Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says he is retiring from Jyllands-Posten the newspaper that published his cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The Danish cartoonist whose Prophet Mohammed caricatures ignited violent protests in the Muslim world announced on Monday he is retiring with hopes of damping down the danger to himself and fellow journalists.

Kurt Westergaard said he felt it was time to end his 25-year career at Jyllands-Posten, which first published the cartoons in September 2005 that led to protests against Denmark and the newspaper and threats on the cartoonist’s life.

“I do not want anymore to pose a danger to the security of the daily and its employees, and I want simply to do something else,” said Mr. Westergaard, who turns 75 next month.

In January, he was the victim of an attempted murder by a Somali man at his home near the central-west town of Arhus. He escaped by locking himself in the bathroom behind a reinforced door. Since then, he has been under police protection.

“I hope that my departure will help reduce the level of threats against the Jyllands-Posten,” Mr. Westergaard told AFP.

The cartoons, including one featuring Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse, sparked protests in January and February 2006 that culminated with the torching of Danish diplomatic offices in Damascus and Beirut and the death of dozens of people in Nigeria.

In 2008, around 20 Danish newspapers reproduced the drawings triggering further protests in Muslim countries including Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia.

Mr. Westergaard has been on leave from the newspaper for security reasons since last November after two men were arrested in Chicago with plans to attack the newspaper.

As for his future plans, he said he no longer wants to draw cartoons but is looking to exhibit other artworks, in particular watercolours, at a gallery in the city of Skanderborg.

Drug addiction is compulsive use of a substance despite negative consequences which can be severe; drug abuse is simply excessive use of a drug or use of a drug for purposes for which it was not medically intended. Dependence on a substance is not necessary or sufficient to define addiction; there are some substances that don’t cause addiction but do cause dependence (for example, some blood pressure medications) and substances that cause addiction but not dependence (they are mainly characterized by depression).

Causes, incidence, and risk factors

Drug abuse can lead to drug dependence or addiction. Drug addiction may also follow the use of drugs for physical pain relief, though this is rare in people without a previous history of addiction. The exact reason of drug abuse and dependence is not yet known. The genetic make-up of the individuals, peer pressure, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and environmental stress are all factors which seem to be involved. Children who grow up in an environment of illicit drug use may first see their elders using drugs. This may put them at a higher risk for developing an addiction later in life for both environmental and genetic reasons.

Commonly abused substances include:
- Opiates and narcotics are powerful painkillers with sedative and euphoric qualities. These include heroin, opium, codeine, Oxycontin and others.
-  Central nervous system stimulants have a stimulating effect and can produce tolerance. These include amphetamines, cocaine, commonly used stimulants are caffeine and nicotine.
-  Central nervous system depressants produce a soothing sedative and anxiety-reducing effect and which leads to dependence. These include barbiturates (amobarbital, pentobarbital, and secobarbital). Commonly used depressants, by far, is alcohol.
-  Hallucinogens produce psychological dependence. These include LSD, mescaline, psilocybin (‘mushrooms’).
-  Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the active ingredient found in cannabis, marijuana, and hashish. Although used for their relaxing properties, THC-derived drugs can also lead to paranoia and anxiety.

Drug intoxication and drug overdose may be accidental or intentional. Drug withdrawal symptoms can occur when use of a substance is stopped. Withdrawal symptoms vary, depending on the particular substance. The withdrawal symptom depends on the length of time the drug was being used. Drug intoxication, overdose, and withdrawal can be life-threatening in some situations.

Treatment for the person with drug addiction begins with the recognition of the problem. Though earlier ‘denial’ was considered as a symptom of addiction, recent studies has shown that this symptom can be dramatically controlled if addicts are treated with love and care, rather than being told what to do or ‘confronted.’ Treatment of drug addiction involves detoxification, support and abstinence. Emergency treatment may be indicated for acute cases. Often, there may be a loss of consciousness and the person may need special medical attention temporarily. The specific treatment depends on the drug. Detoxification is the gradual withdrawal of an abused substance in a controlled way. Sometimes a drug with a similar action is substituted during the withdrawal process to reduce the unpleasant symptoms and risks associated with withdrawal. If depression or other mood disorder exists, it should be treated appropriately. The need for treatment is underscored by the severity of illness of those who undergo detoxification and the societal costs of untreated substance use disorders.

