I really was upset about the cartoons. Why make such cartoons when they are infactual and false?

If people really read about the prophet peace be upon him they would realise he was a mercy to mankind.

Moreover, as Muslims we aren't allowed to draw pictures of Prophets, furthermore, we aren't meant to disrespect someone elses religion. We respect all prophets, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, so why not respect our dear Prophet?

Let's print more cartoons about the Prophet. Please read:

this

Imran

Excellent the cartoon by Tom Toles!...
And how manipulative was the US Military response, claiming that it is a deservice to soldiers who sacrifice themselves. Obviously, the military stuff pretends not to have seen the real point of the cartoon (which mocks them and their hypocritic logic, not the soldiers)... I guess they hope to censor such intellectual approaches by re-constructing them in an irrelevant way, but easy to attack within public opinion...

Imran,
I agree with your comments in your post that the correct analogy is mocking Muhummad and Jesus, not Muhummad and the Jews as Tim Blair states.

Christians often call for censorship when Christ is mocked in high art.Hence the hypocrisy of the western conservatives.

The 12 cartoons do distort as the prophet Muhammad diid not preach violence. His actions in accommodating Christians and Jews as people of the book with respect, and protecting them and their places of worship, is well known and documented.

I agree with you that the publication of the 12 cartoons is designed to provoke and inflame Muslims.

Be,
The European media see themselves as defending freedom expression from the censorship of the Islamic radicals. They will not dictate to us etc.We should not kowtow to anybody etc.

However, the publication of the 12 caretoons in New Zealand and Australia (by Tim Blair) is designed to provoke Muslims who are both discriminated against and treated as the Other. They know the reaction and the consequences before they do it.

It is od seeing conservatives defend the rights of free expression when they spend a lot of their time criticizing rights anbd talking about about responsiblity, duties and mutual obligation.

It is freedom of speech. No religious icon is off limits as are no world leaders or fields of thought and philosophy. We have all witnessed animated depictions (and mockeries) of Jesus, God, Buddha, Vishnu... Women are mocked a million time a day from brutal pics (called art) in sado masochistic magazines to their procreative rights being state-governed (China). When there is strife in this world, invariably, women and children suffer generationally through a warped patriarchal enforcement of male elitism. Women and children refused education isn't offensive enough to bring about this level of protest but a cartoon is?? Get real. The point is we need to respect life already on this earth.

Every western media outlet should be publishing these cartoons in support for freedom of speech. As an American, who has to see the cartoons on foreign press websites, I am throroughly disgusted that U.S. national news broadcasts have refrained from showing them. Stand up for freedom of speech! Radical Wasabists and violent killers masquerading as religious followers are nothing more than criminals. Burning embassies? Threatening to kill editors and cartoonists? Finally, the world gets to see the true face of Islam. And it's ugly. Stop them now before they destroy the world.

Kathy,

Nothing in the post condones the violence by the radical Islamists in burning embassies or killing people. I don't. Nor do the moderate Muslims.

Violence is not the issue of debate. It is the conflict between freedom of expressions and responsiblities of the media to the cultural sensitivies and sense of sacredness of diverse ethnic groups. You affirm one side without adderessing the other side.

Shouldn't the other side of the deabrte be acknolwedged and addressed?

How do you go with Andre Serrano's work, especially Piss Christ Is that offensive? Do you find it so?

Christians in Melbourne did and their protests were marked by outrage at the sacrilege. They found it to be offensive to their religion. Should they be dismissed with the claim that freedom of expressionis absolute and never be temprered?

Or are cartoons in the mass media different from art in an art gallery?

Let us Muslims show what Islam is, Kathy..in order to do that, we need to be left alone...

the cartoons are displaying 'the freedom in expressing' without ethics.

If you really have the knowledge, at least the basic history about Jews, Christians, and Islam during the days of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), you wouldn't post that insult online..Like Gary Sauer-Thompson said, Prophet Muhammad treated Jews and Christians with respect, the fact is well known and documented..I suggest you get one book about it and read.

I beg you, don't slur Islam publicly if you don't know the real face of Islam.. I don't mind if you hate Islam..but think before you do something..Why create more uneasiness among the global people?

Just to let you know, I have a very close friend who is a devoted Catholic and I love her dearly.. She respects my belief and does simple things to show it..such as turning off the radio when I'm praying..The smallest kindness may keep the peace around

Kathy wrote:
"Stand up for freedom of speech! Radical Wasabists and violent killers masquerading as religious followers are nothing more than criminals. Burning embassies? Threatening to kill editors and cartoonists?"

Substitute "radical wasabists" for "US Government" and you get a picture of the situation in the Middle East. Didn't George Bush in a conversation with Tony Blair suggest bombing the headquarters of Al-Jazeera?
The phrase, "you reap what you sow", comes to mind.

Lina,

I do find it strange that the christian conservatives who now defend the freedom to criticise and ridicule religion as an aspect of free speech----the right to ridicule Islam's holiest icon---have supported limits to freedom of expression in the past to defend their religious icons.

Do you not think that there is a limit to the right to freedom of expression; a limit marked by behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion and severe ridicule of others because of their race and religion?

'incite' means Incitement is more than just merely holding a view or expressing an opinion; it is the encouragement or promotion of hatred towards others.

