I will never understand it.

I mean its just a book, on a reasonable subject that alot of people are interested in. The life of a child bride and all that comes with it. The unique experience that many in the west might find to be.. an unfortunate one. If it wasnt about a particular husband then its likely there would be no problem.

Muslims believe that they are "just" right. There is no allowance for debate on history, facts, fiction, etc of their beliefs. They cannot stand the idea that something they dont like might be said.

Christians are not overly joyful at the idea of touching on those subjects either but at least they tend to be more open to it and I have yet to meet a christian who claims that theirs is the one true infalible faith. Case in point .. "The life of Brian".

Most christians dont believe in the Flood and those that do are open to debate and in the end they dont fire bomb the publishers house if you release a book on the subject.

Other religons are more than ok with challenging their beliefs... Hindu, Daoism, Buddhists etc..

What I cant understand is that the only religon on the planet that claims to be beyond fault and failure and possibility of being wrong, is the only one where they are (almost) all willing to be openly offensive and, in alot of cases, violent to ensure no one challenges it.

Thankfully the western world got over that way of thinking along time ago or we might all still think the world is flat and blame god for natural disasters.

P.S. If this comment makes it through moderation, I will count it as my miracle for the day.

Freedom of speech, de-constructed, simply means freedom to offend. That's the whole point. If no-one bothered to offend anyone else, we wouldnt need freedom of speech laws at all. If you cant learn to take criticism, offense or even pre-meditated and brazen insult, then your religiion/community/creed has thin walls indeed.

I agree with Zehra "where does freedom of speech end, and sheer good manners and etiquette begin?"

The last time I checked, firebombs are not used in a legitimate public debate.

Also, I have problems with the question "...whether the concept of freedom of speech has blanket applicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion..." When someone other than the author decides whether or not a book is a worthy cause, it ceases to be free speech.

My faith and church have been insulted and sullied by numerous movies, books, and even political commentaries. Many fellow Christians HAVE over reacted in the past and threatened authors, writers, and publishers. However, they have not been condoned by others of their faith for over 150 years. (to my knowledge)

If Islam wants to be treated as a legitimate, peaceful religion; then they need to socially censure their own.

Thank you

ps
Also for the gentleman above me, several Christian faiths do claim to be the one true faith. My Catholic church among them. However, the church has backed down on that this past century; and admits that people can get to heaven through other faiths.

"And she asks openly, what is the purpose of publishing such a work?"

What censorious rubbish! This exact question should be asked of the Koran itself, which ludicrously claims that an illiterate merchant had the contents of a yet-to-be published book dictated to him by a flying bird-man. Oh yes, and that anyone who declines to follow this unfalsfiable screed is fit to be treated as a second rate citizen, and deserves to suffer the most painful death imaginable. Why on earth should we publish the Koran, given that very few of its claims are actually true, and that it incites hatred against non-believers, if we really are in the business of restricting the publication of incendiary material?

“I think Muslims are not saying anything about freedom of speech but actually legitimately calling a public debate on whether the concept of freedom of speech has blanket applicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion.” says Zehra.

There is absolutely nothing legitimate about threatening the rights of other people for nothing more than offending some stupid superstition. In fact it is the MUSLIMS who are responsible for threatening social cohesion by calling for censorship and even violence against anyone who dares to question their utterly contemptible and risible (and, indeed, childish) beliefs.

Not only does freedom of speech have blanket applicability, it is actually morally incumbent on us to single out and destroy the cherished beliefs, and even the psychological wellbeing, of those who seek to diminish the freedom of others. It is a moral disgrace that we even accord the slightest concern for the psyches of people who believe in the most laughable fairy-tales, and who have the gall to actually incite violence against anyone who mocks their pathetic, infantile and utterly worthless beliefs.

Steve Edwards says: "Not only does freedom of speech have blanket applicability, it is actually morally incumbent on us to single out and destroy the cherished beliefs, and even the psychological wellbeing, of those who seek to diminish the freedom of others"

You have created your own paradox about freedom of speech by threatening to destroy the beliefs and well being of others.

If you're asserting the moral highground, then stick to it, but if you're going to do the above, then don't even pretend you don't have double standards

Free, open societies stand for everything that people who oppose this book want to destroy. Where does freedom of speech end, and sheer good manners and etiquette begin? Everyone has a different belief about that, and no one, for no reason, has the right to impose their belief on someone else. Anyone, of any religion, who cannot understand this should get out of our open society and go back to their closed one.

It is unfortunate that the likes of Anjem Choudary serve to reinforce the misconception that Muslims are incapable of mere verbal protest when it comes to defending Islam.

It is also unfortunate that Muslims who tolerate such misconceptions – the vast majority – are once again forced to endure the latest controversy, caused by an author riding on the profitable wave of religious revisionism.

Religion is not untouchable, though freedom of speech would be better served in addressing religious truths – good and bad – instead of fabricating sensational stories in the hope becoming a best-seller.

As a Catholic, fictional creations such as Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' (heresy, and perhaps more inflammatory than the allusions concerning Muhammed in 'The Jewel of Medina') and the unfortunate "Piss Christ" (a plastic crucifix placed in a jar of urine by an "artist" I haven't bothered to remember the name of), have served to insult and degrade the very personal relationship I have with God.

Such acts constitute a risk of divine justice to the provocateurs, however, it is morally impossible that such provocation could justify death at the hands of a zealot. God doesn't permit honour killers. He is more than capable of looking after Himself, and is infinitely more inclined to mercy than wrath.

I am inclined to think that Muslims, as well as Christians, understand that.

Therefore, to beget provocations with violence is to destroy the hope of finding a mutual respect in which freedoms and boundaries are voluntarily tempered.

It is within this spirit of respect that most Muslims and Christians intend to exist. It would be helpful if authors such as Sherry Jones joined us.

If this is freedom of speech why in us and europe nobody can talk about holocaust ,muslim never disrespect any religion or religous figure why time to time some body come with stupid idea and write against muslim and islam ,if islam is wrong why it became popular in europe and us THINK

well, just how accurate is the book ? Especially in the context of the time & place in which it is (alleged) to have taken place.
Has it been written considering the social-mores of the times.
Perhaps "child-brides " were an accepted moral-practice there and then.
If it is just "racy-journalism", I ask "why was it written"?
Is it a "good-read", with literary merit ?
In any case, had it not been for the controversy ,would anyone ever have heard of it ? Great Publicity (stunt), in any case !

I think it is pretty obvious that this issue has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the poltical economy of human rights, creative expression and human decency–not to mention the Western will-to-deceit and self-delusion that both matches and encourages the Islamist will to violent extremism.

