I'm quite troubled over the cartoon controversy in Denmark, not because of the cartoons themselves, which I agree are offensive, but rather, because of the absurd overreaction of Muslims worldwide. We haven't learned from the Rushdie affair - this is yet another instance where we've gone out of our way to make ourselves look stupid.

For anyone living under a rock, here's what happened. Four months ago, on September 30th, 2005, a Danish newspaper called Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in ways that many Muslims deemed sacrilegious. The newspaper claimed - quite foolishly, I think - that the cartoons were "part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression" in Denmark. There were a few protests by Muslims and meetings with the Prime Minister of Denmark, but things came to a head on January 10th, 2006, when two Norwegian papers published similar cartoons that were then circulated in the Middle East. Since then, the response has been stupendous:

There were street demonstrations and flag-burnings in the Middle East. Libya joined Saudi Arabia in withdrawing its ambassador from Copenhagen. Islamic governments and organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain, issued denunciations and a boycott of Danish goods took hold across the Muslim world.

The Danish Government warned its citizens about travelling to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and withdrew aid workers from the Gaza Strip.

Last night EU foreign ministers issued a statement in support of Denmark, and the European Commission threatened to report any government backing the boycott to the World Trade Organisation.

By yesterday governments across the Arab world were responding to public outrage. Libya closed its embassy in Denmark and the Egyptian parliament demanded that its Government follow suit. The Kuwaiti and Jordanian governments called for explanations from their Danish ambassadors. President Lahoud of Lebanon condemned the cartoons, saying his country "cannot accept any insult to any religion". The Justice Minister of the United Arab Emirates said: "This is cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression." In Gaza, gunmen briefly occupied the EU office in Gaza and warned Danes and Norwegians to stay away. Palestinians in the West Bank burnt Danish flags. The Islamic groups Hamas and Hezbollah and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood demanded an apology.

Supermarkets in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen all removed Danish produce from their shelves. Arla Foods, a Danish company with annual sales of about $430 million in the Middle East, said that the boycott was almost total and suspended production in Saudi Arabia.

Those up in arms don't seem to understand that the newspaper is not government owned or produced. It is an independent newspaper, and as such the guarantee of freedom of expression allows it to do what it did. It may be in bad taste and it may be insensitive, but the newspaper has a point: freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in ways that may upset or offend others. Yes, that freedom is to be balanced with freedom of religion, but even so, adherents of any faith cannot expect that they will never be offended. That is the price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy. Some may claim this is a good time to bring out those old blasphemy laws, but I disagree. In fact, I would argue there are no justifiable grounds for blasphemy laws in liberal democracies.

In any case, why these Arab countries would see fit to demand that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen apologize is beyond me. If one wanted to protest the publication of those cartoons, one could always cancel one's subscription to the newspaper. But to boycott products from the country? Burn Danish flags? Remove ambassadors to express one's displeasure? Those sorts of responses are just nonsensical. The government is not to be blamed for the idiocy of a private newspaper.

Why are we so exciteable anyway? Why even care what a newspaper thinks? The cartoons, horrendous though they may be, need not affect a Muslim's impression of the Prophet, for our tradition clearly shows him to be a man imbued with dignity, morality and goodness. The Prophet was ridiculed from the moment he started receiving revelation in Mecca more than 1400 years ago. The mockery - even the threats on his life - are well documented in the Quran and hadith literature. A few cartoons will do little to harm him - or us.

Some might argue that Islam bars any depiction of the Prophet. Even so, we Muslims cannot force other people to appreciate the Prophet the way we do. We live, for the most part, in free societies, and there are countless opportunities to share with others our own vision of the Prophet and to convince others that he is a man to be honoured and dignified. We can do so by living like the Prophet did, by behaving and speaking in the noble manner of the Prophet himself, and by showing ourselves to be the rightful followers of this blessed man.

The over-the-top reaction just shows me how much excess energy and strength the ummah retains worldwide. Frankly I wonder if Muslims are not doing a greater disservice to the Prophet when we close our eyes to the suffering and oppression in the rest of the world. There are bigger problems to tackle than the publication of 12 silly cartoons. Now, if we could only put our efforts to better purposes...

NZ, too? See, that just goes to show that the most innefective and bone-headed obstinate way of dealing with an issue to do things that make it very, very newsworthy. Violence is a sure thing every time. Most smart people just ignore it and let it die a quiet and deserved death. No, not us! Maybe I'm giving too much credit to the Danish editor, but I'll be darned if he didn't figure that Muslims would serve as unpaid marketers of his thesis. Truly ironic!

Juan Williams (a black liberal) had some words about what he thought of 'weak religion' of Islam:

http://media.michellemalkin.com/foxnews0205.wmv

(Courtesy of The Supreme Ayatollah DrM's favority site: Michelle Malkin's blog)

I tend to agree with Juan Williams. The Qur'an, at least to me, is very clear about what I call "Change the Channel" doctrine.

This is what I had to say about the issue: http://www.qaiu.org/archives/2006/01/muhammad_the_pr.html

There seems to be double standards with some people on here.
It seems the statement "Free speech is good unless it upsets us" (whoever us maybe) is true for a lot of people.
Lets face it, some people just want to fight and cause trouble.
If you are comfortable with your own religion whatever it maybe, then i dont think theres anything that you need to worry or get up in arms about. After all, its a matter of faith.