DrugTestStrips.com is an online store offering drug test kits and drug screening products in several formats including blood, urine and oral drug test kit. DrugTestStrips.com offers FDA-approved urine drug testing kit as well as DOT-approved alcohol testing products. These drug test kits can be used discreetly for at home drug test or for random employee drug testing. Drug addiction is compulsive use of a substance despite negative consequences which can be severe; drug abuse is simply excessive use of a drug or use of a drug for purposes for which it was not medically intended. Dependence on a substance is not necessary or sufficient to define addiction, there are some substances that don’t cause addiction but do cause dependence (for example, some blood pressure medications) and substances that cause addiction but not dependence (they are mainly characterized by depression).

Causes, incidence, and risk factors

Drug abuse can lead to drug dependence or addiction. Drug addiction may also follow the use of drugs for physical pain relief, though this is rare in people without a previous history of addiction. The exact reason of drug abuse and dependence is not yet known. The genetic make-up of the individuals, peer pressure, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and environmental stress are all factors which seem to be involved. Children who grow up in an environment of illicit drug use may first see their elders using drugs. This may put them at a higher risk for developing an addiction later in life for both environmental and genetic reasons.

Commonly abused substances include:
- Opiates and narcotics are powerful painkillers with sedative and euphoric qualities. These include heroin, opium, codeine, Oxycontin and others.
-  Central nervous system stimulants have a stimulating effect and can produce tolerance. These include amphetamines, cocaine, commonly used stimulants are caffeine and nicotine.
-  Central nervous system depressants produce a soothing sedative and anxiety-reducing effect and which leads to dependence. These include barbiturates (amobarbital, pentobarbital, and secobarbital). Commonly used depressants, by far, is alcohol.
-  Hallucinogens produce psychological dependence. These include LSD, mescaline, psilocybin (‘mushrooms’).
-  Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the active ingredient found in cannabis, marijuana, and hashish. Although used for their relaxing properties, THC-derived drugs can also lead to paranoia and anxiety.

Drug intoxication and drug overdose may be accidental or intentional. Drug withdrawal symptoms can occur when use of a substance is stopped. Withdrawal symptoms vary, depending on the particular substance. The withdrawal symptom depends on the length of time the drug was being used. Drug intoxication, overdose, and withdrawal can be life-threatening in some situations.

Treatment for the person with drug addiction begins with the recognition of the problem. Though earlier ‘denial’ was considered as a symptom of addiction, recent studies has shown that this symptom can be dramatically controlled if addicts are treated with love and care, rather than being told what to do or ‘confronted.’ Treatment of drug addiction involves detoxification, support and abstinence. Emergency treatment may be indicated for acute cases. Often, there may be a loss of consciousness and the person may need special medical attention temporarily. The specific treatment depends on the drug. Detoxification is the gradual withdrawal of an abused substance in a controlled way. Sometimes a drug with a similar action is substituted during the withdrawal process to reduce the unpleasant symptoms and risks associated with withdrawal. If depression or other mood disorder exists, it should be treated appropriately. The need for treatment is underscored by the severity of illness of those who undergo detoxification and the societal costs of untreated substance use disorders.

DrugTestStrips.com is an online store offering drug test kits and drug screening products in several formats including blood, urine and oral drug test kit. DrugTestStrips.com offers FDA-approved urine drug testing kit as well as DOT-approved alcohol testing products. These drug test kits can be used discreetly for at home drug test or for random employee drug testing.

Protesters in major cities of Pakistan Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Multan and Peshawar spent last Friday shouting “Death to Facebook”, “Death to America” and burnt US flags.

But surprisingly and in contrast with the past, the religious leadership, which organized the processions, could not attract big gatherings for the protests.

Around 4,000 people came in the streets to protest against the facebook and Youtube in Karachi, 3,000 turned up in Lahore, around 500 gathered in Multan, up to 400 appeared in Rawalpindi and Islamabad and 250 showed up in North-Western City of Peshawar. In Lahore, protesters burnt US, Norway, Sweden and Denmark flags. In Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Multan and Peshawar, people blocked main roads and shouted death to face book, America and Western Media, which humiliated the holly prophet.

“We have to show unity in this war of the present time,” remarked Farid Ahmed Paracha, a central leader of main opposition religious party Jamaat-e-Islami. “We should tell America that this is the final battle and we are ready to win it,” he told the gathering in Lahore. 

“This facebook and Youtube are being used negatively against Muslims and to humiliate our holly prophet, we warn USA and the whole west they should avoid such practice otherwise a new war will start,” said Mirza Hassan, a college student in Rawalpindi.

