What Were the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad?:
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-
Posten published 12 commissioned cartoons. Cartoonists
were asked to express their impressions and feelings
regarding Islam. For a long time, nothing happened, but
some radical imams took them to the Middle East and there
fomented violent reactions. Muslims rioted, burned
embassies, and staged boycotts of all Danish goods, not just
the newspaper which published the cartoons. Many died
because of Muslims offended by cartoons which they said
mocked, insulted, and defamed Islam and Muhammad. They
claimed a right not to have their religious sensibilities
offended.
Why Were the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad Created?:
According to Flemming Rose, editor of Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten which published the cartoons, “I
commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents
of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and
feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to
Islam. ...a Danish children’s writer had trouble finding an
illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three
people turned down the job for fear of consequences.”
There was thus a serious issue to address, namely a growing
fear that anything that might simply be perceived as critical
of Islam could not be created.
Why Did More Newspapers Republish the Danish
Cartoons of Muhammad?:
The original cartoons were published on September 30,
2005. Other European newspapers republished them in
2006 — also not for the purpose of provoking and insulting,
but because, like the Jyllands-Posten, they believed that
freedom of expression was under assault from extremists
using violence and intimidation. They were showing
solidarity with the Danish press by taking equal
responsibility for the publication rather than engaging in
self-defeating self-censorship. They believed they had a right
to publish material critical of Islam, Muslims, and Muslim
figures like Muhammad even if some find it offensive.
What if Similar Cartoons Were Created of Jesus?:
Satirical cartoons of religious figures like Jesus are common
in the West. Flemming Rose, editor of Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten, said: “The cartoonists treated Islam the
same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and
other religions.” Some in the West would ban (officially of
unofficially) sacrilegious use of religious images and
blasphemy, but there are no riots when such expression
occurs. No religion should be exempt from criticism,
critique, attack, or even mocking. No one can claim that
their religious sensibilities should take precedence over
others' rights to free speech and free expression.
Shouldn’t the Media Show More Respect for Islam and
Muhammad?:
What does respect mean? Flemming Rose, editor of Danish
newspaper Jyllands-Posten, said: “When I visit a mosque, I
show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the
customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy
place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever,
observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for
my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible
with a secular democracy.” People are demanding deference
and submission, not mere respect. Non-believers are not
obligated to respect religion or religious beliefs in this way.
Outsiders have a right to criticize.
What About European Bans on Holocaust Denial?:
Holocaust Denial is criminalized not because it’s “offensive,”
but because it’s part of Nazi ideologies they are trying to
keep out of their political systems. Aspects of Nazism are
banned to prevent a return to murderous, fascist,
totalitarian regimes; banning the cartoons could not
conceivably be done for any remotely similar goal. Bans on
Holocaust Denial may also be wrong, but it’s not the same as
banning blasphemy, offensive insults, or material which is
“insulting” to a religion. Holocaust Denial isn't even criticism
of a religion or of religious beliefs, so it's not in the same
category of speech.
Are the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad Inherently
Insulting?:
Feelings of insult are based upon interpretation. Flemming
Rose said: “Angry voices claim the cartoon [depicting the
prophet with a bomb in his turban] is saying that the
prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I
read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion
of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
the prophet. ...The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale
about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and
made his fortune.” Muslims are saying that their
interpretations of the cartoons should determine whether
they are legally permitted or not.
Should Offensive Material Critical of Religion Be
Protected as Free Speech?:
Unless the freedom to express unpopular and even
offensive ideas is protected, then there is no real freedom of
expression. Popular ideas don’t need official protection
because no one is interested in suppressing them. People
who object to protection for unpopular and offensive ideas
are objecting to freedom of expression itself; in effect, then,
Muslims in the Middle East rioted against liberty,
democracy, and freedom. People cannot protect their
religion, religious beliefs, religious figures from criticism
simply because such criticism offends them. Freedom of
expression includes freedom to criticize or even mock.
Should Muslims Just Ignore the Danish Cartoons of
Muhammad?:
Muslims who rioted were not upset that they were forced to
view images they found offensive; they were upset that the
images were created at all and that anyone, anywhere in the
world might see them. This isn’t a case where one can say “if
you don’t like it, turn the channel or read another
newspaper” because Muslims sought the total elimination of
such images, past and future, not merely the ability to
ignore them. Other religious leaders supported them in this,
arguing that religion, religious figures, and religious beliefs
should be immune from criticism. They want a religious
expression to others' liberty.
Should Such Danish Cartoons of Muhammad Be
Banned?:
Some Muslims called for a ban on anything that insults
religion or religious figures generally, not just their own.
Who will decide whether a religion or religious figure has
been insulted? What if religious believers have different
reactions to what I say — what if some find what I say
insulting, but others simply regard me as annoying and not
guilty of creating insult? How can the courts privilege the
reaction of certain Muslims or Buddhists over the reactions
of others? Can or should any state single out particular
religious believers to speak for an entire religion? Should
perhaps the state make such determinations on its own,
without input from religious leaders?
Why stop at religions and religious figures? Why should
deceased religious figures like Muhammad be singled out
for special protection but not deceased political figures like
George Washington, or deceased philosophical figures like
Karl Marx? Why should religions like Islam be singled out for
special protection, but not secular philosophies like Marxism
or Existentialism? Why can't we protect atheism and
evolution from "insult" and that make it a crime to associate
either with Nazism and the Holocaust? There’s no precedent
for this in American law and it would be difficult to defend in
most Western nations.
The message of the cartoons was, at least in part, about how
Muslims resort to violence and terror as part of their
religious reactions to events, and this is precisely what we
saw in their reaction to the cartoons. Political cartoons
typically do their job not through reasoned philosophical
arguments, but through quick jabs, mockery, satire, and
generalizations. Expecting the former in a single-panel
cartoon is unreasonable, yet few if any complaints about
this are raised when politics is the target. When it comes to
religion, though, people want special privileges and
protections.
Such cartoons should not be published merely to offend
Muslims or because they offend Muslims; the cartoons
should be published, however, because Muslims’ religious
objections to the cartoons have been riots, violence, terror,
and suppression of free speech. So long as the dominant
Muslim reaction to things they find objectionable is call for
violence against and/or government suppression of
objectionable material, it’s the duty of others to comment
on this — especially when such commentary itself falls
within the “objectionable” category.

What does respect mean? Flemming Rose, editor of Danish
newspaper Jyllands-Posten, said: “When I visit a mosque, I
show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the
customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy
place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever,
observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for
my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible
with a secular democracy.” People are demanding deference
and submission, not mere respect. Non-believers are not
obligated to respect religion or religious beliefs in this way.

yea datz d problem wit islam.dey r very strict without reason that unbelievers doesn'nt v any thing called respect for religious beliefs.xo dey flare killing n destroying