Annual Dialogue Report 2010

September 11, 2001 Attacks Led to Dialogue not Clash Between Civilizations.

by Aziz Fahmy

Many experts and analysts argued that September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks changed the world and brought us closer to the clash of civilizations predicted in 1993 by late Dr. Samuel Huntington, the Professor of International Relations at Harvard University. This writer argues that these attacks, in fact, brought about a historic turning point in the interfaith movement; whereby it led to dialogue not to clash between civilizations, because it opened the door to historic initiatives of dialogue and new understanding between Is- lam and Christian West instead of leading to a clash between them.

The Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 was the real beginning of the interfaith movement. This his- toric document opened the door for the first time for Chris- tian/Jewish and Muslim dialogue. However we will address the Christian/Muslim dialogue in this article because the clash of civi- lizations predicted by Dr. Huntington was to be between Islam and Christian West.

The Muslim World -for all practical purposes- rejected the Vatican initiative as a ploy to Christianize the Muslims. However, 9/11 at- tacks changed that. The Muslims needed to explain to the world that the terrorists’ actions were in direct violation of the principles and values of Islam. Further, they needed to explain that the terror- ists are a very tiny minority and that the overwhelming majority of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world do not agree with their brand of Islam or their interpretation of its sacred text. This need helped the Muslims to overcome their fears of the dialogue with the Chris- tians. After 9/11 attacks Muslims world wide were ready to re- spond to the historic 1962 initiative of the Vatican.

As a result, several initiatives emerged: the most important among them are the Alliance of Civilizations established by Turkey and Spain, the Common Word created by Prince Ghazi of Jordan, and the initiative of dialogue among the believers of religions created by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. It is interesting to note that Muslim thinkers, statesmen and theologians used the term inter- faith or the dialogue between civilizations, as direct challenge to the idea of clash of civilizations. Further, these initiatives are the ultimate manifestation that 9/11 attacks led to dialogue not a clash between civilizations. We will argue in this article that the dialogue between civilizations is the antithesis of the clash of civilizations. However, to appreciate the importance of these initiatives we have to discuss the thesis of the clash of civilizations and study the his- toric context that led to the emergence of the antithesis, the dialogue among civilizations.

At the end of the Cold War, Dr. Huntington predicted that the in- ternational conflict in the 21st century will be driven by religion and civilization. His clash of civilizations theory was based on his paradigm: Islam and Christian West. Adopting a tunnel-vision-like perspective, Huntington only concentrated on the Islamic Expan- sion (632–1683 AD), which began by the Arab-Muslim invasion of Palestine and Syria in 632 AD and ended when the second Otto- man siege against Vienna failed in 1683 AD. This is the story of the impressive rise of Islam to world power, which lasted for a mil- lennium. In the middle of the same period Christian West waged war against Muslim East in what is known as the Crusades (1095– 1293). There were 8 campaigns waged under the Cross against Muslim East, in response to Islamic Expansion. In these two cases religion and civilization indeed played a role in the international conflict between East and West. Based exclusively on these two cases Huntington concluded that the international conflict has civi- lizational nature.

He further predicted that after the end of the Cold War, the interna- tional conflict between East and West will go back to its default lines between Islam and Christian West, in continuation of the 1300 years conflict between these two sides. So after the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the defeat of the Communism, Huntington predicted that Islam is the new Green threat to the Christian West after the demise of the Red enemy. He further be- lieved that “in clash of civilizations, Europe and the United States will hang together or hang separately”. He wanted to convince the Europeans to reignite the old conflict with the Muslim East, and the Americans to inherit the conflict between Islam and Christian West, which ended almost a century before the creation of the United States in 1776. In addition Huntington assumed that the Muslim East will also unify to fight against the Christian West and therefore war or international conflict in the 21 century will be based on civilization. Huntington further predicted that ascendant China will cooperate with the Muslim East to challenge the Chris- tian West led by the United States.

In order to construct his paradigm, Islam and Christian West, Hunt- ington ignores – in his historical analysis –one thousand years of conflict between East and West before the down of Islam, and 400 years of the same conflict after the end of the Islamic Expansion. With further examination we find that what Huntington called Christian West is in fact the nations of Western Europe; and what he called Islam is in fact the nations of the Middle East and North Africa. Huntington ignored the conflict between these two groups of nations before and after the Islamic expansion.

The purpose of Huntington’s paradigm was to predict the future of the international conflict after the end of the Cold War. The attacks of September 11, 2001 were described as an event that changes the world; and the United States in response invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion of Iraq signaled the first ever American oc- cupation of a Muslim nation in the Middle East. Further, some European nations participated in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. These three historical events, constitute an international con- flict, and could serve as adequate tests to prove or disprove Hunt- ington’s civilization paradigm.

