Explaining links are included in my original post.

DIE INFIDEL!!!!

I love you too.

Fascinating stuff. I hope people will stand and speak out for free speech.

The extremists need a sense of humor, that being said, why is it relevant to deliberately provoke the easily provoked?

The arrogance is astonishing. People immigrate to a country, then DEMAND that the country change to accomodate their vanity and their superstition.

Yep, superstitious beliefs are that way - just look at the Albigenisian Crusades and the Protestant massacres and the Inquisition and the Islamic Jihad

Bismillah! No!

It's sad to see Muslims betray Islam. These enemies of free speech are also enemies of their own faith. Islamic law forbids Muslims from depicting images of the Prophet in works of art. That much is true. However, such laws do not apply to people who are not Muslims. Anyone who seeks to enforce this law against non-Muslims is employing compulsion in matters of faith, an act which Muhammad specifically forbade to all the followers of Islam.

All the people sending death threats to the newspaper involved are false Muslims, whether they realize it or not. Any leaders advocating, condoning, or even refusing to condemn violent actions against the publishers and the artists are also betraying the heritage of Islam.

Through their actions and their lack of true leadership they bring eternal shame upon themselves.

Excellent point, Victor

Thanks, Aaman. Now if some Muslims would also voice their agreement with the principle of free speech, I might feel better about the world's chances to avoid the catastrophe of a global religious conflict.

Perhaps we just don't have a very large Muslim demographic in the regular readership of Blogcritics.

I dearly hope that's the only reason we aren't seeing more Muslims comment on this story.

I assure you that blogcritics is lacking in this demographic. For those of us from more diverse communal backgrounds, it is actually odd to see these perceptions of Muslims. For us, the extremist Muslim is the oddball, and not the other way round

That's good to hear, Aaman.

I've seen how afraid European papers are of reporting gang rapes and other crimes by the Moslem minorities in their countries. I suggest that those looking at this excellent article of yours also take a serious look at the book Eurabia, that you featured. This is particularly true for those of you who live in Europe.

To the Chief Editor of Jylland-Posten,
You should educate yourselves about "Prophet Mohammad" before publishing any caricature of the Great Prophet of Islam so that you will not hurt the Believers of Islam (1,500,000,000).

ahmed...the only thing that would hurt you about publishing anything would be if womeone were to pick up said "published" book and smack you in the head with it...other than that...don't read it and it won't hurt you or your 1,500,000,000 friends.

Ahmed, in your opinion is Allah so weak & defenseless that He requires you to defend Him? Do you believe He doesn't have the capability of handling those He finds offensive quite on His own, without your feeble help, or that of your fellow muslims? Because that's basically what you & those who "demand" everyone behave according to their strictures are saying ... and that includes fundamentalist christians too.

Ahmed, it strikes me that you have a spot of trouble understanding what westerners call "freedom of speech".

Newspapers generally don't care whom they offend in their publications. Actually, the more people they offend, the better. Those offended BUY the paper, show it to their frinds, and then write angry letters to the editor like yours. More dinars in the newspaper's bank account.

The other side of the issue is that the Jylland Posten is not subject to Sharia law, but the civil laws of the Kingdom of Denmark. These do not forbid caricatures of public figures. And Mohammed is a public figure.

Finally, if you are truly offended, organize your friends to boycott the paper through advertising, etc. Crown Prince Abdullah threatened to pull Saudi investments from the United States because American newsmen kept talking about the danger of Wahhabi Islam. While the newsmen were right, American executives were worried about their bottom lines and talked instead about Islamic terror. Perhaps yoiur leaders should consider pulling their money out of Denmark. It strikes me that Danish executives should be about as courageous as American ones...

To all you that support the free speech attack on the "prophet Mohamed" remember
That you have just officially supported directly and indirectly the free speech and action of all previous , present , and future behavior of sick individuals , such as
1- Hitler in killing and torturing all the Europe jaws (free action and speech, thank you for given the Nazis a justification for their upcoming actions.)
2- Child pornography ( freedom of action , thank you for given the child abusers a justification and the necessary support for their actions. It could be your child, but you said it,it is a free democracy)
3- social violence ( freedom of action and speech, thank you for given the sick racist a justification for taken action against the black, white, women , children , chine's , the olders,or ant thing alse )

Above are some of the thing that you consciously or unconsciously have justified and supported under than name of free speech and actions.

Note : next time you get humiliated in the street, office, home , socially or religiously just remember IT IS A FREE DENOCROSY.

Regards

To Victor Plenty
Well I'm an atheist, but my family is Muslim, and I respect that religion very much, as I do all others. I support free speach wholeheartedly. I think it's sad that this religion in particular suffers from such a bad reputation nowadays, and Muslims don't realize how their intolerance and bigotry are contributing to that. They also definitely lack a sense of humor.
Go Jyllands-Posten, go!

Nader, you are correct: free speech involves speech by those we consider contemptible. However, it also means that we are free to mock and protest Hitler, child porn, etc. as well as any and all public personalities, including Muhammed, Jesus Christ, Buddha, the pope, the dalai lama, George W. Bush, Tom Cruise, or anybody else. Living in a free society does not give anybody the right to kill or threaten others in order to maintain "face" for themselves or their selected religions, cultures, etc. Only barbarians who are incapable of understanding the difference do that.

Nader, you're talking about action. We're talking here about freedom of speech and thought. That means Someone is free to state his opinion about Islam, Hitler, pedophily, racism, homosexuality, democracy, war, or fried chicken. That doesn't mean anyone is free of killing Jews, raping children, physically abusing homos, or destroying a mosque.
If you're against free speach, don't complain when the situation is such that muslim imams are forbidden to make their sermons in Wetern countries when their opinions are opposed to the values of those countries, and when Moslims will have to hide their religion to continue living in those countries.

*If you're against free speach, don't complain when the situation is such that muslim imams are forbidden to make their sermons in Wetern countries when their opinions are opposed to the values of those countries, and when Moslims will have to hide their religion to continue living in those countries.*

well said and worth repeating

troll

This is correct, and I should have included it: freedom of speech means that Muslims are also free to engage in whatever speech they choose: sermons, rants, hate speech, whatever. So, Nader, if you want to bar derogatory comments against Muhammed, that extends to YOU being barred from making derogatory comments against Jews, Christians, Americans, or anybody else. This is a sword that swings both ways - something that most people seem to have a hard time comprehending.

Dear RyMantys " Freedom of speech and thought but not freedom of actions..is this what you are saying".
When some one transfer his thought into written material and illustrations he have moved into actions. When Lenin wrote that "religion is the opium of society" his thought were transferred into the Russian revaluation that lead to division of the western world , that lead to break down of his own nation , that lead to one of the biggest organize crime network in the world.. When martin Luther king said " I have a dream" the black movement started in America . So dear RyMantys and reader ,freedom of speech is fully linked to freedom of action

If some one wrote (or say in public) something that they believe in and did not take stand and action toward it , than there could only be two reason for that. First they don't believe in what they wrote (or say) , or second they are cowards and to weak to take a stand. But the story does not end there, what will happen if some else read the published material and decided to take action?, then which person to blame when the result are destructive to the society.

Freedom of speech and thought have consequences and cascade effect and as adults we are responsible for our speech and thought specially when we publish them through public media (Unfortunately we don't have the childhood luxury of saying anything and not held responsible.)

Imagine this

Some saw the "prophet Mohammad " sketches and started to make fun of a Muslim teenagers and their propheat. The Muslim teenager started response back , the situation get out of hand , some get hurt, the news spread every body take a stand.

Stop .. and think who is to balm?

The artist who draw the sketches
The person how make fun of the teenagers
The teenagers
Or You for supporting the careless freedom of speech.

I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity. But careless un responsible freedom of speech I against, (that include the imams and Muslim speeches that spreading hate and violence in whatever country ( Muslim or non Muslim, western or eastern), they should be stop for spreading such values that don't have any relation to Islam or any sound civilized humanity .

Dear Nancy you wrote "However, it also means that we are free to mock and protest Hitler, child porn, etc. as well as any and all public personalities, including Muhammed, Jesus Christ, Buddha, the pope, the dalai lama, George W. Bush, Tom Cruise, or anybody else"
or anybody else!.. or anybody else! does that mean I can make fun of handicap people?, or small girls with defective features?, or fat people? , or you personally?. The Islam that I was taught considerer that un civilized and un human and against the principles of brotherhood between all humans.

i wonder how the Christians or Buddists would feel if a caricature was placed for Jesus or Budda? is it okay if these religious figured were ridiculed and made fun of?
i'm positive if we in the Muslim world have riducled ur religious figures, we would have been sentenced to death.. we would be called unrespectufl people, no one would see that as freedom of speech.. right?
Before you speak, think of the other side and put urself in that position.
we, in the Muslim World, believe and support freedom of speech.. when its right, respectful, and doesnt hurt others feelings.. we never ridicul any religious figures or practices.

