Haroon Siddiqui made some arguments in his Feb. 9 Toronto Star column about the cartoon controversy that bear some questioning.

It is said that Muslims are trying to force non-Muslims to live by Islamic taboos. Not so.

Muslims in the West are only asking that democracies live up to their rules -- exercise freedom of speech with the concomitant responsibility of self-restraint, and also respect people of all faiths or no faith at all.

Surely Mr. Siddiqui is familiar with the fact that religious figures have come under satirical fire before (think back to Codco and its treatment of Roman Catholic priests). There has been much remembrance in recent days of the "piss Christ" -- a crucifix floating in urine (not the most necessary piece of art, in my opinion).

Is he of the opinion that the beliefs, leaders and symbols of Muslims and other religious groups should never be the targets of satirical treatment?

It is said that only the fundamentalists and conservatives are offended. Not so.

The offence is broadly felt. Some take to the streets, millions don't. Critics include such "moderates" as Hosni Mubarak and Hamid Karzai.

Many non-Muslims are upset as well, including the Vatican ("an unacceptable provocation") and Grand Rabbi Joseph Sitruk of France.

It's quite true that many moderate Muslims are also calling for a ban on depictions of the Prophet much like the fundamentalists and conservatives. If the issue is about means and not ends, how much of a difference is there between the sides?

And yes, I can see the Vatican and other powerful religious leaders agreeing that religion should remain inviolate from criticism or satire.

It is said that there would have been no uproar had some Danish Muslim leaders not gone to the Middle East to drum up support.

They had every right to seek allies, anywhere. They were not out stoking violence and are not responsible for it. The real culprits are those who created the controversy.

Moreover, the small Muslim delegation went abroad only after both the newspaper and the government had refused to listen to their concerns.

(Memo to media everywhere: When the people you have offended come calling, see them. It's just courtesy and does not amount to bowing to pressure. In fact, in this business we routinely listen to the rich and the powerful, whereas it is the marginalized that need more of our attention.)

What Siddiqui does not say is that the newspaper apologized for any offence generated by the cartoons, but stood by the decision to publish.

Nor does he say that the "small Muslim delegation" wanted the government to prosecute the newspaper for hate crimes. The government saw this as a freedom-of-the-press issue.

Does Siddiqui think the Danish delegation wouldn't have gone to the Middle East had the government not acceded to its demands? Does he think the newspaper should be prosecuted for hate crimes?

The delegation had the right to seek out allies, but they had a duty not to be stupid about it. Why show cartoons from right-wing Danish wackos about Muhammad sodomizing a praying Muslim in the same package as the 12 from the newspaper? Is it because the original 12 weren't inflammatory enough? How did the Egyptian press get the idea that right-wing Danes wanted to censor the Koran?

When Siddiqui writes, "The real culprits are those who created the controversy," does he mean those Middle Eastern politicians or clerics who saw violent protests against the West as an excellent way to advance their agendas?

Since it's unlikely most of the protesters have seen the cartoons, who's whipping them into a frenzy? What does Siddiqui make of people saying through loudspeakers at protests in Tehran that the cartoons are part of a "Zionist conspiracy"?

Questions, questions, questions.