In his studies, (1993, 1996) Huntington suggests alternative explanations to understanding conflicts and disputes in the post-Cold War period. To him, “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War” (Huntington 1996, 20).

The purpose of this paper is to test Huntington’s argument (1996) by addressing the following question: “Does a civilizational difference cause militarized interstate dispute?” The significance of the answer to this question is obvious: if Huntington’s claim is empirically supported, then dominant theories of international politics, which do not base conflicts on civilizational differences, have to be revised. And, therefore, Huntington’s theory will be useful in understanding the emerging world-order and explaining militarized disputes and conflicts that have occurred in the post-Cold War era.

Literature review

There were many responses and objections to Huntington’s argument that resulted in an extensive debate. Many of them claimed that the civilization theory is unable to explain the causes of conflicts and international order. In spite of the great number of responses and studies, few of these have been supported by quantitative research.

One of the important studies that evaluated Huntington’s argument and which deserves close attention was conducted by Russett, Oneal, and Cox in 2000 (in Triangulating Peace 2001, 239-305). The main question to be answered was “Does a difference in civilization increase the likelihood that a pair of states will become involved in a militarized interstate dispute?” (Russett et al 2001, 248). To perform their study, they used the University of Michigan’s Correlates of War (COW) database that provided Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). In their view, limiting their analysis to MID that occurred during the 1950-92 period was appropriate, because “Huntington addressed events in these years when he first presented his argument in 1993” (249). Variables of liberal and realist theories were also added to their analysis in order to observe which theory had had higher explanatory and predictive power. Results of logistic regression indicated that variables of liberal and realist theories had much more influence on the probability of conflict than on civilization theory. Belonging to different civilizations increases the risk of dispute between two states only by 12 percent with .30 level of statistical significance. (255).

Huntington (2000, 609) replied to Russett et al, suggesting that they retest their argument as it was dealing with the post-Cold War period. Russett et al (2000, 611), in turn, argued that Huntington (1993) had used many disputes and conflicts that had not occurred in the post-Cold War era to justify and support his argument. That was the reason why they used MID of the 1950-92 period.

Another study to test Huntington’s argument was conducted by Jonathan Fox in 2001. He tried to examine whether conflicts between civilizations, particularly Western and Islamic conflicts, had increased with the end of the Cold War (Fox 2001, 459). He used the Minorities at Risk (MAR) dataset for his quantitative research and came up with interesting results. From a global perspective, the ratio of non-civilizational conflicts to civilizational conflicts had not changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. From an Islamic civilization perspective, there had been little change in the amount of conflicts among Islamic and other civilizations. However, from the perspective of Western civilizations, the proportion of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations had significantly increased since the end of the Cold War. Fox concludes that the findings illustrate that it is important which perspective one looks at conflicts from. If one looks from the Western perspective, they will find an increased amount of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations, which supports Huntington’s argument. But from the global and Islamic civilization perspective, little evidence can be found for a “clash of civilizations” in the post-Cold War period (459).

Although Fox’s study deserves attention, it does not examine conflicts among the other seven civilizations, but only focuses on the Western versus Islamic civilizations. Furthermore, his units of analysis are conflicts within states, not interstate. Interstate disputes are important in analyzing Huntington’s argument, because a nation as a whole has specific civilizational characteristics. According to Huntington’s map (1996, 26-27) of civilizations, each nation belongs to one of the nine civilizations and conflicts mostly arise among these. Conflicts that occur within states are only one minor part of Huntington’s argument.

Many other scholars have qualitatively criticized Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory. Ali Mazrui (1997) finds three major problems in Huntington’s argument. First, there is a “factual fallacy.” “It may not be factually true that the main lines of conflict of the future, following the Cold War, will be lines of clash of civilizations. It could be states or economic blocs” (Mazrui in Rashid 97, 27). Second, there could also be a “conceptual fallacy” in Huntington’s argument. Mazrui suggests a “clash of races” as an alternative to the clash of civilizations (27). Thirdly, there is a “temporal fallacy,” which means that inter-civilizational conflicts are not phenomena of the emerging world, but rather that they have been the most important issue of the world for at least the past four to five hundred years; within these conflicts we can include the Crusades, the “trans-Atlantic slave-trade, and European colonization of much of the world” (29).

In response to his critics (Foreign Affairs 1996, 67), Huntington stated that none of these scholars had come up with a better alternative to explain the conflicts of the new era. To him, the clash of civilizations remains the most powerful theory to understand disputes in the post-Cold War period.

In this context, this paper is of a crucial importance because 1) it will focus on militarized disputes of the post-Cold War period; 2) the disputes are among the states and civilizations they belong to; 3) and the study will conduct a quantitative method to analyze the clash of civilizations. Thus, this paper takes into account the weaknesses of previous studies and establishes a strong critique to Huntington’s argument.

Research design

This analysis uses the Correlates of War (COW) project’s Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). The COW provides MID starting from 1816 to 2001. As Huntington (2000, 609) claims, the clash of civilizations theory is helpful in understanding conflicts that occurred after the end of the Cold War, specifically after 1989 (Huntington 1996, 21; Huntington 2000, 609). The COW project had MID reaching up to 2001, so I chose those MID which occurred from 1989 to 2001. Although the number of disputes in this period seems to be small to test any theory, it should be quite enough to evaluate Huntington’s argument, as post-Cold War disputes were the basis of his theory. I had 620 militarized interstate disputes in total. Each dispute occurred between at least two states; one state in side A, and another on side B. The sides are coded as 0 and 1. I had information on which pair of states had disputes. Some disputes had more than two sides. I rearranged these coalitions as if they had disputes separately as dyads. For instance, if there were two states on side A and two states on side B in a dispute, than there would be four dyads involved in the same dispute.

