First of all, Sorry if my English is not good. Hope you can understand
On this occasion we will discuss the book A Metahistory of the Clash of Civilisations: Us and Them Beyond Orientalism, try to look further into the Friction between the stages of civilization to a more distant and accurate. But before we discuss further on this issue, it helps us to understand first about understanding the metatheory and the clash of civilization itself.
Metatheory understanding is the cornerstone philosophy of a theory; as a series of fundamental ideas about how a particular phenomenon should be considered and studied. Such understanding is often linked to the notion of "paradigm" that was popularized by Thomas Kuhn and which he regarded as a composite of metatheory, theory, methodology, and ethics are used by a particular discipline. Thus, the broader paradigm of metatheory, but at the same metatheory is the essence of the paradigm.
I think this metatheory is a simple thing, actually carry this metatheory is the mother rather than a well-established theories that now exist. I think that it is in the form of the theory can not be discharged by the values ​​that influence it, we can say that the theory has a very close relationship with the interests rather than the experts that it has spawned. In this concept of metatheory finally appeared, in other words the sense that the concept of metatheory itself that finally expose the theories that now there are up to the most innocent form.
Friction between the interests and other interests or even ideology that led to the real conflict in this case is a shift or a Clash between Islam and the West. If the observed facts of history that happens, we can see that each entity has a dynamic history of civilization is the rub. West had a dispute with a dark history of Islam, sinho, Hindu, Orthodox and some with Latin America and Africa. Dispute has resulted in a clash of civilizations.
Why I can say that? This argument is strengthened by the friction that occurred in the past between Islam and the West in the crusades. Suddenly the thought came from the western leaders who incidentally is the holder of hegemony now, that their enemies after a block east is Islamic. Disputes between Islam and the west got hotter After the tragedy of the WTC on September 11, 2001. collapse of the WTC was later developed by the United States as a way of enforcement of laws against terrorists around the world. Unfortunately, the stigma is positioned to Islamic terrorists. So that the emerging dispute is a variety of reactions and the clash of civilizations between Islam against the west, as well as other ideologies. Islam considers the west do not understand Islam. Likewise with the west who think of Islam as a religion that tend to be fascist and very aggressive. Islam was viewed as a harsh religion and antipathy towards western culture.
There are many explanations that are pleasing to the factor of a clash of civilizations of Islam and the west. Here are the main factors of clash of civilizations between Islam and the west. Factor of religion and ideology is one of the triggers clash of civilizations between Islam and the west. Clash of civilizations between Islam and the west is characterized by the occurrence of war known as the Crusades. Economic factors are also part of the main factors of clash of civilizations. The loss of the caliphate institution led the way for the widening of the west to bubbling natural wealth belongs to Muslims. This is what lead to friction between Islam and western civilization. Ideological factors also contributed to trigger a clash of civilizations between Islam and the west. This is what sparked the clash of civilizations between Islam and the west.
According to the book A Metahistory of the Clash of Civilisations: Us and Them Beyond Orientalism, that the conflict is between (us), and (they) as a symbol of the struggle between Islam and the west, but according to its authors in interpreting the meaning of clash here was apparently more broad meaning. Friction here can be interpreted as a clash between the countries which uphold modernity with all its attributes with a bunch of people who choose to be different in the routine of life.
The existence of western thought that seems very selfish way of life that they consider "ideal" they assume that the fact that different civilizations with them and do not replicate their model is a cruel barbaric civilization. This is actually the main problem of the clash of civilization according to Mr. Arshin. Which incidentally is the holder of the Western powers hostile to the present multidimensional humiliating even different models with their model, they are trying to homogenize thought, ideology and a society around the world. The proof is a statement of former British prime minister Tony Blair declared that the ideology of Islam is "evil ideology" without having to learn and understand what is Islam and who the Muslims. In his speech at the party's national policy conference of British labor, definitions and describes the factors why it can be called a vicious ideology. The characteristics of the ideology of evil according to Blair, is an ideology that rejected the legitimacy of Israel, has thought of Islamic Shari'a is the legal basis, the establishment of the Caliph of Islam, and anti to the values ​​of western liberal. This reinforces my argument that any attempt to equate western aspects of socio-political to the degree multidimensional.
In this issue of communication media such as film, television and electronic media are very influential on the ideas spread hatred against Islam. To misunderstandings by many western media are not scientifik is what ultimately would exacerbate friction between the "U.S. and THEM". There was good to straighten this perception, we both see the true concept of Islam regardless of the effects of Al Qaeda which is precisely contrary to the teachings of Islam. It's good as well, I explain what Islam says about peace.
Further discussion would I start with the question "What is Islam?". Islam is surrender to God in a way just to worship Him and not to other than Him. This means that we really do all forms of worship and servitude to God. The main beliefs of Islam is that Allah is the one and true God and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Suffice it to say this belief, people can convert to Islam. The word "Muslim" means one who submit to Allah. "
fundamental, extremist and terrorist even though very familiar with the community that embraced Islam. Generalize the behavior of 'a bunch' cause the face of Islam Muslims often become worse, so that negative labels had always deserved to be addressed to Islam. So, is it true agenda of Islam as a dogma has violence? Or just the fact that Islam was always carrying a message of peace? Here the authors attempt to trace the truth of the above assumptions. Peace is essential in human life, because the dynamics of peace is the creation of a healthy, harmonious and humanist in every interaction between the members. In an atmosphere of peace and security, human beings will live with peace and joy can also carry out duties within the framework of peace. Therefore, peace is an absolute right of every individual in accordance with the entity as being entrusted with the task as bearer of God for the prosperity of this world. Even the presence of peace in the life of every creature is a demand, because behind the peaceful expression of store friendliness, gentleness, brotherhood and justice.
Actually, if examined more deeply, Islam is not the name of a particular religion, but rather the name of a collection of religions brought by the Prophets, and ascribed to all their followers and forwarded by the prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad as the last bearer of the message that was sent down to the prophets of former . That's the mission and purpose of the revelation of Islam to mankind. Therefore, Islam is not lowered to maintain hostility or resentment spread among mankind. Conception and the facts of Islamic history shows, how tolerance and love of the Muslims against other faiths, both of which belong to the Ahl-ul-book and the mushrik, even against all creatures, Islam put the attitude of compassion, and peace and harmony.
Among the concrete evidence of Islam's attention towards peace is by stacking its Charter of Medina (al-madina al-sahifah) is by most writers and researchers of Islamic history and Islamic political experts called the Islamic state's first constitution. Medina became an important instrument for the birth of an institution oriented to peace and togetherness. This is interesting, so that historians and scientists are very interested on the issue. Because of the birth of a nation that carries the human values, equality of rights and freedoms to its people unprecedented in the entire universe, especially in the Arab region.
Important to remember, that the universal human values ​​embodied in the Charter of Medina is much older than the human rights issue were sold by the United Nations which is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948. Many people understand the state of peace without war or conflict. Such understanding is an example of a negative definition of peace. Negatively, the absence of peace is defined as a situation of war and / or various other forms of violence. This definition is simple and easily understood, but the reality is there, many people continue to suffer from violence and injustice that are not visible. Given this reality, then there comes the expansion of the definition of peace and positive peace definitions. Positive definition of peace is the absence of structural violence or social justice. Peace in this concept includes all aspects of society as well, such as: the fulfillment of universal human rights, economic prosperity, ecological balance and other basic values. Based on this concept, peace is not just a matter of controlling and reducing the achievement of all these aspects, but peace is a fairly broad concept and its achievement requires a long process.