Of the many questionable, innovative and controversial interpretations of the most hollowed beliefs of Christianity by artists–Andres Serrano's photo "Piss Christ"; the films "Jesus of Montreal," Monty Python's "Life of Brian," Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ"; books like Dan Brown's "The da Vinci Code," as just some examples–literally all of them in Western culture come from Europeans or Americans of European descent. Most of whom in fact were, or are, STILL, devout Christians of various kinds. The outrage, picketing and censorship that may not occur at a theatre or book reading in New York City is commonplace still in parts of Kentucky, Tennesse, and God knows where else in America despite the artists being "homegrown." "Christians" in these and other parts of the country have routinely been heard to threaten "liberals" who are responsible for this kind of artistry from other parts of the country with the exact same kind of retribution with which the Muslims have threatened Sherry Jones. One can only imagine the kind of follow-through that would accompany finding out that one of these controversial depictions of the Christ came from a director, artist or novelist who was a Muslim, and had a name that sounds like a terrorist. In fact, we'll have to imagine it, because the American marketplace has never and WILL never allow it to happen, even if the next Kahlil Gibran or Rumi happens to write it, given what we do actually know (regardless of what we admit) of the American and European psyche regarding the Muslim world.

As far as the illusion of Western moral superiority re how upstandingly we respond to ANY intellectual (or economic) provocations by the Muslim world, a quick reading of any book written by Noam Chomsky will force anyone to question the media-supplied "facts" that support such a view.

Indeed, given the many layers of self-delusion and hypocrisy that must be kept intact for our view of ourselves in the Western world to remain strong, the political economy of free speech regarding questionably political renditions of sacred Muslim texts and beliefs must be questioned whenever it comes out of the West. A writer above said that if the book being discussed were about some anonymous Arab and his child bride, no one would care. And he's right–unless of course the novel was so brilliant that the artistic anonymity (like that of the Black women in Alice Walker's THE COLOR PURPLE, or "Almustafa" of Gibran's THE PROPHET) would serve a profound artistic purpose. Make your novel about the Prophet Muhammad and his alleged child bride Aisha, and the incendiary press that will inevitably come from it means you don't have to worry about whether the novelist who wrote it has ANY talent, if you're a publisher. You can't buy that kind of promotion–regardless of (if not because of) its political consequences. Do you think the very thing we are debating might be the thing the novelist owes the publication of their work to, and not the free speech expression of their (so far unproven and therefore questionable) genius?

Whoops, that might be a little too cynical...never mind...

Nothing good will come of treating Sherry Jones as if she is the next Joan of Arc–or even the next Salman Rushdie–without even reading her work. That is evidence of a reflexive geo-political stance that exacerbates the divide between Europe/America and the Middle East, and does nothing for the good of any of us, or free speech. We need to be clear, just the same, only GREAT art, not just good art, deserves us having this debate, given the toes we are purposely stepping on to make it possible.

Once again knee-jerk Islamic religious intolerance rears its ugly head ready to war on writers for fear of words–they don't have to be true, just written down. Its easier for the extremists to kill than it is to act with reason.

In a secular society no religion should be afforded any protection against 'hurt feelings' or lack of decorum – where shall this end?. Anybody should have the protected right to mock, criticize any religious or other ideological system without fear. This is the hard-earned legacy and basis of 2600 years of intellectual progress in Europe and no religious zealot should be given the opportunity to reverse that – ever. If they don't like it they shall go into the deserts of Afghanistan but not undermine the fabric and future of our society.

What do these people dare to question the freedom of speech? If it would be there way, we would all still run around like in stone age. No Provokation = no progress.
By the way I think its a provocation of my belives in humanity and sense of justice that they try to sell us their so called "prophet" as someone I am not allowed to critisize. Pointing the finger at crime and ignorance is no provocation. It shold be the duty of everyone who likes the taste of freedom. I am from Germany and we had here a long history of heavy restrictions on free speach. Hitler and the communist time in our east. Thats were it leads to when to many people shut up. I am glad and thankfull that america still holds uo the flag of freedom. Never again faschism. Here an example from the muslim holy book "Sirat Rasul Allah", The life of Muhammad, translated by A. Guillaume, P. 464:

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them.

It is very unfortunate that the moslems and some islamic militants continue to fool themselves by fighting to protect the name of Allah.i am really disgusted to see how foolish these people are.from what they are doing i am beginig to believe strongly that their allah is not really a God and Mohammed is a fake prophet who out of frustration decided to impose his ideas upon people who has no say of their own.If Hitler was born during the time of Mohammed,i tell you that his legacy will be adopted by many.The life of Hitler and Mohammed can be described as being the same. I want to tell these brainless moslems to go and hide their faces,because they believe in fallacy.If allah is really a God,why do u fight for a god.if Allah is god let him fight for himself.If Allah can not protect his name then it means that mohammed is a fake prophet.

Take one fiction title designed to trigger controversial news worthy PR, a publisher (that I haven’t heard of before – same for the author) to take on the gamble, and a gang of typical loony religious folk, and you have a debate about Free Speech.
Let’s not just debate free speech because one author writes a novel designed to annoy and three annoyed dupes make a petrol bomb because of it.
Freedom of Speech is more important than hysterical texts.
PS I write, I can offend – but only if it’s worth it.

Zehra asks a reasonable question, but doesn't ask it broadly enough. This isn't just about this particular book. If you take the attitude (in this case) that the book shouldn't be published because it offends islam, then you also have to take the attitude that Darwin's Origin of Species shouldn't be published because it offends christians. Ditto Dawkins' and Harris' books. Then you can't publish the bible because it offends people like Dawkins and Harris. You can't publish Liberal tracts because they offend conservatives, and you can't publish conservative tracts because they offend liberals. Just about every word ever published by Ann Coulter offends me. Can I have her banned? Creationists are idiots. Can I have them banned? Every other religion offends christians. Can they have the publishing of those religious documents banned?

How far do you go?

In the end, we have these simple facts: There exists, in many 'free' countries, a guarantee of freedom of speech, There does not exist as far as I know, a guarantee of freedom from being offended. In fact, if you are going to give constitutional freedoms any more than lip service, I think you can be assured that you are going to offend someone, somewhere, some of the time. And while there are some limitations on freedom of speech (libel laws, hate-speech laws), they are few and very very carefully thought-out and well-debated before being enacted. Beware of knee-jerk limitations of freedoms just to appease some group, especially some group that counsels violence if they don't get their way. You should *always* as a matter of principle resist those pressures, even if you don't care one way or another about the book.

People might offend Pakistan People's Party by criticising their platform but people should never say that Asif Zardari was a political pimp who plotted his own wife's assasination.

People may criticise Mohandas Gandhi's policies but people should never say that he actually collaborated and conspired with the British to expel Muslims out of India.

People may criticise the Communist Party of China but people should never propagate the idea that the Long March was a lie to gain sympathy of the Chinese peasants.

People may criticise Fidel Castro's regime but people should never imply that Fidel Castro was a coward who sacrificed the lives of his comrades to gain political power.

People may criticise Yaser Arafat but it would be brutal to question Arafat's loyalty to his cause because he had chosen to die in Europe rather than in Palestine.

These are to respect those who died for their existence. Therefore, I urge Muslims not to use the Holocaust anymore as an argument concerning free-speech. Please respect our dead. Please use other stronger and more viable examples.

