I had to edit your comment, because it was incoherent. I’ve tried to retain as much of your original comment as I could, but please try to stay on topic. I fail to see how Russia has anything to do with this?

As for your point about freedom of ownership and freedom of expression, I think you’re right. Perhaps that isn’t what you expected me to say? The point is that if we all followed freedom as absolutists rather than as pragmatists, which is what you are suggesting, you are 100% correct. Of course, you mistakenly assume that we accept freedom as a basis for action. It really shouldn’t take too long for you to have a look around on the blog and see that your assumption is unfounded.

I am yet to hear a justification for your statement that “burning a Qur’an is not a political issue”. I think you’ll find that you’re mistaken, and quite possibly just lying. If it was completely apolitical, I doubt you’d be doing it at all. People have better things to do with their time and money than to buy a specific book so that they can make a bonfire. You aren’t doing a particularly good job of lying to us, and it makes you look a bit silly.

I really have little interest in how you choose to act. I am more concerned with how you make the decision to act at all. With freedom as a criterion, you are destined for failure. Let’s be clear: you are suggesting unrestricted freedom. The contradiction will naturally arise when you are faced with a clash between your freedom and someone else’s. Who decides? As soon as a decision is made, someone has lost their freedom, and again your very criterion is contradicted.

To keep it in his own bookstore or burn it = That`s just pure choise of owner. It`s not a political issue at all.

That`s not any issue if somebody use pages of quran to wipe his ass or put it fire

The issues raised by this event have done far more than just enrage Muslim communities worldwide. The publication of the cartoons challenge the core values of the society we live in.

Personally, I believe the cartoons showed complete disregard of a faith, were offensive, unnecessary and were used to agitate the Muslim community.

The man who decided to publish these cartoons thought otherwise, believing them to be a legitimate satirical depiction of a character from the past.

Surely this simplest difference challenges the notion of ‘freedom of opinion,’ thus exposing the fallacy of the current system from its very basis…

“Here we stand all together
In this crappy British weather
Flemming Rose, the little snot
Phlegm you are, rose you’re not
Your challenge truly was absurd
Your words smelt like doggy turd
I must admit I tell a lie
Compared to you, dog poo is pie
Jyllands Posten, the new bog roll
Flush it down the toilet bowl
Danish, Spanish, Germ and French
Collectively, God what a stench”
- by Anonymous

In Denmark:

Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark.

Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion.

So basically the Danish Government had the power to prevent these picture to be published. But instead we wittnessed the arrogance of the government and repeated statement that the government cannot interfere with the media. To me this just shows severe prejudice towards Islam.

Is it a suprise the Muslims are showing there anger at the Embassies rather than just the newspaper?

Thanks for reminding us that pathetic idiots exist on all sides.

Finnishe media has sensored those pictures, which they took about these burnings.

Seppo Lehto - Finnland

This leads to the second point:
“Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example”

Some people are legitimately protesting to express their love for Muhammad (saws) and to show their disgust at the publishing of these images. Others have transgressed the boundaries. In destroying buildings and engaging in violence, they have stepped outside the example of Muhammad (saws) and are giving more fuel to those who would slander Islam.

When Prophet Muhammad (saws) was insulted - as consistently occurred during his lifetime - his response was to challenge the basis of the slander. However emotive these images are, they don’t justify acting in such a manner as would take a man to Hellfire.

The mashed concept ‘Freedom of speech’ justifies these peoples actions.

So unfortunate and shocking to hear about the muslimah promoting the printing.

May Allah (swt) guide us all, Ameen.