'Bad taste' maybe, but 'cruel'? 'Aggression' is usually used to describe an act capable of significant harm. The author is belittling the term by liberally applying it to the production of poor quality satire. I wonder how spiritually skilled a person is who takes offense at such adolescent humour?

It could be argued that it is not religion per se that is being satirised by the cartoons, but the idolatry of a very masculine anthropocentric religious avatar. Isn't idolatry something which the Abrahamic religions reject? I suspect that in drawing attention to this hypocracy the cartoons have unintentionally made a serious spiritual point.

I seem to remember reading that human images have been frowned upon in Islam in order to prevent idolatry. Making such a fuss about an image turns it into an idol and seems to go against the spirit of Islam.