Blogcritics Comments on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Comment by Richard Brodie on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:34:31 EST

Ruvy, I admire the Jews for how they have maintained their identity by their aversion to assimilating themselves into other cultures, and by spearating themselves into a geographic area where they can exclude other races from trying to intrude and assimilate. This is the only answer to peaceful coexistence on this planet, where each race respects every other race. True preservation of that diversity, to which the left gives lip-service when it conveniently serves some agenda of theirs, requires not simply segregation into separate communities within the same nation, but a geographical separation into different nations. Abraham Lincoln knew the truth which Israel repesents. Four years before the Civil War he said, on June 26, 1857: There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races. Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once—a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as all immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation ... Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization ... The enterprise is a difficult one; but "when there is a will there is a way;" and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body. How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a will — a public sentiment — for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans Lincoln's Party inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the negro is a man; that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right of self-government." The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Liberia, and pay his passage while they can send him to a new country, Kansas for instance, and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars. It's too bad Lincoln's colonization plan was not carried out. 100,000 young Americans, including many blacks, paid with their lives for that failure, in the ensuing civil war. Just as the Jews are happier in their natural homeland, so the Negroes should have been relieved to return to their own homelands. They would have had a dignified existence amongst their own people, rather than continuing to be enslaved, as they still are, though now in welfare-dependency ghettos instead of on cotton plantations.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:51:25 EST

So it's evident that having a people living amongst you who ascribe to the faith/race link AND ideas of aloneness in history might generate some friction on occasion? Not just faith/race - but 'people' as well (latin natio/nationis). Sovereigns and sovereign governments demand loyalty, a single allegiance - in matters of tax as well as national politics. More friction. All of the above are 100% correct, Chromatius. That is the point of having all these people come home, where the sovereign is the sovereign ruler of this people, and not another. That is why our books of prophecy call for this and predict it, and this is why you have seen this in your lifetime (though you may not have been looking for it). A Jew in Germany is not a German of the Mosaic persuasion. He is a Jew. That wasn't the driving reason I came here, but it is something I figured out after getting here. That is why you will see the regime here collapse and eventually be replaced with one that takes the view I've explained - not because they will agree with me (like anything I say matters), but because it is in the Torah.

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:17:31 EST

Not just faith/race - but 'people' as well (latin natio/nationis). Sovereigns and sovereign governments demand loyalty, a single allegiance - in matters of tax as well as national politics. More friction.

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:07:16 EST

Uh, forget the ad hominem moment. So it's evident that having a people living amongst you who ascribe to the faith/race link AND ideas of aloneness in history might generate some friction on occasion?

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:02:21 EST

Like riffing on Blogcritics?

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:41:05 EST

Chromatius, But what I understand as mainstream Judaism also insists on the link between faith and race/ethnicity. (And it follows a matrilineal tradition, which makes for some additional issues.) This is a bit different, and constantly presents difficult questions for reigning empires/civilisations. It was what constantly bugged the Romans. I believe the Jews are visible or 'difficult' for this reason, not because they offend our sensibilities or our tribalism in some racist way. The issue is not how you folks view us or don't view us - it is how we view us. When Jews view themselves as part of "western civilization," they always view the non-Jew as higher quality than the Jew. That is bad enough. But the real issue is that the Jew - according to Tana"kh - is not to be reckoned among the nations, but is to dwell as a people alone. This has several implications. The most basic one is that we need to view ourselves as a people alone and not assimilate into western society.

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:36:41 EST

# 114 "Hitler was not religious, nor Stalin, nor Lenin, nor Pol Pot, not Mao Ts Tung, nor leaders of North Korea? They were/are patently not religious. These wars were caused for political agendas and greed, by hypocrites for power and control." True. But the techniques they used to sway people, to capture their loyalty, were in every case 'religious' - in that they were derived from the religious history and practice of their lands. You could even argue that their being 'politics' was less significant than being 'religion' - as experienced by their audiences. Greed, power - they're constants. (Hypocrisy metric might be a bit higher these days though.)

