File talk:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png/Archive 1

Untitled
Religious extremism has lead to many people's death. Let's not give in to it. ag

“All things are lawful; but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful; but not all things build up.” (1 Corinthians 10:23) It seems that there really are two issues here: 1) Should journalists exercise responsibility, and sometimes restraint, for what personal opinions they depict in their press? and 2) Should people be allowed to react so violently to something they don’t like or find offensive?

Extremists aside, there were probably a lot of mild people that were hurt by this. I don’t think that was right. Journalists should realize that they affect a lot of people and therefore exercise some restraint. People don’t use the “N-word” in the USA because of how hurtful it can be to a whole group of people. People consciously censor themselves everyday.

As for the extreme reactions, no one has the right to take life because of a perceived offense. If we all had the right to set our own standards of law, society would be in constant chaos. So in my opinion, both sides are wrong. The world would be a much better place if the next scripture in Corinthians was followed: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own [advantage], but that of the other person.” (1 Corinthians 10:24)71.116.97.201 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am Persian and in favour of free speech. Leave the image locked and here. 81.151.197.236 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a religious commandment that you shall not kill. There is another religious commandment that you shall not make a picture of Muhammad. Let's stop both. 84.56.7.85 09:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, although I'm a Christian, I find this an affront to all religions. If it is the strict policy of Islam to not show images of the prophet Muhammad, then newspapers should respect that. They especially should avoid associating him with certain extremist groups that do not represent the true intentions of Islam. Here's an effective metaphor- a series of cartoons showing Jesus' support for the Kloo Klux Klan. It's just not right or respectful to anyone, and is definitely not at all amusing. Matt White 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Long live freedom of speech and live along with respect! Nobody can force others to show respect but everybody is free to react to a disrespectful comment as well. As a muslim, when I was disturbed by a man wearing a T-shirt saying "Jesus F..ing Christ" with a cartoon accompanying it (will not even describe it), I expressed my opinion to the person who wore it. And I see the same respect in some of my Christian/Hindu/Jewish friends who react the same way to these cartoons. Some folks are free to choose to be disrespectful and I am free to choose to protest them.

Making fun of deities, even the slightest hint towards disrespecting a concept that some might think is divine or holy in nature, is generally and widely shunned in the Islamic world. Its understandable that they expect the same respect from others.

--B. Astronomer, PhD

It is a deeply uncomfortable situation when intelligent and eduacated men and women across the globe resist speaking out in any derogatory way against Islam for fear of violent reprisals against them. It is often argued that political correctness has gone to far, and in no other way is this more evident than on this subject.

I myself am a free-thinking, intelligent young man, able to tell the difference between right and wrong without the guide of religion, be it any of the major faiths, who opposes much of western foreign policy in the Middle and Far East, and yet for the few words I have already written here, there are some who would gladly hear of my death.

As a mark of respect to Islam, perhaps these images should nopt have been published in such a public and far-reaching way, yet I simply cannot reconcile the reaction we are seeing with the relative innocuousness of the crime. To die for drawing a cartoon? For entire peoples to buoycott a nation's produce for a cartoon?

Islam has its own strict edicts and rules by which its societies are ordered and run, but it is unreasonable to impose these on other cultures. Those who draw these images of Muhammad are not Muslim, do not consider themselves to fall under the jurisdiction of the Quarn's teachings or indeed Shariah Law, and therefore cannot be punished as one Muslim might wish to punish another Muslim for the same crime. Are all non-Musilms who neglect to bow toward the Ka'bah five times a day also to suffer the same threats of retribution?

I welcome comments from all and sundry.

John Passaquar.

Curious, very curious!

Islamic legal scholars have always held that they cannot subject Muslims to laws of another religion or country. Yet it appears that Muslims want to subject the laws of other countries to theirs. Why would Muslims apply their legal obligations to people of other religions or countries? One could deduce that in effect Muslims are saying that their law (Shariah) is to rule over all others. But then that would mean that women will be treated as livestock and slavery is allowed, among others. That is a bit...uncomfortable, mildly speaking. Just an opinion!

