Introduction
Our discussion here will capture the comparison between the doctrines of Mahdiism with the view of the Clash of civilizations by Samuel Huntington. At the outset, we deemed it necessary to point out the importance of the doctrine of Mahdiism because of its prospective look for the history, which strengthen the belief of human beings to be hopeful and the belief that guides us to proceed rightly on the straight path of life. At the same time, it rejects the issue of the Cultural War view that has been propounded by this American theorist in order for us to reveal his pessimistic approach to the way he has described the future.

Now, the crucial question raised here will be this: How is it that the United States claims to be the guardian of the novel system everywhere and considers itself worthy of administering the world's affairs, but supports a theory according to which the world will confront a frightful situation with no sign of western human rights and no American democracy?!

Mujtaba Amiri, an authority in politics writes about Huntington:

"The theorist of the Clash of civilizations view keeps a sublime position in the United States and Europe.

His Theory is very important inasmuch as it keeps up with the strategic directions for the West: particularly for the United States. His theory, however, seems to be more a form of strategy, a guideline or a direction rather than a mere theory. So, it needs to be politically assessed and analyzed apart from its application to particular instances."

Section one

Presenting the view of the Clash of civilizations

Criticism

The content of the theory includes the following:

1 – Giving rise to hostility
The first part of the theory talks about how to create on enemy. It says wars necessitate enemies; in fact, you ought to have an enemy so that the enmity could be realized and then fought against. Huntington says in this regard:

"The existence of enemies is a necessity for those who have risen to re-establish their identifications as nations. In the search of national characteristics, the most dangerous potential hostilities you may encounter exist in tearing apart the main connection lines between ancient principal civilizations…"

It is quite evident that the basis of the Clash of civilizations view lies on the existence of enmity and enemies to make it possible for someone to go into conflict with another. Taking such an action is the result of spitefulness, revenge fullness and nothing but pessimistic visions toward other nations. Is it not better and is it not possible to be more realistic, to feel more humanistic, and to start looking at other nations optimistically? Is it not wiser to prevent conflicts, violations and clashes at the outset, rather than starting them?! So, this argument will be refuted as it is against the reason, and this approach of the West, with regard to the theory is quite incompatible with[4] remission, tolerance[5] and leniency, and it is against democracy, it is without the observance of human rights.

2 – The Multi-polar World
Some people severely criticize those who are against western liberty and democracy. They say we should not segregate anyone in the society into higher and lower classes or native and non-native individuals. In spite of this opinion, however, Huntington believes in a multi-polar world after he has suggested the need for having enemies.

The major point in Huntington's book is that the cultures or cultural identities (by culture he means the same civilization) generally determine people's special patterns for convergence, divergence or conflicts after the cold war among the nations. So, for the first time in history, the world's policy is introduced to be multi-polar, that is, multicultural.

Not only is the above-mentioned policy contradictory to "human rights" and the western democracy, but the approach is inconsistent with what Huntington himself says about the administration of the world. This is because he first explicitly proposes four models for the universal management; He then mentions a single-world administration, a model of[6] Fukazawa, the bipolar model of "our world and theirs", in his so-called traditional view of Muslims as Dar-al-Harb (the world of war) or Dar-al-Salaam (the world of peace), i.e. "akin or alien", extrinsic or intrinsic, etc. After that, he rejects anarchism and chooses multi-polarism over other forms of governments relatively. But another question will be asked here:

"What is the difference between the views of having two spheres, several spheres, a bipolar world or a multi-polar world? The evidence by which we can disapprove of the bipolar world (perhaps because it causes disunion and enmity due to useless demarcation) is the same as the rejection of multi-polar world that would be full of tension and confusion. Moreover, since in the bipolar world of "ours and theirs", each pole considers itself to be true and the other false, this would also apply to the multi-polar world in which mo authority shows flexibility for the others. Therefore, in accordance with the western view of Human Rights and equality of people, any kind of opposition, forming factions or discrimination against one another will be unacceptable; so, both bi-polarism and multi-polarism are rejected.

3 – The relative Decline of the West
Another section of Huntington's book on Clash of civilizations admits the relative decline of the West. It claims that the western civilization will fail against other civilizations:

"The West has relatively declined in the domain of its political influence, but the Asian civilizations are expanding their military and political powers more and more. The Islamic societies, with respect to their populations, possess great increase.

Non – western civilizations have proceeded toward weighing their special cultural values again. A universal discipline is now being shaped on the foundation of different cultures.

Those nations having cultural affinity are cooperating with each other. But any effort made to separate a society from its own culture to transfer it to other civilizations has failed so far. Smaller countries are grouping themselves around bigger countries which enjoy ancient civilizations."

Now, if the superiority of the West vanishes or its decline is affirmed; and if the East starts to move upward, then the West's worthiness will be decreased and all its merits will disappear. The East will promote in truthfulness and worthiness. As a result, a debased civilization will lose its ability to survive. In such a case, the West ought not to go into challenge with an old civilization that is now growing and developing more. But, in the contrary and unfortunately, the West's pretension, ambitiousness and greed have not been even hidden from the eyes of Huntington under these circumstances when he admits them.

4. The Claim for Globalization
The claims of the West to globalize everything have caused increasing clashes between other civilizations specially the Chinese and the Muslim societies with the Western world.

But the survival of the West depends on the fact that the Americans firmly emphasize their own identification separate from that of other nations and emphasize only their own civilization. They ought not to fight against non – western civilizations; rather, they should become united in their own hemisphere so that they can cope with their difficulties, improve and rebuild their standard of living.

To avoid the Clash of civilizations in the world depends on the fact that leaders in different countries could accept the multicultural world policy and cooperate with one another to keep their nation safe.

The solution is to refrain from excessive demands and agree on the non-universality of western culture. However, he does not give up his claim of challenging other civilizations and asks westerners to come together to form a united culture in order to dominate other non-westerners.

But the criticism applicable to him is, first of all. That today's relative decline of western influence with its non-universality of civilization will not leave any opportunity for it to quarrel with and challenge other civilizations. Secondly, in case the challenge is practiced and the fighting is realized, the Clash of civilizations will break out whether we want it or not. Then, there will be mo place for cooperation among the world leaders to preserve all so-called cultural values of theirs since it will be useless trying to prevent the war.

Now that we have made known the nature of the Clash of civilizations, still another question will be raised here: To what extent is Huntington's view authentic and how probable will his Huntington's view authentic and how probable will his prediction be to come true?

There have been some criticisms referring to the faults of his theory, which we would like to avoid repeating them here. However, a few of the troubles that his view has made in the situation are as follows:

a – The Clash of civilizations View has as its main goal the creation of hostility and conspiracy; while those proclaiming or defending Human Rights, including Carl Pauper have refuted it intensely. The act seems to be sort of misleading and demagoguery emanating from adventurous irresponsibility.

b – Huntington thinks he is representing the whole Europe and the United States as a cultural political official. They have gone beyond their limits and have designed the theory of the clash of civilizations to stop the decline of western societies. They have tried to unjustly demand more than they deserve as their portion in the course of history.

Though they admit the downward movement of their civilization, it isn’t fair and logical that they encourage animosity by challenging other nations. They add more fuel to the fire of civilizations clashes in their hard struggle to perhaps keep their old indolent civilization upright.

c – Another fault of Huntington's theory is its accusing the eastern civilizations of aggression in their development. This may be true in that the western cultures have started to decline especially in the category of moral values in as much as they cannot claim any more to be universal and rule over other nations. It is also true that other civilizations, specially the Asian ones including Islamic cultures, have started again their upward movement. But it is mot true that the growth and development of eastern civilizations have been along with aggression to seek for dominance and invasion of other lands or seizing their property. The belief in justice, fairness and the centrality of morals in the Islamic culture will need no justification. These characteristics do not allow any Muslims to encroach on other people's rights.

But, now that the West has committed the crime of supporting the brutal Israeli government to antagonize Muslim countries, we should not expect anyone to remain silent and submitted! It is also true that the borders of Islamic domains have been bloody, but it is the West that has always been responsible for all the bloodsheds in the occupied Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. It is the West that unfairly supports its terrorist satellites to pave the way for that bloodshed.

d – The innate fault which is found with the theory of Clash of civilizations is the false view on the nature of man and the religion of Islam. This is what we are going to explain in the following sections of this article on Mahdiism and the War between cultures.

Section II

Essential Differences between the Doctrine of Mahdiism and Clash of civilizations view

The Ideology of Mahdiism in the West

1 – 1 Huntington openly points out:

"The main political ideologies of the twentieth century such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, fascism, nationalism, social democracy, etc., have all been the products of western civilizations. No other countries have ever presented an important political ideology and this is the truth. But, what the West has not managed yet to produce within all its boundaries is the major universal religion. All great religions of the world are the results of non-western civilizations, most of which presented by resolute prophets even before the days of western civilizations. Now as the world has passed through its western interval, it is gradually coming out of the western cycle. The western ideologies too are experiencing their periodical downward movement."

1 – 2 As it is quite clear from the above, by saying these words, Huntington means that Ideology and religion must be kept apart, one Western and the other non-Western. This implicitly conveys to us that non-westerners are not capable of supplying any ideologies. In addition, some people fond of western democracy insist even on introducing Islam as a non-ideological religion; whereas this idea is absolutely wrong he cause a great religion, as Islam, is a perfect collection of faith, righteous deeds, world viewing and ideology. Religion without ideology does not exist at all. Religion is inseparable from ideology displaying a worldview of life on one side and indicates the strategies of how to live in this world on the other side, which can exactly be called an ideology. As a result, Religion secures human happiness and prosperity through combining both world viewing and ideology. More over, Religion is never void of Ideology so, ideology is never characteristic of western civilizations.

1 – 3 Another error found in Cultural War View is that it considers the religion as an output of civilization, while it is the reverse of this idea. If we rely on the fact that religion is the sum of world views and ideology we cannot regard it as a product of a civilization anymore. In its correct sense, the religion has been sent down by god through revelations to His resolute prophets. So, the origin of the religion has been laid beyond human power and the material world. Of course, there is no objection to the idea that the religion has always been applied as the pillars for man's building of civilization without which he could not set up progressive cultures.