This act shows how shallow the people in the West in their knowledge of Islam and religious practices.

Shame on you Denmark..
I always say "What goes around, comes around"

---- Freedom of Speach

Muslim - I get to read the Egyptian press.

I get to read the lies they write about Jews, the blatant Jew-hatred that fills the pages of Al Ahram and other Egyptian dailies. You have no soap-box to stand on to whine.

What comes around goes around. When Arabs scream "itbahh al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) we here say to each other "mávet l'`Aravím" (death to the Arabs.

That is what freedom of speech is all about, Muslim.

Nader says: I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity.

What this guy wants is for anyone with a view different from his own on what is "in the benefit of society", to be forbidden from expressing that view.

He is an enemy not only of freedom of speech, but of freedom of thought. His position and attitude is typical of Muslims, and should make it crystal clear why Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably incompatible with Western Civilization.

Dear Richard / Reader
"I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity." you can quote me statement and me name anytime anywhere., and if you wish I will sign the statement so you can use it in any form of publication in any country ." I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity." once again I repeat it. If such statement is typical of Muslims than please classify me as one .

If the concept of free speech or any dialog (specially if it is published in public media )is not for the benefit of society and humanity than why to waste our time? . if free speech is to publish anything and every thing without specific objective that help humanity , or positively aim to develop societies than frankly me dear Richard /reader freedom of speech is a load of garbage .

In a privet group or small social circuit anybody can say or make fun of anything and everything ( I do it all the time ) , but when it come to public publications one should have some degree of awareness to what possible consequences the published material could have( remember that not everybody have the same level of understanding and intellectual tolerance )

Let us assume Dear Richard / reader for a moment that the free speech is about saying anything and everything and expressing any opinion, than will it be right or wrong to propose the following topic under the concept of your understanding of freedom of speech?
1- Kill all handicap people (including animals) because they are a burden on humanity.
2- Use poor children as test specimen for pharmaceutical studies because the possibility of their having a good life is very small and possibility of becoming criminal are very high.
3- Use the body of dead people as animal food.

If your answer or anybody else reading this is YES then stop reading because this article is written for people with minimum human values.

"I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity." , benefit to society is not defined by me ( or any other individual) it is the collective believes / culture of each society within the agreed frame work (i.e. laws and regulations of the general public). Benefit to humanity is once again not what I believe or ( what any individual believes), it is the globally agreed values such as equality, freedom, and respect of all human with no discrimination to color , believes, or nationalities, or part of the world.

Some thing to think about
1- If I still say "I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity." and Me name is Richard and I am christen (or Hindu or jaw or atheist) will it still be "crystal clear why Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably incompatible with Western Civilization"as you say
2- If I still say "I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity."? Kindly choose from below

A- Does it make me just a another human with different opinion than you on the subject of freedom of speech.
B- Make you an enemy to freedom of speech, and of freedom of thought because you attack me ( and Muslims) based on your own judgment of what the above statement mean.
****************************************
"I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity."Nader
***************************************

Richard Brodie wrote,

"His position and attitude is typical of Muslims, and should make it crystal clear why Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably incompatible with Western Civilization."

Up until this sentence, I agreed with your comment. This last sentence is nonsense.

Islam and "western civilization" are irreconcilably incompatible because "western civilization" (read here Christianity and Greek culture, on which said "civilization" rests) seeks to take the fundamentals of Judaism and cut them off from the Jews. By contrast, Islam, like Judaism, is a complete way of life.

The idea of cutting oneself off from one's own roots runs through "western civilization" like a bad penny, creating all kinds of havoc - alienation from oneself being one result. Dividing G-d from science is another.

Nader's statement reflects the idea that the evil impulse should be absent from society. One day, the evil impulse will be absent from society, and his statement will be seen as plain common sense.

Presently, one must make room for the evil impulse in speech and freedom of choice, which is why I can agree with most of your statement in comment #28 - for now.

I think this writer assumes that in Western European nations and North America there is freedom of speech for all peoples, no matter what race, religion or ethnic background.

A lot of minorities feel pressured to be acceptable to the majority. The debate between assimulation and selling out still exists. How can we truly be free if we're afraid.

How can we truly be free to speak with the PATRIOT Act?

Has Buddha been demonized? Yes.

Western Civilization was originally defined as christiandom. Eastern civilization was defined as everything east of christiandom--meaning North Africa and Asia and sometimes including the Pacific Islands.

On that basis, then, of course, Western civilization is contrary to Islam and other predominately Asian religions. Remember that only one out of five Muslims is ethnic Arab. The majority are in Indonesia.

What we should be considering then is if Islam, Eastern religions and North African and Asian nations are capable of modernization. To move forward, why should it be necessary for Asia and North Africa to Westernize? Must we equate westernization with modernization.

A look at Japan, Korea and Taiwan should allow us to hypothesize that it is possible to modernize without having to totally westernize or accept Christianity and that Christianity isn't necessary to modernization.

Buddhism believes that the only thing that is constant is change. Doesn't that seem to be a good philosophy to keep up with the kind of fluid change we are experiencing today?

As for the topic of freedom of speech, I would like to add that one of the church's in my area has come under fire by the IRS. Because the minister said something negative toward the Republican Party, it is being investigated by the IRS.

"The Internal Revenue Service has notified All Saints church that we are being examined for possible violation of our non-profit status. The IRS's charge is campaign intervention. They have cited a sermon that our rector emeritus, George Regas, preached on the Sunday before the last presidential election. We have engaged a Washington, D.C. law firm specializing in these matters.

"It is important for everyone to understand that the IRS's concerns are not supported by the facts. George Regas's sermon upheld the core values of this church as a Peace Church. We have been a self-identified Peace Church since a resolution was adopted by the Vestry in 1987. The sermon in question explicitly stated, " I don't intend to tell you how to vote." We at All Saints, of course, will continue from a nonpartisan perspective to teach and proclaim with vigor the core values of Christianity as we stand in the prophetic tradition of Jesus the peacemaker. This is our responsibility as followers of Christ and as Americans who claim our freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

"We will have information available to everyone at church next Sunday. This information will be on our website this week. We will keep you informed at every turn. Pray for our church and pray for our country."

I am all for freedom of speech all over the world. And eventhough I consider what was published to be of ill taste, as it offends a great number of poeple, I believe the newspaper has the full right to do so.
My question is: Does this also apply to people who question the Holocost? Isn't it a crime in many European countries to question the holocost or to shed doubt on it? I personally do not question it, but was surprised by the acceptance of Europeans of this infringment of the rights of free speech in many countries without much challenge.

Our friend from Bahrain proclaims:

I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity.

Like Kofi Anan, who also wants to establish a kind of GLOBAL political correctness, this fellow wants to set himself up as the world's authority on what constitutes being to "the benefit of society and humanity."

And what does a Muslim have in mind as the ultimate authority on what is to be considered in "the benefit of society and humanity"? The Koran, of course. So this is all just a thinly veiled attempt to justify the imposition of Islamism upon the entire planet.

If the concept of free speech or any dialog (specially if it is published in public media )is not for the benefit of society and humanity than why to waste our time?

So freedom of speech only pertains to talking in private! Talking in public, or God forbid PUBLISHING something, is "a waste of time? Don't be fooled. He's not talking about some benign government authority paying you a vist and asking you to please stop wasting people's time! He's talking about thought police - the kind that just might cut your head off, as van Gogh's was, for going public with anything anti-Islamic.

freedom of speech is a load of garbage

- as is freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and every other liberty that Western man holds sacred, as far as these kind of anachronistic medieval, dictatorial mentalites are concerned.

Let us assume Dear Richard / reader for a moment that the free speech is about saying anything and everything and expressing any opinion, than will it be right or wrong to propose the following topic under the concept of your understanding of freedom of speech?
1- Kill all handicap people (including animals) because they are a burden on humanity.
2- Use poor children as test specimen for pharmaceutical studies because the possibility of their having a good life is very small and possibility of becoming criminal are very high.
3- Use the body of dead people as animal food.

