Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

That is interesting. What is the Christian-Democrat party?

It's one of the three largest parties in Holland, 29% of the vote in the last elections, centre-right political orientation. A mainstay of government, it (or its predecessors) was part of successive governments all the way from 1918 through to 1994.

It heads the current right-wing government, it's the party of current Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende. So thats interesting; he'll have to be on the breach for Western press freedom (especially once the angry Muslims find out that a Dutch paper also reprinted the cartoons); but at the same time he has to be aware that a significant part of his own party's electorate can understand what the fuss is about, and itself also perceives a need for restrictions to press freedom when respect for religious convictions is at play.

Nimh-- How do you feel about restrictions of freedom of the press in this --or any other similar--case?

Pretty much like I outlined above.

*) I am opposed to any legal restriction on press freedom to safeguard cultural or religious sensitivities;

*) I do personally feel that it is impolite for columnists, cartoonists etc to go out of their way to offend groups, outright hateful in fact if those happen to be minority groups that are already being put upon by all & sundry (like Moroccans in Holland).

I'll add still that

*) I do see a reason for legal restrictions when limited to out-and-out hate mongering, eg calling for the murder or collective deportation of ethnic or religious groups - but those are mostly already in place I think.

There's been a very interesting debate going on about this in the UK, where the government has been pushing for a new law against the incitement of religious hatred.

The idea was that there's already a law against inciting racial hatred, which protects Jews and Sikhs, but that Muslims (or Christians) do not enjoy a similar protection. The second argument was that the same law could also be used against radical Islamist preachers who preach hate or violence.

However, the proposal was countered forcefully by an odd coalition of groups, most eye-catchingly by comedians who feared they would no longer be allowed to crack religious jokes and by church folk who were afraid they would no longer be allowed to proselytise (the Nothern Ireland protestants also opposed it).

The legislation did moreover appear to be so vaguely drafted that a lot of innocuous expression could indeed be clamped down on in its name, and all the government had to say in defence was that, yes, there were some vaguenesses to resolve, but the idea was to attach "guidelines" for the courts that would ensure that only extreme cases were tackled.

The legislation went to the House of Lords, which opposed it but didnt have the right to throw it out. So it attached a series of amendments, which would exclude proselytising, discussion, criticism, insult, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice from the offence.

After that it went back to the House of Commons, where the government tried to have the amendments thrown out, but spectacularly failed, and that partly by one vote - which happened to be Tony Blair's, as he was absent. SNAFU.

Perhaps our Brit posters can say more about it.

Interesting point on solidarity in defense of the original publication, Nimh. In that light, it seems perhaps the best case scenario would be if the majority of papers in every civilized country reprinted them in order to:
A. Demonstrate that free people everywhere share that solidarity and you can't threaten us all.
B. Just how preposterous it is for a single hypersensitive sub-culture of a single religion to try and dictate to the world... with threats of violence no less.

Heck, you could almost describe such an action as a diplomatic demonstration of superior power. Who knows; it might just open some eyes that need opening.

(I should probably withhold C., but what the heck...
C. Fu@k em if they can't take a joke.)

Diplomacy might be in order as there is an actual war going on in Iraq, Israel and a war of words regarding Iran. Emotions are high.

Soz posted a link to the full line-up of the 12 cartoons in one of the other threads:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/Mo_Cartoons.jpg

Good lookin out, thanks! Frankly, I thought they'd be more insulting than that. I even chuckled at the running out of virgins one.

Years ago, while browsing through an antique store this "buddhist" came across a statue of the sitting Buddha with a lamp sticking out of the back of its neck. I took offense, but instead of becoming violent I merely asked the manager in my most polite tone to please call me if he should come across a statue of Jesus with lamp sticking out of the back of its neck. No call yet.

Seems like this is the right thread for this.

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1642_0_25_0_C

Stupid Cartoons, Even Stupider Reaction
Why are we so exciteable anyway? The cartoons, horrendous though they may be, need not affect a Muslim's impression of the Prophet.
By Safiyyah Ally, February 1, 2006
Aren't some Muslims dying somewhere?
I'm quite troubled over the cartoon controversy in Denmark, not because of the cartoons themselves, which I agree are offensive, but rather, because of the absurd overreaction of Muslims worldwide. We haven't learned from the Rushdie affair - this is yet another instance where we've gone out of our way to make ourselves look stupid.

For anyone living under a rock, here's what happened. Four months ago, on September 30th, 2005, a Danish newspaper called Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in ways that many Muslims deemed sacrilegious. The newspaper claimed - quite foolishly, I think - that the cartoons were "part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression" in Denmark. There were a few protests by Muslims and meetings with the Prime Minister of Denmark, but things came to a head on January 10th, 2006, when two Norwegian papers published similar cartoons that were then circulated in the Middle East. Since then, the response has been stupendous:

There were street demonstrations and flag-burnings in the Middle East. Libya joined Saudi Arabia in withdrawing its ambassador from Copenhagen. Islamic governments and organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain, issued denunciations and a boycott of Danish goods took hold across the Muslim world.

The Danish Government warned its citizens about travelling to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and withdrew aid workers from the Gaza Strip.