So before we discuss Huntington’s historical analysis, let us see if Muslim East and Christian West; or more correctly the nations of Western Europe, the Middle East and North Africa acted according to his paradigm – or in other words according to their civilizations – during and after the three historic tests of the 9/11 attacks, the in- vasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And let us see if Europe indeed stood behind the United States as Huntington prescribed.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the response of the Bush admini- stration led many analysts to say that Huntington was right; some writers even said that Huntington was a prophet who correctly pre- dicted the future of the international conflict. This author argues that these three historic tests prove that Huntington’s predictions did not come to pass because the nations of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa did not act, during and after these historic tests, according to Huntington’s civilization paradigm. They rather acted according to their national interests, and here is why: Both the Muslim East and Christian West condemned the attacks of September 11 and cooperated to defeat Mullah Omar’s regime in Afghanistan and in the fight against al-Qaeda. Muslim nations did not unify, as Huntington predicted, to go to war to defend Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, the majority of European nations were against the invasion of Iraq. More importantly, the invasion of Iraq triggered the biggest disagreement between the United State and Europe. Huntington’s Christian West, which was supposed to unify to face the Muslim threat, was divided over the invasion of Iraq more than any other time in their history. They differ on what is the meaning of the 9/11 attacks and how to respond to it.

Dr. Charles A. Kupchan, former Director for European affairs on the national security council of the first Clinton administration, in his book: “The End of the American Era” published in 2003, refut- ing the conventional wisdom that the end of the Cold War cleared the way for an era of peace and prosperity led solely by the United States, and contends that the next challenge to America’s might is not coming from the Islamic world or an ascendant China, but from an integrating Europe that is rising as a counterweight to the United States.

On the Muslim side, it is clear that Pakistan acted according to its national interest, not its religion or civilization when it cooperated with the American military to bring down the Taliban régime in Muslim Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan would not have been possible without Pakistan, the southern neighbor of the land- locked Afghanistan. Pakistan was the main land access for the American troops to Afghanistan. And Pakistan was not alone, the Islamic states of central Asia, the republics of the former Soviet Union, laid to the north of Afghanistan, also cooperated militarily by providing access to military bases for the American troops and flying rights.

On the other hand, the entire Muslim World helped the American military effort by providing intelligence. The Muslim nations were also essential in disrupting the ability of al-Qaeda to finance its op- erations by tightening the bank regulations and bank transfers. Even Iran – sworn enemy of the United States – cooperated in bringing down the Taliban régime in Afghanistan. And it was not only Iran’s government. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in an article published on Sept. 21, 2001, wrote about Iran’s reaction to 9/11. He mentioned that more than 3,000 mostly young people held a candlelight vigil in Tehran for the victims of the terror attacks.

Muslim nations proved during and after the attacks of September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that they do not see themselves as enemies of the West. A recent study by Dr. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed titled “Who speaks for Islam? What a billion muslims really think”, published in 2007 by Gallup Corpo- ration, proved just that. The study was conducted over six years and involved more than 50,000 interviews in more than 35 pre- dominantly Muslim nations or nations with sizable Muslim popula- tions. The interviews were conducted after the September 11 at- tacks, while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were still raging. The study found that 9 out of 10 Muslims are moderates who believe in co-existence. It also found that the overwhelming majority of Mus- lims love the American people and culture but hate American for- eign policy.

As for the Christian West, when Huntington tired to convince the European nations to reignite the old conflict with the Muslim East; European intellectuals – in 1993 – were the first to reject Hunting- ton’s paradigm. In 2003 the majority of Western European nations refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq. France and Germany led the European opposition. So we find that the majority of the Europeans in both 1993 and 2003, refused to reignite the old con- flict. Former French President Jacques Chirac said just that during a press conference at the end of the G8 summit in Sea Island in Georgia in 2004, when he explained why France refused to take part in the fight in Iraq. France and Germany even refused to train Iraqi police forces inside Iraq. This is extremely significant be- cause it was France and Germany that led the Crusades against Muslim East in the Middle Ages. France and Germany were indeed the core of what Huntington called the Christian West.

