and how those enlightened principles are not shared by rest of the world? and Muslims are enjoying the fruits of those enlightenment as all modern day comforts came directly from that. do you think 10 million would go and come from saudi arabia without Aero Plane in existence or they could have listened to that live broad casts every year without satellite TV? the thing is that u are using things of some one else civilization without appreciating it. and dont start over 1000 year old history.i perfectly understand it.

The Enlightenment wasnt just a process that stimulated scientific development- that was part of the deal yes but the emphasis on “rational”, scientific thinking took one model of rationality as its foundation. Its now understood that rationality is not one singular framework- what is irrational in one culture might seem perfectly rational in another. Male and female patterns of thinking are also not the same- research has shown (this research is heavily contested though because the question is whether women in that study thought so because they were culturally conditioned or whether biology itself orients women to think that way) that women think differently from men on notions of ethics and values. For men, Justice may be the highest value and for women Mercy. Is this because women are emotionaly overwrought and irrational? No. its because both paradigms are equally rational and its just that the Enlightenment reasoning put the white, male, western judeo-christian perspective on a pedestal. There is a french philosopher, Jacques Derrida whose written about “logocentrism”- the “logos” or framework of logic he talks about here is this particular western ideal and he talks about how alternative forms of ‘truth’ are suppressed. Interestingly when notions of Enlightenment were being framed the West was busy sharpening its swords for colonial domination and slavery. Not quite enlightened but not surprising either. High rhetoric often doesnt match high action.
The Enlightenment also has to be seen in its historical context- the struggle for power between the church and the royal power of kings had resulted in severe bloodshed in Europe and the Enlightenment thinkers were trying to think through these issues and determine how to fashion a workable system. So separation of church and state, the relegation of religion to a less important place in social life and secularism had a pragmatic application that was not just owing to their appeal as logical principles.
Its only because western colonialism imposed their patterns of thought and an enlightenment rationality on the rest of the world and this rationality is given such a formidable legimitacy by being upheld by the most powerful countries in the world that it appears as ‘THE ONLY POSSIBLE logic’- the ONLY WAY of doing things when in reality it is one of many ways. Michel foucault talks of power/knowledge- power cannot operate without acquiring the force of compiling everything under its own logic. You cant conquer africa mind, body and soul without piling libraries full of info saying that africa is barbaric, cannibalistic and backward. You have to make your own categories of logic supreme and make them transparent and naturalize it so that they seem not One particular structure but the only possible structure.
Enlightenment logic of ‘we must make everything better, if somebody else cant derive the maximum out of a resource then we (whites) should do it (this is often traced back to John Locke) is often seen as the direct parent to colonialism. Colonists said hey these africans/ asians/ native americans are wasting their land, their minds are backward and unreformed. We must use the land and save it from going to waste. The entire ‘moral’ foundation to colonialism was to “save” the souls of the native. This logic was obviously self serving.
Enlightenment wasnt a black and white phenomenon- obviously a lot of good also came from it. But the West has sooooo often exoticized ‘the Other’ – be that the shamans of native american religions or the indigenous religions of various African traditions or the mysticism of Sufi Islam because it feels a need for more than one constrictive mode of apprehending reality, laying hold on the universe. Cold blooded rationalistic thinking also becomes closely aligned with capitalist materialism and not matter how much you say that everyone has adopted western notions, fact is in mexico theres still efforts being made to preserve communal farming which questions capitalist notions of land ownership. For purposes of claiming superiority in every possible way the West now says that Marxism is also western but during the Cold War at least, Western meant upholding capitalism beyond question and by no means is ruthless capitalism beloved among all- powerful protests against the globalization movement attest to that.
The assumption in the West is that ‘we went through secularization, philosophers have been making pronouncements such as “god is dead” for half a century now- this is modernity. So the rest of the world has to follow the same steps and get to the same conclusions’. postcolonial theorists argue that modernity exists within each culture and we can all strengthen it without becoming clones of the West – modernity is basically a progressive mindset. It is often said that technology leads to modernity- as we’ve seen in the example of India where more availability of reproductive choice has meant more female infantilization this is not quite the case in every situation.

