I dont know what the first cartoon means myself. I just know that a random Danish journo can't think himself so worthy that he puts a face to the Prophet, the man most respected  and admired for his life's work, not just in this life but also in the here after.

The second one is definitely offensive -- if thats supposed the be the Prophet, then why's he got horns coming out of his head? And why's he depicted with a dumbfounded expressio on his face.

The 3rd is using the universally accepted symbol of Islam, superimposing (allegedly) the Prophets face on it -- thereby blinding him in one eye with the star. There are many conotations you can interpret from that kind of symbolism.

The rest are self explanatory and disrespectful.

The disrespect comes not only from depicting the prophet in drawing, by giving him a face and physical characteristics that no living person can vouch for (us muslims consider this to be blasphemous) but its also depicting the prophet in disgraceful and disrespectful ways. THAT's what the fuss is about.

Read the part of the article I highlighted. So even though there are parts of the Norwegian/Danish community who are aware of the "radical" muslim faction of their community, they think it best to confront the issue by provoking them? Yeah sure, that's very responsible. You know what, say what you want about "muslim fundamentalists" and they're slightly better "moderate" counterparts but the facts remain.

These cartoons go well beyond the right to "freedom of speech" because the notion doesn't exist. Its been misused just like every other "democratic" principle. Take the current Anti Terrorism legislation in Australia. If you so much as talk about things the government has deemed unsuitable, you can be labelled a terrorist and your movements monitored. Hell, you dont even have to talk about any contentious issue, if you LOOK a particular way or if your less than "middle eastern looking" neighbour/colleague/jo-blogs down the road decides you look "terrorist-y" they can call in their national anti-terror hotline and have ASIO at your doorstep, prying into your business...watching your every move. I mean, for crying out loud! 

So please, if you're going to use any rationale to argue the point, don't use "free speech" coz its crap and we all know it. It is provocation and the way to deal with anger is not to incite it in its worst form. If, that is what the intent was (to highlight and address the issue of "violence" and "fundamental" muslims).

I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that this act is seen as an unprovoked assault. Its no secret that muslims take their religion seriously. In the current climate, where the leaders of the world are trying to put together a service pack for "dealing with the temperamental terrorists" we don't need irresponsible and immature publishers printing this kind of crap. And as far as the "they do it to us" argument goes, I'd like to quash that as well. Muslims and muslim countries and muslim media are sensitive to and respectful of other religions, even those not considered to be "people of the book" and a cartoon such as this would never make it to press.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've been looking for the entire collection of cartoons.