As a Christian I was happy with the release of fictional or inaccurate "historical" accounts about Jesus. First it provides a great opportunity to have discussions with people about why I became a christian from a post modern / neo darwin mindset. Secondly in the end there are many factual responses that get public attention that otherwise would not have been read. Third, I personally have my faith strengthened as it is challenged from different viewpoints.

Living in Muslim countries for several years I have come to better understand the reality of the Muslim Culture. Questioning anything about Muhammed or the Koran endangers your family honor and is illegal in Muslim societies. So issues that can cause Muslims to question their faith are not tolerated, even if they come from inside of the Holy Koran or Hadith (official collection of stories about the life of the prophet Muhammed). According to the Hadith the Prophet was betrothed to Aisha (one of 12 wives although only four are permitted in Islam) when she was 5 or 6 and consummated the marriage when she was nine. I have only met a couple of Muslims who knew this and the rest were shocked at the polite question.

But in private discussions with Muslim friends they tell me that they cannot talk about this or other issues with other Muslims. Islam means "submission" and the "peace of Islam" is a result of submission to Allah and His Prophet Muhammed. But the sad reality of Muslim society (according to countless private discussion with Muslim friends) is that it's people are governed by fear and not peace. As Islam's influence spreads so will the fear and violence exemplified by the Prophet . . .oh I can't mention that either.

Religion is the problem. It doesn't matter which flavour.

Why is it only religious people and totalitarian nutters who lobby for censorship?

what a bunch of idiots – freedom of speech is just that - not freedom as long as you don't critisize what I believe in - these people that look at life like that really need to start accepting responsibility for their own shortcomings - not blaming the rest of the world for them

I am always amazed at how the Muslim world bamds together and gets so upset about a cartoon, or a book....yet not so upset when one of theirs blows himself up in a market place killing and maiming children.

I am always amazed at how the Muslim world bands together and gets so upset about a cartoon, or a book….yet not so upset when one of theirs blows himself up in a market place killing and maiming children

l think when it comes to publish moslems Prophet bad image it becomes clear that the so called int.community which iz consistent of 28/29 countries otu of 200 countries it becomes OK, but will it be OK if writers will put bad image on jewish faith?lts just like digging Egyptian tombs while in Europe are so many Kings & Queens tombs why dont you dig and find your own history,where iz this gonna stop? The so called freedom of speech iz spinning out of control.
M.R.

It's Ok for the world to burn our flags and for us to have to see it on TV.
A book is nothing but paper unless you read it.
Muslims are overreacting as usual. THEY do not have to read it, so why are they upset? There has been a lot of upsetting literature of various kinds that upset any number of groups. Best just to ignore such. I do not protest pornography which I feel is destroying the idea of what sex should be about, and which is making perverts of millions of men.

I find it amazing at how many people actually believe that we have freedom of the press here in the United States. Most people self-censure and the government does not need to do anything to censure the books, art or movies that are made by artist.
Some of the comments that people have made are just amazing. People assume that there is no violence on the part of Christians against Muslims and that only Muslims commit violence against Christians. Look at the Philippines, the Balkans, Russia's borders with the Caucus Mts or Somalia. These are all areas where violence against Christians against Muslims is prevalent and determining who started it would be incredibly hard.
Now for the people who have said that Mohammed's life was fake how is it any more fake that Jesus' life? Are we supposed to take the words of a carpenter's son? A man who is the son of God? What about Jesus' life makes it infinitely more probable or acceptable than the life of Mohamed. To Ntiger, how was Jesus actions not taken out of frustration to the actions and beliefs that Jews had adopted?
To Tom, if you think 700 or 800 deaths are bad what about Christian preachers and missionaries all throughout the world? Congo in the 1880-1900? Mexico in the 1500s? Eastern United States from 1650 to the present? There are many individuals who are Christian who have killed in the name of god – Torquemada, Columbus, etc. The list goes on and on. And some have been made Saints.
Ok, I could go on and on, the point I am trying to make is that, there is more out there than you know and the other side may have a legitimate reason for being upset and that your idea/knowledge of history is wrong or highly distorted.

There has been many films shown and books published that were very offensive to the Christian faith. Did Christians threaten to kill the authors ?
Why then should Muslims be so nervous about the truth concerning the way they treat women ?
We in Europe are much too permissive with violent islamic behaviours.

This is just the new version of those Danish cartoons a while back, there are times for good manners and ettiquette, but throughout all times there have been storytellers so why is this fictional story which the author has stated is completely made up causing such a problem? The Muslim community should be happy that a western author is making the effort to include their culture not just use them as a stereotype. If Muslims have a problem with the book, their religion being degraded and their values mocked thats fine and understandable, but fire bombing someones house isnt going to help.

People can mock the Catholics, the Jews, Irish, French, Americans and Australians but everyone moves on. Somebody does something to upset the Muslim Community and death threats are made and fire bombs go off. And they wonder why western society has dubbed them terrorists? They attack our culture of freedom of speech with this culture of "we wont talk about it and act rationally we'll blow you up." Just because there are things I dont like doesnt mean I try to intimidate people over them, these people need to harden up!

Freedom of speech is a right that does not acknowledge "manners" or "etiquette" since these things are subjective. Why do Muslims always demand special treatment in Western democracies? Is it because they are used to oppressing and discriminating against minorities in their own countries?

Perhaps if Muslim intellectuals spent more time reflecting on and advocating for internal change – Islam would not be in the sorry shape it is now.

The disappointing thing is that elements of the Muslim population predictably respond to a difference of opinion – which is considered normal in Western democracies – with threats, intimidation and violence. Then they turn around and accuse the media of bias.

Westerners write historical-fiction critical of just about everyone and everything from Jesus to Iggy Pop and beyond. Freedom of speech means if you fo not like what the book is saying, you do not read it, or you write a critical review – it does not mean you fire bomb the publisher and threaten harm to the writer.

"freedom of speech has blanket applicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion.”

"where does freedom of speech end, and sheer good manners and etiquette begin?"

It is not a question of etiquette. Etiquette would apply if I was directing this form of communication directly at the party in question. Here's an idea for these Islamic idiots. Don't read the book.

Are we supposed to allow them to force their beliefs on us? To determine what subject matter is acceptable for the rest of the world to read and write about? Do these people know how ridiculous they sound?

If it does not have blanket applicability, if someone gets to decide who and what qualifies for 'free speech', it's not free at all. 'Oh, you have freedom to speak, as long as we approve it first'. So it's only OK to talk about whatever were told is OK to talk about? That defeats the whole purpose of freedom of speech. Sounds like the same freedom they have to speak in totalitarian regimes, and had in feudal Europe.

The constant garbage spewing out of the mouths of these perpetually angry, control obsessed, power tripping, judgemental islamofascists is really starting to wear out my patience.

Thank you for this article, for posing this question and to all the people who have commented. In our day and age this is a terribly important debate and we must remember how fortunate we are that it can be had.

I think there is a fine balance to be sought. Where censorship or banning of books we do not like is unacceptable those who author must be aware that provoking for the sake of provoking will often be counter productive and ignite tensions. E.g. the Danish newspaper cartoons which was really a joke in poor taste which blew up in the publishers face and was then sought justified by arguing 'free speech'.

