The armed attack that was carried out against the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, in Paris on Wednesday was undoubtedly a villainous terrorist act. This is not a trivial incident that should be simply condemned, as it has wide-ranging economic and political causes that will have major consequences. For me, this terrorist act is related to two dynamics, one of them being in Europe while the other being in the Middle East. The first one concerns the dynamics that led to the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which erupted during the Syrian civil war and later matured into a paramilitary terrorist organization in Iraq. The second one is about German-centric, racist and anti-immigrant neo-fascist movements in Europe. The emergence of ISIS, which declared itself an "Islamic" structure, coincided with a period in which borders and the whole political equitation of the Middle East changed dramatically, starting with energy. The globalization of Kurdish, Caspian and Iranian energy resources through Turkey was a major development that would change the political balance in the Middle East and reshape the power distribution based on economic resources. Additionally, the fact that China connects the Asia-Pacific region, Caucasia, Middle East and Europe with high-speed railway lines passing through Turkey and that the world's new commercial networks are moving toward the East has shaken the West's absolute economic sovereignty, which has continued since the Industrial Revolution. Here are two alternatives for Europe to escape the crisis: Either it acknowledges this new Eastern development and the equalization of the East with Europe in economic and political terms. Or it rejects this new development, which would lead it to overcome the crisis with a "clash of civilizations," as Samuel P. Huntington suggests.The thinkers, technocrats, academics, writers and ecclesiastics who popped up across the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in addition to Francis Fukuyama who put forth "the end of history," began determining the world's ideological agenda in the 1990s. According to them, capitalism was the sole absolute reality and everyone had to accept this reality and to develop policies, instruments grow individuals in line with it. Otherwise, Huntington's thesis of clash of civilizations, which complemented Fukuyama's argument, would prevail. Huntington's thesis was revealed in his article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1993, when economic and political crises loomed over developing countries, such as Turkey, like a nightmare. Huntington explained that the Islamic world, with territories spanning from Eastern Europe to Southern and Central Asia. Thus, this vast geography that also included Turkey was one of the key areas of conflict. But, of course, there was the dialectic of conflict and alliance. Therefore, there is no difference between the theses of the clash of civilizations and alliance of civilizations (or interfaith dialogue). Ultimately, we would all come to the end of history as Fukuyama said. In other words, hegemonic Western civilization would impose its dominance on "others" either with alliance or conflict so that the humanity would attain ultimate peace. In parallel with this, like other religions, Islam, which is the last and the most far-reaching one of three Abrahamic religions and which aims to establish justice and peace in the world, should be confined to the inner conscience of the individual and removed from political sphere. The West's endeavor to exert dominance created the concept of "moderate Islam" in the Middle East in the early 1990s. Later on, this concept, in compliance with Huntington's dialectics, was transformed into an ideology that prioritized the alliance of civilizations and interfaith dialogue by the hands of a secular structure that was seemingly Islamic. Of course, economic, political and sociological theses of this ideology were built on neo-liberal doctrines. As the followers of Fukuyama and Huntington, the supporters, leaders and ideologues of these theses began appearing in the entirety of Asia and the Islamic world. Their ancestors are the masterminds of Western liberal teaching such as Adam Smith, John Lock and Thomas Hobbes. For those who rejected the West's absolute sovereignty and interfaith dialogue, political Islam would be proven as a terrorist narrative. Furthermore, Islam would be deemed an illegal path in such geographies as the Middle East and Turkey, which had maintained Islam on its territories for hundreds of years. In short, what was imposed was that the politicization of Islam would mean terror, so it should be secular like Christianity and God's power on world justice should be removed. In his "A Secular Age," Charles Taylor says "... the political organization of all pre-modern societies was in some way connected to, based on, guaranteed by some faith in, or adherence to God, or some notion of ultimate reality, the modern Western state is free from this connection." There is no room for God in ruthless colonial actions and weapon factories where Fordism prevails. Capitalism rejects the existence of God in this world, as his divine justice only belongs to the next world. The Western world moderated Christianity in this way, but it was difficult for the West to apply this for Islam. Therefore, the recent terrorist attack in Paris was meant to declare Islam a religion of terrorism.Let us ask the same question for the 9/11 attack and Paris shooting: to whose benefit or cui bono?