The Idea

This claim suggests that the tension between the West and Islam does not arise from religion alone, but from reciprocal images and political discourses that reproduce enmity. The relationship here is not a natural confrontation or a fixed fate, but a symbolic construction of the enemy that makes escalation seem inevitable. In this sense, discourse becomes part of the problem, not merely a description of it.

Concise Formulation

Text: links: the escalation of tensions to images of conflict between the West and Islam and to discourses

Its Place in the Book’s Argument

This claim occupies a central place in the argument because it shifts the explanation of tension from the level of religious essence to the level of political imagination and cultural representation. This allows the book to present the conflict as the result of a history of images and mutual accusations, not as a fixed metaphysical clash. It thereby opens the door to critique rather than accepting inevitability.

Why It Matters

The importance of the claim becomes clear because it reveals that major crises may be fueled as much by the language that fashions the enemy as by the facts themselves. This helps the reader understand how tensions recur even when conditions change. It also brings closer Arkoun’s perspective, which is based on deconstructing inherited images rather than accepting them as final truths.

Brief Evidence

Reading Questions

  • How does the concept of “constructing the enemy” change the way the conflict between the West and Islam is understood?
  • Does the text see tension as grounded in religion, or in the political discourse that uses religion?

Documentation Level

High: the claim appears in a clear place within the book’s material.