With free speach comes full responsibility to advocate oppinions in a way that is a cause for productive exchange – even if I realise that oppinions sometimes differ beyond reason and debates may be impossible between individuals of blind or at least myopic faith or partisanship.

To me the concept of 'free speech' as it is being interpreted without obligation to any adherence to responsibility is a great threat to nations and religions in our time.

The importance of education has never been more critical to the world in which we live – no matter what faith, ideals, ideologies, values you subscribe to. As Dennis notes there is no guarantee of freedom from being offended there is also no guarantee of freedom of being mislead or exploited by those who abuse our outrage – or lack of it.

Where does freedom of speech ends?

It does NOT. It cannot end anywhere, because, in the end, literally everything can be interpreted as insulting to someone else – and then there will be no more freedom, no more speech, only frightened silence.

It is not because a religion has millions of followers that their belief should be shielded more against the opinion of others than the beliefs of smaller groups of people, indeed, of any single individual. In fact, the bigger the claims of any belief or ideology – and the claims of religions are seldom small – the more it should be exposed to criticism; if it's not up to that, if it fears opposing opinions, then those claims cannot be very solid, and shouldn't have been made in the first place.

As to what Kamal said: anybody can talk about the holocaust. What is forbidden by law is to deny publicly it ever happened. Why? Because it DID happen – that's not a matter of opinion: we're talking historical, verified facts here, not beliefs. And because by denying it, one is actually justifying a regime that was inhuman, thus making it easier for that cruel, racist ideology to resurface. History is our true learning school; if we can't trust that, if we begin reshaping it to our own liking, in the end we will have learned nothing and will be doomed to repeat our mistakes.

I realize it is often difficult for (some) religious people to distinguish between scientific fact and belief (see evolution vs creationism). The difference is that facts don't require any faith, only hard evidence, while beliefs don't require any evidence, only faith. Evidence is something which anyone with the beginnings of a brain can recognize, whatever his beliefs; faith, on the other hand, is something one just has to accept, without any evidence.

Denying the holocaust is comparable to denying the crusades. Both are brutal facts.
Insulting Islam (or other religions) is comparable to insulting non-believers. Do not tell me, Kamal, that Islam doesn't insult non-muslims: aren't a-religious people likened to pigs and dogs by that very religion? However, you don't see atheists threatening muslims with bombs, do you: they'd rather argue you to death.

There shouldn't be any boundaries to the freedom of speech, not now, not ever. Lest we lose all freedom to speak.

*Yawn* Here we go again.

Perhaps this is just me, but why are apparently the most devout also the most hostile when attempts are made to debate the doctrine of their precious faith? This is not a plague that is exclusive to Islam (although the media would certainly like to think so); it blights every major religion the world over. If a person's faith is strong and unwavering then why resort to threatening/sabotaging/killing others' attempts at discourse. It's beyond my comprehension.

the only rule of any controversy about any book is:
Does it enhance sells!

P

Writers like Steve Berry have written popular fiction that have raised doubts over the resurrection, among other Christian themes. It is certainly not a scholarly piece of work, although comes across as a well-researched book. No one threw a bomb at his publishers. It is now very tiring to see someone's free speech questioned on the specious argument of amity and cohesion. Why should some artist suffer because a set of people have decided to be extremely intolerant of any serious inquiry into their world? It is also tiring to see the world even considering bowing down to such pressures. I hope such people realise the implications this has for democracy within Islam and Islamic societies. Democracy, as a principle, is governed by a culture of words, not bombs. And people who throw them haven't read the work, and do so at the behest of people who too haven't read it. Do we want to keep encouraging such behaviour?

Muslims were accorded freedom to practice elsewhere aside from where it came from. You should respect also others who gave you that freedom to make it popular. I should warn you that if you don't let others let them be then you might as well be reciprocated by returning you to where you came from.

I find it a bit ironic that the Muslim "intelligensia" can claim that if it offends them, then it should not be published. As a woman, I am offended by the publication of the Muslim (amoungst others) intepretation that women are inferior and are useful only as chattel and for child-bearing. Since I find this bad manners and a breach of etiquette, I think that the Muslims should stop publishing their opinions on the role of women.
I agree with Dennis – Where do you stop? Should we not publish criticism of a government because someone might take offense? What about criticism against genocide and human rights? I am sure those committing those acts will find any criticism offensive and will be insulted.
Please! There is NO justification for terrorism nor attacks on free thinking and ideas. Wrapping themselves in "insult" and "offense" is simply not justified. Every single religion on earth could take the same perspective and use it to justify terrorism – but they don't. Just Muslim.

Exactly why bowing to Muslim demands is a threat to our modern democracy...

Firstly to Todd,

I accept that there are probably christians out there who tout the idea tthat theres is the only true religion but my point is that (here is western europe) even amongst those folk, I (emphasis on that word) have not met any who would take their defence of it to any extreme. They all, born agains, evangelicals, and any other I have met, have always allowed for the possibility that they are wrong.

Secondly,

I just feel the need to point out that the common misconception amongst muslims, on which their prickly defense of the koran rests is that Mohammed wrote the book .. hence the idea that it is the one true path because god took the hand of the illiterate man and cast his words upon the page, is actually wrong. Mohammed spoke, his followers listened and "learned by heart".
After his death the followers had a mishap in battle and many of those who "learned by heart" his message met an untimely end. In a panic that the message might be lost they came together and, by committee, the decided on what should be in the book and where it should go, just like the Catholic bible I might add (in the committee sense, and not the untimely ends).
In the very begining there were more than one "Koran" (as Mohammeds followers spread his word without the book that had not been written yet) and after a well organised recall (the need for which was a leason well learned from christians after their own disasterous launch with many many books, some "true" and some "false" and the subsequent need for their own centralisation and recall) there came a time when there was only one.
I just think that that should be pointed out. Its not the book written by god through his proxy and as such the prickly defence of it being sacred and above quuestion (even if the are the right religion) simply doesnt stand.

And as for the other holy books in their religion, the glorified biographies, they are fair game entirely and I fail to see why they should be considered any less potentially fictional that the book on offer above. I have absolutely no doubt that they have suffered from the same writers bias that every other biography in history has suffered from.

For these reasons I think it is very arrogant to claim this book is anything other than another liberal interpretation of history, in which the author at least has the decency to admit it is (part/all) fiction.

An after word to clarify my position and hopefully avoid me getting flamed ..

Im not, even for a second, saying islam or any other religion is either right or wrong. In fact, to me, it is like debating the existance of unicorns in my next door neighbours garden, after the initial giggle and on consideration of all we dont know about space, time, dimensional theory, states of energy and matter and things outside our ability to sense, you really have to allow for the possibility that there is a unicorn sitting on the swing next door siping on a cold beer. Its unlikely but no real scientist discounts things absolutely, only by degrees.