Oh, you newsmakers, you...

Cartoon debate rages in online forums
Mail & Guardian
Johannesburg, South Africa
08 February 2006

Safiyyah Ally, a Muslim writer, published an article on Altmuslim.com on Wednesday last week, saying: "I'm quite troubled over the cartoon controversy in Denmark, not because of the cartoons themselves, which I agree are offensive, but rather because of the absurd overreaction of Muslims worldwide. We haven't learned from the [Salman] Rushdie affair -- this is yet another instance where we've gone out of our way to make ourselves look stupid."

Ally went on to say that although the publication of the cartoons in Denmark and Norway may be in "bad taste" and could be "insensitive", the Danish newspaper that published them had a point.

"Freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in ways that may upset or offend others. Yes, that freedom is to be balanced with freedom of religion, but even so, adherents of any faith cannot expect that they will never be offended. That is the price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy.

"Some may claim this is a good time to bring out those old blasphemy laws, but I disagree. In fact, I would argue there are no justifiable grounds for blasphemy laws in liberal democracies," he wrote.

Forum contributor Werfbobbejaan reacted to Ally's article and said: "At least there is a Muslim, Mr Yusuf, who is appalled by the all the misbehaviour and hoo-hah about the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad!"

Another contributor, Rumble, commented: "I ask: Is it not about time that we stopped being so scared and openly challenge a religion that is intolerant and archaic in its approach to any other religions or people that question their ideals, or are other religions just going to allow themselves to be pushed around and not allowed to practise or preach their philosophy freely?"

However, contributor Dzel defended the reactions of Muslims and said the "cartoons are an attack on a religious figure, not a mere mortal like you and I".

"I don't need to point out how many deaths have been committed in the name of religion dating back to [before Christ] times, till today."

>>The difference is people actually died in the Rusdie affair. Whats wrong with a non-violent boycott?<< DrM
What, you haven't been reading the news? Many people have died because of this, and worst of all, muslims are killing muslims about it. you guys are just making yourselves look like barbarians, with your "i don't like it so i'll kill you" attitude. the writer of this post made a very good point. you're too excitable, why can't you just let it go, and have the faith in your belief and let us go to hell. if mohammed could see what is happening today, he'd be in tears. he probably wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Being Mocked: The Essence of Christís Work, Not Muhammadís

What we saw the Islamic demonstrations over the cartoons of Muhammad was another vivid depiction of the difference between Muhammad and Christ, and what it means to follow each. Not all Muslims approve the violence. But a deep lesson remains: The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery.

If Christ had not been insulted, there would be no salvation. This was his saving work: to be insulted and die to rescue sinners from the wrath of God. ěHe was despised and rejected by men . . . as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him notî (Isaiah 53:3).

Thatís the most basic difference between Christ and Muhammad and between a Muslim and a follower of Christ. For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission. And for a true follower of Christ enduring suffering patiently for the glory of Christ is the essence of obedience.

How should his followers respond? On the one hand, we are grieved and angered. On the other hand, we identify with Christ, and embrace his suffering, and rejoice in our afflictions, and say with the apostle Paul that vengeance belongs to the Lord, let us love our enemies and win them with the gospel. If Christ did his work by being insulted, we must do ours likewise.

When Muhammad was portrayed in twelve cartoons , the uproar across the Muslim world was intense and sometimes violent. What does this mean?

It means that a religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers. It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man. And it means that his followers must be willing to ěshare his sufferings, becoming like him in his deathî (Philippians 3:10).

No Tim. The main difference between Muhammad and Christ is their names. Otherwise, they both prayed to and served the same one God, the God of Abraham. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that Muslims did not capitulate to idolatry as Christians have. We worship God, not a borrowed lie from greco-roman paganism, the myth of triune gods rolled upon into one, a "son" who is killed, whose body then is eaten and whose blood is sipped in churches across the world, another direct loan from pagan practices and witchcraft. Muslims do not believe that God demands murder for salvation, nor did Christ nor Abraham.

says those who promote hatred. Thats a lot of Muslims for you to know. I dont respect the "right" of anybody to attack in so craven a manner my faith. I think many of you Europeans a bunch of racist bastards...

Do you realize the irony in your post Drm? If that's a lot of Muslims for him to know (and I agree he is racist but so are you) then aren't "many Europeans" are a lot for you to know too?

by the way BrotherMuslim I enjoy your satiric posts, I love you for them, you make me smile =)

Well, this thread has died for quite some time, but today a news event bought me right back to altmuslim.com. This is especially for Dr.M and Liuquat Ali, and with great relish I tell you that a man who protested outside the Danish Embassy, has been covicted of 2 counts of soliciting to murder. I don't want to sit on my high chair and say 'I told you so'...but there it is, as I said over a year ago, retribution will be swift. Live in England, live in an English society, abide by Englands long established social democracy and live democratically. If you choose not to do this, and offend our belief system, then you will pay the ultimate consequence of that.

Here is a link to todays news item.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6427419.stm

I told you so.

This is the most incomplete and incomprehensive piece of writing that i have come across. Apologetics like yourself do us no good either. Also you do not suggest your suggestions as to what should or could be done. Yours is just a peace that has no sense to me atleast.