[1] In the Middle East the decade of globalization was marked by endless wars, intrusive US hegemony, renewed economic dependency and continuing insecurity.
For this reason, Arab and Muslim intellectuals have been deeply concerned about maintaining their cultural identity and independence in the face of globalization, especially as it is seen by most as equivalent to Americanization.
[6] Muslims have always been proud and sensitive about their religion because Islam is not only a faith but also a law, a "sharia" that regulates all aspects of their life, including economic transactions, marriage and divorce, and matters of state.
[6] Globalization is thought to lead to unrestricted freedom in the name of human rights, as understood in the West, and to libertinism, the distinguishing characteristics of the decadence of Western civilization.
The inability to separate religious and mundane matters or religion and state [6] has therefore created resistance and rigidity which at times has culminated in a defensive call for a fight against the enemy.
It has a powerful and cohesive community which at times acts like a cultural defence wall [2] against the Western influence and, as a result, limits the use of European languages in the Middle East.
[5] A more balanced view on the Arab response[7] is that rather than creating a unified anti-Western block, globalization is feeding a great debate within the Islamic civilization about how Muslims should adjust to modernity.
While some critics argue that the Arab world is opposing globalization some others feel that it has strengthened Islamic fundamentalism by facilitating extensive networks of formerly dissociated Muslims.
[4] One example showing how Muslims use globalization to strengthen and promote their community can be found in Abu Basir's book of rulings, where he uses the Islamic principle of "the necessities allow the prohibited".
[5] While connecting parts of the world that were previously cut off it also ignores and bypasses other regions, and along with this produces enemies whilst it incorporates participants.
Technological achievements, capital mobility and free movement of people that resulted from the process thus allowed terrorism to express its local grievances and attack key symbols of American power in a way that had never been done before.
Osama Bin Laden and his following of 'Arab Afghans' were partly a US creation and it was not the religious or cultural differences that turned them against the US but its continuous presence in Saudi Arabia, its perceived control over the Arab oil, the siege of Iraq and the support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
The West's ideals will inevitably circulate throughout the world and as Rubin argues [2] even the most extreme rejection of globalization does not mean that it fails to infiltrate into society.
The war polarised regimes and Islamist oppositions not only in Saudi Arabia but also in Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia, countries where the freedom scores diminished the most in the last couple of years.
Their understanding of the concept of globalization will continue to be affected by negative factors like high illiteracy rates, marginalization of women, disparities between rich and poor, corrupt authoritarian regimes and the absence of democracy and human rights [6] It may be the case that the next generation will be even more closed after experiencing much more intense and systematic indoctrination on both the Islamist and nationalist fronts.
[1] The more open society has become a Pandora's Box, unlocking the possibilities of destruction and violence as well as democracy, free trade, and cultural and social exchange.
In effect, decisions of the states to open up to international traffic and capital flows are reversible and may occur given the threats that globalization carries.