Let me be crystal clear dear Nader / reader. The Freedom of Speech includes the right to advocate, even in published form, EVERYTHING that you just mentioned. The Constitution does not even forbid advocating the violent overthrow of the government, and I think Congress was wrong in passing the Smith Act which does forbid that. We violently overthrew the government of England, and the time could come, if an administration was blatantly selling out our sovereignty to one-world globalists, when it would be necessary to remove that administration from power, or for a contingent of states to secede and set up a separate goverment. THAT'S how strongly I advocate Freedom of Speech.

And in case anyone feels inclined to report what I just said to the DOJ, let me just point out that advocating being able to advocate the violent overthrow of the governemnt, is not at all the same as advocating the violent overthrow of the government - although by Mr. Nader's logic (or more precisely, lack thereof), it might well be so regarded :)

Freedom of Speech includes the right to advocate any practice that may be illegal (all the way from smoking marijuana, to "eating dead people"). Marx and Engles should not have been prohibited from writing the Communist Manifesto; Hitler should not have been prevented from writing his own National Socialst manifesto, Mein Kampf". And even Mohammed should not have been prevented from writing what I personally regard to be the world's most evil book, the Koran.

benefit to society is not defined by me (or any other individual) it is the collective believes / culture of each society within the agreed frame work (i.e. laws and regulations of the general public). Benefit to humanity is once again not what I believe or ( what any individual believes), it is the globally agreed values

This is so fucking vague as to be meaningless. Different societies and cultures have many different, conflicting laws. There is no such thing as "globally agreed values". There are only wannabe dictators like Mr. Nader, who would love to be able to impose THEIR ideas of what is "globally agreed".

Take the biggest of all modern bugaboos, xenophobia, for example. I happen to like a planet of diverse societies, cultures, and nations. And I see "multiculturalism", that political movement which spawned the X-word as an epithet, to be the death of diversity, as the entire world gets homogenized into one unifrom, gray demographic mass. I'd like to see Europe, for example, remain a collection of lingusitically, racially, and culturally distinct countries, instead of continuing to follow their present course of being melted down into one huge, boring Eurabian continent, incapable of ever again producing the sublime art, music, and literature which they would not have been able to do had the Muslim invasion not been decisively repulsed 600 years ago.

Dear Richard
Thank you for making me points clear by not understing anything of what I wrote

1- Kill all handicap people (including animals) because they are a burden on humanity.
2- Use poor children as test specimen for pharmaceutical studies because the possibility of their having a good life is very small and possibility of becoming criminal are very high.
3- Use the body of dead people as animal food.

Like I said in me previous comment#29, If your answer to the above is yes then the article is not for you it is for human with minimum value of humanity.

Just to end,
A- So you thing equality, freedom, and respect of all human with no discrimination to color, believes, or nationalities, are not agreed global values? or you think as you wrote "fucking vague as to be meaningless"
B- You wrote "what I personally regard to be the world's most evil book, the Koran", kindly highlight to the reader which part of the Koran make you have such personal opinion about the book !!! ( see I never read the book and I like to learn from you)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I am fully in support of freedom of speech and freedom of actions as long as they are in the benefit of the society and humanity" Nader
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I apologies to other readers from diverting from constructive dialog with regards to freedom of speech

So you thing equality, freedom, and respect of all human with no discrimination to color, believes, or nationalities, are not agreed global values?

Well, you seem to want to discriminate against ME for my beliefs, implying that I am somehow less than human. And that's fine. I defend your right to discriminate in this, or in any other way you see fit. Discrimination is not a bad thing. To be discriminating is the defining characteristic of a rational intelligence. It just means the ability to make distinctions.

Now, are you going to reciprocate by allowing me my right to discriminate? Yes, there are ways in which I would like to see people discriminated against based on color and nationality and religion. But the context is only with regard to immigration.

I think that all people and cultures are important and valuable to a truly diverse global society of nations. And as I have already made clear, the preservation of this diversity is incompatible with a multiculturalist approach, which will inexorably lead to all racial and cultural diversity being homogenized out of existence.

And by the way, "global agreement" pertains only to a very miniscule of clique of national and international bureaucrats. The vast majority of this world's down to earth and sound thinking inhabitants know very well that these phony posturers are full of shit.

I know that Muslims are perfectly capable of living within a "free" society, because those in my neighborhood manage to exist here in the US quite amiably with the NY Times & Washington Post, etc. without giving in to a desire to firebomb or kill those who make comments adverse to Islam, Mohammed, or themselves - although of course they're not happy about it; but like any civilized group, they protest, consider the source, and go their way. That you, Nader, feel compelled to argue that restraints against anybody who offends you in any way should be forcible, argues not that you are a good Muslim, but that (typical of Muslim countries, however) you have an infantile, severely overextended sense of macho authority and entitlement, convinced somehow that the world is required to walk on eggs around you and your opinions.

I am at a loss how to make sense of western culture senses of "freedom" to such as you, since it requires a mindset you do not possess, and are not likely to attain.

Richard, last time I checked, to be discriminating is not at all the same thing as to discriminate, which kind of undermines your carefully constructed point.

Similar logical flaws appear to undermine your other points. There is zero possibility of any kind of widespread homogenisation of cultural diversity. Europeans and Americans can barely agree about anything, let alone be committed to the same programme, so I struggle to see why you are so exercised about such an implausible notion.

Similarly, your final paragraph has had rather the same effect upon my brain as lsd did many years ago. How exactly you reached the position that the concepts of equality, freedom and respect for humankind pertain only to a "clique of national and international bureaucrats" and that a global majority considers people who believe that to be "phony posturers are full of shit" completely evades me frankly.

Chris, Sorry I didn't use more discrimination to diffentiate between the various concepts being addressed. "Freedom" was in the context of Nader's (and Anan's) idea of allowing only a qualified and censored version of freedom of speech. And "Equality" and respect for "humanity", are vague and abstract notions that were never attached to any concrete meaning in this discussion.

I should also discriminate between the U.S. and other countries. America is pretty much a lost cause :) as far as having any kind of ethnic identity. Being the great melting pot does, however give us an interesting cultural identity. I have a half Hispanic granddaughter, and a Dominican daugher-in-law who will give me grandchildren with some African ancestry. And I will not be showing any "discrimination" (i.e. favoritism) towards offspring issuing from other children who have chosen to marry Anglos.

For America at least, I do not favor discriminating on immigration based on color or ethnicity. That's part of our culture. But it's not part of the culture of European countries, upon whom America does not need to try and impose its own cultural notions and ideals.

I do however advocate keeping Muslims out of this country. I plead guilty to an extreme case of Islamophobia. Xenophobia is not a bad thing. In fact, fear of that which is strange is a very healthy thing. It is the equivalent, on a cultural level, of that survival mechanism known as pain.

If a race of strange creatures from another planet started invading, it would be natural to experience a certain amount of fear. However I would feel a lot safer with a bunch of green but benevolent aliens from out space, than I would with the modern Muslim invaders, whose official CAIR representatives have procalimed that they look forward to the day when "the Koran is the Supreme law of America", and "Islam is the only religion on earth."

um mohamed adel um mouslim islam is not againist free speach we mouslim are just definding islam & our profet mohamed & alquaran AND lets take an examble if any one "but not mouslim bec. it's banded" drew funny images of Alrasol ESA profit of copts (chrisians) what will be any cristian reflect action he will be mad AND um sure if he is real critian he will defend his religion AND I SWAIR WITH MY GOD i will be side to side with him definding his religion u know why bec. um mouslim and there is someone named Andy Marsh
that was talking soooo bad & rude to some named ahmed bec. he is definding islam i tell him where is free speach behave your self And educate your self before u talk about our profet or about mouslim i will not talk bad to any one bec, um mouslim u know free speach

"This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims," Imam Raed Hlayhel wrote in a statement."

Well then, move on.

I think it`s about time that muslim people get in touch with the real life.muslim people always wating do do somthing nasty and distroy peace,they seem to know alot much than everyone else ,demanding what others should believe in making nasty point`s about other religons,they try to make everything other than eslam look bad and discsting.muslim people it`s about time that you understand not only freedom of speech but to act like a human and understand what other people are trying to say and talk insted of kill

Of the things I learned in life is that "Freedom" (in general including freedom of speech) is limited by the freedom of others.

Of the sad stories is when someone takes sides in a case where he doesn't understand how the second side is built or works. Before judging anything, read about it without prior judgment, built your own opinion not that of an other, a little bit like food, when you say this is not nice its because you did taste it. In my opinion Anti-whatever is not a constructive way to built a society.