States in these disputes belong to one of the nine civilizations, which are Western, coded as 1, Latin American (2), African (3), Islamic (4), Sinic (5), Hindu (6), Orthodox (7), Buddhist (8), and Japanese (9). Huntington (1993, 1996) does not explicitly specify the number of civilizations. In his article (1993) he mentions about “seven or eight major civilizations.” To him, Buddhism “has not been the basis of a major civilization.” (Huntington 1996, 48). Also Japan has not founded any civilization as there are no nations that share the same religion, language, or cultural values with Japanese culture. However, map 1.3 (The World of Civilizations: Post-1990) in his book (1996, 26-27) shows that there are nine civilizations in the world, including Buddhist and Japanese. I used nine civilizations as shown in the map. Russett et al (2001, 251) used eight, excluding Japanese. I wonder how they dealt with disputes that had Japan on one of the sides.

Having nine coded civilizations and many more states in the dataset, I coded all states as any of the nine civilizations they belonged to, according to map 1.3. (Huntington 1996, 26-27). I had difficulties, as did Russett et al (2001, 251), in classifying some states, because the map was not clear and Huntington did not explicitly mention them in the text. For example Nigeria, according to the map is separated into two civilizations, Islamic and African. Since religion is the most important factor that distinguishes each civilization, I have used the CIA’s World Factbook to find out the proportion of religion in Nigeria, and classified it as Islamic. India is shown as a state of both Islamic and Hindu civilizations, but I have classified it as Hindu. Sri Lanka was classified as Buddhist in relevance with Russett et al (2001). The Philippines, in my classification, go into Sinic civilization, but Russett et al (2001) classify it as Western. The most interesting problem that occurred in classification was to which civilization Israel belongs. The question is significant, as Israel has had many disputes with its neighboring states. Huntington thinks Israel is an Islamic civilization according to the map. It is ironic that Israel is considered as an Islamic civilization, first because it has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, and second because such an approach decreases empirical support for Huntington’s argument. Although it does not make sense, I classified Israel as Islamic, strictly adhering to the map.

To answer my research question I had to use civilization dyads and observe if these dyads are prone to clash or not and how frequently they have disputes. Thus, I arranged these nine civilizations in dyadic form and came up with 45 civilization dyads, extracting each one of the same dyads as 1,2 v. 2,1. A dyad is labeled 0 if the civilizations in it are the same and 1 if the civilizations are different. After arranging civilization dyads, I plugged each dispute into one of the dyads and totaled it in regard to the 45 civilization dyads. Then I arranged the number of disputes in each dyad according to the proportion to the total number of disputes.

Huntington’s main hypothesis is that civilizations have mattered and have had positive impact on disputes in the post-Cold War period. I have my doubts about his argument and hypothesize that civilizations do not matter in interstate.

Data analysis

After running my Probit model, I have found that difference in civilizations had negative impact on interstate disputes with relatively small statistical significance (10). The findings of this paper contradict what Huntington (1993, 1996) suggests as his explanation for the causes of interstate disputes in the post-Cold War era. In other words, civilization differences do not cause interstate conflicts.

There have been a total of 620 militarized interstate disputes during the 1989-2001 period, according to the COW dataset (see Table 1). Some of civilization dyads did not have any disputes, whereas other dyads conflicted several times. Huntington’s argument that different civilizations clash does not find support with the results of this study. We can see from Table 1 that 19 dyads that consist of different civilizations have not had any militarized dispute since the end the Cold War. How can Huntington explain this phenomenon on the basis of his clash of civilizations argument? Can interstate disputes be explained by civilizational differences? The answers to these questions are obviously negative. Different variables of realist and liberal theories may explain the findings, but that is not within the scope of this study.

Limitations

One of the important limitations is the absence of a clear list of civilizations and states in these civilizations. If Huntington had provided these data then there would be no dissimilarities among the scholars who tried to test his argument. Some studies used eight civilizations while others used nine. Some states, like Israel and the Philippines were placed in different civilizations in different studies. This may influence the results of these studies, as these states have had many militarized disputes.

Conclusion

This study shows that Huntington’s argument is insufficient to explain conflicts in the new world order. As he argues, “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War” (Huntington 1996, 20). However, he did not carry out a quantitative analysis of the argument. He provided only case studies and offered qualitative analysis as support. Many studies, including this one, have been conducted in response to his clash of civilizations argument, with the conflicts of the post-Cold War period being analyzed quantitatively. None of these studies has found evidence to support Huntington’s argument. The finding of this study illustrates that a difference in civilization is not sufficient on its own to understand what causes conflicts these days nor does it have a positive impact on militarized disputes.

References

• Foreign Affairs. 1996. Samuel P. Huntington’s the Clash of Civilizations? The Debate. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
• Fox, Jonathan. 2001. Two Civilizations and Ethnic Conflict: Islam and the West. Journal of Peace Research 38(4): 459-472.
• Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72(3): 22-49
• If Not Civilizations, What? Foreign Affairs 72(4): 186-94, 1993.
• The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1996.
• Try Again: A Reply to Russett, Oneal & Cox. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 609-610, 2000.
• Rashid, Salim. 1997. The Clash of Civilizations? Asian Responses. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Russett, Bruce M. and John R. Oneal. 2000. A Response to Huntington. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 611-612.
• Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Inter dependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.

The Madina Charter is a constitution that essentially established the Madina city-state. The Charter was the first written constitution in Islam and arguably the first constitutional law in society. Before Prophet Muhammad’s arrival from Makka, Yathrib (later known as Madina) had a population of 10,000 that was organized into approximately 22 tribes. Approximately half the population was Jewish and half was Arab. Regardless of religion, tribes sought power through military dominance over other tribes, with the numerous alliances forged between warring tribes greatly contributing to the aggression. Constant warfare was taking a toll on the tribes. While some sought external military assistance for the conflicts, many were making preparations for the enthronement of a leader from one of the tribes. However, it was unclear whether each tribe would acquiesce to the leadership of a single leader from one of the tribes and if such a leader would be able to establish political organization, create military defense for the city, reconcile tribal hostilities, and define local rights and obligations as well as address the issues of the growing immigrant refugee population from Makka.