Vogon

good choice on locking the image. This is nothing to do with religious beliefs and whether or not we find the images funny. It is about showing the entirety of a debate from all sides.

-- lostsocks

Thank you Wikipedia for reprinting these images so that those of us seeking an informed opinion might see first-hand what is being discussed.

Indeed to the second person. --Mrdie 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To the person above - being able to see the images has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. The nature of the drawings is a secondary issue. "What is being discussed" is that Islam states that you may not render an image of Mohammed. You either agree with that or not, to take it as a matter of fact and degree based on the style of the drawings is missing the point. It's my belief that if a particular faith doesn't want its prophet depicted in illustrations, that should be respected. The fact that the images were produced as satire compounds (but is not essential to understanding) the disrespect.

--(to above) This issue is entirely regarding whether you are right in that opinion, or whether the principle of free speech supercedes the opinions of any group - minority or majority - as to whether that speech is offensive for them (i.e. if a group determines images of the sun are against it's religion, then do we have to bar images of the sun? Or is it only when a certain majority objects?). In order to provide a balanced view of the issue and not pre-judge what is right or wrong, it is surely only right that we provide the information and context of the arguement.


 * I find it "disrespectful" for muslims to try to tell other people around the world what they can or cannot think/say/do, especially where the right to think/say/do things (even those things that others might not agree with) is specifically protected. While the cartoons may be disrespectful to islam, such cartoons fall under protected speech in the countries in which they've been published.  More power to the publishers.

Image protected
Stand for what you believe in...

This Image should remain on Protected status I fear that members of the Muslim community would fight to have it removed, plus Wikipedia isnt advailable in there world who care? I dont. --Kylehamilton 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this image, in view of the repeated vandalism that it's suffering. -- ChrisO 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am totally in favor of free speech. However one thing Wikipedia could do to be more sensitive to Muslums is to warn the veiwer that the picture may contain offensive images before showing it. Just a thought. Thanks Wikipedia for posting the cartoon.

Remove the Image, will just cause more damage to wikipedia's reputation.

Jews and Christians don't know anything about their religion and others, wikipedia are being ingnorrant, Islam forbids images of prophets. -A. Lunatic
 * Wikipedia is not censored. — Cuiviénen  ( Cuivië ) 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia should remove the image, to avoid offending Islamics. And those articles about evolution and the big bang - they need to go, too. I mean, if something is posted that someone somewhere doesn't like, it needs to come down immediately. Incidentally, I don't like Lichtenstein. Can we discuss removing that article?

Seriously man, how can you express your disdain for ignorance while simultaneously encouraging it? --141.157.125.90 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All gods or fake the sooner everyone gets over that the sooner we can all have a laugh.

Careful '-A Lunitic' might blow up a wikipedia bus and then cliam it was because WP was occupying his homepage --mitrebox 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:FAITH and WP:NPA, and, for that matter, WP:BITE. — Cuiviénen  ( Cuivië ) 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ban the Lichstenstein page! Splitters!88.105.116.228 08:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To be free in speech is one thing and to attack others freedom is something else, I guess what that newspaper have done is in fact beyond the free speech cause there freedom ends in the moment that freedom harm others, my self as a good Christian believe that Jesus came to us to teach us how to love others not to attack and harm them, after all we live in civilized world controlled by laws and the same laws that protect freedom also protect others rights and feelings.Ash_USA

The proscription against making images of the Islamic prophets is to prevent iconic worship of the prophets before God. Caricatures are not worshipable icons.

