In early February, 2006, some European newspapers, in a calculated stand on free speech and in support of the Danish newspaper that had first published them the previous September, reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (in one, with a bomb in his turban) that had infuriated Muslims and sparked demonstrations around the world. Danish diplomats serving in Arab capitals were summoned for dressings down by their host governments, Syria recalled its ambassador to Denmark, and boycotts against Danish products were quickly organized in some Muslim countries. The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and the Danish embassy in Beirut were attacked and set fire to. At least twelve were killed in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A preacher at the al-Omari mosque in Gaza demanded at Friday prayers on February 3 that the cartoonists be beheaded. Some Muslim demonstrators called for amputation of the cartoonists' hands (New York Times, Feb. 4, 2006). A Muslim cleric in Peshawar (Pakistan), Maulana Yousaf Qureshi, offered a large reward to anyone who killed the cartoonist (BBC, Feb. 17, 2006). In Libya, ten died when rioters set fire to the Italian consulate in Benghazi after an Italian bureaucrat, Roberto Calderoli, running for office on an anti-immigrant platform wore a T-shirt in public displaying the cartoons.
Orthodox Muslims regarded any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as shirk ("idolatry"), that is to say, as blasphemous (strictest in the Arabian peninsula, the ban eased somewhat as Islam spread eastward into Persia and India). Most Muslims considered Islam God's "final" (khatim) revelation to humankind and Muhammad as the "seal" (also khatim) of the prophets. Many Muslims viewed the cartoons as just another in the long series of slanders against Islam coming out of the Christian world stretching back to the time of John of Damascus in the eighth century and continuing down to the present (See "Wars of Words and Images").
Western defenders of the cartoons (including ex-Muslims like Ibn Warraq: see SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 3, 2006, http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,398853,00.html), complained that apologies were never necessary for free speech and urged the West to stand firm against the "cartoon jihad." British columnist Melanie Phillips denounced the Muslim reaction as "clerical fascism" (BBC, Feb. 8, 2006). Some thought they saw Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" in this event, although others challenged notions of dualistic splits between cultures (see, for example, Indonesian lawyer Karim Raslan, "The Islam Gap," New York Times Op-Ed piece, Feb. 15, 2006).
By February 8, it had become clear that at a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia the previous December attended by representatives of 57 Muslim countries, a decision was made to exploit the publication of the cartoons as a means of challenging vigorously aggressive attempts to impose democratic reforms on the Muslim world. As a counter challenge to the European cartoons, the Arab European League published a cartoon of Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. Dyab Abu Jahjah, founder of the group, said, "Europe has its sacred cows, even if they're not religious sacred cows." (New York Times, Feb. 8, 2006) However, those in the West along with many Muslims (especially Arab Muslims) saw the OIC engineered demonstrations against the cartoons as an attempt by tyrannical, dysfunctional, unjust, and corrupt Middle Eastern regimes to divert public attention away from their failures and their growing unpopularity. And, the same groups pointed out the flood of anti-Semitic literature readily available everywhere on newstands in Muslim countries (for example). As time passed, some Muslims began challenging the violent responses to the cartoons of other Muslims arguing that (once again) Islam was missing an opportunity to engage in dialogue with the West and was playing into the negative stereotypes of Muslims that were already rampant (see Michael Slackman and Hassan Fatah, "Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim," New York Times, Feb. 22, 2006). At the end of February, 2006, a group of writers, many from the Muslim world, published a letter in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo warning against what they called "a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism." (full text at the BBC)
Other speech issues that had provoked strong reactions in the Muslim world included: Salman Rushdie's publication of his book, The Satanic Verses (1989), the assassination of Egyptian activist Farag Foda (1992), the near fatal attack on Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz (1994), and the case of Egyptian Professor Nasr Abu Zaid (1996). In Europe, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2004 by a Muslim immigrant was also cited. Muslims recalled the case of French Muslim philosopher Roger Garaudy (1998). As the controversy escalated, an Iranian newspaper offered a riposte to the offending cartoons by announcing a contest calling for cartoons about the Holocaust. In the late fall of 2006, one Yemeni editor was fined and another sentenced to jail for republishing the offending cartoons in their newspapers. (see also) (More: "Wars of Words and Images")
For an update on the issue two years later, see Michael Kimmelman, "Outrage at Cartoons Still Tests the Danes," New York Times, March 20, 2008, B1.