The embassy burnings are reminiscent of another controversy that brewed in 1988 and still simmers today. Salman Rushdie—then an obscure novelist of Muslim-Indian origin, wrote "The Satanic Verses," in which he attempted to defile Islam. After the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa (edict) calling for Rushdie's death, he became, in Western eyes, a champion of freedom of expression. In Muslim countries, he instantly became an embodiment of Satan.

Now world attention is focused European newspapers—notably in Denmark, Norway and France—that published insulting cartoons of the Prophet of Islam.

In the West, freedom of expression is considered sacred. For some, that freedom is absolute, even allowing someone to insult a person's faith. In Muslim countries, there are equally absolute standards regarding Islam, and there, nothing and no one is above Islam, and love and respect for the Prophet are requirements for adherents to the Muslim faith.

On this issue, the long-standing chasm between the West and the world of Islam is getting wider. It may even be heading toward a "civilizational war" like the one Samuel Huntington (wrongly) described as occurring in the early 1990s in his book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order."

The September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States clearly widened that chasm. Osama bin Laden emerged as a new hero in the Muslim world and villan in the West. But he caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people, so why should he be admired for that? The answer lies not in the September 11 attacks, but in the context of a larger struggle taking place inside the world of Islam. Among Muslim regimes, the dominance of the United States and the West has been taken for granted. And in those countries, there is little hope about the prospects of political change and economic progress. Moreover, the rot of authoritarianism, nepotism and corruption has been so entrenched that people cannot realistically aspire to be free, prosperous or see prospects of technological advance.

To most Muslims, the West appears content about the state of backwardness, obscurantism and darkness that currently prevails in Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. And along comes bin Laden, who voices anger over the state of affairs in the world of Islam. People do not necessarily buy into his murderous philosophy of transnational terrorism, but they agree with his criticism of what is wrong with the world of Islam and why it remains backward.

Freedom of speech is indeed a noble idea. To state that it should have no limits (or that it should be absolute) may be a useful academic exercise, but we also need to keep in mind that exercising that freedom could also lead to the same kind of terrible consequences as when someone yells "fire" in a packed theater.

To Muslims, the West appears stubbornly against compromising on the freedom of expression, and they see hypocrisy in this because this freedom is not as absolute as it is pretended to be in some quarters. Nothing in human affairs can be "absolute." And at the same time, Muslims are equally uncompromising and "absolute" in their responses to anyone being disrespectful of their religion and their Prophet.

So how end the confrontation? In a world that is more of a global village than ever before, there must be compromises. Muslims make a point of not insulting Christians about their faith. As a quid pro quo, a similar courtesy is warranted toward their religion. As the recent violence underscores, the global village is like a packed theater. Good judgment is a requirement before yelling "fire," even in the name freedom of expression.