Freedom of Speech is one thing and insulting someone, or for in this matter, a whole community is another thing. First of all any person would feel outraged when a person of such stature in his/her relegion is caricatured in this manner. What if Jesus is depicted this way, what if Moses is shown, what about Ram? I am a Hindu from India, and have witnessed numerous conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. Its true that Muslim faith is orthodox and unflexible in many matters, but in this issue I stand firmly with Muslims in the outrage they feel. Depicting The Prophet in such manner is not freedom of speech, its a foolish act which could more anarchy and hatred in the world than their already is. S.A, India

Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is all very meaningful and deep etc. but what about the Lichstenstein page question? Are we gonna ban it or what? 80.47.219.28 18:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Long Live Freedom of Speech, OK Then
Hail Osama Bin Laden Hail Saddam Hussain Down with Bush

Freedom of speech Aye? Yep, no problem with that. Jdonnis 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When I read about this whole controversy in the paper recently, like most people, I found it distressing. I'm a proponent of free speech. I'm a proponent of religious tolerance. When the two clash, I'll give the edge to free speech most every time, but still be angry that some blockhead newspaper editors thought it'd be cute to print something this inflammatory.

I disagree with a comment made in the discussion group suggesting that free speech is fine and good until somebody gets (psychologically) hurt. Think about it for even a second. That can't be right. If free speech doesn't include the right to offend others, then what good is it? This would mean that Laura Bush could muzzle me because it hurts her that I would say such unkind things about her husband.

But before we start congratulating ourselves too much about our wizened tolerance for ideas we don't agree with, keep in mind: it wasn't until quite recently in this country's history we did anything of the sort, first amendment be damned. And it wasn't so long ago that Rudy Guiliani said, in essence, free artistic expression in our museums is fine and good--that is, until somebody makes a sculpture of the Virgin Mary playing in elephant poo. If memory serves, most Americans were right on board. "Free speech, yes, immaculate elephant poo, no!" You'll make political hay with a platform like that. Tom

[-< Actually said piece of "art" was being shown in a building which was run off of government funds. Meaning that if the majority of the people living in the area where it was being displayed didn't want to see it, they might be even more put off by the fact that their tax dollars were being spent on displaying it. Someone not liking some artwork wasn't the issue, everyone being forced to pay for it to be displayed was. The artist was not jailed, nor stopped from being able to display the artwork, the taxpayers just weren't forced to pay for it to be displayed. The artist could have hung the piece from the side of the house he/she lived in, but he can't force me to hang it on mine. Freedom of speech/expression wasn't involved in that at all. It's a totally different situation/issue.

Personally I think freedom of speech is one of the most abused, misinterpreted, and overrated "freedoms" we have. Freedom of speech is what allows hate groups to say some of the most disgusting things imaginable. Freedom of speech does not mean one can say anything that they want, a good and widely used example would be "yelling fire in a crowded theater." I however don't feel as qualified as some others apparently do in telling people what they should be allowed to think, feel, or say.

As for examples like the comment "Hail Osama Bin Laden, Hail Saddam Hussain, Down with Bush" I disagree with all three comments. The first two I find wholey offensive, the third just slightly amusing. Saying the first within earshot of me would give me an urge to resort to violence. But I wouldn't. Probably because it wouldn't take me long to come to the conclusion that only someone with a mental problem would need do more than walk away. So while the statement "I'd rather people not be able to say that" is an understatement, I still don't really feel that I have the right to silence those people.

If today I have the right to stop anyone from saying, writing, or in this case drawing anything, then what will they be allowed to stop me from saying, writing, etc. tomorrow?

More important is the fact that this is a religious law. How can any religion expect someone of another religion to live by their edicts? I'm assuming that everyone asking for this image to be taken down have never uttered the name of the Hebrew deity, as it's against their law. I assume that none of those asking for this to be removed have ever worked on a Sunday, as it says not to in the Christian bible. I assume that they've read every holy book of every religion and adhere to all of their laws on a daily basis. Actually I assume none of that, it would be impossible to live by that many conflicting laws. The only possibility left is that anyone asking me to follow this particular Muslim law must hold this religion, and this "rule" higher than all others. I don't.

