nicely put.

one question: the quran, i have read elsewhere, says that the reason behind the “no images of muhammad” rule is to prevent idolatrous worship of the images. that rule, restated (incorrectly, i posit) by the media as “no images of muhammad under any circumstances” seems more restrictive than it needs to be.

i say this because, would anyone–muslims included–be tempted to worship the unflattering pictures published in the jyllands-posten?

so: aren’t the pictures “offensive because of their content”, rather than “offensive because they are forbidden in the quran?” (this would be kind of like an analogy to the malum-in-se, malum-prohibitum distinction in criminal law)

or am i nitpicking?