The Clash Of Civilizations

[Tangriberdi]

NATO was an organization against the Soviets but it was without any function after the collapse of the Soviets. It should find a new enemy to fight with. Imperialism conducted in Islam territories was the biggest trouble for Muslims in the last and the recent centuries. It seems that at the end of this meeting of Nato in Istanbul Europe and the America will be reunified at the aim to fight against so called terrorism -I would call it self defense of Muslim people-. All what The states and Europe is doing now is against Islam and Muslims and all what they do takes place in Muslim geography. I think the the clash between Christian and Muslim civilizations has started although Muslims are not awaken yet. What do you think about this?
I will be looking forward to read your replies.


NATO Sovyetlere karshi bir teshkilat idi ama Sovyetler yıkılandan sonra işsiz kaldı. Vurushmak ichin yeni bir dushman bulmak gerek idi. Islam topraklarında yürütülen emperyalizm gecen ve ichinde oldugumuz asrda Musllimanlar ıchun en buyuk mesele idi. Goruler ki NATOnun Istanbuldaki toplantısından sonra Avrupa ve Amerika guya Terorizme ki ben Müslümanların ozunu koruması derim, karshi vurushmak ichun birleshechekler. Indi Amerika ve Avrupanın ettigi her nesne Islama ve Muslumanlara karshi ve nederlerse etsinler Musluman coghrafyasinda ederler. Oyum odur ki Muslumanlar henuz aymasa da Musluman ve Hristiyan medeniyetlerin vurushmasi bashladi. Siz ne dersiniz?
Cevablarinizi güdecegim.

[tarafdor]

NATO was an organization against the Soviets but it was without any function after the collapse of the Soviets. It should find a new enemy to fight with. Imperialism conducted in Islam territories was the biggest trouble for Muslims in the last and the recent centuries. It seems that at the end of this meeting of Nato in Istanbul Europe and the America will be reunified at the aim to fight against so called terrorism -I would call it self defense of Muslim people-. All what The states and Europe is doing now is against Islam and Muslims and all what they do takes place in Muslim geography. I think the the clash between Christian and Muslim civilizations has started although Muslims are not awaken yet. What do you think about this?
I will be looking forward to read your replies.


.
Assalomu alaykum brother,
Allah praise to Allah swt, at last one of my friend noticed that there is a clash between civilizations, though it began 13 centuries ago, and not now. I posted a thread. though one of my colleague disagreed on this. So leave all your ambitions, interests and re-unite again for Jihad, otherwise you'll feed foreign soldiers, and they'll do what they did in Abu-Gharib. Whatever this bUSh says, he says from Bible, and his first speach after 9/11 at the Congress, he used the term crusade, he appologized for it stating that he was mistaken, but actually crusade came before the word Islam but not terorrism in his text. Could you believe that bUSh text-writers could be mistaken? Bullshit. Now Arab states re-considering their policies towards their old Moslem enemies, insh'allah by the help of ALlah swt the justice will prevail, not soon, but will prevail, Allah u Akbar.

Ma assalama

[Tangriberdi]

In the times when America is fighting with Muslims in Iraq and threatening Syria and Iran today, not yet you prone to discuss about that?

[Black]

In the times when America is fighting with Muslims in Iraq and threatening Syria and Iran today, not yet you prone to discuss about that?
We are already discussing it. But I think you do not understand Russian. Anyways read this.

http://mirror.forum.uz/showthread.php?t=22186

[Bilge_Kagan]

Bahsettigin gibi, yalniz is sadece Islam dunyasiyla sinirli degil. Ornegin gecen sene NATO sinirlari son alimlarla birlikte " Rusya sinirina dayandi ". Yani eskiden Amerikanin Sovyetlerle olan rekabetine guvenligi gerekce gostererek baska devletleri de ortak edisi olarak varligini surduren NATO bu gun Amerika nin guvenligini de saglamaktan ote Amerikanin ( ya da Ingiltere gibi parsadan pay kapmak isteyen ve buna gucu olan devletlerin ) cikarlarina hizmet etme kurulusuna dondu. Bu konuyla ilgili yapilabilecek birsey oldugunu dusunmuyorum.

Ama Irakta ya da Afganistanda Amerikanın Islamla savastigini dusunmek de yanlis olabilir. Zira soyle bir baktigimizda, Afganistan asyanin gobeginde, daglarla cevrili, son derece stratejik oneme sahip bir yer, dahasi, Irak petrollerini ya da Basra korfezinin onemini tahmin etmek zor degil. Yani bazi cikar cevreleri bunu istiyor diye yapiyor olabilirler ancak stratejik ve ekonomik nedenlerin otesinde meseleyi duygusallastirarak bir " Hacli seferi " ne gotureceklerini sanmiyorum ( ne varki Colin powell in aciklamalari bu dusunceye ihanet ediyor ;) ).

