs of the Cold

War but rather the world's seven or eight major civilizations (Map 1.3). Non-Western societies,

particularly in East Asia, are developing their economic wealth and creating the basis for enhanced military power and political influence. As their power and self-confidence increase,

non-Western societies increasingly assert their cultural values and reject those "imposed" on them by the West. The "international system of the twenty-first century," Henry Kissinger has noted, ". ..will contain at least six major powers -the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Russia,

and probably India -as well as a multiplicity of medium-sized and smaller countries." 1

Kissinger's six major powers belong to five very different civilizations, and in addition there, are important Islamic states whose strategic locations, large populations, and/or oil resources make them influential in world affairs. In this new world, local politics is the politics of ethnicity;

global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the superpowers is replaced by the clash of civilizations.

In this new world the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities. Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within civilizations. Violence between states and groups from different civilizations, however, carries with it the potential for escalation as other states and groups from these civilizations rally to the support of their "kin countries." z The bloody clash of clans in Somalia poses no threat to broader conflict. The bloody clash of tribes in Rwanda has consequences for Uganda, Zaire, and Burundi but not much further. The bloody clashes of civilizations in Bosnia, the Caucasus,

Central Asia, or Kashmir could become bigger wars. In the Yugoslav conflicts, Russia provided diplomatic support to the Serbs, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Libya provided funds and arms to the Bosnians, not for reasons of ideology or power politics, or economic interest but because of cultural kinship. "Cultural conflicts," Vaclav Havel has observed, "are increasing and are more dangerous today than at any time in history," and Jacques Delors agreed that "future conflicts will be sparked by cultural factors rather than economics or ideology." 3 the most dangerous cultural conflicts are those along the fault lines between civilizations.

In the post-Cold War world, culture is both a divisive and a unifying force. People separated by ideology but united by culture come together, as the two Germanys did and as the two Koreas and the several Chinas are beginning to. Societies united by ideology or historical circumstances divided by civilization either come apart, as did the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Bosnia, or are subjected to intense strain, as is the case with Ukraine, Nigeria, Sudan, India, Sri Lanka, and many others. Countries with cultural affinities cooperate economically and politically.

International organizations based on states with cultural commonalities, such as the European

Union, are far more successful than those that attempt to transcend cultures. For forty-five years Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand,

from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other.

The philosophical assumptions, underlying values, social relations, customs, and overall outlooks on life differ significantly among civilizations. The revitalization of religion throughout much of the world is reinforcing these cultural differences. Cultures can change, and the nature of their impact on politics and economics can vary from one period to another. Yet the major differences in political and economic development among civilizations are rooted in their different cultures. East Asian economic success has its source in East Asian culture, as do the difficulties

East Asian societies have had in achieving stable democratic political systems. Islamic culture explains in large part the failure of democracy to emerge in much of the Muslim world.

Developments in the post-communist societies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are shaped by their civilizational identities. Those with Western Christian heritages are making progress toward economic development and democratic politics; the prospects for economic and political development in the Orthodox countries are uncertain; the prospects in the Muslim

republics are bleak.

The West is and will remain for years to come to the most powerful civilization. Yet its power relative to that of other civilizations is declining. As the West attempts to assert its values and protect its interests, non-Western societies confront a choice. Some attempt to emulate the West and to join or "bandwagon" with the West. Other Confucian and Islamic societies attempted to expand their own economic and military power to resist and "balance" against the West. A central axis of post-Cold War world politics is thus the interaction of Western power and culture with the power and culture of non-Western civilizations.

In sum, the post-ColdWar world is a world of seven or eight major civilizations. Cultural commonalities and differences shape the interests, antagonisms, and associations of states. The most important countries in the world come overwhelmingly from different civilizations. The local conflicts most likely to escalate into broader wars are those between groups and states from different civilizations. The predominant patterns of political and economic development differ from civilization to civilization. The key issues on the international agenda involve differences among civilizations. Power is shifting from the long predominant West to non-Western civilizations. Global politics has become multipolar and multicivilizational.

OTHERWORLDS?

Maps and Paradigms, This picture of post-Cold War world politics shaped by cultural factors and involving interactions among states and groups from different civilizations is highly simplified.

