A I S E H M A N . O R G

Like I mentioned in your earlier posting, the Europeans(many EU countries anyway) have a extremely different way of seeing things. They are generally liberal and allow most things, or at least close an eye. Yes they have 'old' laws against blasphemy, but as your own examples show, they have generally not been used for decades, whether the insult was to Islam, Christianity etc.
It is debatable whether their 'godless' way of life is better or worse, but it is their choice, their country, their society. An analogy would be our anti-homosexual laws(which we inherited from the British by the way,; see how far different they are now), which I won't debate on at this moment. But we implement it 'selectively' and when other countries complain about it, we effectively tell them it is our 'culture' not to accept homosexuality, no matter what others think. Hope this gives some perspective.

This episode is an overblown issue by insensitive people who caused the furore and stoked by "batu api" characters and gullible zeaolots who bites the bait and turn it into an international inferno. Just let it end and not stoke the flames any further.

FYI a Christian ultra may just take your calling Jesus a "Christian prophet" as blasphemy too. When, then, is this going to end?

Huajern:

Point taken. But for all the bluster about the freedom of expression being absolute, the existence of the blasphemy laws show that the Europeans have drawn the line on the very issue that sparked this whole thing off - blasphemy.

The laws show that it is within the nature of European society to entertain curbs on that freedom in the case of blasphemy.

The fact also remains that the anti-blasphemy laws have been invoked in recent times in some of the countries above.

Furthermore, look at Denmark: the judges threw out the cartoon suit because they were of the opinion that the freedom of expression was more important.

Fine. But considering that to Muslims, some of the cartoons were extremely offensive, ie. blasphemous to the max, the question that then comes to mind is what sort of blasphemy does it take before the courts say ok, this is a case we'll consider?

Why not repeal the anti-blasphemy law as even some of the worst kind of blasphemy (to Muslims) is not even entertained by the courts?

Why still have it?

And if there is a need for the law to remain, then again, my question, what sort of blasphemy is blasphemy?

daniel:

End as in go back to where we were before this whole thing?

Or end as in together, we work our way out of this mess?

The second option requires compromise.

And FYI, for many Christians and Jews, probably the entire Quran is blasphemous, just as we Muslims find the Holy Trinity blasphemous, and the Jews' rejection of Jesus and Muhammad blasphemous.

Also, in Islam, Jesus is not the "Christian" prophet.

Ours is not a perfect world nor do people every where have equal rights. One percent of the world's population control 90 percent of the world's wealth and thousands are dying daily because of cruel poverty.

Blasphemy or not, the important lesson to live by is to realise that it is not what happen to us that is right or wrong but how we react or response to provocative situations, difficult people, unfair laws and puzzling circumstances.

Believe me, the world would be a better place if we can bless those who curse us. We cannot change the mind of those who beliefs are radically different from us but we can touch their hearts by the way we response in truth and in love.

The ancient scripture teaches that "Blessed are those who are insulted, cursed, persecuted for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven".

Aisehman

You are right on the dot. Your perception as always is thought provoking. Fundamentally, you cannot change the religious belief of another person by logic or by pointing out the falsehoods. So then how should the multi religious community live together with this blasphemous divide over them? All religions would teach their followers to live in peace and be kind to those who oppose their religion.

It is erroneous to consider Europe as a homogeneous entity, just like some Europeans consider all Asia as the same. Certain countries take their blasphemy laws more seriously, Italy for example. Germany is also a bit more conservative with the media/speech due to their history. Others don't give a damn.
The reason the laws are still on the books(in the more liberal states) is probably cos most people don't know/care as it is hardly ever mentioned. And when it is invoked, it gets thrown out by their courts.
Why were they invoked inthe certain cases? Well politicians everywhere are the same-la.
I am not supporting the paper for publishing the cartoons(which was dumb). Just trying to see things thru their viewpoint, and maybe understanding it better.

Huajern:

I too am trying to understand this supposedly non-negotiable adherence to the principle of absolute freedom of expression.

But the blasphemy laws are to me evidence that the adherence IS negotiable, and the freedom NOT absolute in several European countries that were among the most vocal in expressing horror at the thought that the press should refrain from insulting religions.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/younge

I wish you could obtain a copy of the govt mandated Tazkirah for BTN camps that are compulsory for students heading overseas.

I agree that many european nations have a bad case of double-standards, but I would like to see the govt's reaction towards explicit criticsm of non state religions contained in the aforementioned material.