freedom of...?

Many Westerners are having difficulty understanding the deep offense that Muslims around the world have taken to cartoon drawings of the prophet Muhammed appearing in various European newspapers. Digging deeper into the issue, a friend of mine went searching the web for the rule in Sharia law forbidding depictions of Muhammed, but came up empty.

I believe that the outcry stems not from Sharia law, but from the Koran itself which—similar to the Ten Commandments—forbids idolatry:

Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed... fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme.
(Sura 2:91-93)

Depictions of the prophet Muhammed would be considered acts of idolatry. According to CNN.com, however, there are differing interpretations within Islamic sects:

Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depiction's of the Prophet Mohammad and other major religious figures -- even positive ones -- to prevent idolatry. Shiite Muslim clerics differ in that they allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, though not Mohammad.

source: CNN.com

Regardless of moral and rights issues involved here, this is a problem because there is no true universal law that applies globally. Freedom of speech and the press in Western countries ends up impacting countries with very different laws, simply because Western media is available globally.

Should the Western press curtail its coverage and the "freedom of expression" of their commentators and cartoonists, out of respect for religion? That's a very slippery slope, doubtfully offering any place of satisfactory compromise.

Should Muslims around the world simply put aside their religious and moral codes, out of respect for the laws and rights of other countries? This is again a problem that fundamentalists of many faiths have been struggling with—how to preserve religious law in the face of a changing world.

I'm not a big fan of reactionary violence. While I understand the deep offense taken at the publication of such cartoons, I cannot agree that threats of kidnapping and violence are an appropriate response. Additionally, as Western newspapers are not under the control of the government—at least, they're not supposed to be—calling upon European governments to apologize on behalf of their newspapers is futile.

Overall, I don't see that there really is any right or wrong on either side of this argument. It is simply culture clash, and I don't know what truly satisfying solution might exist.

I find it interesting that we've got a similar—though less immediately explosive—battle going on here with our television networks. Upset with depictions of Christianity on television, the conservative American Family Association boycotted NBC's "The Book of Daniel"—similar to "Desperate Housewives," I suppose, but with a troubled priest and sporadic appearances by Jesus himself. The show was pulled after just a handful of episodes. Granted, the show was awful. I'm not sure how much the AFA's pressure had to do with the cancellation.

Now, the same group is going after "Will & Grace," over an episode which may not have even been written yet, much less aired.

It will be interesting to see what happens. In the face of international Muslim outrage, Western media may argue to uphold freedom of the media, but here at home, are our networks bowing to conservative religious pressure? Minus the protesting in the streets and the threats of violence, how are the sentiments of American fundamentalist Christian groups different from those of their international Muslim counterparts? How far will "freedom of expression" bend in response to demands that conservative religion shape what is supposed to be diverse culture?