It omits many things, distorts some things, and obscures others. Yet if we are to think seriously about the world, and act effectively in it, some sort of simplified map of reality, some theory,

concept, model, or paradigm, is necessary. Without such intellectual constructs, there is, as William James said, only "a bloomin' buzzin' confusion." Intellectual and scientific advance, Thomas Kuhn showed in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, consists of the displacement of one paradigm, which has become increasingly incapable of explaining new or newly discovered facts, by a new paradigm, which does account for those facts in a more satisfactory fashion. "To be accepted as a paradigm," Kuhn wrote, "a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted."4 "Finding one's way through unfamiliar terrain," John Lewis Caddis also wisely observed, "generally requires a map of some sort. Cartography, like cognition itself, is a necessary simplification that allows us to see where we are, and where we may be going." cold War image of superpower competition was, as he points out, such a model, articulated first by Harry Truman, as "an exercise in geopolitical cartography that depicted the international landscape in terms everyone could understand, and so doing prepared the way for the sophisticated strategy of containment that was soon to follow." World views and causal theories are indispensable guides to international politics.

For forty years students and practitioners of international relations thought and acted in terms of the highly simplified but very useful Cold War paradigm of world affairs. This paradigm could not account for everything that went on in world politics. There were many anomalies, to use Kuhn's term, and at times the paradigm blinded scholars and statesmen to major developments,

such as the Sino-Soviet split. Yet as a simple model of global politics, it accounted for more important phenomena than any of its rivals, it was an essential starting point for thinking about international affairs, it came to be almost universally accepted, and it shaped thinking about world politics for two generations.

Simplified paradigms or maps are indispensable for human thought and action. On the one hand,

we may explicitly formulate theories or models and consciously use them to guide our behavior.

Alternatively, we may deny the need for such guides and assume that we will act only in terms of specific "objective" facts, dealing with each case "on its merits." If we assume this, however, we delude ourselves. In the back of our minds are hidden assumptions, biases, and prejudices that determine how we perceive reality, what facts, we look at, and how we judge their importance and merits. We need explicit .or implicit models to be able to:

I. order and generalize about reality;

2. understand causal relationships among phenomena;

3. anticipate and, if we are lucky, predict future developments;

4. distinguish what is important from what is unimportant; and

5. show us what paths we should take to achieve our goals.

Every model or map is an abstraction and will be more useful for some purposes than for others.

A road map shows us how to drive from A to B, but will not be very useful if we are piloting a plane, in which case we will want a map highlighting airfields, radio beacons, flight paths, and topography. With L no map, however, we will be lost. The more detailed a map is the more fully it will reflect reality. An extremely detailed map, however, will not be useful for many purposes.

If we wish to get from one big city to another on a major expressway, we do not need and may find confusing a map that includes much information unrelated to automotive transportation and in which the major highways are lost in a complex mass of secondary roads. A map, on the other hand, which had only one expressway on it would eliminate much reality and limit our ability to find alternative routes if the expressway were blocked by a major accident. In short, we need a map that both portrays reality and simplifies reality in a way that best serves our purposes.

Several maps or paradigms of world politics were advanced at the end of the Cold War.

One World: Euphoria and Harmony. One widely articulated paradigm was based on the assumption that the end of the Cold War meant the end of significant conflict in global politics and the emergence of one relatively harmonious world. The most widely discussed formulation of this model was the "end of history" thesis advanced by Francis Fukuyama.* "We may be witnessing," Fukuyama argued, ". ..the end of history as such: that is, the endpoint of mankind's

ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." To be sure, he said, some conflicts may happen in places in the third world, but the global conflict is over, and not just in Europe. "It is precisely in the non-European world" that the big changes have occurred, particularly in China and the Soviet Union. The war of ideas is at an end. Believers in Marxist-Leninism may still exist "in places like Managua,

Pyongyang, and Cambridge, Massachusetts," but overall liberal democracy has triumphed. The future will be devoted not to great exhilarating struggles over ideas but rather to resolving mundane economic and technical problems. And, he concluded rather sadly, it will all be rather boring.6 The expectation of harmony was widely shared. Political and intellectual leaders elaborated similar views. The Berlin wall had come down, communist regimes had collapsed, the United

Nations was to assume new importance, the former Cold War rivals would engage in

"partnership" and a "grand bargain," peacekeeping and peacemaking would be the order of the day. The President of the world's leading country proclaimed the "new world order"; the president of, arguably, the world's leading university vetoed the appointment of a professor of security studies because the need had disappeared: "Hallelujah! We study war no more because war is no more."

The moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War generated an illusion of harmony, which was soon revealed to be exactly that. The world became different in the early 1990s, but not necessarily more peaceful. The change was inevitable; progress was not. Similar illusions of harmony flourished, briefly, at the end of each of the twentieth century's other major conflicts.

World War I was the "war to end wars" and to make the world safe for democracy. World War

II, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, would "end the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries -

and have always failed." Instead, we will have "a universal organization" of "peace-loving nations" and the beginnings of a "permanent structure of peace."7 World War I, however,

generated communism, fascism, and the reversal of a century-old trend toward democracy.

