|
This paper falls under Theme l of the list of themes and topics to be addressed by this meeting, namely the theme of Religious Pluralism and Tolerance.
It is not meant to be a mere attempt to register the drastic changes in the world's political and economic order that have been taking place at an accelerated pace during the last two decades, nor is it meant to be
a mere exercise in intellectual analysis. It is rather some kind of a position paper triggered by the extreme concern shared by thousands of thinkers all over the world that the unprecedented scientific and
technological revolution that is pushing systematically for radical and unprecedented changes in the ways of life, in affecting intercultural relations and the very moral fibre of most societies, will bring with it
certain negative side effects that would inevitably impact on Man's inner sense of security, peace and happiness.
The author, who is neither a philosopher nor a religious preacher, believes that time has come for a serious inter-religious dialogue based on a firm
belief in religious and cultural pluralism and having as objective the attainment of an agreement on a common code of ethics to serve as a moral infra-structure for the fast globalising world.
Before commenting on this central issue of a common code and an ensuing agenda of joint action, I need to present one introductory observation and to
address an important methodological and problematic aspect of the ongoing process of globalisation:
- The introductory observation relates to the paradoxical situation where many of the postulates and doctrines propagated by the Marxist philosophy
during the pre-globalisation era are being discreetly resurrected under the new banners of globalisation and the removal of barriers separating national and regional economies and markets. I am specifically
referring to the following postulates:
- the concept of historical determinism endorsed by Hegel and finessed by Karl Marx: the contemporary proponents of globalisation, be they
intellectuals or politicians, are consistently referring to the process of globalisation as an inevitable development based on objective conditions that cannot be avoided nor stopped. It may be that such a
resurrection of historical determinism is motivated by certain economic interests that have nothing in common with the philosophical analysis of a Hegel or a Karl Marx, but the striking paradox is there.
- the concept of the economic interpretation of human history: here again the point of departure for the modern sponsors of globalisation is not
of a philosophical nature as was the case with Marxist philosophy. It is rather a reflection of the essentially economic nature of the selfish interests of the advocates of globalisation. A corollary result
of such emphasis on economic interests is a relative marginalisation of the political, social and cultural elements and consequences of the process of globalisation.
- the concept of the withering of the State: here again the underlying philosophical theory is obviously not the same. The fact remains,
however, that in reaction to the socialist economic theory and practice of allocating a major role to the state in operating the economy, state intervention has become a bad word and any attempt to revive
such a role would immediately be characterised as an attempt to retreat back to the old centralist economic policy.
The point I want to make here is that the resurrection of these three concepts under the new banners of globalisation casts legitimate doubts as to the
objectivity and genuine nature of many of the claims made by the advocates of globalisation, and to the accuracy of many of the statements they make in describing the process of globalisation. To some of those
advocates globalisation is not a historical development caused by the elimination of time and space barriers separating different countries, economics and cultures. Rather, it is a political and economic goal to be
realised through deliberate and well planned actions. It is a prescription and not simply a description of an ongoing process.
- As to the methodology of addressing the phenomenon of globalisation, I find it both necessary and useful to note that at the end of the second
millennium we are witnessing several developments that may be easily confused with one another and should be clearly identified and distinguished:
- We are witnessing the end of socialist economic theory and practice and the almost unanimous shifting to the opposite philosophical and
economic policies of a free market and a free economy. Such a new economic policy would call for the removal of all trade barriers and the lifting of all economic protectionist measures, all of which lead to
some sort of economic globalisation.
- We are also witnessing the end of the old international political order which prevailed since the mid-forties and which was characterised by
the bipolar system where a certain balance prevailed as a result of the rivalry and competition between a Western bloc led by the USA on the one hand, and an Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union on the
other. The present system characterised by the unprecedented dominance of one super- power would create the impression that the international order has been unified under the undisputed leadership of such a
super power, a situation which may be identified as globalisation.
- We are also witnessing the unprecedented growth of scores of multinational corporations operating across the borders of different states and
exercising influence and power in both the economic and political life of millions of people far greater that the powers of any state or government. Such multinational entities have a clear economic interest
in enlarging the potential market for the products and services they provide, which in turn would naturally lead to some sort of economic globalisation.
It therefore becomes necessary in monitoring the present trend towards more globalisation to identify precisely the source and nature of the monitored
phenomenon and to determine whether it is a corollary to the prevalence of the capitalist economic system, a by-product of the political monopoly of one superpower, or a situation created and enhanced by the efforts
of the giant multinational corporations.
Finally, for the sake of methodological correctness and precision we need to differentiate the writings and analysis of those who conceive of
globalisation as a description of the new state of affairs created by certain objective developments, and the writings of those who conceive of globalisation as a prescription for progress and development. For the
latter, globalisation is a concept that justifies all the pushing to which most developing countries have been subjected by politicians and economists of the more developed countries and by most of the international
economic and financial organisations. Then we would be facing an ideological campaign of promoting and marketing a new brand of economic and social life, a campaign that should make us more cautious and reserved in
accepting many of the assumptions and conclusions presented by the proponents of this new economic and political ideology which is characterised by many thinkers and writers as a new phase of capitalism.
