Killing a cartoon


Jahanshah Javid
by Jahanshah Javid

Q, in your comments under Saman's cartoon about NIAC, you wrote:

I believe all three of you [Take it easy, Jahanshah Javid and Saman] have some common ground. But you may be missing one important point on what constitutes intolerance or satire that is the relative potency and worth of signals being communicated.

Saman is only half-right that this piece of satire should be "tolerated" but the lack of such toleration is not a sign of backwardness of Iranians. Let me as the question that actually came up (but was completely whitewashed by the Western media) when the Mohammad Cartoons surfaced:

If Mohammad Cartoons are OK? Why isn't a conference on the Holocaust OK?

My response:

The point is not whether the Holocaust or the Mohammad cartoons are OK or not. Obviously they are offensive and many think they are not OK.

The point is artists/writers/speakers should not be killed or threatened in any way by religious or state officials of any country or creed.

I have not seen any death sentences issued by leaders of the Jewish faith or Israeli officials in response to the Holocaust cartoons published and displayed in Iran.

Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist on the other hand received actual death threats from Islamic leaders, including our very own Khomeini, founder and leader of the Islamic Revolution AND the Islamic Republic of Iran. Can't get any more official than that.

Cartoons, by nature, are offensive. Some of them are very very offensive. But there are none that deserve murder and physical violence against the artist.

Before we can even argue about how far free speech can go, we must first agree that murder and physical violence are ABSOLUTELY unacceptable reactions to any form of EXPRESSION. I can yell at these offensive writers and artists, draw cartoons of their children being raped by blood sucking zionists, or demand my government to impose economic sanctions on the country where the offense took place.

I can do anything I want to show my fuming rage against a cartoonist or writer for whatever he or she may have done --

except I cannot kill or throw a punch.

You wrote:

I ask Saman if he is willing to make a satirical piece about the Holocaust or about say, the Khorramshahr invasion glorifying Saddam Hussein? Will JJ publish such a piece under the banner of "tolerance"?

My response:

Again, the question is not to publish offensive material or not, but the reaction to any sort of publication. The reaction -- calls for murder and violence -- shown by many Islamic leaders, especially in Iran, towards the publication of anti-Islamic material has been far more offensive than the actual books or cartoons that sparked them.

Publishing something may or may not be OK according to different tastes and sensibilities. But murder and violence is NEVER an OK response to any form of expression and just because an ayatollah says its OK because somewhere in the Qoran says its OK and therefore God says its OK... Then it's OK to kill someone for what they said or filmed or published?

No. It's never ever ever OK.

You wrote:

What about a piece showing Barak Obama as a Monkey, isn't that Satire? Would you draw/publish such a cartoon? So please, let's not reduce this to a simple formula of "tolerance." Think about the consequences of what you are saying.

My response:

Consequence of what I'm saying? Let's see what would happen if I published Barak Obama as a monkey:

Many readers would boycott this site, for obvious good reasons. But no one in the U.S. religious or government establishments would issue a death sentence against me. In fact the law here protects me from any kind of physical violence. I will not go to jail for publishing such a cartoon, but anyone who lifts a finger against me WILL go to jail.

You wrote

Most people know the answer to my questions above is no. None of those examples are OK. People couch their answers in terms of "good taste" or "appropriateness" but the reality is that the signs embedded in those pieces are hurtful to a group of people, no matter how much of a "good sport" some of them are.

By contrast making fun of George Bush as a mad "cow boy" or Tony Blair as a "lapdog" is a lot more "OK" because the persons and groups being targeted have such high power status that they can afford to be tolerant of pointed criticism. They are not in danger of serious abuse and the messages don't hit home like it would if making fun of Holocaust or Mohammad Cartoons.

The political atmosphere allows enough security to justify such satire. Jews making fun of themselves on American TV, for example, is not threatening to their status on TV. But making fun of muslims or black people because of their race/religion is threatening to these groups perceisely because they are under siege in today's America by western Media. Similrly the issue of Holocaust is too dramatic and too painful to Israelis and the majority of the Western citizens who had to go through world war II only a generation ago.

