According to the Syrian ex-Muslim psychiatrist, Dr. Wafa Sultan, in her debate with a Muslim cleric on Al Jazeera news network, the clash that Dr. Huntington alluded to ” is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash but compete, nor is it a clash of religions. It is a clash between two eras; one with a medieval mentality and one of the 21st Century. Between civilization and backwardness. Between barbarity and rationalism. Between freedom and oppression.”

Amina,
What a great honour for you to interview this bigot warmonger disguised in HArvard scholarship. Frankly you are being besides yourself and you can not even beleive that you secured an interview with him.

Sorry, we can all read and have read his infamous book and at least for me, am not misguided and SH is and has been all along on thisissue.

SH is not misunderstood at all by Muslims and many scholars in the west who took him to task for his shaky theory.

I read his book and wrote a detailed rebuttal of many of the baseless asumptions he had advanced.

He is not misunderstood-he just shifted his basic position after the exposure the fallacies of his theory.

A theory predicts and interperts a phenomenon:SH's does neither.

CLEARTHINKING1:

Do you have anything to say on Huntington or the author's claim of a shift in his position?

Or you must continue to post hate-filled, baseless rants on this as you've been doing on other WaPo 'Faith' blogs ?

You claim to be Scientist: Have you yet learned how to present factually based evidence, without flooding it with personal bias ? In your own scientific field, dealing with fellow workers, etc ?

Are you familiar with widespread news-reports in Indian media of violence against Indian minorities (Christian/Muslims/Sikhs and others) ? Some links I had provided you on other Faith blog?

With your intolerance, hate/bias/bigotry, SAME fact-free pronouncements ad infintum -- no matter the topic of discussion, I don't think you've shown yourself to be capable of participating in any 'inter-faith' discussion.

WaPo moderators might want to check it out...

clearthinking1:

"Minorities" [Sikhs(2%), Muslims(12%), Christians(2%)] in India have killed many more Hindus(85%) than Hindus have killed minorities."

Before I 'read it again' believe a shred of it, can you actually validate that statement with proper facts and figures from reliable and neutral sources, or, as is likely, is this just more distortion and revisionism like the "25% Hindus in Pakistan to 1%' and 'millions killed in East Pakistan genocide'?

No depth is too low to stoop to in an attempt to vilify Muslims.

Garak,

Please remember this unquestionable fact, even though its hard to believe that any majority (85%)has allowed this to happen:

"Minorities" [Sikhs(2%), Muslims(12%), Christians(2%)] in India have killed many more Hindus(85%) than Hindus have killed minorities. Read that again and verify it for youself.

As you read these blogs, keep these facts in mind. Also, remember that these same minorities are over-represented in positions of power relative to percentage. This is after recent acts of terrorism. Hindus are the only majority to have ever done this in any society.
Just try to imagine the opposite in a 85% Muslim country. If a 2% Hindu minority was involved in acts of terrorism, do you think that society of majority muslims would elect a Hindu President?

Many people on these blogs seem to believe that they can insult Hindus with anecdotes and in contradiction to verifiable facts. This is happening even after innumerable acts of tolerance and reaching out by Hindus.

Part of this is the age old game of Muslims and Christians playing their destructive agenda. They know that their real motivation is to destroy other faiths and not really live together in peace, and this makes them insecure about their faith. So, they lash out at what they think is the easy target - peaceful and tolerant Hindus.
This will end the same way as always - with humiliation of those who act with hatred and violence in their heart.

At least someone's out there building bridges...

http://www.davidhasselhoff.com/video/video/show?id=2051706%3AVideo%3A218375

"India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy."

Then why the massacre of thousands of innocent Muslims in Gujarat? The pogroms against Christians? You may be right, but the RSS and BJP disagree.