Globalisation, Ethics and the Role of Religion
Moving now to the central theme of this paper, I simply refer to the fact that it is a historical fact that every political and economic system has
generated a code of ethics that has served as a moral infrastructure for political and economic life. When the tribe was the prevailing politico-economic unit, the code of ethics was tribal in origin and scope. It
was constituted of certain customs and traditions serving the vested interests of the tribe and reflecting the primitive structure of authority within such a tribe. When the nation state emerged as a more complex
and a larger political entity, each state developed its own code of ethics typified by a particular set of norms that served as the 'Grundnorm' at the top of a national normative regulatory order. Such sets of norms
were given the name of 'public order or policy and good morality' (ordre publique et bon mœurs).
Ethics during this stage were therefore national in their scope. With the gradual breakdown of barriers between states, a new legal and moral problem
emerged, namely the problem of the relationship between national or domestic public policy and what became known as 'international public policy'.
With the recent accelerated pace of globalisation and the almost total collapse of barriers that has been brought about by successive scientific and
technological revolutions in the fields of transport and communications, the question again arises as to the need for global ethics for a speedily globalising world.
The process of globalising ethics is, however, much more delicate and much more complex than the process of globalising the economy and the trade
market. It is precisely in this domain that I need to caution against two concepts of cultural globalisation. The point of departure for any meaningful globalisation in the world of culture is to recognise the
particularities of the existing national cultures. This recognition is simply a recognition of plurality in the field of beliefs, ethics and cultural value. Any process of globalisation that fails to recognise the
diversity and particularity of different cultures, or tries to eliminate all elements and manifestations of such particularity, is in reality a process of cultural imposition. The ongoing attempts to universalise
all the particular elements of the Western civilisation, particularly in its American version, is the most striking example of this pseudo-globalisation. Another example is the call for every nation to give up its
own culture and to join hands with other nations that followed the same path of cultural abdication and resignation in a futile attempt to create a completely new world culture. This second example cannot be taken
seriously since it is, in essence, a call for effacing the cultural history and heritage of Mankind. It certainly deprives the march of mankind from the cultural wealth acquired and developed through the centuries.
The only legitimate and meaningful formula for cultural globalisation is the one that is based, as previously stated, on full recognition of cultural diversity. It can be achieved through a genuine search for those
elements and principles that are common to different cultures and are shared by members of those cultures. It is the preservation of the particularities of each culture that makes for the richness of human culture.
It is the consensus over the common elements shared by all that creates a new positive togetherness in the face of new common dangers and challenges.
Focusing on the role of religions in the process of cultural globalisation, I contend that throughout the different stages of cultural development,
religion played a major role, if not the major role, in generating codes of ethics and values underlying different economic, political and social ways of life. It is also a matter of record that the extremely
accelerated pace of change in modern times had generated several negative side effects. Foremost among such side effects are the spread of violence, wars, genocide, national and international terrorism, destruction
of the environment, the spread of new diseases and the crises of family and neighbourhood ties. Awareness of these negative side effects has resulted in the triggering of a new wave of religiosity as a defence
mechanism against the trauma caused by materialism, egocentrism and consumerism. Religion, therefore, is invited to play a major role in fostering a human value system fitting the nature and the needs of the
globalising world.
It is my contention, however, that for such role to be effective and conducive to a new togetherness, two preconditions have to be met:
- We, the followers of different religions, must join hands and maximise our efforts towards putting an immediate end to the clash of missionaries,
who are directing most of their energy towards converting other people to their own religion. We recognise that missionary activity is an integral part of every religion that has a claim to universality. This is
particularly true of Islam and Christianity, and it may help explain certain confrontational episodes in the history of the two great religions. It is rather to get Muslims to become better Muslims, and to get
Christians to become better Christians. The challenge of our time is a challenge facing all religions and religious people alike. The need in our times is for discovering the common values and principles shared
by all religions without compromising the particularities of each religion. No follower of a religion is requested to convert or to give up his firm attachment to his religion.
- The second and even more important requirement is to adjust the 'language' and 'approach' to society and its contemporary problems by the
different religious leaders, Since I do not claim fair knowledge of religions other than the three Abrahamic ones, I will limit my analysis, in this respect, to Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
- I have no intention of discussing any aspect of the theology of Judaism. This is irrelevant to the present discussion and I am not qualified
to engage in any such discussion. My only comment goes to the analysis of what I consider to be the future of Jewish contribution to the contemplated joint effort of religious people in reaching a consensus
on certain basic ethical principles to serve as a moral foundation for humanity during the coming years under globalisation.
It is my judgement that the close relationship in the hearts and minds of
Jews between Jewishness as a relationship between the individual and his religion, and Jewishness as a relationship between an individual and his nation, has marked and influenced the relationship between
Jews and the followers of other religions. This close relationship resulted in a certain 'encapsulation' and a psychological reciprocal alienation of Jews and gentiles. For reasons whose analysis goes beyond
the scope of this paper, the history of Jews during the last two centuries was marked by three factors:
i. life in the Ghetto,
ii. insecurity and subjection to mistreatment and persecution, and
iii. the tragedy and trauma of the Holocaust.