If a Muslim came to my home, or I went to theirs, I would try my best not to offend them. I would not come to your house and tell you who you are allowed to offend. And in the end it's really that simple. Anyone who is offended by these images can click the little "x" in the top corner of their browser, they can turn away from the page it is printed on, if they want they can even buy all the copys at the local newstand and throw them away. -Sweets- >-}

Response to Sweets in re: Giuliani and elephant dung. It's not true to say that Giuliani v. the Brooklyn Museum isn't a freedom of expression issue. In fact, when it got brought to court, Guiliani lost on exactly these grounds. The City gave the Museum a general fund, but then when it chose artwork the Mayor didn't like (and lots of other people too, apparently), he threatened to take back ALL their funds. The Museum sued, and the City (i.e, Giuliani) lost because they violated the Museum's (not the artist's) right to free expression. Although the museum doesn't have a "right" to be funded, once government gives money, it's not allowed to censor viewpoints it doesn't like. Just like, if a public school gives money to support different student groups, it's not allowed to ban religious student groups even though no student group had a "right" to any funding (the school's arguments that it was being forced to endorse a religious view in violation of the separation of church and state rule notwithstanding).

Think about the tax issue more broadly: Government funds all sorts of things through our taxes that we might not agree with. Wars, perhaps, but more related to expression, government funds libraries that have books that I might not like. Government hires professors in public universities that say things I might not like. Maybe the first amendment is too protective (I sometimes agree), but do we really want the government deciding everything that can be put into libraries? Or decide what a university professor can say, all because government holds the purse strings? Even if we, as taxpayers, sometimes agree? The idea is that if all views get aired, the best ones (that is, the most convincing and persuasive ideas) will win out. The other idea is that government officials tend to act in their own self-interest when it comes to what speech is "offensive."

Anyway, this was all a bit lawyerly and pedantic, for which I apologize. Worse, it wasn't really about whether Wikipedia should print the images of Mohammed. (I kind of think it shouldn't, even though I was personally curious, in a voyeuristic way, what caused the big uproar.)

Tom

Importance of balanced view
The publication of these images is not intend to offend Muslims although their use, under Islamic law (or rather, the interpretation of their use as idolatry above the 'One God') is strictly forbidden.

By using Wikipedia, users acknowledge that it is a resource that must be fair and equal to all people, and that there are as many people wanting to learn about the Islamic faith as those who practice it. Is it not at all questionable that Arabic media outlets (Al Jazeera is an excellent example) choose to publish anti-western cultural / economical / religious statements?

The world cannot be controlled by any one faith, economical model or cultural ideal - it is a human impossibility that ensures diversity but requires tolerance and understanding, not censorship and ignorance. Bigpinkthing

Those Muslims!!! Muslims cannot make fun of any prophet because they are all recognized in the Quran. Including Buddha! (Believe it or not!) This eliminates all cartooning possibilities... Islam does not accept women to be treated as livestock. Islam does not accept slavery. Islam gave women the right to vote, own property and businesses before the Western World did. As a matter of fact, the Prophet Muhammad was hired by his wife as a caravan guide. She was a very powerful merchant. The first person who called the people to prayer in Mecca was a Black Slave named Bilal. This call to prayer is heard dozens of times in Africa, America, Asia, and in Europe every day. The last sermon the Prophet made was to condemn slavery, racism and chauvinism. We still have this going today… The treatment of women-in any culture-is the result of men's sadistic behaviour. It took extraordinary efforts to stop slavery in the USA-and around the world…partially I might add. Jesus is mentioned 23 times in the Quran as one of the great Prophets. Muhammad is only mentioned once! All these religions are from the same source, Abraham. He built the Kaba, in Saudi Arabia, as -the 1st Temple (Judaism)-the 1st Church (Christianity)-the 1st Mosque-(Islam). This was the starting point of all monotheist religions. The word "Jihad”’s most important meaning is the fight within every being. It has since evolved...This is the fight that every person must have to combat selfishness and dishonorable tendencies.  Islam however, has very strong articles of war. And no, there are not seven-or forty seven?-virgins waiting for every Muslim man in Paradise.  There actually are 82!  Just kidding….I couldn’t resist… This is quiet unfortunate, for those who love women, but true.  I would gladly joint a religion that would cater to my desires… The reason Muslims are allowed to marry four wives-yes count them: 4!-is because men would often die at war leaving women without financial resources.  This, lamentably, encouraged prostitution and the kind as these women needed to feed their children.  The man who decides to marry multiple wives has to treat every single women-wife-the same exact way: whatever he buys for one, all other three will have to have the same exact item. He cannot show more love to one of them. If he does not adhere to this, he will be forbidden from attending Mosques. He would eventually be a laughing stock; an outcast. This treatment, by the way, was also reserved for people-men- that do not treat women fairly, do not give “zakat” ((charity) (tax?)). In such societies-and settings-this can be very harmful. I side point to this: many Christian men still marry multiple wives. This is very common, particularly in West Africa. Most men rather see a women dressed provocatively. It is entertaining. However, how many of us would marry them to be our children’s mother? I don’t see many hands… Next time you see a covered Muslim women, notice, you’ll find yourself bowing in respect instinctively. Why do you think nuns cover themselves? This is a sign of humility. Men also are required to have pants that are at least below knees and shirts that cover the elbows. The aforementioned religions are great; humans on the other hand, are petty nauseating little animals. There are fanatics in every corner of the planet. They have their respective audiences. They are polarizing religions, races and cultures. They are ripping “civil” societies apart for their own interests. We have decided to embrace conflicts. We have decided to go for war and destruction. So be it, but do not blame any religion. Blame yourself for being what you are.

