Sullivan's source claims:

The organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, bringing 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip . . .[original emphasis]

The three additional images (which as a matter of good taste I will not reproduce, but which may be seen here, here, and here) are described, respectively, as depicting Mohammed as a pedophile demon, showing Mohammed with a pig's snout, and showing a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."

Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten.

A prior diary of mine at Daily Kos, Islamic images of Mohammed throughout history (prompted by an article by Doug Ireland,   presented images of Mohammed from Islamic sources. I now learn from Wikipedia that the supposed prohibition against depicting Mohammed is not of Koranic origin:

Many Muslims believe that any pictorial, or sculptural, representation of religious figures, or sometimes human figures, or even any living creatures, is wrong. However, the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, does not directly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry. Direct prohibitions of pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found only in the hadith, recorded oral traditions. There are many thousands of hadith, many of which are regarded as "weak", and possibly permissible to disregard. Hence any view advanced as "demanded" by hadith ultimately rests upon personal choice: to accept or reject certain hadith, or to follow a certain scholar's interpretation of the hadith.

This fact helps explain why, in different times and places, various Islamic cultures have welcomed or at least permitted images of Mohammed. As Wikipedia notes, "Shi'a Muslims have been and are generally extremely tolerant of pictorial representation of religious figures and human figures in general." While Sunni Muslims have been less hospitable, "the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant, but patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad. However, they often show Muhammad's face as covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames)." Wikipedia links to images available at the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, a Sufi-connected website, and the Mohammed Image Archive (which "also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad").

Against this background, it appears that the main impetus behind the stormy (and sometimes violent) protests may be

• a mistaken belief that the Danish newspaper (which, based on the experience of their own countries, many Arabs may think was government owned or controlled) published the gratuitously offensive cartoons falsely presented by the Danish Islamist group; and

• offense at anything critical of Muslims.

While sympathetic to any religious Muslim (but not to a violent or pro-censorship response) laboring under the mistaken belief that the newspaper published the three falsely-attributed cartoons, I have no sympathy for the notion that manifestions of religion or religious believers themselves are beyond criticism. This particularly true in relation to societies (for example, Arab countries, in general) that themselves tolerate, or even propagate, words and images much harsher than the actual Danish cartoons.

Some examples from Muslim sources:

Subject to a translation of the caption, this cartoon (said to be from Al-Quds does not strike me as harsher than the actual Danish cartoons. I would put it at the same level. I reproduce it because the supposed prohibition or objection is not limited to Mohammed. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations,   it applies to any "prophet of God," specifically including Jesus.

But then we find cartoons that (to my mind) do cross the line of acceptability. While I would defend the free speech right to publish them, I lose sympathy for those who accept them while getting exercised over the actual Danish cartoons. (These examples are taken from the website of Tom Gross, who identifies himself as a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph of London and for the New York Daily News).

Gross: "The cartoon above, clearly depicting the railroad to the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau - but with Israeli flags replacing the Nazi ones - is from the Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustur (October 19, 2003). The sign in Arabic reads: "Gaza Strip or the Israeli Annihilation Camp." This accentuates the widespread libel that Israel's policies towards the Palestinians have been comparable to Nazi actions towards Jews."

Gross: "The cartoon above, from Arab News (April 10, 2002), shows Ariel Sharon wielding a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children. Arab News is a Saudi-based English language daily which is supposedly one of the Arab world's more moderate papers."

Gross: "In the above cartoon, from Akhbar Al-Khalij (Bahrain) (June 10, 2002), the anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew on the right says: "Say: `I hate the Arabs!'" and American president George W. Bush, made to resemble a parrot, repeats: "I hate the Arabs, I hate the Arabs.""

Within the United States, should we be upset to any degree by the actual Danish cartoons without also being upset by cartoons that, for example, may be regarded as ridiculing or bringing the Catholic Churuch into contempt:

This cartoon, originally published in the L.A. Times from a web collection of cartoons about the Church sex-abuse scandal, does not offend me. I take it as criticism of aspects of the Catholic Church, not against Catholicism or Christianity as such. And that is just how I take the actual Danish cartoons in relation to Islam.

Here, from the same website, is another example:

Or consider this cartoon of Pat Robertson:

p>

What I want to suggest is that no one, not even Mohammed (and especially not Mohammed as interpreted, some would say traduced, by salafi fundamentalists) is beyond criticism. Good taste nevertheless is important. If we distinguish between the resistance to criticism, on the one hand, and the pictorial nature of the actual Danish cartoons, on the other hand, I suggest that the actual cartoons are well within the bounds of normal western political cartooning.