Protests 'out of proportion'

2006-02-08 10:17

Jakarta - Indonesia's foreign minister said on Wednesday that radical groups around the world were exploiting public Islamic anger over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and the reaction was now "out of proportion".

As scattered protests continued in the country, police said they were questioning two editors at a local news magazine that reprinted several of the caricatures to accompany a story on the uproar generated by them.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, has condemned the drawings.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda said: "The cartoons have hurt the Islamic community, so it has added to ammunition for (global) radical groups to exploit the situation and the whole thing has got out of proportion."

Two editors at Peta magazine, which has a circulation of 3 000, were being questioned on Wednesday, said detective Suwondo Nainggolan in Bekasi, a town on the eastern outskirts of Jakarta where the magazine is based.

"We are still in the process of determining whether or not publishing the cartoons is a crime," he said.

Peta's chief editor, Abdul Wahad Abdi, has since apologised for the decision to run the cartoons.

Abdi said: "No maliciousness was intended. We never intended to insult or disgrace Islam."

Angry protests

Demonstrations in Indonesia against the cartoons have been small by local standards.

On Thursday, a handful of Muslim students rallied outside the presidential palace. Similar-sized demonstrations occurred in two other towns.

The cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, but have since been reprinted elsewhere, have triggered angry protests throughout the Islamic world.

One of the drawings shows Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb. Another portrays him holding a sword, his eyes covered by a black rectangle.

Muslims were angered because Islam prohibits any depiction of the prophet to prevent idolatry.

Some newspapers said they reprinted the cartoons to illustrate stories about the controversy, while others said they did so to support the principle of free speech.

- AP