Much has been said and done over the infamous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. We’ve seen massive riots, burning embassies, and even a defaced Kentucky Fried Chicken establishment (those villains!). But the lingering question remains—could mere cartoons cause so much violence and anger? After all, they were just semi-serious cartoons (out of twelve, only about three could in any way be seen as offensive)—published in Denmark, of all places. The problem, however, goes beyond the cartoons. It is apparent now that free speech and radical Islam are inherently incompatible, and the response to the cartoons is only the latest chapter in a continuing narrative of intolerance in the Muslim world. The massive overreaction to the cartoons sheds some light over that ever-widening rift between Islamic societies and the West*.

Although the cartoons were published on September 30, 2005, there was no large-scale international reaction until late January of this year. The twelve illustrations appeared in a Danish newspaper called Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten (a.k.a. the Jutland Morning Post). They were accompanied by an explanatory text describing the importance of free speech and how “in a contemporary democracy…[one] must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.” The text was written by Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the paper.

Rose also mentioned the need for an end to the self-censorship exhibited by many Europeans when discussing Islam out of fear of retaliation from radical Islamists. Ever since Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh’s gruesome murder in 2004 in response to his short documentary on the mistreatment of women in Islamic societies, many Europeans have been afraid to openly speak their minds about Islam. In fact, leading up to the publication of the cartoons, there had been a debate about this self-censorship going on in the Danish media. On September 17, 2005, Politiken, another Danish newspaper, ran an article entitled “Profound fear of criticism of Islam,” which discussed an author’s search for an illustrator for his children’s book on the life of Muhammad. Three artists refused out of fear of an attack before one illustrator finally agreed to work anonymously.

The publication of the cartoons was an attempt to end this fear-induced self-censorship, so a violent response would not have been wholly unexpected. But nobody would have predicted the enormous magnitude of the response. Well over 100 people have died in the riots that ensued, covering a geographic range from Nigeria to Afghanistan. Churches and embassies and other symbols of Western culture, like fast food restaurants, were set ablaze, as boycotts of Danish goods were put in place.

To contrast with the reaction to the cartoons, let me provide you with the reaction to a comparable (if not worse) offense of blasphemy against Catholicism in the United States. On December 7, 2005, the eve of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Catholic observance related to the Virgin Mary, a South Park episode entitled “Bloody Mary” was aired. The subject matter deals with a statue of the Virgin Mary that suddenly and inexplicably starts to bleed out if its rear end. Believers flock to the statue hoping to cure their diseases with the blood. This is of course an obvious (and hilarious) parody of so-called miracles like the weeping Virgin Mary, and it created a lot of controversy. Catholic groups complained to Comedy Central and its owner Viacom and had the show removed from its rebroadcast of the season’s shows. There were no riots, no studios were burned, and no animators were killed.

The extremists’ response to the cartoons, however, was neither reasonable nor logical. It’s pretty hard to see how setting fire to a KFC—an American fast food chain—in Pakistan has any relevance to the Danish cartoons. The point is that the rioters weren’t protesting Jyllands-Posten or their cartoons; they were protesting the West and its ideals in general. The prophet Muhammad has been portrayed in Islamic art many times before without sparking massive unrest. The objection here was not to the images themselves, but to the message that the editors wanted to send, that free speech is paramount no matter how religiously offensive it may be. In the West, free speech is given more importance than religion, and in many ways it is more sacred than religion. This concept is largely foreign to Islamic societies. Take, for example, the boycott of Danish goods in the Middle East. The radical Islamists fail to grasp the idea that the cartoons were published by an independent newspaper, a part of the free press, and they are holding the entire country of Denmark accountable. As a result the entire Danish economy has had to suffer.

Up until this point, I have been speaking only of radical Islamists, not Muslims in general. This is because there is a stark difference between the two. The radical Islamists are in the minority. Most of the protests that occurred were peaceful. Many Muslims have spoken in defense of the right to publish the cartoons, despite being personally offended by them. Brave journalists in Jordan, Yemen, and Algeria took a stand and republished the cartoons; shortly thereafter most of them were fired or arrested and several of the newspapers were closed down, because their governments are overrun with extremists.

Most Muslims understand the concept of free speech and wholly agree with it. But unfortunately they are too afraid to use it themselves. It’s about time that this silent majority started to speak freely for itself, instead of sitting on the sidelines while the extremists make their angry and violent statements. Then we can all sit down and agree that these cartoons were, after all, just cartoons, and then we can get on with our lives.