The real issue: How do we put an end to the clash of civilisations?

There are certain well-meaning people who decry all talk of ‘a clash of civilisations’ where relations between Islam and the west are concerned.

This kind of talk, they feel, solves nothing and makes conflict inevitable.

But the torches lit by Muslim protesters against Western embassies and Western flags, in protest at the perceived blasphemies of some Danish cartoonists, must by now have illuminated their perspective.

What are we living in these days, if not a clash of civilisations? Surely the real issue now is how to minimise its effects. How do we coexist with people who do not share our core values?

Humour can illuminate, too. "I only hope that those of you out there who do not believe in the God-given right satirists have had from the dawn of civilisation to take a pop at stuff are thoroughly ashamed of yourselves," wrote Armando Iannucci in the Observer last Sunday.

"Your views are beneath contempt, though I will defend your right to hold them, unless they're racist, in which case I don't, unless the government is trying to stop you having them, in which case I do."

Iannucci was referring to legislation going through the British House of Lords last week. By a whisker, the Lords managed to modify a proposal from the Blair government in its Racial and Religious Hatred Bill to outlaw 'threatening, insulting and abusive language'.

Such a definition would almost certainly include pictorial representations of the prophet Mohammed, however benign the intent behind them. If the Lords' amendment stands, only the use of 'threatening language' will be illegal.

It seems we in the west do not know our bottom line when it comes to what may or may not be published. This must surely weaken our credibility in Muslim eyes. According to some interpretations of Islam, pictorial representations of God or the Prophet Mohammed are blasphemous.

Not only were these sensitivities disregarded by the original publication of the Danish cartoons, but other journalists made matters worse by publishing the images again in the midst of intense controversy. They preferred to make a point about free speech than show respect to the Muslim Prophet and his followers.

Ironically, it was a Dane writing in the 19th century who observed most pithily that our claims about free expression are not all they are cracked up to be. "People demand freedom of speech," wrote the existentialist thinker Soren Kierkegaard, "as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

Sure enough, many Muslims see the west as a faithless, decadent place where all manner of things can be said about God and religion, but not necessarily about other things. A number of years ago, a crucifix was suspended in a jar of urine in the name of art.

Another memorable work of the imagination saw the image of the Blessed Virgin smeared with cow dung. To defend this kind of thing, Western intellectuals quote Voltaire "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

But our Muslim friends know we are not consistent about this. The decadence of our culture is perhaps revealed in the distinction between which things may be expressed and which things may not.

The denigration of religion is certainly permissible. So is the exploitation of people in lap dancing clubs which also counts as free expression.

But if I were to claim, in sincerity or in jest, that blacks were lazy, or that Travellers were inferior, or that gays should be imprisoned, I would not last long in The Irish Examiner.

A few years ago a journalist lost her newspaper column (and presumably a part of her livelihood) because she said some ugly things about 'cripples' in the Special Olympics. Another journalist got into serious trouble for using the term 'bastards' to describe the children of unmarried parents.

It is not simply that people objected to the ideas that were being expressed. The journalists' right to say such things at all, and the editorial decision to allow such thoughts to be published, were called into question.

We can safely assume that the journalists would not dare say such things again. Self-censorship, tyranny's terrified little helper, won the day.

Instead of feeling smug, then, about the lack of free expression in the Muslim world, perhaps we need a more principled grounding for our own freedoms if they are to have credibility in Muslim eyes. Let's start by acknowledging that freedom of thought can only really be said to exist where there is freedom of expression.

These freedoms both derive from our dignity as human beings. The idea of human dignity is ultimately and most logically rooted in the notion that we are created by a loving God.

In fact, it is the Christian insight, in particular, that a full relationship with that loving God is only possible where we have freedom of thought and expression.

ARE we free to blaspheme then? In private or in public? In western society, we have a long tradition of arguing from the perspective of the 'common good,' and certainly the common good is not well served by odious or hate-filled representations of Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed or any other figure venerated by religious people.

The trouble is, where do we draw the line between blasphemous matter and polemical or analytical material? Muslims may claim that any depiction of their Prophet is blasphemous.

Others will say that the memory of Mohammed is not the property of Muslims alone. For some people the Prophet is a mere historical figure and they may claim the right to depict him, for example, in a history book for children.

Or suppose other Muslims have no problem with depictions of Mohammed. Do they not have a right to express themselves? The law has to tread carefully when adjudicating between some people's freedoms and other people's sensitivities.

What is certain is that the violence of so many Muslims in the past week will cause more people than ever to question the ability of Muslims to integrate into European society. The ground rules for our happy coexistence clearly have not been established. Islam has an anger management problem that is truly terrifying.

If we in the West must clarify our thinking about free expression, so too must Muslims. Many of their leaders, for example the spiritual leader of Lebanon's Sunni Muslims, and Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, Ali al-Sistani, got it right.

They condemned the cartoons, but also criticised those who 'darkened' Islam's image. But the comments of other Muslim leaders ranged from the mealy-mouthed to the downright destructive.

The pity is that Muslims had it in their hands to make their point effectively using peaceful means. They were well within their rights in campaigning for changes in the law to ban 'blasphemous' cartoons, and their boycott of Danish goods would have tested western principles of free expression in the fire of economic imperatives.

Instead, certain people managed yet again to manipulate ordinary Muslims onto paths of violence and disorder. Some commentators have even drawn a link between the protests and the proposed referral of the Iranian nuclear programme to the UN security council.

It appears that Denmark will be in the chair when the issue comes to be discussed at the UN. Are sinister elements manipulating the faith of ordinary Muslims?