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) also restricted more than 450 links besides completely banning Facebook and YouTube after a court decision for restricting all Internet sites carrying blasphemous material.

But there are also many people who think that protesting against such acts was not a right way to handle this situation.

“What will be impact on facebook, USA, and the west if we block our own roads and create a panic in our own country? We should simply accept their offence and prepare ourselves to beat them technically in all the areas,” said Hasan Nasir, a young computer engineer.

A debate has also been started among the members of civil society discussing the justification of ban. Hundreds of e-mails have been generated on the popular e-mail groups including the media groups to argue for or against this ban.

“We always turn up for non-issues. This is true that they have hurt us, but halting the life in our own country satisfies their aims. We should openly face this and try to respond it by concentrating on our jobs and taking our Muslim Ummah up to their level in economic and social departments. Then we should leave them behind in all other departments and take our sweet revenge,” said Mubarak Ahmed, operator at an international call center.

“My Prophet is above all these things and criticism. His personality is far above of all of this. I don’t care who is making what kind of caricatures of him. He is blessing for the whole world and I love him from the core of my heart. His blessings are for the entire world and his critics will meet their destiny on the doomsday, me or anybody else has no need to worry,” commented Tariq Zia, social officer at a local NGO.

Assalāmu ῾alaykum wa Rahmatullāhi Wabarakātuh

The issue of Facebook and their latest antics against our Beloved Muhammad sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam has angered and frustrated the Muslim Ummah. The reaction of the Muslim Ummah in the face of such blasphemy is appreciated. This malevolence is not foreign to Islam and the Muslims. During the time of our beloved Muhammad sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam , individuals like Ka’ab Bin Ashraf , Abu Lahab, his wife and others were also guilty of defaming our Prophet sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam. Their fate is known to all.
Our responsibility as Muslims and lovers of our beloved Muhammad sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam is as follows:

1. To delete Facebook accounts and any other media that deems it acceptable to disrespect our beloved Rasoolullah sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam and never to reactivate them again.

2. To inform others of the above as well.

3. Deleting facebook is one form of expressing our love for Rasoolullah sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam . However, objective love of Rasoolullah sallallāhu ῾alayhi wasallam is to inculcate his teachings in our life.

4. Make dua for guidance of the involved individuals.

لو كان حبك صادقا لأطعت

إن المحب لمن يحب مطيع

Had your love been true, then you would have surely obeyed him

For indeed, a lover is most obedient to his beloved

Let’s prove our obedience!!!

Wassalāmu ῾alaykum

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Dārul Iftā, Madrasah In῾āmiyyah

The page was removed Thursday after one of the moderators had his e-mail and Skype account hacked into, and his personal data revealed, according to a post on the page on Saturday. The moderator then got scared and deleted the page, a blog, and e-mails, according to the post.

“This is another scare tactic from the Islamic extremists,” the post said. “We won’t fall,” it added. The moderator who removed the page has however backed out, according to the post.

The page had over 108,000 fans and over 11,700 photos posted on Saturday. Though the Facebook users who created the page put it back up Saturday, some users in India were able to access it for only a brief time before their access was once again blocked. Meanwhile access to Facebook as a whole continues to be blocked in Pakistan.

The page “Everybody draw Mohammed Day!” invites users to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed, which led a court in Pakistan to order the site to be blocked.

There were also a large number of protests on the streets of Pakistan on Wednesday and Thursday, objecting to the page.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) on Wednesday ordered operators to block Facebook on Wednesday until further orders. It also ordered YouTube to be blocked on Thursday for displaying “sacrilegious” content. It said it had also blocked over 450 links on the Internet that contained derogatory material.

“Facebook has not taken any action on this page,” a spokeswoman for the company said earlier on Saturday. The company had said on Thursday that it would not rule out making the content that Pakistan objected to inaccessible to users in Pakistan.

When dealing with user-generated content on global Web sites, there are occasions where content that is illegal in one country is not, or may even be protected, in another, Facebook said on Thursday. Most companies, including Facebook, approach this issue by preventing certain content from being shown to users in the countries where it is illegal, it added.

The PTA has said it would welcome contact from Facebook and YouTube to resolve the issue.

Fashion designer Melih Kesmen reads inside a mosque in Witten. His modern brand of Islamic clothing, Styleislam, was born from outrage over the Mohammad caricatures in Denmark three years ago

Whether at his office, on the streets of Frankfurt, or on the music stage, rapper Fouad As-Idi, has no qualms wearing a T-shirt with a special message: “Terrorism has no religion.”