This is why they were not amused by Tehran's holocaust cartoon conference, but they saw nothing wrong with the Mohammad cartoons. This is also why they were hypocrites.

My response:

Believe me, the Jews were not the only ones offended by the Holocaust exhibit in Tehran. The Holocaust was a human catastrophe, only Jews happened to be the main victims. Mass murder is mass murder whether against Jews, Cambodians or Iraqis. My problem with the holocaust exhibit was not the cartoons themselves. In fact most of them did not deny the holocaust or make fun of Jews, but were critical of Israel.

My problem was the Islamic Republic and its religious establishment are so childish and insecure that they feel the need to mobilize so much energy and resources just to show their anger against a single cartoon. I guess some people can't take a joke... and too often they are our own cowardly Islamic leaders who are experts at instigating the masses to commit violence.

You wrote:

The right thing to do is to be tolerant of both sides.

My response:

The right thing to do is to respond in kind, with means of expression, not with murder or violence.

You wrote:

Saman made it clear this was satire in the actual cartoon and in his comment. But still, I'm willing to bet some part of NIAC was uncomfortable with it.

NIAC has been under siege from people calling them various forms of "Mullah lovers," after all.

My response:

Cartoons are there to make someone uncomfortable. Saman might get slapped around one day because he's asking for it all the time!!!! But at least no one has called for his death. I say that's progress, that's tolerance.


Recently by Jahanshah JavidCommentsDate
Hooman Samani: The Kissinger
Aug 31, 2012
Eric Bakhtiari: San Francisco 49er
Aug 26, 2012
You can help
Aug 23, 2012
more from Jahanshah Javid

well said JJ

by j (not verified) on

well said jj jan! reminds of the famous quote by sigmund freud: "civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock"!

in my view as well, physical voilence cannot be justified under any circumstances as a response to expressing ideas (as "bad" as they can be)!

Amil Imani

I agree with JJ...why Muslims do that?

by Amil Imani on

Blast outside Danish embassy in Pakistan kills 4 By ASIF SHAHZAD, Associated Press Writer
31 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - An apparent car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Pakistan's capital on Monday, killing at least four people and wounding dozens more, officials and witnesses said.
The blast echoed through Islamabad and left a crater more than three feet deep in the road in front of the embassy. Shattered glass, fallen masonry and dozens of wrecked vehicles littered the area. A plume of smoke rose above the scene as people, some bloodied, ran back and forth in a state of panic.

Amir Ali, deputy commissioner of Islamabad, said four people were killed and six were wounded, although witnesses said many more were injured by flying debris. There was no immediate information on the identities of the casualties.

The explosion appeared to be a car bomb, police officer Muhammad Ashraf said. Someone parked a car in front of the embassy and it exploded at around 1 p.m, he said.

It was the second bombing targeting foreigners in the Pakistani capital in less than three months.

Denmark has faced threats at its embassies following the reprinting in Danish newspapers of a caricature depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims generally consider depicting the prophet to be sacrilegious and Islamic militants had warned of reprisals.

In April, Danish intelligence officials warned of an "aggravated" terror threat against Denmark because of the cartoon. The warning specifically singled Pakistan, along with North Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast. It follows a bombing in March at a restaurant in Islamabad that killed a Turkish aid worker and wounded at least 12 others including four FBI personnel.

"I was with a friend passing through a nearby street then we heard a big bang," said witness Muhammad Akhtar. "Then we saw smoke and people running in a frenzy. We shifted at least eight or nine injured to hospitals. They all have got serious injuries. They were soaked in blood."

Footage from the scene showed rescue workers dragging away a bloodied person, covering his torso with a blanket.