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:23:56 EST

Ruvy, of course Jews are part of western/European civilisation, in a multitude of ways - intellectual, artisitic, scientific, financial and even mating and family (pace the issue I raise below). As are the Arabs and Muslims, although not for quite as long. But both have intersected western civilisation in profound ways. And both share the characteristic of wanting a deep involvement of religion in daily social and political life. In general more so than many/most westerners have for some centuries now - certainly as reflected in political settlements. But what I understand as mainstream Judaism also insists on the link between faith and race/ethnicity. (And it follows a matrilineal tradition, which makes for some additional issues.) This is a bit different, and constantly presents difficult questions for reigning empires/civilisations. It was what constantly bugged the Romans. I believe the Jews are visible or 'difficult' for this reason, not because they offend our sensibilities or our tribalism in some racist way.

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:02:46 EST

#175 That's not how I read her, or Lerman's, comments. From your quotes: ""I'm in principle against ..." (x3), "but as a general rule"; "I don't think that this is the way this should be dealt with"; "It is better"; "Freedom of expression is important"; "Once you start legislating about history, it could lead to a rocky road". These are all very weak assertions. Behind both I hear an implicit 'but'. My reading: they're happy with the verdict; all the equivocation is just covering their asses 'cos they know they're meant to support free speech and all that worthy stuff. Finally - "history on our side"; well yeah, he's in jail.

Comment by Bini on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:35:57 EST

Well.. i Think most you have no vision at all, u r only seeing things from a closed box and have a very limited knowledge... Mark I must say that you are the one who is living in a closed box..please open up your mind and vision and come out of the box...We should all admit with an open mind that the cartoon were MORALLY wrong... i m not imposing my religion or thoughts on any one but lets just think with an open mind...why touch an issue which is sensitive to many people..why ridicule any religion for that matter..When the Danish Editors knew that Muslims have a lot respect for Prophet Muhammad so why did they provoke the muslims at the first place... There was political motive behind all this..why dont u guys see the political motive behind all this..The media is a big LiAR.. I Admit that the violent protests are not the answer to this..The key question is whether the demonstrators have love for the Holy Prophet, who was a symbol of peace, love and patience. The same question should be put for the Europeans- whether they do really love freedom of expression or are merely practicing their double standards...So i request all the people to think clearly and logically about this whole issue and you would come to know that it was wrong to print those cartoons..and not all muslims are Extremists...I think you guys would agree with me, if u are literate enough .. which i doubt

Comment by Charles on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:31:12 EST

Hey, BLIMEY #114, you make some valid points, However, I WAS NOT trying to single out religion as the main cause of all wars. While I am agnostic and not into religion I do believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever or whoever they choose to believe in. I further stated that it is the religious zealots and radicals who are the true troublemakers in todays world. These are the "bad eggs" who hide behind the mask of a particular religion in order to stir up trouble. That in itself is a form of GREED in that these so-called holy people want everyhing their way and will resort to violence in order to get it. Their form of oppression is every bit as stifling as was Communism in its heyday. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol-Pot, Mao Tse-Tung and Kin Jong-il may not be religious leaders, but they all believed or believe in something and those beliefs resulted in wars, pestilence and human suffering. Call it what you want, but whether it be religious beliefs, political beliefs or terrorism it all boils down to plain, old self-centered greed, fanaticism and forced will. AND ... I am NOT singling out any one group. Everyone is to blame... those who cause it, those who accept it and those who do nothing about it.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:42:58 EST

Richard, You're sure right about the fuzzy thinking part. The professional Jewish world is as packed with fuzzy thinkers as matzo ball soup is with kneidlech. You just cited three off the bat - JTA (the Jewish Telegraphic Agency), Deborah Lipstadt and Antony Lerman. None of them has figured out the essential lesson of the murder of six million Jews during WWII. It is this: The world does not view us Jews as part of Western Civilization. These Jews view themselves as part of it and they are dead wrong. They still do not know "who they are". Even a baboon with a blue butt (Rafiki from The Lion King) is smarter than they are. But they have for company all the assimilated Jews of North America and Europe and the secular Jews of Israel who run away from their identity. No surprises here.