1 – 4 In accordance with Huntington's reference to the western ideological decline, i.e. retro gradation of their cultures, he should have also referred to the reason for that decline. There seen to be two causes present: one being the existence of various crises, failures or frustrations in their societies created by competitive ideologies around, and the other being the emptiness felt due to lack of Religion because religious belief and Faith was drawn aside after the Renaissance. However, these two reasons reveal that the western civilization has been unable to meet all the requirements of man for an ideal efficient administration of society and for a good living. Nevertheless, by approaching its dead end, the western civilization still tries to proceed towards future progresses in spite of its in adequate man-made ideologies; but how can they be hopeful?!

It is here now that the difference between the doctrine of Mahdiism and the view of Clash of civilizations becomes clearly known as Mahdiism. Relying on the rich perfect school of Islam, with its ideal of seeking peace and justice, promises men of the best prospects for the future. But the Clash of civilizations View void of religion and ideology, with its declining civilization, promises a vague, obscure future and a world replete with violence, conflicts and wars.

1 – 5 An interesting point that draws our attention appears to be the following: Question:

"How is it non-western societies have not been able to produce different schools of thought or ideologies?

The answer is that non-westerners did not need any man-made ideologies since the religion was ever present for them to turn to in their civilizations. Islam, being the richest, the most comprehensive and perfect could dispense with such ideologies having passed out of human minds.

1 – 6 Telling a Tradition
Here, we would like to tell a tradition around justice in the doctrine of mahdiism about the behavior, conducts and attitude of Imam Mahdi (pbh) for the promotion of economic, judicial and cultural aims in his state.

Jabir[7] says: "A man entered the house of Imam Baqir[8] (pbh) and said praying: May God keep you safe! Take this 500 Dirham of mine as alms money to spend wherever you deem it advisable."

Imam Baghir said to him: "I will give the money back to you to expend it among those needy Muslims you know such as, Religious brothers, neighbors, and acquaintances." Then he added: "There will come a time when the Gha'im[9] of the Household[10] rises. He will divide all the wealth and property in the world equally among people; he will treat everybody in exact justice. Those who obey Gha'im, have obeyed God, and those who oppose him have opposed God. He is called Mahdi[11] (pbh), so called because he is a secret missioner to guide people. He will take out the Old and New Testaments and other Heavenly Books out of a cave in Antakia.[12] He will judge among the Jews according to the Old Testaments, among the Christians According to the New Testaments, among the adherents of the prophet David according to Zabour (the Book of Psalms), Among the men of the Qur’an according to its directions. All wealth shall be put at his disposal. The wealth of the world totally will gather from all over the earth and under the earth like mines. Then he will announce: O people, take my judgment for whatever you did; take my punishment for mot observing the bonds of relationship, for the bloodsheds, for the blood you shed unjustifiably, for committing unlawful acts, etc."
Then Imam Mahdi (pbh) takes an action no one has ever taken before. He will fill the whole earth with justice, equality, fraternity and Divine light, because the earth will have been filled with oppression, tyranny and wickedness."

2 – The revival of religion
The second difference between the doctrine of Mahdiism and cultural War view is about the revival of Religion. Both of them believe in the revival but with different prospects. Huntington says in this regard:

[Even] before the 19th century, the Arabs, the Chinese, the people from East Roman Empire, people from ottoman empire, the Mongols and the Russians were truly self – confident. They even ridiculed the western cultural inferiority, institutional backwardness, corruption and decline. Now that the West's prosperity and success is on the point of relative decline, the same views about the westerners are renewing once more. Non-westerners primarily feel that they should not take the West into any account. In Iran too, many people deny western values in various ways though this sometimes seems to be extravagant. Also, in other countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, China, and Japan, the same attitudes are taken toward Western Civilization and the ways of life nowadays, more and more people are turning to their own traditional native values and renewing their own religious ceremonies. This is what has happened in many parts of the world including Asian countries and, particularly, in Islamic countries in case of cultural rebirth; but it can also be the effect of their economic productivity or the largeness of active populations.

The return of God: During the first half of the 20th century, most of the thinkers in the world believed that social and economic modernization would inevitably disregard religion, which is an important institution in man's life. In the second half of the century, it became known that the idea was baseless. All their hopes and fears were nonsense because religion, in step with modernization, was restored to life all over the world.

This rebirth, or in the words of Jill Koppel, the return of God, encluded all the continents, civilizations, and almost all the countries. The approach was to guard religion to be kept apart from modernization which had already been defeated. The thinkers admitted their being wrong and claimed that the failure was due to Modernism to keep them aloof from God. No one now talked about how to adapt Religion to new circumstances; no one talked about how to Christianize Europe again or how to modernize Islam. Rather, they aimed at Islamizing modernism.

Continuing his discourse, Koppel has considered the processes of social, economical and cultural modernization on the second half of the twentieth century to be the most obvious, prominent and the strongest factor for the rebirth of religion throughout the world. Also, he has regarded self-identification, self-reliance, self-recognition, or self – acknowledgement to be other factors emanating from the rebirth of religion.

It is the religion that makes distinction between the believers and disbelievers, between the senior pious and the junior impious. It is the religion that forms man's personality. Koppel depicts the quality of religious rebirth as follows:

"In a broader sense, the rebirth of religion is a reaction against secularism, ethical relativism and hedonism all over the world. It emphasizes the values of regularity, discipline, order, cooperation and interdependence of men. Religious communities have managed well to respond to those social requirements that mo ruler's government has ever been able to meet."

The writer also considers the end of cold Wars and the West's retreat as other factors resulting from the rebirth of religion.

This revival, however, does not deny modernity at all; rather, it seeks to refute the relativistic, atheistic formless culture accompanying modernity in the West. It wants to refuse the so-called "westernization", to acquire cultural independence from the West. The religious revival now calls out proudly: "we shall be-come modern but we will never become as you are."

2 – 2 Huntington's degrading of religious rebirth to the level of nativism (reviving indigenous cultures) is not acceptable either, be cause he regards the rebirth as an opposition to western civilizations. Also raising the question of nationalism as the stimulation for rebirth is not true. Nationalism has always been an ideal of the western societies in the past. So nationalistic approaches can by no means be as the renaissance of Religion has never welcomed nationalism. In the doctrine of Mahdiism too, nativism and nationalism do not fill any vacancy. Mahdiism is the same renewal of Islam; therefore, it cannot gather together all the schools of nationalism, nativism, socialism and so on under the banner of religion.

2 – 3 In Huntington's belief, nativism, opposition to westernization and Islamicization of Asians including Iranians are to be called an excessive inclination. This belief is not correct either because in Asian countries, especially in Iran, as we clearly see, the tendency is in agreement with wisdom and reason. Then, how can it be an extreme? Now, this accusation of his is that the eastern religious rebirth has threatened the western benefits in the situation. Besides, if nativism is an extremistic ideology, western nationalism too, will be the same; whereas, the westerners dislike accepting the fact.

2 – 4 Another error of Huntington's is his introduction of some factors as Islamic fundamentalism. He and those who think as he does have been keeping apart from reality. They enumerate factors such as economic development, population growth, the ending of the cold war, the West's retreat and nativism, etc, to be the chief variables of Islamicization. But these are never the principal media in religion but only instruments for priority. Then what are the main factors? The main factors, as Huntington has referred to them too, are the faith in god, and keeping away from atheistic modernity. Faith in God is the most valuable factor and the denial of atheism is the most unworthy necessity in the renewal of religion in today's life. It is a fact that the negation of religion and being in compliance with atheism were the causes for the establishment of modern civilization at the time of Renaissance. Therefore, as Huntington himself believes, "Re-Christianizing Europe must start by denying modernity and opposing this civilization or by Islamizing this modernity again."

2 – 5 About the reaction to modernization, it can be said tat in the renewal of Islam; the influence of this factor will be indirect. In other words, it is not the feeling of having fallen behind or the feeling of triviality in the course of material progresses in life that Muslims have proceeded to review their piousness; it is, instead, the observation of shortages, weaknesses and inadequacies of modernity that has helped reveal the innate values of Religion to give us guidelines and show us direction-s. That is why Muslims have turned to Faith in God and, in the words of Huntington, resorted to religious precepts for a better life with trust in God. But how?

2 – 6 Here, we should define the rebirth to Religion the mature of modernization and Islamic fundamentalism. These cannot be like some people imagine. The renewal of religion does not mean the renewal of Islamic precepts and the acceptance of some foreign values or changing Islamic laws and regulations. Rather, Islamic fundamentalism and Mahdiism call for cleansing heresies and impurities off the holy site of Religion and off the original rightful Islam away from any defect. Pollution or distortion, being re-introduced to and being practiced in the society.

2 – 7 We should not ignore Huntington's confession in the independence of the Islamic Rebirth in his evading westernization. In fact, it is the same important Point that shows the nature of Islamic fundamentalism or Mahdiism. Imam Mahdi's rising is the belief that reveals the best kind of Islamic radicalism. Similarly, reviving the rightful Islam, which authorizes benefiting from both material and intellectual advantages of knowledge and human civilization, will be desirable, since it is free from any disadvantages of corruption and decadence in western civilization.

2 – 8 Consequently, religious revival is, from one side, because of the fact that the west couldn’t provide an answer to man’s needs and the problems that exist in societies. On the other hand Islam has proven to be able to provide a solution. Otherwise that sort of renewal of Islam which opposes the West and goes back to the old religion again after the lapse of 14 centuries would be meaningless and unreasonable. What is more, is that the renewal is concerned with the correct definition of "man" and the philosophy of "life" in Islam. How to define this will be referred to in another discussion.

3 – Mahdiism and Western Reformation
While giving his view on the clash of civilizations and comparing different civilizations, Huntington likens Islamic fundamentalism to the Western Reformation, that is, the religious movement of the protestants in the 16th century. Then, he enumerates many similarities existing between Protestantism and Islamic modernism, but finds some differences too between them. Also, he cites Islamic fundamentalism to be like the revolution in Marxism.

In recent years too, there have been similar approaches in Iran. Ideas such as Protestantism and Islamic Humanism have been brought up just as Islamic socialism or Godly socialism had been set forth before. Now, in order to assess these approaches to show the differences between Islamic fundamentalism or Mahdiism on the one hand, and Christian Reformation or revolutionary Marxism on the other, we will start to discuss and analyze Huntington's opinions.

