The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that people 's religious and cultural identities will be the main source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. The political scientist Samuel P. Huntington discussed this hypothesis in his Foreign Affairs article. In his essay, he is trying to make people think that the West are the dominating country and other civilizations and cultures just have to be under the power of the West because they are in conflicts with other civilizations (in Huntington’s view) as if the West is a crisis manager, although he did not literally say that but he indirectly manipulatively used terms and reasons to justify his ideas. His essay included his idea supported by 6 reasons on why civilizations will clash. Huntington
Mr. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations is a philosophy; that people's cultural and religious individualities will be the upcoming principal source of divergence in the post-Cold War world. Huntington began his theory by discussing the diverse beliefs about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Furthermore, he believed that although the age of ideology had ended, the world had relapsed to a customary state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In this article, he explored the concept that the primary axis of conflict would be not only cultural but also religious lines; the “fault lines” between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. Huntington suggests that the concept of diverse cultures, as
Huntington further explains, cultural characterises and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. Lastly he claims that cultural commonalities is a prerequisite for economic reintegration, hence there will be rise of economic regionalism based on cultural similarities (Huntington
Clash of civilization by Samuel Huntington is believed to be containing facts about the political scene during the cold war era and stated or hypothesized that there is a new order prior to the end of the cold war. Societies and civilizations were divided by ideological differences. Political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism fueled Huntington’s arguments within the book. To begin his argument, Huntington classified civilization as the broadest cultural entity he also stated that civilizations are mortal but endures for a very long time and evolves overtime. Huntington also refutes some of the past paradigms that have been ineffective in explaining or calculating the reality of the global political order.
This theory (conflict theory) brought capitalism alienates humans that came from their species being and the true human potential. In the 19th century when time was defined as a radical inequality with a lot of technological and political
The obvious answer would be No because Ibn Khaldun did not think that a society will always be remain harmonious because there will always be conflicts in a society. As conflicts is inevitable. Moreover, the difference between conflict theory and Ibn Khaldun is that, conflict theory neglected that full cooperation is needed within the society. For example the capitalists need the working class to work in their factory so that the production will run smoothly and more goods to produce. While the working class need the capitalist because they need income in return of their hard work.
Because both actions made a generally positive change to both the society, culture, government and religion. Overall we have learned that Religions can change in good and bad ways, that can lead to good or bad things. In conclusion, the Islamic religion has developed massively over time, has grown with knowledge and influence and has impacted many people's beliefs and lives, which is why it is one of the biggest religions in the world today. Even though they developed and changed so much over time, they still managed to keep their individual culture and traditions
Islamic Modernism and Islamism were two new streams of Islamic thought which emerged after the decline of European colonialism. Both of these movements had well defined and different visions. In the 1800s, new Western influence was widespread throughout the Islamic World. The Ottoman Empire faced a long decline characterized by financial problems by Western foreign that powers took advantage of to manipulate the decaying empire. The Wahhabi Movement and Egyptian independence marked the beginning of new reform as the Islamic world braced itself for the twentieth century.
Islamic fundamentalism is just a different flavor3. Through the lens of war-torn, impoverished nations like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, globalization (i.e. Western intervention) has produced nothing but violence and destruction. These violent responses to cultural exchange have escalated to levels of war through a vicious circle of attacks. Intense reactions to forces that are beyond the control of individuals, nation-states,
In contrast to other cultures where there is a clear separation between the secular and religious spheres, religion runs very deep in the Muslim world. As a result even the most secular Muslims will practice religion to a certain extent, for example even secular Muslims pray, in order to be part of a community. In Egypt, there is no clear distinction between those who are religious and those who are secular. I believe that the main reason Islam is able to exist as a culture and not necessarily as a faith in Egypt, is as a result of this mindset that religious practices are communal gestures. This concept was explained by Shibley Telhami, who wrote that that while many Egyptians practice Islam out of faith, there are some (secular Muslims) who practice Islam and follow Sharia law because they have the right to do so (Washington Post, 2013).