Comment by Richard Brodie on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:59:22 EST

Ruvy: the article by the Austrian sociologist (a wasted discipline if there ever was one) Well then let me give you additional commentary, this time by some vey principled and respected Jewish luminaries, among them Deborah Lipstadt, who spent six years defending herself against Irving's libel suit. This is from the United Jewish Community website: http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=176438 Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt was once sued by David Irving, but that doesn't mean she supports the jail sentence given to the Holocaust denier this week. "I'm in principle against laws that promote censorship. I'm in principle against laws on Holocaust denial. I'm in principle against laws that prevent the publishing of cartoons in Denmark," Lipstadt, a professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, told JTA on Tuesday, a day after an Austrian court sentenced Irving to three years in prison for statements he made in 1989 ... Lipstadt was not alone among Jewish observers in expressing concern over the latest chapter in Irving's well-publicized effort to deny the Holocaust. "The sentence against Irving confirms that he and his views are discredited, but as a general rule I don't think that this is the way this should be dealt with," Antony Lerman, former director of the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research, told JTA. "It is better to combat denial by education and using good speech to drive out bad speech." "Freedom of expression is important," he said. "Once you start legislating about history, it could lead to a rocky road." ... In 2000 he [Irving] lost a highly publicized libel lawsuit in London against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, after Lipstadt called him a Holocaust denier in her 1994 book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." That victory, perhaps, helps support her conviction that books, and not laws, are what should fuel the fight against denying the Holocaust. "We don't need laws to fight Holocaust deniers. We've got history on our side," she said. It is refreshing to see this kind of courage and consistent dedication to that cornerstone of Western Civiliztion, Freedom of Speech. Especially at a time when there are so many outright idiots trying to fuzzy up the boundaries, as well as otherwise fairly clear thinking people like yourself.

Comment by fari on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:35:40 EST

did i write something u r finding hard to swellow. too much truth is very bitter i agree

Comment by farzi on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:37:41 EST

Mark 165 Either u relly did not understand or u dont want to. I used the wrod religion, not Islam and by being religiuos I meant whatever religion u follow. However if u insist on targetting Islam and in ur opinion I am living in a rigid society I wont object. Everybody has a right to think that he or she is living in the best culture and best environment. As far as elitism is concerned I have been to US once and have observed there class distinction. Besides on this site many comments sound very snobbish. If u donot agree its ur problem. Class distinction exist everywhere and now that world has become a global village this distinction is very much there in this village and one such act we have seen in the shape of those cartoons. However I know that u r not willing to admit it. U have brought me to the point again where we started. When I asked u why u want everybody else to follow ur thoughts. I know u keep on insisting it. The controversy here is about Cartoons which shows how morally bankrupt u have become, no matter how u have progressed in technology and everything else,but morally u r just going down and down. I was just wondering u may twist the words while replying to people like me but if ur children would ask u such questions what would u say? for example they may ask u " why abusing one community comes under the 'freedom of Speech' while saying something about another community is a crime and illegal act?" and they may qustion "if we are allowed to insult one whole nation then why not our own very dear ones?" and they may ask "Have muslims invented the Nuclear Bomb, because according to u they are a violent nation? were they behind the attacks of Heroshima and nagasaki?" Do u have answers. Oops I am sorry I forgot ur children are supposed to leave u when they r 18 . Now I know why u send them away just to avoid their questions. So they would be busy in earning money and u do not have to face them untill they, like u, too have gone through a brain washing act through ur media and become a strong part of this hypocritical set up.

Comment by Chromatius on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 06:00:52 EST

I think Irving's a bit of a fool, and he defnitely chose the wrong allies - more than once. And the wrong place to visit - Austria's pretty keen to press its correctness on this front, particularly when it doesn't affect the Austrian establishment. A bit of history there... (remember Kurt Waldheim?) But to be imprisoned for a 19 year old (I believe) statement, and after a near total retraction, seems a little extreme. From the little I know, his work seemed to exploit the zone where commonly held views don't quite match the historical record e.g. not all the camps were death camps, some were actually concentration camps. And I mean exploit, not explore, especially once he linked up with the BNP. From the little I know, there were a couple of points he raised I'd liked to have followed up, and the zone he exploited is worth exploring, but I've never found the time or the inclination. Tricky area too - you have to be very sure of your facts and then delicately step through a minefield trying to express them. Irving certainly had no delicacy or subtlety.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:54:32 EST

Chris, it strikes me that you, I and Mr. Brodie agree, but rather it is Jamal who begs to differ. Bini appears to want us to cease and desist from discussing that which in his eyes is immoral - the desecration of his Prophet. He seems to make no reference to the good Mr. Irving at all.