3 – 1 Huntington raises the question of the Rebirth of Islam like this:

"While the Asians were acquiring more self-confidence as a result of their economic development, crowds of Muslims too, resorted to their own traditional religion and re-confirmed it once more as the origin of their identity, stability, legitimacy, development, power and hopefulness the hopeful ness which has been regarded as the solution to every problem in Islamic Standards. So, the rebirth of Islam, with its vastness and depth, is the newest phase in the procedure of adaptation of Islamic civilization with that of the West."

Then, Huntington, quoting from a Muslim authority, introduces the content of Islamic rebirth by saying:

"The establishment of Islamic Jurisprudence in the place of western laws and, than, increasing the use of religious language and symbols, expanding Islamic teachings, observing Islamic rules of conduct like Hijab[13] ever more than before, and not drinking alcoholic beverages, etc. are all included in Islam." Then he adds:

"The return of god is now a universal phenomenon but god, or Allah, is always among the Muslim believers and in their societies to revenge wrong-doers everywhere and He is successful for Retribution.

The Islamic Rebirth bears some similarities with Marxism in its political presentation. The texts that are called to be sacred give a full picture of a perfect society in which exist belief in foundational changes, denial of the nations or the state's power, the variety of doctrines containing a moderate reformism up to a violent revolution, all of which indicate some of such similarities. Of course, the Islamic Rebirth is more like the Christian Revolution in the Protestant code, which was: reaction to stagnation and corruption, return to a purer milder religion, orderliness, discipline and having attraction for the middle class. These are some common aspects between them. Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrines are similar to Shiism and Sunnism's fundamentalist ideas. There are even similarities between John Calvin and Ayatollah Khomeini."

After that, He goes on discussing Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Reformation by saying:

"The religious movement of the reformists was chiefly limited to the Northern Europe, but the Islamic Rebirth has influenced almost all Muslim societies."

In Hunting-ton's opinion, the Islamized elements include enlightened revolutionary students, middle urban classes and rural emigrants to the cities; but the present Liberal Democrats have not succeeded in moving parallel to Muslim Fundamentalists.

That's right, liberal Democrats, with a few exceptions could not find a firm, stable, popular basis. Even an Islamic Liberalism was not able to take root either in these societies.

The entire defeat of liberal democracy to get access to power in Islamic societies is a repeated experience and a continual phenomenon. This has started since the beginning of the 19th century but without any success. The main reason for the failure is, to some extent, the nature of the Culture and the Quality of an Islamic society, which do not accept the western liberal concepts.

Huntington, at last, after reiterating factors of Islamic Fundamentalism like the growth of population, modernization, and the government's affectation of rightful Islam, etc.

Claims that they are the causes for the inefficiency of Islamic Fundamentalism to establish social justice, economic development, and political liberty.

3 – 2 Quoting from Huntington, we said previously that in his belief Islamic Fundamentalism means: opposing the West, seeking independence, negating western values even modernization in the western style, etc. But in another place he says:

"Islamicization means: conforming to the West's rules." But he docs not give any more explanation or reasons. The fault with his talk is, at first, that it is contradictory, since complete rejection of the West is quite different from westernization and conforming to the West. Secondly, the essence of Islamic monotheistic teachings will basically hinder polytheism; so any non-monotheistic approach to the West is prohibited because it will be considered atheistic.

3 – 3 Perhaps according to some incorrect inference that westerners have had from Religion, they merely consider it as something only spiritual, heavenly, non-mundane and, as a result, they think it is empty of other functions like the political administration. Huntington too, despite his admission of Islamic legislation, its content of a high moral code and the exact application of creeds and its being bound to Islamic ideology, considering the nature of Islamic Fundamentalism to be violent, revengeful and quarrelsome. He even says:

"Revengeful' is the attribute of-god. He is called a "revenge taker" in Islamic culture" But we all know that this idea is not true. The essence of religion in general, and the religion of Islam in particular, is kindness. The nature of Islam is Islamic radicalism, essentialism and Mahdiism. Islam puts together this world and the other world; it relies on Divine compassion as a part of its culture. Islam is known as a religion to bestow mercy, kindness and grace by the Will of Allah, with all laudable qualities; other wise, to revenge enemies of God, those who are incorrigible and troublesome constituting a small number cannot be regarded as a dominant majority. Moreover, the doctrine of Islam and Mahdiism has a First step to take and that is the extermination of enemies of mankind and justice. It is evident, then it the preliminary conditions are not realized, the greatest parts will not be reached. So, it is fairly desirable to reason that "a prelude can never be more detailed than its whole performance".

3 – 4 The similarities or common aspects that Huntington has cited to be between Islam and Marxism are never acceptable because these two are by far different from each other both quantitatively and qualitatively: For example the ideas of 'generalism', being 'revolutionary', and fundamentalism are not the same in them. Secondly, Islam is originally distinct from Marxism in' its beliefs. In Marxism "matter" is original but in Islam God is the origin of creation. Everything is in under His protection.

Since such a basic difference exists in their basic approach their ideological outlooks on the World will inevitably become different.

3 – 5 While comparing Islam and Christianity (of course with great concession since Islamic Monotheism is not analogous to Christian Trinity), we can say both of then ask their followers to worship God; both are divine religions. However, we cannot say, at first, that Christian Reformation is identical with Islamic Fundamentalism, inasmuch as what happened in the matrix of protestant movement to which Huntington has referred too, is inside a religion that has been distorted; whereas Islamic fundamentalism is a return to the religious principles and rudiments whose original text, the Koran is left to us safe, sound and intact without any distortion. Secondly, the direction of Christian reforms led to Western Capitalism with the help of Protestantism, which is merely mundane; whereas Islamic Fundamentalism or Mahdiism aims only at God. If Muslims tend to use secular commodities, it is because God has asked Muslims not to be hermits. Thirdly, Protestantism itself has been established heretically by men who wanted to modify it, but Islamic radicalism that has risen from the depth of Religion is endowed with the sanction of guarding the Law and the responsibility for growth.

Religious leadership and practice of Jurisprudence (Ijtihad) too, is not considered as heresy and neither is it innovation in the unlawful sense of the word but it is of great value in itself.

3 – 6 What Huntington means in this regard is also unreasonable – He puts the load of Islamic Fundamentalism on the shoulders of three groups he mentions; because Islam is in essence "Faith and Belief" and does not deprive and Muslim of his rights. So, all the followers of Islam must believe in the principles of the religion and Mahdiism. The righteous deed is also complementary to the Faith. Every Muslim should try to get his religious ideals realized. Then, the three groups cited above have no characteristic themselves. All social classes lie under the fundamentalism of Islam and this is what Huntington himself has somehow admitted, when he calls all geographical areas of the Islamic world as the open space for fundamentalism of Islam; though he should have said:

"Wherever on the earth a Muslim lives, he or she has to fulfill the religious duties indicated and coordinated with Fundamentalism."

3 – 7 It is so interesting Huntington admits that Liberal Democracy has defeated against Islamic Radicalism. This conveys truth fullness and superiority of Mahdiism Doctrine. Of course, it is of great importance to reveal the secret of the defeat of Liberal Democracy which is the best Product of the defeat of Liberal Democracy which is the best product of the West. The reason seems to be that the report card of western civilization in comparison with that of Islamic world is filled with awful records. This reveals that the westerners have oppressed Muslims several times in history although Hey have been intellectually poorer and much less spiritual than Muslims. Their theoretical and practical inadequacy in using science has made us reject them and turn to Islam. Let it mot remain unsaid here that something in the name of "Islamic Liberalism" is only on imagination which has occupied the mind of Huntington and the like without having an external reality.

Just as what we said before in the criticism of Islamic Protestantism and Islamic socialism (which do not exist at all), the religion of Islam is independent and is self-sufficient in itself without having any relations to Humanistic Schools of Thought. Islam does mot need to get any thing from them either to share with them. If we admit that man is a perfect creation, then he is needless. We may only use the term "servant of god" for him to show his freedom. Then is no coordination between Islam and western Liberalism; any such coordination is impossible and out of question. Since a Muslim is a servant of God, his free-will is a light of absolute will of God; whereas a westerner who cuts himself off from God, takes His place, feels powerful and completely free, and this is an idea completely incompatible with the idea of Submission and Worship.

3 – 8 Our last word will be a response to those who believe religion or Mahdiism is inefficient for a happy life. This is perhaps the most important matter of theirs brought up in dispute with Islamic Fundamentalism. The essential point is that western civilization is materialistic in substance. Its mental base for worldview is laid on "matter". Its principal approach is economic. That's why the westerners weigh and measure Islamic Fundamentalism with such a wrong standard or criterion which they use to indicate their positions.

In order to assess Islamic Fundamentalism, we should, at first, choose a non-material medium so that its theoretical efficiency will be known. Secondly, the practical efficiency of Religion will be examined, that is, the opportunity must be taken to check everything to see and then judge whether it is successful, whether it is done on the basis of Islamic norms.

So, Islamic Fundamentalism is an approach to Mahdiism; it has provided a chance for the West to take and to follow the course to witness its efficacy how it will reach practical successfulness.

4 – A Historical or an abstract Outlook
Previously, we asked a question: Can Religion be surveyed in its ideological garment? Westerners and those enamored of the West fear to see an applied religion. They want a religion non-political, non-ideological and separated from its reality. Separated from society and in abstraction, so that there would be no harm from its side in their western profits; because western secularists have treated Christianity the same way: to stay safe and sound in various phases of cultural, social, economical or political dimensions. That is the reason why do not want a dynamic genuine Islam as a perfect religion with different adaptable systems to ask of them Faith and righteous deeds. Rather, they want "Historical Islam, namely. A static religion that has remained still without any alterations, a kind of Islam that can be mixed with human whims and passions.

4 – 1 An Approach to the Clash of civilizations View under the title: Islam as a Concept without Monotheism Huntington says:

"The quality of political faithfulness in Arabs and among all Muslims is in contrast with that quality in the modern west. For westerners, the State and the Nation or the country and people are the highest point of political faithfulness. Other forms of faith fullness will be subsidiary or are ignored when faithfulness to one's nation is set forth. On the other hand, in Islam the hierarchy of faithfulness is hollow in the middle. 'Iralapidus' holds that there are two basic permanent structures in Islam, in the family, in the tribe or in the community on the first hand; and on the second hand, in the cultural, religious, and in governmental units with its most wide spread quality in kingdoms. In the Arab world, the present countries have difficulty being regarded legitimate, since they are mostly the product of Absolute, if not stable, Imperialism of the West. The boundaries between these countries are not in accordance with tribal, sectarian or ethnic habitations, like Berbers or Kurds. Moreover, sovereignty of the nation-state is inconsistent with that of Allah and the people. Islamic Fundamentalism as a revolutionary movement denies any nation-State concept for a unified Islamic world."