By the exact same logic any decent scientist must never accept anything as an absolute. That means all things, physics, chemistry, theology, philosophy ..etc.. cannot be above reproach. Only through thorough examination and testing can the degree of certainty in something be approximated and even once this is done the testing and examination should never stop.

It all comes down to freedom of speech or freedom to do anything at all! Freedom is something they are not familiair with when it comes down to the Islam. It's very hard to apply living in freedom when it has never been there.

Freedom is all we have in the end, and no one can take it from us!

Someone commented down:
"I mean its just a book, on a reasonable subject that alot of people are interested in. The life of a child bride and all that comes with it. The unique experience that many in the west might find to be.. an unfortunate one. If it wasnt about a particular husband then its likely there would be no problem."

Now my question is how would a "piece of FICTION entitled The Jewel of Medina" will be interesting for us or will represent the life of a typical child bride of that age? If its a piece of FICTION then it has not truth. A historical finding should be true specially when you are writing about some big personalities.

I would say its a publicity stunt, the author has written a book which no one would bother to read unless she will start such a controversy.

About Freedom of Speech:
I being Muslim will never stop her from publishing the book if its written on some research, historical facts about the bride. But what i see its a piece of FICTION and a effort to gain cheap publicity under the umbrella of "Freedom of Speech". In my opinion such efforts are damaging "Freedom of Speech" , and are not good for writers who want to talk about the subject with their legitimate and true research work.

Oh dear, here we go again! Deja Vue rears its ugly head. As Jack Nicholson stated in one of his films, " Why can't we all just get along?"

There is nothing wrong with any faith. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, Animists manage to get along quite nicely in non polarised societies. This discussion should not even be happening. Salman Rushdie made a fortune, I presume, out of his mediocre work "The Satanic Verses" because it was blown up out of all proportion. I was one of the many suckers who bought the book out of "spite" to the Muslim faith. I doubt that this latest missive is any better.

Jail the fire bombers, fine them and then expedite a quick "repatriation" to a society that will accept them. Possibly far away from any continent. An uninhabited island in the South Atlantic would be preferable.

As a white european, with liberal views, I am tempted to ask for the return of Puritanism and the code of laws which accompanied it. Burn heretics of all faiths, lock out progressive thinking, do not accept debate, and let's all get back to the Stone Age where we all belong. Hunters and Gatherers For Ever!! Loud shouts of "Hip hip hurray" from all concerned.

Are we to become hostages to demented fanatics that want to perpetuate insane religeous attitudes?
Freedom of speech is just that. Don't like it, don't read it but, don't dictate to me what I can or cannot read.
Mohamed was a man, like you and me, like Christ and Napoleon.
The dietification of humans is the problem. Heresy !!!
God is one and is not Mohamed.
Peace

Say again???:

quote: “I think Muslims are not saying anything about freedom of speech but actually legitimately calling a public debate on whether the concept of freedom of speech has blanket applicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion.” says Zehra. (end of quote)

2 points to make:
1. a fire bomb is not "legitimately calling a public debate" It is illigitimately making a mess of any reasonable discussion.
(as far "reasonable" applies in any discussion about religious touchiness)

2. How about replacing a word to get a different perpective, e.g.:

"... a public debate on whether the concept of RELIGION has blanket appicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion."

I get dizzy with the idea that the age old fiction of religion is actually leading to danger for authors of modern fiction...
Nobody can proof that the holy books were not man made fiction.
How can one fiction be offended by another fiction?

I mean: Imagine really, really big people calling out to forbid fairy tales being published because giants are always portrayed so negatively...
They at least would be talking about reality (their lives) and the influence (the bad reputatio of giants) of certain fiction on it.

So in answer to the quote: YES, Freedom of Speach is actually the worthy cause itself to risk social cohesion and harmony for!

good luck,
sas

For Ali of Sweden, My point, although somewhat hidden is that all historical "facts" from that era should be taken with a grain/mountain of salt. With no independent observers of history around at that time to tell the real story, it is impossible to call any "story telling" approach to the subject anything other that fiction (based loosely on reality).

I personally take the koran and all other books from that era/area to be the same.. Fiction which is loosely based on fact. Same goes for the bible and any other "important" text from history with no independent sources to back it up.

The one thing that I do find a bit funny (as in odd) though is how Muslims are so sure the Bible is a mistake just because some one told them so but they get so upset when the same logic they use to bash the bible is used on them. Their blind defensiveness is only surpassed by that of scientology.

But Im getting a bit off topic. This book, on face value, is not offensive by western standards and I appreciate that Muslim and western standards rarely coincide with one another but it is being published in the west not in down town Tehran or Doha.

Ok, having not read it I cannot say for sure that it doesnt imply improper behaviour on Mohammeds part, which would be wrong in my opinion ( it should not be done unless there are facts to back it up ), I would be reasonably certain that those who seek to bash this book have not read it either and as such are only going after it because it has the potential to knock a halo sideways.

Oh and to the person who said that it was socialy acceptable to marry a child bride at that time.. My response is simple: If their society was so messed up as to allow a grown man to take a child as his bride, it should not imply that it was acceptable (but again if it was about any other husband having a child bride the discussion would have been very different for most of you). Basic morals should trancend all societies and the protection of childrens innocence is the one I would hold up highest.

For Ali,Sweden, My point, although somewhat hidden is that all historical "facts" from that era should be taken with a grain/mountain of salt. With no independent observers of history around at that time to tell the real story, it is impossible to call any "story telling" approach to the subject anything other that fiction (based loosely on reality).

I personally take the koran and all other books from that era/area to be the same.. Fiction which is loosely based on fact. Same goes for the bible and any other "important" text from history with no independent sources to back it up.

The one thing that I do find a bit funny (as in odd) though is how Muslims are so sure the Bible is a mistake just because some one told them so but they get so upset when the same logic they use to bash the bible is used on them. Their blind defensiveness is only surpassed by that of scientology.

But Im getting a bit off topic. This book, on face value, is not offensive by western standards and I appreciate that Muslim and western standards rarely coincide with one another but it is being published in the west not in down town Tehran or Doha.

Ok, having not read it I cannot say for sure that it doesnt imply improper behaviour on Mohammeds part, which would be wrong in my opinion ( it should not be done unless there are facts to back it up ), I would be reasonably certain that those who seek to bash this book have not read it either and as such are only going after it because it has the potential to knock a halo sideways.

Oh and to the person who said that it was socialy acceptable to marry a child bride at that time.. My response is simple: If their society was so messed up as to allow a grown man to take a child as his bride, it should not imply that it was acceptable (but again if it was about any other husband having a child bride the discussion would have been very different for most of you). Basic morals should trancend all societies and the protection of childrens innocence is the one I would hold up highest.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. So if offending the religion of ISLAM is freedom of speech then i think that is wrong. It is simple don't offend Islam this book will not change the world and it will not stop or start a war, but it will offend billionns of Muslims around the world. But your ignorance and hatred will not let it just be you have to come out and fight for freedom of speech. You can have your freedom of speech but not about Islam Simple. This book is a blatant lie about the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him and Muslims will not stand for it. But i tell you something don't you stop for a minute and think the author actually played with your hatred for Islam to make this book sell.. Hmmm

Muslims just need to come to terms that they are not the only religious group in existence. By extention this means THEY have an opinion (a common belief factor) as a group which gives them an identity as a group. To deny other groupings the right to have an opinion is bigotry to say the least. The next thing we know they would claim a monopoly on God and the rest of us will not have a right to say our prayers. They do not HAVE to read the or see the item if they consider it potentially offensive. We are diverse and as such the world will remain. If we concede any further ground they (muslims) will surely start laying claims that the world belongs to them. What next? Eject the rest of us into outer space? They might lay claim to that too eventually.

