If the Court's decision is partly based on a finding that the cartoons were not meant to insult or belittle, then the victory achieved is only partial, and the decision itself imperfect. The Court should have said that cartoons whether offensive or inoffensive, whether intended to be offensive or not intended to be offensive, are protected in Denmark, by Danish guarantees of free speech, and that includes the right to mock religion, and religions, or belief-systems that are often misleadingly described, faute de mieux, as religions.

Posted by: Hugh at October 27, 2006 12:16 AM

One imam, when asked:"Are you appealing?" replied:"That's something you'll have to ask my boyfriend."

Posted by: wallyUK at October 27, 2006 12:19 AM

Denmark must be the only country left in Europe which is still anti-dhimmi.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 27, 2006 12:48 AM

.... and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand."

Posted by: Jim The Kafir at October 27, 2006 1:14 AM

The continuing failure of the press to do the most rudimentary research on this subject:

"The lawsuit said the cartoons depict Mohammed "as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent, and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror."

Five of the original twelve drawings were not depictions of Muhammad.

Here they are:
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

"Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry."

Really? Well, how about these:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

The Islamic prohibition is, as I recall, against statues of the human form; to prevent idolatry.

Posted by: PRCS at October 27, 2006 1:19 AM

Good one, Wally.

Posted by: PRCS at October 27, 2006 1:21 AM

Mohammed "as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent, and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror."
sounds about right and i belive he was beind this fanisy muslims have
There is an aggressive delusion amongst the Muslims that the lands which they overrun once, always remain Muslim lands. While the Muslims have a birthright to invade any non-Muslim land on the pretext of converting the non-Muslim population to Islam, the victims of the Muslim invasion have no right to eject the Muslims! They have to meekly subject to the will of the Muslims, who invoke the name of a fantasy they called allah.
given the net two items > # Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
> # War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
from the fanisy book the koran it looks to like thouse cartooist were just telling the true but them given how muslims are taught to lie iguess they may not be able to tell what the truth is

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 27, 2006 1:57 AM

"It cannot be ruled out that the drawings have offended some Muslims' honor, but there is no basis to assume that the drawings are, or were conceived as, insulting or that the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims," the court said.

The courts' rose-colored glasses won't even allow it to recognize the obvious conclusions that the cartoonist wishes to impart to the viewer.

A hollow victory indeed.

Posted by: HawkWatcher at October 27, 2006 2:36 AM

Obviously (because we now have a COURT RULING that says so), the cartoons were not sufficiently offensive and humiliating, and did not completely mock the prophet mohammed and belittle muslims.

Therefore, it will be necessary to prepare some additional cartoons to achieve the desired objectives.

Have a nice day.
Laugh at a muslim.

Posted by: texan at October 27, 2006 3:02 AM

Whats with the requested damages amount? These guys are all numerology junkies (if you'll believe one wacky thing, you're ripe for all of em) so Im guessing this 16,860 hase some date significance.

Posted by: Kyle_K at October 27, 2006 3:52 AM

Below is one of the most truthful pixs of Ol Mo

scroll to the second picture

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/

Posted by: shiva at October 27, 2006 4:32 AM

Unless the Muslims enter the twenty-first century and abide the rules of modernity - freedom of expression being one - there's really no point of having any dialogue. It won't even be possible to have one to start with when one side demands no less than complete surrender when the other side is perceived as making an offense.

For a supposedly tough people, some of these jihadists seem to be incredibly vulnerable to plain truths. Makes me think that they belong in a nursery with a dummy in their mouths rather than being allowed out on the streets where they might hurt themselves or someone else.

These people see our rights as weaknesses. There can never be any, emphasis any, dialogue as long as one side denies the rights of the other to exist and will continue to use any pretext to commit violence against what they call infidels.

Muslims are increasingly deceptive regarding Mohammed. Reverence for Mohammed does not mean his actions should be covered up. He was a violent man, responsible for attacking those who would not submit to his teaching.

We cannot project civilized ideas and hope that they share with us "universal" point of view on what is good and what is evil.

We have Ten Commandments, Wisdom of Confucius and Buddha Teachings. Their "holy" books are full of brutality that is hard comprehend.

Here is one quote how to treat those who question the "Prophet":

Kitab Al-Hudud, book 38, no 4348:

"One night she [wife-slave] began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.

He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

Pregnant mother and her child is killed by a "good Muslim husband and father" with a dagger - the "prophet" commends him for defending the "religion".

Posted by: shiva at October 27, 2006 5:07 AM

Assalamau LAikum all,

It is interesting that this went to court, now many muslim groups will say that there is no justice for muslims in laws defined by the Kaffur.

Well they then have to backoff to timeless laws set in stone by Muhd SAW....they definately work for the mussalman.

Personally I liked the compromise that was thrashed out (by Islamic thinkers)at the London marches when protesting about this herrendous uncalled for villification of Muhd SAW in particular and Islam in general. The "accomodations were":

1) That the Jyllands-Posten did this to increase their circulation (which they clearly did) and make extra profit. This excess profit be calculated and donated to a (christian) charity ...muslims don't want this money...it's dirty money.