Mrs. Hunter, one of the advocates of Huntington's view, explicitly claims that Islam is non-ideological, empty of a political system but only historical. She says:

"The difficulty with most of the theories presented about the nature of Islam is that they have surveyed the position and function of Islam in a separated, non-historical manner; but it is not possible to think of the effects of Islam in an abstracted form.

Of course, Islam does not consist of a motionless, static collection of lawful rules and moral regulations that have not changed over centuries. Islam is a compact aggregate of life experiences of the people who have lived in these lands throughout different periods of time together or with other non-Muslims."

By studying another section of Mrs. Hunter's writing, we can realize why she is so interested in a historical Islam and not an evolutionary one.

The First Islamic Society, Facts and Fiction Muhammad (MGSPH), the prophet of Islam, entered Medina in 622 AD and passed away in 532 AD.

Over these ten years of his living there, he overtook the political and intellectual leadership of his followers in the new Islamic society. In spite of the fact that this period was short, he left a deep influence on the next political and social theory of Islam that was going to change. The engagement of enchanted Muslims with that ideal period gave so great an enthusiasm to the people that it became an example for the next generation of the city to try to renew it again this struggle has been continual and the experience has been repeated through-out the history of Islam. Don't the Quran and the prophetic traditions provide a sufficient clear unambiguous guideline for the conditions necessary in an Islamic government?

May God send His Praising to him his household.

In another place of her writing, Mrs. Hunter prefers even the political system of the Sassanides to that of Islam. She says in this regard:

"In the Sassanide customs, there were more intermingle between mundane and heavenly phenomena.

Now, in spite of the prevalent belief in the idea that politics and religion can be mixed in Islam, we see that the intermixture is mot greater than other religions.

At the political level, the Islamic world is lacking in unification and integration. Islam has not managed yet to leave out tribal, racial and cultural characteristics in its domain the desire for the constitution of a single Muslim Nation still seems unlikely and inaccessible. It has remained for the people like a mirage to reach. There are great complications for the individual and collective identity of Muslims in proportion to other countries. The most important outcome of the missing unity among Muslims is that they have only Islam to account for and to resort to for their identifications and other desires. But this may not often be the most important."

Attacking Islamic radicalism severely, she says at last:

"If the "extremist Islam" is basically a deviation resulted from various factor having no relationship with the concept of orthodox Islam, it can be destroyed by attacking its basic reasons which are recognizable. Nevertheless, not all western thinkers and observers of Islam can distinguish good and bad Islam. But they all accept there is one kind of Islam called, “the Islam that defies", which is the most dangerous to threaten the west whether at its civilization or at other aspects. So the fighting Islam must be controlled and eliminated.

But these thinkers are against the idea that Islam is able to evolve, improve and then approach the western values, get to a compromise with them. They conclude that a certain clash between civilizations will be inevitable until Islamic communities become fully secularized until Islam become restricted to the domain of individual self-consciousness and intelligence. The advocates of this theory also believe that any efforts to even engage those Islamized groups that are without extreme tendency in political movements will also be dangerous."

Before criticizing all the above long quotations, I must apologize to dear readers and God, the Great, for these humiliating offensive contents these writers have said. I cannot hide my ample sorrow and annoyance caused by the use of the profane language of these writings. Such books are translated, printed and Published with sumptuous expenses out of the State's treasury without any reminiscence or even a short critique for the baseless views that threaten our people's beliefs. Now, for the sake of my religious duty I will note the following lines so that I might lessen the burden of the misfortune inflicted upon us and show the infirmity of such hallucinations.

4 – 2 Doubtlessly, nationalism is a western phenomenon and a school of thought. But the chief reason for its inefficiency seems to be more than its non-innateness. The 19th and the 20th centuries' changes, specially the two world wars showed that nationalism and extreme racialism would not lead to anywhere. After these two, existentialism came into being so that it could compensate somehow for the spiritual and intellectual injuries inflicted on the western societies due to some shortages.

As for nationalism, it is contrary to man's nature and wisdom. It is by no means consistent with the equality of men, since men are equal in relation to their amount of mental and physical abilities they possess. And those can never be measured by the ugly hands of nationalism.

Perhaps, Huntington had omitted the void ness of nationalism and filled its blank space by his theory of clash of civilizations.

But strange to say, he turned to nationalism again and tried to find faults with Islam by asking why it did not accept this human school of thought. Now, it is a very good thing and an object of glory that Islam disagreed with nationalism.

4 – 3 Huntington's point of view that the Islamic model is hollow in the middle (namely, it has relied on family' primitive tribes, emperorship and then on caliphate because of which the Muslim society became involved in disunion) is nothing but irrelevant and untrue. According to religious texts, family is laid on the base of reason and nature; it has been valued for its dignity. It has been recommended strictly that we setup a family life, the mutual laws for husband and wife have been taken into account, respect to the parents has been emphasized; but never have tribalism, caliphate nor emperorship been accepted. What has really been accepted is sainthood (the friendship to the authority, guidance and leadership) of the holy prophet and the Imams, and now the last Imam who is absent from our sight but he is alive. It is also accepted that we should obey a religious leader at present who is the substitute for the absent Imam.

Then, not only has Nationalism been left out but also tribalism. Caliphate, emperorship, imperialism and the like have been denied in Islam because they contradict reason and nature. I hope I can discuss this more in another article.

4 – 4 Huntington has mentioned, however, the illegitimacy of Arab States that are dependent to the West, but this difficulty does not bear any relation to Islam. It is quite clear that the religion of Islam Does not agree with them since they have a false legitimacy by being dependent to the West. As a result, the problem of such states is due to the disgraceful domination of foreign powers.

4 – 5 The essence of the doctrine of Mahdiism and its sovereignty comes from the Sovereignty of Allah. As it is expressed in the Qur’an: "Government only belongs to Allah." Then, from where do they infer that the rule rejects "national government"? As Huntington and the others who think the way he does in the West, say they want to have republicanism without Islamism. They think God’s sovereignty cannot be along with people’s sovereignty! The answer is that to their imagination is that the ‘creed’ is different from ‘government’. The creed is the religious order and the divine law, but ‘government’ means how to carry out God’s orders. In Islam, the governors, the rulers, and the executers of laws have been introduced to the nations and the people are asked to follow them and obey them.

So, this is called the commands of Allah due to being a Muslim or a servant of God. Republicanism in Islam means the same thing. It is on the basis of people’s votes. As a result, no negation is there between national government and republicanism in the political system or between Divine creeds and Islamism.

4 – 6 The doctrine of Mahdiism or Islamic fundamentalism does not aim at Nationalism on the basis of seeking unity and denying disunity. This is because Nationalism creates a fragile unity in a collection with forms that have an injurious competition with similar units or different nations. Instead, the unity among nations, the formation of a single universal government to realize virtue, God-fearing or as the Qur’an that says:

"There is no difference between men and women in the origin of creation."

God has created man and woman both the same. Neither of them should boast or take pride in being a man or a woman. Similarly, Mo tribe or nation has superiority to another in comparison.

Then, what is the real reason for those superficial differences between men, Women, tribes, communities, nations and races in creation? Here in the words of the Qur’an, "It is for you to know each other, to get familiar with one another ..." So, it is mutual recognition on the condition of [14] virtue, which causes cooperation. The distinction of one form from another, except in the degrees of virtue, may result in boasting or hostility, animosity, etc.

It is true that Mahdiism and fundamentalism deny Nationalism but they settle in its place a unity that is much more constructive. It is a unity of the whole Muslim world in practice, in spite of all superficial differences in civilizations and local cultures. In fact, in the words of Bernard Louis to specify the subject truthfully:

"Islam is a universal religion not on the basis of racialism or liberalism."

4 – 7 According to what we have said so far, the highest political system is setup in Islam. On the one side, it is handled by Divine laws and on the other side, it allows every unit of human society and everyone to share in power to administer the affairs.

The meaning of Doctrine of Mahdiism and Religious Government is not a closed Kind of management. It is not the way some people believe that Islam is a government of only religious jurists. Neither is it non-scientific nor monopolistic. It is really a virtue-centered system for greatness of man in accordance with the more virtue one has. The higher the virtue, the higher his rank will be. This causes specialty and commitment for him to manifest himself in his worthiness. This is the same thing that we believe is the criterion for everybody either in today’s [15]walayat-e-Faqih or tomorrow’s [16]Mahdawiyya in such a way that major jurisprudence management and Mahdiism should not be inconsistent with minor scientific and specialized managements.

4 – 8 Unlike Mrs. Hunter’s view, the doctrine of Mahdiism is endowed with a special school of thought. Islam is nothing but a collection of Divine Revelation-s, i.e. what Allah has revealed to His prophet. Therefore, religion is a unified whole of worldview and ideology, which forms a school. This school is an abstracted entity which is separate from man and mankind. What can be realized in practice is the behavior of Muslims. If their behavior is in agreement with God’s commands, that will be the real Islam; other wise, it will not. In the first case, mo change or evolution will take place, and in the second case, whatever occurs will be different from Islam without having any connection with it.

In this manner, Mahdiism is pure Islam to which we must return. There is nothing as terms of evolution in Islam. Thus, what has been called ‘Historical Islam’ will have to be reviewed: If it conforms to pure Islam, it will not bear the name "historical"; otherwise, it will certainly be inconsistent with the Revelations of God to His prophet, so it will not be called ‘Islam’.

4 – 9 When Mrs. hunter, Quoting from some western writers, says that Islam is no longer able to evolve and is not improvable, her way of quotation implies that she has not accepted the division of Islam to bad and good but that she implicitly Islam is entirely bad. So, it can naturally be concluded that it is insignificant to divide Islam into ‘historical’ and "abstracted", since it will then remain as a closed system that is, traditional and static, which sounds very disagreeable in our opinion. But, as we know Islam is a Divine religion, perfect in itself, needless of any evolution.