Savas aslinda coktan basladi ama kim kim icin savasiyor bilmek mumkun degil ( bkz. Laden ). Guclunun terorune savas, zayifin savasina teror denir diye bundan denmis sanirim.

[Кумушбиби]

"Clash of civilizations". I must admit I’ve always disliked the term. I find it utterly misleading and somewhat insulting. Unfortunately, it became fashionable after the publication of Samuel Huntington's provocative thesis: "The CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER".


Needless to say that Edward Said (Palestinian intellectual and scholar) trashed Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis not long after it was released. Not only that, he articulated a critique of the entire beltway, foreign affairs, Washington-insider academic elite (of which Huntington is an eminent member) for its American paternalism, alarmism and triumphalism.

While Huntington's thesis is hardly of a triumphalist nature, of course, it is indeed alarmist, painting a world-scale portrait of Western Civilization in decline and under attack on all fronts. But this is not the main flaw of Huntington's work. Instead, the biggest criticism that can be made of the thesis is the overly simplistic (almost childishly so) nature of the "Clash" hypothesis.

Huntington is basically saying that "different" people cannot get along, that they will usually prefer their own "kind", and will probably always be in conflict of one sort or another. Duh.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

"Clash of civilizations". I must admit I’ve always disliked the term. I find it utterly misleading and somewhat insulting. Unfortunately, it became fashionable after the publication of Samuel Huntington's provocative thesis: "The CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER".


Needless to say that Edward Said (Palestinian intellectual and scholar) trashed Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis not long after it was released. Not only that, he articulated a critique of the entire beltway, foreign affairs, Washington-insider academic elite (of which Huntington is an eminent member) for its American paternalism, alarmism and triumphalism.

While Huntington's thesis is hardly of a triumphalist nature, of course, it is indeed alarmist, painting a world-scale portrait of Western Civilization in decline and under attack on all fronts. But this is not the main flaw of Huntington's work. Instead, the biggest criticism that can be made of the thesis is the overly simplistic (almost childishly so) nature of the "Clash" hypothesis.

Huntington is basically saying that "different" people cannot get along, that they will usually prefer their own "kind", and will probably always be in conflict of one sort or another. Duh.


There is no need to be apologestic..."Clash of civlizations" does exist...I may not necessarily agree with all Huntington has said...but it is true Islamic civilization is clashing with the Western one...it is a fact...it has always been this...there is always ideological war, there is always a bad guy, there is always an enemy who is causing threat...

There is no promised "peaceful co-existence" it is all made up fairy tale...

Malcom X was absolutely right when he said -

"I'm not a politician, not even a student of politics; in fact, I'm not a student of much of anything. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican, and I don't even consider myself an American. If you and I were Americans, there'd be no problem. Those Honkies that just got off the boat, they're already Americans; Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans. Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American. And as long as you and I have been over here, we aren't Americans yet....

No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare....

Don't change the white man's mind -- you can't change his mind, and that whole thing about appealing to the moral conscience of America -- America's conscience is bankrupt. She lost all conscience a long time ago. Uncle Sam has no conscience.


They don't know what morals are. They don't try and eliminate an evil because it's evil, or because it's illegal, or because it's immoral; they eliminate it only when it threatens their existence.

So you're wasting your time appealing to the moral conscience of a bankrupt man like Uncle Sam. If he had a conscience, he'd straighten this thing out with no more pressure being put upon him. So it is not necessary to change the white man's mind. We have to change our own mind. You can't change his mind about us.

We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth so we can develop unity and harmony that's necessary to get this problem solved ourselves. How can we do this? How can we avoid jealousy? How can we avoid the suspicion and the divisions that exist in the community? I'll tell you how."

[Akhee-Abdullah]

1) It aint fiction but reality!!! American soldiers have shown how much they hate Muslims and Islamic Civilization in Afghanistan, Iraq prison abuse cases, and recent event in GTMO. GTMO case is a perfect example how American govt is waging war against the Islamic civilization...read my previous post:

Bush calls Guantanamo abuse report 'absurd' (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=2&u=/afp/20050531/ts_afp/usattacksrightsbush_050531162857 )

"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of and the allegations by people that were held in detention, people who hate America, people that have been trained in some instances to disassemble, that means not tell the truth."

2) Your second paragraph has negated the former...you have confirmed that "clash if civilizations" does exist.

I am not decrying "clash of civilizations" it is natural thing to happen...remember "Survival of the fittest", "natural selection"...

