Naipaul frames Muslim fundamentalism as parasitic dependence on the West

Evidence

The West, or the universal civilization it leads, is emotionally rejected. It undermines; it threatens. But at the same time it is needed, for its machines, goods, medicines, warplanes, the remittances from the emigrants, the hospitals that might have a cure for calcium deficiency, the universities that will provide master’s degrees in mass media. All the rejection of the West is contained within the assumption that there will always exist out there a living, creative civilization, oddly neutral, open to all to appeal to. Rejection, therefore, is not absolute rejection. It is also, for the community as a whole, a way of ceasing to strive intellectually. It is to be parasitic; parasitism is one of the unacknowledged fruits of fundamentalism. — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 47

Categorization

• XREF: Naipaul’s ‘unacknowledged fruits of fundamentalism’ as parasitic dependence is the template of the needed-but-rejected West that frames both Hamid’s and Naqvi’s protagonists’ ambivalent relation to America.
• QUESTION: Is the claim here about Naipaul’s mindset, or about fundamentalist movements themselves - who is the actual subject of ‘parasitism is one of the unacknowledged fruits’?