In an effort to be ‘Fair & Balanced’, check out this selection of cartoons from the media of seven Arab countries (Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Syria and Egypt) and from the Palestinian Authority.

The cartoon above, from Arab News (April 10, 2002), shows Ariel Sharon wielding a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children. Arab News is a Saudi-based English language daily which is supposedly one of the Arab world’s more moderate papers.

Saudi Arabia didn't allow bibles or, any other Christian symbols on their territory.

Imagine if the Koran was banned in Europe?

Quite ironic. Do as I say, not as I do.

its called have your cake and eat it, very few (if any) muslim countries tolerate other beliefs, but expect the rest of the world to accomodate their's. In this case its not about tolerating Islam but about insulting it, but nevertheless the above is still largely true

Saudi Arabia didn't allow bibles or, any other Christian symbols on their territory.

Imagine if the Koran was banned in Europe?

Right....they even don't allow Christian Churches on their soil...BUT...they can build and finance a Mosque in Roma-Italia

Speaking of (in)tolerance

LaoPo

Saudi Arabia didn't allow bibles or, any other Christian symbols on their territory.

Imagine if the Koran was banned in Europe?

Right....they even don't allow Christian Churches on their soil...BUT...they can build and finance a Mosque in Roma-Italia

Speaking of (in)tolerance

LaoPo

If I remember correctly they "allow" it within Aramco compounds.

Nobody ever said the Arab press was fair and balanced... did they?

Either way, in case you are trying to contrast this with the Jyllands-posten controversy, Sharon is a contemporary political leader of flesh and blood. He is not the most sacred icon of the Jews, nor of the Western world, so the comparison does not quite work.

Muslims would not be outraged like this if the caricatures depicted an Arab political leader - it was the picture of the Prophet Muhammed that made them do their block.

That I personally think they would do well to take another sip of cinnamon coffee, a hit from the apple hookah and sit back and ponder whether this really is something to be so upset about, is another matter...

Muslims would not be outraged like this if the caricatures depicted an Arab political leader - it was the picture of the Prophet Muhammed that made them do their block.

Therein lies the rub. For the radical extremist theocracies, the Prophet Muhammed is by default a political leader, albeit in abstentia. If someone wants to run their country as a theocracy, then they shouldn't be getting upset when religious icons show up in political cartoons.

The cartoons published thus far re Muhomad are tame compared to these .

The controversy on displaying his image should never have gotten this far. Passions are getting inflamed big-time now...

If you get rid of the Danes, you'll have to keep paying the Danegeld

By Charles Moore - Daily Telegraph

(Filed: 04/02/2006)

It's some time since I visited Palestine, so I may be out of date, but I don't remember seeing many Danish flags on sale there. Not much demand, I suppose. I raise the question because, as soon as the row about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke, angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well supplied with Danish flags ready to burn. (In doing so, by the way, they offered a mortal insult to the most sacred symbol of my own religion, Christianity, since the Danish flag has a cross on it, but let that pass.)

Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.

The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.

It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

Now the BBC announces that the head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars has called for an "international day of anger" about the cartoons. It did not name this scholar, or tell us who he is. He is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. According to Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, Qaradawi is like Pope John XXIII for Catholics, "the most progressive force for change" in the Muslim world.

Yet if you look up Qaradawi's pronouncements, you find that he sympathises with the judicial killing of homosexuals, and wants the rejection of dialogue with Jews in favour of "the sword and the rifle". He is very keen on suicide bombing, especially if the people who blow themselves up are children - "we have the children bomb". This is a man for whom a single "day of anger" is surely little different from the other 364 days of the year.

Which leads me to question the extreme tenderness with which so many governments and media outlets in the West treat these outbursts of outrage. It is assumed that Muslims have a common, almost always bristling, view about their faith, which must be respected. Of course it is right that people's deeply held beliefs should be treated courteously, but it is a great mistake - made out of ignorance - to assume that those who shout the loudest are the most representative.

This was the error in the case in Luton, where a schoolgirl's desire to wear the jilbab was upheld in the erroneous belief that this is what Islam demands. In fact, the girl was backed by an extremist group, and most of the other Muslims at the school showed no inclination to dress in full-length gowns like her. It's as if the Muslim world decided that the views of the Rev Ian Paisley represented the whole of authentic Christianity.

There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching, having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not everyone agrees about what is permissible.

Some of these depictions are in Western museums. What will the authorities do if the puritan factions within Islam start calling for them to be removed from display (this call has been made, by the way, about a medieval Christian depiction of the Prophet in Bologna)? Will their feeling of "offence" outweigh the rights of everyone else?

Obviously, in the case of the Danish pictures, there was no danger of idolatry, since the pictures were unflattering. The problem, rather, was insult. But I am a bit confused about why someone like Qaradawi thinks it is insulting to show the Prophet's turban turned into a bomb, as one of the cartoons does. He never stops telling us that Islam commands its followers to blow other people up.

