By Magdi Abdelhadi
BBC Arab Affairs analyst
For some, they are a transient form of entertainment, for others, an attack on Islam.
No-one knows what the Prophet Muhammad looked like.
The cartoons are seen as an attack on Islam by the West
These tend to be exalted representations of a human figure, and nobody can say to what extent they are a realistic portrayal of a historical figure.
A great deal of the Islamic literature about Muhammad is hagiographic - that is, unstinting in its praise.
It elevates the founder of Islam to a unique level of perfection and infallibility.
"His life was the reflection of Allah's Words. He became the Qur'an in person," a cleric wrote recently, in response to a question about the "noble character of the Prophet" sent to the "Fatwa Bank" section in the popular website, IslamOnline.
Although other scholars might not agree with this description, it broadly reflects the popular perception of Muhammad.
Two traditions
Such close identification between the Prophet and the Koran itself explains the adulation many Muslims express towards their prophet.
But at the same time it stands in sharp contrast to another Islamic tradition, based on the following Koranic verse: "Say: 'I am but a man like yourselves'."
Despite the Koranic emphasis on the fundamentally human nature of Mohammed, the hagiographic tradition continues to dominate perceptions of the Prophet.
That explains the veneration and high esteem in which he is held by Muslims.
There seems to be a confusion between two issues: the Islamic ban on any pictorial representation and respect for the character of Muhammad
But that does not explain why the cartoons in themselves were so offensive, since no-one could seriously claim that he or she recognised the features of the Prophet in any of the images drawn by the Danish cartoonists.
There seems to be a confusion between two issues: the Islamic ban on any pictorial representation and respect for the character of Muhammad.
It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims.
Islam bans pictorial representations of humans or animals to discourage idolatory.
It goes without saying that this ban covers the Prophet, his companions, and major figures of the two other Abrahamite religions considered sacred by Muslims as well.
The ban seems to have been based on the perception that cultures which consider animals or their statues to be sacred literally worship these animals, rather than a complex set of meanings and values that these creatures symbolise.
Causes
The row over the Danish cartoons would probably have remained a local dispute between some Muslims and a Danish newspaper had it not been for three factors:
the rise of violent political Islam
America's war on terror
modern transnational media.
America's war on terror is still largely perceived in the Arab world as a war on Islam - a perception reinforced by the fact that it is happening exclusively in Muslim countries, namely Iraq and Afghanistan.
Issues such as the Iraq war are seen as catalysts in the row
Parts of the Arab media describes it as a modern crusade. Many Arab columnists often speak of a campaign to distort and discredit Islam.
For them, the row over the Danish cartoons is yet another confirmation of this perception.
But long before the 11 September attacks and America's war on al-Qaeda, Islamists were aggressively promoting their world view and attacking liberal secular values, not only in the West but across the Arab and Muslim world as well.
The best-known example in the West is the row caused by Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, which culminated in the notorious death fatwa against its author by the late Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeyni.
In Egypt, the Nobel Prize winner, Naguib Mahfouz, survived a knife attack in 1994 for allegedly insulting Islam in one of his novels.
Another prominent writer, Farag Fouda, was gunned down in Cairo for alleged apostasy.
The internet and satellite broadcasting are being diligently used by Islamist activists across the world to drum up support for the doctrine of a universal Muslim nation up against an aggressive and imperialist West.
A local Danish dispute is thus quickly elevated to the level of a global conflict.
Culture clash
The row over the Danish cartoons is yet another dramatic illustration of the huge gap between secular liberal values in the West and the predominantly religious outlook of Middle Eastern societies.
But for Muslims living in Europe it poses anew the same old dilemma about integration and cultural identity.
There is a consensus in the West as to what constitutes offensive material, for example, child pornography, or dead soldiers.
Some of these issues are even regulated by law.
But part of the Western consensus is that poking fun at religious figures is acceptable.
It seems that some Muslim activists living in Europe are determined to redefine the boundaries of that consensus.
__NOTOC__


The Iranian newspaper  Hamshari daily has stated that it will publish anti-Semitic cartoons in response to the Danish Mohammad cartoons. The newspaper, owned by the Tehran city council, says that the anti-Semitic cartoons will lampoon the Holocaust, following denials by the Iranian government that the Holocaust even happened, and will show "America and Israel's crimes and plundering". The newspaper has launched an international competition to find the most suitable caricatures about the Holocaust.

Farid Mortazavi, the paper's graphics editor, said to the Guardian newspaper that "''The western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons''." 

Mr Mortazavi said that the February 8 edition of the paper would invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with gold coins as prizes for the 12 winning artists -- the same number of cartoons that appeared in the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten lighting the touchpaper for fury which has swept around the Islamic world.
According to the article alongside the original "Mohammad cartoons" in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in late September 2005, the cartoons were intended to show that:

:''The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. ... we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. ...'' 

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticised the argument of freedom of speech employed by European newspapers to justify publication of the cartoons.

:''If your newspapers are free why do not they publish anything about the innocence of the Palestinians and protest against the crimes committed by the Zionists?'' the Mehr news agency quoted him as saying.

Anti-Semitic cartoons will be chosen rather than anti-secular or anti-Christian cartoons for the response to the Danish newspaper despite the fact that Denmark has only a  small Jewish population of  between 6000 and 7000.

In related events, Mr Jahjah of the  Arab European League have launched a similar ''Freedom of Speech Campaign'' in which they hope to demonstrate that European News Media are only willing to publish anti-Muslim cartoons, and will not publish anti-Christan or anti-Semitic cartoons. The first of these cartoons (drawn by Nabucho) is shown on this page. 

Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal noted that "The three AEL cartoons posted so far have been very instructive in that they have all mocked the Nazi persecution of the Jews and the Holocaust, as if Mr Jahjah wants to emphasize that islamofascism is indeed the ideology he adheres to."