World War II produced a Cold War that was truly global. The illusion of harmony at the end of that Cold War was soon dissipated by the multiplication of ethnic conflicts and "ethnic cleansing," the breakdown of law and order, the emergence of new patterns of alliance and conflict among states, the resurgence of neo-communist and neo-fascist movements,

intensification of religious fundamentalism, the end of the "diplomacy of smiles" and "policy of yes" in Russia's relations with the West, the inability of the United Nations and the United States to suppress bloody local conflicts, and the increasing assertiveness of a rising China. In the five years after the Berlin wall came down, the word "genocide" was heard far more often than in any five years of the Cold War.

The one harmonious world paradigm is far too divorced from reality to be a useful guide to the post-Cold War world. Two Worlds: Us and Them. While one-world expectations appear at the end of major conflicts, the tendency to think in terms of two worlds recurs throughout human history. People are always tempted to divide people into us and them, the in-group and the other, our civilization and those barbarians. Scholars have analyzed the world in terms of the orient and the Occident, North and South, center and periphery. Muslims have traditionally divided the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the abode of peace and the abode of war.

This distinction was reflected, and in a sense reversed, at the end of the Cold War by American scholars who divided the world into "zones of peace" and "zones of turmoil." The former included the West and Japan with about 15 percent of the world's population, the latter everyone else.8 Depending upon how the parts are defined, a two-part world picture may in; some measures correspond with reality. The most common division, which appears under various names, is between rich (modern, developed) countries and poor (traditional, undeveloped developing) countries. Historically correlating with this economic division is the cultural division between West and East, where the emphasis is less on differences in economic well-being and more on differences in underlying philosophy, values, and way of life.9 Each of these images reflects some elements of reality yet also suffers limitations. Rich modern countries share characteristics that differentiate them from poor traditional countries, which also share characteristics. Differences in wealth may lead to conflicts between societies, but the evidence suggests that this happens primarily when rich and more powerful societies attempt to conquer and colonize poor and more traditional societies. The West did this for four hundred years, and then some of the colonies rebelled and waged wars of liberation against the colonial powers, who may well have lost the will to empire. In the current world, decolonization has occurred and colonial wars of liberation have been replaced by conflicts among the liberated peoples. At a more general level, conflicts between rich and poor are unlikely because, except in special circumstances, the poor countries lack the political unity, economic power, and military capability to challenge the rich countries. Economic development in Asia and Latin America is blurring the simple dichotomy of haves and have-nots. Rich states may fight trade wars with each other; poor states may fight violent wars with each other, but an international class war between the poor South and the wealthy North is almost as far from reality as one happy harmonious world. The cultural bifurcation of the world division is still less useful. At some level, the West is an entity. What, however, do non-Western societies have in common other than the fact that they are non-Western? Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Muslim, and American civilizations share little in terms of religion, social structure, institutions, and prevailing values.

The unity of the non-West and the East-West dichotomy are myths created by the West. These myths suffer the defects of Orientalism which Edward Said appropriately criticized for promoting "the difference between the familiar (Europe, the West, 'us') and the strange (the Orient, the East, 'them')" and for assuming the inherent superiority of the former to the latter.1o

During the Cold War the world was, in considerable measure, polarized along an ideological spectrum. There is, however, no single cultural spectrum. The polarization of "East" and "West"

culturally is in part another consequence of the universal but unfortunate practice of calling European civilization Western civilization. Instead of "East and West," it is more appropriate to speak of "the West and the rest," which at least implies the existence of many non-Wests. The world is too complex to be usefully envisioned for most purposes as simply divided economically between North and South or culturally between East and West. 184 States, More or Less. A third map of the post-Cold War world derives from what is often called the "realist"

theory of international relations. According to this theory, states are the primary, indeed, the only important factors in world affairs, the relation among states is one of anarchy, and hence to ensure their survival and security, states invariably attempt to maximize their power. If one state sees another state increasing its power and thereby becomes a potential threat, it attempts to protect its security by strengthening its, power and/or by allying itself with other states. The interests and actions of the; more or less 184 states of the post-Cold War world can be predicted from these assumptions." This "realist" picture of the world is a highly useful starting point for analyzing international affairs and explains much state behavior. States are and will remain the dominant entities in world affairs. They maintain armies, conduct diplomacy, negotiate treaties,

fight wars, control international organizations, influence, and in considerable measure shape production and commerce. The governments of states give priority to ensuring the external security of their states (although they often may give higher priority to ensuring their security as a government against internal threats). Overall this statist paradigm does provide a more realistic picture of and guide to global politics than the one- or two-world paradigms. It also, however,

suffers severe limitations. It assumes all states perceive their interests in the same way and act in the same way. Its simple assumption that power is all is a starting point for understanding state behavior but does not get one very far. States define their interests in terms of power but also in terms of much else besides. States often, of course, attempt to balance power, but if that is all they did, Western European countries would have coalesced with the Soviet Union against the the

