• The Future of Jerusalem

A Paper presented at The Conference on “The Future of Jerusalem”, May 12-14,

1998;  Zarqa Private University, Zarqa-Jordan.

This paper is an attempt to evaluate an international political problem from a philosophical

perspective in order to see its actual place within a civilizational phenomenon. How

Muslims view Jerusalem and how it is to be viewed from a historical perspective are the

main issues to be evaluated. The historical approach shall attempt to provide a framework

for treating the problem. This framework includes the concept of civilization and the

phenomenon of the rise and fall of civilizations. Certain historical facts may lead us to clues

for unravelling our perception of the Jerusalem issue today. We shall then begin our

treatment of the problem from evaluating the concept of civilization.

The idea of civilization was first introduced by the French thinkers in the eighteenth

century in order to distinguish between barbarism and a civilized society.^[1][1] Three main

criteria were introduced then to distinguish between a culture (a primitive society) and a

civilization (a civilized society); 1. Settled vs. nomad, 2. Urban vs. rural, 3. Literate vs.

illiterate. If this is the case, then a civilization cannot be defined conclusively because the

French approach seems to concentrate on how to distinguish the civilized from the

uncivilized, whereas a culture may be perfectly civilized without being a civilization.

Therefore, we need a definition of civilization, which is broader in its scope. If we examine

past civilizations we will see that it is externally hard to distinguish them from cultures

except that they are much broader and include more than one culture; hence, a civilization

is in fact “a universalized culture.”  This means that a civilization is in the true sense a

culture, which is no longer, limited to its local and national confines. As such it begins to

include within its boundaries many sub-cultures, all of which are very much colored by the

foundational culture that has become an all-embracing culture, namely a civilization. It is

possible to find such a culture in the ultimate analysis of every true civilization.

Our definition of a civilization enables us to distinguish the following criteria for civilizations:

universality; multi-culturality; having an official language that characterizes its literature,

whether scientific or artistic. If a culture does not have these characteristics it cannot be

called ‘civilization’. It is clear that the most important aspect of a civilization is its universality;

and in fact all other aspects can be reduced to this one. That is why we have tried to give

our definition of civilizations in terms of universality alone.

What is it that renders a culture universal? There are primarily two phenomena that

may elevate a culture to the level of universality: one is religion; the other is science or

scientific activities. Depending on the foundational culture, either one of these or both

together may render a civilization universal. In case of Islamic civilization, for example, it is

primarily the religion that has universalised the Arab culture into a universal status. Of

course it is not the scientific achievements of the Early Muslims that eventually rendered

Arabic as the official language of this civilization, but rather the fact that it was the language

of Revelation.

As a result of this, all scientific and literary activities were also carried out in this civilization

in Arabic; whether the author was an Arab or not was irrelevant. Because the Islamic

civilization began to include, as a result of its universality, many other national cultures, the

original Arabic culture, which was universalized in the form of a civilization, began to lose

its Arabic character, it was thus blended with a universalistic color that made up the Islamic

civilization. Since we are not dwelling upon the characteristics of the foundational Arabic

culture that was universalized in the form of Islamic civilization, there is no need to point out

here that this foundational culture was modified greatly by the revealed religion Islam.

In the case of the Aegean civilization, on the other hand, it is primarily the scientific

activities that rendered it universal. Since the original foundational culture of this civilization

was the Greek culture, all scientific and literary activities were carried out in this language,

which then became the official language of this civilization until its fall. The Western

civilization is, on the other hand a more complex phenomenon which requires more

historical analysis that may force us to modify certain aspects of our definition.^[1][2]

If there is a foundational culture which gradually becomes a universal culture called

‘civilization’, then there is a process that can be identified as the ‘rise of a civilization’.

On the other hand, just because there are civilizations in the past that have fallen, we may infer on the basis of the rise of civilizations that there must be also a process that can be

identified as the ‘fall of a civilization’. In this context I am more concerned with the dynamic

principles which lead to the rise of a civilization. If these principles are identified correctly,

there is no reason to look for such principles for the fall of a civilization, because the fall

must follow upon the lack or insufficiency of the dynamic principles that lead to the rise of it.