2) That the muslims want to show that humality and civility exists within Islam in abundance. To prove this the Jyllands-Posten will print a hadith (chosen by Imams) on the front page for a year.

I would have preferred this to the court action. It would have shown that the Kafur is not a greedy bastard and respects Islam sufficiently to print the hadith.

This court actions and decisions really shows that there is nothing there for muslim...a great pity.

Posted by: Naseem at October 27, 2006 5:15 AM

AP says:

Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry.

Oh yes! Satire and lampooning leads to idolatry! After people laugh at the cartoons, they turn them into icons and conclude that Muhammad was God!

It's quite obvious that what is going on here is not just fear of idolatry: one reason Muslims forbid depictions of Muhammad is that Muslims in practice do idolize him, or at least demand absolutely unquestioning reverence for him, though they give lip service to the notion that he was not divine.

Anyway, if an individual chooses not to depict God, on the premise that God is beyond any possible depiction, ineffable and infinite, one can see a certain logic in that personal choice. But if Muhammad was just a mortal, why not draw Muhammad? He was a finite physical being, something depictable, imaginable, however imperfectly and hypothetically.

In any event, when non-Muslims make images of Muhammad, Muslims seem to get much more worried about ridicule than about idolatry.

Of course there is another reason for Muslims' prohibitions on depiction. To depict a living being, other than abstractly plant-like decorative forms, is often considered blasphemy, an attempt to match God's creativity. In that we see a stark contrast with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which says in Genesis 1 that human beings are made in the image of God, the Creator, and thus indicates we are meant to imitate God's creativity (in the first instance, when Genesis tells us to "be fruitful and multiply"). Daniel Boorstin, author of the three volume series, The Creators, The Discoverers, The Seekers, was one of those who pointed out this key distinction between Islam and the Judeo-Christian heritage. In the Qur'an, he notes, human beings are not made in the image of God. No wonder Islam finds it so difficult to conceive that we can all become sons and daughters of God, and in the Qur'an describes us not as heirs to the Kingdom, but, as Boorstin points out, as mere servants. Boorstin's essay on the subject concludes that for a Muslim, "to create is a rash and dangerous act."

Posted by: traeh at October 27, 2006 5:30 AM

Assalamau Laikum traeh,

Diciption is a difficult subject in Islam...and really there is no need to go there anyway.

It says in the Koran that Muhd is "the slave of Allah"....not that he is a humble servent or something similar...but a slave.

Now if Muhd...gets that status...what is a human believer's (a muslim if you will) status ...who cannot even get close to the perfections of Muhd SAW.

As you know Muhd SAW although an illiterate and small man ...nonetheless was a genuis...ably helped by Allah. This means that there is hope for us all....provided we too believe in Allah's greatness.

We cannot be Allah's slaves...that higher status can only be accorded to Muhd SAW....but nonetheless we can submit to Allah....completely and without question.

This is why the Kafur is so polluted and deserves the status of a pig...he questions Allah's holy word....I mean the unfounded gall of the Kafur beggers belief.

It is the Kafur that will be begging in Allah's court...depictions etc. cannot be allowed...this is the word from higher up the chain...the Kafur is at the bottom ....and Kafur must see this before it is too late for him....

Posted by: Naseem at October 27, 2006 6:46 AM

Thank G-d for that ruling.

Posted by: Monkeywho at October 27, 2006 7:19 AM

Naseem,

I do not understand how you can be hypocritical enough to greet us with "assalamu alaikum" and then call us the ones who deserve status of a pig. A man does not greet a pig.

Personally, I take it as an insult equivalent to your insult stemming from the Dreaded Cartoons. I am fed up with hearing constant stream of abuse from Muslims directed at us infidels. And I think this more or less applies to another several thousand people who just read your appaling "piggy-comparison" comment.

No, we will not go burn Pakistani embassy now. This is not the way how Westerners retaliate.

But we remember and when, once, your fanatics from madrassas take power and declare a fulltime war on us, all that will be remembered. Why should polluted pigs have any mercy with you? They are not human, anyway.

Posted by: Abu Kafir at October 27, 2006 7:50 AM

Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry.

Funny, everytime one of the peaceful ones mentions Mo's name it's followed with that PBUH foolishness. Is this not a form of idolatry?

Why did I even bother asking? I should know by now that the only consistency in Islam is its inconsistency.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 27, 2006 8:09 AM

Two informative posts by Naseem above.

The one posted at 5:15 a.m. reveals something largely unknown: that in the London march one of the demands was that Jyllands-Posten put up a different hadith every day for a year --the hadith to be chosen by imams. One can guess at the scouring for sweetness-and-light hadith that might have gone on had this demand been met.

The second at 6:46 a.m. shows Naseem not in her uncertain, questioning, what-is-to-become-of-me-and-why-can't-I-move-to-the-West mode, but her triumphal mode as True Believer: revealing for those who do not quite grasp it, the whole business of complete mental submission that is at the center of Islam -- mental submission to Allah, but via the intermediary of Muhammad. Deserves careful attention.

Two valuable contributions, the second of which only a Believer could supply.

