Huntington’s analysis is broad in its sweep, but lacks clarity at places. Edward Said raises some valid points of rebuttal in his polemical essay titled ‘The Clash of Ignorance’. Foremost among Said’s objections is the absence of a concrete definition for terms such as the West, Oriental, Occidental, Islam, etc. While indigenous peoples of different parts of the world developed their own unique customs, traditions, language and schools of religious thought, there is much overlap between different civilizations. In other words, the common humanity between civilizations is a potent unifying force that is not given due recognition by Huntington. Instead, Said accuses Huntington of playing up superficial differences between cultural communities, which do not hold up against rigorous longitudinal studies of cultural interactions. Furthermore, as a result of the long history of trade and exchange of goods between civilizations, aspects of culture and religion have also moved across geo-political entities. A study of demographic composition of many European countries will reveal the presence of communities from every religious and cultural background. In countries such as France and Italy, Muslims comprise a substantial minority, despite being located on the wrong side of the fault line. The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, in Britain too. Said expresses this fact thus: “Certainly neither Huntington nor Lewis has much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization.” (Said, 2001)
Said further implies that the proposed paradigm of conflict – termed the Clash of Civilizations – is not all that new. The West versus East battle lines of the past have only been redrawn as West versus Rest in the post Cold War world order. Said’s criticism of Huntington’s thesis also emerges from the latter’s Euro-centric view of human history. Said is right when he points out that the rest of the world is bracketed together into one group in spite of the myriad differences in culture, ethnicity and religious beliefs. Edward Said also scores points for the presentation of his argument – his essay is infused with anecdotal references and common observations without compromising on analytic rigor. To cite an example, Said elucidates the unedifying nature of Huntington’s definition of civilization by narrating a personal incident, which is nevertheless profound in its meaning. When accused by a member of the audience that his views and opinions were ‘Western’ as opposed to what orthodox Islam would allow, Said retorted saying “Why are you wearing a suit and tie?” was the first retort that came to mind. … but I recalled the incident when information on the September 11 terrorists started to come in: how they had mastered all the technical details required to inflict their homicidal evil. Where does one draw the line between “Western” technologies and, as Berlusconi declared, “Islam’s” inability to be a part of “modernity”?” (Said, 2001)
Huntington asserts that of all the fault lines of civilizations across the world, the ones involving Islam are the most vulnerable to escalation of conflict. He points to the millennium long history of bloody conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations as proof of their incompatibility with each other. Beginning with the birth of Islam in seventh century A.D., the following six centuries were marked by constant conflict between the leaders of Islam and Christian Crusaders. From the fourteenth century onwards, Islam’s rose in prominence in the regions surrounding the Middle East. Furthermore, under the rule of the Ottoman Turks, Islam spread into the Balkans, and even set its eyes on Vienna, although the latter objective did not fructify. Even in the more recent centuries of its existence Islamic nations have been involved in bloody conflicts with the West. The scenario decidedly turned worse when the rich oil resources of the Persian Gulf attracted Western business interests toward the conclusion of the Second World War. The relationship between the two sides was uneasy from the beginning:
“Several wars occurred between Arabs and Israel(created by the West). France fought a bloody and ruthless war in Algeria for most of the 1950s; British and French forces invaded Egypt in 1956; American forces returned to Lebanon, attacked Libya, and engaged in various military encounters with Iran; Arab and Islamic terrorists, supported by at least three Middle Eastern governments, employed the weapon of the weak and bombed Western planes and installations and seized Western hostages…In its aftermath NATO planning is increasingly directed to potential threats and instability along its ‘southern tier’.” (Huntington, 1997, p.189)