Sirens wailed as ambulances took the wounded from the scene. One group of rescuers carried away what appeared to be the upper half of a man's body. Pieces of metal and glass were scattered at least 200 yards from the blast site.

An exterior wall of the embassy collapsed and its metal gate was blown inward but the embassy building itself remained intact. The Danish flag and the EU flag were blown off their staffs and the windows of the embassy were blown out.

The office of a Pakistani development organization opposite the embassy was badly damaged, its roof partially collapsed.

Anjum Masood, a field operations manager for the U.N.-funded group, Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment, said dozens of its 100 employees were wounded, mostly because of flying glass. His own left hand was bandaged.

Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants have launched a wave of bombings in Pakistan over the past year, mostly targeting security forces.

There had been a relative lull in violence since a new civilian government took power two months ago and began peace talks with the Taliban based along the Afghan frontier.

In April, Denmark briefly evacuated staff from its embassies in Algeria and Afghanistan because of terror threats related to the Muhammad drawings. Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller then suggested Danish embassies in other locations also could be forced to relocate their staff following a warning in March by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.


As an American..

by David2 (not verified) on

Some posters(authors)in this discussion give me hope for the future, "the artist will never die.". Yup!


Totally agree with CDT. An

by BK (not verified) on

Totally agree with CDT. An important point well made that seems to have been missed by other contributors. I do not equate mocking the slaughter of millions of innocent people with mocking the leader/Prophet of an ideology/belief/religion.

But you know what? Even though I totally disagree with them (because it runs contrary to compressively documented historical fact) I would still defend the right of those who question the Holocaust and, as long as they are trying to make a point, even their satire of that terrible event.

Maybe some people should consider the possibility that what is scared to “THEM”, may not be necessarily sacred to others. Therefore, others should not be obliged to behave or feel in exactly the same manner towards an issue or a person as those who feel “insulted”.

Also fully with JJ’s comments on this issue.


Why not get outraged about

by Anonymousaa (not verified) on

Why not get outraged about these atrocities:

Iran: 81-Year-Old Human Rights Activist Jailed

Tehran -- An 81-year-old lawyer and human rights activist of Iraqi descent has been jailed in Iran. Hassan Abdul Hussein Tafah was sentenced to 15 years in jail and fined the equivalent of 130,000 euros for attending international conferences where human rights issues were discussed.

Tafah, originally from the southern Iraqi city of Basra, was sentenced to death for being a 'moharebeh', a term used in Iran's Islamic Sharia law to describe a crime against God, Islam and the state.

Before seeking refuge in Iran and becoming an Iranian citizen, Tafah had spent 15 years in Iraqi jails under the rule of late dictator Saddam Hussein, deposed in 2003 following the US invasion of Iraq.

After having found refuge in Iran, Tafah continued his human rights activism, often defending political detainees

12 Iranian labor leaders were sentenced to 91 days in jail and 10 lashes for holding a union rally on May Day last year.




by Parthian on

what the hell are you talking about brother? My taste has nothing to do with what I said. I wrote that as much as I hated the conference on holocaust, I would never support banning it...


The Islamic Republic

by Anonymousaa (not verified) on

The Islamic Republic embraced neo-nazi, Ku Klux Klansman David Duke as a "special guest" and a rogues' gallery of Jew-haters at a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran last year. What's next?? You are expecting JJ to promote KKK and white supremacist???


K Nassery


by K Nassery on

Did he get banned from this site, JJ?  I thought that the Canadian Health Care System should have provided him with mental therapy, but he still had the right to be published.  It's good to know who the misogynists are.

I thought JJ's comments about the German Pope's statements of history were unfair and I told JJ so.  However, JJ should state his opinions about that religious figure and no one should ever try to stop him or anyone.  We can agree to disagree.

 No topic should be taboo.  No commentor should be "punished."  The First Amendment is there for everyone, even people who I think need mental help.  The First Amendment is a basic Human Right and it should apply to the entire planet of Humans.  Someday, I am will.