God’s Messenger was requested by the tribes in Yathrib to act as a third-party mediator to try and help resolve the on-going conflict between them. He had a reputation for being an able mediator as he had helped to resolve conflicts in Makka and was able to fill the leadership void that existed in the area. It was also common practice of Arabs at that time to refer their conflict to outsiders, and the Prophet had already been given the title, “The Trustworthy” by the residents of Makka. Finally, while drafting the Charter, he consulted the leaders of each tribe, thereby demonstrating his willingness to listen to the needs of all tribes.

The methods God’s Messsenger made use of in the creation of the Charter are similar to trends that have emerged in modern conflict resolution techniques. These methods provide an important source for understanding the concepts of mediation and conflict resolution in Islam, and subsequently, can also offer effective means with which to approach dialogue with and within Islamic societies and among non-Islamic societies.

The Charter, which was the first declaration of the area of Madina as a city-state, established rules of government and addressed specific social issues of the community in an attempt to put to an end the chaos and conflict that had been plaguing the region for generations. The Charter outlined the rights and duties of its citizens, provided collective protection for all citizens of Madina, including Muslims and non-Muslims, and provided the first means of seeking justice through the law and community instead of via tribal military actions.

The Madina Charter, which contains 47 sections in total, addresses the power structures that contributed to the conflict in Yathrib. The Charter expressly identified the parties involved in the conflict; the first 23 sections of the Charter address the Muslim immigrants from Makka and the Muslims of Yathrib, while the second half of the document is directed towards the Jews of the community. Prophet Muhammad also identified immediate physical issues in Yathrib. In the second section, the people of Yathrib are defined as one community to the exclusion of all others. Prior to this proclamation, the boundaries of Yathrib were indistinct, each tribe occupying a certain territory, with the whole of the tribal territories in the area not being considered as one, united city. Once Yathrib was established as an integrated community, The Prophet addressed issues of community justice and protection. The Charter established the course of law for Yathrib. The right to seek justice was shifted from individuals to the central community. The Prophet’s arrangements for community justice and protection encouraged collective responsibility. The Madina Charter was also the first acknowledgement of religious divisions within the Yathrib tribal system. Though he did little to change the organization of inter-religious tribes, the Prophet called upon the deeply instilled values of Islam and Judaism to fortify the agreement. These stipulations enabled the participants of the agreement to look once again beyond tribal alliances, thus making tribal lines indistinct.

Along these same lines, the Charter focused on relationships rather than group dynamics: the Madina Charter eliminated tribal hostilities by realigning residents, shifting the focus from militaristic rivals to allied religious followers. In the event of religious dispute, the document continued to decree that the participants of the agreement must act in good faith with one another Finally, interaction goals, including specific desires to maintain one’s sense of self-identity, were left intact by shifting the alliance from tribes (which were hostile) to religion, enabling participants to abandon tribal hostility without loss of face.

Before the Charter, Yathrib was a community of constant tension between independent, hostile tribes. The Prophet addressed these power struggles by establishing common goals that would serve the whole community. The Charter specifically advises mutual influence with the declaration that the Muslims and Jews “must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery.” The Charter binds the parties of the agreement to helping one another against any attack on Yathrib. It dictates behavior for a specific instance of mutual influence. If the Jews “are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out.” Also, reference to a higher authority was repeated in both sections. The Charter also explicitly pronounces that future disputes “must be referred to God and to Prophet Muhammad.” The participants had placed a power that was external to their group that they would be able to draw upon in the event of their own power being or seeming insufficient. The power of the agreement was uniquely balanced due to its direction towards God. The Madina Charter addressed potential power complications by focusing the participants on their interdependence. The Madina Charter prohibited independent contention by participant groups that claim God’s protection, and states that the peace of believers is as one. Once again, the idea of being one community was emphasized and the participants of the agreement were made to recognize their power as a unit.

The solutions presented in the Madina Charter can be applied to questions concerning dialogue and conflict of today’s world: the Charter was created to address problems present in and created by a pluralistic society, the main characteristic of today’s globalized system. The constitution of the Charter created a federal-type structure with an authority that was centralized in matters of state security, yet provided the tribes a certain level of autonomy in social and religious issues. Prophet Muhammad only made final decisions in cases where tribes could not resolve disputes between themselves, and these decisions were based on the laws laid out by the Charter. The Madina city-state, while granting every citizen equal rights, protection against oppression, and a voice in the government, declared itself a brotherhood of believers, extending financial help to its citizens. Laws were also enacted to punish criminals, such as prohibiting help being given to a murderer. Finally, as prescribed in the teaching of the Qur’an, freedom of religion was guaranteed for each member of the community.

For a peaceful world, individuals must live within the boundaries of the lawfully created universe. In this modern age of science and technology, the Madina Charter could be a source for answers to questions about how to live together and how to solve and prevent conflicts between groups based on differences in culture and belief. The Madina Charter represents the principles of law and good and right reason, which is higher than any individual man. On the charter, God’s name comes first, as God represents the highest good and the highest principle of right reason. Thus, the Madina Charter can be a good model of ways to create and sustain dialogue in a pluralistic society, and of ways to build and conduct political and social relationships among different groups.

“No one yet realized the wealth of sympathy, the kindness and generosity hidden in the soul of a child. The effort of every true education should be to unlock that treasure” – Emma Goldman

For centuries there has been much isolation (of various sorts) and years of conflict that have placed a wall between peoples, cultures, countries, and religions; this is because some people have been taught to hate each other. Poverty, religious fanaticism, and war have taught people all over the world to hate one another.

Despite the increased opportunities for dialogue today, the community of nations is also faced with serious economic, social, and cultural difficulties; the inequality between nations is growing, and many conflicts and serious tensions threaten peace and security. Just by looking at recent events, we can see that the world has witnessed a number of brutal wars and conflicts in the twentieth century alone. Bosnia is one of the examples of wars where ethnic cleansing and numerous ethnic and ideological conflicts have left a deep traumatic scar on the collective memories of the nations in the region. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is another conflict that is just as painful.