4 – 10 Historical Islam, on the other hand, may be Imaginable in one way: the form in which cultural features, rites and ceremonies of every Muslim nation, community or society can manifest themselves. It is only in such a state that different histories and local civilizations of Muslim nations become realized, each with its own label on its collection of customs and rites but with the adjective ‘Islamic’ before that name.

However, the use of the word ‘Islamid’ will not necessitate a nation’s civilization to be equal with the orthodox Islam as a whole. Islam is a whole but it can be separable from any other kind of local customs, local rites and ceremonies. That is why we say Islam is an abstract, separable entity and not historical.

4 – 11 Mrs. Hunter has called both Islamic political system and the theory of religious government "fabulous" and has named the city "Medina" a Utopia. She has also called ‘Historical Islam’ something real. But we can find 4 faults with her Statement.

1 – God has ordered his prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to establish such a government with its special acts and deeds and God has ordered the Muslims to obey His prophet in what he tells them to do. So, this Islamic government or the Qur’anic theory cannot be a fable.

2 – According to her admission of the religious political leadership of the prophet, the establishment of an Islamic state in Medina and then expanding it to the Arabic Peninsula cannot be a Utopia. It is because it has actually happened. Furthermore, the immaculate prophet has really executed God’s commands, he has started to set up the government according to the Qur’anic verses. Then His Kind of State with its laws and central city is not a Utopia.

3 – When all Muslims have received the religion, obeyed its orders and have been practicing it, such people can never be visionary, fanciful, or even idealistic.

4 – If the State in Medina under the government of the prophet has been fabulous, then historical Islam in the belief of Mrs. Hunter, is a baseless claim and nothing but an imagination.

4 – 12 It is well – known and clear that about 80 percent of the Islamic laws are on transactions, contracts, unilateral obligations, economy, commerce, social relations and social jurisprudence that constitute the Religion. As a result, Islam is the religion of life and the world. It is by no means separate from society nor from politics. By referring to the political laws of Islam and by reviewing a great part of jurisprudential books and encyclopedias like Jawahir-al-Kalam (the Jewels of Discourse), we shall see that not only is Islamic Government or Mahdiism mot Fabulous but it is obviously real and serious. However, in spite of all the evidence, it is not known on what basis Mrs. Hunter claims that the Qur’an and prophetic traditions (Sunnas) have not provided man with clear adequate guidance about the conditions of how to rule and govern!

4 – 13 Upon what positive evidence in comparing the religions, does Mrs. Hunter conclude that Zoroastrian faith or Sassanide beliefs are more powerful than Islam in governmental theories? For Islam, we own such voluminous texts about politics and statesmanship, lots of traditions, concerning political laws, many valuable books in political jurisprudence that convince every impartial authority of the superiority of Islamic theory for government. Now, what is the reason for her claim to show other religions have left much more heritage in laws and jurisprudence than Islam to be a sign of their domination?

4 – 14 It seems as though the variation of Islamic communities and nations has drawn Mrs. Hunter up to a kind of intra-religious Pluralism. It is in such a way that she can conclude Muslims’ dispersion on the earth is the sign of their disunion. As a result she may explicitly deny Muslims’ unitary ideal for the doctrine of Mahdiism. But all these points must be examined separately to get a good result. Neither can we claim that there is a new kind of intra-religious pluralism saying Muslims are engaged in manifest differences of opinions, nor can we ignore and weaken the present increasing unity of Islamic societies. And above all, we cannot consider the doctrine of Mahdiism "a mirage" or something inaccessible; because, as we saw neither is the theory of sovereignty fabulous in Islam nor has the model of Islamic government during its first years been imaginary and thus useless.

The experience of Iranian Islamic Revolution and the unification of all strata with their firm support of the Islamic Republic system or an Iranian state-nation, at a smaller scale, Showed that it will be possible for a Muslim world, at a larger scale, to be realized with all nations to come under the banner of Mahdi (PBUH), the twelfth Imam to give positive answer to his call.

But it should not be left unanswered here that some invisible unclean hands or evil powers have been trying to increase disunion among Muslims and cause discord.

But this is not the effect of Islam as a religion. Keeping away from Islam or feeling optimistic towards enemies may result in divisions and domestic wars. While the remedy for all injuries is nothing except opposing the enemies returning to Islam and submitting to Mahdiism We should agree that the whole identity of Muslims is only dependent on this very movement.

4-15 It seems possible at first, that Mrs. Hunter by criticizing Muslims’ division and discord wants them to become united while, simultaneously, she condemns Muslim’s Fundamentalism. In another place, she calls Muslims deviated and extremists in their demands. But we see that Islamic Fundamentalism and Mahdiism always call for unification of Muslims to follow a Just policy So, it Mrs. Hunter blames the Muslims for being Fundamentalists, she must be condemning them for adhering to the ideal of unification. Then, she herself must be condemned for her being contradictory

4 – 16 It is not known why Mrs. Hunter has named Muslim fundamentalists "deviated"!

If by deviation she means deviation from Islam, we should immediately say she has imagined that Islam is neuter in nature and empty of any political policy. In this case, Islamic Radicalism cannot have any deviation. Moreover, the way we introduced Islam, it is political in nature and wants unity. Then, Mahdiism and fundamentalism are not separated from Islam. Also, if the real Islam has any credibility for her, then, radicalism, which is a kind of historical Islam, must be with out defects.

4 – 17 According to her approach, Mrs. Hunter makes no distinction between good and bad Islam but condemns both kinds. This means that she disapproves of both fundamentalism and moderation. In this way she has revealed her spite against genuine pure Islam and shown that not only is the extremist Islam bad but also the good Islam is mot acceptable, nor other West-oriented liberals are reliable. So none of them should be taken into account.

Then, what is really good in Mrs. Hunter’s view? Is it something else except Islam, like American Pragmatism or any other western belief in genera, even anarchism or Nihilism or any other school good? Or is it that goodness does not exist at all and only Zoroastrian dualism is all right? Maybe on the basis of her confession, she has preferred the Sassanide Principles to Islam or in her view she has taken Islam impressed by Zoroastrianism Dualism. Hence, Zoroastrianism must be the best of all beliefs for her.

4 – 18 The last suggestion of Mrs. Hunter’s has been that Islamic societies ought to be completely secularized and the religion should not go out to the scene either. But the difference with such an approach is that this attempt will take away the social function of Islam from it and restricts it to individual practices, which is by no means compatible with her worries about disunion of Muslims and the appearance of disorders in social relationships. If she is anxious about disunion of Muslims, she surly needs to agree to the social function of religion and she will ask for their unity under the auspices of Islam. But such a position again is inconsistent with her desirable secularism.

5. Two outlooks to man
After comparing the Historical and abstract point of views to religion and understanding the difference between the doctrine of Mahdiism and nationalistic approach of the West to societies, we take the turn now to the way the West and Mahdiism look at man. First, we will discuss the judgment of the Clash of civilizations theorist about man’s nature

5 – 1 Huntington says the following under the title: "Intellectuality of authority" about man’s status:

"No doubt, the most important difference between modern man and traditional man is his outlook toward his environment. In the traditional society, man accepts his natural and social environment as a fact. Everything will stay in the same way as it used to be, because God wants it to be this way. Not only would any effort to change the unchangeable pre-existence or eternity of the society and the world be blasphemous but it would also be impossible. So any change in traditional life is absent and unimaginable since men cannot even think about that in their mind.

However, modernization started at a time when men could feel in themselves that they were capable of influencing the nature. They thought about the way they could understand what the nature and society were. So, they realized them and started to control them. Now, reconstruction means to stop and throw away the effects of outside obstacles that prevent men from taking actions, and free them promptly from the bonds of gods’ decision, fate and destiny,"

But from the viewpoint of a traditional man, law must be an external preventing power that is to act with man having no control over it. Man discovers the law but he does not make it. However, the political society that wants to make alterations in social structure has to possess political power at the disposal of political boards not in the authority of external obstacles.

Some hypocritical Approaches

Are these westerners or non-westerners, paradoxical or democratic?

Pointing to some binary hypocritical, paradoxical approaches of some theorists, Huntington says:

"Non-Western societies referring to the gap between western theories and their practices say there is nothing to disprove it. Hypocrisy, double-faced ness, agreements and disagreements are the pretentious behaviors of secularists. Democracy must be supported on the condition that it does not cause Islamic Fundamentalists to attain power. It is advisable to stop Iran and Iraq from producing nuclear weapons. As for Israel it is not like that. Not only has the West’s influence decreased but also the paradox of democracy in the world after the cold wars. During the period of the cold war, the West, and specially the United States were faced with the difficulty of their dictator – friends too. The western leaders who had realized the process of establishing democracy in non-western countries would cause their opponent states to become powerful, to struggle both to influence the courses of elections and also not to feel so interested in the promotion of democracy in such societies.

5 – 2 The difference suggested by these theorists existing between modern and traditional men is the result of their superficial studies of today’s progresses being characteristic of new civilizations, which did not exist before.

These changes are the result of modern ambitious men, just as yesterday’s stability was the result of a closed worldview of the past. But this is an incorrect idea either because:

a – the assumption that the nature will remain the same if man does not interfere in it, is nothing but visionary. Our observation proves the opposite of this idea because the nature is changeable, even if men do not interfere, by the other motive which is the will of God, the Exalted. Talking about such a motive in detail is relevant to theology.

b – Intellect, power, and freedom of will, as proved and affirmed in the Islamic philosophy are the descriptions of absolute man not the modern man. Then, the traditional man can be both ambitious and creator of changes. Of course, traditional man with regard to his limited scope of science and his tools could only produce fewer changes than the present man.

C. the Religious and Qur’anic doctrines have not suggested any differences between men of the past and of the present. These texts have attributed divine succession and ruling on the earth to any man worthy of the job. So, according to the Qur’an, every thing has been created for man, and the man has been created to be dominant over the nature.

d – We conclude here that not only can man make alterations in the nature and his society (because man is created of power and free will) but also such an action is not blasphemous since man’s freedom of action is the Will of god. Also, there is not any difference between traditional and modern man inasmuch as man’s nature has not changed from the beginning of creation until now.

