The Idea
Arkoun presents the tension between the Islamic world and the West as the product of mutual ignorance, not merely as a conflict between opposing beliefs. Each side carries an incomplete or distorted image of the other, so fears and misunderstandings are fed and dialogue becomes difficult. From this perspective, fundamentalism is not simply a direct religious reaction, but also the result of closure in mutual knowledge and in each side’s representation of the other.
Concise Formulation
The clash between the Islamic world and the West, and the emergence of fundamentalism, resulted from mutual ignorance
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim is important in the book’s argument because it shifts the interpretation of conflict from the level of surface confrontation to the level of knowledge and perceptions. Rather than deriving disagreement from a fixed essence in Islam or the West, it focuses on the structures that produce misunderstanding and reproduce it. In this way, the statement is consistent with the book’s aim of building a comparative history that shows how mutual images are formed between civilizations.
Why It Matters
The importance of this claim lies in the way it opens the door to understanding fundamentalism and civilizational tension as the product of distorted relations of knowledge. It also reduces the appeal of interpretations that treat the other as a single, closed block. It helps the reader grasp that improving relations between the two worlds begins with correcting knowledge and image, not merely with exchanging blame.
Reading Questions
- How does the text explain the role of mutual ignorance in producing tension between the Islamic world and the West?
- Does Arkoun make fundamentalism a cause of conflict or a result of it?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear passage in the book’s material.