The crises in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Karabag, and many other parts of the world can be added to this painful list. The purpose of this article is to find some possible answers to the following questions: Why do people not solve their problems through dialogue? What prevents them from doing this? Or in other words, who or what is to blame?

My immediate answer to all these questions is just one word: education. But the meaning of that word is not as simple as it seems. It can be defined in different ways, such as the following: Education is an organizational substructure that prepares individuals in order that they will eventually become useful for:

• The ongoing operation of their current social structure;

• The preservation and continuation of such a social structure in following generations. Or;

Education is a substructure that prepares new generations so they can eventually improve on current organizational structures (into which they have been thrown) by:

• Introducing mechanisms to smoothly implement improvements;

• Sustaining those mechanisms with improvements;

• Trying to preserve the stability of the social structure.

Once the question becomes “what is the purpose of education?” it becomes more complex:

“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past, and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” – Ayn Rand

“The central task of education is to implant a will and facility for learning; it should produce not learned, but learning people. The truly human society is a learning society, where grandparents, parents, and children are students together.” – Eric Hoffer

“The central job of schools is to maximize the capacity of each student.” – Carol Ann Tomlinson

“The one real object of education is to leave a man in the condition of continually asking questions.” – Bishop Creighton

“The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think-rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with the thoughts of other men.” – Bill Beattie

As understood from the above quotations, it is not easy to find a single definition of what education is. Therefore, education has a twofold role to play in the questions asked above concerning “Education for dialogue” or “Education for hate.” In fact, the duality of the role of education emanates from the people, the educators, who use it for whatever their purpose is. This purpose can vary, being political, national, religious, antireligious, etc…. Thus, we arrive at the issue of preparing people as “good educators.”

All in all, education is the key to solving the greatest dilemmas of humanity. Investment in human resources represents the best hope for achieving growth in several areas, such as economic, social, and cultural, without forsaking the goals of the alleviation of poverty, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. Achieving global sustainability will depend upon the contributions of young generations with the knowledge, training, and social commitment needed to create real change.

In the new millennium almost every region of the world will face tremendous challenges. The insistent pressures of globalization imply a new world order in which the only constant will be change. It seems that education will be one of the essential foundations of both a culture of peace and dialogue among civilizations. Education advocates the respect of universal values common to all civilizations (solidarity, tolerance, recognition of human rights, fundamental freedom for all, etc.). Education is also ideally suited to the transmission of national and universal cultural values and should foster the assimilation of scientific and technological knowledge without detriment being made to the capacities and values of the people.

These views reflect a shallow understanding of faith and religion as well as the reality of the scientific enterprise. In this article we argue that there are varying degrees of certainty in each piece of scientific and religious knowledge. One can thus imagine two fields of certainty where established knowledge is at the center and the less certain pieces of knowledge form field-like circles around a center. We further argue that this perspective can serve as a unifying paradigm for science and religion.

Science and Religion as Disciplines of Different Realms

The superficial understanding of science and religion as disciplines of different realms asserts that religion concerns the relationship of humanity with the divine and considers human relation-ships on this basis. Religion primarily relies on sacred scriptures and subjective experiences as sources of knowledge. Religious assertions tend to be absolute and they do not accept questioning. The main underlying assumption of religion is the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent Being referred to as God. Science, on the other hand, deals primarily with observable and measurable phenomena. Thus, its main domain is the domain of physical objects. It accepts systematic and objective observations or experimental findings, and inferences on these as sources of knowledge. Scientific assertions appear as theoretical models that attempt to provide objective descriptions of the physical world and predictions of natural phenomena. Science is ambivalent to the existence of a supernatural Being. The underlying assumption of science is that the physical world is governed by universal laws, regardless of the source. This perspective can be summarized in a table:

Based on this superficial understanding of religion and science, we can expect two disjoint spheres of interest that would not have much to do with each other, as illustrated in the figure above.

In this view, science and religion occupy different realms. This view gives complete sovereignty over the non-human domain to science. It leaves the unobservable phenomena to religion, with the condition that it might be claimed by science at any time. The current state of the relationship, however, refutes this simplistic perspective. Both science and religion make assertions that supposedly belong to the other and we perceive conflicts. Examples of perceived conflicts include the following:

– Spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.

– Sun-centric vs. Earth-centric cosmology or astronomy.

– Old universe or Earth vs. young universe or Earth.

– Evolution vs. the miraculous creation of animals and humans.

– A world-wide flood.

– …

We can illustrate the perceived conflict in figure two.

Both the simplistic views of science and religion, as well as their perceived conflicts, are due to shallow understandings of scientific and religious knowledge. Let us first examine the idealized scientific process as the source of the scientific knowledge. The idealized view of the scientific process as taught at many schools is illustrated in the figure below: In this view, the process starts when the scientist makes an observation or becomes aware of a phenomenon that they can not explain with their current knowledge. They first define the problem clearly and hypothesize about potential explanations. They then design experiments to test this hypothesis. They conduct those experiments and make observations. An analysis of these observations may produce one of two outcomes: Either the proposed explanation is valid or invalid. If the proposed explanation is found to be invalid totally or partially, it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation is started. If at one point the hypothesis is validated, then the results are communicated to the scientific community. Other scientists repeat the same or similar experiments with the same goal: Validating the hypothesis. If other scientists also reach the same conclusions then the hypothesis gains certainty and may eventually be viewed as an established theory. An important yardstick for the formation of a new theory is its predictive power. When the theory is young, it is used to make predictions. When these predictions turn out to be accurate then the theory establishes itself. Otherwise it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation starts.

