If the violent response will make the Europeans think twice before attempting something like this again then the violence might not be totally unacceptable. Cartoons about black people are seen as socially unacceptable because they are racist. Cartoons about Jews are socially unacceptable because it's anti-semitism. But cartoons indicating that Muhammad started a terrorist religion seem to be completely acceptable because, hey, it's "freedom of expression", one of the most "cherished fundamental rights of a pluralistic democracy".

@saad, i don't think that "the ends justify the means" (that is essentially what you're saying). In my opinion arabic states are using the justifiable anger of muslims to tell "the west" (and especially the USA) "you need us", not just that, "you need us to keep those loonies in check". Thank god, the majority of muslim protestors weren't violent. And i think it is the right thing for Subzero to express that.

in reply to saad:

what response will make what europeans think twice about what !??? the muslims in lebanon distroyed lebanese property, lebanese homes, streets, cars and churches of their fellow lebanese citizens (by the way, the lebanese christian leaders have already condemned the caricatures very strictly).

so i don't understand which logic are you using to state that you understand that such acts took place. what would your statement be if you came and found YOUR OWN CAR burned to ashes? muslims have a serious problem with prioritization and with communication. they are hurting their religion more than anyone else is. they are the champions of making bad moves.

lots of muslims have proved, in the streets of beirut today, that they are stupid and ignorant, beyond words.

A link to the history of depictions of the prophet Mohammad (found originally under the comments section of the 'Black Iris' blog):

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

It is interesting that Mohammad has apparently been depicted occasionally in the West in the past and these has not caused any furor. Some of the rules government the depiction of Mohammad during different times and among different people is fascinating.

Before all Moslems throw their hands up in outrage at how a newspaper can be so raciast , look at these snopits from the Arab newspapers. Tell me hypocracy doesn't exsist.

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoon_arab_press_080702.asp

Jimmy,

When “Riots “happen; destruction of property is a natural result. This is exactly why nobody likes it when they happen.
However, they do happen all over the globe
We’ve seen “Americans” destroying “American” private properties in the 1992 L.A. racial riots. We’ve seen “Africans” destroying “African” private properties over political riots. We’ve seen “The Chinese” destroying “Chinese” private properties over political riots. Hell, “The British” destroy “British” private properties “cars, shops, you name it” simply because their football team lost a game !!!!! and the list goes on and on and on.

Yep, check the record books; this is not an exclusive “Muslim” behavior. People from all corners of the globe have made the honor too.

People “Riot” when something really pisses them off so bad that they are driven past their boiling point.

Each person has their own boiling point and that’s why in protest gatherings you see some people peacefully demonstrating and others rioting.

Case in point: people in Syria and Lebanon are rioting because their governments did not take an official action that reflects the stand of the majority of their subjects. The governments simply created a leadership vacuum which caused the people to take matters into their own hands, and express their views individually in the forms of peaceful demonstrations and yes, rioting.

Had the governments of Syria and Lebanon withdrew their ambassadors early as Saudi Arabia did, then the people would have no need to do this, and they would’ve stuck to boycotting the Danish products only as the people of Saudi Arabia are doing.

As to why are the governments not in sync with the people that they govern? This is a long story and out of scope of this post.

Bottom line: Understand what’s going on first before drawing your conclusions and calling people stupid. Respect other’s views in order to engage in a constructive dialog.

MMM,
Bro I completely share your view that violence is not the right way to make a point. However, I suggest that the explanation above to why this happened should be noted in your post as well.

To Joe,

Those are “Anti Israeli” Cartoons not “Anti Semitic”. Each and every single one of them reflects the actions of the Israeli leadership or actions of its Army. The Star of David in the cartoons represents the flag of the state of Israel. None of them refer to Judaism in any way, shape or form.

