It is time for the foreign ministry or the authorities concerned in Denmark that they did something to mend the damage that has been donethe sooner the better.

Years ago, American society slowly and voluntarily gave up the use of the word "nigger" to describe African- Americans. The word is racist, insulting, and illegal. It hurts people's feelings, and that was reason enough for a nation to stop using the word. That's also reason enough not to publish hurtful cartoons.

Integration is a process that begins in conflict that leads to awareness and ultimately adjustments. Freedom of the press is what most westerners consider the primary bulwark against tyranny, and they consider free speech as perhaps their most fundamental right. Thus many have been willing to accept ridicule of their own beliefs as a necessary cost of free speech, including "art" depicting the Virgin Mary smeared with cow dung, and television comedy shows that satirize Jesus as a cartoon figure on a weekly basis. But this does not mean that others would make this same choice. In fact while any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is considered blasphemous according to Islam, so is any depiction of Moses, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.

Some see Muslim outrage at the cartoons fundamentally as an attempt at censorship. But important as the right of free speech is, it should not be used to insult or provoke other people. And there are millions of deeply insulted people who remind that the essence of civilisation is civility, and that gratuitous insults are mean spirited and hurtful. Muslims in general are an extremely devout people with a deep and intense respect for the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh), a fact they expect that westerners would know and take it into consideration, and many do.

Western groups boycott products for a variety of reasons but often to assert their values, and it is an effective and peaceful way to influence business practice. When millions of Muslims boycott a country for insulting the Prophet, it should be seen for what it is an expression of hurt and an assertion of values. The cartoons are perceived as, and may have been, a taunting and deliberate provocation on behalf of the newspaper. One woman said, "It showed that they care little for our feelings."

But because several European newspapers are asserting their right to be rude, it does not mean that they represent all western people in this regard.

The positive statement somehow being missed is the rejection of the depiction of Islam as a violent religion. The picture implies that Islam promotes terrorism. Those Western "experts" who try to make their case as to "the danger of Islam" should take care to listen to people like Isma, a female protester in Yemen, "We don't want to fight them. We are here in peace to express our love for our messenger." This message should be received with friendship not belligerence.

It is difficult to overestimate how personally and sincerely many Muslims feel insulted. But listening to the people of the Middle East is extremely difficult when their voices are drowned out by extremists and censored by their own governments. The message of the protests, anger has been nearly obscured by the vitriolic rhetoric of extremists who are exploiting the incident for their own political purposes. Some Islamic countries have laws prohibiting criticism of the nation's ruler and also the rulers of "brotherly" (Muslim) nations, making it difficult to understand the poverty, corruption, repression, torture, and censorship that exist in some countries.

Communication with the west is actively discouraged through many means including Internet censorship and laws against publishing abroad.

But one thing that can be understood from the protests is that most Muslims accept the concept of the legitimacy of civilian immunity from terrorists. Many also feel civilians should be immune from foreign governments occupying or bombing them and their own governments attacking them with impunity. One premise we all may agree upon is there are many kinds of terror that civilians face, and they all are equally illegitimate. Another may be that good manners are important.

Jane Novak, American journalist and political analyst

The publication of the cartoons insulting the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is a deliberate insult to the feelings of every single Muslim around the world and is the greatest incitement to violence at a time when there is a crying need for respect and tolerance in the global political scenario. Muslims are perfectly capable of engaging in fair and open intellectual debate about religious issues--if, for example, someone raises questions about inheritance laws or the Islamic position on interest most Muslims would be happy to engage in explanation and dialogue. Insulting the Prophet personally, however, is an emotional issue that will only create hatred because the Muslims hold the Prophet to be dearer to themselves than their own lives, their families and their property.

I once engaged in an argument with someone who professed to be a believer in complete freedom of speech. Instead of arguing with him, I called his mother an extremely abusive name. His face turned red with anger and he stood up and said "I'll kill you if you don't take that back!" This is precisely how Muslims react when they hear anything insulting about the Prophet; it evokes raw anger and not intellectual response. I would also like to add that the insult was intentional; after the Salman Rushdie affair the world cannot be ignorant about how Muslims feel about this matter. If people insult us it is freedom of speech and if we respond it is fanaticism.

I am happy that there have been strong protests regarding this matter all over the world and that the government of Bangladesh has also strongly censured this malicious act against the sentiments of the Muslims. However, protests that are not backed up by action will be of little use. We should collectively boycott all Danish and French goods and suspend all trading relations with them until Denmark and France and all other countries involved issue an unconditional apology to the Muslim people.

Batool Sarwar, Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Dhaka

Freedom is a birthright of every human being. But freedom should not go beyond the threshold where it encroaches upon others' freedom. The newspapers of Denmark and other European countries committed an act of unforgivable blasphemy when they printed cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh).

Ironically, these countries that boast of freedom of speech are the same countries that make it illegal and punishable by prison term for anyone who questions the holocaust or brandish Nazi symbols in public. A university professor was sacked in France because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the holocaust. In Germany one risks going to jail if one denies the holocaust or brandishes Nazi symbols in public.

In fact the Italian interior minister confirmed on Thursday that legal action is being taken against 11 football fans for brandishing Nazi symbols during a game. The 11 face prison sentences of between three months and one year.

When it comes to Islam, Denmark is way ahead of others to show her resentment. In April last year the Queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper as saying "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy. We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

Freedom of press? It's only a cruel rhetoric. The nations that justify hurting the feelings of others by upholding the glory of freedom must pay due price.

Shabbir Ahsan, Uttara, Dhaka

The Muslim community all over the world has raised outrageous protests against the cartoon on the great Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (SM) . Many Europeans, including Flemming Rose, editor of the Danish newspaper have backed those publications and reproductions saying that this is permissible on the ground of freedom of speech and by this act they have advanced the cause of free-speech further. The Muslims do not accept this act due to their cultural difference, they said. A Dutch newspaper editorial, according to CNN, commented that the cause of free-speech must be upheld.

The Muslims around the world are deeply shocked at this and stormed out in protest against it. They termed this as a deliberate act of racism and blasphemy and demanded unconditional apology from those who are responsible. Emotionally hurt in their holy belief, an increasing number of Muslims are coming out in the streets, storming European missions and burning their flags. According to them, publication and reproduction of insulting depiction of the Prophet is nothing but a planned attack on their religious belief, which clearly prohibits any kind of depiction of the Prophet. The Muslims have asked for boycotting Danish products until a clear apology is made for such a provocative and offensive act against their religious belief.

Now let us try to see if this is merely a matter of free-speech, as some are trying to say, or a deliberate intention to provoke the Muslims who are, in actuality, victimised by western terrorism every day in many parts of the world. In the backdrop of the world situation, where the Muslims are being oppressed and killed every day even in their own lands which are invaded and occupied by the non-Muslims, these derogatory cartoons have come out and the publishers are ridiculously using the free-speech pretext to justify them. It is indeed hard to believe how a minimum sense of decency or sensitivity can allow a person to make such mockery of another religion. More importantly, what type of civilisation it is that advocates doing such an act on the pretext of free-speech ? Is there any single instance anywhere in which the Muslims have published caricatures of Jesus or the Jewish prophet? Then why such an intentional assault on the Muslims? The rational basis of freedom of media or press is to depict the truth, and not to add salt to any injury.

We, with all our good intentions, hope that good sense still prevail and every civilised person from every corner of the world will condemn this heinous act. All religious scholars and educated Muslims of the country, not the small fundamentalist or extremist groups, should voice strong protest against this attack on Islam.

Takad Ahmed Chowdhury, Assistant Professor of English , University of Asia Pacific (UAP)