However odd it may seem- given Huntington’s defensive Western crouch- a Muslim cultural conservative would likely support the author’s basic assertions concerning the central role of religion in his culture and its ‘clash’ with the West. Our two thinkers, on the other hand, would probably diverge sharply on almost all other points surrounding this topic- particularly the implied culprit status of Islam in Huntington’s analysis of a number of historic woes. Generally, Huntington’s own clear allegiance to the West provides both the framework for his historical analysis, and the impetus for the conclusions he draws. Ironically, while this allegiance will be the source of most sticking points between him and an Islamist, biased allegiance would also be their greatest quality in common.
With the knowledge that conservative Muslims promote an expanded role for Quranic law (and the enforcement of its corollary moralism) in the Arab states, it is safe to assume that an Islamist wouldn’t balk at Huntington’s referring to a generalized "Islamic" civilization. He would undoubtedly agree with the assertion that religion is the primary differentiating factor between civilizations. However, Huntington’s conclusion- that "the revival of religion" is a response to "increasing interactions (between civilizations)", which in turn leads to unwanted "economic modernization and social change (from the West)"- might be one of the first statements to warrant a defense.
The goal of such a defense will be to re-fashion the same arguments with the aim of justifying Islamic resistance. For example, the Islamist will redefine Huntington’s "increasing interactions" as "increasing encroachments". Perhaps he will argue that the ‘revival’ is not truly a revival as such, but instead an aggressive attempt to preserve superior cultural values in the face of Western imposition. Quoting Huntington’s own statement that "Civilizations are dynamic; they rise and fall", he might take time to remind the reader that Islamic civilization was the hotbed of progress and modernization for centuries; that Muslim empires developed philosophies and legal schools- sometimes working in concert with ancient Western thought. He could refer to the military might of the Ottomans, or mention that algebra, alcohol and Alhambra were all gifts from Muslim empires. His intention would ultimately be to reassure us that, while the West waxes in the present, this contest is far from decided.
Promoting the virtues of his religion will be a significant aspect of the Islamist’s defense. In a historical context, our conservative will take time to remind his audience that his region gave birth to the ethical monotheism dominant in the West. To Huntington’s remark that "even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply…" he would respond that Islam has shown far greater tolerance to fellow monotheists than Western Christianity. He might point to the first "Golden Age" of the Jews in Moorish Spain- recalling their exile in 1492 with the re-establishment of Christian governance; or bring up the traditional "dhimmi" (protected) status- which provided greater security to non-Muslim "People of the Book" under Muslim rule than their non-Christian counterparts enjoyed in the West. In essence, he will refuse any implication that Islam is somehow inherently responsible for the violence of the region.
In defending against Huntington’s focus on the violence in the Islamic world, The Islamist might stay somewhat apolitical. For example, he might ignore the statement "conflict…between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years"- not wanting to de-emphasize the ‘clash’ himself. Instead, his response to the focus on conflict (especially more recent event) would be to accept this emphasis, but refocus it to find Western imperialism and interference in the region culpable. He might agree with Huntington that the wars fought over Israel occurred because this state was "created by the West"; however, he would use this instance to point out the hypocrisy of Western claims of priority for equality and human rights, given America’s unfettered support of this state. Further, he might argue with Huntington’s assertion (via a quote) that "Muslim rage" is that of an "ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage", but there is little doubt he would deny that there is rage against the "worldwide expansion" of "our (the West’s) secular present". In fact, the lion’s share of any response would probably be a critique of just that.
Much time and attention would be given by an Islamist to the ills bred by our secular culture. The breakdown of the traditional family- and its replacement with materialistic individualism- would be attributed to the lack of faith in our culture (along with a host of other problems concerning crime and self-destructive behavior in our society). Ultimately, the portrait would be one of supreme moral decay, and the struggle against this eventuality will be painted now as a noble, if not necessary, act.
This sort of criticism might also lead our critic to pose more generalized, ideological questions. He might ask the reader, for example, what it is that constitutes a superior, stable civilization- pointing out that Huntington (the Westerner) focuses almost exclusively on military and economic supremacy. Most Islamists posit that their faith is not anathema to progress and stability, countering that modernity is neither the product nor the possession of the West. Huntington indeed concludes that Western dominance depends on "maintaining the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests". I would leave it to the Islamist, lastly, to question the right of the West to such dominance, using Huntington’s conclusion to justify the current fears in the Muslim world of Western desire for desire for hegemony.
The irony here is that the "commonality", which Huntington recommends the West make an effort to identify, can be found (in one form) in the basic attitude he shares with his Muslim critic. This is the attitude that finds both of our subjects filtering history through a lens of competition between civilizations, which ends with the fearful assertion of the need for increasingly protectionist policies. While the Islamist will defend his religious culture in terms of its tolerance and moral superiority there remains- as an undercurrent- a focus on the dire need to maintain its presence- and to shield this culture from the impurities of the West. Huntington, in comparison, pays lip service to the need for greater cultural understanding- noting that violence is not necessarily the end result. However, the image with which the reader departs his work is that of a West besieged by violent and alien rivals. Thus we find ourselves with two ideologues towing a similar line from different sides of the fence.