The internet is full of responses and commentary on the Muslim reaction to the Danish (and later other European publications) of the "Muhammad cartoons." (The cartoons may be viewed here.) Forthwith a useful samplng of opinion and commentary:
John O'Sullivan rejects the equating of Muslim violence/riots with the Western response. See "Flag-burning riots are one-sided assault".
The National Review offers a valuable symposium on the Danish cartoons. Included in the symposium are voices such as those of Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'or, in addition to Muslim writers. UPDATE 2/8/06 - The symposium participants respond a second time. I found the last three contributors especially valuable.
Muslims object to depictions of Muhammad, but there have been plenty of examples of depictions throughout history. Muhammad is even on the frieze of the United States's Supreme Court! Here's a more distant photo of the frieze. - HT: Michelle Malkin)
Dr. Sanity reflects on the postmodern dilemma of multiculturalism and political correctness that infects the west and how that affects its response to the Muslim riots.
Paul Marshall, senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, and the editor of Radical Islam's Rules: The Worldwide Spread of Extreme Shari'a Law, concludes a survey of Muslim responses to the cartoons with these words:
Finally, amid current calls for "toleration" and "respect for belief," we need to be very clear about the distinction between religious toleration and religious freedom.
Religious toleration means not insulting somebody else's religion, and it is a good thing. But religious freedom means being free to reject somebody else's religion and even to insult it. Government should want and encourage its citizens to be tolerant of one another, but its primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights and freedoms. The fact that people are sometimes insulted is one cost of freedom. The Jyllands-Posten affair calls us to uphold that principle internationally as well as domestically.
The jacket of his book, Radical Islam's Rules, describes the book this way:
"A significant consequence of the rise of Islamism in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and other regions of the world is the rapid growth of a starkly repressive version of Islamic shari'a law, often fueled by funds and support from Saudi Arabia. Despite its importance, this worldwide growth of extreme shari'a is under-documented and little understood. Through a detailed comparative analysis of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia, the contributors to this timely book document its terrible effects on human rights -- especially the status of women and religious freedom -- of Muslims as well as religious minorities, and of democracy itself. This book also makes a compelling argument that such laws are a direct threat to the Western interest of advancing democracy and human rights. Democratic nations and international human rights groups lack any meaningful policy for dealing with the spread of extreme shari'a."