Further, nine and half million people in Western Europe demon- strated against the invasion of Iraq in 800 cities on February 15, 2003 just weeks before the invasion. Three million of them were in Italy, 2 million in Spain and 1.9 million in England. Spain, Italy and England were the main European partners in the invasion of Iraq and they sent a significant number of troops to join the fight in Iraq. The Spaniards and the Italians voted out of power the gov- ernments that sent troops to Iraq in the first election after the inva- sion; and the newly elected governments pulled their troops from Iraq. In England, Prime Minister Tony Blair – the main partner of former President George Bush in the invasion of Iraq – had to re- sign before the British elections in order to save his party from the same fate. The new Prime Minister Gordon Brown pulled out all British troops from Iraq by July 2009. Yet, the British voters voted against his government in May 2010 and he was the sure loser in this election.

All these developments clearly indicate that both Muslim East and Christian West did not act according to Huntington’s paradigm during and after these historic tests. More correctly, the nations of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa did not act according to their civilizations after the end of the Cold War as Huntington pre- dicted, they rather acted according to their national interests. Fur- thermore, The Christian West did not unite to face the Muslim threat, but rather was divided over the invasion of Iraq. All these actions by both the Muslim East and Christian West disproves Huntington’s paradigm. It further proves that the international con- flict after the end of the Cold War was not, as Huntington pro- fessed, a clash of civilizations, although all the ingredients were in place to start one.

Historically, the conflict between Islam and the Christian West was fundamentally an international conflict between the nations of Europe on one hand and the nations of the Middle East and North Africa on the other. Huntington’s paradigm rose and should fall based on the actions of these nations.

In fact, the United States was never part of Huntington’s Christian West. The creation of the United States in 1776 came almost one century after the end of Islamic Expansion (632–1683), which Huntington exclusively used to construct his paradigm. Further, the United States did not colonize the Middle East or North Africa, as did the Europeans from 1830 till 1971. Additionally, the over- whelming majority of Muslim nations sided with the U.S. against Communism during the Cold War. Moreover, the United States fought with the Muslims in Afghanistan against the Soviet Occupa- tion (1979–1989) and defended the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo at the same time Huntington constructed his paradigm.

But more importantly, the United States also acted according to its national interest after the attacks of Sep. 11, 2001. The invasion of Afghanistan was retaliatory and in self-defense. The Bush admini- stration perceived the invasion of Iraq as a preemptive war in self- defense in reaction to the 9/11 attacks. However, many experts dis- agree.

The Americans were shocked by the 9/11 attacks and fully sup- ported the invasion of Afghanistan. They also initially supported the invasion of Iraq because the Bush administration implied that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This was the main reason many analysts mistakenly said that Huntington was right. How- ever, five congressional and presidential investigations including 9/11 commission and the bipartisan Iraq Study group concluded that Iraq had nothing to do with these attacks and that all the rea- sons given by the Bush administration to justify the invasion were all false.

Subsequently, the overwhelming majority of Americans turned against the war in Iraq. Seventy percent of them said that the coun- try was going – under the Bush administration – in the wrong direction and that the war in Iraq was a mistake and strategic blunder.

As we mentioned earlier, Huntington tried to do two things; convince the Europeans to reignite the old conflict with the Muslim East and to convince the Americans to inherit the conflict between Islam and Christian West, which ended in 1683; almost a century before the American independence and the creation of the United

States in 1776! As discussed earlier, he failed to achieve the first goal and in the final analysis, the voters in Spain, Italy and England voted out of power the governments that wanted to reignite the old conflict.

The American voters did the same thing in 2008 election when they voted for Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama who was against the war in Iraq and campaigned to end it; and voted against Republican Senator John McCain who supported the inva- sion of Iraq and wanted to continue the war there. This means that the Americans refused to inherit the conflict between Islam and Christian West.

The 9/11 commission and the Iraq study group separated between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq. The linkage between the two was the main reason many analysts said that Huntington was right. Further, in the final analysis, the Europeans refused to reig- nite the old conflict with the Muslim East and the Americans re- fused to inherit this conflict. These facts prove that we are not wit- nessing a clash of civilizations and this should have far reaching implications on our analysis of the international conflict in the 21 century.

As a consequence, and for the purpose of predicting the future of international conflict, it is prudent to conclude that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq should be regarded as anomalies. The first one was committed by a terrorist group that does not represent or speak for the 1.3 billion Muslims as Esposito and Mogahed proved in the Gallup study. Further, the overwhelming majority of Muslim nations cooperated with the Western effort to remove Mullah Omar regime from power and in the fight against Al Qaeda. The second – the invasion of Iraq –was not a response for the September 11 at- tacks, according to five American congressional and presidential investigations. These investigations concluded that Iraq had noth- ing to do with the 9/11 attacks and did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration went to war in Iraq be- cause of a series of wrong judgments. Further, seventy percent of Americans said the war in Iraq was a mistake and they heavily voted for candidate Barack Obama who campaigned to end the war.

