This is why I'm reluctant to so strongly champion Jyllons-Posten, even though ultimately I know I have to. Because to do so acknowledges the unbridgability of the divide. Acknowledges that I am in the west and values its traditions, and have to defend them when push comes to shove. And recognizes that real understanding is just not possible right now.
The same freedom does not apply in the Middle East. The divide will be closed in the (probably distant) future, but, in large part, it's not our divide to close, in my opinion. Religious intolerance, backed by the power of the state, is not an idea that will spread very far. The right to say and do what you like, however, is such an idea. I don't accept criticism on this topic from the thugs in the Saudi royal family, or from any other repressive regime based on centuries-old religious law. Laws that treat all people as equals are superior.
I think we in the West also, especially on the left, tend to talk about racism in a way that gives the other side a great deal of room to argue and restricts our side. (It's a principle that professors teach in debate. Always show your opponent's side in the best possible light.) We can, and should, talk about racism, and fight it constantly, but let's also remember that bigotry is not a Westerners-Only Club. Quite the contrary. The West, though guilty of disgusting behavior such as the slave trade, has fought bigotry. We don't tell people how to live their lives, so long as they respect the rights of others.
The reaction from the Muslim world has been one of intolerance towards our values. It has been loaded with bigotry. And that is why, I think, we needed to draw a line in the sand on this issue. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
As to your point about authoritarianism and religion, I think this relationship is being exploded right now. Not by the protests, but by the fact that democratic elections right now in the middle east favor more illiberal and more theocratic forces than the authoritarian/tyrannical forces which grew out of originally idealistic premises of anti-colonialism, third world autonomy, pan-Arabism, and socialism, which they are replacing. Mubarak, the successor to Nasser, being slowly replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. The relatively (and originally quite) secular Fatah being replaced by Hamas. Saddam Hussein, legacy of the pan-Arabist Baath Party being replaced by Shi'ite (and now) Sunni Islamists. And so on. I don't think the dynamic will be and is any different in Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Finally, I think your assumption that somehow the Arab or even the broader Islamic World is destined to adopt western values or even enlightenment values, I'm not at all sure. Little in history suggests this inevitable. Its a conceit of a particular moment in history of a particular group of people. This isn't to say that they won't in some way adopt such values, but I don't think it is all clear they will either.
I don't really think China, or Russia, or Africa, or even Japan have really done so. They just don't have an immediate beef with us, or at least a beef that manifested itself so clearly. But they, I do, think represent this potential.
Finally, this means that I think it is foolish and counterproductive for us to expect or demand that they do adopt Western values. The kind of thinking many here are exhibiting making this assumption is what led us into the Iraqi train wreck.
Of course, this means that they can't expect we will cater to what they want either, especially not within sovereign states. But its up to them what they want to do "at home," frankly. They have to sort their affairs out for themselves, which I'm sure, they can do over time.
It is certainly of our interest that any kind of consensus that emerges from the Islamic world is willing to peacefully and respectfully interact with others. This is an important point.
Well, certainly not adopting Sharia law or even anything approaching it within, say, Denmark.
But to say we shouldn't know or try to understand the sensibilites and cultural traditions (in a broad anthropological sense) in the Islamic world is silly. There is - although I think it is changing somewhat - very little understanding of what the Islamic and/or Arabic world are actually like and what people there think, how they subjectively understand there world.
The fracture "explodes" when the past-lovers feel (rightly so) threatened that their world is crumbling, is being eroded by the contagion of the forces of modernity. They then lash back.
It happened before and it will surely happen again, repeatedly, as the Musalim world grows increasingly connected with the rest of the planet.
(I'm not entirely without first-hand knowledge, through friends from North Africa and having written a series of stories featuring the Ottoman hero Dragut.)
But I think, also, it is important to remember that this kind of tension takes a long time to resolve and will have to occur from Islamic folks arguing it out amongst themselves and reaching some new kind of consensus that makes sense with them their cultural traditions. I don't think you'd disagree.
Change often leads to reaction, which I think the rise of the Chrisitan right and political conservatism, more generally, is as well. In many ways, I see this trend as a similar - albeit much milder - result of increased globalization, mediatization (?), "connectedness," erosion of community autonomy and isolation, etc..
Still, I know in doing this, I am taking a side in a conflict which is civilizational in nature. And that is not something I do with pleasure.