“The motives are super both for Muslims and non-Muslims,” says Mr. Idi, a Moroccan-Italian Frankfurter better known as his stage name, Sayfoudin “It’s a message that speaks to everybody.”

The T-shirt is a product of Styleislam, a new brand of Muslim fashion that has been sweeping through the streets of Europe. Mixing Islamic themes with hip-hop culture in a collection of 35 T-shirts, casual wear, and accessories for men and women, Styleislam products have one main message: Being Muslim and being modern go together.

“T-shirts are a bridge, they are a means to establish a dialogue with mainstream society,” says Melih Kesmen, Styleislam’s creator, whose parents left Turkey in the 1960s to help Germany rebuild its infrastructure after the traumas of World War II. “Our goal is to strengthen the identity of European Muslims, to say that we are a part and parcel of this society – and have been for a long time. And to say that being Muslim can be cool, too,” says Mr. Kesmen from Witten, an industrial city in northwestern Germany.

Styleislam was born out of Kesmen’s outrage at the Mohammad caricatures in Denmark three years ago. “I couldn’t believe that in the name of the freedom of expression, the world was bashing a religion,” says Kesmen. “It can’t be that we always have to be in the position to justify ourselves when only 1 percent of Muslims are radical.”

Unlike thousands of Muslims who resorted to violence to vent their frustration, Kesmen used his creativity, by designing a T-shirt with something special written on it: “I love my Prophet.”

No sooner was he out on the streets with his T-shirt that people started stopping him, asking questions, convincing him of the power of fashion in making people think, and of the existence of a market for his fashion.

Today, his idea has evolved into a designing firm with eight full-time employees selling Muslim fashion with Islamic themes in the world’s four corners, from the United States to Western Europe, from Canada to Turkey. Some T-shirts are for women. One, for instance, refers to the head scarf: “Hijab – my right. My choice. My life.” Others preach tolerance. “Jesus & Muhammad / Brothers in Faith.”

Styleislam sponsored the first tournament of Germany’s Muslim Basketball Association in Frankfurt last year. The players’ T-shirt reads: “Ball Against War!”

“But for us, it’s more important when ordinary people wear the T-shirts and walk around – in the subway, on the streets – when they make their presence visible in society,” Kesmen says.

“We are fighting against the ‘They and Us’ mentality. It is nonsense to say ‘They, the Muslims, and we, Europa,’ ” Kesmen says. “My message is that there is no contradiction in being European, German, and Muslim at the same time.”

One T-shirt at a time, his message seems to be heard.

Just the other day in Frankfurt, rapper Sayfoudin’s co-workers came in with a Styleislam T-shirt, too. It said, in big black letters, “Salam.”

“Salam,” for peace.

The phrase social networking, in fact, seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. The more addicted to sites like Facebook people become, often the less social they actually are. They may have a thousand Facebook friends but no one to talk to outside of the web. As one faithful Facebook aficionado lamented recently, she had been trying to find someone to talk to for 45 minutes without any luck. This must mean, she concluded, that she had no friends, and she may well have been right. Talking through the ether seems to me to be not much more friendly than passing gas in a crowded elevator.

But none of that seems to be the reason for Quit Facebook day. Its users don’t seem to mind that, for the most part, it is not much more than one huge, collective intellectual fart where people tell total strangers what they had for dinner and what colour underwear they were wearing while they ate.

There are serious issues surrounding Facebook and similar social networks. In Pakistan, Facebook was banned recently because a user urged others to post cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which to Muslims is blasphemy. A Pakistani court this week overturned that ban, saying the government could not limit freedom of speech and then went on to say that freedom did not include contradicting Islam. Facebook has had trouble in other countries as well — its only merit, as nearly as this low-tech Luddite can figure out — is that it is a conduit for free speech, no matter how fatuous most of that speech might be.

Rather, the reason that quitting Facebook was the talk of Twitter this week appears to be the company’s questionable collection of personal and private information from its users that it then sells to anyone who pays. Even that knowledge wasn’t enough to make Facebook users quit on Tuesday — the company won’t say how many did, but the estimate is about 40,000 pledges out 400 million users — and, with the threat of American legislation hanging over its head, Facebook has announced that it is tightening its privacy controls. That’s a step in the right direction, both for Facebook and for keeping government regulators out of the Internet, but it remains a jungle. Go ahead, talk your face off on the Internet if you want, but before you tell the world what you really did last night, give your life a reality check. No one has 1,000 friends.