Its a complex world and its not just Muslims who often tend to see it in simplistic ways.

I am not painting a rosy picture of any religion. In every religion There are people who get offended by the slightest comment. For example lot of people in US did get offended by the family guy, and they did protest but nobody burned downed the Fox building. Sikhs protested did they burn anything.

I am certainly not going to condone the act of burning of embassies by the Syrians. It was totally uncalled for and the culprits should be dealt with as Syrian law prescribes. But do keep in mind that while you are giving me an isolated example of Damascus, I can give you virtually tens of examples where thousands of Muslims have protested against the defamation of our prophet without any act of violence. Therefore the act of Syrians does not represent the majority of the Muslims. If you choose to believe otherwise then it’s only you whose believing in stereotypes and not the ground reality. Well I can’t help you with that now can I?

If somebody has the real cause to protest it should be danish muslims. Not the muslims all over the world.

Here is one of the points that the west needs to understand before crying wolf. Muslims whenever dealing with any crisis involving their faith donot identify themselves with their nationalities but with their religion. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wasnt just a Prophet for the Danish Muslims but for the rest of the 1 billion Muslims as well. The attempt to defame him in an utterly stereotypical way was not only a provocation aimed at the Danish Muslim audience but for the global Muslim audience as well. In this age of technology only a ‘naive’ or rather ‘stupid’ editor would think that something of this magnitude will only affect his local audience. And it isnt so very local anymore when Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, and France pitch in as well, now is it?

I am not asking you to stop boycott, You can boycott all you want, that is a god-given right. You can protest, boycott all you want that is not gonna stop what west writes about anything

Well sure if the west chooses the path of confrontation over this matter it’ll blow up for real and the west will end up helping the extremist elements of Islam. I am more than sure no western country is interested in treading that path as yet.

Hate literature, music, websites against races, religions and ethinic races is common in west. But it is not a criminal offense.

Sure I suppose anti-semetic writings, denying the holocaust ever took place etc etc are included in that list. It might not be a criminal offense but to deliberately try to provocate feelings of a billion over followers of a religion isnt exactly the best course of action or is it?

A lot of things and viewpoints exist in this wide world. One has to just live with it. One cant cry everyday that somebody thinks bad about them, thier race or religion.

I wonder why the israelies cry foul whenever the Iranians take a jab at that freedom of expression rule :). And mind you this wasnt simply talking bad about a specific religion, this was outright provocation. A below the belt hit. BTW Muslims arent exactly crying (recalling your ambassadors and boycotting products of a specific nation hardly counts as crying) over this issue rather acting pragmatically and vocally, the way they should.

I know there is nothing i can do to stop the protests, but as a citizen of US, probably i can steer the course of who gets elected.

Sure do, may the force be with you 🙂

So then its only good if this reamins an extremist provocation and the majority takes distance to the protestations…But then again, the Egyptian president have said that Rasmusens apoligyes were insufficient so…

You know that’s quite funny; there were peaceful protests in Lahore(Pakistan) today yet BBC or CNN didn’t show them. Instead they showed the violent protests which ‘only’ happened in Damascus. There were peaceful protests in London, Paris, New York, Toronto, Washington, Los Angeles, Sydney, Jarkarta, Dhaka, Karachi, Kabul, Terhan, Baghad (of all places), Dubai, Cairo, Istanbul and many other cities all over the world. Why did the western media choose not show these protests? Well instead of drawing an answer, I’ll leave it to you to deduce your personal conclusions.