The reason for the anger and intolerance in the "Muslim world" is that it is a supremacist ideology at its core. The superior god (Allah Akhbar), the superior prophet(PBUH), the Ummah, the best book (Koran), and submission (Islam) to these concepts is central to Muslims daily life.
But in the age of reason and science, such cult-like following of a prophet and a book is not easy for Muslims. The choices in such a state of cognitive disonance are reform or walk away. Reform is impossible because the foundation is the Koran which is directly from Allah and connot be questioned. Walking away is dangerous.
Wikepedia: "According to most scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time given to him/her by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women, life imprisonment."

So, a "modern" or "moderate" muslim does mental gymnastics to reconcile the contradictions. Many educated ones become more fundamentalists (e.g Mohammed Atta of 9/11 fame). Others deny, dodge, distract, and obfuscate their whole lives, but are unable to walk away. Many blame others for their problems - Jews, Christians, Hindus.

There is no easy answer. Muslims could collectiviely declare that the Koran is not the word of Allah, and start removing the bad parts and keep the good parts. This is unlikely. The other option is education and science so this selective cleansing happens at the individual level. Interfaith dialogue does not have much of a role at this time. INTRAfaith dialogue between moderates and fundamentalists is needed first.

Daniel:
"So please Muslims enlighten us about ourselves--and of course yourselves as well."

One thing to achieve the above would be to that which your 'brilliant' Huntington did not do, actually interact with Muslims and instead of trying to make 'educated guesses' in analyzing aspects of their culture, politics, life - ask them, ask Muslim scholars and social scientists.

I doubt people like you would do that though - it might bring this sham of an edifice of prejudice, bigotry and moral superiority you have constructed crumbling down.

The Muslim world thinks that what others think of them is simplistic at best and at worst untrue?

I cannot think of a greater insult to the West to say that what the West thinks of the Muslim world is simplistic at best and at worst untrue.

The West, with all its scientific and artistic advances--The West with all the advances in medicine, physics, biology, business, communications, methods of transportation,--all the music from Beethoven to the Beatles, all the writings from Shakespeare to Huntington...Do I need to go on?

The West is simplistic with regard to the Muslim world? The Muslim world has some sort of complexity with regard to itself that the West cannot see? In fact what the West believes about the Muslim world is untrue and not just maybe untrue?

Well please give us some of this supposed complexity of the Muslim world to us Amina Chaudary that the West obviously--according to you--must be too simplistic to understand. (If the West is simplistic about the Muslim world that is virtually identical to saying the West is simplistic).

For now I go with what the West feels and thinks about the Muslim world rather than what Muslims tell us about themselves and their world.

And last, but not least, I want to hear the presumably correct and complex and certainly not negative view of the West that the Muslims can make--the view of the Muslims about the West which the West supposedly cannot make because it is simplistic and even flat out incorrect about the Muslim world. If the West is simplistic about the Muslims then it must be virtually blind about itself. So please Muslims enlighten us about ourselves--and of course yourselves as well.

The facts can not be disputed: Whereever Muslims are in majority, they create an Islamic nation. After Pakistan, they have committed ethnic genocide of Hindus in Kashmir and we see the same thing in Thailand and Phillipines.

Why do Muslims need 57 exclusive Islamic nations with almost no significant minority population? Why are there daily incidents of terror by Muslims directed at civilians?

To cultivate a relationship of trust across a year with an icon of American political and social theory is truly remarkable. To do so, and then generate a reflective interview guided by extraordinary and intelligent questions, deserves respect. To do all that, and then document what few thought leaders permit themselves to admit in private, let alone in public - that may be they didn't get it right the first time, is truly unique. I doubt most people who cite Samuel Huntington read his book (let alone all of his other writings). Some read his original essay in Foreign Affairs. Most who subscribe to a "Clash" theory, read his title at most and perhaps read what others wrote about what they thought he thought - eventually creating a cartoon view of the world that neither stood the test of history, present or future. And so the chasm between cultures and peoples and individuals emerged and grew and lives were impacted, negatively. Ms. Chaudary appears to have mustered the courage to speak to Mr. Huntington directly, having read much of what he authored in preparation, and provided us all, as my friend recently said, with a great service. Perhaps we can put the "Clash" once and for all behind us. And look forward to our a world in which our common humanity presents the occasion to celebrate our differences and optimize our achievements. Thank you.