While the idealized process of scientific research appeals as an objective means of building knowledge, it suffers from some important weaknesses: The first one is that real scientists rarely follow this idealized procedure. Even when they do, many human factors, such as prejudices and non-scientific concerns, for example, material gain and reputation may interfere with the objective interpretation of the results. A third, and possibly the most important limitation, is that many subjects are infeasible or impossible to study under idealized conditions. Consider the theory of evolution for instance. It is impossible to re-create the conditions on the Earth at the time when life first appeared on its surface. It is impossible to observe generation after generation of creatures and to observe whether evolution really took place. What we can do instead is to examine the available fossil record, the Earth’s surface and make logical inferences. But as we move away from the systematic and repeatable observation or controlled experiments, our confidence in our knowledge decreases. Hence we witness a plethora of perspectives and explanations, even among believers of the Darwinian evolution, of what really took place. Generalizing from this example, we can see that the various pieces of so-called “scientific” knowledge are not at the same level in terms of their certainty. Instead, they form a field of certainty, like circles around a center, where the most certain pieces of knowledge are located. Moving away from the center, the amount of control over experimental conditions and the repeat-ability of observations decrease as does confidence in the knowledge. The following figure illustrates this concept of certainty fields for scientific knowledge.

The confidence field phenomenon is not limited to scientific knowledge. Revelation forms the basis of religious knowledge, but revelation is conveyed to humanity via messengers, their scriptures, their inspirations, their words, and conduct. While the revelation itself is not subject to uncertainty, the human factor introduces uncertainty mainly in three mechanisms:

1. The deterioration or intentional manipulation of certain religious sources.

2. Human misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain divine statements.

3. Confusion of human interpretation with the literal revelation or prophetic tradition.

Upon considering the certainty fields of science and religion we can look back at the perceived conflict between them. Now we realize that the perceived conflicts lie at those places where either the scientific or the religious knowledge, or both, are not completely certain in their assertions. When we enumerate all of the perceived conflicts and examine them carefully, we can attribute each one to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

Let’s take the example of the theory of evolution again as a popular and contemporary matter. On the science side we see that many of the assertions of the theory carry a high degree of uncertainty. We are definitely not at the center of the certainty field of scientific knowledge. On the religious side, the clear assertion is that God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth, as well as its inhabitants. The way by which God has chosen to create, however, is not as clear. We don’t know, for instance, whether God also works through a mechanism that includes evolutionary elements. Some believing scientists argue that God works through what they call “micro evolution” to adapt or eliminate certain species. Some evolutionists, on the other hand, refer to a concept of “lucky accidents” to explain certain aspects of evolutionary history that cannot be explained within the framework of blind chance and natural selection.

As another example we can consider the perceived conflicts in social sciences. Certain sociologists or psychologists make assertions that seem to contradict religious positions. Again on the science side, when the subjects of interest are humans, it is extremely difficult to control all the factors that are involved. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to have repeatable experiments. Since no human being is an exact replica of another and no society is exactly like another society, it is very hard to repeat any experiment in psychology or sociology. Finally, it is very hard to observe humans without affecting their behavior. Because of this and for similar reasons, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology can truly be classified as sciences. But these two disciplines are not alone in having difficulties in studying subject matters with the scientific method. A number of essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena that are hard to explore scientifically.

These examples demonstrate that each of the perceived conflicts of science and religion can be attributed to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

An interesting question that falls under the topic of science-religion is the view of science from a religious perspective. Islamic sources include an interesting view: The “two books of God paradigm.”

The Two Books of God Paradigm

According to Islamic sources, the universe and the revealed scriptures are the expressions of the same God in two different languages, the cosmic language and the human language. While the languages are different, the messages are the same.

According to this paradigm, essentially the same messages are expressed in different forms. The book in the human language sometimes comments on the book in the cosmic language and helps us understand it better. Let us give some examples of messages encoded in these two different languages:

The first message is the unity and omnipotence of the Creator of the Universe. The name and attributes of the Creator of the universe are the main theme of the Qur’an. Faithful scientists and science enthusiasts find this message clearly expressed in the cosmic language.

The second message is found the creation of the Earth and the cosmic objects in a way to provide for the human life on Earth. The Qur’an declares that Adam was created as God’s vicegerent on Earth and the Earth, together with its creatures were made subservient to him, subject to God’s commandments. Again, persons of faith see clear signs of this phenomenon on the Earth, as pointed out in numerous articles in this publication. Our subconscious tells us that the One who has provided us with so many bounties and gifts obviously expects appreciation and gratitude from us. Again, both books clearly point out this fact.

The third message is the display of God’s beautiful names in human beings. According to both Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief, humans were created from a single pair: Adam and Eve. They are thus brothers and sisters and nobody has a claim to superiority, except in virtue and piety. Furthermore, each human is like a mirror reflecting God’s beautiful names. In the perfect design of the human body and face we can observe the names The Most Beautiful and The All-Wise, among others. In the meeting of our various needs through wonderful sustenance, we can observe the names the All-Benevolent and the All-Compassionate.

How Religion and Science Might Benefit from One Another

The last dimension of the relationship between science and religion that we would like to discuss is how the study of one might benefit from the other. In his Twentieth Word (Second Station) Bediuzzaman Said Nursi lists many examples from the Qur’anic references to scientific advances like train, electricity, and states that miracles of the Prophets as well as historical events allude to future inventions and thus might inspire scientists to work in those directions. Thus, religious sources can provide direction and goals for scientific research. Another important problem in science is the question of ethics.

The scientific method itself is unable to produce its own ethical principles as it does not assume absolute truths to exist. Without an external reference, the scientific approach to the generation of ethical principles has to examine each of the plausible options and try them out. This, however, might have some serious consequences. In the process of trying out ethical principles many humans and animals might be hurt. Science, therefore, needs an external source of guidance in the definition and implementation of ethical scientific procedures.

Religious study can also benefit from science in two ways: The first way was alluded to by the “two books paradigm” above. By way of scientific investigation, a believer has the opportunity to appreciate the omnipotence and other beautiful names of God much better than an unbeliever person. Thus, the study of the universe helps increase and deepen our faith.