I dare you to present a single “Authentic not a URL or a digital document” publication written by a Muslim that disrespects Judaism as a faith or Moses “Peace be upon him” as a prophet. And if that ever happens in any Muslim country then he / she will be prosecuted and would have their ass kicked like there’s no tomorrow, and what I said applies to all other faiths, races and cultures, we as Muslims Must respect all.

And don’t even think about using the “Anti Semitic” card on any Muslim, it does not apply, believing and respecting Judaism and the prophet Moses “Peace be upon him” is a core element in Islam. So if you are Anti Semitic then you can never be a Muslim. Know what Islam is before drawing your conclusions.

And yes hypocrisy most certainly exist, here is an example:

1- Freedom of expression is “not allowed” to project hostility toward or prejudice against “Jews” as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

2- Freedom of expression is “allowed” to project hostility toward or prejudice against “Muslims” as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

In the United States you can nasty comments about people based on their religious or ethnic group without any restrictions excepting a specific threat of violence. You can also make caricatures, even offensive ones against religious figures.

It is true that in some European countries they do have laws against Holocaust denial, probably because the Holocaust was carried out in these countries. I think those laws are stupid. I don't know if Denmark has such laws. I also know that some countries have laws that prohibit 'racist incitement,' I am not a lawyer and cannot tell you how broad in scope these laws are. These are also very stupid and given the degree of organization and relative success of neo-Nazis in countries such as Germany (as opposed to the United States) they are not even terribly effective. I was told by somebody from Denmark that their country does not have laws stating you cannot insult Jewish religion or customs, however.
You can certainly insult Moses.

The fact that some countries have stupid laws is no reason to put even more stupid laws on the books. All such laws should be abolished. It would be better if all countries had similar standards of free speech to what the US offers.

I don't think the cartoons were very nice and Muslims can use whatever peaceable methods they want to punish Denmark if they wish. It seems silly to blame the Danish government for what private publications do. Why not boycott those who advertise these papers? Why not write letters to these papers? Many Muslims are running around saying that Muslims have had 'their feelings hurt' and that this causes 'them pain.' I would rather have 'freedom of press' though, then 'freedom from being offended.'

I also recall how blasphemy laws in some countries have been misused. I remember hearing cases in Iran where people who affirmed their belief in Christianity in that country were arrested for violation of Iranian blasphemy laws. Blasphemy laws are a terrible idea. Religious censorship has been tried in the West centuries ago, it was a failure.

M.A.Khadra:

i like the fact that i am being tought a lesson about understanding people's points of view from someone who thinks that the lebanese and the syrians should have called their embassadors from denmark and that they should have boycotted danish products.

why on earth would they do that?
wake up people!
those people in the streets are to islam what bugs bunny is to formula one.

if you didn't like the caricatures, you SUE the frickin newpaper. it's called civilization. lurpak and lego have nothing to do with it.

in the outside world (outsode your arab empires where people are ruled by an inherited legacy of corrupt families living on whores and gold), people do have the right of self expression. it's a constitutional right. it's the LAW.

just like the LAW in KSA OBLIGES EVERY WOMAN (muslim or not) to be vieled and emprisonned and treated like an animal. You don't see people in danemark burning danish streets because danish women in ksa have the right to by unvieled.

and don't tell me a word about understanding. i have been VERY understanding yesterday, when i was watching sheikhs orchestrasting terror in my streets and setting cars (which were 5 km away from the embassy) on fire.
watching this and controling my anger is called understanding and tolerance.

watching you vehemently defending boycotting lego because you want the world to function according to your rules is totally repugnant.

as a human, i have all the right in the world to express my points of view. you have all the right to be offended and to sue me. period.

jimmy,

A- Are veiled Christian nuns imprisoned and treated like an animal by all churches across the world? The Answer is NO; they choose to follow their religion. A veil brings decency to a woman in ways the likes of you would not even begin to possibly imagine; equally a Muslim woman that follows her religion is enjoying privileges as a woman in ways the likes of you would not even begin to possibly imagine.