Vikram3:

"Pakistan just before partition had more than 25 percent Hindu/Sikh population which today has been reduced to less than 2 percent."

Gee, someone else before you said "40% to 1%". This figure fudging, along with the 'millions killed in East Pakistan Genocide" is symptomatic of the revisionist and inaccurate history out of India and elsewhere, ostensibly to demonize Pakistan.

Focus on your numbers for a moment - The '20% Hindu's' is likely accurate, but it represents the demographics of both West and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and represents the demographics before the mass migrations of partition.

Most historians agree that the numbers of people who migrated from India to Pakistan were relatively equal to the number of people who migrated from Pakistan to India. So, have you bothered to research what the percentage of Hindus in West Pakistan alone was? Have you bothered to look at how that percentage was affected with the millions migrating out of Pakistan and into Pakistan?

No, of course not. Revisionist figures such as these are bandied about by the Indians and soaked up those in the West to whom such demonization of Pakistan offers further justification for their demonization of Islamic societies and Muslims in general.

Deliberate intellectual dishonesty, historical distortions and revisionism in analyzing cultures, nations and peoples bear a high degree of blame for the gulf and misconceptions that exist between East and West.

I think this is a great piece a man and his faulty theory. I find it interesting that Huntington was able to self critique his own theories and understand the harm that it has caused throughout the world. I don't like his Clash theory, but I do like that he was human and aware of his own faults. He even opposes the theory in relation to the Iraq war.

I also think his granting an interview to a Muslim, was in some way a form of admitting such mistakes and perhaps, apologizing them. It is a bit of a stretch, but I appreciate his self analysis.

asadkhan- The fact is Pakistan just before partition had more than 25 percent Hindu/Sikh population which today has been reduced to less than 2 percent. I don't know how you can call it secular? That seems like a pogrom and ethnic genocide to me.

If India today reduced its Muslim population from 15 percent to 2 percent; would it still be called secular?

I think naming a nation after your religion (Islamic republic) is in itself an insult to non-Muslims; it tells them that in this country Islam is the superior religion. Is not that a shame?

As someone tasked with reading Huntington extensively as an undergraduate (often from professors with tongue-in-cheek, straw man criticisms of his work), I was mystified by the extent through which The Clash of Civilizations and another work on democratization, The Third Wave, were prejudged and misunderstood. Before even reading the works, our instructors were calling the author ethnocentric and challenging the integrity of his work. My contention with them is that a close, objective reading would find a social scientist somberly carrying out his duty: to understand and interpret the significance of political events. As far as "clash," everyone was searching for an explanation for the significance of 1989 and the end of the Cold War. What should we anticipate? Although Huntington is forthright on his thesis in the essay and the book, it's his responsibility to construct an argument and defend it. What we should take from his book, just like Fukuyama, Thomas Friedman, or others that have taken similar broad stabs, is an attempt to understand. Huntington was trying to say that culture was more of a factor in global dynamics and conflict than it had previously been, and had the potential of being an overriding factor. And you know what? He was right! And there was nothing ethnocentric about what he was trying to say as a social scientist. I challenge anyone to find ONE concrete passage from his work that proves he is biased towards the Muslim world or any other "civilization" he describes.

