'Clash of civilisations' rhetoric distorts cultural differences

The extension of such a monolithic threat perception has been used to justify America's right to operate unconstrained on the world stage and the maintenance of American hegemony. In the sense that the US remained the linchpin of the "new" world order, there is nothing original in Huntington's shift of a global balance from the "old" world order - the preservation of American dominance remained paramount.

Islam has re-emerged as a powerful force in politics. Yet the study of Islam requires an examination beyond the simplistic idea that Australian values, whatever exactly they are, will be contrary to Islamic heritage. Grossly offensive outbursts such as those expressed by Australia’s supreme cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali - that include comparing women to meat - are both inciteful and deplorable.

But such a primitive outlook is not unique to Islam. Further, many Muslim leaders and their congregations, including the Islamic Council of Victoria, have criticised him strongly. Rather than present the furore as proof that Australian values and Islam are incompatible, this latest provocation can be interpreted as not a clash between civilisations but one that signals the clash between progressive and fundamentalist forces within one great civilisation.

The government's attachment to, and extension of, the Huntington debate exacerbates existing community tensions and runs the risk of fostering deep-rooted division and anxiety. Rebel MP Petro Georgiou has correctly warned that the war against terrorism highlights the need to support moderates within Islam in their struggle against extremist elements.

Australian values have re-emerged as a subject of political debate and controversy. Rather than painting Islam as other and separate, people of Muslim background share many cultural, religious and social norms that promote charity, peace, pluralism and "mateship". Any "clash of civilisations" rhetoric or claim to moral authority on the matter of national values should simply be dismissed as a populist slogan that serves to distort rather than define real challenges and the facilitation rational debate.