But no matter the case, if I respect and uphold the freedom of speach, then I must respect the freedom of others and their belief and that no matter which religion they belive in.

The sad story of Islam is that its not understood by many paries (including islamic extremist), as was christianity for the early romans, or judaism for Hilter or budaism for arabs.

In "Previous judgments", a joke i fell on can illustrate that in a funny way :

A man is taking a walk in Central park in New York. Suddenly he sees a little girl being attacked by a pit bull dog . He runs over and starts fighting with the dog. He succeeds in killing the dog and saving the girl's life.
A policeman who was watching the scene walks over and says: "You are a hero, tomorrow you can read it in all the newspapers: "Brave New Yorker saves the life of little girl"
The man says: - "But I am not a New Yorker!"
"Oh ,then it will say in newspapers in the morning: 'Brave American saves life of little girl'" - the policeman answers. "But I am not an American!" - says the man.
"Oh, what are you then?
" The man says: - "I am Saudi Muslim !"
The next day the newspapers says: "Islamic extremist kills innocent American dog.

A twisted figure for the freedom of speach !!!

I hate to say this Hisham. The Saudis and those thy have influenced with twisted Wahhabi theology have earned the reputation they have.

Hi guys. Well, all i want to say is live and let live. Though few things i would like to add being a muslim are that muslims played no role in any world wars or even suicide bombing could be traced in islamic history as islam completey stands against it. Though musims now stand mainly as third world citizens mainly due to their own mistakes but also because USA has supported every dictoter for its corporate interests with least respect for human life. I think its a shame that a open minded person like me believes more in taliban who captured white women of USA, treated them like sisters and let them go even after the war started as promised and the american media smartly made the story disappear. I dont think people like bush or american media has any morals or values. Bush is just a Killer who stands in a good suite and has no sense of leadership. As long as we have leaders like him, world will be one insecure place. Mind you they are in power and believe it or not they call all the shots and not some 17th century AL-Qaeda.

Dear Ruvy, Extremism, in my opinion always causes consequential damages. And Saudi's are paying the price because they had many bombing and other terrorist acts inside Saudi Arabia.

And, as you said, having earned this reputation because of the wahhabi theology doesn't mean all the Muslims are like that and should be considered as terrorists or killers or whatever...

There is more than one theology in Islam, I think the majority of those who takes side against Islam haven't taken the time to read even a proper introduction about this religion. In an overall view, one will find that in each religion there are good and evil. If the US bombed Hiroshima and Nakazaki and killed millions it doesn't mean that all the Americain people are terrorists. If pinnoche was a tyran it doesn't mean all south Americain's are and deserves to be treated in the lowest maner. I recall Hitler was a Christian, does it mean all the Christians are dictators ? If a boy takes a gun and fires at his school-mates does it mean his father is a killer?

But that is not the context here, where we are talking about freedom of speech. If a friend doesn't eat but Kosher food, i don't insult him in the name of freedom of speech. If someone prays in a Moske and i don't, this doesn't give me the right to make fun of how he stands or what he does because I don't agree with him.

"Freedom of speech" !!! In its name anything can be said !!! Viva the new civilized world !!! If I am to believe that this context is true, then I give the terrorist a legitim status, because, for them, bombing is their way of dialogue ! its their way to express what they have to say and at the end its their "freedom of speech"...

If in Islam picturing the Prophet is forbiden, why on earth can't I have the guts to respect their wish, and be civilized enough not to do it. What is the difference between A guy who insults a religion (whatever this religion is) and someone who insults the Pope because he doesn't believe in him, or someone bombing the subways in england ? None for my belief. they are all extremists and on the wrong track. If someone steals or kills, does it mean I should procecute all his family? If the wahhaby's are the ones who cause this (and on a level I do not agree with this) does it mean I am to kill every Muslim in the world? Will I not be in that case what I'm saying they are?

Come on friends, we are all humans, and smarter than that, we see things deeper then they appear, we can read between the lines and we don't rush for judgment, we are not superficials, it is why respecting each other (on all levels), is the essence of any civilized dialogue.

Hisham, you are the first Moslem commenting to grant that there are several streams of thought within Islam. You are ablsoutely right, of course.

The problem is that the Wahhabi have hijacked much of Islam in the west with the oil money they have gotten from the tripling of oil prices in 1973. It didn't all go to buy prostitutes for Saudi princes or limousines or to health care.

And that Wahhabi message - the arrogant message that the entire world must become Moslem and there is no room for tolerance of Christians and Jews even - something specifically stated in the Qur'an - this is what the Danes and Norewegians and others are reacting to. That is what I'm talking about.

The Wahhabi have smeared your honor as a Moslem - a man who seeks perfection through submission to Allah - before the world.

We Jews have a big enough of our own mess to clean up in our own house. The Wahhabi are the mess that you Moslems must clean up. It is costing you.

Hi ruvy, i hope peace finds it way. You are right, it is mess for sure. Communication is so important to understand each other and our respective problems. I hope we learn to understand and respect each other more. No hard feelings.

At comment #18, I wrote:

Finally, if you are truly offended, organize your friends to boycott the paper through advertising, etc. Crown Prince Abdullah threatened to pull Saudi investments from the United States because American newsmen kept talking about the danger of Wahhabi Islam. While the newsmen were right, American executives were worried about their bottom lines and talked instead about Islamic terror. Perhaps your leaders should consider pulling their money out of Denmark. It strikes me that Danish executives should be about as courageous as American ones...

Well, the Danish paper apologized...

Ruvy exits, watching the bean counters at the paper counting the Danish crowns...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Me respect to the Danish newspaper which apologies today to Muslim for insulting prophet Mohammed. It demonstrate an understanding of freedom of speech with care to the freedom & respect of others.

Just like every game has laws and regulations in order to be a fair game to play, every country has laws and regulation in order to be fair toward their citizen and others. If some don't like the laws and regulation he is free to move , protest , or look for alternative changes as long as he respect the choice and the freedom of others.

When Europe & America open their doors for immigrant and other looking for better life , they guaranty freedom of speech, freedom of religion/ believes, freedom of choice. Insulting one believes / religion I don't think was part of the above. Therefore when freedom of speech where practiced by those insulting the prophet Mohamed , the Muslim in Europe & America ( being native or immigrant ) practiced their right of protesting in line of the guaranteed freedom of believes.

In me opinion, Freedom of speech should have laws and regulations ( not necessary written , but within the global agreed human values) to make it a fair game for every one to play other wise it will be barbaric.

In the process of artistic creativity or thought stimulation , one can ( and in me opinion should) discuses any idea, thought , or opinion. In order to reach to some kind of conclusion that can be presented within the frame work agreed by society. But to be prejudices from the beginning toward a religion and then justifying it as freedom of speech does not help anyone (unless there is a hidden agenda or it is a childish play ).

Note : Dear Nancy I like your statement "you have an infantile, severely overextended sense of macho authority and entitlement, convinced somehow that the world is required to walk on eggs around you and your opinions." Even though I think it is load of BS. I sincerely hope that you don't always finalize your judgment on people based on a couple of short articles.

Thank you. I try not to, but I'd be a liar if I didn't plead 'guilty' to doing it sometimes. My statement was based on the observation of several local muslim males of varying ages I know who act like little kids that have been badly spoiled by mommy, grandma, and all the women in their families, and they expect the rest of the world to spoil them in the same way. After the elections in Palestine yesterday, it seemed to me also that the reactions of the losers - the Fatah party - were also of the same 'spoiled brat syndrome', except those throwing tantrums are using guns.

Actually, it occurred to me that perhaps the US Democratic party would be in better shape if maybe when they lost the elections in 2000 or 2004 they took to the streets with guns, etc. like the Palestinians, but on reflection, that wouldn't have gone over very well here in the US. The cultures are too different, and the laws, I guess.

BTW - you write very good English. I wish I had a smattering of Arabic or any other language for that matter, that was as well written. My respects. It can't be easy.

Ruvy, Your telling me all the Oil money is going into prostitution, limousines, or what?

Just as a reminder to all, 1 whole barrel of Oil does not cost more than a small 50ml of perfum. The total money made from the Oil does not match what is made by one company on wall street in NY. And for prostitution, it was not, to my knowledge, a king or a president from the arab world caught with monica lewinsky!?

Most of what you see now is a consequential nature of decisions taken by western government in the past 200 years. Wasn't UK and France the ones that drew the map of the countries in the ME? wasn't the US who created Ben Laden and financed him to act against the communists? Wasn't the westerns (US) who protected Sadam and sold him (France) the Atomic reactor and then gave (France & UK) the plans to Israel to bomb it? Wasn't the westerns that protected the wahhabies because they've created good relations with them to secure their Oil deals in the region?