Tafsir

Muslims
If we objected just as strongly to muslim radicals burning our flag as they do to someone, obviously not of the muslim faith, from making a drawing of their prophet, there wouldn't be any muslims allowed in the western world, &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.185.179.11 (talk &bull; contribs).

Keep in mind that we are not battling a country when we argue over the cartoon. we are battling an entire religion. we are not battling a group of people such as terrorists. we are battling an entity. these cartoons anger the people who belong to this religion. It has a higher status than any country.

If jesus were to be mocked, that would be offending. If a muslim were to this, a crusade would be launched. Just as well, muslims would be offended if there prophet is tarnished in such a way -Anas Hashmi


 * Ridiculous. Jesus is mocked all the time in western countries; the only time it's called into question is when someone is engaging in some sort of political pandering (e.g. pandering to the "evangelicals" by the GOP in the US).  If you believe what you've written, you have little understanding of the role religion plays in most western countries.

No, If Jesus were to be mocked, which he often is (See South Park among others), we would laugh at it. Religion's funny. It only becomes a problem when people start to take it too seriously and forget that what is important is life, love, and peace. -Reed Sears

I agree with that. I'm a practicing christian yet I can still laugh at series such as Father Ted of The Vicar of Dibley even though they take the piss out of the church and christianity. What if we were to set a comedy in a mosque and mock the many ridiculous things that the muslims have fabricated and used islam as a cover for such as the opression of women in arab states. Well I'd say there'd be protests outside the TV studios and then if the carried on ahead the producer would be shot. That's the way muslims deal with things, not through dialogue but through hatred and violence. - A concerned citizen-


 * How far should liberal societies tolerate the intolerant? deeptrivia (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslims are free to say they don't like the cartoons, or that they find them tasteless and offensive. They are free to burn as many Danish flags as they like. But threatening to bomb the newspaper that published a drawing of Muhammad hiding a bomb in his turban? Doesn't that really just drive home the point of the cartoon? And Arabic governments (not private citizens) asking for chastisement of the cartoonists? I know this is how things in Europe looked 350 years ago; if you had printed "Jesus is a bastard" back in 1656, you would have found yourself in the stocks or at the stake in no time. Let's just be glad that at least in Europe, those bleak times are three centuries in the past now. dab (&#5839;) 09:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bomb threat can also be from someone who wanted to show Muslims in a bad light. btw, I am Muslim, I think it is best to ignore these cases of abuses. Those who are really shouting against this do not have real faith in GOD or his justice --59.93.35.10 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is missing the point. If, in other religions, (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) someone is mocking them, the religious community rises above it. In a TV program i saw a scientist was saying that Christianity and religion in generall was a virus that needed to be wiped out. Obviously the Christians on the program were not happy, but they didn't scream and shout and start to burn things. Grow up. Alexi Arthur