We shall argue, moreover, that although the course civilizations take for their rise and fall

may vary greatly, it is possible to discern general law-like principles from their histories that

govern their rise and fall. In this context, without much argument I will try to cite a few of

these dynamic principles in order to utilize for pinpointing the place of the Jerusalem issue

within a civilizational context.^[1][3]

First of all, when we examine the process for the rise of a civilization, we shall clearly see

an element that universalizes the foundational culture of that civilization. If, therefore, in case

of the Islamic civilization, for example, that universalizing element is the religion Islam, then

it can be identified as a dynamic principle for the rise of this civilization. Islam as a religion,

on the other hand, includes many things and as such it is a complex phenomenon and

therefore, it would be evading the problem to just point to a complex phenomenon without

analyzing it as a dynamic force for the rise of a civilization. It must be certain principles

which Islam brought that played the role of these dynamic principles for the rise of Islamic

civilization. In fact, when one examines the Qur’an, one can find certain implications for the

existence of such principles within a society that are identified as ‘sunnatullah’.

Secondly, the universalizing element is able to give a dynamism to the society into which it

is born. This dynamism takes place on different planes; of which two are extremely

important: first is the social plane, which causes certain unrest and stirring within the

society as if the whole structure of the society is re-shaping itself and thus every social

institution is affected by this dynamism; but most importantly, the political and educational

institutions are re-organized as a result of this unrest; second is the plane of learning and it

is this dynamism which causes a lively exchange of ideas on scientific and intellectual

subjects among the learned of the community. How this dynamism itself as sunnatullah is

produced remains a very complex phenomenon which must be studied more carefully in

relation to each society.

For instance, in case of Islamic civilization we explain how it was internally generated by the thought of the Qur’an through its dissemination within the first Muslim community. But here what we are trying to look for is whether there are any universal rules governing the generation of that dynamism, because we are trying to apply it to an international conflict of our time; the Jerusalem issue. I shall now try to show that these dynamic forces within the foundational culture are natural phenomena and therefore they are deeply rooted within the human personality. It is for this reason that we have included them in the meaning of the Qur’anic concept sunnatullah.^[1][4]

Accordingly, we distinguish so far two fundamental phenomena as corresponding to

what we term ‘the universalizing elements’ as the basis of social mobility in the original

foundational culture: the first one can be conceived here as moral dynamism, and the other

as intellectual dynamism, both of which fall within the domain of sunnatullah. This is what

we shall now demonstrate .

With respect to moral dynamism it is possible to divide the members of a given

society into three groups: 1. morally sensitive people, 2. the common mass, 3. selfish or

morally insensitive people. Among these three classes usually the first and the third group

are dynamic. For the former class struggle to restore morality and good order in a society,

whereas the selfish class remain indifferent to this end by spending their dynamism to their

own ends. The masses, on the other hand, are driven to either side. In the midst of these

chaotic struggles the emergence of certain intellectual activities is almost inevitable, as

both the moral and the selfish sides will try to justify their ends rationally in order to draw

more supporters. But since for the selfish the end is more important than the means, they

will definitely try to use other attractive means to draw supporters. Therefore, in this struggle

it is still the morally sensitive that are primarily intellectually and spiritually productive. This

leads to an immense intellectual dynamism. By the ‘intellectual dynamism’ we mean the

‘dynamism inherent within originality and novelty’  (of ideas and doctrines) such that the

foundational culture had never seen their like before .

Since we empirically know that there are in every society, without exception, morally

sensitive people, the masses and the selfish, we need not prove their existence as

sunnatullah, i.e. natural. But the fact that originality and novelty inherently possess

dynamism may not be so easily accessible and in fact this is the main problem with the

Islamic civilization today; hence we must show that intellectual dynamism is also a

sunnatullah. In order to do this we need only to refer to some previous cases in

civilizations where this was demonstrated. In the Aegean civilization, for example, we claim

that if there were not, in each case, a new and fresh outlook, the intellectual dynamism

would have not flourished and thus the flair of Greek intellectualism would have died out

long before Plato. Moreover, just because there is hardly any original theory and doctrine

after Aristotle, the Greek intellectualism began right after him to decline. The same is also

true for both the Islamic and Western civilizations, but the way this intellectual dynamism, as

a sunnatullah, is manifested in all these civilizations of course varies .