If we take fright whenever extreme Muslims complain, we put more power in their hands. If the Religious Hatred Bill had passed unamended this week, it would have been an open invitation to any Muslim who likes getting angry to try to back his anger with the force of law. Even in its emasculated state, the Bill will still encourage him, thus stirring the ill-feeling its authors say they want to suppress.

On the Today programme yesterday, Stewart Lee, author of Jerry Springer: The Opera - in which Jesus appears wearing nappies - let the cat out of the bag. He suggested that it was fine to offend Christians because they had themselves degraded their iconography; Islam, however, has always been more "conscientious about protecting the brand".

The implication of the remark is fascinating. It is that the only people whose feelings artists, newspapers and so on should consider are those who protest violently. The fact that Christians nowadays do not threaten to blow up art galleries, invade television studios or kill writers and producers does not mean that their tolerance is rewarded by politeness. It means that they are insulted the more.

Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported, to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan "God loves F***ing".

Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn't I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won't, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.

There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam - fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.

American mainstreampress chickens out of publishing the images, and CNN states for example "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."

American mainstreampress chickens out of publishing the images, and CNN states for example "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."

It is rather disgusting...

If you get rid of the Danes, you'll have to keep paying the Danegeld

By Charles Moore - Daily Telegraph

(Filed: 04/02/2006)

What a great essay! Couldn't have stated my own sentiments any better. Thanks for posting that.

Someone explain to me why we (non muslims) care what the muslim world say and do? Why don't we build a big wall around them and leave them alone to do whatever it is they want to do without our interference.

I don't care about ANYTHING the muslims say as I think they are ALL guilty of the slaughter that is going on in this world. Untill I see some news where THEY are doing something to stop this killing, then I blame them ALL.

American mainstreampress chickens out of publishing the images, and CNN states for example "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."

I think they're just being smart. It's nice to have free speech but once it start to cost money it ain't so nice anymore. Probably they will also never show the cartoon where Thailand's most loved figure kow-tows to his dog Deng while in the background Taxin rapes a puppy called LOS.

Another thing people seem to forget is that there's plenty of westerners working in for example the middle east and their life ain't getting any better through this shit.

American mainstreampress chickens out of publishing the images, and CNN states for example "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."

Come on! Who's kidding whom here?

Things like this cartoon publishing in major newspapers in areas where there are known large Muslim populations does not happen by accident.

CNN doesn't back away from headlines without very good reason, heavy influence, or both.

Someone has to make a concerted decision in conjunction with a lot of other people to make something like this happen.

Everyone in Europe realizes all too well that there is a major problem with Islamic wacko extremists throughout Europe and Asia. They also realize that they can't satisfy their constituents by aligning with the US at this point in time.

So what is another alternative to cause all the wacko's to come out in force and protest? Publish something that is guaranteed to be inflamatory.

If you don't believe that these publishings are part of a joint concerted intelligence/propaganda effort, then you are deluding yourself. These kinds of things just don't happen with reason, purpose and consideration to the possible outcomes.

And what is one of those outcomes? In one of the known rougue states, Syria, all the fanatics joined in and invaded foreign soil. Yes, that is what you call it when foreign embassies are attacked without provocation.

This is a clear example of what the fanatical Muslim world would like to have happen if they had more support, funding and weapons. They would like to see full scale invasions (which fortunately isn't likely to happen in the near future). I'm sure this outcome was completely expected, and will be used to show just how dangerous this extremist element is to the civilized world.

London, 2006...

And what is one of those outcomes? In one of the known rougue states, Syria, all the fanatics joined in and invaded foreign soil. Yes, that is what you call it when foreign embassies are attacked without provocation.

This is a clear example of what the fanatical Muslim world would like to have happen if they had more support, funding and weapons. They would like to see full scale invasions (which fortunately isn't likely to happen in the near future). I'm sure this outcome was completely expected, and will be used to show just how dangerous this extremist element is to the civilized world.

One of the BBC reporters in the middle east had an interesting observation today. Syria is a police state. Invasions of all of these embassies could not have possibly been permitted without the explicit permissin of the Syrian government.

This should be a wake up call to all civilized western governments to pull the eff out of Syria and cut off all business relations as well. This goes for the hypocrites in the US who allow hundreds of millions of international commerce to go on with Syria despite its status as an enemy nation. It's time to start cutting off diplomatic relations and international trade with these rogue regimes and see how long they are able to sustain their grip on power.

They want an all islamic government and nation?? Fine, let's give it to them. But that means everything. Cut off from the civilized world means cut off in every sense of the words. Enough is enough.

