I need a short essay around 500 words on Topic: Islam and the West: Two Dialectical Fantasies. Please Do NOT use any internet sources such as Wikipedia and copy and paste. Solution Islam and the West: Two Dialectical Fantasies Somewhere in the range of two years prior, at the proposal of the Prime Minister of Spain (supported by Turkey), the United Nations built up another \"Secretariat for the Alliance of Civilizations\" with the order (I am citing from the Secretariat\'s idea paper) \"to beat preference, confusions, misperceptions, and polarization [… ] That instigates brutality.\" To quote that idea paper only a smidgen further, the Secretariat was implied as \"a call to those who trust in building instead of annihilating, who hold onto differing qualities as a method for advance as opposed to as a danger, and who have faith in the poise of mankind crosswise over religion, ethnicity, race, and culture.\" The Secretariat facilitated a progression of working gatherings and afterward, for reasons that are obscure to me (yet apparently not on account of its main goal was expert), shut its entryways not exactly a year after it opened them. The one line I have cited from the UN\'s idea paper suffices to clarify a disagreement at the Secretariat\'s exceptionally establishment: this \"Organization together\" of all who are for differences and lament polarization defines itself through a progression of resistances and prohibitions. It is against the individuals who would (obviously) preferably demolish than manufacture, endeavour to dispense with differing qualities as opposed to grasp it, and who don\'t have confidence in the poise of humanity. We know, obviously, who the drafters of this constitution have as a main priority: all adherents of that opponent worldview, \'The Clash of Civilizations.\' Such individuals are destroyers, eliminators, pessimists: to put it plainly, brutes. They are rejected from the \"Union of Civilizations\" since they are not edified themselves. In this sense, the \"Partnership\" is itself additionally as of now a \"Conflict,\" and a great case of Walter Benjamin\'s proclamation that \"there is never an archive of progress that is not in the meantime a report of boorishness.\" To put it plainly, and in spite of their appearing to be political contrasts, to the degree that our two noteworthy modes—conflict and organization together, resistance and amalgamation—for comprehension the Christian West\'s relationship to Islam (or Judaism) are similarly rationalistic, they are similarly phenomenal. The significance of argumentative here ought to wind up clearer in the pages that take after. By awesome, I mean focused on disregarding the crevices between the dreams they create and the mind boggling world. Encourage: these argumentative models of history are themselves the offspring of Church fathers impregnated by Christological amalgamations and teleology’s—fathers like Eusebius, Augustine, or Hegel—and in this manner the more.

1. I need a short essay around 500 words on Topic: Islam and the West: Two Dialectical Fantasies.
Please Do NOT use any internet sources such as Wikipedia and copy and paste.
Solution
Islam and the West: Two Dialectical Fantasies
Somewhere in the range of two years prior, at the proposal of the Prime Minister of Spain
(supported by Turkey), the United Nations built up another "Secretariat for the Alliance of
Civilizations" with the order (I am citing from the Secretariat's idea paper) "to beat preference,
confusions, misperceptions, and polarization [… ] That instigates brutality." To quote that idea
paper only a smidgen further, the Secretariat was implied as "a call to those who trust in
building instead of annihilating, who hold onto differing qualities as a method for advance as
opposed to as a danger, and who have faith in the poise of mankind crosswise over religion,
ethnicity, race, and culture."
The Secretariat facilitated a progression of working gatherings and afterward, for reasons that are
obscure to me (yet apparently not on account of its main goal was expert), shut its entryways not
exactly a year after it opened them.
The one line I have cited from the UN's idea paper suffices to clarify a disagreement at the
Secretariat's exceptionally establishment: this "Organization together" of all who are for
differences and lament polarization defines itself through a progression of resistances and
prohibitions. It is against the individuals who would (obviously) preferably demolish than
manufacture, endeavour to dispense with differing qualities as opposed to grasp it, and who
don't have confidence in the poise of humanity. We know, obviously, who the drafters of this
constitution have as a main priority: all adherents of that opponent worldview, 'The Clash of
Civilizations.' Such individuals are destroyers, eliminators, pessimists: to put it plainly, brutes.
They are rejected from the "Union of Civilizations" since they are not edified themselves. In
this sense, the "Partnership" is itself additionally as of now a "Conflict," and a great case of
Walter Benjamin's proclamation that "there is never an archive of progress that is not in the
meantime a report of boorishness."
To put it plainly, and in spite of their appearing to be political contrasts, to the degree that our
two noteworthy modes—conflict and organization together, resistance and amalgamation—for
comprehension the Christian West's relationship to Islam (or Judaism) are similarly rationalistic,
they are similarly phenomenal. The significance of argumentative here ought to wind up clearer
in the pages that take after. By awesome, I mean focused on disregarding the crevices between
the dreams they create and the mind boggling world. Encourage: these argumentative models of

2. history are themselves the offspring of Church fathers impregnated by Christological
amalgamations and teleology’s—fathers like Eusebius, Augustine, or Hegel—and in this manner
the more persuasive the model the more contemplated its absence of cognizance, furthermore,
the more phenomenal the dreams of the past, present, and future that it produces.
A brief reroute can honest to goodness this lack of engagement. Huntington contended that the
key clashes going up against the world request in this and the coming era are "civilizational,"
by which he implied that they were created, less by opponent belief systems or monetary
frameworks just like the case amid the Cold War, yet by profound and long-standing contrasts of
culture, dialect, and religion. He saw the "conflicts" of the "Judeo-Christian" West with Islam,
from one viewpoint, and with the "Confucian" human progress (i.e., China) on alternate, as the
most perilous difficulties to the present world request. Yet, he didn't put on a show to clarify the
long history of Muslim-Christian relations, or claim that the "conflicts" he sees at work in the
present are the same as those that have organized past "world requests." 4 Nor do his "civic
establishments" speak to progressive stages along some developmental street towards truth.
They all have a similar objective—the power and flourishing connected with innovation—and
contrast just in their dreams of how that power and success ought to be dispersed. Huntington
appears to be keen on denoting the key ramifications of these distinctions, not in making
ontological segregations between the dreams. In this sense he remains what in political science is
known as a "realist."