5 – 3 There may be someone to consider "the absolute power and will of God to prevent man’s freedom from being realized; and believing in such an idea is a characteristic of the traditional man, so tradition and modernity are two separate things." The answer this opinion we can say, the power and will of God does not necessitate stopping man’s power, nor does his control and Knowledge cause compulsion. This is because man’s will, power and knowledge with regard to the range of their influence have their specific effects and naturally have been assigned by God to act like that.

5 – 4 What Huntington has called “the prompting freedom of man" is the same as "humanism". Humanism means originality of man, his complete authority, his ability to take the place of god and his capability to live independently from everything. But humanism is intellectually impossible because man’s abilities, possibilities and his power in comparison with his Creator are entirely limited. Man’s existence is possible but God’s existence is necessary.

As a result, humanism becomes impossible with regard to permanence, let alone realization and substantiation. Hence, the basis of modernism is infirm, weak and shaky; it is impossible to reason and does not have a strong base.

5 – 5 It seems that the main purpose of the modernists about the western man’s change of nature has been the debasement of eastern man’s rank as "traditional".

If not so, the clash of civilizations view and the West’s attack on the East would be senseless. By putting borders between modern and traditional men, eastern and western men, they will become separated and opponents to each other so much so that they will get involved in quarreling and fighting. Therefore, such an approach is against justice and wisdom because we affirmed their nature is identical and the same.

5 – 6 What Huntington presents is the unpleasant clashes of the westerners and paradoxical democracy which is not really democratic in the real sense. Regardless of this why is the will of the pious man in the East not respectable to them? How is it, in spite of their specification that Iran has one of the most democratic systems inside its own government, they still disregard Iran’s democracy, devalue it and plot against it and do not recognize it?!

5 – 7 According to what we cited above, it could be concluded that the difference between Mahdiism Doctrine and the cultural war view about the definition of man’s nature is unreliable. On the basis of discriminatory approach of the West against man, his nature has been reversed; eastern man has been debased and, on the other hand, the modern western man has been regarded dominant and claimant. But thanks to the doctrine of Islam and Mahdiism, both eastern and western men have equal rights. Neither of them claims to be superior to the other; neither of them is humiliated. The philosophy of being a westerner or an easterner, belonging to this race or that race or having this color or that color is only for men to get familiar with one another; it is not a matter of boasting or superiority. So, there is no reason for discrimination of one against another.

6. A selfish attitude vs. a humane attitude

Feeling superior to others, or humiliating of non-westerners are all the output of the domination which the new civilization has brought about and followed since Francis Backon aimed at "power" as the final goal of science. It is such an attitude which manifested itself in the features of the clash of civilizations view. This time, we shall go to Bernard Louis, another prominent contemporary theorist from the United States to hear the talk:

"The Christian Facilitation Actually ended with the exact realization of re-conquering all the lands. The transition was revealed at the time when Grenada was conquered not via making wars but through negotiation which resulted in Capitulation… In 1498, with the arrival of the well-Known Archbishop in the city, this came into being and caused a change in political policy. A great number of Muslims, under increasing pressure and suppression were forced either to adhere to Christianity or quit Spain. In February 1502, the remnants of Muslims residing the Kingdom of Castille, by that time part of Grenada, encountered the same choice that Jews had faced ten years before: baptism, exile or death."

In another place, he explains European colonization like this:

"In a widespread field of study that history provides for us, we can better understand the beginning of European expansionism that happened in the 15th century. It was quite natural that the Spanish and Portuguese had to pursue Muslims as far as beyond Gibraltar Isthmus in order to free their homeland from Muslims’ domination."

To praise Europeans, he has said: "For the first time Europe decided to emancipate the slaves, because western technology had net all the needs that Europeans had. The success of Europeans is due to their innate potential characteristics for civilization. These are attributes other people lack or are in shortage of."

Essential qualities from Louis’ point of view

"Hesitation is a useful quality which is, in fact, one of the major motives in western civilization. Hesitation causes the base of indisputable assumptions present in other civilizations, even in primary stages of western in other civilizations to become feeble; they hinder mental activity to become weak. Sins in their modern sense are destructive but it can be said that a sin is an evident concept of haughty selfishness, which is the deepest weakness in the western civilization. To undertake a responsibility at the side of all bad deeds someone commits in the world can be a new interpretation of the phrase: "heavy loads on the shoulders of the white men".

Our glorious predecessors with all their haughtiness and vanity claimed that they were the bountiful fountain of all good deeds.
Now, notice God’s will and satisfaction in his words:

"In spite of ell accusations against us, there is no alternative for us except resorting to confession of our errors. We westerners have been sinful for the reason of our selfishness, we committed crimes such as aggression, attack, plunder, hegemony, seeking slavery and killing men. Nevertheless, in order to lessen the weight of out sins, we turned to reasoning that a long period of time had passed since we thought such attempts were lawful. And even a much longer time before that we thought we had committed them for God’s sake and God’s consent."

More about West’s Favors to Humanity

"Sad news about wars, Persecutions, and tortures of the people who were different from us are the evidence to prove we have not been successful in respecting other nations, since this guilt was thought of as ideal acts for which we fought and were victorious. Imperialism, racial segregation and sex discrimination are all western terms that were used afterwards. Really, the westerners did not invent such evil jobs, but after they became universal habits, they realized that these actions were evil, so we condemned them and tried hard to reduce the intensity and help the victims."

And finally Louis warns the West’s challengers:

"Still, there is not a serious competitor to stand against the West and there is no substitute for it yet. Even those who shout out today: "Down with the U.S.A." and wish that it could come true, do not have the power to bring it into action since they are unable to kill. But if some special movements in the United States reach their climax, the situation may change and result in a collective suicide. The western civilization may give up the scene and go away.

However, if this happens, all men and women in other continents will be exposed to the peril of poverty, misery and distress."

6 – 2 Louis has admitted that the Spanish – Portuguese Capitulation is against Christian facilitation since it bears selfishness and self – conceit resulting from the West’s discriminatory look at men by preferring the white race and the European citizens over other races and civilizations. But exactly at the opposite side of such an attitude stands the Islamic approach of Mahdiism which is against any racial discrimination and self-conceit. Louis says in this regard:

"In those days, the Jews were, to some extent, Happy with Islamic Justice; they would take refuge to the Ottoman Empire voluntarily to remain safe from Christian persecution".

As we said before, the Qur’an is against any kind of racial discrimination or segregation, haughtiness, boasting etc.

6 – 3 But Louis has regarded European colonization to have been for the sake of prevention of Muslims incorrect, because:

a – The arrival of Islam in Europe or The Islamicization of some Europeans was not linked to persecution and oppression. Those Europeans adopted Islam freely and, in this way, religion could not be aggressive or coercive.

b – Even if the westerners had sought preventive measures, they should have guarded their own borders well but why did they occupy other people’s lands?

c – If the presence of Islam in the West had been regarded as "occupation, then colonization and seizure of other nations’ lands including those of Muslims too, must have been the same and nothing else.

d – According to some historical evidence, Muslims, behavior was different from that of colonizers. Muslims have always treated other people justly, humanely, away from violence and without exploitation. But westerners were converse of that.

6 – 4 The West’s making an attempt to liberate the slaves under the coercion of industrialization, if correct, is ironically an interesting event, because Europeans did not set the slaves free for humanitarian measures; rather; they had to do so. We now know that enslaving free innocent people on any pretexts, such as captivity in the war is regarded as an unforgivable sin. Slavery and captivity as prisoners of the war are legally different; but these so – called civilized men, advocates of human rights and democracy have committed such crimes. Now we may ask them this question:

Why did you enslave people oppressively that you would be obliged to free them afterwards?!

6 – 5 On the basis of Louis’ confession and is analysis, there are there are three origins for such western civilized colonists, crimes: doubtfulness, negligence of sins, thinking of supremacy and mastery over the world.

Unfortunately, we see that such a sinister trend has been intensified in the western civilization. In fact, Louis and Huntington as we reminded in the paradox of democracy before, cannot deny the existence of such qualities at their highest level in their political programs. So, American authorities, statesmen and other western sponsors are guilty of overindulgence, doubtfulness and aggression as it used to be. Now, is the behavior of Americans and westerners other than this in Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Guantenoma or Abu Ghoraib?

6 - 6 We ought to remind Louis that the lapse of a long time and becoming old of guilt does not do away with its ugliness, especially when there is no expressing of repentance or remorse as it has been the case with westerners.

6 - 7 In order to acquit the West and reduce his own agony of conscience, Louis resorts to the old excuse of Destiny, Will of God, Fatalism or God’s Providence!

But regardless of such intellectual subjects, this approach or position of his will be in contradiction with Humanistic view and concessionary idea of the West civilization.

When the westerners attribute ‘nobility’ to human beings, they cannot take God responsible anymore for their sins now and then.

6 – 8 So, we have to cast these crimes in the teeth of the cultural elements of authority for what they did in the past and for their deviation from democracy and human rights. They must decide how they may solve such a contradictory problem in their conduct and speech.

6 – 9 Louis’ Confession
Like Huntington, Louis too, admits that the West has relatively declined, but he seriously claims there is nothing to replace western civilization which is on the point of falling. But what will be worse than an overthrow of moralities? Of course, neither is Fukuyama’s view about the end of history is correct, (that the West will finally win) with so much moral disgrace, nor will the end of history be the way Louis has said that the West will draw will the future be, then? It must be like what the Qur’an says:

"The worthy men of God will get to power and the stand of tyranny will be cleared away."

According to this logic, the future looks bright and promising since the strong will together with Divine Justice never gives way to oppression, guilt and enforcement. Islam does mot approve of a black scene to be at the end of history. Islam started with atypical justified government of the prophet. After a while it was followed by the short period of Imam Ali (PBUH) governing the country and will be continued to the end of history under the justified government of Imam Mahdi (PBUH) with a perfectly just administration.

7 – The Bipolar world
We all must know that the world is bipolar in the view of the Qur’an: the pole of the truth and the pole of falsehood. This is because of man’s free-will to divide his society into two types: the group of Truth and the group of Falsehood. The first is the worshiper of God but the other mot. One group is clear-sighted but the other is blind.

Some people are useful for the society but some others are oppressive and ineffective. So in the look of the Qur’an, these two groups of truthful and false people are not equal. The first one is useful, permanent and admirable but the second one is useless, injurious, unworthy and vanishing. Such a bipolar doctrine in the Qur’an seems to be entirely reasonable and logical; it is by no means under the impression of any external thoughts. However, the clash of civilizations View has found fault with the bipolar look of Islam. Huntington says is this regard:

"Muslims have traditionally divided the world into two lodgings: the homeland of peace and the homeland of war."