Impossible. Goods will just transit through a third party country. Probably one of the "friendly" islamic countries that won't let their "brothers" suffer..

The Islamic assassin who butchered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on an Amsterdam street, Mohammed Bouyeri, says the prophet justifies his deed.

AMSTERDAM, 03/02/06 - "The prophet Mohammed justifies Islamic violence in the battle between the faithful and unfaithful. Paradise awaits the faithful who die as a result, Mohammed Bouyeri claimed yesterday in the district court of The Hague."

What is important with this rant is that people listen and take heed. Theo Van Gogh's final words "Can't we talk about this" will be on Europe's tombstone...

From illuminated manuscripts to Ottoman miniature painting, the image of the prophet Mohammed have been quite common.

That it is presented as a taboo to the unwitting is another case of public-affairs rope-a-dope by the proponents of Islamism. It fits in with the sell-job that no Muslim can be bad, because the faith is good, and other logically unsupportable arguments.

The Islamic assassin who butchered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on an Amsterdam street, Mohammed Bouyeri, says the prophet justifies his deed.

AMSTERDAM, 03/02/06 - "The prophet Mohammed justifies Islamic violence in the battle between the faithful and unfaithful. Paradise awaits the faithful who die as a result, Mohammed Bouyeri claimed yesterday in the district court of The Hague."

What is important with this rant is that people listen and take heed. Theo Van Gogh's final words "Can't we talk about this" will be on Europe's tombstone...

Being from the same country as where Theo van Gogh was butchered/slaugthered, not just murdered !, by this Islamic fanatic idiot, I sadly agree with you Boon Mee, but hope we're wrong

The whole point between Fundamentalistic-Islam and the rest of the world, whether Christian, Buddhist or other religions is LACK OF RESPECT AND ACCEPTANCE (for others' Religion).

I am so sick and tired about the world-wide-spread discussion about the Islam.

Why don't they just sh_t up, and let everybody go to their own Churches, Temples and Mosques and pray, instead of using violence?

It's all about (non)RESPECT and (non)TOLERANCE and (non)ACCEPTANCE, unfortunate enough!

Sad and very dangerous for the future of all of us.

LaoPo

I don't care about ANYTHING the muslims say as I think they are ALL guilty of the slaughter that is going on in this world. Untill I see some news where THEY are doing something to stop this killing, then I blame them ALL.

Then I suggest you keep your twisted opinions to yourself. Last I heard, offensive, racist crap like that wasn't welcomed on this forum...

This photo of a demonstrator in London, protesting against the Mohammed cartoons in front of the French Embassy, sums up the paradox of radical Muslims who take advantage of Western freedoms to try to suppress the exercise of those freedoms by others:

Saudi Arabia didn't allow bibles or, any other Christian symbols on their territory.

Imagine if the Koran was banned in Europe?

Right....they even don't allow Christian Churches on their soil...BUT...they can build and finance a Mosque in Roma-Italia

Speaking of (in)tolerance

LaoPo

If I remember correctly they "allow" it within Aramco compounds.

Correct...I went to a R.C. mass in the Aramco compound in @ 1977....also women are allowed to drive within the camp.

I don't care about ANYTHING the muslims say as I think they are ALL guilty of the slaughter that is going on in this world. Untill I see some news where THEY are doing something to stop this killing, then I blame them ALL.

Then I suggest you keep your twisted opinions to yourself. Last I heard, offensive, racist crap like that wasn't welcomed on this forum...

Who made you God.

Being from the same country as where Theo van Gogh was butchered/slaugthered, not just murdered !, by this Islamic fanatic idiot, I sadly agree with you Boon Mee, but hope we're wrong

The whole point between Fundamentalistic-Islam and the rest of the world, whether Christian, Buddhist or other religions is LACK OF RESPECT AND ACCEPTANCE (for others' Religion).

I am so sick and tired about the world-wide-spread discussion about the Islam.

Why don't they just sh_t up, and let everybody go to their own Churches, Temples and Mosques and pray, instead of using violence?

It's all about (non)RESPECT and (non)TOLERANCE and (non)ACCEPTANCE, unfortunate enough!

Sad and very dangerous for the future of all of us.

LaoPo

Well, that's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.

Just been having a look at the cartoons......quite amusing but not THAT funny......anybody want to.............................Argggggggg.....ok-ok-

Saudi Arabia didn't allow bibles or, any other Christian symbols on their territory.

Imagine if the Koran was banned in Europe?

Right....they even don't allow Christian Churches on their soil...BUT...they can build and finance a Mosque in Roma-Italia

Speaking of (in)tolerance

LaoPo

If I remember correctly they "allow" it within Aramco compounds.

Correct...I went to a R.C. mass in the Aramco compound in @ 1977....also women are allowed to drive within the camp.

Which was an added bonus with all the booze flowing around