B- Speaking of “LAWS”. FRANCE: one of the major countries – who are siding with Denmark by giving us this “freedom of expression” bullshit – has a LAW that prevents all Muslim women – even if they are FRENCH citizens – from wearing a veil in its state buildings, schools …etc. Now if a Muslim woman has the “freedom to express” herself and wear a veil – she’s not asking all of FRANCE to wear it – why MUST she shut up? Why MUST she accept the fact that she CANNOT “freely express herself”, Why MUST she obey? Because this has been deemed as a LAW in FRANCE “hypocrisy”. So don’t give me this crap about Saudi Arabia. So much for “WOMEN’s WRITES” in FRANCE “hypocrisy”. We’re not telling you how to run your countries, don’t tell us how run ours. This brings me to point “C”.

C- Now if what I said above – and I quote myself “We’re not telling you how to run your countries, don’t tell us how run ours” – would make you come back and say: this is our damn point, don’t tell us how to run our countries we’re free to publish those cartoons, The answer of 1.3 BILLION Muslims is: Those cartoons are extremely insulting to us. If you do not acknowledge that our relationship is truly based on mutual respect by giving us your hypocritical “freedom of expression” bullshit excuse – which clearly has limits that suites your needs as stated in point “B” – then as 1.3 Billion Muslims, we don’t want anything to do with you. This includes, boycotting your products and severing all ties. You don’t respect me I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

I can not MAKE you respect me, but if you don not respect me, why should I respect you?

Our great religion of Islam teaches us to respect ALL humans from ALL races, colors, ethnic backgrounds and religions. Islam also teaches us “dignity”, and all of us are willing to even give our lives to defend the dignity of the man who did no wrong doings in every single aspect of his life, a man who harmed nothing “not even Plants and insects” and never harmed NO ONE. a man who I can spend all my life writing about his great deeds and not give him a fraction of the credit that he deserves; our prophet Mohammad peace be upon him.

Until you show TRUE respect, we don’t want your relationship. Period.

A- i am sure that you have never been to KSA and have never seen how women are treated and beaten there by religious police. (my brother's wife has been beaten for drifting 2 meters away from her husband while they were shopping in a mall. so please cut the crap and don't talk about women's respect).

i also really agree with you on the fact that women (e.g. in ksa and afghanistan have real privliedges that i can't see). i love the fact that a man in afghanistan takes away the spare tyre from the trunck of his car before throwing his 8 wives in it.
today, (unlike what used to happen centuries ago), muslims are being raised to hate civilization.

B- the concept of laicity in public schools is an inherited concept that the french have defended with their blood for centuries.

C- the danish government has nothing to do with what a danish newspaper has to say. its constitutional. i'm sorry that you can't understand that.

your logic is simplistic. if you can't see that the muslim world needs to enhance its prioritization and communication skills, then pelase, let's stop this discussion.

don't preach me about how loving islam is. i know it very well. actually i never said a word about 'islam'. i love that religion. i only hate the way 'muslims' have modified it (they took away all the concepts of openness, love and tolerance) and replaced it with a hating, terror-loving, discriminating version which is being applied for the past 200 to 300 years. and i think people like you have a lot of work to do to teach muslims to communicate better and hate less.

i am just ashamed to see outraged muslims bitching about caricatures, while keeping a hypocrite blind eye on what is happening in their own lands, on their own people. some arab/muslim countries are still living in the stone era.

Dear Jimmy

I am so glad you answered M. A. Khadra.
You are spot on.
Trying to compare nuns to the veil moslem women wear is silly.Anyway nuns wearing their garments aren't based on anything written in the bible.
Nevertheless women must wear these things in Islam so that the men will not be seduced and we will beat them to death if they dare seduce a man(as you have ponted out this is a common occurance). Yet a man can wear almost anything he likes. Are we to asume women don't have feelings and don't sin. What hypocricy.
Also the Koran says you can hit the woman if you are trying to discipline her. Like children they are treated.
Basic psycology tells us the Agressive dominating person who continues to gegrade and dominate another, the other will get used to and accept even blame him/herslf for the actions , rationalising that they deserve it.
Just ask how many women can divorce their husband on any grounds like the men can do to their wives.
Please don't shovel us crap about the beauty of Islam. Your words are smooth and very flowerly but unfortunately as Jimmy clearly points out Most Moslems and their countries are living in the Stone Age.
But this is only my opinion, which I couldn't express in most Moslem countries.

