Some of these are insulting, some only making other points. Sometimes there are protests

In the case of the current cartoons, the ones I’ve seen were mostly complimentary - at least one drew upon the Muslim tradition of illustrating the Muslim prophet. You do know such things exist? Especially in Turkey and Iran.

I saw these cartoons back in September, the one cartoon I saw that might cause offence, I took to be a comment on the mis-use of Islam by terrorists, not an attack on Islam.

For Europeans, the irony is that the publisher wanted to show that Islam wasn’t about terrorism, and that it was possible to write about it, illustrate it, without crazed jihadis threatening terror. And of course they have been proved wrong. But the over-reaction just adds fuel to those who say Muslims cannot be accomodated in the west. It will also encourage those hostile to Muslims to create and circulate more cartoons, knowing that it gets a reaction.

There must have been a better way to handle this.

For the cynical, there is also the spectacle of Qurans and Mosques (and Muslims) being blown up in Pakistan without the Muslim world protesting. This suggests that Arab governments use the cartoons as a safe way of distracting their people from real problems in their region.

Perhaps the cartoons did cross a line, this is true. That being said, however, I think the response to these cartoons on the part of some Muslims has been blown out of all proportion, especially given the rampant, overt anti-Semitism in many Muslim countries, where cartoons such as these - depicting Jews in all the various stereotypical possibilities - are often the norm. I am quite sure, Tololy, that you and others do not find this an acceptable practice, but why do so many other Muslims think it is? How can these people expect such respect for Islam when they show such disrespect for Judaism and other religions?

I think that many people in the West are not exposed to the good of Islam, and only to those Muslims who claim to perform such heinous acts in the name of their religion. They see the disdain shown towards people of other religions and cultures, and then watch incredulously as these very same individuals cry foul when acts are perpetrated against themselves.

Again, I’m not saying that it was right to publish these pictures, which were most likely published precisely in order to provoke a certain type of reaction, to “prove” something to the rest of the world, whatever. Poor taste, indeed. Respect for religions must work in all directions, however.

A very thought-provoking post, Tololy, as usual. :-)

I agree with you .. level argument is the answer and an apology is called for .. as for boycotting Danish products, bringing the governments in the equation and burning flags in the streets .. I see these attempts and acts as means to increase animosity and stir blind rage in both parties’ minds and hearts .. This is not the way our prophet answered those who insulted him .. I am offended deeply by the cartoons, however; the reaction that the majority is adopting is just that; a reaction .. full of emotional combat .. I would prefer a response that is level and strong enough with content to make those who challenged the most sacred issues feel that what they did was not an act of freedom of speech, rather was a blind ridicule that is bound to get such attention and anger ..

I agree with you about the policy :D

If all of this is a ‘consequence’ of freedom… well…
and doesn’t that defeat its purpose?

I am seriously stuttering, absolutely flabbergasted.
I can’t say a thing.

Thank you for your post.

Allow me to say that I, too, am deeply offended by the burning of Danish flags in some streets. I do not exactly tolerate that. It should also be clear to you, as well as everyone else reading this, that I respect all peoples regardless of nationality, religion, or color.

This settled, I am not sure what media you are referring to as our “not-so-free media”, and what message is it that you believe it delivered to “us”. I would appreciate an elaboration.

I am starting this reply with the Homeric last-first style, mainly because you make quite an argument in your last passage.So kindly bear with me.

On to quotes, you say: “Well, the cartoons were handled by the courts in Denmark, but they were not illegal and thus not punishable.” That may well be true, I thank you for the information that I heard elsewhere. This could be linked to my post when I posed the question “How far can one go with one’s right of Free Speech?”.

Then you say: “You would be surprised to learn that people are often fined or jailed in Denmark because they promote hate speech against jews, muslims or other minorities. Can I expect the same in your country, when someone talks about killing Danes, Swedes or Norwegians? I think not!”

I am positive everyone in Denmark and elsewhere value this effort put forward by your government to protect people of various religions. Can you expect the same in my country? I am afraid I do not have an answer for this question, and to speak of something I do not know is an error. Yet the interesting bit, I find, is the negotiable link between this point and my post.

I feel an explanation is due. Your comment contained a certain word in the very last sentence of it, thus rendering it impossible to publish in my blog, in accordance with my Commenting Policy. That “F***” word is prohibited, so far as the Policy stands.

Now to get a bit into the happenings here, I am afraid you misunderstood me or possibly failed to see the sense in my entry. Perhaps you were taken in a stir of emotion, like most Arabs tend to act, and thus found yourself eager to express some points, regardless of relevance to topic.

What I attempted to discuss in my entry is not the burning of flags in the streets, or the “so-dubbed war of Free Speech vs. Religion”, or even “the manner in which Muslims and the Denmark or even the EU are reacting to it”. I made those remarks explicitly available in my entry, kindly refer to it for proof. Having said this, I do not see how some of the points you make are relevant.

I am mainly interested in explaining that most Muslims did take offence, and in wondering whether or no Free Speech has a limitation, or call it, a red line. In addition to these two major notions, I commented on the self-acclaimed liberals who acknowledge someone’s right and ignore another’s.

Your comments are welcome, and you are welcome in Tololy’s Box. I sincerely hope I made the ambiguity a bit less problematic.

Batir Wardam,

Such a lovely comment you made. As explained above, I did not publish the last sentence because it contained the F word. Not that it is a taboo, but I do not tolerate misuse of language in my blog. Some may argue that this is not misuse of language; in my blog, it is.

I could not care less if someone shares an idea of mine or objects to it, this would not stop me from publishing a comment. Yet I do ask of people, so kindly, to stick to the Commenting Policy situated in the sidebar under “The Box”. No rules equals havoc, and I will not have it that some people may get offended from such linguistic expressions. Certainly I would not treat some readers with preference to others, I clearly remember an incident where a frequent rader posted something similar and the comment was not divulged until the word was removed. The purpose of this is to try, as best as possible, not to offend anyone or to lessen the value of the thoughts in an argument. Needless to say, very few people would like to have others think they were raised in a barn of some sort.

I agree with you that some reactions were wrong and too extreme. The best solution is balanced argument, one in which all parties involved fully respect their foils’ due rights and beliefs.

Jad,

I do not think the government can do much about it. An apology has been called for, we will see how that comes about. What I am concerned with is people’s attitudes when they do enjoy the freedom to express themselves, and how they use, or abuse, this right.