Actually, I would have been surprised if there was no "clash of civilizations"...

Cheers,

[Gareeb]

Assalamu alaykum dear brothers. I am agree with what you mean. I would rather call it a battle between Haqq and Botil not just clash of cultures . Bcause Islam not only culture but it is a complete way of life , a perfect system. So it is natural fight. Is is for ever.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Theories do help us explain things that operate in the world we live in. Newton's gravity or Einstein's relativity theories are not facts. have not been experience by any one physically, but they are accepted at a level of "law" by most people...

So, saying "it is just a theory" does not and should not undermine the explanatory powers of theory at all. (that was off topic)

Clash of civilizations-as I had mentioned earlier is bound to happen...it is a natural thing to happen...None objected to the notion of peaceful co-existence...it is a temporary state however....there are always people who do not want to compromise...and when they get into the power we can witness the clash....Time will come Islaamic civilization will regain its past glory and get even larger than it ever was....to the point the message of Islaam will reach every single house on the face of the earth....then it will collapse again until to the point not a single soul will be left who has a belief in Islaam as a true religion....This is a part of our belief system. Islaam has taught from the beginning there is a conflict between Haq and Batil...people on the side of Haqq get mistreated by the people of Batil, and then they fight until Batil is subjugated and forced to accept the truce...as stated in this verse...

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah At-Taubah Ayah 29)

I would say clash is inevitable....


Ayats to ponder:

And fight in the Way of Allah and know that Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.. (al-Baqarah Ayah [244])

And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill*treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." (Surah An-Nisa Ayah [75])

Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan). (Surah An-Nisa Ayah [76])


O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion (Islam), Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allah, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All*Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All*Knower. (Surah Al-Ma'idah Ayah [54])


Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory. (Surah Al-Hajj Ayah [39])

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). (Surah At-Taubah Ayah [12])

They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them. Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them. (An-Nisa 89-90)


And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. (al-Baqarah [190])

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (al-Baqarah Ayah [193])

They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever." (al-Baqarah Ayah [217])

[referee]

Clash of civilisations theory is a popularistic nonsense: civilisations as a cultural entities do not exist and therefore can't clash!

On the other hand, American neo-imperialism is now expanding to the borders of predominantly Muslim countries, people of which try to resist such economic, military and cultural expansion. Clash of civilisations is just a useful smoke-screen to hide American colonial intentions and policies under the pretext of 'organic' confrontation between Western and Islamic civilisations. In fact, there is no confrontation or clash but restructuring of the world order pax-American style which resembles ancient Roman Empire, and Muslim people make up few nations that try to resist such world order.
In addition, clash of civilisation theory is a convenient way to say that democratic civilisation faces threats from terroristic Islamic one, hence war on terror and muslims as 'scape goats'. This strategy is called self-victimisation of aggressor, ie if you claim you are a victim you can't be an aggressor.

So, Huntington, neo-con himself, addressed the problem of finding a new enemy in the post Cold War era, and implied a civilisational enemy that America has to confront - this enemy is elusive, weak, eternal and unifying, all good qualities that an enemy should have...

[fgerfr]

Akhee-Abdullah,

1. "Столкновение цивилизаций" - фикция, созданная теми, у кого есть определенные планы и конкретные цели. Сторонники подобных столкновений – это люди, извлекающие выгоду из войны, те, кто жаждет обладать чужими домами и странами.

2. Администрация США считает, что для того чтобы избежать т.н.
"столкновения цивилизаций" необходимо "модернизировать" Ислам и сделать его "светским". Проблема американцев заключается, в том что они убеждены в универсальности своей культуры. Они верят в превосходство своего общества (хотя и приходящего в упадок), а также в необходимость распространения своей модели на весь мир. Разве не является разумным то, что мусульмане, имеющие собственную культуру, собственные ценности и историю, могут сами выбирать себе будущее? Те, кто утверждает, что западный секуляризм – это панацея, подобны ребенку с молотком, воспринимающим каждую проблему как гвоздь.

Чистая правда, не имеющая ничего общего с ложью.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Clash of civilisations theory is a popularistic nonsense: civilisations as a cultural entities do not exist and therefore can't clash!

On the other hand, American neo-imperialism is now expanding to the borders of predominantly Muslim countries, people of which try to resist such economic, military and cultural expansion. Clash of civilisations is just a useful smoke-screen to hide American colonial intentions and policies under the pretext of 'organic' confrontation between Western and Islamic civilisations. In fact, there is no confrontation or clash but restructuring of the world order pax-American style which resembles ancient Roman Empire, and Muslim people make up few nations that try to resist such world order.
In addition, clash of civilisation theory is a convenient way to say that democratic civilisation faces threats from terroristic Islamic one, hence war on terror and muslims as 'scape goats'. This strategy is called self-victimisation of aggressor, ie if you claim you are a victim you can't be an aggressor.