This clearly proves that the invasion of Iraq did not represent of the overwhelming majority of the Americans and the Europeans as the 9/11 attacks did not represent the overwhelming majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims. In Huntington’s words this means that the 9/11 at- tacks did not represent the Muslim East and the invasion of Iraq did not represent the Christian West. That why this writer believe that these two actions were rather anomalies; and therefore we are not witnessing a clash of civilizations.

In this regard, the fight in Afghanistan is an American national re- sponse to the terrorist attack against its territories. That is why the Obama administration is escalating the war in Afghanistan; while trying to end the war in Iraq. President Obama is temporarily esca- lation the war in Afghanistan while putting a time-line for the withdrawal of American troops from there; and taking measures to pressure President Hamid Karazai to take full control of his coun- try. President Obama is doing that in a context of a new strategy based on resetting the relations between the United States and the Muslim world, which was damaged because of the war in Iraq. He explained in his speech in Cairo in June 2009: “We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any cur- rent policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars... I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new begin- ning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

That is why we find that the majority of the Americans, the Euro- peans and the Muslims support the fight in Afghanistan; while the overwhelming majority of them condemned the 9/11 attacks and were against the war in Iraq. Saying that the September 11 attacks are anomalies does not deny the importance of these attacks, but rather points to the fact that they did not change the world or more accurately they did not change the nature of the international con- flict, which remain to be determined by the interests of the nation states not their civilizations. Therefore, we should not allow the attacks of September 11 and the invasion of Iraq to cloud our judgment as to what is the nature of the international conflict in the 21st century.

We thoroughly demonstrated that both the nations of the Muslim East and Christian West acted according to their national interest not their civilizations after the end of the Cold War, whereby prov- ing that Huntington’s predictions did not come to pass. Let us now exam Huntington’s historical analysis before Cold War. As we mentioned in the beginning of this article, Huntington ignored 1000 years of conflict between East and West before the down of Islam, and also ignored 400 years of the same conflict after the end of the Islamic expansion. This should bring his paradigm Islam and Christian West into question, especially in the light of the fact that the nations of the Muslim East and Christian West did not act ac- cording to his paradigm as discussed.

When Huntington offered his paradigm in June 1993, many schol- ars challenged his theory. In turn, Dr. Huntington challenged his critics in December that same year. Writing in Foreign Affairs, he asked “If not civilization, what? A paradigm is disproved only by the creation of an alternative paradigm that accounts for more cru- cial facts in equally simple or simpler terms.” That is what we will attempt to do now.

It is essential to step back and recall that Huntington’s paradigm was a response to Dr. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” argu- ment. Fukuyama said the end of the Cold War means the end of the international conflict. Huntington countered that the international conflict was not an ideological conflict between Communism and Capitalism, but rather a civilizational or cultural conflict between Islam and the Christian West. In essence, Huntington constructed his paradigm based on the Islamic expansion (632–1683) and the Crusades (1095–1293).

While Huntington implied that Islam started the conflict between East and West, Professor Anthony Pagden challenged this notion in his book “Worlds at war: The 2,500 year struggle between East and West” published in 2008. Dr. Pagden presented a detailed study of 1000 years of conflict between the East and West before the dawn of Islam, analyzing a body of evidence that should be used to challenge Huntington. This conflict was between the nations of Europe on one hand (led by the Greeks and then the Romans) and the na- tions of the Middle East and North Africa on the other (led by the Persians the Carthaginians). Although Pagden asserted the continu- ity of the conflict before and after the dawn of Islam, he unfortu- nately surrenders to Huntington’s thesis of clash of civilizations.

In fact, the Mediterranean Sea had been the center of the world un- til the 16th century when the New World was discovered by the Europeans. The nations around the Mediterranean basin competed for domination for thousands of years: the nations of Europe to the north and the nations of North Africa and the Middle East to the South and East. This competition began 800 years before the West accepted Christianity and 1100 years before the East accepted Is- lam. Huntington ignores this important historical fact.

Adopting a tunnel-vision-like perspective, Huntington only con- centrated on the Islamic expansion (632–1683 AD), when the na- tions of North Africa and the Middle East – after accepting Islam - subjugated some European nations: Spain was subjugated by the Arabs and the Berbers; Eastern Europe by the Ottomans. In the meantime, he ignored two periods during which the nations of Europe subjugated the nations of North Africa and the Middle East – the first time before the dawn of Islam by the Greeks and then the Romans (330 BC–632 AD). Then in the 19th and 20th centuries, the modern European nation states reoccupied the region for the sec- ond time (1830–1971), after the end of Islamic expansion.