The second way science can benefit religious understanding is through encouraging common people to base their faith on stronger foundations. By acquiring skills of systematic observation, sound reasoning, and methods of inquiry, both religious scholars and lay people can enhance the strength of their faith and reduce superstition. Science and true religion, hand in hand, can work on eliminating blind faith and blind rejection.

Conclusion

We have touched upon several aspects of the relationship between science and religion. We began by questioning the simplistic views of science and religion and showed that they cannot be regarded as disciplines of totally different domains. We have provided a framework, called the “certainty fields,” which may help explain the perceived conflicts between science and religion. The “two books paradigm” was provided as an example of a paradigm where science and religion do not merely coexist, but also complement each other. Finally we have mentioned two ways whereby scientific and religious inquiry can benefit each other. The reader will no doubt appreciate the vastness of these topics and the need for further study. We have tried to provide pointers and resources for the interested readers. When understood properly and practiced harmoniously, science and religion can open doors to human achievement, spiritual as well as materi-al, that were unheard of in the past.

References

• Nursi, S., The Words, Kaynak, Izmir: 1997.
• Smith, H., Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions, Harper, San Fransisco: 1993.
• Shakir, M., The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 1999.

There are three kinds of ethnic conflict with two types of patterns. The three kinds of ethnic conflict are pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. The three kinds of conflict, it is believed, have emerged from different, clashing interests; these interests may be tangible or intangible. The resulting conflicts of interest follow certain patterns that are connected with society and the impact of certain politics. For example, these three types of conflict tie in closely with the level of industrialization a society has achieved. The first kind of ethnic conflict, pre-modern, is one that developed before industrialization. An important factor within this type of conflict is religion. Conflicts in Europe first occurred among denominations, and then between “clerical” and “secular” interests. Also, the concept of “social class” (upper, middle, and lower) was introduced during these times, which caused another basis for friction. The second kind of ethnic conflict is modern, which resulted from the establishment of an industrialized (capitalist) society. Although this type of conflict still involved conflicts between social classes, the conflicts were more in terms of labor and business. The third type of conflict, post-modern, came from a highly industrialized society and a well-educated middle class that also involved gender and environmental conflicts. Although there are three types of ethnic conflicts, the first two, pre-modern and modern, fit into today’s major conflicts. They are pre-modern in the sense that religious conflicts play a large part in today’s conflicts, as well as, class conflicts. Additionally, ethnic conflicts have a modern aspect due to the idea of the “nation-state.” The idea of a “nation-state,” and the strong feelings toward this term with hopes for independence and, perhaps, unity, tie in closely with these modern types of ethnic conflicts.

Among the kinds of conflicts mentioned above, are two patterns of ethnic conflict: international and intra-national. International conflicts are crosscutting conflicts that exist between international borders. This type of pattern includes possible conflicts between sovereign states. Usually, one state claims the role of advocate for an ethnic group within the borders of another state. Examples of international conflicts are many. Conflicts in Central and Eastern Europe are among the many examples of international conflicts. For example, conflicts between Turkey and Bulgaria, conflicts between Hungary and Romania concerning the Hungarian minority in Transylvania, and the conflicts between Albania and Serbia about the Albanian population are all examples of international conflicts.

On the other hand, intranational ethnic conflicts are between ethnic groups within existing borders. In this example, there is no international legal right of interference by another sovereign state that might be claiming the role of ethnic advocate. It is said that this pattern of ethnic conflict can be more jeopardizing in the sense that it can splinter a state into two or more states. An example of this is the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian ‘Dual Monarchy’ in 1918 that will be discussed. Moreover, cases of intranational conflicts in Eastern Europe are numerous. An example of this would be the two multi-ethnic federations, the former USSR and former Yugoslavia. Both had traditions of claiming leading roles: Russians in the case of the USSR and the Serbs in the case of Yugoslavia. Another example of intranational ethnic conflicts, the Czecho-Slovak Republic was based on a compromise between Czechs and Slovaks. The explosion of ethnic conflict within a border has seemed to be more evident when the political unit had been successfully claiming independence from the central institution; an example of this is the Serbian minority in Croatia. When looking back in history searching for a cause or resolution for conflicts, one can see a system that was used to reduce the likelihood of conflicts by the Ottoman Empire.

By the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire had conquered many nations. It first conquered its neighboring peoples, and then by the fourteenth century they had spread out to the Balkans. In 1453 Constantinople was conquered, in 1465 Bosnia and Herzegovina was annexed, and then they conquered almost all of Hungary and Transylvania. The Ottoman rulers, who were Muslim, controlled a wide variety of people for centuries and had a great impact on religion, political formations, and other aspects that controlled the lives of the people they had conquered. However, in 1453, Sultan Orhan introduced an innovative system, at the time, called the “millet system” or “nations system” (millet meaning a nation of people). The “nation system” allowed autonomy for non-Turk and non-Muslim groups. Back then, it was used in terms of a community or nation of people with a particular religion within the Ottoman Empire. This system gave rights to members of the “nation” to use their own languages, have their own religious, cultural and educational institutions, and have a leader who was responsible for all public affairs of the “nation”. At the beginning of this system there were four “nations”: Christian, Armenian, Jewish, and non-Ottoman Muslims. Within time, though, the system began to change. The Orthodox, Armenian, and Jewish “nations” were reorganized from 1862 to 1866. The patriarchs were elected by members of the community who were government assembling traders, or non-religious elements, began to handle secular matters. Also, new “nations” were developed by the nineteenth century. Romanian, Bulgarian, and Serbian “nations” were formed under separate churches and gradually grew into separate nations. The Greeks established their own Orthodox Church in Istanbul separate from the patriarch. Also, converted Muslim-Bosnians and Muslim- Albanians incorporated their new Islamic identities with their own ethnic identities. Another change was the organization of “national nations”, a national identity along with communal and religious identities. Along with this, missionaries of various denominations arrived who were seeking certain rights and protection. These missionaries received protection and rights from their own government, especially the Russian, French, and the British. Later, these countries supported their own people. For example, the French supported the (French) Catholics, the Russians supported the (Serb) Orthodox, and the British supported the (English) Protestants. However, when the Ottoman Empire began to weaken and especially when the French Revolution introduced national spirit and independence, everything changed radically. As I mentioned earlier, the “nation” system was innovative; some see it as a factor that most probably held the Empire together for such a long time, and reduced the likelihood of conflict. On the other hand, some people see this system in the sense that it eventually became a base for the national consciousness of various ethnic groups. Either way, the “nation” system played an important role in Central European countries.

