clink,
The cartoons were very ordinary. Probably the one already mentioned by KRS 1, was the only one that could be called funny.

The idea of finding many virgins to a Western mind would almost be impossible. There would hardly be many available unless they were six year old even as Alisha. So to have Mohamet standing at the gates of heaven telling the suicide bommers to stop because we have run out of virgins plays on the incongruity of a supposed situation. It also plays on the image that heaven is going to be one big sex orgy

David and Fellow-Human

I am not going to lower the tone of this forum by responding to your personal attacks. I refuse. The topic is the cartoons, though offensive and exhibit a banality, which apparently is quite the norm these days, were perfectly legally published. That's our freedom at work, like it or lump it. It is great OLO linked to the cartoons.

Neither of you have an inkling of the history of the spread of Islam. Had you, you would not have made the statements you've made.
To gain such an understanding try a little reading of the subject. Try starting with:

W. Montgomery Watt, The Majesty That Was Islam: The Islamic World, 661–1100 (1974).

That has a wondeful bibilography for further reading.

The following website also has a very comprehensive reading list on the same subject.


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69245

Keith,

for the record I didnt question the freedom to publish those cartoons. I just raised few other questions precisely as follows:

1. Why and whats the intent and timing of the cartoon?
2. Why do you expect all people to react the same way?
3. Why did few people reacted in this manner 4 months later and who benefits it?

Over the summer, Radio National broadcast repeats of some programs of 2005. One such was ENCOUNTER of 15 May. 2005

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s1364284.htm

Drasko Dizdar contributed to a series of lectures, each with the theme of "Honesty Matters-the ethics of daily life", conducted by UNIYA.
I wonder whether the insights of Rene Girard, concerning the need for a scapegoat, have a resonance here.

The link at the end of the transcript takes you to other participants in the series

Response to Keith:

I think your selection of that particular book is telling. I am not doubting the book is worth recommending or reading, but one criticism is that it primarily tells the story of Arab influence over the Islamic religion. Some academics argue that the substantial contributions from surrounding civilisations, such as Persia, were downplayed. Like all successful religions, there is also blending with local traditions, such as occurred in South East Asia.

This may explain your blind-spot, the lumping problem, which I pointed out earlier.

What! Another horrendous personal attack!

David

My comprehension of Watt’s book, though I lack the expertise of academic’s, had me arriving at a similar conclusion. However some aspects are diametrically opposite to the view you’ve acknowledged.

In the early sections of the book of course the influence of the Arab culture over Islam is acknowledged and clearly shown. I accept this section of the book’s proposition that Arab tradition is entwined in much of Islamic practice in the mid east. However the further from the centre (Arabia) the less the influence of the Arab traditions. I have not read widely enough to ascertain whether local traditions have a significant influence over the Islam of other regions.

I think we at some point referred to the spread of Islam. The reason I suggested this book is because it attempts to explain the expansion of Islam. It states initially while having a violent aspect, Islam spread successfully mostly because of its economic influences and requirements. Basically its theory held Islam was spread throughout the Arab Empire because only Arabs were allowed to partake in the economy of the Arab Empire. Anyone could join the Empire and adopt Arab nationality. The one condition to become an Arab was one was required to convert to Islam.

The latter sections of the book concentrated upon the Caliphates, which of course came to be based not in Arabia (The Arab Heartland) but in the former Persian territory based in Baghdad. Much reference is made in this section of the book to the contribution of all peoples in the region and from outside the region. Of course the Majesty in the title refers to the excellence in scholarship and scientific advancement during this period of Islamic expansion.

The unasked but obvious point of the book:
What changed to cause Islam to lose this emphasis on scholarship and advancement in the years since 1100?

Other scholarly works explore similar questions. Watt’s book is the most authoratitive because it uses original sources as much as is possible.

Regards

ps not one word of effete personal attack.