What we are showing here is the idea that originality inherently possesses

dynamism, and as such it can contribute essentially to the rise of intellectualism which

gradually leads to the advancement of scientific and literary learning, i. e. elements that are

universalizing factors within the foundational culture. Thus without it no culture can be

universalized; but with it alone it is not possible for the foundational culture to emerge as a

civilization as there are other conditions to be met in this process. One should not,

therefore, interpret our claim with regard to the intellectual dynamism; even if there is a

lively exchange of original and fresh ideas, theories or doctrines it may still not lead to the

emergence of the foundational culture as a civilization. For it is possible that there may be

originality without necessarily leading to a civilization, because as we have already pointed

out, we are examining the causes of intellectual progress individually, namely without

reference to the other universalizing factors. But within the foundational culture, these

factors produce the desired end only when they are altogether present .

All these dynamisms, either together or one after another will yield what I shall call

‘institutional dynamism’. When these universalizing dynamic forces are at work, a

tremendous social mobility in the foundational culture begins. It is the dynamism of

individuals working together to lead the society as a whole to a morally better situation that

we call ‘social dynamism’. On the other hand, these social activities will gradually lead to

the re-organization and betterment of social institutions including the political and

economic ones as well. For social dynamism is reflected necessarily onto the social

institutions. How can, for example, an intellectual who is active in educating the individuals

of his society not attempt reforming his educational system upon observing that his work

somehow is not effective and realizes that this is because of the structure of his educational

system? It is this re-formative and enlightened efforts at all organizational levels that we

call ‘institutional dynamism’. It is clear that all these dynamisms are indeed the

universalizing factors of a culture. When all these universalizing factors are active together,

then the foundational culture is necessarily set into a scientific progress that follows upon

intensive intellectualism that is present within the culture. Of course besides these

universalizing factors, different societies may exhibit some other different universalizing

factors; such is the case with Western civilization which has Islamic influences also as a

cause for the rise of Western intellectualism. Whereas in the Islamic case, the causes are

found only within the foundational culture in which a tremendous social mobility is produced

as a result of the newly emerging religion .

Institutional dynamism as a universalizing factor takes place at the level of social institutions;

the most significant of these being the educational institutions, a great reform and re-

organization in accordance with the knowledge produced by the intellectual dynamism is

required of all the educational institutions. Usually there seems to be a relation, although not

a necessary one, between the political body and the educational reform. Either the political

body brings about the educational reform at the request and directions of the intellectuals,

or intellectuals themselves take the initiative and produce educational dynamism, which

may in turn lead to a re-organization of the political body and thus produce a great political

mobility within the political institutions. These activities, which also include the legal

undertakings, can be called ‘political dynamism’. Among these institutional dynamisms as

universalizing factors we must mention also economic activities. Similar reformations take

place in the economic institutions yielding thereby improvements in the prosperity of that

society and thus can be called ‘economic dynamism’ .

We have thus distinguished three kinds of universalizing factors for the emergence

of a civilization out of its foundational culture:

1. The initial universalizing factors which are necessary prior to the rest of the factors, and

they are two;

a) the moral struggle,

b) the original intellectual activities;

2. Social dynamism;

3. Institutional dynamism, which is the last step of the process for the emergence of the

foundational culture as a civilization and they are primarily three:

a) educational dynamism,

b) political dynamism ;

c) economic dynamism .

The last three dynamisms include within themselves with a varying degree of intensity all the

universalizing factors explained above, and as such they are the ones that produce culture.

As soon as the universalizing factors are at work effectively within the original society, then

the foundational culture is no longer what it was before. To give an example, the Medinan

Muslim society and the Jahiliyyah culture, which is in fact the foundational culture of the

Islamic civilization, but as it was in its original state, could have never led to the rise of

a civilization. It was, therefore, greatly modified by Islam which started a sufficient social

dynamism in that society to lead it to the emergence of a civilization.. Hence, if a culture

retains its dynamisms as a result of these universalizing factors long enough such that the

foundational culture no longer becomes restricted to one society and region, then it turns

into a civilization.  Therefore, cultures are usually restricted to a certain span of time and

region or society. But civilizations cannot be so restricted. But if a civilization does not

retain its dynamism, then all institutions begin to deteriorate and as a result dynamism in

the opposite direction begins to take place; first, the selfish gain the majority of the masses

and intellectuals become corrupt, then the moral struggle gives in. The civilization thus

collapses and all of its institutions gradually become corrupt; a phenomenon which can be

observed both in the Ancient Greek civilization  and Islamic civilization of today.