Central Europe has always been a region of great ethnic diversity; and such diversity can cause many conflicts. There are three main language groups in Central Europe: Slav, German, and Hungarian. Albanians and Macedonians may, however, argue that they do not “belong” to these language families. Also, Czech and Serbian are two different languages. However, due to early migrations, Central Europe has been the “meeting place” of the three linguistic groups whose cultural patterns have differed from one another. In addition to languages, there are three major religions in this region: Western Christianity, Eastern Christianity, and Islam. Again, this does not imply that these are the only religions in Central Europe. However, the three religions mentioned above are to show that Central Europe had become a “meeting place” for world religions as well. Other factors that may be the cause of conflict in the examples that will be mentioned are language, religion, history, and territorial claims.

The Slavic Peoples: (Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians of the Southern Slavs; and the Czechs of the Western Slayv).

It is believed that the Serbs migrated to the Balkans in the 12th century and converted to Orthodox Christianity in the foollowing centuries when the first Serb political formation emerged. It was in 1389 that the Ottoman Turks defeated the Serbs in the well-known Battle of Kosova. This battle is deeply remembered in Serbian history books and has a significant part in the conflict between the Bosnians and the Serbs gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878. Language: The Serbian language and the Croatian language are written in the Latin script. It was once proposed that Serbs and Croatian form a nation together based on this fact. Religion: Serbs have a commonality with Russians due to the Orthodox religion, however, they are neighboring with Muslim Bosnians, Albanians, and Bulgarians, and with Catholic Hungarians. History: There was a rivalry between Bulgarians and Greeks, and Southern Slays and Magyars. Also, the memory of defeat at the hands of the Turks in the 14th century still lingers. Territory: The Serbs believe they were the ones to first form the “Serb kingdom” in Bosnia. Also, Hungary may claim Vojvodina that is controlled by Serbs.

The Southern Slav Croats settled in Croatia in the 17th century and had accepted Roman Catholicism by the ninth century. They formed a kingdom in the tenth and eleventh century, and then conquered Dalmatia from the Venetians. However, in 1091, Hungary conquered much of the Croatian land. In 1092, a union was formed between Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary under the Hungary monarch. Croats formed a southern frontier of Christendom and then another southern frontier of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1527. After the revolution during 1848-49, Croatia received independence from Hungary in 1851. In 1918, Croatia became part of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and then later of Yugoslavia. Language: There are similarities with other Slavic languages but the latin script distinguishes it from the Serb language. Religion: There is a split between them and neighboring Eastern Orthodox and Muslim Bulgarians, and Bosnian and Albanian Muslims. History: There was a long rivalry with the Hungarians and the defeat by the Ottoman Turks. Territory: There is possibly a claim of the northern part of Bosnia and in northern Croatia by Hungarians.

Today’s Bosnians and Herzegovians are descendants of Serbs and some Croats. They settled in what became Bosnia, in the 12th century, during the seventh century. Bosnians and Herzegovians lived separately until the Ottomans conquered Bosnia in 1463 that then conquered Herzegovina in 1482. The Berlin Congress placed Bosnia-Herzegovina under the Austro-Hungarian rule in 1878. Later in 1918, Bosnia-Herzegovina became part of Serbia, which was turned into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Language: The language is Serbo-Croatian written primarily in Latin script. Religion: Bosnian Serbs are mainly Roman Catholic, but there are Bosnian and Herzegovian Muslims. History: There are the recurrent claims to Bosnia-Herzegovina by both Serbs and Croats. Territory: There does not seem to be any territorial conflicts.

The Czechs have a similar history with Bohemians and Moravians. The Bohemian Czechs continuously arrived from the first through the fifth century. The first Bohemian dynasty was established in the ninth century. Until then, it was a part of the Moravian Empire and had accepted Roman Catholicism. In 1526, Bohemia lost its autonomy that was gained in 950 when the Austrian, Habsburg rule began. When the Austrian-Hungarian Dual Monarchy was formed in 1867, Bohemian citizens were not granted independence and were a part of the Empire. Only in 1919, independence was brought to Czechoslovakia. Language: The language is Czech written in Latin script. Religion: They are either nominally Roman Catholic or Protestant. History: The most significant elements are the Habsburg-Austrian rule in 1526-1919 and the gaining of independence as Czechoslovakia in 1919. Territory: They are alongside borders between Bohemia, Germany, and Poland.

THE HUNGARIANS:

The Magyars migrated to the region of today’s Hungary and Transylavania in the ninth century. The Hungarian kingdom first united under the first Hungarian king, St. Stephen, who brought the Christian religion to the population. Under pressure from lesser nobles, the Golden Bull was granted in 1222 limiting the power of the nobles and established the beginnings of a Parliament. In 1241, the Mongols occupied the country. Overall, the borders included the Slovak population, Romanian population in Transylvania, and in the Balkans the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croatians. In 1526, Ottoman Turks defeated the Hungarians. The Hungary was then split into three parts; one part was ruled by Austrian and Hungarian nobles, the second part (the central part) was completely under Turkish rule, and the third part was ruled by Hungarian nobles. Later the Turks gave all of Hungary to the Austrians in the Peace of Kalowitz. Vojvodina was part of Hungary and Croatia until the 16th century, which was later restored to them in the same century. The three regions of Vojvodina are the Screm, Backa, and the western part of Banat. Also there were diverse interests by other ethnic groups such as the Serbs, Romanians, and, German colonists. The collapse of the Austin-Hungarian Empire was, undoubtedly, also due to ethnic conflicts and diversity, while the geographic location may have played a role since Austria was closer to Western Europe. Western Europe is considered by many to have been the place where the spirit of independence originated.