To Jahanshah Javid

by Ali1234 (not verified) on

You are picking your battles; you answer every question by referring time after time to those "Islamic leaders" who called for the death of the cartoonists.

The questions were not about whether it is right or wrong to murder cartoonists for the caricatures, I don't think any of your readers at would debate on that.

The question is whether YOU would PUBLISH cartoons or other offensive materials that mock/insult, for example, the Holocaust (or any other Western sensitive issues). Considering that you have many times given forum to very racist anti-Muslim people and have published materials that were very offensive to Muslims, such as the "Moharram cards"....etc

Darius Kadivar


by Darius Kadivar on

Couldn't agree with you more on this.

Gee I'm worried cause I am begining to think more and more  like you these days ... ;0))

Ciao Bella



freedom of speech

by Anonymoush (not verified) on

Parthian is advocating for "freedom of speech" unless someone says that the cartoon he likes so much is in poor taste... then all hell breaks loose and freedom of speech is out the window, leaving room for character assassination and finger pointing.

Job well done Parthian! without dedicated people like yourself, freedom of speech will never be defined the right way!

Azarin Sadegh

Hanging a painting

by Azarin Sadegh on

killing a cartoon, hanging a painting, cutting a poem, shutting a note of music,...burning a word. Yes, they could.
Yet, the artist will never die.
PS: I just read the title JJ, I'll comment on the rest later :-)


Nothing is absolute

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Its good to have ideal constitution, but any half decent attorney will tell you, everything is relative, things like torture, your library books, your bookstore purchases and holding people with no right to attorney .... . Have all been considered fundamental and have all been over stepped in the great USA. Essentially the end analysis is that you cannot yell fire in a theater. If your cartoons cause insult and injury, they should be banned, not for religious reasons but for peace.


Q is ridiculous as usual

by Parthian on

"....muslims are under siege..." What a bunch of crap! Most muslim societies are under siege by fanatic muslims. Proof? You YOURSELF LIVE IN THE WEST Q. If Iran was good, you would live there. Now, if you feel insecure, or your muslim brothers are insecure by free speech, and criticism(whether right or wrong) than get the hell out of the country. You all have a choice to live here, or leave here. What you don't have a  choice to do is change the fundementals of this society so that people like youselves, and fanatics feel secure. Get it???


One more note

by Parthian on

As much as I criticize JJ, and disagree with him philosophically, I used to have a tremendous amount of respect for him. This site was truly a forum of free speech. Unfortunately, this website is gone to hell as well. Few people are given power to delete what "they" don't like, or what they see as offensive. That is unfortunate. This is his website, and JJ can run it anyway he wants, I am just expressing my opinion about it.


Salmon Rushdie made a lot of

by Soleiman (not verified) on

Salmon Rushdie made a lot of money off of Khomeini. That was what he was looking for. If it wasn't because of Khomeini he would be washing cars by now.


JJ, you need to get off your high horse with "responses"

by Q on

First of all, when did I make an argument in favor of violence? All your "responses" assume such an argument was made. This is a straw man and I dare say you have avoided the arguments that were made. Read the original comment.

I am not and did not advocate for any violence or death sentences but muslims are not the only violent people in the world. Violence committed and perpetrated by Europe and America is often excused and minimized even though it is far more deadly.

Yes, there are a few ignorant Muslims who get offended and resort to violence when insulted. However demonizing Islam itself as "violent" in a wholesale sort of way which is done by western media, and many Iranian Americans leads to a few hundred-thousand ignorant Americans signing up to go kill A-rabs in the Middle East. In the grand scheme of things, which act is more violent?

I have not seen any death sentences issued by leaders of the Jewish faith or Israeli officials in response to the Holocaust cartoons published and displayed in Iran.

First, again, nobody should issue death sentences over cartoons. Second, no Iranian "leader" issued any fatwa in the Danish cartoons case. I realize they did so for Rushdie, but not in this case.
Third, yes, there have been the equivilant of death sentences and threats issued against Iran and Iranians for the holocaust conference.