I am amazed about the hatred from some people on here about Islam. Funny actually. I repeat again Islam is the fastest growing religion in WORLD. Like it or don't now thats a fact.

Islam is a borderline ideology. All ideologies should be open for criticism. Imagine if we weren't able to criticise Communism or the Soviet Union.

I urge all nations to join the boycott of the UN DURBAN II conference, scheduled early next year. It's purpose is to make criticism of islam; 'racism'. Stand up against totalitarianism.

Mohamed Khader, Growth in terms of what? You say fastest growing religion on the planet.. but growing how? If you mean bums on chairs then its a foolish assertion.

The truth is that alot of muslims dont know much about their own religion (believe me I know this as fact) so to say they count is a bit silly. If you say its poor folk who will not be given aid unless they are muslim .. that too is foolish since they are, like it or not, faking it. How about muslims who practice more than one religion like buddhist muslims or anamist muslims ( of which there are many ) or the muslims of the tropical islands such as the maldives who most muslims would probably secretly discount for there rediculously lax interpretation of the Koran (by the way I really like maldivian folk).

Even the muslim base is fractured. Shia and Sunni are quick to show unity on occasion but the truth is that according to the very basis of islam, that the book is without flaw and cannot be disputed, their differences mean that one or the other of them simply must be wrong and as such they are, which ever group, all apostates. This underlying fact often rises to the surface and illustrates the fact that although they are close, they are infact two seperate religions.

And what about Al quida/qeada/cuddly what ever the spelling is.. It is not really possible for both their brand of Islam and the mainstream sunni/shia versions to be compatible either. The basic fundemental principle of Islam is that GOD said, and there cant be two correct interpretations to gods word.

And on top of all this.. the funniest part of your assertion is that your talking about growth when it is illegal in quite a few muslim countries to leave the religion and the penalty is quite severe. This arguably is proping up the growth figures you would use to support your statement. Afterall who would want to die when they can just keep on pretending.

My point here is that free speach in all forms is important, especially in the ream on religion.

After all without free speech you wouldnt have been able to make your obviously propagandistic statement and I wouldnt have been able to thrash it.

Ok, so Im a bit bored of this discussion since as always our muslim friends have gone on auto pilot .. so Im going to just leave you all with one of my favorite quotes on the subject from a very wise man..

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

–George Orwell

Mohamed my friend, I do not hate Islam.

But there is no excuse for trying to kill someone just because you think he/she has offended Islam. It may be part of Sharia law, but you cannot throw bombs in the name of Sharia law on non-Muslims outside the Ummah.

I have not read the book, I agree that it was probably just written for the sensation and the money. If that is true, the author deserves contempt. And if Muslims feel offended, of course they must protest. But not kill.

With that firebomb Muslims have put themselves in the wrong in this case.

FREEDOM means FREEDOM to write, read, publish, paint ,sing, do anything you want. If Christians are offended by the cartoons that muslims use to portray Jews, do we kill them or set their houses or business on FIRE? They call us infidels and want to impose their rules on US. I take offence to that. I have never hurt anyone in any way because of it. Not all muslims are violent I understand that ......however there have been tens of thousands of Islamic religious acts of violence over the past 5-6 years People are different and people think different and people have our own opinions. We do not subject them to christian, jewish, buddist, hindu rules and they MUST not try to subject us to Islamic rules. Have Christians Jews , HIndus Buddists been burning down their embassys in protest of the beheadings and other acts of ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE? No I dont think so .DONT READ IT, DONT WATCH IT. DONT BUY IT. The violence and the threats and the blackmail to stop insulting religious groups whoever they are, MUST stop. Islam is intolerant to other points of view and to any discussion. I think they would be better off to go from place to place teaching Islamic people that violence, killing, beheading and distroying prperty and setting peoples places on fire because of the way the believe or what they write or think would be the best way to solve the problem.

Lastly
I am not at all worried about who I offend with my opinions or beliefs.
Niether are they worried about offending mine.
Human rights and womens rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. It is a crime to convert from islam.
Islams views on those subjects deeply insult and offend my beliefs...when will you change those things to suit me?
I'm waiting!

To : Mohamed Khader

I am amazed about the hatred from some people on here about Christianity and Jews and all other religions but their own. Funny actually. I repeat it is a crime in Islamic counties to convert to any other religion! I think they have to leave the country and go in hiding. Allow people in those countries to READ whatever they want and LEARN and WATCH and LISTEN to whatever they want and choose for themselves THEN we will see what they believe.

Mohamed Khader wrote:

- "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. So if offending the religion of ISLAM is freedom of speech then i think that is wrong. It is simple don’t offend Islam"

- "You can have your freedom of speech but not about Islam. Simple."

Simple. Right.

So if an ideology is fast growing one should tiptoe around it... OR ELSE?
This is the logic of the bully. That's what made nazism big in Germany, way back when. Or any other totalitarian regime, for that matter. And the more people cower in a dark corner and curb their tongue, the faster the ideology/religion will grow – and the more people will cower in a dark corner. Simple. This leads inevitably to a fearful, ignorant, unfree society.

And then Mohamed Khader expresses his amazement about "the hatred from some people on here about Islam"? Really, sir!
If it was your intention to portray Islam as a dangerously intolerant, suppressive ideology – something which should be fought at all costs – you succeeded with flying colors. No agent provocateur could have done a better job.

For the sake of Islam, I hope you are. An agent provocateur, I mean.

Attacking the publisher like this is wrong and in no way allowed in Islam. However publishing a book which will hurt the sentiments and feelings of a billion muslims around is highly provocative and unwise. Freedom of speech does not mean publishing whatever filth one can muster. Why is freedom os speech always cited when the subject is Islam but the same is not applied when its Jews or Christians. For example in a number of countries in Europe denying the holocaust is a punishable crime – where does freedom of speech?! I am not saying holocaust did not happen, what i am saying that there are double standards here.