"Huntington and the Muslim world shared something in common: the frustrating feeling that what many people believe about them is simplistic at best, and at worst, untrue." Gee, the same frustrating feeling is shared by Westerners, voters for McCain, supporters of the war to give Iraqis some semblance of freedom, supporters of Israel, etc.

mharwick wrote:
Talk to the Taliban and appease the Taliban. There are no moderate Taliban. Talk to a scorpion about his sting and get the same result. It is in their nature. Women are chattels and worse. Music is an abomination and all Jews must die. Next Iran will get the nukes they want and Israel has no hope with the new Obama team in place.
3/10/2009 8:28:14 AM

Today the Taliban issued a statement that they didn't know what was meant by moderate Taliban. If, they said that Obama meant those who stay at home and don't fight, talking to them is useless. They stand as one and that is not moderate.

Is it not true of any thought leader (Huntington certainly was among the best)that others (largely politicians) appropriate their thesis in a manner that aids their agenda? In social sciences it is only possible to identify broad trends and every hypothesis is context driven. Huntington identified such broad trends long before the world heard about Al Qaida or Osama or Taliban. His thesis was bang on target. Today radical Islam is the main scourge of the world. Instead of berating Huntington for painting Muslims in dark colors, let politicians implement the excellent suggestions Huntington makes to effect a reconciliation between Islam and other faiths.

Great article Amina! You are right in that Muslims need to actually read his work without referencing it in khutbahs and articles. Me included! :P

"the frustrating feeling that what many people believe about them is simplistic at best, and at worst, untrue" Every subset of humanity gets that feeling, Ms. Chaudary. We are all misunderstood by somebody.

I don't disagree with the premise of your article, in that having some clarification from Mr. Huntington would make for pretty interesting reading. However, I do disagree with your having written it into existence. I feel the article is moot, written only to boast about the fact that your stars aligned and you were granted an interview with Mr. Huntington. I don't know how many more ways you could have thought up to emphasize the fact that you, a Muslim woman, were granted an interview for Islamica, a Muslim publication, about Mr. Huntington's treatise on a theoretical post-Cold War Earth, where Christians and Muslims are diametrically opposed. Oh yeah, did I mention that you are a Muslim woman writing for Islamica, a Muslim publication and you are the only Muslim to ever get this interview? Well, if I forgot to mention it, you certainly did not.

By the way, is the publication's title really "Islamica, a Muslim publication" or do you just feel the need to quantify the name every time you mention it? Maybe I should start calling my favorite periodical, "Newsweek, a glossy magazine."

The progress of civilization highlights the 'similarities' among aparently different groups. Needless to say, tolerance, mutual respect, mutual understanding increased. This was possible because focus was on 'same-ness' not 'Other-ness'. All these 'clash' theories are regressive. Another great thinker proposed clash of "Classes" and we have seen how much blood was shed in his name world over. Let us try to understand the direction of civilization, which is no doubt inclusive not exclusive, multiplicity not singularity, non-violence instead of violence, etc. etc.

As an Asian American who teaches tolerance and diversity in a Florida university, I wished that during the heat of the red hot post 9-11 debate over Islam vs the East as the war of civilizations, that Dr. Huntington had been more forthcoming with his now clarified views.
Why? GWB and his apologists obviously were influenced by his overly simplistic Clash ideas, and the media and many in the thinking class would
have been better informed about his more nuanced views, which is exactly what people like myself felt. Its comparable to our simplistic views about all countries behind the "iron curtain" during the so-called "Cold War" during the years
leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
Soviet Union in the Reagan years.

I draw specific attention to the final quote Ms. Chaudary mentions. What did Professor Huntington mean with the phrase "you people"? Did he mean women? Did he mean academics? I think he was referring to Muslims.

So, despite his protestation that he did not view Muslims as a homogenous group, his own words betrayed him. The first important step in demonizing people is collectivizing them.

Mr. Huntington's ideas are incorrect in my view at their root - "the west" and "Islam" are not parallel constructs that can be opposed to one another. The opposite is true; a person can be both Muslim and western and these two identities are independent of one another. The decision to participate in Western culture is a different decision than the decision to practice the Muslim faith, and one can do both simulaneously. History certainly supports this view. This is the great flaw of Professor Huntington's work; its basic knowledge of history is flawed, and it leads to flawed conclusions about the world today.

