Huntington himself rejected a stark two-bloc Muslim-versus-West framing

Evidence

I think it is a mistake—let me just repeat—to think in terms of two homogenous sides starkly confronting each other,” Professor Huntington told us. “Global politics remains extremely complex and countries have different interests, which will also lead them to make what might seem as rather bizarre friends and allies. … “I think it’s hard to talk about the Muslim world and Christian world as distinctly separate blocs,” Huntington continued. “There will be association and partnerships between some Muslim countries and some Christian countries. Those already exist. And they may shift as different regimes come and go and interests change. I do not think it is all that useful to think in terms of those two ‘solid blocs’ [i.e, the Muslim world and the West].” — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 674

Categorization

• XREF: Directly contradicts the popular usage of Huntington by Trump-era ethno-nationalists that Iftikhar documents elsewhere; also connects to how Beydoun’s New Crusades reframes the clash narrative. — connects to: Huntington defines non-Western peoples in religious rather than national terms — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 226; Huntington disavowed being an expert on Islam — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 680; Huntington conceded his theory was routinely abused by right-wing polemicists — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 679 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 674

Related

• Huntington disavowed being an expert on Islam (similarity 0.88)
• Huntington conceded his theory was routinely abused by right-wing polemicists (similarity 0.87)
• Huntington deemed Islam itself, not fundamentalism, the underlying problem (similarity 0.84)
• Huntington defines non-Western peoples in religious rather than national terms (similarity 0.84)
• Huntington declared all of Islam, not just fundamentalism, the West’s existential threat. (similarity 0.83)
• Huntington’s clash thesis named all of Islam, not just fundamentalism, as the West’s problem (similarity 0.83)
• Huntington asserts Islam is inherently prone to violence and bloodshed (similarity 0.81)
• Huntington’s clash theory targeted all 1.7 billion Muslims, not just extremists. (similarity 0.81)
• Lewis and Huntington argued Islam itself, not fundamentalism, underlies the West’s problem (similarity 0.80)
• Muslim intellectuals themselves framed tensions with the West as civilizational conflict. (similarity 0.80)
• Huntington repackaged Orientalist binaries into a new lexicon of civilizational clash. (similarity 0.80)
• Huntington’s clash-of-civilisations thesis lacks empirical evidence (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Huntington disavowed being an expert on Islam #qualifies (0.60) — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 680
• Huntington conceded his theory was routinely abused by right-wing polemicists #corroborates (0.50) — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 679