From this standpoint, the 2500 year conflict between East and West in fact witnessed three distinctive stages: before the dawn of Islam, the Islamic expansion, and the European colonization of the Middle East and North Africa. Islamic expansion was just the mid- dle stage, a part of a whole. Unfortunately Huntington constructed his paradigm based exclusively on the Islamic expansion and ig- nored everything else.

In addition to Pagden’s presentation, historian Arnold Toynbee, in his theory of challenge and response, made clear that Islam helped the nations of the Middle East to formulate the right response to the challenge that the Greeks and then the Romans imposed on those nations(330 BC–632 AD), whereby linking the first and second stages of this conflict.

While Huntington ignored the importance of European coloniza- tion of the Middle East and North Africa, Dr. Bernard Lewis – the first to coin the term clash of civilizations – made a direct connec- tion between the two. He explained in his book “Islam’s Crisis,” published in 2003, that European forces, after the collapse of the second Ottoman siege against Vienna in 1683, followed the Mus- lim forces to their homeland. And by the beginning of the 20th cen- tury, Christian European nations were occupying the majority of Muslim land except Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. So Lewis linked the second and third stages of the conflict between East and West.

Huntington ignored what happened before and after the Islamic expansion, and that is how he concluded that the international con- flict was based on a clash of civilizations. In Huntington’s words, the international conflict had a civilizational nature. In contrast, when we take into consideration the three stages of this conflict, we reach a different conclusion. The alternative paradigm that we would like to suggest in this article is that the international conflict, before the Cold War, was a conflict of interests between two groups of nations, the nations of Europe on one hand and the na- tions of the Middle East and North Africa on the other-- and not a conflict of civilizations between Islam and the Christian West as Huntington suggested.

The proof is that the conflict between East and West started before the dawn of Islam and continued after the end of Islamic expan- sion. Further, the conflict began before Europeans accepted Chris- tianity and it continued after Europe or Christian West imple- mented separation of Church and State and adapted the secular paradigm. In fact, one can argue that Huntington ignored the Euro- pean colonization of the Middle East and North Africa (1830– 1971), because it would undermine his civilization paradigm. The European nations colonized the Middle East and North Africa for their national interest and not for religious or civilization reasons, unlike the case during the Crusades (1095–1293) in the Middle Ages.

Historic continuity from the Greeks to present Europe and the United States

Historic continuity of people in the Middle East and North Af- rica before and after Islam

The new paradigm disproves Huntington’s paradigm because it ac- counts for more crucial facts about the international conflict be- tween the same two sides. Huntington’s paradigm can only account for the Islamic expansion and the Crusades, when indeed religion and civilization played a role in the international conflict. How- ever, his paradigm does not explain or account for the other two stages of the same conflict: the stage before the dawn of Islam and the stage of the European colonization of the Middle East and North Africa; when religion was not a factor. In contrast, the alter- native paradigm can account for the three stages of this interna- tional conflict.

Moreover, Huntington’s paradigm could not explain the interna- tional conflict after the end of the Cold War, while the alternative paradigm can. As we discussed, both the nations of the Muslim East and the Christian West acted according to their national inter- est not their civilizations during and after the attacks of 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Muslim nations’ condemna- tion of 9/11 attacks and their assistance to bring down the Muslim régime in Afghanistan can only be explained by the alternative paradigm. The same can be said about the European nations’ rejec- tion of the invasion of Iraq.

Huntington’s paradigm rose and should fall based on the actions of these nations before and after the Cold War. Their actions during these historical events can be explained only by the alternative paradigm offered in this article. They acted according to their na- tional interest as they did before the dawn of Islam (330BC– 632AD) and after the end of Islamic expansion in 1683AD.

Therefore the alternative paradigm should disprove and displace Huntington’s paradigm because it can explain and account for the international conflict before and after the Cold War in a “more sat- isfactory fashion,” to use Dr. Huntington’s words.

It should be safe now to conclude that the international conflict was not a conflict between civilizations – Islam and the Christian West – neither in the distant past, nor after the end of the Cold War.

What Huntington failed to see is that the Cold War presented a his- toric shift in the international conflict. After almost 2,500 years of battling each other for world supremacy, through three different stages, the European nations on one hand and the nations of the Middle East and North Africa on the other were no longer compet- ing for world supremacy. They are no longer the super powers of the world and the fight over supremacy moved to the United States and the former Soviet Union. After the end of European coloniza- tion in 1971, and during the Cold War, the two sides moved toward a historical reconciliation. The many European initiatives for coop- eration with the Middle East and North Africa, after 1973, are evi- dence of that. After the end of the Cold War the United State be- came the sole super power.