Cultural essentialism has brought great misery to the world, and it is important for people of peace to avoid it.

1947 was a very bad times.their was loot.arson and killing all over india----the worst affected was the indian,sikh domted punjab.there are still people there who remember the horror stories.there,however.was no justification for the confrontation which has continued till date.There was mass migeration both sides of the border.there have been writers who have portayed the tragedy in their works--river of fireby qurrattulain hyder,Toba tek singhby minto--let there be a reconciliation of civilizationsand not clash."the seed we sow today may grow up into a mighty tree and its branchess may send forth fresh saplings like the banyan of the soil.and its alumnai may spread through the length and breadth of the country preaching the gospel of truth,honesty .piety and large hearted tolerance."

in answer to questionmuslim countries have no minorities,i will submit pakistan was created in muslim majority areas.I agree minories have held key positions-muslims,sikhs,christians.kistan has had a chrisian chief justice,Cornellious by name,another hindu chief justice,Rana bhagwandas,a parsi supreme court judgeDorab Patel.Pakistan is proud of all the three.Inevery other field minorities are working side by side with their muslim brothers.This is notwitstanding the extreamists opposion.Islam is a secular religion.Pakistan establishment poisoned the ordinary mans mindbecause of vested intersts--againstindia.The two countries should realise this and live is good neighbours.

I may request that Ms.Amina to have a interview with one of the century philosopher Prof.Abdulkarim Soroush (Ex.Harward Prof.) for a better understanding of new thesis about the root cause of confliction between Moslems (and not Islam)with West.

Experiments in political science are difficult, but Pakistan and India are a rare example. People of the same DNA and genes that share common languages, rituals, and cultures (e.g. Punjabi, Sindhi, etc..) are separated by religion. In just 60 years, there have been clear results.

India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. Progress is seen in politics, economics, education, etc... India has had Presidents who are Muslim, Hindu, Dalit, female; Prime ministers who are Sikh, Hindu, female; Defense ministers who are Christian, Hindu, Sikh; powerful politicians are even Italian Catholics like Sonia Gandhi. More progress needs to made in many places in Indian society, but even in America Blacks had very limited rights till the 1960's and now Obama is president. Tolerant peaceful cultures make progress.

In contrast, Pakistan has become an increasingly intolerant and violent society. Pakistan used to have 40% Hindus 60 years ago, and now it is only 1% Hindu. The treatment of women and honor killings in Pakistan are inexcusable, regardless of the fact that the Islamic fundamentalists are able to find actual quotes in the Koran that justify their behavior.

Samuel Huntington did not want to promote violence against Muslims. As a political scientist he was making observations and trying to draw conclusions. The conclusions are disturbing, but that does not mean we should go into denial.

After reading this article and its comments I am not certain whether or not I like Samuel Huntington much; I am certain that I like Amina Chaudary.

Having read Professor Huntington's infamous paper I can only note that social scientists in general need to be a good deal more cautious about their conceptualizations. In fact, these intellects have absolutely no control over the way in which opportunistic political leaders interpret and appropriate their ideas. With all due respect to the late professor, the rush to war in Iraq may represent not some clash or civilizations, but rather, the misuse of academic speculation for less altruistic purposes.

And another thing. Either the author of this piece is extremely naive or extremely opportunistic. I hope it's the former.

So Samuel Huntington was misunderstood after all. Give me a break. This is a man whose entire life work has been reactionary and driven by fear of the popular masses and/or some foreign other.

One of his earliest works was with the Trilateral Commission where he contributed to a report that said that in the 1970s democracy was problematic because too many people were making claims on the system. What we needed was to limit democratic participation by the people.