So, Huntington, neo-con himself, addressed the problem of finding a new enemy in the post Cold War era, and implied a civilisational enemy that America has to confront - this enemy is elusive, weak, eternal and unifying, all good qualities that an enemy should have...

Referee- Thanks for the honest opinion.

I think you have rejected as well your previous statement by the latter. You also confirmed clash does exist (as "Kumushbibi" did.)

You said "American neo-imperialism is now expanding"

I say America is a big chunk of western civilization, that means the west is trying to expand or "clash" whatever term you would like to use :=)

You coninued predominantly Muslim countries, people of which try to resist such economic, military and cultural expansion.

I say that would mean Muslim countries, big chunk of old Islamic civilization try to resist, or "clash" against the "Military and Cultural expansion" of the "West".

Analogy makes sense, nonsense has been proved to be otherwise..."Logics course" that I have taken long time ago makes sense sometime not always though :=)

finita la comedia

[Tangriberdi]

Please remember to paying attention to those who govern the united states at the present time, those are called neo-conservative which are united in the aim of preserving all values of White Christians in America and they predic to do this by evangelical methods. As anyone concerned could know to some extent, The Bible refers as Chosen People to the Jews and it tells about a doomsday after all Jewish diaspora came back to Middle East refounded their own country in the promised territories and they rebuilt the Temple. Weirdly those neo conservatives believe that doomsday is closer than ever, and they should try to do their best to strengthen the God's hand for the anticipated doomsday.
This is a really widespread rumour in some environs.
On the other hand America tries to keep its level of being the Super Power in the next century too, seeing China and India are about to reach to what the States is. Remember that after 11th Sept. Bush called out for a nwwq Crussade!

[referee]

Referee- Thanks for the honest opinion.

I think you have rejected as well your previous statement by the latter. You also confirmed clash does exist (as "Kumushbibi" did.)

You said "American neo-imperialism is now expanding"

I say America is a big chunk of western civilization, that means the west is trying to expand or "clash" whatever term you would like to use :=)

You coninued predominantly Muslim countries, people of which try to resist such economic, military and cultural expansion.

I say that would mean Muslim countries, big chunk of old Islamic civilization try to resist, or "clash" against the "Military and Cultural expansion" of the "West".

Analogy makes sense, nonsense has been proved to be otherwise..."Logics course" that I have taken long time ago makes sense sometime not always though :=)

finita la comedia

Not sure what you mean, but if you imply that i actually confirmed that theory holds true then youi are mistaken.
My point is:
1)Clash of civilization as a theory does not hold water, it's very easy to prove it void - for a clash to exist between civilizations, civilizations must first exist as an entity and they don't.
2) What in fact is happening is neo-imperialism which also encompasses Muslim peoples
3) Clash of civilization is a very easy and often-used publicity slogan both for Imperialists and groups that resist colonisation.
4) So what I'm saying is theory is a fiction that is used and abused as a smoke screen to hide the reality.

[Gareeb]

Faylasuflar, aljirashdan to'htamaydiya.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Faylasuflar, aljirashdan to'htamaydiya.

Haqq rost aytilgan gap!!

Referee - have u read http://www.forum.uz/showpost.php?p=251376&postcount=12 :?:

[referee]

Referee - have u read http://www.forum.uz/showpost.php?p=251376&postcount=12 :?:

I have read it now. Again, a theory is only a valid theory when it is not so easily challenged as void. Hence, what is happening is not clash of civ-ns but neo-imperialism.
How well do you know this theory? I suggest you read the book by Huntingdon and debate on it based on the source and not on the popular current affair debates. There is a popular mobilization among Muslims against oppression and injustice, that is indisputable, but to explain it in a fictionary clash of civilizations thesis is just playing oppressors' games and talk their language.

[HarunYahya]

THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE 21st CENTURY

The 20th century was one of the most important in the history of mankind. As it drew to an end, advances in the scientific and technological fields inevitably gave rise to questions as to the shape of the century to follow.

At the end of the 1980s, the disappearance of a bi-polar world led to attitudes to the likely course of history. That position was known as "the new world order." In a short time, it was placed on a number of theoretical foundations.