The Holocaust conference and Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel are two of the most important reasons for elevating the war rhetoric against Iran. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying these two actions were not stupid, but if we are so easily saying that such actions (which are not violence in themselves) are stupid for raising the anger of Israel and America, making war more likely, why don't we call the Danish cartoonists stupid for predictably raising the anger of Muslims world wide?

I can do anything I want to show my fuming rage against a cartoonist or writer for whatever he or she may have done -- except kill or throw a punch.

In much of Europe, it is illegal to draw cartoons rediculing Holocaust or calling it into question. There are people in Jail right now for having violated these laws. Jail is state violence. If you want to leave it, punches will be thrown at you to keep you inside. If you do succeed in escaping you can get shot and killed. Where is your criticism of these laws in Europe?

Again, let's not pretend Muslims have a monopoly on threatening and yielding violence, or being "intolerant."

My problem was the Islamic Republic and its religious establishment are so childish and insecure that they feel the need to mobilize so much energy and resources just to show their anger against a single cartoon. I guess some people can't take a joke...

The Western media universally condemned and attacked the Holocaust conference. It was seriously argued that this conference "means" that Iran wants to nuke Israel, and it was seriously advocated that Iran should be attacked for it (which may still happen). Overall, every single news agency in America covered the story in light of how backward and antisemetic Iranians are. Much MORE energy and resources was devoted toward getting out this message about Iran and Iranians. During all that, did you ever ask why American and Jewish establishment is so "childish and insecure?"

The right thing to do is to respond in kind, with means of expression, not with murder or violence.

NO, I sincerely disagree. Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Why anybody would want to purposefully hurt and damage something dear to someone else is beyond me.

To finally get back to the original argument, the dominate culture here in the US has already recognized the boundary between humor and insult, at least for internal applications, in a way that most Iranians haven't yet.

There is a direct relationship between "how far" one can go in humor with what kind of social status and security the target group enjoys and how painful the attack resonates in that community.

That's why you see drunk people on TV making an ass out of themselves being "proud" of their Irish background without any widespread insult being interpreted to Irish Americans (there are groups trying to put an end to this stereotype as well, but it's just not a big issue). Yet a cartoon of a Chinese man with purposefully slanted eyes and long pony tail is only shown in history classes. Even though, Asian cartoon depction of white Westerners with purposefully exaggerated round eyes do not raise any eyebrows... so to speak.

The depiction of Persians in the movie 300 was racist and problematic for many Iranians. But routine depiction of British, Italian and French stereotypes in war movies, mafia movies and comedies does not cause the same outrage because these groups are very secure socially and internationally. Now if you have negative depictions of Gay people, you would hear similar outrage.

So, it's not "even stephen," tit for tat, "all equal" at all. The fact is that post 9/11 Muslims are under siege, socially vulnerable and consequently insecure in their status anywhere due to the unprecedented amount of attention and demonization they face, a situation similar to what NIAC is facing.

Lastly, you keep saying my questions "aren't the point." But the fact remains that Saman would NOT draw and you would NOT publish certain cartoons of the nature that I described and you WOULD publish others. I am in complete agreement with this policy, but it is counter to what you are claiming on the surface. Ask yourself why?


I deleted my own comment...Good night!

by Midwesty on



It is interesting that..

by Parthian on

People like Irandokht, and Abarmard who consider themselves the "supporters" of "oppressed", and tilt sort of liberal in their views, consider themselves openminded are basically giving us justifications for "circumstances" when it is perfectly ok to curb free speech. This is unfortunately true of extreme liberals, and extreme right wingers. They pound their chest about free speech as long as it is within the boundary of their decency.

I found no problem with Saman's cartoon. I loved it. This is regardless of how I feel about NIAC. So who is Irandokht to tell me, or set my moral guidelines about what is "right" or 'wrong" speech.