I'll never forget a hilarious story that I heard when I was living in Chile. A right-wing think tank invited Huntington to speak in Santiago. They loved Huntington and his anti-democratic as well as Clash of Civilizations arguments. Much to their chagrin, they learned that they weren't included in Huntington's definition of Western civilization, because they were Latin Americans and were Catholic! Imagine telling the descendants of the followers of the first Christian church, the ones that conquered and destroyed native civilizations in the Americas first, that they weren't part of the West! Har har har.

Of course Huntington's racism and xenophobia really was spelled out in his last book where he said that there were just too many Hispanics in this country and that they had these foreign, un-American cultures. You know, same stuff racist xenophobes have been saying since the last turn of the century.

Yeah, what a poor, misunderstood guy. Real pity.

Huffington had the same view or concerns about Islam just like every other human being. Why daily incidents of unspeakable terror by Muslims (mostly targeting civilians) all over the world? Why Muslims need 57 exclusive Islamic nations? Why there are no significant number of minorities in majority of these nations?

Why are Muslims killing and dying for more Islamic nations every day- Thailand, Phillipines, Kashmir....? How about the treatment of their own women....?

Thanks Amina for the link for your interview in Islamica Magazine, and for the insight the article provided into the man and his message.

Sadly, whether he intended it or not, Huntington's article and then book was indeed appropriated by the entire foreign policy apparatus to further legitimize, calcify and expand upon the "War on Islam" in all of it's manifestations--from when it was first published in the establishment Foreign Policy Magazine. Our job--and yours is to put the cat back in the box, and to deconstruct the battlements so that idealism can return--trade relations, ties that bind, development, and a shared stake in the increasingly fragile future of our world.

Let us hope you can muster your pedigreed diplomas to seek these ends--rather than soft-selling state plunder as so many of your predecessors have done.

I don't think Huntington was misundestood. He was straightforward about how cultural differences are sources of conflict.

Of course, in an interview with a Harvard student, who happened to be a muslim -and a reporter for a muslim magazine- he had no choice but being extremely polite. Otherwise, muslim fanatics from all over the world would have had another reason to ask for his head.

Huntington may have not been an ideologue, nor a racist. But his works have been extensively used by ideologues and racists to advance their own agendas. And he was well aware of that.

Anyway, good work, Amina.

I find it difficult to be persuaded by this article. It seeks to make us more sympathetic to the person of Samuel Huntington by attempting to construct him as thoughtful and misunderstood. What troubles me most is the authors resistance to see the obvious. For one, she doesn't seem to realize that Huntington's not granting an interview -in all these many years- to any Muslim except herself shortly before his death embodies the whole problem. He chose not to speak to the very people he was maligning. If he was misunderstood, it was no one's fault but his. If he wanted a more nuanced assessment of his theory out there - he ought to have given it. Furthermore, it is not as if he didn't have ample opportunity to adjust or clarify his position. Huntington was a prolific author. He was also a professor at Harvard University for over 50 years, with the type of influence to dictate the demands on his schedule and to devote much time to writing, speaking and, dare we say it, advising major influential world figures. He certainly had a voice. As one individual man, he often had a stronger voice then the collective modern Muslim world ever did. It is ridiculous to suggest that he was misunderstood and powerless to change that. Let us not forget Dr Huntington's last book in which the persistence of his ignorance and zenophobia shines through. In 'Who Are We,' Huntington does the same thing he does in 'Clash' and that is arbitrarily assign positives and negatives to different communities with a blatant favoritism for his own. I will agree with one point, and one point only, presented in this 'article' (if that is what it may be called0 and that is that Huntington certainly was much more dynamic and complex then we realize - just enough to stand on the sidelines and cause uproars that reformulated the history of international relations, modern politics, and intra-religious contact and yet leave an imperceptive interviewer with the impression that he was just an honest innocent thinker who nobody really listened to.

Chaudary better understands Huntington because, after mutual suspecion, she met him face to face. Both got beyond the graffiti on the wall between cultures. Does this suggest a foreign policy tool?

