Not surprisingly, the French nouveaux philosopher and writer André Glucksmann takes a completely different stance concerning the Muhammed drawings and the subsequent conflict than below quoted Nobel laureates Grass and Saramago. His outset can be summarized in this question [Weekendavisen, 6, February 10-16, 2006, Bøger, p. 2-3]:
"Isn't the greatest insult to Islam when a terrorist refers to [islamic] religion by wanting to justify ghoulish acts such as beheading his adversary and subsequently broadcasting television pictures of the execution?"
To carry the fight in the wholy name of the Koran is far more blasphemic than these charicatures, obviously. The worst right now is that Islam has been taken hostage by fanatics, trying to control the political agenda. "Sadly, Islam is completely hove-to due to the strong pressure from islamic terrorists."
"any fanatic Muslim will be able to recognize himself. This is very smartly done, as the satire works as a mirror put up in front of the terrorists. Of course it hits the bull's eye by its shock effect […] It is not the insult of Muhammed that is the important message in this caricature. The insult to Islam is not hidden in the infringement of the image ban."
"It is european passivity and cowardice in its worst nuance, because you don't resist extortion by good-natured compliance."
He finds any astonishment that the issue has come this far to be very naïve, as "it is not from today and onwards that we can ascertain the existence of intolerant fanatics, murderers, and terrorists also in the Middle East." He doesn't find the comparisons the the Rushdie Fatwa particularly interesting either, except when we compare Rushdie's pursecuters and those directing their hatred against Denmark.