I believe that the responsibility lies with the faithful. One's faith should easily stand up to being mocked, if it cannot then it's foundation is very weak or nonexistent.

Is the 'global understanding and view' of muslims and Islam, especially nowadays with terror and fundamentalism connections, damaged more by the protests surrounding these cartoons, more so than the damage caused to Islam and the holy prophet by the publishing of the cartoons.

What is the real cause/effect behind each religious edict and what is the overall goal of the religion's attempts of orderly conduct of one's self and surroundings. What are its priorities and does one priority cancel another. Should there be other considerations to keep in check before some muslims enter the arena of outrage.

On the other hand, shouldn't the real issue be not the caricaturization of the prophet of Islam but the provocative nature and possibly the intent of the holy prophet's connection to, by showing him wearing a turban complete with a bomb, somehow suggest suicide bombings or other atrocities that real Islam is against.

Sir...please don't mock my religion by using the Koran to describe Jesus as merely a "holy man". He was and is the Son of God. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, turned water into wine, raised the dead and raised himself from the dead and sits at the right hand of God. Mohammed shouldn't even be classified as a "holy man" compared to Christ.

Mustafa Akyol writes:

"Thus, if what we see is a clash of civilizations, the responsibility lies in the hands of the extremists on both sides: those who insist, 'Yes, we have a right to ridicule God' and those who threaten, 'We are going to kill you for it.' The rest could get along."

This is evil nonsense. To equate those who ridicule with those who murder is sadistic irrationality. To demand respect for superstition and thus give sympathy to superstitious killers is wicked. Religion should be ridiculed. It is absurd.

To even hint that there is something wrong with ridiculing ideas that you despise is intellectually dishonest. By this kind of thinking I would have the right to demand that Mustafa Akyol never say anything against my ridicule, since I take my ridicule of religion very seriously and itch to murder anyone who disapproves of my belief that religion is a silly game being played by viscious bullies. Therefore, when I ridicule the invisible god, Mustafa better not say anything against me or I will commense a Jihad - bla bla bla.

What this all boils down to is intellectual bullies (muslims) whose ideas are so shallow and stupid that they can only succeed in a climate of violent intimidation.

That muslims are so offended by non-believers is proof of the fragility of their silly belief system. I could write the same about all religions, but the other two big ones have stopped stoning and burning at the stake those who dare to disagree. Its time for the muslims to catch up. I will ridicule their stupid silly god whenever I choose and they can either grow up and stop pretending that I am harming them or they can tell lies and start a war. Ridicule does not harm. It is no crime. It is a huge lie to say otherwise.

To others who've posted here:

Viola Getz: From one Christian to another: Please, let's be polite. The subject of the current conversation is not the discrepancy between the Koran's statements about Jesus, and those of the people who knew Him (his apostles and the other New Testament authors). That's a worthwhile conversation, but it's a conversation for another day. It's better form to stay on-topic.

John Howard: Keep in mind that your own belief-system, though it might be your own unique creation, nevertheless operates on the basis of evidence, experience, your own biases and preferences, and your choice of which authorities you trust, to formulate an opinion about Nature, Supernature, Cosmology, and the Nature of Man, and correspondingly, Ethics and Philosophy and maybe Politics. If you wish to convey these beliefs to your children, you'll select mnemonics and songs and visual aids and whichever techniques will be most effective. Over time, adopted by many, these techniques will become traditional or cultural, perhaps even institutionalized.

And that is all that one can ask of a religion. You've got one, like it or not; and that you think your religion superior to others, and the others, silly, is only to say that you are both convinced of your rectitude (as many religious persons are), and lacking in common politeness, or perhaps I should say, "ecumenical spirit".

But it's a religion, regardless; the only way to avoid having one to inculcate mental wishy-washiness in oneself, to make a trousered ape of oneself, with no thought at all for questions of truth. (I doubt, on the basis of your post, that you occupy such a category.)

A more convincing way to make your point might have been to just argue that challenge, criticism, and even ridicule are all GOOD, because they put pressure on belief-systems and the persons who hold them, forcing them to re-examine themselves for error, and then defend themselves in the "marketplace of ideas". THAT is a process that all belief-systems, and their believers (Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, et cetera) can benefit from.

A note to Mr. Akyol will follow shortly.

Mr.Akyol:

I appreciate your thoughtful, reasonable attitude toward the "cartoons controversy".

My concern, increasingly, is over the question of how rare a specimen you are, amongst Muslims.