All the monies made through Oil does not match what was given to extremist by the westerns through their companies and through the taxes to secure their positions and protect their interests at the detriment of the locals and their lives. It is not the wahhabies mess to my eyes, it is the western's mess and they are picking up what they have done, but unfortunatly Islam is paying the price. Unfortunatly the whole world is picking up the price, but its easy to point it at someone else rather than for these westerns to say its their mistake and they want to help cleaning it.

When I mentionned that everybody takes side against Islam without even bothering reading its Holy book, I ment it. There is not a single versus in the Koran that says we can't live with jews or christians. These are only allegations. On the contrary you will find that it is imperative for the Muslims to uphold and protect any party living in their country if this party is not from the same religion. What is happening in the world now is not related to true islamic beliefs not by any means. The norvegians and Danish are not acting against what you pointed, they have been mislead by the media. And if I assume that they did, haven't they become as bad as the muslims you're refering to?

On another ground, the wahhabies haven't smeared my honor as a Muslim. My honor as a muslim lies somewhere else, it is between me and God. They have their deeds and I have mine, and not all the wahhabies are like what you are trying to implore. If I was to say that the honor of all US presidents was smeared because of what clinton did will that be true? Or the honor of all jews have been smeared because Igor Ameer killed their former prime minister in public?

Unfortunatly and in general, I think the world is moving into a new era, where it was at a time only anti-judaism, is now becoming anti-judaism and anti-islamic. Do we as humans always have to have something to hate?

And for Nancy, don't think that we Muslims fancy what the palestinians are doing with guns after what happened in the last election. I believe (everybody I know have the same opinion) it is totally wrong, and against all my belief, but then again all of this is out of the contexte, as we should be discussing freedom of speech!

PS. sorry for my english, I'm a french lawyer, and i'm doing my best.

Dear,
Although that Islam and Muslims respect all religions and the means of media of Islamic countries did not contempt any religion.
( revile not ye those whom they call upon besides god *lest they out of spite revile god in their ignorance thus have we made Alluring to each people its own doings In the end will they return to their lord And we shall then Tell them the truth of all that they did )
the holy quran -Anam (cattle)-NO*108
The Danish newspapers exposed to Islam and Prophet Mohammed in insolent and sarcasm method. So that Muslims are very offended. We protesting and claiming to stop these newspapers also we claiming to apologize immediately.

only way for freedom and clash with islamic terrorists is iran.

iran was the first country that arabs attack her.

please go to bush2005.blogfa.com

hi!

if muslims apologize for the deads killed by muslim terrorists the newspaper should apologize for the insults. no major-muslim country in the world is totally free for other religions, so why should europe take care for muslim fellings? i have good friends from sudan who had to leave their country due to muslim terror towards other religions. muslims only say they are tolerant until they are in the majority and then the others mostly are f***ed.


can somebody please give an URL of the caricature mentioned? i can´t find it, it seems most search engines have removed it.


now we´re so far that extremists tell us what to read and what not to. and they wanna make the measures where freedom of speech starts and ends. it ´s cynical. in my home country there´s a proverb:
to make a sheep a gardener. in the end there are no flowers left... that´s the same as giving muslims power over freedom of speech!

that´s also freedom of speech!

Hisham: "And for prostitution, it was not, to my knowledge, a king or a president from the arab world caught with monica lewinsky!?"

Hey, wait a minute! That Lewinski thing had nothing to do with prostitution. I hate to defend that churl Clinton - I'm not a fan of his, but I am a fan of consensual sex.

You are Shit
because you didn't respect the others
even Jesus christ

Hisham,

First of all, if I had as much French or as much Arabic as you had English, I could make a very good living here. So please do not apologize for any lapses in English. I see some French orthography in your writing and that makes what you say even clearer. I apologize for my spelling errors. I haven't figured out how to use the spell checker on this technology and have to depend on less a than perfect ability to spot my own typing errors.

Second, you would be surprised at how many things you and I agree upon. If we could sit down over a cup of tea, you'd find someone with a similar world view in many ways.

Let's clear up the issue of personal honor, so you do not misunderstand what I've said. I only stretch out my hand in friendship, so please view my words in that light.

Naturally, your position with Allah does not depend upon what this or that terrorist does or doesn't do. It depends upon what you do. It is those deeds and your faith in the Merciful One that make you a good Moslem, a man seeking perfection through submission to Allah.

But let us say that Monica Lewinsky, instead of kneeling at the zipper of Bill Clinton, had blown up the white house or the buildings of congress or had done some other terrorist act that cost many hundreds of lives. Do you realize how enraged Americans would be against Jews? Do you realize how they would view us? We would be trash in their eyes - less than trash - and they would let us know about it in many many ways. Forget freedom of speech. My relatives in America wouldn't even have the freedom to walk out of the house!

There would be many many voices there advocating toleration - saying that just because one Jew killed off several hundred Americans, not all Jews are killers. But from that point on, many Americans would no longer identify Jews as fellow Americans. Americans are a good people, by and large. But goodness and toleration only go so far and no further.

Every Jew who lives in exile comprehends what I've just told you. After 2,000 years in exile, this understanding has become assimilated into Jewish culture and is part of the unspoken message passed from parent to child, done without either parents or children realizing it.

Let's get back to the Jew who theoretically killed off several hundred Americans in a terror attack. Her relations with G-d would have been affected. But those of my relatives would not have been - at least not by the action of the Jewish terrorist. But the act of that terrorist would have colored their relationship with their neighbors. Their neighbors, if they were friendly, but honest, would say that their honor as Jews had been smeared by the terrorist. Imagine if there were several terrorist acts perpetrated in the US by Jews...

You are not less of a decent man because Al Qaeda or a branch of it blows up a subway or train station in Madrid or London. But in the eyes of a German or a Dane or Swede, he might brush you with the same evil that he brushes the terrorists - even though it is undeserved.

Hopefully you now comprehend the meaning of my words. Wahhabi terorists have stained your image (and the image of many millions of decent people like you) before the world as a good Moslem. More to the point, they have stained the honor of Islam as well.

I hope this analogy is clear to you.

"Most of what you see now is a consequential nature of decisions taken by western government in the past 200 years."

You and I agree almost 100% on the entire third paragraph you wrote. It was the Bush family that financed ibn Saud originally in the 1920's through the Union Bank. But the Americans did not have to "create" Osama bin Laden. The bin Ladens are a rich family. Because of this, Osama had "entrée" to people who could supply him with arms. At first these were Americans. Osama bin Laden could have gotten better arms from Israelis, but I think you see the problem...

Also, the disagreements between the various factions among the Saudi rich families (sub clans) often take the form of terror attacks in Arabia. In other words, that is how they communicate when they get good and mad at each other and they have gotten beyond screaming, banging their fists on the table and slamming doors.

From my own point of view, but for the interference of the British and the French, there would now be peace in the Middle East - a Jewish state on the land the Merciful One alloted to us, and a prosperous Arab state, perhaps even ruled by a Khalif, stretching from the Jordan in the west to the mountains of Iran and the Gulf in the east, from the Caucasus in the north, to Yemen in the south. We would be partners in the world instead of adversaries. The basis for this vision had already been laid in the agreement of 1919 between Feisal, Sherif of Mecca and Medina, and Haim Weitzman. The colonial powers of Europe destroyed this vision of peace and prosperity and now, joined by America, profit off the tears of our women as the children die. For this sin against all the sons of Abraham, G-d will hold them accountable, and they will pay. In fact, the Americans are already paying in Iraq.

"...all the Oil money is going into prostitution, limousines, or what?

Just as a reminder to all, 1 whole barrel of Oil does not cost more than a small 50ml of perfum. The total money made from the Oil does not match what is made by one company on wall street in NY."

If I understand my economics corectly, most of the money being made off of oil is going into those Wall Street firms, Hisham. The Americn OIL & BANKING ESTABLISHMENT makes a lot of its money off of Arab oil. The Arabs "own" the firm, and the Americans manage it. The cut that the Arab states got off the oil revenue may not have significantly changed, but the prices are high enough to give them serious amounts of money.

Before the tripling of oil prices in 1973, Saudi princes would go to London to play around with prostitutes and fast cars. After the serious oil money came in, they initiated serious business. They set up health care systems, schools etc. They invested their money in madrassas world wide, in faculty seats in universities, in Middle Eastern Studies Faculties, all to teach "their" Wahhabi point of view of Islam, and to spread in myriads of ways, their message. Al this is in addition to buying plenty of arms to have a modern air force, a missile shield to protect against Israel, etc.