If we examine the bygone civilizations of the past we shall see many similarities between them and the present Islamic civilization. In fact, today there is no more a civilization that

deserves the name Islamic civilization. A culture can be called civilization only if it is

dynamic morally in the first place and intellectually (namely, scientifically) in the second

place. In the case of the Islamic civilization, both dynamisms were propelled by the

religion; this leads us to infer that the collapse of the Islamic civilization must have come

upon the collapse of the religion, namely misinterpretation of the religion or its

mythologization which eventually led to the ineffectiveness of Islam within the civilization.

This gradually led to the downfall of all institutions, including the military and political ones .

At this juncture we can ask the question concerning our conflict today: is the Jerusalem

issue an isolated, individual case; or is it a civilizational case? I am afraid that most

Muslims today handle it as an individual problem, in the solution of which they do not pay

attention to the civilizational problems surrounding this issue. If we always try in this manner

we cannot solve it. The best lesson is again provided by history; for example, when the

Crusades started, the conflict took place again around Jerusalem. But at that time Islamic

civilization, though it was politically scattered, mainly by the brute force of other cultures, its

dynamic structure was able to handle the problem as an individual isolated case; hence

Jerusalem ultimately remained in the hands of Muslims. But today we have our civilizational

problems; moral decadence, mythological understanding of our religion which lead to the

weakening of Islamic principles in individual and social life and finally intellectual

decadence which leaves no creative scientific activities. How can we then solve the

Jerusalem issue? I would like to pose another question in order to demonstrate rather

indirectly how we may approach this international conflict from the civilizational framework .

What happens if a civilization dies? The most important factor in Islamic civilization

is of course religion, but in order to generalize this to all civilizations, we shall propose the

fact that the moral dimension dies within those societies that are included under that

civilization. Selfishness rules supreme, individuals think of their own ends only; as a result,

social institutions do not function properly. Everyone thinks of himself rather than the ideal

end, which was the Cause of Allah, in the Islamic civilization. Everyone prefers himself over

his brother (or sister); ideal principles such as innama’l-Mu’minun ikhwah become simple

words of mouth with great meaning but with no application in real life. Then, intellectual life

also becomes corrupt, because educational institutions, as we have seen, are an integral

part of a civilization, once they are corrupt no serious intellectual will be produced; as a

result scientific activities will no longer be creative. This will result in social problems being

dealt with inefficiently; and no new concepts will be invented to express new interpretations

of meaningful phenomena in human life and culture. These concepts may be borrowed from

other civilizations and lead to confusion, as they will not cover all aspects of human

existence within that civilization. The scientific downfall will lead to technological

backwardness which will lead to military weakness. Every other people around that

civilization will try to get their share from the falling civilization. The people and the

geography of the falling civilization become like a dead corpse of an animal upon which

vultures and many other scavengers rush to get their share. I believe that this is what has

happened to the Islamic civilization, and the Jerusalem issue cannot be evaluated without

a look into the rise and fall of civilizations. If my presentation seems realistic, then this

problem cannot be solved without a comprehensive outlook. I am afraid my dismal

presentation of the state of Islamic civilization is historically realistic. This requires us to

look into the Jerusalem problem, and in fact the Bosnian, Azeri, Burmese Muslims, the Iraqi

and even all other international political problems, from this perspective. We have lost the

official language of our civilization, as well as our identity and integrity. Losing geographical

areas is not such a significant issue when compared to these civilizational losses .

What does the civilizational outlook give us? Civilizational outlook should not be

taken as a portrait of a hopeless case. It rather assigns us more serious duties. We must,

first of all, obey the sunnatullah and try to see the universalizing factors within a culture and

try to utilize these factors in order to revive the Islamic civilization. We must know that we

cannot solve anything by sheer military force, or by acquiring nuclear power or other

technological achievements. These achievements are, after all, acquired through following

strictly the creative universalizing factors within a society. Every individual should question

himself rather than questioning others; this supreme moral principle was ingrained in the

minds of early Muslims who are lesson-laden for us. In fact the early process for the

emergence of Islamic civilization is a good example for us to see the universalizing

principles of sunnatullah at work. Of course the aim of early Muslims was not to establish

a civilization, but they aimed at clearing their souls from the evils of human interests and

thus perfecting the human self, which became a foundation stone of a great civilization.

Our aim should also be ridding ourselves from the evil intentions of our nafs al-ammarah;

all other problems, including the Jerusalem issue, will gradually be solved through time; and

time is also a requirement of the sunnatullah. We must realize that such civilizational

problems cannot be solved overnight. Patient struggle. i.e., in the way of human betterment

will lead us to the happiness of this life as well as the one to come, inshallah.