One of the new period's most important theoreticians, Francis Fukuyama, claimed that liberal capitalist values were the highest which mankind could attain. In his article "The End of History" that sparked off a whole debate, he suggested that political systems and concepts of living were coming to resemble one another in all parts of the world. In his view, the defining characteristic of ideologies had disappeared, and the world was falling into a competition based on economics. That was not the first time such a claim had been made, of course. Even before Fukuyama, the thesis that history developed by means of competition and conflict had been suggested in the framework of a deterministic and Darwinist concept of history.



Fukuyama's Claim of the End of History

According to the new thesis, mankind was about to reach the happiest point in its history. In an article in the Wall Street Journal after the Sept. 11 attacks, Francis Fukuyama adopted a Darwinist model of the social sciences, and described the future of humanity in these words:


But the way in which I used the word history was different: it referred to the progress over the centuries toward modernity, characterised by institutions like democracy and capitalism. My observation, made in 1989 on the eve of the collapse of communism, was that this evolutionary process did seem to be bringing ever larger parts of the world toward modernity. And if we looked beyond liberal democracy and markets, there was nothing else towards which we could expect to evolve; hence the end of history.1 (http://www.harunyahya.com/article2_16.php#dipnot)
Those who adopted a deterministic belief and claimed that mankind had finally come to the end of its road were taken by surprise by the instability and wars in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. The Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus and parts of Africa, regions that had lived by Qur'anic morality up to the 20th century and hosted very different cultures and ethnic structures, were submerged in chaos.

http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_articles2/16b.jpgFollowing these developments, a number of theoreticians, led by Professor Samuel P. Huntington from Princeton University, generally put forward an opposing view and claimed that the next years would see a clash of civilisations. According to these theoreticians, cultural differences between civilizations would give rise to ideological conflict, and that these would polarize and accelerate, becoming actual conflicts.

Samuel Huntington had put forward his thesis in a 23-page article in 1993, called "The Clash of Civilizations." It received a mixed reception when first proposed. Recent developments and statements by some Western statesmen have again livened up the debate on the thesis.

As the world entered a new age, ideologues such as Huntington, like Fukuyama, suggested that ideologies had lost their defining characteristics and that there had been a return to the times when civilizations sought their inspiration from religion. According to Huntington's ideas, the conflict between civilizations would grow. In the next century, the world would turn into a place of conflict. Huntington expected the greatest conflict to be between the Western and Islamic civilizations.



The Solution Revealed in the Qur'an to the Conflict Between Civilizations View

In the Qur'an, mankind is promised peace and well-being, not conflict. Allah says that even people of different religions need to come together and display tolerance:



Say, "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both 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." (Qur'an, 3:64)

That truth alone is enough to invalidate Huntington's expectation of a clash between civilizations. In order for there to be conflicts, both parties need to have an aggressive and hostile mindset, whereas Islam is tolerant of and reconciliatory to other civilizations.

The reasons for the tragedies experienced in the 20th century are mainly the ideas put forward in the 19th. Ever since the earliest times, ideologies which denied creation and claimed that matter was all there was then drew strength from Darwin's theory of evolution and began to spread ever wider. These twisted ideologies suddenly became a philosophy of life for whole societies.

The implementation of materialist ideologies in society led to the prevailing of a view in which only material things were seen as of any importance, by raising generations that oppressed the weak, despised family values, knew nothing of brotherhood or peace, were far removed from such spiritual values as love, sacrifice and respect, had no ethical values and took no pleasure in art or science. As a result of the ideas imposed on society in the light of the materialist mentality, it was intended to create communities that denied the existence of Allah and believed they had no responsibilities to anyone. The way the 20th century has gone down in history as a time of wars, disasters and strife is the result of that materialist mentality.

http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_articles2/16a.jpgWe have left the 20th century behind us. We are now in the 21st century, a new age. People have now seen that in the 20th century materialist philosophy, by whatever name it may have been known, brought nothing but destruction with it, and they are now turning to Allah. This turning to religion and spiritual values, particularly in the later part of the century, has rapidly embraced the whole world.

These developments are all signs that the time of the promise that the morality of Islam, that Allah has chosen for His servants, will soon come to prevail on the Earth. As can be seen from many verses in the Qur'an, Allah has given the glad tidings that the morality of the Qur'an will come to prevail, by means of the people He has chosen. Allah makes the following promise in the Qur'an:


Allah has promised those of you who believe and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their religion with which He is pleased and give them, in place of their fear, security. They worship Me, not associating anything with Me. Any who disbelieve after that, such people are deviators. (Qur'an, 24:55)

No matter how much those who come up with theories about the future of the world might appear to differ from one another, they all have one point in common: that is pessimism. The events they evaluate from a materialist perspective prevent them from being optimistic. Even more important, they neglect to take into account that Allah always wants good and pleasant things for those who believe in Him.