Guardian Polly Toynbee: This is a clash between the middle ages and modernity

Religious fundamentalism is the rallying cry of the disenfranchised.

The trouble with the civilisation clash theory is that it implies that Islam as uniquely prone to savagery, because it was the creation of a warrior prophet who proclaimed jihad as a way or life. Too literally interpreted, his laws binding religion and state together make democracy impossible. Look at Islam's many failed states, dictatorships and corrupt religious rulers. The theory goes that Christians, on the other hand, fortunately had a prophet who rendered governance unto Caesar and considered the lilies of the field instead. Even better, he never wrote down any laws. But this is gross arrogance, given the history of Christianity - and of every other religion in its hot phase. It has been every bit as prone to massacre, torture, terrorism and the oppression of women. All religions - look at the Hindus in India - do monstrous things when people passionately believe them. They only turn contemplative when drained of any shred of temporal power, only safe when not interpreted literally.

The clash of civilisations here is not with Islam: it is with religion itself, a clash between modernity and the middle ages. Islam is just the emotional battle flag rallying post-colonial, disenfranchised people living under feudal governments. They seek a demented, inchoate revenge on the global winners by turning the clock back to their imagined golden age at the time of the prophet. They seek an impossible divine government whose reality under the Taliban is one of the most horrible yet devised

This is a clash of civilizations but it is not between the "evil Islamic" religion.and the West. Fundamentalist religious peoples are bad for democracy, tolerance, and civil rights.