The Danish newspapers should initiate a class-action lawsuit in Danish court, and in the European court, against the Islamists for interfering with their freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 11, 2008 1:02 AM

The group says it will file the lawsuits in Jordanian courts because the country's penal code says publicly slandering religious figures is an offense that carries up to three years in prison.

Let's sue the Islamists in Jordanian court for publicly slandering Christian and Jewish leaders.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 11, 2008 1:04 AM

Ridiculous lawsuit. The Islamic activists won't win.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 11, 2008 1:49 AM

Aside from the 'freedom of speech' issue a court challenge would make a hell of a forum for exposing the dark side of the Religion of Peace. I'm guessing that they drop this idea very quickly...

Posted by: DaninVan at March 11, 2008 1:59 AM

cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

Hmm. Easter is coming up. Will we see some coverage about the Lord Jesus Christ from Western news wire services?

This may look like a nitpick, but I think there is a qualitative difference between putting 'the' in front of 'Prophet Muhammad' and not. Not putting an article would imply, as you suggest, an endorsement of his prophethood; however, when 'the' is used, it's more to recognize the status he has (amongst Muslims), as opposed to an actual endorsement. After all, 'a' or 'the' would gramatically imply that he's potentially one of many prophets, whereas not including it could seemingly make him the sole prophet of all mankind.

Besides, out of half a billion Muslim males, chances are that half of them include the name 'Muhammad' (or some variant of it) in their names, so it may not always be obvious with a passing reference to Muhammad that the founder of Islam is the subject in question.

There are a lot of things to bash the media on in terms of their kid gloves treatment of Islam and Muslims. I don't honestly think that this is necessarily one of them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 11, 2008 2:14 AM

"The group says it will file the lawsuits in Jordanian courts because the country's penal code says publicly slandering religious figures is an offense that carries up to three years in prison."....from headline.

Doesn't "slander" apply to someone who is alive and kicking? So how can this law apply to a dead prophet who is 6 feet under? Excuse me, Muhammad is lower than that, a hell of a lot lower down than that. Heard it's hot as hell there, too.

I don't think this law applies to dead men. More dumb Muslims making something out of nothing. Besides, Allah approves of the drawing as it speaks the message of Islam, so Muslims need to lighten up and stop this foolishness.

Islam be gone!

Posted by: champ at March 11, 2008 4:00 AM

Generally, these laws apply to the jurisdiction where the event occurred. These pious muslim countries alway think their borders are limitless, as though they govern the earth.

And how exactly do you slander someone who has been dead for 14 centuries? Who has the proper right of raising his claim? Who is his nearest of kin or his counsel?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at March 11, 2008 7:10 AM

Aren't these people jumping the gun? as far as I know Denmark isn't greater jordan yet. despite having many muslims. Denmark should say that these people can take that lawsuit and shove it up their's you know what.

Posted by: desidude at March 11, 2008 8:10 AM

Unbelievable that lawsuits are being filed by people, who don't live in a country where no law is being broken by people who do live there, and they file the lawsuit against those people in another country where the action would be against the law. And they get away with it.

Not exactly like libel tourism that the saudi's use, but close.

And speaking of dumb court cases.
This - from Fjordman.
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/110308_2.htm

Somolia, caught with loot in pocket, just out of prison, let go for lack of evidence.

Posted by: Borg at March 11, 2008 9:37 AM

I disagree with the suggestion that the reference to Muhammad in the AP and Reuters as "the Prophet Muhammad" is not a manifestation of journalistic bias. To be sure, Muhammad is a common name so something has to be done to distinguish the grand poobah (pbuh) from the others, but do we REALLY need to capitalize the P in "prophet" when we attach it to his name?

Also, if there were no bias, why doesn't the MSM refer to Jesus as "the Lord Jesus Christ"? Marisol is illustrating a point there. There are also lots of people named Jesus.

My guess is that AP and Reuters do this because they think it will keep their reporters from being kidnapped and beheaded, and will keep truck-bombs away from the front door of their newspaper office. Either that, or some oil-rich Muslims have managed to buy an interest in their news organization.

So why is it important? It is a tip-off. If a news organization capitalizes the P in prophet and writes as if he is the only Prophet, how are they going to shade the rest of their news coverage?

Posted by: Karl at March 11, 2008 9:43 AM

Reading this post reminded me of the legal problems that Oriana Fallaci had over a couple of her books, which, incidentally, were bestsellers in Italy, and internationally as well, I think.

