In Austria, it is against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it. Aren't Muslims right when they take the position that there is an open season against their religion, and that the exercise of freedom of expression is used only as a "civilized" excuse for insulting them?

To this I might add, the truth hurts. If you act like a shit head you will be called a shit head. Further, the laws against Holocaust denial are intended to protect the truth. Your desire to protect Islam has nothing to do with protecting truth but has to do with hiding from truth.

In the West, freedom of expression is considered sacred. For a number of people, that freedom might even be regarded as absolute, thereby allowing an individual to insult even someone's faith. Two issues must be clearly understood regarding this controversy.

First, for Muslims, nothing and no one is above Islam. No one should be allowed to be disrespectful about anything remotely associated with Islam. Having an open discussion regarding the Islamic faith is perfectly acceptable. Insulting Islam is not. That old adage about disagreeing without being disagreeable (or offensive) is fully applicable here.

The gall. Lurking behind this statement is the requirement for dhimmitude. What right does Islam have to tell non-believers what they can and cannot say and do. Simply to say that I as a non believer think I am above Islam is sacrilege. Why should I have to respect Islam or any other religion for that matter. Do I not have the right to look down on religion and say so. What makes religion sacrosanct.

Second, not many understand in the West that a requirement of the completion of the faith for Muslims is to love and respect the Prophet of their religion. That might also be an alien notion, especially among secular Westerners for whom freedom of expression has remained an integral part of their secular puritanism.

What difference should that make. Just because it is the duty of a Muslim to "love and respect the Prophet", it is no reason why I have to love and respect the Prophet or that a Muslim has a duty to kill me if I don't.

On this issue, the long-standing chasm between the West and the world of Islam is not only getting wider, but might also be heading toward a "civilizational war" that Samuel Huntington wrongly described as occurring in the early 1990s in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

One has to look at why bin Laden became popular not from the point of view of the September 11 attacks, but in the context of a larger struggle that is taking place inside the world of Islam. That is a region where the dominance of the United States and the West has been taken for granted by the extant regimes. That is an area where there is little hope about the prospects of political change and economic progress. That is also a region where the rot of authoritarianism, nepotism and corruption has been so entrenched that one cannot realistically aspire to be free, prosperous, or advanced in the realm of technological progress.

The West appears content about the state of backwardness, obscurantism and darkness that currently prevails in Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. There emerges bin Laden, who voices anger over the state of affairs in the world of Islam. People don't necessarily buy into his murderous philosophy of transnational terrorism, but they sympathize with his criticism of what is wrong with the world of Islam and why it remains backward. They even sympathize with his depiction of the West (mostly the US) as the chief villain for supporting the highly corrupt and inept political order from Morocco to Malaysia.

It is easy to blame the West for what is wrong with the World of Islam. Certainly easier then blaming Islam itself. While there is some truth in the idea that the US keeps retrograde regimes in power, would it not be simpler to attack these regimes rather then the US or the Western world especially now that the US is on record favouring democratization. Would it also not help to present a different alternative to a Talaban or Arafatian style government. What does the Muslim Brotherhood have to offer that is better.

Finally, I can't let this pass " People don't necessarily buy into his murderous philosophy of transnational terrorism". Who are these people. Do they represent a small minority or large majority? In any event they believe the end justifies the horrific means.

Freedom of speech is indeed a noble idea. To state that it should have no limits (or that it should be absolute) may be a useful academic exercise, but one should also keep in mind that such an exercise of freedom could also lead to the same kind of deleterious consequences as when one screams "fire" in a packed theater.

A bit of sophistry here not to mention the veiled threat. What he is saying here is that if you print cartoons of the Prophet, people may get hurt therefore you shouldn't do it. This is not a fair analogy. In the case of yelling "fire" people in the theater may panic. I deny your right as a Muslim to hurt people or burn embassies in response to a perceived insult. If this limitation were to be applied to any criticism likely to offend some, it would be the end of free speech.

Finally he concludes,

The West appears stubborn against compromising on the freedom of expression. The hypocrisy in the West is that this freedom is not as absolute as it is pretended to be in some quarters. Nothing about human affairs can be absolute. Muslims are equally uncompromising about allowing anyone to be disrespectful of their religion and their Prophet.

There is no equivalence here. Free speech is an inalienable right that one has. The Muslim's do not have an inalienable right to tell others what they may or may not do.

So where do we go from here? In a world that is more of a global village than it has ever been before, there have to be compromises. Muslims make a point of not insulting Christians about their faith. As a quid pro quo, a similar courtesy is warranted toward their religion. The global village is like a packed theater. Good judgment is a requirement before one yells "fire", even in the name freedom of expression.

Wouldn't it be loverly. "Muslims make a point of not insulting Christians about their faith." If only that were true. If only Jews were included. But no, Christians and Jews are insulted everyday in Arab countries and relegated to dhimmitude. They are not allowed to practice their religion in public or to carry any symbols of it etc., etc.

When Islam treats non-believers as equals entitled to respect and stops advocating death and destruction to the west and stops trying to take over the west and force its submission to Islam then we won't insult it or its followers.