On May 19, the French cabinet approved legislation to ban women in France from wearing full Islamic face-coverings, the burqa, and niqab, in public areas. France, which contains Europe’s largest Muslim population, has been headed in this direction for a while.

In 2004, the government banned students and staff from wearing veils in schools. At that time, the rationale was French secularism. This time, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy says, the rationale for the ban is that it saves women from “subservience and debasement.”

But banning women from wearing a veil trespasses on their rights as much as the repressive restrictions that force them to wear a veil.

Historical precedents show that many Muslim women who veil choose to do so. In 2003 when some German states began banning head scarves in the classrooms, the teachers opted to retire instead, stating that wearing a head covering was their personal preference.

Turkey had a series of formal and informal bans, which culminated in the 1990s. But by 2008, thanks to backlash, the government was forced to introduce a constitutional right to wear the veil.

Iran experimented with forced unveiling of women under Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1936. Then, following the White Revolution in 1963, Empress Farah Pahlavi, who did not veil, became a public symbol of Iranian female emancipation. The backlash against the Pahlavi attempts to liberate religious conservatives arguably led to the Islamic Revolution, in which many conservative women actively participated to overthrow the monarchy.

Another assertion made by those in favor of banning female veiling is that the women who choose to veil after immigrating have not been exposed to Western society long enough to realize, as Eric Besson, France’s hard-line immigration minister put it, that “the burqa is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of national identity, of sexual equality, and of the French Republic.” This, however, assumes that the state has a right to interfere with personal autonomy, specifically religious clothing, when it perceives it’s for someone’s own good.

But according to Article 18 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion … freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

The burqa and the niqab are part of an individual’s religious beliefs. It’s strikingly contradictory therefore that France, in order to liberate women from perceived Islamic oppression, has to violate their universal human rights.

To be sure, given that France’s face-covering ban will only affect 2,000 citizens out of 62.3 million, the imminent interdiction is more a symbolic issue than a practical matter.

The resistance to symbols of Islamic faith in public indicate an increasing acceptance in France of the once extremely conservative anti-immigration currents, introduced by Jean-Marie Le Pen and the National Front party, which proposed sending the 3 million Muslim immigrants back to their countries in 1995.

Islamic dress has become more noticeable in France because increased immigration has changed the dynamic of urban life, transforming some urban areas into Muslim-only ghettos. The proposed ban on female veiling is clearly a symptom of France’s heightened immigration issues.

Perhaps France is fearful that a clash of cultural and religious identities will bring conflict: however, such a ban will only aggravate things.

In fact, conflict and violence frequently arise across political and economic divides but there is nothing inevitable about a clash between the “West” and “Islam.” Conflict crucially depends on how these sensitive issues are handled politically.

France’s ban on forms of Muslim female garb is a primary example of how to escalate conflict. As one would expect, when France began publicizing the future ban on burqas and niqabs in July 2009, Al Qaeda’s North African network responded by publishing violent threats against France on an Islamic extremist website.

The logistical issues created by the veil do not validate this escalating collision. The only practical challenge created by face-covering occurs with state security measures such as government identification cards, airport checks, and other needs to identify one’s self for the state. Yet as Judith Sunderland of Human Rights Watch points out, in these scenarios France and other governments could easily just give Muslim women a private room to unveil, and solve the problem.

As Canada’s Quebec, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy are all considering enacting similar legislation that will ban female veiling in public spaces, they should be very clear about the reason why they are trending in this direction and examine the goals of such bans. So far, proposed bans in France and across Europe seem to be mere emotional responses reflecting cultural and religious intolerance.

Quebec’s proposed Bill 94, which will ban veils on public sector employees and citizens receiving government services, was quite popular in March, but stalled in government hearings on May 19, after the province’s Muslim community led a strong protest concerning the ban’s legality.

Belgium’s key argument in their attempts to ban the veil this April is that the veil inhibits national integration. Yet opponents point out that many other more significant economic factors hinder the integration of Muslim immigrant communities in Belgium. A 2006 survey showed that at least 58 percent of Turks and 55 percent of Moroccans in Belgium are living under the poverty line mandated by the European Union.

France’s proposed legislation will go before parliament for a final vote in July. The issue has little actual regulatory impact, influencing a small percentage of the French citizens. The implications for universal human rights, however, are substantial and demand scrutiny.

Muslims around the world, like these people in Senegal, will celebrate Eid al-Adha this November, a tradition that includes sacrificing lambs.

