A civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life.

Civilisation could be a spiritual divine one (deeniyya ilahiyya) or man-made (wadh'iyya bashariyya). The spiritual divine civilisation emanates from a doctrine (‘’’aqeedah); like the Islamic civilisation that emanates from the Islamic ‘’aqeedah. As for the man-made civilisation, either it emanates from a doctrine like the Capitalist Western civilisation that is a collection of concepts about life emanating from the doctrine of separating religion from life. Or it does not emanate from a doctrine like the Shinto, Greek, Babylonian and Assyrian civilisations. This civilisation is a collection of concepts that a people or a group of peoples agreed upon so it is a national (sh'abiyya) or man-made civilisation.

In addition, a people or peoples could have a religion (deen) and a doctrine whatsoever, but this religion has no concepts about life like Christianity and Buddhism. So people agree on concepts about life specific to them, where these concepts form their civilisation without this having any relationship with their religion, because it does not emanate from it. So their civilisation is not divine despite the fact that they have a religion. Hence, it is possible for various peoples to associate in one civilisation, despite the difference of their religions like the Japanese, Hindus and Sikhs and French; their religions are different but their civilisation is one, namely Capitalism.

Material objects that are used in life's affairs are not part of civilisation even though they sometimes result from it. There is no objection to give the technical term of 'madaniyya' for these tangible material objects so as to distinguish them from the collection of concepts for which we used the term 'hadhara' (civilisation). If these material objects resulted from a specific civilisation like statues then they are part of specific madaniyya. However, if they resulted from science and industry, then they are of universal madaniyya, like the television, rockets, planes, penicillin etc. Thus madaniyya can be specific and it can be universal. This is contrary to civilisation that cannot be but specific. The meaning of specificity (khususiyya) is related to our adoption. So what is specific is not permitted for us to adopt from others, whereas what is universal is permitted for us to adopt.

The distinction between civilisation (hadhara) and madaniyya must be observed at all times, just as it is imperative to observe the distinction between the material objects derived from civilisation and the material objects derived from science and industry. That is in order to observe, when adopting madaniyya, the distinction between its objects, and the distinction between it and civilisation. There is no objection to adopting Western madaniyya derived from science and industry. As for Western madaniyya derived from Western civilisation, it is not permitted to adopt it in any case whatsoever due to its contradiction with the Islamic civilisation in the basis upon which it is built namely the doctrine (‘aqeedah). Our ‘aqeedah is different from their doctrine that is built upon the compromise solution and separating religion from life; in the depiction of worldly life or the criterion for actions; which is the halal and haram for us, and benefit for them; and in the meaning of happiness which is permanent tranquillity, which is - for us - attaining the pleasure of Allah, and for them the bodily pleasures.

In order that we become fully aware of what we adopt from others and what we leave, it is necessary to distinguish between civilisation and madaniyya, and it is necessary to distinguish between madaniyya resulting from civilisational concepts and madaniyya resulting from pure sciences and industry.

If it is said: Why did you adopt the technical term 'hadhara' for concepts and the term 'madaniyya' for material forms instead of the reverse? Hadhara in language, is residence in a civilised region (like towns), while 'al-hadhir' is the one who is of towns and villages. Al- Qatami said: 'Whoever is pleased with residing in towns. Which Bedouin men will see us?' While 'madana' in the place means to reside therein, and 'madina' means also to arrive to the town (madinah), so the two meanings are close to each other. It is said in response to this (self-directed) question: hadhara is used in the language for meanings related to thoughts, so it is closer to use it for concepts. It was said in 'Al-Qamus': "Hadhura is like nadusa which is the man of eloquence. (bayan) and understanding (fiqh)." In Al- Lisan, it is said: "a man 'hadhr' to mean eloquent, and a man 'hadhir' if he brought something good." It also came in 'Al-Lisan': "And in the hadith: 'Say that which yahdhurukum' i.e. that which is present and existing in you, and do not burden yourselves with something else." So hadhara is closer, more consistent and appropriate to use for the collection of concepts than using madaniyya, and madaniyya is closer to be used in material objects. It has been said that there is no contest in technical terminology (istilah), and what is important is distinguishing between concepts and material objects derived thereof, and material objects derived from them and material objects derived from pure sciences, inventions and industry. The first is rejected and it is not permitted to take them, while it is permitted to take the second.

We have said that the civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life, and that either it is a spiritual divine one (deeniyya) or man- made. An example of the spiritual divine civilisation is the Islamic civilisation, and an example of the man-made are the Indian civilisation and Western civilisation. The existence of these civilisations is a definite matter and an incontestable established fact. Likewise is the difference between them, such that none but the liar can deny it. The source of the divine civilisation, according to its people, is revelation; the source of the man-made civilisation is the people who agreed on it. This alone suffices is enough for distinction and difference. Even if there appears a type of meeting in some of the concepts, this is not an agreement or a common matter. This is because civilisation, when it is adopted, must be adopted together with the basis from which it emanated or the basis it is built upon. So if the basis between two civilisations is different, the agreement between some of their concepts, or the existence of similarity between some of their concepts about life, is worth no attention. This is because the concept is a branch from its basis (asl), and it cannot be adopted except with its basis. Both the Islamic civilisation and the Western civilisation allow eating fish, wearing wool, private property, delegating the woman, accounting the ruler and taking medicine. However, these and their like are not considered of the Islamic civilisation unless they are adopted based upon being revelation from Allah to Muhammad
i.e. upon their being Shar'a, whereas they are adopted in the Capitalist civilisation based upon their being of interest (maslaha) or their being ameliorated by their minds. If the Muslim adopts them based upon their interest (maslaha)or the rational amelioration, it is not considered adopting from Islam.

The difference between civilisations is a matter of fact without any possibility to deny it. What concerns us is the difference between the Islamic civilisation and others, in particular the Western civilisation, and what results from this difference or is built upon it, such as the issues of dialogue (al-hiwar), the clash (as-sira'a), the possibility of founding one universal civilisation, the forms and types of clash and will the clash cease, hide or will there be a victory for one civilisation over others? What is meant by religious dialogue between religions in view of those who call for it, and what is the correct position regarding it? What is the difference between religions and civilisations etc?

Religions are of two types: A deen (religion) from which a civilisation emerges i.e. it has a collection of concepts about life, like the Islamic deen, and a religion from which no civilisation emerges - and there is no collection of concepts therein - like the Christian religion. Though it has ideals like 'Do not steal and do not commit zina', however, it has no collection of concepts covering all aspects of life. Hence, the Christian religion is an appropriate example of a religion from which no civilisation emanates.

The Capitalist civilisation does not emanate from the Christian religion; even if it came about in countries where the majority of their populations are Christians. So the dialogue or clash or partnership between Islam and Christianity differs from the dialogue or clash between it and the Capitalist civilisation.