Further, the actions of the nations of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa after the end of the Cold War clearly proved that these nations refused Huntington’s invitation to reignite the old conflict between Islam and Christian West. This was not indirectly implied, it was rather directly expressed by European intellectuals in 1993, the European opposition to the war in Iraq led by France and Germany, the demonstrations of Feb. 15, 2003 and finally by

the Spaniards, the Italians and the British voters. It was also di- rectly expressed by the action of the Muslim nations in condemn- ing the 9/11 attacks and cooperating with the West to bring down Taliban régime and in fighting Al Qaeda. It was finally expressed in the Gallup study which show that Muslims world wide do not consider themselves enemy to the West. This writer dares to say that this means that the old conflict between Islam and the Chris- tian West has ended. That is why this writer thinks that the inter- faith movement has much greater future and implication than what is believed by political analysts. Simply because this movement could provides a mechanism to prevent this conflict from reigniting again.

II.2.2. The Interfaith Movement

Ideas throughout our history help to shape the reality we live; they can capture a new trend in our behavior as individuals or actions as nations. They can also help us understand a trend that takes long time to evolve in our behavior or actions. In case of nations, some times, these trends can take hundred of years or even thousands of years to evolve. Huntington wanted to shape our future by provid- ing a selective reading of our history in a way that make us believe that a clash of civilizations is about to replace the clash of ideology between Communism and Capitalism. His idea caught the attention in the world in 1993 and it provoked a lot of debate. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and invasion of Afghanistan some weeks later made many people mistakenly thought that Huntington was right. We proved in this article that his historical analysis was selective and therefore wrong and that his predictions did not come to pass.

The idea of interfaith dialogue between the believers of different religions – as expressed in The Nostra Aetate, by the Second Council of the Vatican – was born in 1962 in the middle of the Cold War era or in the middle of the clash of ideology. In many ways the idea of interfaith dialogue, which is a dialogue between different civilizations, is the antithesis of the idea of clash of civili- zations. One can argue that the Vatican was trying to find a new re- lationship with the Muslim nations; its historic rival of the Middle Ages. After all it was the Papacy under Pope Blessed Urban II (ca. 1035 – 29 July 1099), who became Pope 12 March 1088 until his death; who called for waging the first Crusade (1095–99).

On the other hand, the national liberation movement of the nations of the Middle East and North Africa against the European coloni- zation began in 1946 and was completed in 1971. As Europe lost its place as a super power after the Second World War, the Euro- pean nations followed the lead of the Vatican and thought to build a new relationship with its historic rival, the nations of the Middle East and North Africa. There is a series of European initiatives for cooperation with these nations after 1973. Although the relation- ship between the two old rivals improved, the idea of the interfaith dialogue remained on the shelf because of the Muslim fears that this dialogue is a ploy to Christianize the Muslims world wide.

It is the dramatic nature of the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, which was used by some conservative western writers to condemn Islam itself, which changed the Muslims stand toward the interfaith dialogue and helped them to overcome their fears. As we men- tioned in the beginning of this article Muslims needed to explain to the world that the terrorists’ actions were in direct violation of the principles and values of Islam. Further, they needed to explain that the terrorists are a very tiny minority and that the overwhelming majority of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world do not agree with their brand of Islam or their interpretation of its sacred text. Dr. Aly Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt said to this author: “The ter- rorists hijacked Islam and we had an obligation to explain that to the world and show the world the correct Islam”.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Muslims were ready to respond to the Vatican initiative of 1962. Several Muslim initia- tives emerged for dialogue with Christendom and that is why I be- lieve that 9/11 attacks led to dialogue not to a clash between civili- zations, especially between Islam and Christian West. Muslim thinkers, statesmen and theologians used the term interfaith or dia- logue between civilizations as an antithesis to clash between civili- zations.

One of the first Muslim responses came from Qatar, when HRH Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Ruler of Qatar invited repre- sentatives of the British church in 2003 for Muslim Christian dialogue. Then he invited representatives from the Vatican in 2004 and in 2005 he invited several American Rabbis for Muslim Jewish dialogue. Staring 2006 Sheihk Hamad began to invite Rabbis from Israel to participate in the dialogue.

However, the most dramatic among these initiatives is the Alliance of Civilizations established in 2005, at the initiative of the govern- ments of Spain and Turkey, under the auspices of the United Na- tions. The initiative aims to improve understanding and coopera- tive relations among nations and peoples across cultures and relig- ions, and to help counter the forces that fuel polarization and ex- tremism.

