Could somebody more knowledgable clarify something here?
By reading the link, I now have the impression that the 12 cartoons were a running theme in the particular editorial cartoonist's commentary over several weeks. If this is true, then I view the commentator not as simply an alternate view of Islam, nor a Judeo-Christian man of faith, but rather a carnal unbeliever seeking to foment political unrest relentlessly.
My previous impression was an ultra-sensitive group of Muslim cultured warmongers ceased upon a particular political cartoon as a public justification for lawlessness and rebllion to legitimate authority as a guise to promote an Islamic overturn of western politic.
This later article though, implies a relentless egging of Islamic believers so as to promote conflict.
Which position is more accurate? Or are they both true and feeding one another?
apologies,..'ceased' should have been written 'siezed'.
My understanding is that the 12 original cartoons were published back in September. An author complained that he couldn't get anyone to illustrate his children's book on the life of Mohammed. This Danish magazine contacted a couple dozen artists to produce illustrations of Mohammed and "break the taboo." About half refused to participate, and several of those who did produced illustrations that were not in any way political or critical.
Danish Muslims took the cartoons, altered some to make them more offensive and added some new cartoons that were really offensive, even obscene, then took the collection back to the Middle East and peddled it around as an example of the oppression of Muslims in Denmark.
The uproar we see gradually developed out of an intentional provocation by Danish Muslims who intentionally exaggerated and inflamed the issue.