( CNN ) Tensions are running high following the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Wednesday , and that is exactly how it should be . The correct , human response to an atrocity of this nature is revulsion and deep moral anger . Far from precluding rational understanding , such anger should cause us to demand sensible , productive analysis and to brush aside comments from politicians or pundits that do not live up to the seriousness of the moment . The `` clash of civilizations '' has become a popularized frame that is wheeled out whenever an attack by Islamic extremists is carried out against a Western target . It casts a democratic , liberal West as being locked in an epic struggle with a backward and violently intolerant Muslim world . According to this narrative , the West , which treasures freedom of speech , has this week come under attack from an Islamic culture that refuses to accept any instance of what it regards as blasphemy . Voices from the left and right can be heard repeating the assumptions underlying these sweeping generalizations . Consider two examples from the United Kingdom this week . Nigel Farage , leader of the anti-immigrant party UKIP , opined that there are people living in Britain from other cultures who `` hate us '' and represent a `` fifth column , '' thus implicating entire communities as enemies of the nation . Separately , the liberal British journalist Jon Snow tweeted : `` Paris : brutal clash of civilizations : Europe 's belief in freedom of expression vs those for whom death is a weapon in defending their beliefs . '' Snow of course knows very well that a handful of armed men do not constitute a `` civilization , '' just as he knows what the phrase he employed is universally understood to mean . With the far right on the march across Europe , and violent reprisals being carried out against blameless French Muslims , now is not the time for inflammatory or even careless language . Moreover , these two-dimensional representations do nothing to help us make sense of what is actually going on . Ascribing characteristics to entire `` civilizations '' as though they are uncomplicated and homogenous , containing no competing or contradictory forces , is to tell ourselves a fairy tale rather than to face the world as it really is . Take the idea that freedom of speech is a Western value . Clearly Europe and North America enjoy a high degree of freedom of expression . But the elected governments of many Western states also provide material support to some of the most repressive regimes in the world . In Saudi Arabia Friday , dissident blogger Raif Badawi was publicly flogged for the crime of facilitating debate and insulting Islam . In states such as Bahrain and Egypt , those expressing unacceptable opinions can find themselves jailed , tortured , and even massacred , while the governments of the United States and United Kingdom continue to arm the regimes responsible . France too is a major weapons dealer in the region , supplying states such as the UAE and Qatar , the latter of which jailed the poet Mohammed al-Ajami for 15 years for `` insulting the Emir '' and calling for the overthrow of the government . The support given to these tyrannies by Washington , London and Paris is not an aberration , but a core component of long-established strategy . If democracy and freedom of speech are inherently and uncomplicatedly `` Western values , '' how does one account for this ? Similarly , if democracy and freedom of speech are antithetical to the values of Arab or Muslim culture , then how to explain the thousands , even millions of people in the Middle East that have , especially since late 2010 , fought and risked their lives for precisely these things , often against regimes backed by Western states ? Are we to airbrush from the picture those participants in the Arab uprisings who are both Muslim and defenders of human rights , ignoring their bravery and their sacrifices ? Freedom has its champions and opponents in all parts of the world . The degree of freedom secured at any given moment merely reflects how the struggle between the two sides has played out so far , rather than some innate cultural attributes . The social systems of the West were not born democratic , but became that way through often painful periods of internal conflict , France being the classic example . Likewise , the extreme puritanism of ISIS and al Qaeda has not emanated smoothly and naturally from the cultures and religious practices of the Middle East ( where it continues to be overwhelmingly rejected ) . In the modern era , it was originally imposed by force in the Arabian Peninsula when the House of Saud conquered the area in the early twentieth century . The Saudis have since promoted fundamentalism , often as a way of suppressing more secular forms of opposition , and have lost control of the results with disastrous consequences . The roots of Islamic extremism are complex . Western state support for regimes like Saudi Arabia , and pursuit of disastrous wars , not least in Iraq , may not be the decisive causal factors . But they are part of the mix , and profoundly unhelpful . What we need now is not false division between `` East '' and `` West '' , but for democrats on both sides to stand together against extremism and violence in all its forms .
' Clash of civilizations ' line wheeled out when Islamic extremists attack Western target is sweeping coverage , " Lewis writes . These two - dimensional statements do nothing to help us make sense of what is actually going on , Wearing writes . What is needed is for Muslim and Western democrats to stand together against terrorism and violence in all its forms , he says .