Introduction One of the foremost issues, which affect the political dynamics in Western countries, is the problem of Islamic terrorism. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that it now became a common practice, on the part of Western politicians that strive to ensure citizens’ support, to emphasize the sheer acuteness of this particular problem in their public speeches. Nevertheless, there are a number of good reasons to believe that it is specifically the politicians’ unawareness of the true causes of Islamic terrorism, which prevents them from being able to address it effectively. This simply could not be otherwise, because the roots of Islamic terrorism are being commonly discussed outside of what causes people to profess Islamic beliefs, in the first place – hence, making them potentially capable of turning into Islamic fundamentalists. For example, many particularly ‘progressive’ social scientists in the West promote the idea that ordinary Western citizens need to blame themselves for the fact that they periodically become the target of terrorist attacks because they deny the Islamic believers’ right to explore their religious self-identity (Akbar 8). In its turn, this explains why many of contemporary Western media-products distort the issue at stake. The validity of this statement can be well illustrated in regards to the 2007 film Brick Lane , in which British citizens’ presumed inability to accommodate Pakistani immigrants is being exposed, as such that causes the latter to consider becoming terrorists (Macdonald 420). Nevertheless, there are still a number of recently produced movies, which promote the idea that, contrary to what is being assumed by the hawks of political correctness, the Islamic terrorists’ thirst for the blood of civilian ‘infidels’ is the direct byproduct of their commitment to celebrating their cultural and ethnic uniqueness. One of the films that provide viewers with the actual insight into the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism is Ridley Scott’s 2008 film Body of Lies . This is because the main idea, which is being promoted throughout this film’s entirety, is that the problem of Islamic terrorism should not be assessed within the context of ‘clash of civilizations’ (Huntington 23), but rather within the context of civilization vs. barbarianism. In my paper, I will aim to substantiate the validity of this film’s subtly advocated claim at length. Main body As it was implied earlier, in order for us to be able to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, we need to make an inquiry into the very tenets of Islam, as a religion that thrives upon the values of a communal/collectivist living. After all, it does not account for much of a secret that it is a commonplace practice for Muslim families to feature as many as 5-10 children (Westoff & Frejka 798). Why does it appear to be the case? This is because the religion of Islam originated in the arid area (essentially desert) where people are being required to apply an extra effort while indulging in agricultural activities. In its turn, this explains the historical cause of Muslims’ high fertility – the more there are children in the family, the higher are the chances for the parents to survive physically because even young children can be turned into agricultural helpers. What it means is that, contrary to what devout Muslims believe, their ability to reproduce in great numbers does not reflect the sheer strength of their commitment to Allah’s commandments, as much as it reflects their affiliation with unmistakably primeval existenti