The Clash of Civilisations- The Logical Extension of Weltanshauung

I have been hesitant to write about Paris given the complexity of the situation and the realisation that in such an instance knee-jerk reactions are the most likely and I wanted to avoid going down that road.


But now some time has passed and I have been able to move past my emotional response to try and make sense of it.


First and foremost I think the most important thing that Mr Hollande has done was to paraphrase Samuel P Huntington and in so doing loudly proclaim that this was NOT a "Clash of Civilisations". 


In his speech to the French Assembly he focussed on the fact that the acts of the IS, were wanton criminal acts and were anything but civilised.  As such they cannot be construed as a Clash of Civilisations.


For some this sound like splitting hairs.  But I believe it is a very important statement.


Huntington was convinced that the wars of the future would no longer be primarily driven by political and economical consideration, but rather would be driven by conflicting "world views" between different civilizations


He postulated that "differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic.  Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion."


He distinguished between civilizations on the basis of differing views on the "...relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear."


This is exactly what IS wants the West to think.  By claiming the mantel of Islam they have a potential following of over 1.6billion Muslims.  They want nothing more than for the West to put all Muslims in one group and precipitate the clash.


But Islam is not a monolith.  And slowly the Islamic "silent majority" is finding its voice.  It is of the utmost importance that Muslims who do not wish to be identified with IS speak out loudly and clearly. 


There can be no limp attempt to explain radical Islam as a valid response to perceived or even real slights or discrimination.  Every  attempt  to excuse their barbarity as an unfortunate but understandable reaction to Western values is a perversion.
It will invite a competing and equally warped fundamentalist radical response  from "Western" extremists.
And that will lead to the dreaded Clash of Civilisations.