If proof were needed that, on occasion at least, the pen can be a match for the sword, it has been more than amply provided by the recent spectacle of widespread disturbances within the Muslim world over the publication by a small Danish newspaper of cartoons of the prophet, Mohammed.
Ostensibly, what has affronted the protestors has been the cartoons violating an injunction of their religion forbidding pictorial representations of him. Since drawings of Mohammed have long existed in both the Muslim world as well in the West without occasioning comparable protests, their true cause must lie elsewhere.
The most obvious explanation is the irreverent manner in which the cartoons have depicted Mohammed, and many protestors have claimed, and western critics of the publication of the cartoons have agreed, that they are simply a gratuitous form of offence to Muslims for which no conceivable justification can be offered.
However, whether any offence the cartoons have caused Muslims is gratuitous is precisely what is at issue and cannot be decided merely by the fact that some or even many Muslims have been offended by them.
Without pre-judging whether it is all, or only some, versions of their religion which are worthy of criticism, no one can deny whose opinion on the matter is worth taking seriously that, of late, not a few highly objectionable and despicable deeds have been perpetrated in the name of Islam, nor that it was to this fact about it that the cartoons were alluding in the manner in which they did.
Even if it has only been through heretical versions of Islam that it has been invoked to justify such evil deeds by those who have committed them, adherents of that religion who do not subscribe to any of these aberrant versions of it can hardly deny some versions of their religion have been used in that way. If they have a legitimate case to make against the cartoons for having in their view wrongly suggested it has been the religion per se which has licensed such deeds, rather than some aberrant versions of it, the appropriate way for them to make their case is surely by means of the pen rather than the sword of which the use merely confirms the impression there is something about the religion, rather than any specific heretical versions of it, that all too readily is apt to give rise to unjustifiable acts of violence on the part of its adherents.
Because of this, it is vital western countries not yield to Muslim demands to make all such forms of representation of their religion or of its founder an offence. Any western political leaders tempted to accede to these demands should pay especially close heed to a statement signed by twelve writers, including Salman Rushdie, that was published last week in the French weekly Charles Hebda.
For those Civitas readers who might not otherwise have across it, here is an English translation of the statement taken from the report on the BBC News web-site:
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
Recent events, prompted by the publication of drawings of Muhammad in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values.
This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.
It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism between West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarian ideologies, Islamism is nurtured by fear and frustration.
Preachers of hatred play on these feelings to build the forces with which they can impose a world where liberty is crushed and inequality reigns.
But we say this, loud and clear: nothing, not even despair, justifies choosing darkness, totalitarianism and hatred.
Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.
Its victory can only lead to a world of injustice and domination: men over women, fundamentalists over others.
On the contrary, we must ensure access to universal rights for the oppressed or those discriminated against.
We reject the "cultural relativism" which implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions.
We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.
We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits in every country that our century may be one of light and not dark.