Last night EU foreign ministers issued a statement in support of Denmark, and the European Commission threatened to report any government backing the boycott to the World Trade Organisation.

By yesterday governments across the Arab world were responding to public outrage. Libya closed its embassy in Denmark and the Egyptian parliament demanded that its Government follow suit. The Kuwaiti and Jordanian governments called for explanations from their Danish ambassadors. President Lahoud of Lebanon condemned the cartoons, saying his country "cannot accept any insult to any religion". The Justice Minister of the United Arab Emirates said: "This is cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression." In Gaza, gunmen briefly occupied the EU office in Gaza and warned Danes and Norwegians to stay away. Palestinians in the West Bank burnt Danish flags. The Islamic groups Hamas and Hezbollah and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood demanded an apology.

Supermarkets in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen all removed Danish produce from their shelves. Arla Foods, a Danish company with annual sales of about $430 million in the Middle East, said that the boycott was almost total and suspended production in Saudi Arabia.

Those up in arms don't seem to understand that the newspaper is not government owned or produced. It is an independent newspaper, and as such the guarantee of freedom of expression allows it to do what it did. It may be in bad taste and it may be insensitive, but the newspaper has a point: freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in ways that may upset or offend others. Yes, that freedom is to be balanced with freedom of religion, but even so, adherents of any faith cannot expect that they will never be offended. That is the price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy. Some may claim this is a good time to bring out those old blasphemy laws, but I disagree. In fact, I would argue there are no justifiable grounds for blasphemy laws in liberal democracies.

In any case, why these Arab countries would see fit to demand that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen apologize is beyond me. If one wanted to protest the publication of those cartoons, one could always cancel one's subscription to the newspaper. But to boycott products from the country? Burn Danish flags? Remove ambassadors to express one's displeasure? Those sorts of responses are just nonsensical. The government is not to be blamed for the idiocy of a private newspaper.

Why are we so exciteable anyway? Why even care what a newspaper thinks? The cartoons, horrendous though they may be, need not affect a Muslim's impression of the Prophet, for our tradition clearly shows him to be a man imbued with dignity, morality and goodness. The Prophet was ridiculed from the moment he started receiving revelation in Mecca more than 1400 years ago. The mockery - even the threats on his life - are well documented in the Quran and hadith literature. A few cartoons will do little to harm him - or us.

Some might argue that Islam bars any depiction of the Prophet. Even so, we Muslims cannot force other people to appreciate the Prophet the way we do. We live, for the most part, in free societies, and there are countless opportunities to share with others our own vision of the Prophet and to convince others that he is a man to be honoured and dignified. We can do so by living like the Prophet did, by behaving and speaking in the noble manner of the Prophet himself, and by showing ourselves to be the rightful followers of this blessed man.

The over-the-top reaction just shows me how much excess energy and strength the ummah retains worldwide. Frankly I wonder if Muslims are not doing a greater disservice to the Prophet when we close our eyes to the suffering and oppression in the rest of the world. There are bigger problems to tackle than the publication of 12 silly cartoons. Now, if we could only put our efforts to better purposes...

Safiyyah Ally, a first-year Ph.D student in Political Science at the University of Toronto, is the host of "Let the Quran Speak," a television show that airs Saturdays at 9:30 pm on the Canadian TV channel CTS.

JLN,

A rabbi just told this one on the BBC.

A buddhist goes into a pizza parlour and on giving his order said "Make me one with everthing".

Full depictions here (bottom of page---slow loading-- much traffic)

Brussels Journal


Here's the site


http://www.brusselsjournal.com

Excellent link. When I linked brusselsjournal for another story, I was criticised.

<grumbles>

Interesting comparison with the Jerry Springer depiction of Jesus.

Of the cartoons posted by the Brussels Journal I would judge only two as truly offensive. The others range from stupid to sophomoric. The larger problem is that the Norwegian papers who republished the cartoons in January, and circulated them in the middle east, seem to have done so with the intent of inciting a religious controversy under the cover of freedom of expression. They intentionally "stuck it" to muslims and this is the real offence. I think the Danish papers are correct in not buckling under to pressure to self censor, but muslims have a grievance in the actions of the Norwegian paper. Americans might keep in mind that cartoons depicting racial stereotypes or explicate sexual acts are equally offensive to us.

But we don't kill people or burn buildings in response.

I think we should have a steady stream of such cartoons, until they see that they 1) can't stop it and 2) satire is protected speech and 3) Mohammad is no more sacred than anyone else's sacred people or ideas.

They have to be held responsible for what they do and say.

Where were you in the sixties? You also might consider some peoples response to abortion providers.

Never heard of Brusselsjournal. What kind of outlet is it?

There was only one Norwegian paper that republished the cartoons in January, the small, evangelical Christian Magazinet.

I might want to consider assassinations, as well, but those, and the things you mentioned, were perpetrated by an tiny minority.

Not so with sweeping riots across Europe---once again---by Muslims. I'm sure you would concede that.
________________________

I'll have to search who rapped my knuckles about Brusselsjournal.

The riots that swept the US in the late 60's were not street corner brawls, major segments of urban centers such as Detroit and Los Angeles were burned down.