Posted by: margheri at March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

And if such a trial were to go forth, I would expect that Danish Attorneys and any other attorneys from the West would be given the right to defend free speech on behalf of the newspapers in Denmark.

But if they disallowed attorneys from Denmark to participate in such a case, then the case would and should be considered a farce and a sham.

After all it is the exercise of free speech that so aptly sets western societies apart from the oppressive societies of Middle Eastern Islamic countries. It is in fact one of the most important differences that adds to the clash of our civilizations and it must be preserved and protected at all costs to avoid the tyranny that creates despots,and dictators that are found in most Islamic Countries.

Posted by: Mackie at March 11, 2008 10:37 AM

Just to be contrary, I'd defend the use of the expression "the Prophet Muhammad." I don't know whether "the Lord Jesus" would be common journalistic usage, but I imagine a serious story about that historical figure would identify him as more than "Jesus": possibly "Jesus Christ", which in itself carries assumptions peculiar to the Christian collection of faiths. Similarly, if the Prophet Ezekiel were referred to, or the Prophet Isaiah, I'd expect to see just such references so that the individual would be specified. After all, there are other individuals named Muhammad (zillions!), Jesus (see this week's Dilbert cartoons, over which I expect riots to break out any minute), Ezekiel, and Isaiah.

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 11, 2008 10:40 AM

Ridiculous lawsuit. The Islamic activists won't win.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 11, 2008 1:49 AM

They'll probably win in Jordan, but what relevance would that have in Denmark? The alleged "crime" occurred in another country, in which Jordan has absolutely no jurisdiction. Muslims are idiots who will do anything to exaggerate their grievances. Public sympathy is waning fast; nobody likes chronic crybabies except maybe the professional empathizers on the far left, those sensitive, compassionate champions of social justice and political correctness. They're certifiable, so who cares what they think.

Posted by: Susanp at March 11, 2008 11:36 AM

Re: the use of "the Prophet Mohammed", at least they don't put "pbuh" or "saw" behind the name. Yet.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 11, 2008 11:36 AM

Oh, I dunno. I sometimes use "pbuh". Of course, when I use it, the first letter stands for something other than "peace", though it sounds somewhat like it except for a shorter vowel sound....

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 11, 2008 12:02 PM

Bring lawyers, guns and money
The s*** has hit the fan

Posted by: wrathofasma at March 11, 2008 12:16 PM

The group says it will file the lawsuits in Jordanian courts because the country's penal code says publicly slandering religious figures is an offense
................................................

"Religious figures"? Why don't they say what they mean?

Somehow I doubt that if I were to stand in downtown Amman and publicly question the Pope's infalibillity, or allege that the Dalai Lama was not a reincarnated holy man, or ridicule Joseph Smith's account of his meetings with the Angel Moroni, that it would have the same repercussions as voicing even the most mildly critical opinion about the "Prophet Mohammed".

These Muslim claims of respecting all religions equally are patently absurd.

Posted by: gravenimage at March 11, 2008 1:50 PM

Jordan, where a man who killed his sister and her lover in cold blood gets a year? That is the last place that should be dispensing justice. Also found this link where municipalities in Holland are more worried about right wing(anti fascist, anti Muslim) forces than Islamic forces:
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/271007_1.htm

Posted by: Dumbo at March 11, 2008 2:40 PM

Here is an example of media bias involving the use of “Prophet” with a capital P in association with Muhammad and nobody else.

I am not a member of LDS and do not personally care whether Joseph Smith is identified as a prophet with a capital P or not, because Mormons do not riot and kill people if someone engages in a critical or skeptical discussion of him. However, since there have not been any other “prophets” written about in the news media lately, it is very informative to compare the way the main-stream news media refer to Smith as opposed to Muhammad, in order to discern whether there is in fact a media bias in favor of Muhammad and his followers. Here is a recent ABC story referring to the “prophet Joseph Smith.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3963656&page=1

Here, by comparison, is a story referring to the “Prophet Muhammad.” http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4415930

Let us make an analogy. When people capitalize “God” they do so out of respect and to make sure others understand that they are referring to the one and true God. When people fail to capitalize god, they are do so to let people know they are referring to false gods, or stone gods, or a god that has no metaphysical existence as far as they are concerned.