Posted by: Hugh at October 27, 2006 8:11 AM

Posted by naseem;"islamic thinkers" whadda ya know! Another oxymoron!

Posted by: mustang65 at October 27, 2006 9:17 AM

Actually, I think "Naseem" is a fake. She's just someone playing Allah's advocate to see what kind of reactions come from her posts. I suspect it's someone from JW!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 27, 2006 10:13 AM

I think that Naseem is trying to find a boyfriend without the Mosque finding out. One that won't slap her about and make her wear a blanket. But she just can't turn off the vitriolic poison. It's the indoctrination, you see. C'mon, give her a break, and be compassionate. I'm already married, by the way.

Re: laughing at Islam. I think that anything that comes from anyone calling themself a "Mufti" shouldn't be taken serious anyway.

Posted by: FREE LEE at October 27, 2006 11:01 AM

Blasphemy laws are still on the books in many Western jurisdictions. They are, as many are aware, seldom enforced likely due to the near impossibility of reaching consensus on what is truly blasphemous or not. The findings of the Danish court are not surprising when viewed in this light. What is gratifying is that the court stuck to the principles on which Western civilization is based and instructed the litigants in a manner clear and instructive. The litigants can now take the findings back to the other 20 some Moslem organizations in Scandinavia that supported this litigation and correct their impefect understanding, so that they now will turn to the right path. They will learn humility and wisdom from the kaffurs: The law is to protect all and favor none, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. And in God's good time we will all, not just some of us, look back at this and laugh.

Posted by: Chatillon at October 27, 2006 11:07 AM

Hey folks, if you want to access eight different translations of any verse in the Qur'an, check out www.quranbrowser.com.

In Naseem's response to me there was more nastiness than s/he usually shows, so I guess something about my post above referring to Boorstin must have hit the mark.

Naseem has calmly and without anger explained that for Islam non-Muslims are pigs. Nothing personal. For many Nazis, too, it was nothing personal against the Jews; calm racial theory required Auschwitz.

On another question however I would agree with Naseem: in Islam Muslims are more like slaves of Allah than like "humble servants." I only used the word servant because several translations of Qur'an Chapter 51, verse 6, use the verb "serve":

Pickthall I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me.

Yusuf Ali I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.

Hilali-Khan And I (Allah) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone).

Shakir And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me.

Sher Ali And I have not created the jinn and the men but that they may worship ME.

Khalifa I did not create the jinns and the humans except to worship Me alone.

Arberry I have not created jinn and mankind except to serve Me.

Palmer And I have not created the ginn and mankind save that they may worship me.

Rodwell I have not created Djinn and men, but that they should worship me:

Sale I have not created genii and men [for any other end] than that they should serve me.

Posted by: traeh at October 27, 2006 5:09 PM

Professor Moses Ochone of Vanderbilt University:

"Arab racism is also so deep it is inscribed in the semantics of the Arab language. ... the generic word for a black person is the preface "abd," which translates as "slave," as in "Abd"-allah (slave of God). ... The case of the Sudan is perhaps the most vivid, poignant, and irrefutable example of Arab racism against black Africans. ... Arabs never quite saw the raiding of black villages for slaves and cattle, especially in Southern Sudan, as a crime.
Arab-speaking Northern Sudanese ... are a dark-skinned people, although most of them are of mixed Arab and African ancestry. But (they) no longer perceive themselves as blacks... Indeed, they have long become Arabized."

Posted by: remote_control at October 27, 2006 6:06 PM

Naseem said:

This is why the Kafur [non-Muslim] is so polluted and deserves the status of a pig...he questions Allah's holy word....I mean the unfounded gall of the Kafur beggers belief.

It is surely you and other Muslims who have the audacity or "gall." Here's what I mean: The only way you could really know for certain that the Qur'an or any part of it is 100% the verbatim word of God is if your mind were God's equal. Only then could you be absolutely a perfect judge of whether a word in the Qur'an were divine and not human. And since you do claim absolute certainty about your religion, you effectively equate yourself with God, though you don't in full consciousness realize that that is what you are doing.

So you are right, you are not a humble servant of Allah. But neither are you what you suggested: his slave. You are the slave of what mere human beings have told you about religion since your childhood. In your arrogance, you seek to impose what your family/community believes on all other families and communities. If there is divine punishment, you will receive some of it. In that case I'd ask the spiritual world to forgive you though, and who knows? Maybe such requests help.

One can be religious or spiritual without pretending to have such perfect certainty as would entitle one to lord it over other human beings. But Islam clearly seeks to lord it over non-Muslims.

A major geopolitical question is whether only the Islamic world will end up being crushed because of its will to use migration of Muslims and Islamic terror to impose Islamic law everywhere, or if Islam will succeed in destroying the rest of humanity along with Islam itself. Or, hope against hope, will some moderate Muslims find a way to persuade the Muslim world to disavow Islam's supremacism, terror, and will to worldwide theocracy.

Posted by: traeh at October 27, 2006 6:13 PM

When I try to visualise what Naseem might look like I always end up seeing an over-dressed Miss Piggy in my mind's eye.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 27, 2006 10:49 PM