The advent of Zionism as a political ideology made things
more complex and caused many people to confuse the issues. It has resulted in creating a guilt feeling towards the victims of Jewish persecution, a vague feeling that went far beyond the real victims, but it
also created a psychological distance between Jews and other people in spite of the shared social, economic and political life that brought Jewish minorities to mix freely with non-Jewish populations.
It is high time for Jewish religious leaders to realise that we are all entering the third millennium together. No Jew is forced anymore, anywhere, to be isolated in a Ghetto. Jews have become as secure as
any other nation or minority of people. The Holocaust is a sad memory and a nightmare that will never be repeated. It is, therefore, high time to come out of any self-imposed isolation and to guarantee
security through an irreversible move of mixing with the rest of the world and through joining hands with Muslim and Christian religious leaders in the common search for human dignity, peace and a humane
code of ethical behaviour in economic, social and political life.
- The challenges facing Christian religious leaders is, in my view, of a different kind. It relates to the well-established doctrine of
separating the Church from the State. We are all well aware of the historical context within which that doctrine was created as a practical modus vivendi between two conflicting institutions and entities, namely, the Church and the State.
Under secularism, the high wall of separation became a wall separating Christianity from society, a separation that may lead, most unfortunately, to the marginalisation of the role of Christianity in
shaping the contemplated code of ethics for the globalising world.
I believe that the doctrine separation needs to be re-examined and re-defined and that the respective roles of reason on the one
hand, and of revelation on the other, need also to be re-defined so that Christianity may play a more meaningful and effective role in humanising individual and collective behaviour in an age of consumerism,
savage competition and an absolute hunger for material success.
- The challenge to Muslim religious leaders is even greater, since certain events that have taken place during the last four or five decades
have resulted in creating a tarnished and distorted image of Muslims and Islam. The much spoken about phenomenon of religious fanaticism and extremism usually given the name of fundamentalism has made many
well-intentioned people in the West entertain the belief that Islam is an obstacle hindering any joint action with the rest of the world, and that it is the antithesis of modernity, freedom, peace and the
respect for human rights. Without going into the details of this most unfortunate development, and aside from the question as to whom to blame for its occurrence, Muslim leaders and thinkers are requested to
revisit the following issues and to express their stand on them in the most unequivocal language:
- Do they contemplate the creation of theocratic governments and grant the religious leaders (the clergy) a legitimate claim to political
authority, or do they share the prevailing political philosophy of democracy where the consent of the people is the only source of legitimacy of political authority? On my part, and on the basis of
thorough and scientific analysis of the terms of reference of Islam, I belong to the school of thought prevailing in the Muslim world that Islam favours the establishment of democratic government based
on the consent and participation of the people, and limited in its exercise of authority by a pre-existing rule of law.
- What is the Muslim's view of 'the other', and how do they determine the rights of non-Muslims minorities living in Muslim countries? Once
more, a thorough and objective analysis of the terms of reference for Islam and Islamic law leads, without a shadow of doubt, to the conclusion that the others are recognised and respected and should
enjoy equal status and equal treatment under any truly Muslim government. It is to be noted that the Arabic word 'Dhimmi",which refers to non-Muslims under Muslim political rule, is a simple
reference to the legal instrument by which non-Muslims acquire their legal status in the Muslim State. The content and substance of such status is one of equality in personal, civil and political rights.
Any violation of such equality would be a violation of Islamic law itself.
Such a historical legal instrument has been superseded and replaced by modern constitutions stipulating for the equality
under the law of all citizens, regardless of their religion, race or sex.
- What is the position of women in a Muslim state?
The answer to this important question is twofold. First of all, one has to
recognise the discrepancy that is bound to rise in every human society between the professed theories and principles on the one hand, and the actual behaviour and practice of people on the other hand.
Muslim societies are no exception to the occurrence of such discrepancies. There are certain Muslim societies and communities where much remains to be desired in improving the status of women in society.
It is equally true that sometimes religious principles are misused and misinterpreted in order to legitimise unfair treatment of women. The essence of the problem, however, remains to be related to
ignorance, underdevelopment and lack of social awareness, all of which are common to most underdeveloped countries. At a conceptual level and in accordance with explicit Islamic law, women 'are but the
equals of men'. Both the Quran, the Holy Book of Islam, and the Sunna, the second source of Islamic law, guarantee women the right to education and the right to employment. Women's rights in the family, and particularly vis-à-vistheir
husbands are legal rights enforceable by positive law enacted in almost all Muslim countries.
Muslim women, however, continue to need more diligence and activism in their efforts to bring about
truly egalitarian Islamic solutions to the many problems still faced by many Muslim women.
- Last, but not least, Muslim thinkers and religious leaders have to realise and recognise the fact that contributions to the guidance of a
globalising world is not and cannot be the monopoly of any single people. Genuine acceptance in pluralism requires a similar genuine belief that everybody is invited to join hands in a truly joint effort
based on genuine agreement, and a consensus on certain basic principles of conduct, conducive to the creation of a more peaceful, more just and less materialist world order.
top
|