Of course ethnic conflicts continue to occur in Central Europe. Central Europe has, also, become a main area of conflict since the dismantlement of communist rule. For example, in Germany, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, in November 1989, that marked the end of the Cold War was followed by an eruption of ethnic conflict that no one had expected. Two years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall people in many regions continue to struggle with conflicts between groups based on language and religion.

Finding a solution for Central Europe is no easy task. All over the region there are many “ethnic pockets.” Also, Europe is very much characterized by nationalism, wars, and ethnic tensions, which make it more difficult for true peace. There have been suggested solutions to the ethnic conflict problem, though. One author mentions that “. . . the key to reduction of ethnic conflict, requires structural change”(Ronen). Although it is not possible to completely change the structure, some attention must be brought to it. The structure should be made into new democratic ones. Conflicting groups should sincerely try to find a compromise between their conflicts and try to resolve them peacefully. It is also important to bring honest, peace seeking governmental leaders to the countries; because no matter how one tries to change the structure, the ones leading the country must be sincere and try to convince others to do so. Only through peace, is there a true possible solution.

References

• The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict, Democracy and Self-Determination in Central Europe. Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. 1997.
• Griffiths, Stephen. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 1993.
• Taylor, Trevor and Sato, Seizaburo. Future Sources of Global Conflict. Royal Institute of International Affai is. 1995.
• Swatos, William Jr. Politics and Religion in Central and Eastern Europe. Praegers Publishers. 1994.
• Deak, Istvan. Assimilation and Nationalism in East Central Europe During the Last Century of Habsburg Rule. University of Pittsburgh. 1983.

Although the disintegration of the Soviet Union has, largely, put an end to the end of Cold War, the world has not become more peaceful. The bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia and other savage conflicts have signaled the emergence of a new nationalism. In this context, to justify the use of force we frequently hear talk of self-determination and the rights of peoples.

Membership of the United Nations has increased sharply only twice in its history. The first time was in the late fifties and early sixties, at the people of the decolonization following the retreat of the Western imperial powers. The second time was after the disintegration of the Soviet empire and then, a little later, of Yugoslavia. In the latter case, the new sovereign nation-states were not colonies achieving a new independence.

It is thought that the latest increase in the number of nation-states will encourage distinct communities within larger states to seek some measure of independence. Although the legal right for self-determination as the basis for the use of force to gain independence is not new, it would be wrong to deny that the use of force is now perceived as a likely means of realizing full independence or some degree of autonomy. That perception is surely one of the strongest reasons behind many of the conflicts currently stretching taking place in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Nagorno-Karabakh, Palestine, Kashmir, Northern Iraq, Somalia, Dniester region of Moldova, the Abkhazian region of Georgia, etc. These are only some of the hot spots which have one, or more than one group of people engaged in armed struggle for independence. Of course the list could easily be enlarged.

Language is certainly a decisive factor in the assertion of ethnic identity. According to the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, Texas, there are 6,170 languages spoken in the world at this time (Grimes (ed). 1988, p.vii: quoted in Moynihan, 1933, p.72) However, there are only 184 states in the world, the latest additions being Eritrea, Monaco and Andorra.

The steady increase in the number of nation-states indicates that the process of state-building is far from over. International analysts John O’Loughlin and Herman van der Wusten expect the number to reach around 250 by the middle of the next century (O’Loughin and Van der Wusten, in Taylor (ed). 1993, p.l08). The way that number will be attained is likely to be by using force. That likelihood alone is enough reason for taking the issue very seriously. For, as the number of nation-states increases, so too do the chances of war between them as the conflicts of interest between the states become more complicated.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was a self-evident truth that wars, strictly speaking, could only be engaged in by established states. Other terms were used to describe other forms of violence such as insurrection, civil unrest, piracy, or rebellion. At most, there was ‘civil war’ where the adjective modified the idea and the law which applied.

Especially after the Second World War, opinions about what constitutes war and which entities in the international arena may wage war have altered. The swift break-up of colonial empires and the increasing consensus that there was a right of peoples to self-determination have led some to the view that wars of national liberation are international wars, albeit they are not inter-state wars (Wilson, 1988, p.134). It can he convincingly argued that the rules governing the Legitimacy of resort to force (jus ad bellum) and the rules governing the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello) have changed markedly since the Second World War and especially since 1960.

As the ethnic conflicts spread around the world, they are becoming another source of human misery in the aftermath of the Cold War. It is a reality of our time that secessionist, irridentist, and national liberation wars are the greatest killers-either directly through bloodshed or indirectly through hunger or disease stemming from such wars (Farley, 1986, p. 139). O’Loughlin and Van der Wusten hold that the causes of wars after the 1990s will most probably be ethno-nationalist disputes (Taylor (ed.), 1993, p.106), that is, related to national liberation or separatist movements. For the last two years, we have been witnessing through the nastiest example of such a conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Unless a remedy is found to these ethnic disputes, the peoples of the earth will not experience in the foreseeable future the peace that seemed to be, to so many, the promise of the end of the Cold War era. 

References

• FARLEY, Lawrence T. (1986) Plebiscites and Sovereignty: the Crisis of Political Illegitimacy, Westview Press, London.
• GRIMES, Barbara F.( ed) ( 1988) Ethnologue:Languages of the World. Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dallas.
• O’LOUGHLIN, J. & VAN DER WUSTEN, H. (1993) ‘Political geography of war and peace’, in Taylor(ed.)
• TAYLOR, Peter J. (1993) Political Geography of The Twentieth Century, Belhaven Press, London.
• MOYNIHAN, DANIEL P. (1993) Pandemonium:Ethnicity in International Politics, Oxford Univercity Press.
• WILSON, Heather A. (1988) International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements, Clarendon Press.