Perhaps you aren't all that rare. It is conventional in the West to say, "Well, these violent folks don't represent the majority of Muslims; they're a tiny minority who've hijacked an otherwise civilized and peaceful religion."

But I wonder if that assertion, made by the White House and others, isn't mainly for politeness' sake, and not sincerely believed. Or, perhaps, it's more hoped-for than sincerely believed.

And I find myself doubting that "moderate Muslims" are as large a percentage of the whole as I once thought. That they are the majority, I do not doubt...at least in the United States.

But worldwide? I don't know. Media distortions magnify the problem, I guess. But by how much?

In the West, "talking heads" assert that:

1. Only a tiny percentage of Muslims support terrorism, totalitarianism, the establishment of religion by force, et cetera;

2. The mobs of the "Arab street" represent vocal minorities and the "lunatic fringe"; they aren't at all "mainstream";

3. The people who participate in these riots are oppressed by totalitarian regimes and have no other outlet for their frustrations; were they living in free societies, they'd be less ignorant and less violent.

Those are all comforting thoughts. But what if they aren't true?

The size of the rioting mobs argues otherwise. For every one person who bothers to go out and protest, you figure there are ten, or a hundred, or maybe a thousand, who're too infirm, or not quite agitated enough to make the trek to the public square, but who're thinking exactly the same things. One begins to suspect that these rioters are saying things believed by, not 1% of the population of Syria, or tribal Pakistan, or Egypt, but 10%. Or 20%? How large can the percentage be before the before the term "lunatic fringe" is no longer accurate? At what percentage do we begin to describe the thing as "not yet a majority, but not far from mainstream"?

As for those who say "it's because they're oppressed", the response is obvious: A lot of the rioting is going on in Europe. They are marching with signs that read "Freedom Go To Hell"; there's not much gray area, there. This isn't a movement by persons unexposed to freedom, but by persons who're exposed to it, and assign it no value.

And what of the governments who're over-reacting to the controversy? Embassies are being burned while unprotected by their host governments; Arab countries have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark. Are these actions being taken by "ignorant, oppressed masses"?

Put plainly: Christians and Jews are lampooned in various ways daily in the West. They don't riot, or not enough of them do so to make the news. Government-run newspapers in the Arab world run the most atrocious anti-Jew, occasionally anti-Christian, certainly anti-U.S., cartoons imaginable. But visiting tourists and guest-workers do not respond by destroying buildings; the U.S. does not recall its ambassadors.

Mr. Akyol, I very much hope it isn't the case, but what if it's you, not the radicals, who has slipped out of the mainstream?

With respect, but concern,
R.C.Hamrick

If the misinterpreted and misinformed followers of a religion distort the true teachings of the religion to the point that the followers of the religion and their ideals become the religion, then one must leave that tainted 'religion,' and not associate with such an organized religion concept.

However, I still believe the religion can be corrected and reverted back to its true path by the real followers who, up until now, have been mostly silent and quick to disassociate themselves from any relativity to such a representation of their religion.

Instead, maybe those silent voices should condemn loudly the ones that are destroying the public opinion of the true meaning of Islam being peace.

The very kind R.C Hanrick has corrected me by telling me how better to make a point. The point I made was that ridicule is not a harm. Murder is. I made it quite well. R.C. also informs me with gentle psychobabble insight that I too have a religion. I have looked in the dictionary and it turns out I don't.

Because religion is universally silly, it must overthrow logic first before it can survive in any culture. Once logic has been overthrown, violence will find an easy home. "Overthrowing logic" is called "having faith". Relax R. C. - I don't have that either.

To Mr. Akyol

Thank you for your insightful and articulate articles.

One of the things that I've been trying to figure out about the situation involving the publishing cartoons and the reaction to them, especially in the Islamic World, is identifying the causes or factors that are involved (not listed in order of importance):

1. Free speech
2. Islamophobia in certain Western Countries
3. The feeling of many muslims that they are being insulted by the West (this coming after a long series of humiliating events).
4. The Islamic prophibitions from Islamic Law against graphical representation of what according to Islam are prophets (From my understanding, this prophibition started out against any depiction against any graphical image, similar to the Second Commandment from the Old Testament (not making idols and bowing down to them, but has become more limited to certain notable religious figures).
3. Possibly uses of local political parties in Europe mobilizing their base for some political agenda
4. Possible use of local political and terrorist organizations in the middle east consilidating their power, and mobilizing their base for their objectives.
5. The desire to sell newspapers (history has that the press is capable of running or even making up stories to increase sales).