You are right about the Qur'an not being anti-Jewish. According to my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, a good Moslem seeks to live in peace where there is peace, and all those who worship one G-d need not fear for their security in a Moslem land, so long as they recognize the superiority of Islam there and pay a special tax.

It is also my understanding from Dr. Asher Eder of Jerusalem, that the Qur'an recogizes that we are to rule the land of Israel and that in the End of Days when we return to our land, you Moslems are going to help us rebuild it.

But the Wahhabis have gone against all of this. They, with American help, overthrew the Sherif of Mecca and Medina, and preach hatred of all non-Moslems through their wings, the Moslem Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. According to Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi of Rome, the roots of the Taliban are in a north Indian sect of Moslems who worshipped in the Sufi manner but believed like the Wahhabis.

The Mufti of Jerusalem in the days of British rule drew his inspiration from the Moslem Brotherhood, fled to the side of Adolf Hitler and reportedly pushed the idea of killing Jews when Hitler saw he could not deport them, his original plan. The Mufti even visited Auschwitz a couple of times to check on the progress.

So the Egyptian and Arab press are filled with Jew-hatred, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is a good solid seller in Arabic bookstores. And now a political group dedicated to the destruction of 5½ million Jews living in the Land of Israel have been elected by people desperate to rid themselves of the criminal elements of Fatah. None of this bodes well for peace between the children of Abraham.

So, the former colonial powers and America interfere in our lives, using Arabs as a hammer to beat on Jews, and the Wahhabi terrorists try to get out from being a hammer to being the hand and the hammer. This will not bring peace - only more death.

The time is long overdue to ditch forever the colonial powers of Europe and America and to understand that together, Jews and Arabs, the sons of Abraham, can create a powerful force in the world for prosperity, for environmental cleansing and for the betterment of all of mankind - even for Europe and America.

If we can do this, maybe we can inspire the Indians and Pakistanis to live in harmony as they ought to have with the exit of Britain from their horizon.

If we can bring peace, and inspire it elsewhere, we will hasten the Redemption that the Qur'an and the Hebrew Bible promise your people and mine, and perhaps escape sone of the very scary prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. The Merciful One waits for us to act. Until the Redemption, the initiative to do good remains in our hands.

We can put aside the stupid cartoons of newspapers and do the real business of the world - its repair.

Hisham - thanks for giving Ruvy an opportunity to post positive sentiments

and Ruvy - had I not broken a couple of fingers plying my trade I would spend more time praising your last comment

a peaceful 'middle-east' is in the best interest of all

troll

After your religions bring peace and prosperity THEN you should tell us about the wonders of your religions. But until then, keep it to yourself.

When writers in Europe challenge the claims of extent of WW2s Gas chambers used to exterminate Jews in camps is that considered freedom of speech?

Scientist Germar Rudolf was jailed in Germany for just that. Freedom of the press?

David Irving jailed in Austria for religious racism (He published work considered to be antisemitic)

Publishers as well have paid fines for publishing works considered to be anti-semitic.

Yet when someone stereotypes the Islamic faith, and hundreds of millions are offended and muslim minorities in major european cities feel helpless in being ridiculed it is not antisemitic or antiislamic but freedom of the press. Funny how stereotypes can distort the what is right & wrong to people so easily.

When writers in Europe challenge the claims of extent of WW2s Gas chambers used to exterminate Jews in camps is that considered freedom of speech?

Jews should not get special immunities from negative remarks any more than Muslims should, or Christians for that matter. Nobody gets thrown in jail for ridiculing the Pope, or Jesus Christ. Likewise nobody should be punished for ridiculing Mohammed.

IK,

Laws banning anti-Jewish remarks ought to be seen in context.

Europe is a Jewish graveyard. It's soil has been reddened by blood from the murder of many thousands and millions of Jews over the last millennium or so.

The laws you mention are a product of guilt and the belated recognition that hatred spoken begets hatred done.

When the soil of Europe has been reddened with the blood of millions of Moslems, perhaps then they will pass laws forbidding negative depiction of Moslems. Until then the hatred spoken goes on. Check the pages of Al Ahram.

Ruvy, I'm Jewish, and in the America in which I live, the vast majority of people would not begin hating Jews in the scenario you've imagined.

Question: does Hamas specifically demonstrate the influence of Nazi ideology?

Here's the conclusion of a Hamas statement from today's L.A. times (sorry, no link, because the site keeps making my browser crash; check the op-eds for the 1st):

"Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us -- our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognize the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem.

But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice."

To my eyes this does not necessarily seem radically different in practical terms from Fatah, which is not exactly a stranger to terrorism - and I understand that Hamas has been more effective that Fatah at maintaining a truce recently. My greatest concern is when/if there will be another election; there is supposed to be one every 4 years; the last was 10 years ago. If Hamas can keep a truce (likely, I think), and if they allow elections again (big question mark), then I am optimistic.

And one more thing, I thought the reaction over at obsidian wings was very wise. As always, I encourage Blogcritics readers to, for God's sake, look at other blogs.

...even if, on second look, they're a lot more pessimistic than I.

Godoggo,

I took a look at Obsidian Wings. It was interesting and awful detailed, but I wonder how many of their writers have to deal with up close and personal, like I do. I left a brief comment there as well.

I've also lived in America for many years. Maybe I'm a tad more suspicious of the people there, but if Jews engaged in a series of terror attacks there, you would feel less welcome than you do now. This was the point I wanted to make to Hisham.

He hasn't answered yet. As to the differences between Hamas and Fatah they are many. One is that the Shaba"k here had many ties with Fatah under the table. A second is that a number of Israeli politicians had deals going with Fatah politicians that involved theft from both treasuries. When you do extensive searches on names like Martin Schlaff, Yossi Ginosar, Dov Weissglass, Yasser Arafat, etc, you start to see the web of corruption that has spread here.

Fatah got booted out and deserved it richly. This is why the Americans and Europeans are so hopping mad. They want Arabs they can control.

our God will take the revenge from Denmark
and from any one who insults the great prophet mohamed

@ khaled:

*lol*

and so you´re the tool he´ll use i guess, right!?

some people just can´t stand the truth, that´s why they´re that furious about some harmless cartoons.

just go on feeding your camels, khaled

Khaled: "our God will take the revenge from Denmark"

Are you saying your god is subject to the same vice, vengeance, as mere man? Does he have the same weaknesses? Or are you telling god to wreak vengeance, which would be a heresy?

ethical shame christian

HONESTLY U GUYZDON'T KNOW DAMN THING BOUT FREEDOOM.EVERYBODY KNOWS usa IS THE LAND OF FREEDOME AND STILL NO ONE HERE CAN TALK BOUT NO BODIES RELIGION CUZ EVERYTHING HAS A LIMIT, BUT SINCE U GUYZ ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE IN THIS EARTH, U TRIED TO SHOW PPL THA U HAVE A FREEDOOM COUNTRY AS UR DAMB ASS MINESTER SAID, BUT U PROVE TO EVERYONE U DON'T KNOW W DAMN THING BOUT FREEDOOM OR WHAT EVER. NEXT TIME U GUYZ WELL TRY TO TALK BOUT FREEDOOM OR ANYTHING THA HAS TO DO WITH IT I THINK U SHOULD DO UR HOMEWORK, AND LEARN THE TRUTH MEANING OF FREEMDOOM..

It is difficult for me to blame anyone as i am yet to find perfection in any society including mine. But as a muslim, i must add that suicide is completely forbidden in Islam, but it is sad that Palestanians have been deprived of Justice for years due to ignorance by both muslims and non-muslims so the only resort they see in redemption is suicide bombing. As for the cartoons, even at the time of Prophet Muhammad {P.B.U.H} when people made fun of him, he was always tolerant and forgiving. A very calm prophet indeed. Such is the difference between civilization against Immaturity.

if muslims feels so offended about what the western do, why do muslims leave the western countries and go back in the saudi arabia. there at it will be better for them as you have all the rules as per islamic law.

I AM FROM CANADA. THREE CHEERS TO DENMARK. I VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE DANISH GOVERNMENT AND HER STRENGTH IN THE FACE OF THOSE WHO WOULD BIND HER WITH EVIL THREATS AND THOSE WHO WISH TO BURY HER INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISITC HEART. KUDOS TO THE DANES, AND APPLAUSE TO HER BRAVE PRINT MEDIA AND MUCH SUPPORT TO HER WELFARE. SHE DOES FREEDOM PROUD.

