In that case, I think we understood DeAnander's 'racist' argument differently. In my interpretation, races don't exist anyway, and there is always some idea of grouping human geographical diversity first - that is, in this case, 'Muslim' has became 'dark-skinned immigrant with strange habits', which fits Arabs and Iranians and Pakistanis and Turks equally well.

And the violent responses to the cartoons argues against the racism issue as well, since all the violence was especially founded on the blasphemous content of the cartoons

First, I note you (again) took the violent responses as representative for the wider reaction (in choosing what to react to). Second, these groups have their own agenda, and just like here in Europe, it is not necessarily what they say - for example, as Detlef pointed out in Sirocco's thread, the Gaza offices of the EU weren't attacked by militants of the religious fundamentalist Hamas, but of the nationalist Fatah, which just lost the election and was trying to gain new profile. Third, even for the common Muslim, the issues of blasphemy and racism shan't be that clearly separated - semi-racist cartoons depicting Muslims are a personal insult, blasphemy is a religious insult, a semi-racist cartoon depicting Muhammad is both plus a semi-racist insult to Muhammad, so what will you emphasize first?

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}