I am sure that this doesn't exhaust the list of possibilities. Whatever the causes are, this unfortunate crisis has highlighted in a clear way not seen before, not even after 9/11, the divide between the Muslim nations and the West.

As a non-Muslim (I am a Christian), I do not think in terms of what the true Islam Religion is, and do not think it makes sense for me, as someone outside the Muslim community, to identify destructive movements within the Umma as the wrong Islam, and peaceful and progressive movements as the true Islam. That type of issue is for the Muslim community to figure out for itself.

I think the West should have the same attitude. What the West needs to worry about its own values. If necessary, we may have to make a stand for our own values. But if we do so, lets not do it with a chip on our shoulders.

It should be clearly understood by all human beings that insults and ridicule do not harm anyone. It is a misuse of the concept of harm to claim that they do. No one has a "right" to a certain opinion about themselves in the minds of others. We all have a right to ridicule and "dis" (disrespect) each other. But we do not have a right to harm one another. The idea that my expressed opinion of you "hurts" you is merely proof that you care more than you should about the opinions of others. Healthy humans don't care what other people think of them. Islam has produced a large number of unhealthy and irrational individuals who are enraged to murderousness by the opinions of others. This entire episode is proof to the world that Islam is a stupid and pitiful pile of nonsense.

That said, there is another grave intellectual error being made on all sides: It is not just Islam that produces morons. Christianity and Judaism have produced the same. The real problem is religion itself - a silly pile of nonsense devoted to the program of filling children's heads with contempt for reason and a worship of faith, contempt for independence and worship of authority, contempt for liberty and worship of violence.

This war - and it is a war - is nothing more than the explosion of sexually-repressed young males who have been cheated of reason and pleasure and logic and see no reason to be peaceful, productive and tolerant. Until ALL religion is condemned by most people, there is no hope.

Let's not forget, whether we care to admit or not, and possibly deliberately have stayed away from discussing, there are 'irreconcilable differences' with the Islamic religionists and their philosophies. This in no way should be associated as a shortcoming of the Islamic religion, but merely the applicators of the faith.

The creator and the developers, as well as the founding fathers had the right idea, but similar to the contradicting interpretations of the Supreme Court and the constitution, the applicators and the practitioners are, whether deliberately or not, mismanaging the whole thing.

The main point that John Reading, John Howard and I are trying to get across is that people who are so easily fooled into believing the superstitious and mythological nonsense that religion is really don't have the ability to think clearly.

John Reading:"The real problem is religion itself - a silly pile of nonsense devoted to the program of filling children's heads with contempt for reason and a worship of faith,... Until ALL religion is condemned by most people, there is no hope."

John Howard:"Religion should be ridiculed. It is absurd... Because religion is universally silly, it must overthrow logic first before it can survive in any culture. Once logic has been overthrown, violence will find an easy home."

Wake up people. Thank you John and John.

I didn't have any idea this discussion was about the legitimacy of a religion but rather the sensitivity and respect to those of faith by those of different views and possibly no faith (at least in religion).

Irregardless of whether or not one is anti-religion, I am sure the non-religionists would be 'offended' if a caricaturization of them suggesting they are the reason for all the criminal and unjust acts that envelop the world, and that having no religion membership is responsible for such disorder and chaos and mistrust in the world. They may have shown their anger and resentment by other means, and this point is where I agree with the disregard for the cause and effect of such violent protesting.

Obviously this analogy is not a real scenario but nevertheless the discussion about this post (I thought) was about the respect by one against another, and NOT, another form of fundamentalism, which is the argument of one being better than the other. Maybe it is I, who is confused.

Mustafa, Once again you have expressed what is (hopefully) the moderate voice of Islam. I have read similar thoughts expressed by columnists in Pakistani newspapers and Arab publications in Jordan and elsewhere. I know for a fact that you are not alone in your thoughts...at least among Muslims in the West who have some understanding (if not appreciation) of Western culture and our vision of liberty and freedom as an unalienable right granted to us by God

Most Muslims in the Arab world and further to the East do not understand or appreciate our Western culture. If anything they are taught daily (often by government sponsored media and public education as well as by Imams and other religious authorities) to despise and reject Western culture as being rife with pro-Zionist infidels who are enemies of Islam.

This is, of course, nothing short of culturally induced ignorance and is encouraged and supported by the same Islamists who are now manipulating these Muslim masses to demonstrate and vent their anger, hate and venom against the culture and people who they have been taught to believe are the enemies of their faith.