Comment by Christopher Rose on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:36:45 EST

On your #167, Richard, I rather had the impression that Irving's lot thought he would get a non-custodial sentence. He certainly looked shocked when it was announced but I guess he could just look that way all the time! Anyhow, I see that just right now Richard the Christian, Ruvy the Jew and Rose the baffled onlooker are all agreeing whilst Bini the Moslem begs to differ. Quite a dance, hey folks?

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:18:45 EST

Last night, at the lecture I am the master of ceremonies to, an interesting event occurred. It has a direct relation to Chris's observations and to the article by the Austrian sociologist (a wasted discipline if there ever was one). The lecture was to be about a church in the Old City that has become the subject of a bit of controversy, and a venerable fellow, a historian, was going to explain the church's background. The ususal way things work is that the fellow who runs the lecture series delivers opening remarks of his own, I introduce the speaker, and the lecture proceeds. I began on time (unusual in Israel - but we insist on starting on time, like in the real world) and began my remarks. The fellow who ran the series had not yet arrived. Logic told me to get the show on the road. A tall man with a white beard interrupted me immediately saying "I came to hear a lecture about Charlemagne's Church, not you." I explained to him what our procedure and told him if he wanted to wait outside until the lecturer began, he was free to. I spoke for ten minutes or so, while this man attempted to interrupt. I mostly ignored him (the sociologist's advice). When I was done, I introduced the speaker whoi came to the podium. Thirty seconds later, the fellow who runs the lecture series arrived, asying he wanted to make some remarks. The speaker is a good friend of his, so it didn't bother him. It's his lecture series, so I clapped my mouth shut (he's a good friend and a wonderful guy, but he tends to go on a bit). The tall fellow in the white beard wasn't having any interruptions. He complained abut me and about how he was waiting for the speaker etc. The fellow who runs the lecture series told him to stop interrupting - it was his lecture series. The fellow in the white beard wouldn't shut up. After politely asking the man several times, the fellow who runs the lecture series walked over to him, bodily picked him up and shoved him out the door, and when the man continued to argue in the hall, he bodily shoved him out of the building, telling him never to show up at his lecture series again. It turned out that the fellow had not paid, claiming that he was part of the program, etc., etc. He was just a fool who is used to getting his way by lying and by raising a stink - not too different from David Irving, but far less dangerous. Sometimes you do not ignore a fool. In this case, it was approppriate to eject the man. In the case of David Irving, since one cannot eject someone from society, it is appropriate to jail him for what is in essence, libel and slander. There is no issue of free speech involved here. David Irving got the least of what is coming to him. A pity that the Austria taxpayer has to feed the bastard while he sits in jail and his agitprop machine whines away.

Comment by Bini on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:48:57 EST

Well i read all of your comments and just want to say please stop arguing about a thing which was morally WRONG..i think that nobody should ever ridicule or make fun of any religion..The Danish newspaper & the prime minister should apolize , its their moral obligation, because we should accept that whatever they have done was wrong...To Muslim thier religion and their prophet is sacred, and nobody has a right to ridicule anyones religion...Do not use freedom of speech as an excuse...Everyone should should stay in their limits..

Comment by Richard Brodie on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:36:18 EST

Christopher: the onus to be responsible is clearly much higher on public figures, we require them to behave to a higher standard. Yes it is, and yes we do, though I would prefer to say "expect" not "require." And the appropriate way to hold them to a higher standard is to vote them out of office (politicians); don't buy their books or write our own book debunking them (authors); fire them (professors), etc. - not punish them with fines, jail terms, or execution. Christian Fleck a Sociologist at the University of Graz agrees with me (from a BBC article): If Austria wants to prove itself a modern democracy, argues Fleck you use argument not the law against Holocaust deniers. "Are we really afraid of someone whose views on the past are palpable nonsense, at a time when every schoolchild knows of the horrors of the Holocaust? Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can't argue with him?" he asks. "Irving is a fool. And the best way of dealing with fools is to ignore them." If anything, Professor Fleck contends, a trial endows such ideas with a certain credibility. "By outlawing such opinions, inevitably we give them the frisson of the banned. We run the risk of turning them into an attractive proposition." The risk remains that Mr Irving will seem a martyr to free speech and that his trial will further fuel the anger of those who accuse Europe of double standards - apparently ready to cite freedom of expression when it comes to printing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while incarcerating those who insult Jews. And so who is it that may have miscalculated! Certainly not Irving's "cabal." He only got 3 years instead of 10. And the Islamic world doesn't give a rat's ass about your subtle nuances (is that a tautology?). They're fuckin' pissed at what they see as the discriminatory treatment of Jew offenders vs. Muslim offenders.