Oh purlease people.
Suprise suprise just when things were dying down a new fresh reason to hate Islam. How convenient for all anti-Islam haters.
Number One: The publishing of this book should not be compared to the publishing of the satanic verses as for one it's intention was not to offend or to stain Islam. This book is a writers interpretation to an event, a writer who instantly explained her motives for writing the book as soon as their was a flicker or discontent amongst muslims.
As for the 0.00001% of muslims who were offended by the book i will gamble most of them havn't even read it so i don't see the big hoo haa about getting offended by something you don't know the complete story on. Pick up the book first read it and if it is offensive to you then you should rightly voice your opinions.
Oh onto the subject of opinions. We live in a society where anyone can express their opinions and unlike countries like China censoring information rarley occurs. I think freedom of speech is important and publications like this should be published. No not to offend us muslims just because we are given the oppurtunity to voice our opinions others should voice theirs about our religion. At the end of the day our faith should be so strong these documents shouldn't bother us as we know people are not ignorant enough to look at one side of a story.
Ask the 1.5 billion muslims in the world about this book granted only around 50 000 will know anything about it and around 300 will be offended so i don't know why people are acting like it's the whole islamic community in horror and who are taking up arms and using violence it was only three idiots. 3/1.5 billion
Granted some idiots put a fire bomb through a door and that was very wrong but why are all muslim getting punished and attacked for it.
Islam is a religion of peace an tolerance look around you even if people don't like the book they will tolerate it because they have respect. Because unlike stereotypes they don't get offended over every little things. Unlike the stereotype they believe in freedom of speech. And for those who were offended look around you those muslims will not be using violence but expressing their opinions in a peaceful way.
Just as everyone else is entitled to freedom of speech so are muslims.
Some people need to understand that.

People that speak publicly about islam and critisise some aspects or practices of this religions are HEROES to me. As a religion and way of life islam made a very poor impresion on me and dislike it (even if i m not a religios person...dont belive in god) I have nothing agains religios people like cristians and budists or any other except islam

i have seen in the news media(here there are no muslims) alote of muslims that practicly hate any other religion(and culture) and look like the embodiment of natzi ideea of that they are superior but they fall short in any way compared with european culture or others in the world like hindu or other eastern cultures

in my opinion the islamic culture is in some part/area one of stupidity,lack of education,lack of tolerance ,the ideea that they are better then the rest(a superiority compex usualy hides a inferiority complex),they are forever insulted and mistreated

Tauseef Khan, I beg to differ with your opinion and I think you will unfortunately take offence, so I apologise in advance. The difference between the holocaust and the Koran is that one has unbiased and documented historical proof. That the holocaust happened is not a matter for debate and denying it is a crime in those countries because in those countries there are real, non fictional, scars that will not heal for

Tauseef Khan, I beg to differ with your stance. Your going to be insulted Im afraid, so I apologise in advance.

The holocaust was real, just as it is real that there were massacres in Rwanda. It is a crime to deny it because it is insulting an established fact about people.

Religions are not entitled to such protection because there is a real possibility that they are either partly or entirely fictional. For instance I will give you a simple example.

Scientology (now take a second to let the words bubble up in you head) stands the same chance of being true as your own religion which stands the same chance of being true as christianity which, if you take a scientific approach to analysing it, is likely a derivitive of the early ancient egyptian forays into mono theism (which were quickly snuffed out by people who thought the same way you do about free speech).

Now you have had several seconds to let the voice in your head scream about these religions and what is it saying?.. "they are all wrong"? is that what the voice says? you would tell anyone who would listen about your religion, wouldnt you? but from a simple unbiased standpoint like mine, you are just as right and just as wrong as any of them.

(not exactly true, having read both the Bible and the Koran I can say both have several pieces of good advice to give but Islam is about total, unquestioning acceptance so given that there are unacceptable elements in both the Bible and Koran, Islams requirement for total acceptance makes it a little more wrong from a scientific standpoint)

You dont argue against attacks on them do you? Why not? Your ideal that Islam is above any criticsm is fundementally flawed unless it applies to all ideaologies and lets face it, Islams "tolerance" of others has led to alot of death and misery over the ages hasnt it? Its even forcibly wiped out a few other religions hasnt it? (again the same thing can be said about many other religions but we are debating Islam at the moment)

In fact I just read an interesting story about Islamists in Somalia destroying churches and building mosques over them.. Remember, tolerance is a two way street and, as far as I can see, Islam has torn up and destroyed its side of the street.

Secret foreign money flooding into Obama campaign
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

Amreen
There have been tens of thousands of ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS attacks in the last 10 years NOT 3. Islam must stop Islam from giving ITSELF a bad name by stopping people from promoting hate. Bringing to trial and setting an example of the terrorist. I have listened to sermon after sermon on the news on the internet saying Kill the jews wipe them out kill the infidels. Make THAT a CRIME in Islamic countries. Put them in jail and teach children not to hate. Close down and stop funding camps that train children to kill. I see young children siting hate and they learned it from somewhere. Make that a crime. Make so called "honor killing " a crime punishable by death. I bet that would change some hearts and minds? Muslims when asked all over the world say that it is ok to KILL in the name of religion NOT 3 but hundreds of thousands. In Iran chanting death to america kill the jews....I watch TV. I read the paper... SO DO YOU ..You the Muslims can fix it, by stopping the hate, making it a crime. Fighting for freedom of speech, religion and sexual orientation. Human rights, Womens Rights. Let us see the millions of Muslims protesting in the street for these issues and when this happens I will stand behind, infront ,and beside YOU. Stop the violence and hate and killing.

@ Tauseef Khan:

• In my first post I already addressed the difference between denying facts and "insulting" the opinion or belief of someone else. The difference is fundamental, as fundamental as the difference between "objective" (fact and evidence) and "subjective" (faith and beliefs).

Now as far as I'm concerned, denying facts is just plain stupid and shouldn't be prohibited by law (you can't make stupidity a crime, otherwise we wouldn't have nearly enough prisons), but in case of the holocaust it weren't stupid people who were doing the denying – it were just stupid people who were doing the believing.

There are solid reasons why denying the holocaust has been prohibited in certain countries (including mine). It was (and still is) meant to have a legal weapon against dangerous neo-nazi groups and extreme-right parties, who lied through their teeth to make the nazi regime look acceptable and paint themselves as the victims of an international conspiracy. They were (and are) trying to change the history in their favor, hoping, by doing so, to change the future in their favor.
And because a lot of people are ignorant and will believe anything if it's repeated often enough, even the most outrageous lies, something had to be done. The governements of those countries chose to outlaw that particular lie.

That muslims today always cite this one law to attack freedom of speech is, well, a bit lame, to say the least. Do they really want to be seen by the world as sympathizing with the nazis, and what they did in those concentration camps?

Believe me: you wouldn't want nazism to come back. Today THEIR TARGETS ARE MUSLIMS, much more than Jews: it's YOU they would put in those camps this time. (But don't worry: we'll deny it ever happened afterwards, O.K.?)

Western muslims of foreign origin also forget that, in those same countries, they themselves are often protected by similar laws: namely those that forbid blatant racism. Those laws could also be interpreted as a violation of freedom of speech.

• Freedom of speech is, as several others have said here already, essentially the freedom to offend (wittingly or unwittingly): to say things that others don't agree with and don't want to hear – otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it, and it wouldn't be freedom.

If you seriously maintain that, because YOU choose to believe something, everyone should guess your sensitivities and tiptoe around them, then no one can say anything at all anymore. Let alone mock or criticize opinions one finds ludicrous.