Bernard Louis has the same idea saying:

In the view of Muslims, the world was divided into two domiciles: the home of peace where Islamic creeds ruled legitimately and the home of war, in which there was no sign of Islamic laws. Between these two dwellings, a warfare state was always at work. Only a temporary short time cease – fire intervened. This conflict would continue until god’s call could reach all creatures’ ears."

In defending the view of clash of civilizations and finding fault wily the doctrine of Mahdiism, Mrs. Hunter says:

"The Islamic worldview is binary in regard to the relationships among the States and it is expansionist in the words of western thinkers. The expansionistic dimension of Islam emanates from the view of dividing the world two opposite places. The first one is the world which is the homeland of peace, or the home of intellectuality and enlightening, and the arena of war, which means the homeland of disbelief and corruption. As a result, Muslims do not have a clear understanding of progressive foreign policy beyond their own ways of administration, and the clashes between the two domains of peace and war. They are supposed to continue the holy war (Jihad) until the homeland of peace changes the homeland of war. She says in another place:

"The world is more complicated than Muslims have divided it into two domains. The international relations and the concept of worldview are not limited to the bipolarity of the world. This division was shaped too late in the Abbasid caliphate period when many other ideas were inspired to the thinkers through Sassanid customs and traditions. The Sassanians too believed in the world of two divisions: Iranshahr (the homeland of the Aryans) and the land of non – Aryans. The Aryan land was called the land of religion" i.e. the zoroastrian religion, which was based on a binary theory of god and devil, that is good and bad or light and darkness.

There was an eternal fight between the two sides. Then, the Muslims adopted the two divisions, but named them the ‘homeland of peace’ and the ‘homeland of war’."

She has also attributed the bipolar worldview of Islam to Imam Khomeini (May he be blessed) saying:

"Imam Khomeini divided the world between the wealthy and the poor i.e. between the dominant and the oppressed or between east and West or between wayfarers of the straight path and the followers of Satan."

She has claimed too that Imam Khomeini, being influenced by the traditional Islamic theory which divides the world into the homeland of peace and the homeland of war, though she believes that the theory is not a universal Islamic view. Nevertheless, in her view, Imam is under the influence of both traditional view prevalent in Iran before Islam and the bipolar system after World War II.

Mrs. Hunter also considers the bipolarity of Islam having been taken from Zoroastrianism. She claims that the Karbela tragedy has had two impressions on the Shiites:

One is end of the battle for restoring what was due to be paid to the Household of Ali (PBUH). The second is the "necessity of awaiting" ([17]Intezar) for the day when all the people ought to rise along with Imam Mahdi (PBUH) against injustice, telling lies and corruption, to remove even formidable obstacles.

7 – 2 Now that we have explained the doctrine of Truth and Falsehood, we should clarify another important subject, which is the Islamic restrictionism against pluralism, which is incorrectly called ‘religious plurality’ by westerners.

Islam will never accept religious pluralism because on the basis of the human power of reason, contradiction is impossible since two sides of an argument like Islamic monotheism and Christian Trinity can never come together to be true. If we prove monotheism to be right, then we cannot say Trinity is also correct. This is called ‘restrictionism’ in Islamic bipolarity of the truth and falsehood in Islam.

Other religions also enjoy such a restrictionism to which both Huntington and Hunter have referred.

Therefore there is nothing to find fault with Islam in its restrictionism since this is a matter of human intellect and reason. Monotheism in Islam with the prophet hood of Muhammad (MGSPH) continues as far as the Doctrine of Mahdiism in Shiism, the perfect religion with its superiority to other beliefs. Mahdiism is the only doctrine that comprises the relations among God, all the creatures on the earth, and the skies (the universe) at all the times. Since Mahdi (PBUH), the Augment of God, is present on the earth among the people, he is a relation to everybody, but he is absent from the people’s circles. Other religions do not enjoy such a privilege to have a savior or guide let alone be the only way of deliverance.

7 – 3 Now that the subject of restrictionism has become clear, the concept of bipolarity, can be better understood about the "homeland of peace" and the "homeland of war." Although the idea is not mentioned explicitly in the Qur’an, it is implicitly perceived that the strategy of the prophet’s flight to Medina (Hijra) gives me the idea of "land of war" for Mecca which was, then, an unfavorable place; i.e. an environment of atheism and poly theism against which a war had to be waged. Medina was called the land of peace, to which the prophet had resorted.

You see that this division is not a political hostile division in spite of what the reporters have imagined. It is not a bipolar world as the westerners have thought either. Islamic division is merely something cultural and quite valid. From the viewpoint of Islam the homeland of war does not mean the world of battle; it means a land in which the Muslims do not enjoy the necessary mental security and freedom, as the Qur’an describes: "It is a place of suffocation, disturbance and distress".

On the contrary the homeland of peace (Dar – al – Salam) is a place where people are living peacefully. The proof for such a thought is that Muslims never created a mentally troublesome and closed environment even for non-Muslims, when they were dominant powerful conquerors.

Bernard Louis says in this regard:

"Nevertheless, Islamic society was flexible against other religions and faiths. Muslims lived peacefully with groups and minorities that performed other religious rites. They were always prepared to allow them to carry out their own religious acts and life affairs completely freely on the condition that they observe a number of rules; Whereas in Christianity there was not such a remission at all it was only after the crusades that crusaders convinced the Christians that they should live and let the others their living

As we understand from what Mrs. Hunter says: Dar _ al _ salam is the domain of peace and enlightenment, but Dar _ al _ Harb is the domain of corruption and disbelief. Then the theorists hardly believe in such an argument and try to find faults or difficulties in the discussion.

7 – 4 Mrs. hunter who has gotten involved in several contradictions in her discussion of bipolarity, at last concludes that bi-polarism is the result of Muslims' expansionism' but again she maintains the holy war (jihad) which is bound with the Imam's presence has produced such an idea (she sets forth many things that are in confusion, such as: developing the borders of Islamic countries would be forbidden, such as: developing the borders of Islamic countries would be forbidden, the theory of homelands of peace and wars is a traditional one, the theory is taken from a Sassanid custom, from the Zoroastrian worldview, the idea being taken at a much later time in the Abbasid period. The theory must be that of Imam Khomeini, the theory originated from a bipolar system after World War II, etc)

Now, to what degree should we evaluate Mrs. Hunter's discussion with all these contradictory suggestions to be credible?!

7 – 5 her view about Islam being affected by Zoroastrian religion is a mere lie because in the faith of Zoroaster, the world is really divided into two domains God and Satan (Ahriman) or light and Darkness. All the time these two powers get involved in antagonism against each other and test their strength.

But, in the Qur’an, we do not have such a dualism. As a principle of Islamic monotheism, the purpose is believing in the perfection of a single God, the absolute truth, for the sake of His Absolute power. No being is His rival or adversary. He is almighty, omniscient, without any power against Him. Even the cunning Satan, the tempter is an extremely wear creature that dose not even possess physical fore over humans.

He cannot make any alterations in his surroundings. However much a creature acquires power, his strength will be by the will of God. These facts are so clear that do not need any proofs. They are included in many verses of the Qur’an.

7 – 6 Mrs. Hunter's insults to Imam Khomeini (May God bless him) are not limited to what we quoted just now. In another – place of her boor, she introduces him as a man who treats people in a very coarse manner, who calls on them to rise against the wealthy, etc. but all these accusations against the Imam are undue since his holy presence, so noble, and genuine as a thinker and jurist in Islam and as the leader (wali – e – Faqih) is completely exempt from such charges. He was inspired by the Qur’anic culture, he adhered to prophetic traditions and propounded the bipolar view of truth versus falsehood, two poles of Dominance and Depression, one based on instinct and the other on reason – the Instinct. Draws man towards material needs but the reason directs man towards mental intellectual demands. As a result man is a physical – spiritual being. In the words of Mrs. Hunter:

Islam has taken both physical and mental needs of man into account. Islam has kept an equilibrium between material and intellectual side. Now, let us put it this way:

The internal challenge between intellect and instinct will turn to an external challenge between men who are worldly and men who are God worshiping and just. So, it is quite natural for a bipolar world to come about.

7 – 7 In our belief, the return of imam Mahdi according to historical traditions, are accepted. But here again, Mrs. Hunter gets involved in contradictions. She sets forth Imam Mahdi's return without his living on the earth and his absence from the earth. However, in the belief of Shiites and on the basis of historical proofs and traditions Mahdi (PBUH) was born of a mother called Narjes (PBUH) in the house of Imam Hassan Askari (PBUH) the ---- Imam of the Shiites, on the 15th of the month of Shaban (lunar calendar) 255 of Hijra. As a result, His living and absence are based on special expediencies.

God on his will has decided to raise Mahdi (PBUH) as the Imam in absence. So, his return becomes significant when he is considered to be alive. He must have been living for a while and then have disappeared. Other wise, his return will be meaningless when the Sunnites say: he will be born at the end of history, because there is no going in order to have a returning.

The most important difference between Islamic bi-polarism and Zoroastrian bi-polarism or other western ideas in this regard is what we can infer the following Qur’anic verse.

He is Allah, he who sent his messenger for guidance with truthful religion to make it over power other religions and other schools, although this mission is unpleasant to polytheists.

This means the prophetic mission is universal and the doctrine of Mahdiism is the establishment of justice throughout the world. Such an insight is by no means consistent with other faiths positions, with nationalistic demarcations and other discriminations among peoples.

8 – Nationalistic and Universal Doctrine

Although Huntington, while explaining his Clash of civilizations view, says the age of nationalistic sovereignty has come to an end and the bipolar world has changed to be a multi-polar world, he still makes use of nationalism to excite and incite westerners' feelings to exacerbate clashes between cultures, and as we shall see later, he has frightened the west of the danger lain in ambush to break out.

In contrast to the way he introduces Islam, that is, as a dangerous faith that seeks to make an attack upon other people, Islam with its doctrine of Mahdiism and with its bright prospects, full of blessings, light and guidance, promises peaceful co– existence for humanity. Islam rejects any discrimination against races, civilizations and cultures. This is the main difference between Mahdiism and the clash of civilizations view.

