Last time I checked, Christianity was still a monotheistic religion, too. Then again, with the reformers and radicals in our Protestant denominations and the outright Revolutionaries in the Catholic Church, that may not be the case much longer. Perhaps someday, the poor, prodigal Mssr. Houellebecq will be welcomed back into the church, which by that time may even view his Sexual Resort as a sort of missionary work. After all, the Unitarians (always ahead of the curve!) are already sponsoring conferences on the joys of "polyamory," right Larry?
On a more serious note, I wonder why anyone would bother to describe Mssr. Houellebecq as the "most controversial writer" in France? Even here on FreeRepublic, his outright dismissal of "monotheism" as "cretinous" is so unremarkable as to go virtually unnoticed amid all the cheerleading for his anti-Islamic tirade. Controversial? Give me Erich von Kuehnelt-Leddihn! Give me John-Paul II! Give me...oh, I don't know...Rich Lowry for crying out loud! When we start calling people who merely state the overwhelmingly dominant view in a louder voice "controversial," the word loses all meaning. In fact, I think this word already has done so. "Controversial" now is nothing more than a masturbatory and self-congratulating accolade for morons who have achieved a measure of celebrity.
I find myself these days longing for a Savonarola. Of course, the poor priest wouldn't have a chance in today's world. Not "controversial" enough to get noticed, I'm afraid.
Your "clash of civilizations" is also rather wry given the fact that a strong civilization surely would not be cowed by one man's -- or even tens of thousands of men -- calling it names.