In this article my argument is that a EuroWestcentric world order does not now, and never did, benefit the vast majority of the peoples of the world. It was psychologically harmful because it failed to appreciate diverse civilizational traditions, exploiting the peoples and resources of these traditions by constructing self-serving rationalizations for dominance, and it refused to explore the multi-civilizational foundations of genuine universality and human solidarity. In this regard, the contemporary need for effective and legitimate global governance based on civilizational pluralism has been obscured, and dangerously delayed, by this latest attempt to achieve a monocivilizational framework of world order administered by the U.S. Government. This need arises from the growing borderlessness of human activity and its effects, whether it be related to protecting the human habitat from global warming and extreme weather phenomena (tsunamis, severe storms, heat waves, drought) or the growing dangers of wars fought with nuclear and other weaponry of mass destruction. Global governance is also needed in a robust form to deal with the problems of massive migration, human trafficking, financial flows, transnational crime, and disposal of toxic wastes.

The purpose of my article is to evaluate some of the alleged aspects and consequences of economic globalization, including the underlying forces responsible for a more globalized world economy, the realities of that world economy, and the consequences of globalization fort he distribution of wealth and poverty among national societies. What I intend to demonstrate in my analysis of these and related subjects is that globalization is an important force in contemporary developments, but that its true extent, nature and effects are not well understood by many who praise or condemn its consequences for both national and international affairs. Through this analysis, I hope to demonstrate both the importance and limitations of economic globalization and its impact on civilizations and world orders.

When in 1977 Hedley Bull speculated on a possible return to the medieval pattern of interstate politics he still considered such a prospect relatively unlikely. This is because he saw too little regional integration of states and too little disintegration of states as such. However, since the 1970s the situation in Europe has changed dramatically and I will argue in this article that it has changed along the medieval scenario. Today we have in Europe the essence of the medieval politics identified by Bull, namely a complex "system of overlapping authority and multiply loyality." Member states have not disintegrated, but integrated accepting significant erosion of their sovereignty in various fields. Member states have ceased fighting with each other about territorial acquisitions and they have changed the ways of protecting their spheres of influence. Their present conflicts are primarily about exclusion from the European core and abuse of agreed procedures and they are being sorted out through complex institutional bargaining over laws and procedures. Intervention in the internal affairs of member states is now accepted either in support of certain moral norms (human rights, for instance) or in order to enforce compliance with the agreed laws. In present day, Europe power is structured and excercised in a different way than is usually assumed by the Westphalian paradigm. This article will identify the main features of the emerging international order in Europe and contrast them with the classical Westphalian model.

After the Cold War, the U.S. began to govern the world instead of competing for the global hegemony, which was revealed by the 9/11 event clearly. The 9/11 event did not break the US political cycle. Instead, it only adjusted the priority list, and changed the mode of achieving US interests. "Make contributions to the country," "make contributions to regional peace", and "legislation for the world" has become main platforms for Bush administration after Iraq War. The pursuit of rational interests, the pursuit of a satisfactory international order and the pursuit of legitimate hegemonist power has become the "main theme" of Bush's "governance of the world". According to Chinese world order of "All under heaven", if one achieves rationality, legitimacy and matching objectives of a hegemonist cause, one can achieve hegemony. Divergence or contradiction among the three will bring destruction to one's hegemony. It is possible that the United States is of no exception. However, after the Iraq War, the world witnesses the U.S. falling into the second situation, which indicates the impossibility of Pax Americanna.

Kalâm in early times of Islam developed as interpretation of nass (Quranic verses). In this period the main problems of kalâm are God and his attributes, prophecy, destiny, and the life after death. Both the arguments used in debates on these subjects and the debates against non-Muslims necessitate to speak of existence and all beings. Because of the speaking on all individual beings is impossible, beings were limited in general concepts. Thus, the science of kalâm turned into a metaphysical discipline by the attempt of Mu‘tazilî mutakallimûn towards the end of the second century AH. The main problems of kalâm and order of these problems in the books of kalâm were determined in this period, and continued as determined latter centuries.

As widely accepted, an eminent physician and philosopher, a perfect scientist and translator Hunayn ibn Ishâq is one of the most dominating figure of the Arabic learning enlightment of the nineth and tenth centuries. Beside his professional activities, Hunayn is well known for the contribution he made to the Arabic cultural reneissance with his practices, works, translations, style, method and the team he formed. Actually, the translations, editions and commentaries made by Hunayn and his school are supposed to be the cornerstone in Arabic science and the foundation of the Arabic knowledge. On the other hand as he was about fifty, he wrote a treatise for Alî b. Yahyâ on the works of Galen, and their translations made to Syriac and Arabic. The treatise is not merely an index of Galen's works, but detailed in many related points and many cultural issues are regarded as well, and furthermore the auther gave light to the famous Arabic translation process, its problems, solutions etc. Moreover, it cointains a lot of valuable data on the Syriac cultural history as well. In this paper I examined the data presented in the treatise of Hunayn from the mentioned points of view, and I solely focused on his evaluations without citing the commentments by the later sources and the researches of modern times to draw an easy and a complete scene of the process, as regarded by Huneyn himself, a leader of the process.