It would not be an overstatement to consider the results of the cartoon crisis depicting the prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as being a positive thing for Muslim communities in Europe. These results were not only beneficial for the positive response invoked in European societies, but also because of the diversity of Muslim discourse it attracted.

Despite some opinions that the fury of European Muslims could harm Muslims' day-to-day life, the outcry has served diverse Islamic currents inside the European socio-political sphere. Although the events provoked an extremely negative reaction from various European political parties that adamantly declared their support for the printing of the insulting anti-Muhammad cartoons in a bid to exhaust the Muslim boycott outside the continent. On the European level, the crisis has caused substantial repercussions, including the following:

1. European decision makers, governments, and opposition parties have come to realize the delicacy of the issue in light of European states' relentless efforts to integrate immigrants into European society. The sensitivity of the subject has driven actual and potential decision makers to hold dialogue with people representing all range of opinions in order to encourage discourse promoting moderation and integration.

2. The fact that Muslims joined together with other victims of protestant and secular domination including political factions with religious and ethnic backgrounds. Together, they demanded the respect of all religions and sacred symbols and the incrimination of any blasphemous remarks or attacks on religion. Apparently, such discourse is largely accepted by a wide segment of religious people of all faiths, including religions brought by immigrants to the West, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. These religions are gaining popularity and people are attracted to them by new-age spirituality.

Many argue that positions assumed by Muslim communities in the West have positively developed since the spark of the cartoon crisis. While this position is correct, it is not entirely accurate. The positions of religious Muslims in the West are very diverse.

If we were to look at Muslims in Europe, we would find conservatives, and among the conservatives we find salafis, Hizb Al-Tahrir, and Islamist parties. These groups all have violent ideologies and have a presence in Britain. Integrationists, however, come with a range of views, from those who call for complete secularism and for the separation the church and state to those who seek to assimilate Islam into a compromise with the goal of establishing a new social contract, and finally to others who live their lives like ordinary Western citizens and see no reason to flaunt their ethnic origins.

There are also many immigrants in Europe who desire to integrate into Western society under secular law, they don't want to be government by an Islamic authority. Despite their integrationists views, the cartoon crisis remains of interest to them because the publication of the anti-Muhammad cartoons insulted their Muslim culture. Hence, there is a complex map of the pluralistic Islamic culture in the European arena, and we must have adequate awareness of their varied stances in order to reach embody true pluralism.

If we were to transcend shortsighted perspectives which do not recognize the pluralism of Islam in Europe, we would come across several questions, such as the following: Has the cartoon crisis drawn healthy reactions from European Muslims? Have these diverse responses reflected the major differences among Islamic discourse in Europe?

Right-wingers who are suspicious of the Muslim presence in Europe tend to reduce various Muslim's reactions to one trend which is almost characterized by cries of victimization and help. Some analyses consider this reactionary stance to represent the Muslim mainstream trend coupled with marginalized calls for rationalization. Despite our disagreement with such inaccurate analyses, we recognize that cries for help were voiced, although they did not represent the mainstream, but rather represented the weaker among stances held by three prominent European Muslim scholars.

An example of these cries can be found in a speech by Dr. Azzam Al-Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in the United Kingdom. In a Qatar-based Al-Jazeera news channel, Al-Tamimi said, "The prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stands today as the prime figure worldwide and in all continents … his followers in Europe, the United States and around the globe declare that there is no true God but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.

This infuriates those who have lost their religion, and those who still hold onto some traces of faith are scared and try desperately to hide them. However, in our case it is indeed religion that fuels motivation for social transformation preaching reform, renaissance and liberty." He further stated that attacking the prophet was "unacceptable and Europe must be punished for this and so should everyone who publishes these pictures."

Another viewpoint, however, is propagated by the moderate Tariq Ramadan. The French daily Le Figaro reported that he believed reactions to the crisis in the Muslim World were "exaggerated," and called for "a calm and rational discussion," denouncing calls for a boycott and murder. Ramadan claimed that radical reactions from Muslims would only serve the European extreme right. Ramadan censured what he called "dangerous polarization inciting extremist stances from both sides," and advised Muslims to "get used to a margin of criticism," and to "live in a cosmic world employing dialogue as a doctrine, and possess consciences strong enough to overcome their dismayed sentiments." Of course, Ramadan did not forget to mention that "under Islam, depicting prophets is prohibited."

Yet another viewpoint, which is more mature and composed, at least in my view, is held Anas Al-Tikriti who proposed that the United Kingdom set the example of an ideal European liberal state that would be capable of absorbing people from a diverse range of ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds.

Al-Tikriti argued that forming a model of such a pluralistic society would curb possible transgression by ethnic, cultural, or religious groups against other groups in the framework of responsible freedom. This pluralistic model should guarantee positive the social harmony and consistency that is protected by the law.

Nonetheless, Al-Tikriti proposes that societal freedoms be protected by a collective conscience rather than laws. Al-Tikriti's spoke of his proposal during a demonstration he led in London which aimed at bringing together Muslims and Catholics.

Apart from the vocal reactionary discourse, through Al-Tikriti's argument, we can propose that dialogue can act as an outlet for discussing European Muslims' reactions to the cartoon crisis just as Ramadan and Al-Tamimi both proposed, albeit, with different approaches.

Tariq Ramadan's proposal encourages dialogue in order to safeguard minorities' rights and to make efforts to stop the feelings of minorities from being hurt again. This proposal advocates the rights of Muslim minorities and regulates their relationship with their mainly Christian European societies, it requires that pressure be exercised on governments in order to ensure that Muslims receive respect in society.

Ramadan's argument promotes Muslim minorities', while Al-Tikriti's stems from pluralistic societies. Thus Ramadan's proposal seeks to disseminate awareness among European Muslims and tackle the issue from the minorities' perspective. Ramadan encourages Muslims undertake their own defense, while the Al-Tikriti proposes that Muslims and non-Muslims should unite, according to the British model, to help resolve the widespread crises in Europe.