Comment by Christopher Rose on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:58:05 EST

Richard: I think it does matter more what so called experts or leaders say and do than is the case with everyday guys like me. I could write something stupid like "Let's Nuke Texas" here every day for the rest of my life and it wouldn't add up to squat; I doubt even Texans would be alarmed and they're a funny, touchy bunch down there! Now if some relatively powerless "leader" like, say, Castro or Chavez said the same thing, it would get rather a different reaction. So the onus to be responsible is clearly much higher on public figures, we require them to behave to a higher standard. We have all seen what happens when public passions become inflamed to the extent of rioting, as we have seen everywhere from the USA to the UK (I have personally lived through three urban riots in London) to the Middle East and beyond in the last 40 or 50 years. Finally, to answer your closing question: No, I don't think that you should be jailed for making that point. I still feel that Irving was right to be charged with the crime and indeed convicted. My personal view is that as life is cruelly brief, anybody who wastes my precious limited time here on this beautiful planet with deliberately false or misleading information, such as faithists, racists, creationists, false historians and other charlatans ought to be jailed for wasting my one most precious resource, my life. That's just me, mind. The whole Irving affair was almost certainly engineered as a political stunt in any case. It can have been no accident that he returned to Austria, can it? His cabal clearly thought that any possible sentence he might get was worth the publicity it would bring. It now appears they may have slightly miscalculated...

Comment by Mark on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:44:53 EST

Farzi I am understanding you better with each exchange. I think you are truly looking at the world from within the confines of a "box". You keep refering to an elitism. I don't feel that kind of separation from others. I was very poor in my early life, and have worked hard to come out of that. I chose the USA as my place of residence and became a naturalized citizen. Class distinction are not set in stone here as they were and are in my native country. Freedom is a wonderful thing and I empathize with those who are stuck in a rigid society. For those who advocate a particular religion, I say look at the good in all religions. As my son-in-law has asked, "Can a billion Buddhist be wrong?" Isn't there any thing in Islam that troubles you? I think there is good in all religions and there is some bad in ALL religions. I think you should open your heart and eyes and you will see things from a much greater vantage. If you believe that Islam is the only True religion, then our communcation will eventual stall. Too many other religions claim to be the ONLY TRUE ONE. God must have a sense of humor to witness all of this fanatacism. If man can learn to see the good and bad of the past and learn from it and look to change to the better, then life will get better. I believe in eternal progression that if we truly want to become better, we can. We do not have to accept single doctrines from a single earthly source. God is within each of us, we have only to see that. One of my favorite speeches comes not from a prophet but from a president: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As far as looking to religion for comfort in desperate times, I look to my maker in those times. There is a difference.

Comment by Richard Brodie on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:40:54 EST

Chistopher: There's also a difference between an "authority figure" or expert formally asserting that there was no holocaust and some daft bloke down the pub. You have an interesting notion of free speech - one that does not apply equally to all people. Apparently you think the more qualifications a person has to speak about something, the more constricted his freedom to express his opinions must be. Well, since you're OK with starting to chip away at the principle, would you like to take the opportunity to advocate that a non-"nuanced", black and white person like me should be thrown in jail, not for denying the holocaust, but for the much more dangerous crime of advocating that any person should be free to deny it if they want to?

Comment by jamal on The Muslim Cartoon "Controversy"

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:50:12 EST

Richard, I accept that the cartoons in their intention were against terroorists. However, in the current climate they served to perpetuate stereotypes against muslims and also mocked Islam. For these reasons I could never be at ease with them. What further trubled me regarding this is that the newspaper in question previously did not print similar cartoons pertaining to christianity for similar reasons. But again, the fact remains that I do not expect non-muslims to always view my as I please and I hope they do not expect the same of me. The difference is that if many start to complain at my words and are clearly offended, I would make an apology for doing so, particularly if I am reasonably considered to be perpetuating existing problems of hate. This was the original nature of the complaint to the newspaper, and whether they complied was their choice. This is how I see it, everthing else is a distortion. With one side argueing freedom of speech while the pther violent protested achieved nothing except disunity. Christopher, will you answer the question or not?