I hate IR with an infinite passion. But my love for free speech supercedes that hatred. Yes, conference on holocaust was perfectly fine. Mohammad's cartoon were perfectly fine. Jesus' cartoons are fine too. I love Zarathustra, if tomorrow someone draws a cartoon about him, I will be ok. Speech only hurts people's feelings. But what we might learn from it, is considerably more beneficial to society than a group of people getting their feelings hurt.

The Muhammad's cartoons were badly drawn. They were not even funny, or satirical. But for me it reconfirmed something about Islam, and modern day muslims. Muslim society are extremely corrupt, full of lies, cheat and deception, yet they get so worked up, all riled about a cartoon drawn by some unknown dude. This shows a certain self-esteem, confidence problem with the muslims, and how weak Islam's foundations are. None of the muslims, including some of our great pseudo-intellectual professors who write here often have ever written about the cheating, and deceits, and lies in the muslim society. Yet, within a few days of cartoons, they were ready to jump on the bandwagon, and lecture us about the limitations of freespeech.

One more thing, You also always have the right to criticize someone's speech, but what you don't have the right to do is to force them to be silent. If IR wants a holocaust conference, by all means IR has the right to do it, but get ready for all kinds of criticsm. Same with Saman's cartoon, and I must say he has handled it very well.


TEHRAN -- The documentary

by Anonymousoo (not verified) on

TEHRAN -- The documentary “Beyond Fitna” will be posted on the Internet today.

The film, which was directed by a group of Iranian filmmakers and produced by the Islam and Christianity Nongovernmental Organization, is a response to Dutch politician Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam documentary “Fitna”.

The film honors all monotheistic religions and gives a response to the anti-Islam propaganda of Western extremists, the NGO’s spokesman, Mohammad Karimi, told IRNA on Tuesday.

He said that the documentary was produced under the supervision of a group of religious scholars and Iranian professional documentarians in the English, Persian, and Arabic languages.

So far there have been exactly:

** 0 Christian riots
** 0 Embassies torched
** 0 Imams murdered
** 0 death threats


Iranian history

by Abarmard on



by Abarmard on

I am not justifying but to say that people are people, situations create behaviors. An artist should be more aware and sensitive to the opprssed! Where do you get my agreement with murderous acts?


When pigs fly

by Anonymouse on

Ali P. it is ok to draw cartoon.  Like JJ said: "Cartoons are there to make someone uncomfortable."

Now who do you want to make uncomfortable?

When Salman Rushdie wrote a book, who did HE want to make uncomfortable?  That MFing freak (look at him) wrote a BOOK on Islam and did not know Muslims may get offended? That some religious leaders would put a Fatwa on his ass?! WTF does he know about Islam then?!

Ali P.


by Ali P. on

It is 1978.

The Great Liar is the great hope for Iran.

 Men, women, people of all walks of life love him.

Now someone wants to draw a cartoon of him, warning us all of the great horror the Ayatollah is going to bring us. (Now of course,We KNOW the cartoonist is a zionist/CIA agent/Bahaii/Shah's puppet, paid by his masters to do this).

 Would this be insensitive? Would this be an insult to the great nation of Iran? After all, the cartoonist is being insensitive to the wish of millions of Iranians. Kill and burn the insulting cartoonist?

 Is it OK to draw this cartoon now? When did it change?


Sucks to Canada!

by Anonymouse on

Why should Hajiagha who by his own account was told by his editor at Gol Agha that he was perhaps the BEST cartoonist ever, be banished from this site?! He drew for several years and what did he get?  A tip paw! Isn't that sort of killing the cartoonist?

Sucks to Canada! Why should he draw for us namak nash-nass?! Why no one wants to date him?  Why did he have to end up in Canada?! These and other similar questions are never answered.  So JJ don't expect to get your questions about Fatwas answered!!