Moderate voices such as yours are read and appreciated by the Muslim elite, especially in the West. But who in the Muslim world is speaking this truth and wisdom to the Muslims supposedly raging over the Danish Cartoons?

(This comment follows a discussion that was started at “Call it mis-islamic terrorism”)

Dear Bengt,
I have to admit that I have used the wrong words in my last comment which gave the impression that I made some unappropriate conclusions about who actually is responsible for the cartoons. I apologize for being too general about such a sensitive topic. I did not mean to accuse the danish people in general or their government. Actually I am aware of the contradictory opinions of people in a democratic state, and I see that no entire people can be judged by the actions of a few or a few too many.
I am happy to hear that you do not see mocking as a democratic behaviour and therefore seem to seek solutions to communicate political views that do not include mocking or insulting.
The basic thing that made me sceptical about the statement of Europe United is the concept of unconditional support. Maybe I am misunderstanding the intention of the statement mentioned in my last comment, but all I tried to say was that unconditional support might not be a useful concept in times like these.
Although it might be important to practice loyalty towards a friend or government or country to strengthen the relationship and unite, it might not be wise to do so by being blind to their faults or supporting their flaws. Free speech is no flaw as we agree, but mockery and provocation are.
I do not wish to have free speech constricted in any way, so all I am asking for is just one statement from the governments and newspapers of Europe: We do practice free speech, and will continue to support it despite some painful side effects. But we also practice respect for the muslim community (and/or other groups of the human society) and therefore ask those who were insulted for pardon. I find this a crucial aspect that I and lots of people I know find important.
Before I continue touching a few topics that are related to this discussion, I would like to cite from the song “Cookie Jar” from Jack Johnson. It describes the role of our responsibility in connection to the media.

Well it wasn't me says the boy with the gun
sure i pulled the trigger but it needed to be done
because life's been killin' me ever since it begun
You cant blame me cause I'm too young

You cant blame me sure the killer was my son
But I didn't teach him to pull the trigger of the gun
It's the killing on this TV screen
You cant blame me its those images he sees

Well you cant blame me says the media man
Well I wasn't the one who came up with the plan
I just point my camera what the people want to see
Man it's a two way mirror and you cant blame me

You cant blame me says the singer of the song
Or the maker of the movie which he based his life on
It's only entertainment and as anyone can see
The smoke machines and makeup
Man you cant fool me

It was you it was me it was every man
We've all got the blood on our hands
We only receive what we demand
And if we want hell then hells what well have

We saw how the newspapers reprinted the cartoons not only for the sake of information about the world news, but actually as a political statement of the newspapers themselves. They meant to defend their basic reason for existence: Free speech.
I have mixed feelings about the fact that the media now clearly crosses the line from its informational purpose to a political statement to defend its ground. The media does not need to put forth cartoons to propagate their right of free speech. All they need to do is to continue to inform, simply inform the people with their critical articles about whatever topic they choose to. This would be enough of a statement to defend free speech.
But why defend the right of provocation? I have read many articles from many different people, and they continued to defend their right to insult the opponent. Insults and provocation were legitimated as a tool of an honest discussion, something you could not do without if you want to be intellectual and “western”, saying whatever comes to mind. If you look closely into the purpose and effects of provocation, you will find that its effects are mostly harmful. People who defend their right to provoke run risk of being PARTLY responsible for the consequences that follow. I have to point out: The supporters of the cartoons clearly did not throw the stones at embassies, and they also did not burn flags or threat the european culture. But they do have a part in it, and they can’t just blame the fundamental/violent muslims for the harsh reactions to the cartoons.

If we do agree in this discussion that the cartoons were indeed a provocation of the muslim society, we would therefore doubt the informative content about the cartoons. Cartoons do not represent the main tool of the media to inform the people, they have more of an entertaining character. So the campaign of reprinting those cartoons seems to have been an attempt to defend the right of entertainment, which in this case simply was the amusement of one group of people (with the side effect of more profit by being provocative) to the expense of another group of people.
My wish would be that especially parties like Europe United should consider some of these things more, because uniting means that muslims must be included in the uniting. The statement I found on their website seemed to me as if they haven’t done enough in that direction yet.
I hope that this comment wasn’t too hard to follow, since I noticed that quite many topics are linked to this and might need to be discussed in the future.

It couldn't be explained more perfectly. "I didin't do it" is not a justificatification.
Marvin.