The significance of the Alliance of Civilizations is that the modern state of Turkey is the heir of the Ottoman Empire, which was the arrow of the Muslim world to the heart of Europe, or Huntington’s Christian West, from 1300 till 1683 when the second Ottoman siege against Vienna failed. In the same time, modern state of Spain is the heir of what is called the Reconquista or the Christian rolling back Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula. Recon- quista lasted for almost 800 years and was completed in 1942 by the defeat of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada. In essence Turkey and Spain are heirs of the most violent confrontations between Is- lam and Christian West in the Middle Ages; they were the ultimate manifestation of Huntington’s thesis of Islam and Christian West. Now these two governments are the ultimate bridge between the two cultures and they are leading the way of the dialogue between civilizations. In essence they were the embodiment of the clash of civilizations and now they are the embodiment of the dialogue among civilizations. They were the manifestation of the thesis of the clash between civilizations and now they are the manifestation of the antithesis of dialogue among civilizations.

The nations of the Christian West and Muslim East during and af- ter the three historic tests of the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Af- ghanistan and Iraq acted according their national interest not their civilizations, they in essence refused the thesis of clash of civiliza- tions.

In the meantime, the idea of dialogue between civilizations was gaining momentum on spiritual and non spiritual grounds. The world was moving toward the idea of dialogue between civiliza- tions as a way to prevent the possibility of a clash between civiliza- tions.

While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were still raging, Pope Benedict XVI delivered his controversial speech in University of Regensburg in Germany in September 2006. A firestorm of criti- cism was ignited in the Muslim world. Religious and political leaders across the Muslim World demanded that the Pope should apologize and retract his remarks. Pakistan's parliament con- demned what it consider a “derogatory” remarks about Islam and the country's foreign ministry said they were “regrettable” and claimed they would encourage violence. Indeed there were violent demonstrations in the streets in many Muslim cities, an Old Italian nun was shoot and killed in Somalia and some Christians were at- tacked in Iraq.

On 13 October 2006, one month after Pope Benedict XVI’s ad- dress, a more thoughtful response came from 38 Muslim Scholars and intellectuals who issued an open letter to the Pope in sprit of open intellectual exchange, politely pointing to some factual mis- takes he made in the speech. Many of these scholars formed the nucleus of those behind the “A Common Word” initiative. This ini- tiative was launched by Prince Ghazi Ben Mohammed Ben Talal of Jordan On 13 October 2007, with the support and signature of 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals who came together to de- clare the common ground between Christianity and Islam in a letter titled “A Common Word Between Us and You”. The letter was ad- dressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches and to Christians everywhere. Prince Ghazi explained that the initiative has one mo- tive, to spread peace and harmony between Muslims and Christians who together make 55% of the world’s population.

The central issue in the initiative is the two commandments of love of God and neighbor; both in the Qu’ran and New Testament. The Qu’ran, the holy book of Muslims, requires Muslims to believe in Judaism and Christianity as religions revealed by God. The letter in part said:

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ said: “’Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other com- mandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)

“On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40).”

The initiative called on both Christians and Muslims to respect each other, be fair, just and kind to one another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual good will.

There were many positive responses from Christian leaders around the world, from all Christian denominations. The initiative was in- dorsed by many world leaders both Muslims and Christians. Many conferences were convened in Great Britain and the United States to indorse the initiative and discuss its different applications.

The success of the initiative was crowned by the convening of first ever Catholic-Muslim Forum in November 2008 in Rome; and the Guardian newspaper reported that the meeting has put the relations between the two faiths on a new footing. The Muslim representa- tives of initiative also met with the Pope who called the meeting “one more step along the way towards greater understanding ... within the framework of other regular encounters which the Holy See promotes with various Muslim groups.” The Pope here was re- ferring to his meeting on November 6, 2007 with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the custodian of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina, which was also a meeting of historic proportion.

King Abdullah, at that time, was preparing to launch the biggest Muslim initiative for dialogue with people of other faiths. He first convened a meeting for Muslim scholars in Mecca in March 2008 to agree on the principles of dialogue with the other religions. Then he convened the World Conference on Dialogue in Madrid, Spain in July 2008 for representatives of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and Confucianism to reinforce the common values shared by their respective faiths. Rabbi Marc Schneier, the Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, American Section, was among many Jewish American leaders invited to Madrid conference: “ This is very extraordinary and exiting times, be- cause King Abdullah is committed to project a more moderate voice within Islam, he is committed to fighting the forces of ex- tremism and fundamentalism, and I am for one have join the king and the Muslim world in these efforts, and I am very hopeful that we will begin to see significant change as the voices of the modera- tion in all religions will come to the fore”.

