Inevitable Clash?

The middle ground on Islam and West

This from a poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries by the BBC.

What drives tension and conflict between Islam and the West?

Is there an inherent incompatibility between the two, making a "clash of civilisations" inevitable?

There are certainly Muslims and non-Muslims who hold that view.

First they quote some findings of "specialists" and "analysts".

Many Muslims, as well as specialists on Islam, reject the sweeping generalisations on which such opinions rest.

So what are these "genereralisations" that lead people to believe there will be this clash. Could it be, Jihad?

While there were radical, jihadi trends, there were also mainstream movements moving, albeit gradually, towards democratisation.

They continue to paint the picture that Jihad is a radical fringe, and that Islam is really interested in becoming democratic. Right.

So what do ordinary people, Muslim and non-Muslim, think?

This oughta be good.

Problems arise from intolerant minorities - on both sides - rather than from cultures as a whole.

Uh huh, those pesky terrorists and the darn fundamental Christian Right. Equally bad, if they could just be made to "go away" the world would certainly be a happy place.

They often argue that Muslim radicalism is the product of global inequalities of wealth and power - and Western foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine and elsewhere.

The large Muslim minorities now living in the West also argue they are the victims of social disadvantage and "Islamophobic" prejudice.

So, seeing that this is a poll, would you say that MSM propoganda is effective or not? People have been led to believe that the terrorism is born out of opression, specifically from the West, more specific America and Israel. It is painfully obvious that most people will not look up the history of terrorism and where its roots lie. Islamic terrorism existed long before Western foriegn policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, etc. Arguing "Islamophobia" is putting the effect before the cause.

The current global climate is one of polarisation.

Many Muslims are angry about Iraq and Palestine and what they perceive as a Western drive for hegemony.

Since 9/11, the West has been nervous about the al-Qaeda threat.

The Madrid and London bombings kept that threat alive.

The sense of polarisation has been sharpened by recent controversies - over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, over the Pope's remarks about Islam, over whether face-veils hinder integration.

All these things have set relations between Islam and the West on edge.

Many Muslims, and some non-Muslims, blame the media for fanning the flames.

In a wired-up world, local disputes can quickly become global ones.

Most people, when asked, are likely to favour co-existence and tolerance.

But at moments of crisis, they do not always practise them.

So how exactly were cartoons examples of Western policy and drive for hegemony? And how is the media to blame for reporting Islamic behaviour? Last I recall, there was not one newspaper or major media outlet willing to reprint the cartoons for fear of Islamic backlash and retalliation. It seems to me that Islam apologists allow no responsibility to be placed on the Islamic world for the actions of terrorism that claims to represent it. Where is the outcry of 1.5 billion "moderate" muslim people that want only to live in peace? Until, we hear from them, if they exist, I fear we are facing an inevitable clash.