Likewise, the capitalization of “Prophet” in conjunction with Muhammad, needs to be understood in a similar context as an effort to confer some sort of divine station on Muhammad, especially in light of the fact that nobody else seems to get the capital P. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the automatic use of the capital P is a kow-towing to Islam and its adherence. The news agencies who engage in this practice seem to be consistent, as if it were their policy. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the agencies who confer such respect on the founder of Islam do so “because they think it will keep their reporters from being kidnapped and beheaded, and will keep truck-bombs away from their front door.” When you see this journalistic practice, it is in fact a tip-off that the news organization using it is indeed shading its news coverage to favor and/or whitewash Islam.

Posted by: Karl2 at March 11, 2008 3:07 PM

Ridiculous lawsuit. The Islamic activists won't win.
Posted by: Johnathan

---

You're speaking from common sense, Jonathan. Jordan is a moslem country. They're even further deranged than liberals are.

The audacity of claiming sovereignty over our Nations is what really *PISSES* me off!

We're sending *them* handout after handout since the lazy bastards don't work and are too stupid to do anything right and they have the gall to harrass the few good journalists we still have with this garbage?!

Jyllands-Posten should sue to have the KKKoran banned in Denmark for all the vile filth and the calls to violence it contains.

Maybe then the rest of sleepy old Europe will finally wake up and follow suit.

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 11, 2008 3:08 PM

"When people capitalize “God” they do so out of respect and to make sure others understand that they are referring to the one and true God."
-- from a posting above

But surely those who do not believe in God, but nonetheless capitalize the word "God," do so not because they "are referring to the one and true God" (for they are not believers), but because not to do is both insulting (to Believers) and an offense against linguistic, or rather orthographic, custom. Besides, not to believe in "God" is not the same thing as belittling the importance of the concept, and certainly does not require one to belittle the beliefs of others, even if one does not share those beliefs.

In the case of Muhammad, there is no tradition of capitalizing "Prophet" and the word, if capitalized, implies a mental yielding to, or at least great respect for, Muslim claims. I'd capitalize the word only if the context showed unambiguously that neither of those implications could be inferred.

Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2008 4:26 PM

The paper should publish the original cartoon again. A second cartoon should accompany it, aimed specifically at those who protest the first. It should feature a suitable historical figure representing Western freedom of expression, arm and fist toward the viewer, middle finger extended.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 11, 2008 4:56 PM

Is the Judge Huckleberry Hound or The Yellow Kid?

(Maybe Asterix or Lucky Luke for the EU?)

Suing over cartoons in the defense of a dead man who hated Art.

And ayatollah Khomeini said: There are no jokes in Islam!

Au contraire, Herr crackpot:

There is nothing but a joke in Islam.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 11, 2008 6:28 PM

There's a wee bit of emotional obfuscation going on here. ALL proper nouns, and titles preceding a name are capitalized, in English. You don't have to like or respect the subject in question.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp
We're speaking about grammar not religious propaganda.

Posted by: DaninVan at March 11, 2008 9:02 PM

Well, this to our correspondents in Jordan:

There's something standing between your "laws" and our freedom.

It's called the American armed forces!

Stick that somewhere and meditate on it.

You can sneak into a pizza parlor and murder some unsuspecting innocents, but you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against a real army with real home-made modern armaments.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Eat your hearts out.

Posted by: joeblough at March 12, 2008 12:15 AM

DaninVan:
Then why does ABC news refer to the “prophet Joseph Smith” with a small p:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3963656&page=1

and refer to the “Prophet Muhammad” with a capital P: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4415930

Is "prophet" a proper noun? Or perhaps it is a proper noun, but only when it refers to Muhammad?

Posted by: Karl at March 12, 2008 10:26 AM

Karl; "Prophet" isn't a proper noun, it's a title, as used by Muslims. I can't speak for ABC News editorial quirks.
I respectfully disagree with Hugh's analysis above; "God" is a proper noun, 'gods' isn't.
'Herr Hitler' is a proper noun preceded by a title; if I typed 'herr hitler' it would simply be silly, no matter how much I revile the subject.

Posted by: DaninVan at March 12, 2008 1:32 PM

DaninVan: This special and deferential treatment of Muhammed by referring to him alone as a prophet with a capital P is more than an editorial quirk, and it involves more than ABC news. Show me a news agency that does this, and I will show you a news agency unwilling to provide its readership with a critical and indepth and objective discussion of Islam or Muhammad.

Posted by: Karl at March 13, 2008 8:50 AM