 * By the way, it's not only "Arabic" countries: . deeptrivia (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a muslim and i applaud wikipedia for showing the pictures. Why? Course it already splashed all over the world. Muslims should see for themselves what the western culture mean by respect. If displaying caricatures of our esteemed prophet condoning terrorist acts is called freedom of press, then god save this world. As we mature in being humans, one thing that everyone has is brains to use for thinking. And i mean thinking rationally. By not respecting at least some kind of respect towards another religion, it shows how much western culture has matured. True the way some Muslims in certain countries have acted is i agree- overboard. But sometimes, it due to anger. The cartoons should have never been published but since the major european countries except England( I applaud them for that) have done so, it better that muslims take this as a learning experience and not depend on so called friends who only come when there is money to be made. Peace to all...ashik

~**Hibo Omar**~...WHAT IS REALLY THESE PPLS PROBLEMS..WHY DO THEY MAKE THE HOLOCAUST SEEM LIKE SUCH A BIG DEAL AND WHEN THIS COMES ALONG IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT[HIPPACRITS].THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND WE AS MUSLIMS ARE FED UP AND WILL NOT TAKE THIS ANYMORE.THIS IS OUR PROPHET[PBUH]..I THINK WE DESERVE AN APOLOGY FROM THIS EDITOR BEFORE IT BECOMES SOMETHING MORE THAN WHAT IT ALREADY IS.

I Don’t know what Deeptrivia means by ::How far should liberal societies tolerate the intolerant????? I'm surprised to hear that from a person who in his native country they have the Bharatiya Janata Party which is a party build not in liberal ideas but in extreme religious ideas and the core is the hate of others from Christian, Moslems etc.. so I suggest you look at your self first before putting the oil on the fire, add to that as a Western citizen from the USA i feel what Former US president Bill Clinton warned of which is the rising of anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism as he condemned the publishing of cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. "So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" as far as my self I know from my back experience with the Moslems and Islamic world that image of the prophet is forbidden so lets just respect there wish of not drawing there prophet and not be smart about it for nothing!! And its up to us of showing Jesus and others. Ash_USA

Ashik, maybe Western Culture will start to respect muslims when muslims and arabic culture starts to respect Western Culture. Oh, and by the way, respect has to be earned. Alexi Arthur

I am a strong atheist, and, being English, am nothing less than disappointed at England's refusal to publish these cartoons. Highly offended by Ashik's decaration that the west is being immature, I believe it to be a simple case of pot calling the kettle black. After all, what is more immature than than being offended by a cartoon? You speak of Terrorist atrocites as if they are permittable, that - I quote - 'it due to anger.' - I'm sure you mean 'it's due to anger.' - do try to get your grammer right. So, the Muslims are allowed to commit such outrages as September 11th, July 7th (among countless others), due to anger, but the west is not allowed to publish a cartoon? If your belief does not allow freedom of speech, then God, fictional as he is, save this world. - Mina.

I am with Mina. Asking for the cartoons to be censored because they offend you is very backward. If you cannot handle criticism or ridicule of your views and answer back in a civilised manner without getting irate at everyone's audacity then you shouldn't be living here. You are very welcome to go to Saudi Arabia and live under their laws. I feel ashamed that the British press didn't have the guts to publish these cartoons. As for those asking that the cartoon be removed from Wikipedia - this site is obviously not for you. - Aarash

To Alexi Arthur I dont Know you refer to whom in the above but let me tell yea my name is Ash and I'm an American and I'm not Ashik so do not tell me how is respect can be gained !!!

Arash!!! is that an Indian name...let me guess.. I think its is.. But what I do not understand is how Arash would feel if the BNP make a fun Cartoons of your Indian ancestors under the name of freedom cause miss using freedom can destroy society and never build anything. and again my name is Ash and not the other one Ashik.. and I'm an American and Christian and proud to be so...do you have any objections Arash..