Rabbi Marc Schneier is also the founder and President of the Foundation of Ethnic Understanding. Madrid World Conference on Dialogue gave incredible momentum to his initiative for Twinning of Synagogues and Mosques. He started the initiative in March 2008 with only 5 synagogues and 5 mosques signed up for No- vember weekend twinning. However, after King Abdullah blessed the initiative during the Madrid conference, an additional 45 syna- gogues and 45 mosques singed up for the November weekend of twinning. This initiative was indeed a turning point in the Jewish Muslim relations in North America. It is endorsed by Fiqh Council of North America, ISNA or the Islamic Association of North America and MPAC or the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

The climax of King Abdullah’s initiative was in United Nation in New York in November 2008 when Saudi Arabia sponsored a spe- cial session for the General Assembly under the title: “Culture of Peace”. It was an international festival for interfaith. Six heads of states, four Kings, seven Prime Ministers and high ranking officials from other 48 states participated in the conference. The speeches of these officials unmistakably demonstrated that these statesmen are looking for a new moderate discourse to create a new culture of peace based on the thesis of dialogue among civilizations and in di- rect rejection of the antithesis of clash of civilizations.

November 2008 was remarkable month in the history of interfaith movement, by the end of the month, the first weekend twinning project of Synagogues and Mosques was successfully concluded. The experiment was so successful that 14 Rabbis and 14 Imams came from Europe in July 2009 to learn about this daring initiative. In November 2009 115 Synagogues and 115 Mosques participated in the second annual weekend of Twinning, among them, there were 25 synagogues and 25 mosques in Europe. The Foundation of Ethnic Understanding is anticipating the participation of 150 Synagogues and 150 Mosques in the November 2010 third annual weekend twinning in North America, Canada and Europe. There are hopes that mosques and synagogues from Australia, Latin America and South Africa will be participating this year.

The world was on the brink of sliding into a clash of civilizations after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the invasions of Af- ghanistan and Iraq. However, one can argue that religion and inter- faith dialogue in the last decade pulled the world back from the brink, and now actively trying to heal the world. Both statesmen and religious leaders realized that the response to the thesis of the clash of civilizations is the antithesis of the dialogue among civili- zations.

This is ironic because the 20th century was called the Secular Cen- tury, and the secular discourse implied throughout the century that religion was the reason for war in history of Mankind. This dis- course ignored that the 20th century was also called the Bloody Century because of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars (1914 – 1945) and that the nations that waged these wars separated between church and state and were the promoters of the secular paradigm.

The culture of the 20th century was dominated by the competition between nation states over possession of colonies around the world and that led to the two world wars and sustained the culture of war, which dominated world history. The developments of the last dec- ade and the rejection of the thesis of clash of civilizations and emergence of antithesis of dialogue among civilizations; where statesmen world over are talking about the need to build a culture of peace, could indicate the character of the culture of the 21st cen- tury.

The Vatican and the entire European nations are the heirs of the Christian West and the Crusades of the Middle Ages. However they are now reaching out to the old and historic rival: the nations of the Middle East and North Africa or the Muslim East.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Jordan are the heirs of Islamic Expansion in the Middle Ages. However they are now building a new construct based on the Vatican historic initiative to counter the thesis of clash of civilizations. After 9/11 attacks and its ramifica- tions Muslims were ready to put away their fears of the dialogue and to respond to the Vatican initiative of 1962. Gallup’s study of Esposito and Magahed, which was conducted during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, proved that the overwhelming majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims do not see themselves as enemy of the West.

In essence, the last decade could be described as one of the most important decades in Man’s history, not because of the attacks of 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; but because it is the decade during which the world rejected the thesis of clash of civili- zations and upheld the antithesis of dialogue between civilizations. A decade is a very short time in the live of nations, especially when we are talking about trends that lasted for thousands of years. However, the last decade witnessed a historic shift in the interfaith movement, which came in a moment of historic crisis, when many voices were screaming that the world is sliding into the new/old clash of civilizations between Islam and Christian West.

Dialogue is winning over the clash between civilizations and the turning point was indeed the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is the moment that might have indeed changed the world, but not in the direction some conservative western thinkers wanted. It was a change in the opposite direction. The direction of dialogue, not a clash between civilizations, as the world is increasingly looking for harmony and peace.

The significance of the interfaith movement is that it shows that re- ligions have the capacity to be a major factor in building a culture of peace. However, the task of building this culture still faces many challenges and obstacles especially from the extremists in all relig- ions. Therefore, much more work is needed to bring peace and harmony to the world in the 21st century.