There we go jimmy.

I’m delighted that we finally got on the same page.

A – Our feelings are hurt if our loved ones are insulted in any way, shape or form, and if the insult came from an outsider, our nature as humans is to blame their entire group:

One man deliberately beats a woman in Saudi Arabia and the damn Saudi Government is OK with this!!!!!!!!!!!. Your Conclusion? “ALL” men in Saudi Arabia are bastards and “ALL” women in Saudi Arabia are treated like animals.

One Danish editor deliberately insults Islam and the damn Danish Government is OK with this!!!!!!!!!!! My Conclusion? “ALL” the people of Denmark are bastards and atheist animals
*******

B- We are willing to sacrifice our lives in order to defend our concepts:

“The concept of laicity in public schools is an inherited concept that the french have defended with their blood for centuries”

The concept of upholding the image of the prophet Mohammad peace be upon him is an inherited concept that the Muslims have defended with their blood for centuries
*******

Once again you’re justifying things as you see fit while blaming others for doing the very same thing that you have justified for yourself.

In addition, I’m not preaching you. I’m setting your records straight:
1- Muslims cannot modify Islam as you are trying to imply and know one can. One holy book one prophet one god. It will remain unchanged for eternity…..
2- You are no different in the eyes of an Afghani, than what he is in yours.
3- A Muslim man cannot marry “8” women as you are trying to imply. Marriage in Islam is completely out of scope of this discussion. I’d be more than glad to discuss it with you. But this is neither the time nor place for it.

Joe,
1- Learn how to read first before commenting. I am not comparing Muslim women to nuns.
2- A nun wearing her garment is her business and you have no right to tell her what to wear. Refer to 1.
3- Those “stone age” people are driving your economies. Check the Danish stock market.
4- As to the rest of your comments: Hmmm, Muslim women don’t see it that way. Talk to them, they’ll tell you why.

I stand firm behind every single word I said in this post. See ya…

M.A, i really find that it has been very opaque and unfruitful discussing the subject with you.

i hope i'll be excused.

I agree completely to the beginning blog diaglogue, islam is peace, not violence. If we are truly defiant and devoted to god, we as muslims will not be antagonized or manipulated in to attacking everytime someone or some countries slander us, this is not a school yard, we cannot fall for tricks into attacking, they say things to hurt and attack us, but when we do the opposite of what they expect, we give them nothing but hollow words. This is not to say that we take all their**** but, we can choose to be victims or we can ignore their stupidty.

I think that above and beyond the question as to whether the Danish cartoons should have been published, there is the question of the response of many in the Muslim word. It simply will not do to say that of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, only a fraction have protested violently. The number of Germans who actually participated in the genocide of Jews was also a small fraction of the German population--but in order for a regime to carry out such actions it required the tacit, passive support of most of the people for the Nazi regime. And it's in that sense that those of us who are non-Muslims have a deep-seated suspicion that the violence of a few might also enjoy the tacit approval of the many. Would any media outlet in a Muslim country dare to take a survey of public opinion as to whether Muslims believe it to be fully justified and consistent with the tenets of Islam to kill the Danish cartoonists? I suspect the results would be very disheartening to us in the West, who lived through that kind of religious fanaticism for hundreds of years and managed to put it behind us, more or less successfully, for the past 200. That's why it is entirely disingenuous for "moderate" Muslims to say that these violent acts (and calls to violence such as the Imam who has offered a reward for the decapitation of the offending Danish cartoonist) do not represent the "true" Islam. A religion is more than just an abstract set of beliefs and dogmas inscribed in holy writ. It's also the actions of the believers. So just as we can say that the Crusades and the Inquisition were representative of Christianity in that they expressed the beliefs and actions of Christians living at that time, we can also say that violent actions against "blasphemers" are probably an accurate representation of Islam as it is lived and believed in by millions of Muslims today. Since Islam came on the scene around 600 years after Christianity, we can only hope the Muslim religion and its followers don't take 600 years to "catch up" with Christianity in its approach to blasphemers, gender equality, and the will to dominate the state in the name of religion. Of course, with someone like M.A. Khadra, who believes that the teachings of Mohammad are unequivocal, not subject to interpretation, precise and true in every way, and that his understanding of them is THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, there's no basis for discussion--for his beliefs are beyond the pale of rationally held and defensible ideas.

