It isn’t so much that there is a clash of civilisations, if there ever was one. It is more that as the world adapted to globalization and accommodated Western normative values, the Middle East was not assimilated into the West in the end. Mahçupyan writes “Quite the contrary, as the Middle Eastern world drew close to universal values, it suffered separation and fragmentation within itself, and the moral ground of claiming rights in opposition to the West was formed. Radical Islamic movements were born, grew and found social support in such an environment [See rest at: http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/etyen-mahcupyan/2015/01/28/estranged-youth-of-beirut-and-paris].”
I would add to this that the Arab spring is part of a general reaction against Western ideational imperialism, some of which reaction is extreme, some of which isn’t. The counter-revolution led by the Arab Gulf monarchies is bizarrely supported by the liberal West, as a tool to quell this ideational rebellion. This is more than the “official West” pursuing realpolitik. The now dead and extremely illiberal King Abdulla, the Bahraini régime, and the bloodthirsty Egyptian Junta are astonishingly spun as “moderate allies”, on the basis imputed by liberal observers into the facts, but absolutely absent in actual fact in the minds of those regressive rulers, that they represent some kind of nascent “road to democracy” leading to a non-rebellious nirvana mirroring Western liberal values, as expressed in the West by the secular majority.