First of all it isnt I who tried to paint a rosy picture about hindues not protesting defamation of their Gods, its you. So learn to respect the facts when you see them. Just like you conveniently stepped over the incident involving a play that was offensive to the Sikhs and was banned in the UK. As for the toilet seats incident sir I am just reflecting on the protest done when this defamation took place and just incase you didnt notice the article was about the hindue audience in the US and not India. Once again keep in mind that the toilet seat design was recalled in the after math of a protest by the hindues. American Hindus Against Defamation were at the forefront of this effort .
Now coming over the show defaming the Jesus, well I am repeating myself since I am dead sure you did not pay enough attention to my words in the last post and continued on show your love for the freedom of speech when it involves defamation of a religion. Now read, Muslims were ‘never’ a part of any decision that nothing is sacred and freedom of expression means freedom to blasphemy. A boycott is a perfectly legitimate and a perfectly modern method. Muslims are ‘as much’ a part of this century as everybody else. But they ‘do not’ have to live by “enlightenment” principles which are western principles and are infact not shared by most of the world. We dont accept blasphemy and we have every right to protest it. And if you don’t like it then I am sorry but there isnt much you can do about it anyways unless ofcourse you become a part of the political process and somehow manage to ban protesting :).
The Danish paper must have known that a depiction of the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem. To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian “is but a choleric word”, to a Muslim is flat blasphemy.

Muslims were ‘never’ a part of any decision that nothing is sacred and freedom of expression means freedom to blasphemy. In fact no-one apart of the judeochristian world was. Books found offensive to hindues have been banned in india. Plays found offensive to Sikhs have been banned in the UK. Hindues have also gone after Aerosmith for demeaning their religious sumbols. And just in case you want to know more about the result of the incidents involving printing of pictures of Hindue Gods over panties and toilet seats, enlighten yourself here and here .

A boycott is a perfectly legitimate and a perfectly modern method. Muslims are ‘as much’ a part of this century as everybody else. But they ‘do not’ have to live by “enlightenment” principles which are western principles and are infact not shared by most of the world. We dont accept blasphemy and we have every right to protest it.

It’d help if you’ll keep in mind that modernity is not western.

Muslims own actions begun pretty soon dig ground out of their claims of Danes beeing tasteless and irresponsible. Its not practically wise to claim other stubid by acting more stubidly yourself

If its not too much of a bother then kindly read this and this . I am not saying that Muslims have not acted out of sorts in response to this act. But that the majority of us have responded with alot of restraint. It again depends upon how the media chooses to paint the picture of a certain event.

There have been predictions of this ‘conflict between civilications’ in the air…I have never beleived them, and I have hoped muslim world to slowly taking similar attitude towards religion than europe has, but now Im not sure any longer…

And who exactly are Europeans to dictate how Muslims relate to their religion? Likewise I can hope as well that Europeans start taking their respective religions a tad more seriously. Thats if the thought doesn’t offend them.
The newspaper did a deliberately provocative thing. It commissioned cartoons depicting Muhammad and then it published 12 of them. But satire is judged not only by what is said, but by who is saying it and in what circumstances. Freedom of expression does not exist in a vacuum. And the fact that freedom of expression to expose hypocritical actions done in the name of a religion is one thing, but freedom of expression to denigrate the religion itself, is another. This was a case of seeking a reason to exercise a freedom that had not been challenged. No government, political party, or corporate interest was trying to deny the paper its right to publish whatever it wanted. The original purpose of printing the cartoons — some of which maliciously and stupidly identified Mohammed with terrorists, who could want nothing better than to be associated with the prophet — was plainly to be provocative. Islam prohibits the depiction of Mohammed in any way, whether the image is benign or not.

the fact that numerous Muslim consumers have chosen to boycott parts of Danish industry which have nothing to do with the actual newspaper (Jyllands-Posten)

Well just as the Danish government doesn’t have a say over the working of their independent press according to their constitution. Exactly what brutality is involved in recalling your ambassadors and boycotting products? They are totally constitutional means as well. But just as the demand from Muslim countries for European governments to punish papers that printed the cartoons shows a misunderstanding of free societies, publishing the cartoons reflects an obtuse refusal to accept the profound meaning for a billion Muslims of Islam’s prohibition against any pictorial representation of the prophet. Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance.

Barnes, sorry, I guess I misunderstood you there. And yes I do agree with you when you say that the Danish Prime Minister has no say or control over the material published in the concerned publication therefore KSA and rest of the GCC countries should have demanded an apology from the concerned paper and not the government.