I fail to understand why the dignity of a man who died over 1400 years ago is a matter of your OWN dignity. That man you see was actually a terrorist. You are badly mistaken if you think Islam is a religion of peace..its purely based on hatred and intolerance towards NON-Muslims, and there are several verses in the Quran that order the killing of the "unbelievers".. You say Muhammad was a very peaceful man, who wouldn't hurt a fly, I say MY FUCKING ASS. He spent his whole life fighting battles, killing several people, enslaving many, forcefully converting them and treating the non-muslims like SHIT.
He was nothing but a war-monger..the battle of badr, battle of trench, battle of Uhad, the Tabuk expedition..damn u can just go on and on with the endless list of wars he instigated..
Do you think a mass-murderer like him even deserves the status of being a "prophet"..Look at Budhha, Jesus.. compare them with your UNHOLY prophet..
Seems like Muslims are alien to the concept of freedom of expression and other basic human rights, because they are discouraged in the barbaric and uncivilised religion of Islam...
They want liberal democracies to follow their own
pathetic laws of the arabian desert of the 7th century.. hahaa.. WHAT A JOKE..
Have these Muslims ever protested and taken any action against the terrorists that blow up innocent civilians every now and then? NEVER..
Is that even a serious issue for them..NO.. The dignity of a man that died back in the 7th century is more important to them , but the lives of so many people at stake is not even an issue..Why is the Muslim world quiet? Why aren't they doing anything against the terrorism?

The irony is that by protesting against the cartoons and demanding the annhilation of the cartoonists the Muslims are demonstrating what the cartoons were supposed to depict..

Sk....words of yours, are to say the least pathetically ignorant and deeply prejudice. What can we say, we can defend and educate you on your racist opinion, but truly it is not worth it, you may try to use historical and political documentation for the foundation on which you speak, but the majority of us can sit back and say you are really stupid. And to be honest...I know that because I beleive in someone more than your mere human self, someone most powerful as god is, I will not need to argue with you to beleive in myself, and to support my values, because when you perish..your soul will pay for your ignorance.

While I cannot share the rant against Islam delivered by Sk, he raises some questions about Islam and its relation to violence and the use of force. No one can deny that the prophet was not above using violent means to obtain his objectives (whether he personally used those means is irrelevant--after all, Hitler never executed a single Jew). For 10 years he and his followers were involved in military operations, both to defend themselves and to expand their influence. If Mohammad had believed that such violence was incompatible with God's commandments, one would have expected him repudiate the military victories celebrated in his name and in the name of the faith. I don't believe the historical record shows that. So we are left with the fact that of all the major religions in the world, only Islam's "founder" was an "armed" prophet. And this raises the question whether there may not be some connection between Islam's origins in these military
"exploits" and the failure of Islam to generate pacific, non-violent movements of opposition and protest (a` la Martin Luther King and Gandhi). One could speculate that the "spirit" of the Arab and Middle Eastern peoples does not lend itself to such forms of opposition, but isn't that spirit itself a product in large measure of Islam?