Some Muslims in Canada’s capital region are worried that they may be fined for sacrificing lambs during November’s Eid al-Adha celebrations.

Since 2005 it has been illegal in Ontario for anyone but the owner of a licensed abattoir to buy livestock and slaughter it independently. Last fall, a Muslim man was fined $2,000 for slaughtering and distributing lamb, and another man is scheduled to appear in court next week for killing a pig.

Abed Abufarha used to celebrate Eid by going to farms to slaughter lambs himself. But this year he will head to an abattoir in Pakenham, Ont., to get his lamb meat. He said the regulations have changed a tradition he used to bring his family to.

“It’s getting really serious. They’re just so sharp about it. They want to stop it right away,” said Abufarha. “There’s big fines for slaughtering meat outside of a slaughterhouse.”

Many Muslims in the Ottawa area have begun booking lambs to sacrifice for their Eid feast on Nov. 16, and say they’ll risk killing the animals themselves. Akram Elmuradi has already paid for 10 live lambs he plans to sacrifice with friends.

“I myself take joy in the kill itself,” Elmuradi said. “It’s a tradition. … Nobody’s going to stop you from doing something you believe in.”

The Ministry of Food and Agriculture says it only investigates if a complaint is filed. Still, the penalties can be severe. The maximum fine under the Food Safety and Quality act is $25,000.

The Indonesia Ulema Council (MUI) on Thursday reserved all fiery comments when thousands of Facebook users across the globe uploaded images of the Prophet Muhammad on the popular social networking site.

MUI chairman Amidhan said the clerics would not issue an edict banning Facebook, which has millions of users and is ranked the top website by Alexa in the world’s most populous Muslim country.

“Facebook is only a tool. It’s neutral,” he told The Jakarta Post.  “But the government must be able to shut down the web page hosting the Prophet drawing competition.”

As of Thursday afternoon, the Facebook page “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” had been tagged by 77,946 people who “like” it.

More than 6,000 pictures have been uploaded, mostly using a cropped image drawn by a Danish cartoonist that sparked violent protests in 2006. Some of the uploaded images are considered offensive and disturbing enough to draw the ire of even moderate Muslims.

The page was created by Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris in support of the creators of satirical TV show South Park, who received death threats from militant Islamists for depicting Muhammad in one of the cartoon’s episodes. Muslims believe their prophet, a strict monotheist, had ordered them not to make any icons of him to prevent idol worship.

The government has sent a letter to Facebook asking it to shut the page, which remained accessible as of Thursday night. Facebook said Wednesday it was investigating the controversial page, The Associated Press reported.

“While the content does not violate our terms, we do understand it may not be legal in some countries,” the company said in a statement. “In cases like this, the approach is sometimes to restrict certain content from being shown in specific countries.”

Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin called on Muslims to remain calm and not be provoked by what he said appears to be the biggest online movement to anger Muslims, even moderate ones.

“This is a deliberate provocation. Muslims should control themselves. We should not be emotional and angry as this provocation will go on incessantly,” Din said.  

Muslim scholar Azyumardi Azra dismissed the notion that the recurrent collision of values between the liberals and the Muslim world underlined the failure of the many interfaith dialogues held by the two sides to ease conflict. “This only shows that we need more dialogue.”

There were no major rallies by Muslim groups denouncing the cartoon competition in Jakarta or other major cities in the country on Thursday. The situation here was in stark contrast to that in Pakistan where Muslims flaunted banners calling for the deaths of those they said blasphemed the Prophet.   

Pakistan’s government has also ordered Internet service providers to block Facebook and YouTube on Wednesday amid anger over the controversy, the AP reported. Pakistan took the decision after a group of Islamic lawyers won a court order Wednesday requiring officials to block Facebook until May 31.

While clerics appeal for calm, journalists and activists are wary the new cartoon fracas would be used as an excuse by the government to control the Internet, currently the most effective tool to organize and social political movements to keep a check on authorities in the past two years.  

Communications and Information Technology Minister Tifatul Sembiring said this latest controversy highlighted the need for a ministerial regulation to control the online world. The proposal has been strongly rejected by bloggers and journalists, who fear it would serve as a censor.

The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) stated Thursday that it was against any abuse of freedom of expression, but it was also against any “efforts to use the Facebook controversy to pass anti-democratic regulations”.

“Internet content that offends Muslims does not justify [Tifatul’s] move to control the Internet,” AJI chairman Neza Patria said.