It was said that the ban on depicting Muhammad couldn’t be all that serious since there have been drawings of him in the past. Early artists did draw Muhammad in various scenes but only a few showed his face, while others blanked it out. These can be seen in the Topkapi Palace Library in Istanbul and other collections. But some centuries ago Muslims came to a consensus against depicting the Prophet, lest it lead to idolatry, a sin in Islam. That consensus holds. Non-Muslims can no more mock that belief than Muslims can question some article of Christian or Jewish or Hindu faith.

It was said that the cartoons had offended only the “extremists” or “fundamentalists.” No. The offence was broadly felt, even though only some took to the streets. Critics included such “moderates” as Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, and Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan. Some media approvingly quoted a few Muslims as saying that the cartoons had not offended them. But invoking them is like citing a handful of dissident Jews to say what most Jews should believe.

It was said by President Bush and others that some foreign governments — Iran and Syria, in particular — had instigated the protests. Doesn’t Bush also manipulate the public? Besides, the worst protests took place in US-controlled Afghanistan and US-friendly Pakistan, Libya and the Israeli Occupied Territories.

It was said that the controversy confirms doubts about whether Muslim immigrants can be integrated in Europe. In Canada and the United States, we used to express just such doubts about Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Italians and other “unassimilable groups” — about a hundred years ago. We now see it for what it is: nativist bigotry.

It was said that Arabs/Muslims were being hypocritical in criticizing the cartoons since they routinely demonize Israel, even Jews. I said so myself initially. But later I thought it to be an argument of perfunctory value. It says, in effect, “Since they do it, we can do it, too.” No, we ought to conduct ourselves by our democratic standards.

It was said, by the editors of Jyllands-Posten and those defending them that the paper did not mean to offend Muslims. Really? It is a populist paper catering to anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim prejudices. Here’s Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the drawings, talking about Danish Muslims: “People are no longer willing to pay taxes to help support someone called Ali who comes from a country with a different language and culture that’s 5,000 miles away.”16