“It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the law of gravity” Kofi Anan

Apart from affluent laissez faire capitalism, communication outburst and a stunning augmentation in international travel and cultural interactions, “Globalization” is a phenomenon distinguished by the western conception that “liberal democracy” is the best political system and it should triumph in the world because of equality and justice to all. Looking at the scenario from theoretically point of view, this has apparent insinuation for Islam which rejects the western notion of popular sovereignty; and precincts the lawmaking and law implementing authority of the state within the limits prescribed by “revelation” which is Holy Book. From liberal democracy to social progressiveness, the distance is too petite and therefore, it is considered to be a prospective threat to Islamic culture and societal system. It would be insincere or biased to say that the Muslim majority states have legislative system based on the Principles, values, codes and ideals of Islam. On the contrary, in the majority of cases they are the terrible examples of despotism and denial of social and economic justice. No wonder that after the downfall of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the focal point of the western think tank transferred to the daunting question how to deal with Islam, which the western consensus generally perceives as irrational, retrogressive and intrinsically violent.

It was the time when communism was loosing battle in Europe, Francis Fukuyama in his landmark articles “The end of History”, published in the national interest (summer, 1989), stated:
“what we may be witnessing is not the just the end of the cold war, or the passing of a particular period of post war history, but the end of history as such, that is, the end point of mankind`s ideological evolution and unversalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

According to Fukuyama, “History” was to end not in terms of chain reaction of events but in the manner that liberal democracy was fated to emerge triumphant on the whole than any other political systems. From the beginning of the nineteenth century many states had been adopting or advancing towards liberal democracy more progressively whereas an assortment of diverse variety of dictatorship and totalitarian indulgence, including fascism and communism had been disgraced. In Fukuyama`s view, Islam as an ideology did not pose much problem, for it had little intellectual or emotional appeal outside the Islamic heartland. Not surviving temporary setbacks or relapses, eventually liberal democracy was to coup, overcoming all pockets of resistance.

Bernard Lewis, the renowned historian, did not approve to the views Fukuyama. In his book “The Roots of Muslim Rage”, published in The Atlantic Monthly (September 1990), he referred to a “mood and a movement” in Islam that far risen above the level of concerns and politics that the governments in Muslim states pursued. He viewed at this occurrence as “a clash of civilization”. By that time the so called fundamentalist, extremist or in more apparent term the Islamic militant had taken a visible shape in several regions of the world like Afghanistan, Algeria and Egypt, Lewis spoke of the “irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our judeo- Christian heritage, but our secular present and the world worldwide expansion of both”
Samuel P. Huntington pierced into the debate with his highly controversial article titled “The Clash of Civilization”, published in Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993); to enlarge the thesis that in post-cold war world, the essential source of divergence would not be primarily ideological or primarily economic but that “the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” Huntington emphasize that the civilization differences curtailed from conflicting cultural and religious values and argued that, even though the clash of civilizations was predictable, it was not obligatory that it should be violent in nature. Huntington recognized some seven to eight major nations that included western, African, Latin America, Hindu, Japanese, Islamic, Slavic orthodox, and Confucian. According to him, although the liability lines between various civilizations had the potentials to provide as battle lines, the west and Islam were more likely to collide because the Islam had universal values unlike others. Huntington warned the American government (Washington consensus) against the development of linkage between the Islamic-Confucian civilizations and recommended it to thwart expansion of military and economic collaboration between Islamic and Confucian states by take advantage of possible differences between two.

Captivatingly, Lewis and Huntington both agreed in their thesis that the west should avoid conflicting with Islam. In his article cited above, Lewis stated: “It is critically important that we on our side should not be provoked into equally irrational reaction against the rival.” On his part Huntington challenged that the values of the western civilization were not universal but unique. If the west aims universalism, the others would resent and distinguish it as imperialism. In his opinion, “Western universalism is dangerous to the world because it could lead to a major inter civilization war between core states.” In other words, no premeditated efforts should be made by the west to obliterate cultural uniqueness of different civilizations.

The response of Islam to the west’s effort at supremacy is an ample proof and evident that there is no “End of History” in sight, for Islam is a formidable philosophical and cultural force that rejects to submit to the west. The west must control enticement to implant its cultural values and political system in Islamic states. Instead, to shun negative fallout of globalization and to ensure international peace and security, there is a authentic need for inter civilization dialogue guided by the principles of peaceful co-existence and non-interference in each other`s affair.