No... no clash of civilizations... nothing to see here...

Unfortunately it's not on the online version of The DM Register so I can't post a link - but there's a silly opinion piece by Stephen Aigner, Sana Akili and Hsain Ilahiane (all faculty at Iowa State) that tries to claim that:

1. There's no "clash of civilizations" between the West and radical Islam
2. The war in Iraq "endangers the world" (yeah... tell that to the Lebanese)
3. It's really "economic conditions, authoritarian practices and institutions of..." (wait for it now...) "post colonialism" that are to blame

Here's an excerpt:

History is replete with examples of the three Abrahamic faiths - Jews, Christians and Muslims living together peacefully and tolerantly.

Yes, in the "Dar al-Islam" dhimmis don't have quite as many rights - like, uh... women - but that's not important right now.

They close with this:

Instead of pointing the finger at Islam and Muslims, let's examine how economic and political conditions support authoritarian regimes, foster intolerant religious extremism and produce terrorists.

If we do not, if we continue to point the finger, the United States may further alienate moderate, peace-seeking Muslims who prefer democracy and have surfaced recently in Iraq, [coincidence? Ed.] Lebanon, [coincidence? Ed.] Saudi Arabia [coincidence? Ed.] and who live everywhere, in Iowa and across the globe.

Hmmm... almost sounds like a threat.

Let's face it, there aren't a lot of Presbyterian, Buddhist or Hindu terrorists running around right now. I'm all for dialogue, but trotting out the tired old argument that postcolonialism is the root of everything bad in the developing world is a crock. The "clash of civilizations" argument makes a lot of sense to me. And these three have no strong points to refute it.

Update: The Register put up a link.