Anyhow, even on this occasion, there are some decent and fair-minded writers among them who have stated that it is wrong to call this reaction a clash between Islam and Western secular democracy. Robert Fisk, a columnist from England, has written adopting a very fair approach. Someone from Denmark had written that this is a clash between Islamic society and Western secular democracy, on this he [R. Fisk] wrote that this is totally incorrect; this is not a clash of civilisations or secularism. He writes that this is not even a freedom of speech issue. It is just that for the Muslims, the Prophet received Divine words directly from God, in that he was God's spokesperson on the earth. Whereas they (Christians) consider (this is a Christian writing) that Prophets and Saints have been lost in the haze of history due to their teachings not being in concordance with the modern-day concept of human rights and freedom. Muslims consider religion a part of their everyday life and despite the passing centuries, and their ensuing alterations, they still maintain this thought. Whereas we have practically separated religion from everyday life. For this reason, we do not talk about Christianity versus Islam. Instead, we talk about Western civilization versus Islam. On this basis we are also inclined to think that if we can make fun of our Prophets or their teachings, then why not of other religions?
He also questions if this attitude (by the Muslims) is all that impulsive anyway? He writes that he remembers a decade ago a film entitled, 'Last Temptation of Christ', was released, which raised a lot of protest and condemnation because it depicted Hadrat Isa(as) [Jesus] with a woman in an objectionable way. A cinema was burnt down in Paris in anger, and a young French man was murdered. What is this supposed to mean? On one hand, there are some among us who cannot tolerate defamation of religious sentiments; however, we also expect Muslims to tolerate publication of caricatures made in bad taste in the name of freedom of expression. Is this the right attitude? The Western leaders make me laugh by maintaining that they cannot put restrictions on newspapers and freedom of expression. He writes that if the controversial caricatures were to depict the turban-shaped bomb on the head of some Jewish Rabbi, rather than the Prophet of Islam(sa), would it not have raised a protest on the lines that it smacked of anti-Semitism and that it was hurtful to the Jews? If it is a matter of upholding freedom of speech why then is 'Holocaust denial' a crime in France, Germany and Austria? Few would have raised an objection if these caricatures would have encouraged those who support religious reformation or fair-mindedness among Muslims and wish to promote enlightened discussions. However, what other message have the caricatures conveyed than that Islam is a militant religion. Apart from spreading incitement and agitation all round, what positive steps have these caricatures produced?
(Daily 'Jang', London 7th February, 2006, pp. 1-3)
Anyhow, the likelihood of this action also came about somewhat due to the attitude of Muslims. However, there are decent people among them (the Westerners) who like to state the facts.