Dear lidi,
did u say artistic?, well i wish if they can get all the facts right about islam then publish the cartoons. Till that time i will just call them ignorant, secondly these reactions are important because god knows what next cartoon they can come up. God forbids they might start to mock God as well and who knows what coming next.

Muslim: "i wonder how the Christians or Buddists would feel if a caricature was placed for Jesus or Budda? is it okay if these religious figured were ridiculed and made fun of?"


Muslim, have you been living in a cave (with Osama, perhaps?) for since the late '70s? Since then, Christianity has been poked fun at several times, blasphemously: "The Tempation of Christ," the Piss Christ artwork, gay Jesus characters in plays, etc. I once saw a cartoon drawing of Jesus as a pot-smoking hippy. As infantile as these actions are and as offended as I am by them, I nevertheless support them. Why? It's freedom of speech and expression which you can never put a price on, that's why.

And you have balls to talk, muslim. Your people put grossly exaggerated, derogatory caricatures of Jews in your newspapers regularly. You and yours certainly seem to support freedom of expression when it suits you. Problem is, your "freedom" is always a one-way street.

Were the Jyllands-Posten's cartoons stupid? Yes they were! But did the Danes have every right in the world to promote and publish them. Yes they did!

Lidi: "THREE CHEERS TO DENMARK ... SHE DOES FREEDOM PROUD."

No question. It's refreshing to see any European country having the cojones to stick by civilized Western principles. Go Denmark, go Europe!

Abdul: "i must add that suicide is completely forbidden in Islam, but it is sad that Palestanians have been deprived of Justice for years due to ignorance by both muslims and non-muslims so the only resort they see in redemption is suicide bombing."

Adbul, you been partaking of the Kool-Aid lately? The Palestinians had the opportunity, in their freest, most democratic election ever, to endorse peace. They could have had it all - security, an American (and European) endorsed state of their own, free trade, etc. - as President Bush vowed if they voted responsibly. What did they do instead? They gave Hamas an overwhelming parliamentary majority. Nice job, people! And don't give me this crapola about Hamas shaking off its terrorist image. Bull - their charter is still full of deadly language. The problem with the Palestinians is that they continue to operate with this disgusting victim mindset and still think the world owes them a living. I no longer have any shred of sympathy for them at all, they've proven themselves moral cowards above and beyond what was thought possible. And it's no wonder that they're currently the squeakiest wheels in the Muslim world over the Danish cartoon controversy.

By the way, American blacks were desperate for inclusion and justice as well. Did they ever blow people up, were they ever driven to suicide bombing? No they didn't and weren't. They were mature about demanding their civil rights. Which is a lot more than be said for crybaby Palestinians.

and that the leaders of the US don't stand up for free speech 1st over religious kiss assing means that while 'chickenha*k' might be a stretch 'chickenshit' absolutely applies

troll

i cant remember who said "how would we feel if a cartoon was dran up about Jesus?" well guess what, it has been and i have seen it. The thorns on jesus's head that are a symbol of torture and pain were depicked as marijuana leaves, and the title of the picture said " Jesus was a hippy." i looked at it and smiled. I know as well as every other christian that is not true, but it was a joke. Being respectful means deep down inside you have nothing but love and admiration. I love my religion and will die for christianity anyday anytime. In the American constitution, free speech is a right. Countries, culturies, ethnicities, etc were all formed becuase of FREEDOM of speech. I have had my cross ripped off my neck simply because i am christian. Do i hate ISALM for doing that? Hell No. I hate the people who did that. We are humans, not everyone agrees with everyone else. If we were to to go around and fight everytime someone voices their opinions, we would be at war everyday. Guess what we are. America and most if not all western countries have mosques and places for worshiping all over, saudi arabia forbids churches. We did not start a world delema.

I think this reaction to the cartoons is infantile.Muslim world should grow up and learn to take criticism

It's been three days now since I offered the hand of peace to Hisham. I was deadly serious in that offer. So far, I hear only silence. But, I haven't checked my e-mails yet.

I noticed that too Ruvy

troll

im sorry to say that reading ur comments make me laugh. u are all a bunch of ignorant arogant bunch of people. in islam, it is forbidden to depict the prophet...we as muslims choose to follow that belief. any europeans or people with different beliefs should just stick their tounges back in their mouthes, and the pencil they use to sketch such disrespectful cartoons back in their sad little pencil cases and shut the hell up. this is our religion...we respect it, so dont u come around disrespecting it. we will live wherever the hell we wish, be it europe or anywhere else. freedom of speech is acceptible, but there is a very thin line, and the danes have crossed it. and about the negative depictions of any other religious figure...well its not the muslims' fault that u dont stand up to what u believe, if u ever found a depiction of ur religious figure offensive, why didnt u stand up for u belief. WE AS MUSLIMS WILL VOICE OUT OUR FEELING. and i would like to add one more thing...to any muslims, arabs, or anyone who believes the publication of the cartoons has crossed the line...BOYCOTT DENMARK!

boycott - fine...but riot - ?

any excuse for a party I guess

troll

troll, u think we like boycotting anyone or any country. we just have to stand up for what we believe. the danes are making it a point that they think our reaction is uncalled for and that our beliefs mean shit to them. im not saying all muslims want to kill those who published the cartoons...im just saying we need to be respected.

freedom of speech is acceptible, but there is a very thin line, and the danes have crossed it.

In opther words, freedom of speech is acceptible, except where you muslims say it isn't!

there is a very thin line, and the danes have crossed it.

It is Islam that crossed the fuckin' line when muslims decided to go beyond boycotting and started calling for governments to go back on 1000 years of civilized progress, and make freedom of expression a crime. Peaceful boycotting is your right, just as much as it was Jyllands' right to publish the cartoons. But you've gone way too far now.

Nevertheless I'm glad you muslims are showing the true ugly face of your religion at this point in history. You have given an important wake-up call to Europe, and it comes at a time when there aren't yet so many of you in those countries, that they can't kick your asses out before your Islamicization aspirations result in the destruction of Western Civilization in that part of the world.

the danes are making it a point that they think our reaction is uncalled for and that our beliefs mean shit to them. im not saying all muslims want to kill those who published the cartoons...im just saying we need to be respected.

What you need is to get a little SELF respect, so that you don't let other people's disrespect get to you. You're NEVER going to stifle the Western freedom to be able to criticize your religion, make fun of your "prophet", and in general just flip you off and say "Your beliefs don't mean shit to us." Because they really DON'T. And we find them disgusting when they attack those precious liberties that form the very foundation of our hard won, post-Dark-Ages, free and secular way of life.

Comments editor:

Isn't the above (#91) along the lines of a personal attack? These comments strike me as more than a bit below the belt.

Ruvy (concerning your suggestion that my comment should be deleted):

I was responding to a post (#88) that contained, among other things, the following:

u are all a ignorant arogant bunch of people.

and

any people with different beliefs [than muslims] should just stick their tounges back in their mouthes ... and shut the hell up.

I submit that this was a considerably more "personal" attack than anything I said. I even granted that the muslim boycott against Denmark was perfectly acceptable. And I did not make derogatory comments about persons, only about an ideology.

I didn't respond in kind by accusing muslims of being ignorant and arrogant. And I didn't say that they should keep their mouths shut. I grant to them the same right to speak freely and derogatorially about the Western ideal of Freedom of the Press, that I expect THEM to grant to me to speak derogatorially about THEIR ideals and beliefs! But no. It's always a one-sided standard with them. They're perfectly justified to say anything they want to negative about Western ideals, but non-muslims are not to be permitted to say what they might want to say negative about Islam.

You must have regarded my post (#91) as being worse than post #88, otherwise you would have complained to the comments editor about IT instead of about mine. Are you just anti-non-Semitic, or something - wanting to side with your Ishmaelite brethren against the children of Japheth.

For those who hate islam and the Moslems;I Don't care what U said or done,heaven belongs to the Moslems.NO ONE ELSE!!

For those who hate islam and the Moslems;I Don't care what U said or done,heaven belongs to the Moslems.NO ONE ELSE!!

Well, I guess this isn't directed against me. For while I DO hate Islam, I don't hate any individual Moslems, not even Osama bin Laden. I do think it would be very nice for this world, though, if you all decided at once to go to that heaven you think exclusively belongs to you, enjoy all the virgins you dream of deflowering, and leave this third planet from the Sun to live in peace.

