خلاصه ماشینی:
)” He posited a dyadic relationship between the West and Islam: whereas western values were laud- able, they were missing in Islam, for Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separa- ii The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 25:2 tion of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures.
So the idea that there is some essence to western civilization that is noble, and one to Islamic civilization that is ignoble, has established deep roots in public discourse in order to explain any kind of social or political phenomenon related to Muslims.
It is reasonable to argue that in western critical reactions to Muslims, the overriding explanation is not to be found in differing civilizational values, but in hypocrisy: the West applies one standard to one case and another standard to another case.
And yet when we think about the best way to explain west- ern negative responses to Muslims, hypocrisy turns up time and time again as a powerful descriptor.
Muslims react very negatively to hypocrisy partly because the current structures of global power make them its prime victims (western support for democracy in word, but support for authoritarian regimes in deed), and partly because their religious and cultural heritage is strongly opposed to it.
But when looking at outsiders, Muslims, or others, western society cannot vi The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 25:2 make such subtle distinctions.