9 – The contrast between Islam and the west in the belief of those supporting the view of Clash of civilizations, the only danger threatening the west is Islam. Let us now hear their opinion:

9 – 1 Huntington defines Muslims like this:

The reason for Muslims attacks on the west is that they believe westerners have no firm religious principles. During the cold war, the west would call its opponents Godless communists; the case is the reverse mow, the period is the period of clashes, Muslims call their opponents (opposite forces) Godless people.

He goes on saying that according to the results of some questionnaires in 1994 in the united states, most people and state authorities consider the spread of nuclear weapons and international terrorism two principal serious threats for Americans; and these to generally come from Islam. Then he adds:

With regard to their general understanding of each other, Muslims and westerners have brought about a quasi–warlike state between their civilizations following the growth of Islamic fundamentalism after the Iranian revolution in 1979. Both of the belligerent sides have recognized their relations to be hostile. Some years ago, ayat–al –allah Khomeini declared that Iran is effectively at war with the United States. Qazzafi of Libya also called his people several times to rise for Jihad against the west. Many other leaders of political groups too, together with extremists in other countries have used e same threatening purport about the west. To describe those having caused the conflict, the US has identified and introduced seven countries as terrorists. Five of these terrorists are Islamic countries, such as Iran, Syria Libya, Iraq and the Sudan. Huntington said at last:

The main problem of the West is not Islamic Fundamentalism but Islam itself with its different civilization on which the followers are certain to be superior culturally, but they are engaged in their inabilities and weaknesses.

The difficulty with Islam is not American CIA or Ministry of defense but the whole west with several civilizations about which the dependent nations feel certain. Non–westerners too, have agreed that the west and the westerners believe that their superior power, though it has started to decline, has made them committed to spread the western culture all over the world.

Bernard Louis, another theorist of Clash of civilizations view says, since the first invasion of the Islamic soldiers to Christian lands on the Eastern Mediterranean early in the 4th century until the second and the last retreat of Turkish forces from behind the walls of Vienna in 1683, the Christians have lived in a continual fear from the impending danger for about 1000 years. The danger of Islam that has Threatened Europe was a dual danger: Military on one hand and religious on the other. They feared that Muslims may occupy their territories, and their may adhere to Islam.

Also Mrs. Hunter has started her door by writing about the Islamic Danger for the West. She has said words that seem too trivial to be quoted here.

9 –2 In answer to the Muslims' attacks on the western lands for the reason of atheism, we say that this claim has not been affirmed by anyone yet. Huntington has taken the root of this idea to be certain, but it is not so at all. Why should Muslims have authorized and issued the order of initial Jihad?

Mrs. Hunter has admitted this idea and said that the Shiites do not start Jihad in the absence of their Imam.

Then the origin of such a claim is false. Huntington's reason is also distorted be cause Western Godlessness is related to their altered religion, which is mot practicable anymore. Besides, this very religion of theirs has been pushed to the margin prom its main text. Of course, the Islamic look at the West communism is completely materialistic, which is a form of atheism. As for Christianity, it has changed to polytheism because of its distortion and not taking the difficulty seriously. It has become unrestrained, frivolous and infirm. Muslims' criticism on the west is because westerners are not faithful even to their distorted faith. They have driven aside toward the margin and out of politicization. Also, our attack is not a physical attack.

9 – 3 Huntington has not adduced any proofs for his claim that Islam is together with terrorism and expansion of nuclear weapons. We all know that these two features have been characteristic of western civilization since it is the western civilization that has been essentially taken to colonized countries and been continued through invasion and terrorism.

It is the West that has at its disposal all kinds of atomic bombs. At the same time, Islam, with its justified humanistic regulations applied to Jihad with the enemies according to what is written in the book: Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence), has shown that it has neither any connection with anti-humane massacre nor has it supported any terrorism. Anyhow, after it was made known that there is no aggressive attitude in Islam to combat the West, nothing else remains to be believed about nuclear armament and terrorism in Islam as its defensive tools.

9 – 4 No doubt, Islamic Revolution in Iran was an important turning point in establishing relations between Islam and the west. But more important than that, is that the Iranian revolution has always sought to get the foreign domination being over the Iranian nation. As for the establishment of relations, we know there is no opposition to western democracy from the Islamic side, since it is accepted that man is free to choose his religion. The removal of foreign domination too is a necessity for every democracy and no fault can be found with it. As a result, one side of the issue is not condemned for the reason of wanting Islam and desiring independence. But opposing to the right of freedom in choosing one's religion, and the commitment to this right and the violation of the right of independence of others is condemned.

After the occurrence of Islamic revolution, Iranians did not wage a war against westerners, but tried to disclose the west's disguise, and this has endangered the West's benefits. Of course, unless the West satisfies itself to recognize the other party's rights, lack of confidence will prevail every where. If pessimism becomes intensified, the result will be hostility. That may lead to a war for which the tyrant west will be responsible. We should note here this point that the Iranian Islamic Revolution is related to the Revolution occurred at the advent of Islam and will be the preliminary part of the Universal Revolution of Imam Mahdi (PBUH). Then it will follow the logic of Mahdiism without using violence or cruelty.

9 – 5 When we said the main conflict of the West is with Islam, this will somehow deny the view of the clash of civilizations, since Islam as a religion does not have an objective physical aspect so that it can be the target for the West's attack. So, what does a western–Islamic battle really mean? Perhaps the West fears that the strong logic and internal force of Islam can mobilize the masses against the west. The west tries to oppose Islam itself instead of fighting with the Islamic civilization or with the believers of Islam. Therefore there will be no wars between cultures or civilizations; rather, the war between the west and Islam is a mental war. It is a battle between Islam and other religions and other void schools of thought. This is what we call: the battle of righteousness against Falsehood.

9 – 6 Another claim of Huntington that the West's culture is universal is not acceptable at all. Since the globalization of an idea must be actualized by spreading it all over the world. This approach is contradictory to multi-polarization of an idea which was his own suggestion. Furthermore the situation of affairs after the collapse of communism or the appearance of a multi-polar world does not reflect the sound of universality. Besides, globalization cannot be in the form of imposing the West's culture on the other countries. The morbid and defective western values, as Huntington himself confesses, have caused a decline for the West. The west's culture does not even have the capacity to overcome all the cultures of the world. Instead, the Islamic human values, that Imam Mahdi (PBUH) is going to revive and apply, are the most appropriate to embrace all corners of the world and become universal, because they are in conformity with intellect, wisdom and human mature.

9 –7 Louis' View that Christians have been afraid of Islam for a thousand years is not only unreal (and has to be discussed in detail in another place) but also incompatible with what he said about the Islamic remission existing during the same millennium. As a matter of fact, one of these two must be untrue statements, either remission or continual danger.

9 – 8 last of all, the West's adherence to Islam can never be called a danger. Man is free to choose his religion as one of the recognized human rights in agreement with democracy. Of course, if people follow Islam, they will enjoy all its benefits and its worthy situation for human beings to reach the greatest elevation. Moreover, if the westerners became Muslims, there would never be any military danger either, since all Muslims are alike, free and happy. Then, liberty will be attained at its perfection.

Conclusion

This article started with an introduction setting both the theory of the clash of civilizations and its criticism. In the first section, the character of the theory was described, multi polarization of the world policy after the cold war, relative decline of the west, Muslims' growth and economic power, then, Asian civilizations were dealt with.

The second section included comparison between the doctrine of Mahdiism and Clash of civilizations view, nine instances of essential differences between the two, with the first one being: Religion is developing at present and the west's civilization is about to decline, since western ideologies are forgotten and are being forgotten.

The discussion was continued with the rebirth of religion during which Huntington gave his opinion about Islamicization and Modernity. The third section surveyed the comparison between reformation and Islamic radicalism together with Mahdiism, revealing that these two were quite distinct from each other. One of them rejects religion while the other adhered the thought.

The 4th section dealt with the difference between the Clash of civilizations view and the Doctrine of Mahdiism with their looks over Islam. The former tried to control it deeming the religion as historical. The latter presented Islam as being pure, noble, and genuine to be kept intact.

The fifth major difference, which is very important, was the characteristics of the viewpoint of western modernity for human nature. The west considered man apart from his nature and talents, but Islam with its Mahdiism believed that there was no distinction. It denied any kind of discrimination between traditional man and modern man.

In the sixth instance, modesty and humbleness on the side of Muslims but self conceit on the side at the Westerners proved to exist and attracted the attention.

The seventh difference was bipolarization in the Islamic theory that appeared as putting truthfulness versus falsehood. Multi-polarization on the West's side appeared to be full of conflicts as the seventh distinction. The eighth instance discussed nationalism and racialism to be negated; the doctrine of Mahdiism had its own Islamic Worldview. It denied all kinds of discriminations and adhered to humane values.

At last it was said that Islam was situated in contrast to the west. The West showed Islam to be dangerous for the West.

The theorists of the clash of civilizations view said the west had been frightened by Islam's threats for a thousand years, which had been reported to them as an unreal subject.

Now, we hope that the readers of this article will benefit from reasoned discussions on the facts and will succeed in choosing the right path impartially. This article is to surrey summarily the clash of civilizations View and the Islamic Mahdiism (the righteous and the wicked offered their assets. Now it depends on the people what to accept and what not to.

Endnotes:
---------------------------------

1 - Related to Mahdi (pbh) the 12th Imam is Shiism, Islam, the expected. Messiah of – Muslim tradition, the leader who assumes a messianic role.

[2] - Also it can be called Essentialism.

[3] - Non – communist countries of Europe and America

[4] - "Tassamuh": forgiving sins and freeing from punishment.

[5] - Enduring manners of other people without protest, having indulgence for people's beliefs, opinions and customs.

[6] - Ibid

[7] - He is one of the credible narrators of traditions.

[8] - He is the fifth Imam in Shiism.

[9] - Living and rising the title of Imam Mahdi.

[10] - Members of the house of the prophet.

[11] - It means rightly guided

[12] - An old city under Seleucids.

[13] - wearing a veil or a scarf or a chador for women: covering the hair and body in a chador.

[14] - "Taqwa" is the Arabic word.

[15] - Authority of a religious Jurist.

[16] - Authority of Imam Mahdi, who is absent from our eyes abo, Mahdiism.

[17] - be waiting for the 12th Imam, who is believed to be alive to come back after 1000 years.