I dont know Zaki, i think u got it all wrong hell is reserved for murderers and rapists, whether they be christian or moslem and heaven is for those turn the other cheek... this is all so infantile...lets deal with hunger or some real problem. i beleave christ would not be too happy about how this world has become, or mohammed either, or who ever! No one has a ticket to heaven based on some religion's membership card. does common sense mean anything. And whats wrong with drawing a man wearing a lit missle on his head when his mission in life seems bent on destroying my way of life as a westerner...Americans aint flying airliners into buildings

richard, you don't understand islam

richard! if you dont understand the terms of a free speach its not our probleme (this is not a free speach this is a cheeky speach) beeing european doesnt give u the right to provoke other ppl under the name of free speach in a civilzed country no its not. we could never pess such things. thats mean that we have a lake in civilization? should i go swear and mock ppl to be civilized? u have every right to critize islam by words and we have right to defend also same way so in the end we could eventually meet but this kind of press only provoke ppl and i think this is not civilized and i dont belive that any cristian would smile about a cartoon that humiliate jesus if something like this happen in here in egypt all the cristian will protest and god only know what will happen to the publisher even he will be doomed from muslims though they r the minority n i think no real muslim could do such thing because we belive in jesus(as a prophet oc)

Richard,

The comments editor must have deleted the comment 91 I was talking about. It was short and nasty, unlike the comment 91 that now appears. And it was a very perosnal attack against a particular inidiviual (albeit not me). Please dismiss my comment. It was not aimed at you or what you wrote at all.

Hello again, well I've been in away for the past 3 days its why i didn't reply earlier Ruvy.

I've checked most of the comments written and to tell you truth, the majority was superficial and shallow. Your comments I enjoyed reading, in fact, I have two close Jewish friends in France, one of them is from the US, and we agree on many levels about a lot of things happening in that world. It seems you are close in thinking to what we are. My French Jewish friend told me once about civilization: that without knowing it, Europe is civilized because they are executing Islamic rules, and that the Arabs are so lost because they are not and away from their religion. I pretty much agree with him. Freedom of speech, Democracy, Women rights, forgiveness, even classy etiquettes and a lot of other things can be found in the Holy Koran if understood properly. Unfortunately, most of the Muslims reads it, but do not understand it, and if they do, they do not abide to it. That is somehow my opinion.

One European (Famous but I will refrain from telling the name) which converted to Islam in Europe made a trip to an Islamic country (also I will not say which one). When he returned back to Europe, his only comment was "Thanks God I met Islam before I meet the Muslims". Unfortunately it is again the sad story Islam is facing!!!

But in all cases, I do not think that mocking the Christ or Mohammed(s) or Abraham or any other prophet is to be allowed, even if it happened it doesn't mean it is right or should be allowed; thievery, murdering, raping are happening daily in the world, it doesn't mean its ok for them to happen and we should accept them as is because they are a fact and part of our lives!!!

I am not asking the westerns to respect what I believe in (for exemple that the prophet should not be draw or whatever) but i'm calling them to respect their fundamental rights and system where it says freedom of speech in a full system, the unlimited power given to the President of a state or King is always limited by the one given to other entities (senetate - parliament for exemple), and if its not, there is always a court of law that can limit someone missusing his freedom of whatever including that of speech.

So please do not missunderstand what is the real meaning of freedom of speech.

That is why, I will stick to my belief that the freedom of speech reaches its perfection when it is used in a context where its part of a full system in harmony with other fundamental rights. The limit of my freedom is set out by the freedom of others. That if respected in my opinion, a peaceful solution can be reached.

And your peace is accepted my dear Ruvy, if it is in that context which I believe it is. There should be more like you in that world.

Two last things I would pretty much want to say, first that heaven belongs to GOD and he is the one who decides who goes in and who doesn't. And second to all please read comment #76 about tolerence in the time of the prophet(s).

comment #92 said: "What you need is to get a little SELF respect, so that you don't let other people's disrespect get to you. You're NEVER going to stifle the Western freedom to be able to criticize your religion, make fun of your "prophet", and in general just flip you off and say "Your beliefs don't mean shit to us." Because they really DON'T. And we find them disgusting when they attack those precious liberties that form the very foundation of our hard won, post-Dark-Ages, free and secular way of life."

stifle what exactly? we dont want to repress anyones beliefs or feelings. im just saying that when it comes to religion, islam, christianity, judaism or any other religion it is important that people understand that even if they dont follow a certain religion, they should respect it. this is how discrimination is brought into our life. ur so aggressive and refuse to listen or understand anything..."flip us off"? thats plain sad. i would much rather u present a meanigful argument.

i would like to point out that as a muslim, i know that there are extremists in my religion. but there are extremists in other religions too. we should not generalize. for example i think that a certain president of a certain powerful country is an idiot...that does not mean that i think all people from that country are idiots. those who think that islam is a cruel and ancient religion that likes wars, and deaths and all these things that u have come to believe, i urge you to read some books, watch a few documentaries or come visit an islamic country. richard, although i find ur attacks very offensive, im extending an invitation for u to come to egypt. learn about a country or religion before u attack it.

If I said you had no sense of humor but what I said wasn't actually funny is that really a fair criticism or am I just picking a fight?


If this is about freedom of expression, how about the newspapers print cartoons offensive to other religions?

selma,

I respect your Freedom of Speech to say whatever disrespectful, hateful, derogatory, insulting things you want to about my President, George Bush, like you just did:

i think that a certain president of a certain powerful country is an idiot

And you don't have to be so oblique about it! Hell, I think he's an idiot too (but probably for quite different reasons than yours.)

The fundamental, irreconcilable difference between you and me is that I do not draw a distinction, as far as the Freedoms of Speech, Expression, and Press are concerned, between the two pinciple kinds of ideologies there are in this world - namely political and religious. And that's not just a difference between me and you, it is an unbridgeable gulf separating Western Civilization from Islam.

Just as we enjoy the Freedom to ridicule politicans and political Parties that we don't agree with, and to poke fun at them with drawn charicatures as well as with vocal expression, so we also enjoy that same Freedom to ridicule and poke fun at religions and THEIR leaders.

Read here about a video cartoon in which Pope Benedict is shown repeatedly marching up to a statue of the virgin Mary and saluting her nazi-style, with a "Heil Mary"

http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=40032

The article talks about the crucial importance of Satire in free societies. In response to this little production, offended Catholics - who venerate Mary as much muslims venerate Mohammed (pbuh) - were able to exercise their own Freedom of Speech to condemn and complain about it. But there were no death threats issued, and no calls for punishments, nor for starting in on the sippery slope toward tyranny, by having the government begin placing certain sacrosanct areas outside the scope of Free Speech.

If you muslims want to be accepted in cultures that have different ideals, beliefs, and values than you do, then you are going to have to learn a lot more acceptance and tolerance for non-Islamic practices. Otherwise it is YOU who will have been responsible for stirring up animosities that could well lead to some very ugly consequences.

richard,
as i said before, i do not stand by the death threats. i oppose the violence that is being spread through the world, and sadly it is pointed at us muslims. i will say this as many times as i can...islam condemns violence, it calls for peace and harmony, it teaches us tolerance. although some of my fellow muslims do not practice that (and they are the ones that catch the medias attention), the islamic community is ashamed of such violent actions.
what i want to make clear, putting aside the violent reaction, why is it hard for europeans to understand that muslims are very sensitive about the way WE speak about our beliefs and even moreso about how OTHERS speak of our beliefs. we have beliefs...we respect those beliefs, why does it bother people so much that we are asking them to respect us. im not asking anyone to believe in what i believe, or agree with my views, im just asking people to understand that negative comments similar to some i have read, and moking images like the cartoons really hurt our feelings.
i want u to understand that im just a normal girl, not an extremist, im not fanatically religious. i am young girl who has beliefs, i pray, i fast, and i respect my religion. i have travelled to different countries and have seen different cultures..alot of which i find very different. i enjoy western elements of life, i been brought up with alot of americans. which all make me very understanding of how people view arabs and muslims. but still, as i read the comments, i couldnt help but feel a deep sense of hurt. why r we that disprespected? the answer is not that we as muslims made our own image as violent and suicidal bombers. it all comes down to two things...generalization and the constant assumption that muslims are bad. people refuse to see us in any other way.
of what importance are the cartoons to anyone in europe? to ensure freedom of speech? well, im sorry to say that all they do is show how intolerant europeans are becoming of different people and views. it shows how they would commit an act of disrespect to a whole community for just a few laughs. the cartoons do not make u sleep better at night, they do not make us muslims look bad. on the co