I have read a good deal about Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations. I have written about the man and his theory commenting on leading articles by some of those who discussed the theory. His idea is that history itself is a conflict of civilizations and that there will always be civilizations that rise and triumph and others that fail and fall. Huntington cites examples from history but he keeps emphasizing history while forgetting geography altogether.
It was possible in the past for civilizations to flourish in different parts of the world but mountains, rivers and vast swathes of land separated them. A civilization may flourish in China, for example, but its influence would not extend to Europe. Another may rise in India but would not extend its influence to affect other civilizations, for example in North Africa. There were genuine barriers that separated civilizations from each another. If two civilizations met and came together, then clash was inevitable. Nobody knew much about the other who was viewed as an enemy.
I, however, consider that all civilizations merged into one in the 20th century and maybe some decades earlier. That was when the means of communication made it possible for civilizations to come together, when boundaries fell apart and language barriers collapsed. Civilizations were built on the one and same technology; a Chinese plane flies using the same technology as an American, Indian or Russian plane. Cellular phones make use of the same technology all over the world and with the Internet it has become much easier for civilizations to come together and eventually merge. Accessing information about one other is now much easier and nobody would dare to say that Western civilization is detached from the Eastern variety. The world has been turned into a small global village. Whatever happens in one part of the globe, say in Madras in India, is immediately transmitted by satellite to Dublin in Ireland and everywhere else. If Wall Street crashes, there will be shockwaves around the world resulting in the collapse of share prices in Zurich, Tokyo and London.
Influencing others and being influenced by them is a continuous process but each civilization has its own differences and characteristics. Civilization is contagious with its influence affecting everyone who comes in touch with it. Reacting to civilization is like reacting to an illness where people have their own way of dealing with foreign elements which attack and where the medicine applied by some may not be effective with others. If there ever has to be a conflict, let it be one of cultures and not of civilizations. The difference is enormous.
***
I cannot blame a man marrying a second wife if his first one is unable to bear children. At the same time, he should marry for the second time only after all possible medical efforts to make the first wife fertile have failed. I know several men who prefer to live with their beloved wives despite their inability to have children.
This was the topic of Wafa’s two letters. She was divorced on grounds of infertility without any attempt to remedy the problem. She was married at 25 and her husband was 32. She looked forward to a life of love and stability. Soon after the marriage, she became very upset when she, with a science degree from a local university, discovered that her husband was a relatively uneducated man though he had said earlier that he was a secondary school graduate. She did not complain and two years later, when she had not conceived, her husband took her to a doctor who found that there was a blockage in the fallopian tube that could be surgically corrected. Surprisingly as soon as her husband learned of her problem, he declared his intention to marry another woman who could bear children. When Wafa objected and asked him to take her to a specialist, he refused and divorced her. She then learned that he had been looking for a second wife even before he found out about her problem. In her letter she sought advice as to what she could do in these very depressing circumstances.
It is evident from the beginning that her former husband is a liar, a coward and a fraud. Why else should he pretend to be a secondary school graduate? Their marriage was on a weak foundation from the very beginning. She should not grieve over the end of a marriage with such a man who is apparently incapable of reciprocating love and affection. If he had the least consideration for her, he would have taken her to a specialist and agreed to the surgery. Or she should have arranged for the surgery with the help of her relatives.
She should thank God for revealing her husband’s ugly character and saving her from him. Let us hope that God will provide her with another loving and kinder husband. In the meantime, she should have the operation and be physically ready to become a mother.