And I repeat: such a restriction leads inevitably to an ignorant, uninformed, fearful and unfree society.

This doesn't mean people shouldn't try to be civil. But then, I don't see much civility in the fact that muslims compare people who don't believe in some god to pigs and dogs, do you? You don't seem to care if that offends people – you only seem to care if something offends your community.

Well, learn to live with it. Frankly, it's very childish to protest every time someone says something – however innocent – you don't want to hear. And it's more than childish when someone thinks this gives him the right to kill.

If you (read: your community) can't answer criticism with arguments, but have to resort to demonstrations and even violence, it must mean you don't have any arguments.
Every time you do, you weaken your own cause.

CORRECTION

I wrote: "That muslims today always cite this one law to attack freedom of speech"

what I meant, of course is:

"That muslims today always cite this one law to point out that freedom of speech doesn't always apply"

Maggee,

Its not possible to make all those things a crime because, without any ambiguity, the Koran, and Mohammed called on all Muslims to be a bit mean and ... forceful.. in spreading their religion and in punishing those who would stand against it, although, oddly, in the begining is pretty much says live and let live but then it reflects the entirely human feeling of growing frustration and moves to a more forceful policy as time goes by (remember the koran is a chronologically ordered document).

There is a far more complicated situation going on there than what we in the west are privvy to. There would be alot of secret support for anyone who might want to be a bit nasty to a jew or a detractor of Islam than you might imagine. Like in most things there would probably be maybe 5-10% of them who lean toward this more .. nasty.. interpretation (and probably the same number who are just as opposed to it) but when you translate that into real numbers thats 50-100 million people who would at least sympatyse with it.

A second point about hatred in Islam, It is not the same as in christianity. In Christianity all people are created equal, your fathers sins and his fathers sins are not your burden and even if they were christianity preaches forgiveness as a central point. This is all tied to Jesus dieing on the cross for us..

But in Islam you carry this burden. Jesus didnt die to take away our sins according to Islam so we are burdened with them .. take this into the real world and this means that all christians carry the burden of the crusades, all jews carry the burden of any past transgressions, all westerners carry the burden of our profiteering past and so on and in islam the forgiveness bit is not really all that central. So hatred and revenge is allowed (just as it is in the old testement) because we "deserve" it because of our ancestors actions. Islam is the ultimate religion for holding a grudge. You cannot work off your sins.. your stuck with them.

Hatred and violence are far more acceptable than you might imagine to any reasonably hardcore follower of Islam.

Religion is sacred and personal...gives some of us hope...man has destroyed so much all we have left is God...why take that away from us...There is so much else to be written about...leave religion alone its just a very touchy subject...there is enough wars and crazyness in the world today without inciting more hatred...

Muslims and Christians and other faiths...if your faith is strong...nothing will make you change your beliefs...(Ignorant Muslims in underdeveloped countries will be the first one to riot and kill...gives you something to think about...)

Live and let live...

Ah, mrs Rose...

Some of the wars you mention were waged because of religion – or religion had at least a part in it. Some of the hatred you see is there because of religion also.

Christianity, the religion which propagates love as no other does, used to slaughter it's own sects (the Cathars, f.i.). The catholic church also invented the Inquisition, which tortured and killed heretics in the name of the one faith.
Two hunderd years ago, christianity found a way to condone slavery.
More recently, catholics and protestants were killing each other in Ireland.
In India, hindus and muslims are making life hard for each other as we speak. In the south of Thailand islam rubs uneasily against buddhism; in the Phillipines against roman catholicism. And I won't even start on muslims vs jews in the middle east.

If man has destroyed much, he did a lot of that destroying in the name of a god – and not some evil god either: often it was supposed to be a good and just one.

I know, a religious person will say: that's all man's mistake, not god's – but without a religious drive, without that certainty that one is right and just in the eyes of god, a lot of evil would not have been ,and still would not be, committed. Maybe some good wouldn't have been done either, but I'm not sure it would cancel out the evil.
I'm not saying that everything which comes from religion is bad, or that without religion there would be no evil – what I'm saying is that religion seldom made things better, and rather often made things worse.

Leave religion alone, you say. But it's mostly religion that doesn't leave other people alone. They judge you, they want to convert you, they try to impose their own moral standards on everyone – because in their minds, those standards come from god, and thus are to be obeyed above all else.

Abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia... in all the so-called ethic fields religious people are pushing to have their values installed, for everybody. They don't believe in freedom for everyone, and everyone free to do as he pleases, because they - know - better. Even if you don't believe, they want you to live by their ethics; in some cases (islam) they even don't believe you can be a moral person without believing in some god (that's why the liken unbelievers to dogs).

Now fundamental christians and muslims alike are pushing to have creationism recognized and taught in schools, as if it had the same scientific value as the evolution theory.
It hasn't, of course – in fact, creationism has no scientific value AT ALL – but they don't care. They push and they push. It's Galileo Galilei all over again: when he saw the earth was moving around the sun, the church silenced him, because according to the church the bible said the sun moved around the earth, not the orher way around. Galileo held his tongue, unlike Giordano Bruno before him... who was BURNED for refusing to revoke his theories.

I don't have anything against religions or religious people. They can live their life as they please, believe what they want, say what they want, worship whom or what they want.

I just want them to show me and others the same fundamental courtesy.

And this means that they also have to accept freedom of speech, for EVERYONE.

It's simple.

If a book hurts your feelings: don't read it.
If a cartoon bothers you: don't look at it.
If you consider abortion and euthanasia a sin: don't do it.

But do NOT forbid me to read that book, if I would want to.
Do NOT forbid me to look at that cartoon, if I would want to see it.
Do NOT prevent me from choosing for euthanasia, if I would so choose.

Accept my free will and choice, as I accept yours – and we can indeed live and let live.

As a proud muslim, i wanted to say that i am totally in favour of free speech. This book should be published and then its up to all of us to decide if we want to read it or not! Furthermore, i can read it and disagree with its content. Even better, i can write my own book and counter the points i disagree with. Maybe i could even write a letter or have a discussion with Sherry Jones about the subject matter.

Maybe she wants to offend muslims, its her right – i am confident enough that my religion which has 1 billion followers and has been around for 1500 years will not be affected.

As for that idiot, Choudhary, he does not represent me as a muslim and he never will. As muslims, let us show a good example for a change and try to fight this with the mighty pen!

The difference between Islam and Christianity is the former licenses you to do harm in retaliation to harm, while the latter teaches you to love your enemies. It's old teachings vs new teachings, "eye for an eye" against "turn the other cheek", jihad against forgiveness.

Why does God allow Islam to flourish when it teaches Jesus is not His Son? Muslims have become Christians' natural enemy for the purpose that if you are really a true Christian you'll love your enemies and recognize Muslims as your brothers. God has put Christians to the test more than He has put Muslims to the test – that is the role of His chosen people. In the end, all that should remain is not the details of our religions but our love for one another.

nnJgK4 Thanks for good post