Err...I was talking to Ashik, the person above you who ended his statement with: Peace to all...Ashik. Just because my statement was directly bellow yours does not mean i'm talking to you. That's why i worte Ashik, not Ash. Didn't the fact that i didn't write you name give you some sort of clue? And what are you talking about, the BNP making cartoons? The danish newspaper wasn't a right-wing political party you know? It's not the same thing at all. Alexi Arthur

And, Ash, as an after thought, so what if you're an American? Big deal! So am I, so are a whole load of people, but that doesn't mean we get better treatment or something. It really doesn't matter where people come from, so why bother to put it down? Because you're proud of it? Seriously, man, give it a rest. With a president like Bush, we americans should keep quiet. Alexi Arthur.

Pisses me off
Note: This comment was made by a moderately pissed of user and may be offending.

If someone would make as much of dissing on Christ, I couldn't care less. I'm a religious person, yet, I couldn't give a more crap about someone poking fun with a ridiculous illustration. If this would've happened in an islamic-aimed journal depicting Christ or God or anyone, I'm so sure that the dominantly-christian countries would start burning flags, sending death threats and suicide bomb threats, boycotting products, causing havoc in embassies and shouting their favorite phrase, and on top of all, presenting an unarguably ridiculous comment: "if that is free expression [of speech], then [suicide-bombing] is 'free expression', too". Sorry, but I've got to say Islam is only ruining so many people's minds...--84.249.252.211 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To Alexi Arthur I dont Know you refer to whom in the above but let me tell yea my name is Ash and I'm an American and I'm not Ashik so do not tell me how is respect can be gained !!!

Aarash is an Iranian name. When people make fun of my name or my heritage I don't demand that they be censored and declare religious war on them. I just laugh at them and think of a comeback. Maybe muslims should learn to do the same

heres a lnbk with hi-res images
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/29.html

Who Cares, It is within their rights
It is a part of western democracy that you will be poked fun at, but from this policy it is a great way to keep people in line. If you get caught doing something wrong then if is widespread enough or you are important enough you will be publically humiliated, yet in the long run everything seems ot work out well. What thinggs do you people (who think these cartoons sould not have been published) not understand about the freedom of speach and freedom of the press? This was their right, to publish the cartoons. This was not menat to provoke anyone all that they wanted to do was to show people they way they thought of things. We must not set the precedent in favor of censorship, or else censorship will be a part of our daily lives and we will endanger the future of freedom of expression.

So a note to all enraged muslims, stop your rioting and calling for Jihad get used to the freedom of the press. All this rioting is just going to create more cartoons similar to these. Get used to all the freedoms offered by deomcracy, because deomcracy is spreading fast and moving your way, brought to you courtesey of the good old US of A.

In reply to the above, yeah, freedom of press is great, and yeah, religion should never be used as a tool of hatred, but can we please stop the chest beating about the USA. You forget too often that your allies in the 'war against terror' have fought alongside you. Democracy is being spred by all right thinking nations, be that the USA, the UK, Australia, or Japan.

then that would mean that women will be treated as livestock and slavery is allowedt

What? Who's talking about women treated as livestock, or slavery, and who spells 'allowed' as 'allowdt'? Or is that your name, t? Or is it how you think we should finish every sentance from now on. Whatever, try and make more sense. Ric.

fear and loathing and muhammad cartoons
I spent 45 minutes searching for these cartoons on the internet. Every major news organization website has loads of content on the cartoons and the controversy, but none provides the images or even a clue as to where to find them. This is cowardice dressed up as religious tolerance. The brutal silencing of secular dissent by gangs of religious fascists in the so-called "muslim" countries is more honest -- no one talks about sensitivity there. I have not been a Wikipedia user but I certainly appreciate being able to find these images. Thank you for posting them, please don't take them down.

You wasted 45 minutes of your life for nothing and here you go gonna waist our brains with you nonsense..

Ignore the preceding commenter, I think all reasonable people are happy and heartened to find the cartoons here :) Theonlyedge (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)