Dr Abdul Bary Malik JP is a Justice of the Peace, President of Ahmadiyya Muslim Association and Chief Executive of Asian Disability Awareness Action in Bradford. Here he asks whether the definition of "free speech" needs re-assessing.

Muslims in all parts of the world were outraged by the cartoon showing the Holy Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse in European newspapers.

In this image, Muslims see a depiction of Islam, its prophet and Muslims in general as terrorists.

This will certainly play into a widespread perception among Muslims across the world that many in the West harbour hostility towards - or fear of - Islam and Muslims.

There is no specific, or explicit ban on images of Allah or the Holy Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn. However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "(Allah is) the originator of the heavens and the earth. . . (there is) nothing like a likeness of Him." This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur.

I do not agree with those who are talking about the clash between two civilisations. I think Islam and the West have a lot to offer the world and they can be a force for good.

Sadly, the current protests have turned into political protest marches in many Muslim countries resulting in the loss of many lives and millions of pounds of damage to property. Some hot-headed Mullahs in Pakistan and India have even issued fatwahs and bounties to kill the culprits. There is absolutely no Koranic teaching which imposes any sanction on freedom of expression.

Though some people have ascribed their own intolerance and narrow-mindedness to Islam, there is not a shred of evidence in the Koran that Islam advocates the death penalty for blasphemy.

This is the real Islam as taught in the Koran. A religion should not be judged by the actions and notions of a handful of extremist followers.

Common sense, sound intellect and a large dose of tolerance goes a long way to creating amity among different faiths, nations and communities.

Looking at freedom of speech, in 1859 the philosopher John Stuart Mill laid out the ethical foundation of democratic individualism. Mill considered the circumstances under which individual liberty might be justifiably restricted. Under what has come to be known as the "harm principle", Mill stated that a person's liberty may justifiably be restricted only in order to prevent harm that the person's action would cause to others.

It reminds me of when I was a young student at university in Pakistan. We had a short spell when we had a taste of democracy under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and there was a very refreshing feeling among the population that we now had democracy and freedom. But freedom for what?

A young man was juggling with sticks in the street, and one of the sticks struck a passer-by who demanded to know what he thought he was doing. The juggler said that he was exercising his democratic right to do what he wanted, which drew the reply: "Indeed, you have your rights to do what you want, but they stop at my nose."

I think that the time has come to revisit the definition of freedom of speech and set some rules whereby respect to all faiths must be observed and at the same time incitement in the name of religion and hatred in the name of religion should be outlawed and strongly condemned.