Two important reactions worth highlighting in the Danish cartoon row that has started a life of its own by now. The first from Mahmoud as quoted by Azia at Dean’s World.

These protests demanding violence, to me, is a complete moral bancruptcy of those taking part in those protests AND of their particular understanding of Islam. I keep saying, so what if a dimwitted cartoonist, or Nazi or racist or a stupid person drew a cartoon or swore at our religious symbols or misrepresented them? Is that going to reduce our symbols’ place in our and hundreds of millions of Muslims’ hearts? Is that going to change their greatness? Of course not. So why was this situation blown up out of all rational repercussions?

I think this situation was used to divert the Muslim nation’s attention from the real problems festering in its midst. And these things – a full 5 months after being published – were picked up and used, abused, to do just that.

The second reaction is over protests in Ankara, Turkey at the Danish embassy (via Instapundit).

Evidently there were “hundreds of demonstrators” at the Danish consulate here today. (I missed it; I was happily oblivious until I read the news.) Now, “hundreds of protestors” never congregate in Istanbul without government sanction. There is no such thing as freedom of assembly here; if you’re out protesting, it’s because the government authorized it, period. So Denmark and Turkey are going to be part of one big happy EU family? Sure thing. Tell that to the Danish diplomats cowering in their consulate in Istanbul and nervously reviewing the fire escape plans.

Jim Geraghty writes in TKS:

The Danish Embassy in Ankara has seen protests, but no violence. They reported that the Turkish police took a Danish flag away from protesters before it could be burned. Protesters have laid black wreaths outside Danish and Norwegian diplomatic missions.

[snip]

When I see someone creating a piece of art that offends me, what are my options? Let’s agree that killing him or any violent acts should be off the table. But I can protest, I can picket, I can urge others not to see or sponsor the work, and I can denounce the creator. Muslims ought to have these rights as much as we do.

Geraghty notes that while the “Syrian reaction is intolerable,” the “Turkish reaction is honorable” and hopes the world can see the difference. I couldn’t agree more.

On another note, a post I wrote last week has continued to get several comments. Some of those comments from both sides are absolutely deplorable, but I have kept them in tact. I think there needs to be some clarification in that I see many of those comments arguing something which most do not believe.

Not every single non-Muslim in the Western world believes all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, it is safe to say at least 95 percent of us realize there are far more Muslims who are good people than there are that are bad. Its just those that are bad seemingly are more vocal.

No one, or at least 98 percent of those of us in the Western world, has a problem with protests, letters to the editor, boycotts or any other peaceful means to show dissent. We might not agree with the basic concepts to the protests, but we recognize the right to express what you wish. What we do have a problem with is what we perceive is a double standard when it comes to criticizing a religion. We do have a problem with the calls for violence and the violent acts we have seen as a result of 12 stupid cartoons. We have a problem that at least some of the reaction was brought about from three cartoons which were never even published and no one knows where they came from.

It baffles us at to why Muslims are going to these acts of protest against cartoons and what we beieve is freedom of expression when there is hardly a whisper in Arab streets when Al Qaida or a similarly aligned group murders hundreds. To us the carrying out of murder is far more blasphemous than cartoons which I believe question the role of Islam used by those who carry out such attacks.

Many Muslims seem to believe the cartoons will bring about prejudice, but car bombs and beheadings speak far louder than a bunch of silly cartoons. Images of cheering and rejoicing in the Arab street after September 11, March 11 and July 7 still hold the minds of many of us in the West hostage. It is ever harder for us to see the differences between Al Qaida and regular, good Muslims when the response to something that is offensive is more threats of Al Qaida-like terrorist acts. There isn’t this break in the action, so to speak, and there doesn’t seem to be a separation between two completely different entities, or so we are told there are differences.

For most of us in the West, we do not view the Danish cartoons of Mohammed as an attack on Islam. We don’t view them as a rebuff to Muslims. We don’t necessarily agree with the content in the cartoons, but we recognize the right to publish them. For many Muslims who are protesting the cartoons, they don’t see the right to publish them and view the cartoons only as an attack on Islam. If Denmark really wanted to attack Islam, they would close and burn down every mosque on Danish soil.

What’s interesting, to me at least, is that drawings of Mohammed are outlawed in the Muslim world in large part to keep from idoltry. Yet when it comes to the Koran or pictures of Mohammed, these idles draw ire from Muslims. A law that originally was set up to keep Muslims from worshiping idles has in turn begun make certain things idles.
There are a relative few in the West who believe the entire war on terrorism is a war against Islam, though there are far too many in the Arab world who view it that way. The war on terrorism is multi-faceted, and that is a discussion I’ll have at a future point in time because it’s far too long to discuss on Super Bowl Sunday.

Update: Could the desired introspection of the role of Islam radical Islamic terrorim be occuring in Denmark? The Brussels Journal notes of a remarkable turn of events.