After reading both of the articles, and doing some researching of my own, I can come to the conclusion, that as Lewis justifies the stance that the Muslim activists have taken, Said believes that, “the West is the West, and Islam Islam.” However much they may disagree on, they also take two very different approaches. Lewis examines the historical background to such an outrage of hate, and what their more recent reasons are, while Said’s article basically bashes on both Lewis’s article and a different piece “The Clash of Civilizations.”
In Said’s “The Clash of Ignorance” he makes a lot of references to Samuel Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations,” and Lewis’s “The Roots of Muslim Rage” as being uneducated, and idiotic. “In both articles, the personification of enormous entities called ‘the West’ and ‘Islam’ is recklessly affirmed, as if hugely complicated matters like identity and culture existed in a cartoon like world where Popeye and Pluto bash each other mercilessly…” His opinion on the two articles are very clear, and his opinion on the writer become ever more clearer with this statement, “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.”
However opinionated Said’s article is demonstrated to be, it provides a lot of evidence, and although it at first seems that he is on the side of westernization, he later writes about how stupid America is, and how he does not agree with any of their tactics. He hates America, and then, as you read on, his opinion becomes unclear. One finds it hard to understand what he is trying to say, and whom he believes is in the right. In the end, I come out with the idea that he doesn’t believe that Islam and the west are interacting in any way, which is very contradictory, because the Arab people are being suffocated with westernization. This is where my conflict arises in Said’s article.
On the other end of the spectrum, Lewis’s piece focuses mainly on historical events and factual evidence. He goes back to the very beginning where Islam was at its greatest and had control over many European countries, and slowly made it’s way to the present day where after the U.S. made a peace agreement with Islam, they executed a chain of events that led the Muslims to hatred of westernization. At first it was just bringing their culture into the Arab culture, but as it progressed they presented both secular and Christian idea’s to the Muslims, and it deeply offended the Muslims: “It was too much to endure, an outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inventible.” Lewis says all this with open mindedness, because however much it seems that he is Muslim, he is not, but only a scholar of Islamic culture. And he does an excellent job defending the culture, “Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilization in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives in which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world.”
The article then turns the table and begins to talk about the war-provoking interpretation some modern Muslims make of the Islamic culture, and what lead to these hostile ideals. The evidence for this idea mainly focuses on the American alliance with Islam, and what tension has developed between the two based on actions taken by the U.S. First, it was good, the U.S. gave Islam business opportunities that left power in their hands, but when they found that westernization also meant Christianity, or further more atheism, the Muslims cringed, and hatred was born. “Suddenly, or so it seemed, America had become the archenemy, the incarnation of evil, the diabolic opponent of all that is good, and specifically, for Muslims, of Islam.” It sounds a bit story like, but it is also very believable, and only expresses what someone from the sidelines saw happening in this international friendship.
So, what I am really trying to say is that the most effective article was, hands down, Lewis’s “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” Not only does it present a valid argument backed by factual evidence, but also when compared with Said’s confusing writing, hinting an unclear thesis, it comes out smoothly on top. Said looses my vote dreadfully with his biased close-minded way of presenting “something” that is too perplexing to understand.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