Does a cartoon showing a bomb in Muhammad's turban do that? Or is just bad taste?

Should that kind of behaviour be allowed? Or should it be banned by public law.

What this indicates is that freedom of expression is not absolute. Countries have laws that define the framework for exercising this right and condemn racist language.

Thanks for the kind words on my posting earlier. A follow up comment. Yes, as I wrote, it is dumb of Muslims to play to the stereotype of violent people who cannot stand dissent.

But, I find it amazing/amusing that Islam-basher apologists for Christianity forget the death threats (yes, threats rather than actual attacks, but threats nonetheless) aimed at Kevin Smith & makers of the movie DOGMA, and similar works.

It was Christian fundamentalist (terrorist sympathizers?) who protected and hid that Eric Rudolph abortion doctor killer Christian terrorist. I do not recall Timothy McVeigh being referred to as a Christian Terrorist. Or anyone referring to Jesus in that issue.

Pat Robertson incites people to assassinate a South American head of state for political views. Imagine what he probably wants his followers to do when the cameras are not rolling and the issue would be something he found religiously offensive.

Thanks for your attention.

Imran
http://imran.com/media/blog/

I have to disagree that violence is not at the heart of this issue. Yes Christian and Jewish leaders and individuals have been outraged at insults real and imagined against their religious beliefs and symbols. As is their right under free societies they have spoken out and demonstrated. What they have not done is encouraged their followers to riot in the streets, sent teenagers with bombs straped to their bodies to blow themselves up in marketplaces, and funded organizations who crash airliners full of passengers into buildings. The Profit Mohammed, may peace be upon him, spoke of tolerance and acceptance. Until modern Islam begins to live up to the ideals put forth by Mohammed's teachings, they have no reason to expect respect and understanding from the rest of the world.

I am in America and have viewed the cartoons. It seems the problem is that people of one religion are trying to make people of another relgion or more than likely no religion respect their beliefs and whatever. Well that is not going to happen ever. Jesus wasnt able to save every one and Muslims ARE NOT going to convert every person to Islam or any religioin for that matter. There are gonna be some people that do not respect you no matter what you do or say. You cant get around it and MOST of all You cant do anything about it they are like Pop Goes the Weasel you hit one on the head and another one pops up its never ending. African Americans in America have been battiling for equality for over 400 years, some people are not going to change. Killing them is not going to stop anything. HOW DO YOU KILL AN IDEA? Most of all no one is going to take the time to understand what has offended you when you have been so destructive. The radicals it seems are buying into the sterotypes, and thats what it is, that are displayed in the cartoons. Now you have become what you are fighting against. So others are saying what the big hooplah about the cartoon look what they burned and destroyed. One bad apple is spoiling the bunch. If Isalm is a religion of peace then lets see some.

While many citizens of the world have become more moderate in their tolerance for other's beliefs, religious extremists of all faiths have become less tolerant of and more dangerous to non-followers.
This latest demonstration and destruction by intolerant extremists is a further example of this isolation and rejection of "outsiders". The validity of one's religion should not be based on how much hatred you harbor within towards others not sharing your beliefs.
These cartoons were merely the spark which ignited the flammable vapor of hatred in those unable to tolerate the truth of our "sameness".

Imran,
I've published a further post on the the cartoons over at public opinion in relation to multiculturalism in Australia and liberal pluralism.

I would like to add that, from what I understand, Muslim cartoonist do not lampoon the Jewish and Christian holy figures in sacred history, since Muslims believe in them, too, even if they see them all as human prophets. What they do is deploy anti-Semetic cartoons.

Yoy are right. Christians are very touchy about attacks on their holy figures. An Australian newspaper that showed a cartoon depicting Jesus as an exploitative money lender or with a bombshaped head ( or one that brought into question the Holocaust) would raise a firestorm of protest from Christians and Jews.

Don,
good points.

We have militant fundamentalists on both the Christian and Islam side who play the Samuel Huntingdon thesis of 'the clash of civlizations' very hard. Hawkish liberals in the West play the "clash of civilisations" theme as one between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies and then portray Islam as a violent religion.

The sterotype misrepresentation of Islam as a fanatical and warlike religion ignores the way that throughout its history Islam is probably no more or less violent than are the histories of Judaism and Christianity.

Brian,
you write:

Yes Christian and Jewish leaders and individuals have been outraged at insults real and imagined against their religious beliefs and symbols. As is their right under free societies they have spoken out and demonstrated. What they have not done is encouraged their followers to riot in the streets, sent teenagers with bombs straped to their bodies to blow themselves up in marketplaces, and funded organizations who crash airliners full of passengers into buildings.

True, though not all Muslim leaders encourage their followers to be terrorists; and some fundamentalist Christian leaders in the US advocate violence and killing.

I do detect a double standard in the free speech defence of the 12 cartoons.

This cartoon of Ariel Sharon, which appeared in the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003, depicted the Prime Minister of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: "What's wrong? You've never seen a politician kissing babies before?"

Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings.

Yet a cartoon that is offensive to Muslims, on the other hand, is depicted as nothing but an expression of "free speech." There is the double standard.

If you say that the spirit of the law is that Australians shalt not offend Jews as an ethnic or religious group, then why not include Muslims. This seems to be lost only on those media organizations publishing the cartoons and their conservative defenders.