Amina, quoted in Wikipedia is this Samuel Huntington' piece of truth from his The Clash of Civilizations: "The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic Fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture ".
Probably this is why he was hesitant to grant you an interview; he was expecting you to be offended.

The article shows the problem MR Huntington faced:

He wrote it as a USA appearantly monolingual scholar, who does not speak any of the Muslim World's languages, so he reflected on the historical past in composing his thesis: Crusades, Turkish Empire, different languages, different faiths [though of the same root as the Jedeo Christinan one], etc.

The most important part of his interview is on page 6 :

"In coming decades, questions of identity, meaning cultural heritage, language and religion will play a central role in politics."

The misunderstanding of these attributes in Somalia, Iraq, Afganistan greatly contributed to the failure of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, most poingantly represented by:

They will greet us with flowers - some flowers, 4200+ dead soliders, 30 000 seriously injured, 300 000 mentally injured -mostly due to concussions suffered in a illegal war of choice.

Many citations indicate that Mr Huntington regrets that his analysis was taken as a one way street -- there gotta be war.

Interesting piece and I enjoyed reading the article. Having not read the book "Clash of Civilizations...", I'm coming away from this thinking that Huntington must have made his points very clearly. How they were interpreted is entirely in the minds of the readers.
You wrote:
"... during which a heated class discussion took place about United States involvement in Iraq. Huntington argued against the Bush administration's efforts at nation-building in the Middle East - an ironic position, since many of the war's supporters cited his thesis as a rationale for "restructuring" the Muslim world. As I..."
He must have been a great teacher. He was probably not so much arguing about the Bush Administration's politics as much as trying to get a heated discussion going to get his students thinking.

I think that both Christianity and Islam have had violent histories. The European colonization of the Americas was accompanied by the genocide of the native inhabitants. Similarly, the spread of Islam has been accompanied by the mass eradication of cultures and the killing of innocents. As people of faith, we have to come to terms with this history so that we may live in peace with others.

Amina, have you ever heard of obligate carnivores?
These species are present now in our planet and disprove the existence of a just (or loving) supreme deity creator of this universe. Your beliefs are irrational. Amina, wake up!

excellent article. finally something grounded in firsthand knowledge.

its pretty amazing the way that people misinterpreted huntington's piece to launch a war.

Having read this article from beginning to end, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. What is it exactly that's misunderstood about Huntington's writings?

In terms of actual quotes from Prof. Huntington, all we get is a simplistic truism: "Neither the West nor Islam are Homogenous". Stop the presses, really. we also learn that he does not wish to be regarded as dogmatic. Well, who does.

All the rest are Ms. Chaudary's own musings and interpretations, some of them utterly inexplicable. For instance, she says on the one hand that "Perhaps he was even sympathetic to the way his thesis was used to demonize Islam" (Huh?) and on the other that Huntington and Islam have something in common: They share the fate of being misunderstood. What's the bottom line? Who knows.

One gets a vague sense that Ms. Chaudary is trying to promote some sort of reconciliation by persuading Muslims that the "Clash of Civilizations" is not really the evil incarnate they deem it to be. But the only conclusion one can draw from this article is that either Prof. Huntington or Ms. Chaudary were seriously confused during that interview. And I suspect it wasn't Huntington.

A poignant commentary on Huntington that gives form to what his very last message seemed to be! I thought this was most revealing: "By the end of the interview, it became apparent to me why he decided to speak with me as a Muslim woman, and for Islamica, a Muslim publication. I believe that Huntington felt as misunderstood and maligned by Muslims and the rest of the world as many Muslims felt by his thesis." At the same time, I think Huntington's legacy -- and the rhetoric of those in the Muslim world -- provides a lesson to us all. Ideas are strong, and words uttered in influential spaces even stronger. We must be careful about the ideas we develop and promote, especially when they aim in one direction toward conciliation and justice, lest they be easily misconstrued in quite another direction.