United States in the late 1940s. States respond primarily to perceived threats, and the western European states then saw a political, ideological, and military threat from the East. They saw their interests in a way that would not have been predicted by classic realist theory. Values,

culture, and institutions pervasively influence how states define their interests. The interests of states are also shaped not only by their domestic values and institutions but by international norms institutions. Above and beyond their primal concern with security, different types of states define their interests in different ways. States with similar cultures and institutions will see a common interest. Democratic states have commonalities with other democratic states and hence do not fight each other. Canada does not have to ally with another power to deter invasion by the the

United States. At a basic level, the assumptions of the statist paradigm have been true throughout history. They thus do not help us to understand how global politics after the Cold War will differ from global politics during and before the Cold War. Yet clearly there are differences and states pursue their interests differently from one historical period to another. In the post-Cold War

world, states increasingly define their interests in civilizational terms. They cooperate with and ally themselves with states with similar or common cultures and are more often in conflict with countries of different cultures. States define threats in terms of the intentions of other states, and those intentions and how they are perceived are powerfully shaped by cultural considerations.

Publics and statesmen are less likely to see threats emerging from people they feel they understand and can trust because of shared language, religion, values, institutions, and culture.

They are much more likely to see threats coming from states whose societies have different cultures and hence which they do not understand and feel they cannot trust. Now that a Marxist-

Leninist Soviet Union no longer poses a threat to the Free World and the United States no longer poses a countering threat to the communist world, countries in both worlds increasingly see threats coming from societies that are culturally different. While states remain the primary actors in world affairs, they also are suffering losses in sovereignty, functions, and power.

International institutions now assert the right to judge and constrain what states do in their territory. In some cases, most notably in Europe, international institutions have assumed important functions previously performed by states, and powerful international bureaucracies have been created which operate directly on individual citizens. Globally there has been a trend for state governments to lose power also through devolution to substate, regional, provincial, and local political entities. In many states, including those in the developed world, regional movements exist promoting substantial autonomy or secession. State governments have in

considerable measures lost the ability to control the flow of money in and out of their country and are having increasing difficulty controlling the flows of ideas, technology, goods, and people.

State borders, in short, have become increasingly permeable. All these developments have led many to see the gradual end of the hard, "billiard ball" state, which purportedly has been the norm since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,12, and the emergence of a varied, complex,

multilayered international order more closely resembling that of medieval times. Sheer Chaos.

The weakening of states and the appearance of "failed states" contribute to the fourth image of a world in anarchy. This paradigm stresses the breakdown of governmental authority; the breakup of states; the intensification of tribal, ethnic, and religious conflict; the emergence of international criminal mafias; refugees multiplying into the tens of millions; the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; the spread of terrorism; the prevalence of massacres and ethnic cleansing. This picture of a world in chaos was convincingly set forth and summed up in the titles of two penetrating works published in 1993: Out of Control by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pandaemonium by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.13

Like the paradigm of the state, the chaos paradigm is close to reality. It provides a graphic and accurate picture of much of what is going on in the world, and unlike the paradigm of the state, it highlights the significant changes in world politics that have occurred with the end of the Cold

War. As of early 1993, for instance, an estimated 48 ethnic wars were occurring throughout the world, and 164 "territorial-ethnic claims and conflicts concerning borders" existed in the former Soviet union, of which 30 had involved some form of armed conflict.14 Yet it suffers even more than the paradigm of the state in being too close to reality. The world may be in chaos but it is not totally without order. An image of universal and undifferentiated anarchy provides few clues for understanding the world, ordering events and evaluating their importance, predicting trends in the anarchy, distinguishing among types of chaos and their possibly different causes and consequences, and developing guidelines for governmental policymakers.

COMPARING WORLDS: REALISM, PARSIMONY, AND PREDICTIONS

Each of these four paradigms offer a somewhat different combination of realism and parsimony.

Each also has its deficiencies and limitations. Conceivably these could be countered by combining paradigms, and positing, for instance, that the world is engaged in simultaneous processes of fragmentation and integration. Both trends indeed exist, and a more complex model will more closely approximate reality than a simpler one. Yet this sacrifices parsimony for realism and, if pursued very far, leads to the rejection of all paradigms or theories. In addition, by embracing two simultaneous opposing trends, the fragmentation-integration model fails to set forth under what circumstances one trend will prevail and under what circumstances the other