Abarmard: Do you realize

by Anonymouskl (not verified) on

Abarmard: Do you realize that you're justifying committing violet acts and murder for those who feel "insecure" albiet by Americans or Iranians? How long have you lived in this country? What kind of rationalization is that?? I'm really disappointed.


Irandokht and anonymouse are right

by Mehdi on

I think Q made some very valid points and we should all learn from it. No need to fight it, really. The main point is that unlike our slogan here, there are actually things that are sacred. I don't think "an artist" should make fun of something that is too important to even be associated with jokes. There is a point where joking is actually degrading. One must be able to differentiate. No, such action does not legitemize murder but it does legitemize severe action!


The issue is not only insult

by Abarmard on

In case of Mohammad cartoons the sensitive fact comes from the "khod kam beeni" of the Muslim or the third world. Historically they have been played with and they take the west as a whole (a mistake, similar to the Westerners who see all Muslims the same) and interpret their actions directly as to their beliefs and culture, which they hold dear. They feel that they have been mis presented and are considered backward and lower human. Their actions are a reactionary, and that is very understandable...

Let's put in to perspective. Once during my college years I was walking back with my best friend from a bar. A group of drunks passed and made a comment that "Look at that fag"... and being a bit under influence I took it harshly and confronted them. It did not escalate to a fight with the help of my friend and some of their friends. The guy at the end said: what's your problem anyway, I mean the other guy (my best friend). My best friend that until then was separating us and telling us to cool it, lost his cool and we actually switched position! Now I was trying to calm the situation...

People get angry when they are "insulted" and react most of the time stupidly towards the situation. In this time and age, there is a difference between the Middle East and some Islamic nations and the west. The reason is mis representation, and manipulation of their natural socio-political path and they feel powerless. If the west felt powerless they would get angry and react harshly ALSO.

In England and France the tolerance towards the peaceful Muslims is diminishing because the "Christian" citizens feel threatened by the increasing Muslim influence. Naturally they would also come out and burn cars and riot if the Muslims increase their influence and belittle the "other" groups of citizens way of thinking.

These are not based on a religious ideology but a human reactionary behavior and I honestly believe that there is not much difference if the situation was reversed.

I am not justifying the Muslim reactions or wanting to ban the cartoonists or writers, but intelligent artists must be a bit more aware about the social environment of their surrounding world. When it comes to a direct hit, we are all backwards! 


If killing is allowed by

by infidel (not verified) on

If killing is allowed by Quron, then it is the religious duty of the clergies to issue death fatwas. Why try to obfuscate what this religion is all about??


Rushdie dogma

by Anonymouse on

JJ your response to many of the questions about Muhammad cartoons, rosary, burning Qoran and similar offenses is that it is ok to do these things but it is not ok for the "religious leaders" to issue fatwas.

We are not religious leaders.  Those who draw cartoon or Muhammad or Rushdie who wrote that book, don't know about the religious leaders?  Are they that dumb?  I am reminded of Chris Rock who said during Clinton-Lewinsky scandal that do we want a President who is that dumb? who after getting a BJ from an intern tells his wife that he got it?

As far as law, people threaten to kill people all the time.  Especially in violent marriages.  Just in the past couple of years, couple of crazy husbands burnt their wives with gasoline despite having court orders to stay away.  In one case the Judge dismissed extending the restraining order, despite the wife's vehemet pleas.  The guy burnt his wife with lighter fluid a week later. So here goes the law.  Yesterday the supreme court of Texas sent the children home so they can get molested again.  There goes the "law".

So those who say these kind of things open themselves to these kind of fatwas by "religious leaders".  Some of them, like that danish naturalized citizen who is a black woman from an Africa country (forgot her name) actually want it for publicity.

It is like those in this website who attack every idea with the stick of death to IRI.  They can't comprehend anything beyond that. Your argument in this regard, in my opinion, is of the same cloth.  You need to discuss beyond the simple notion that killing is bad.  Yes it is bad.  Next?