The publication of his book provoked mass protests among Muslims, leading to the fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini sentencing Rushdie to death. Of course, the British government has not honoured Rushdie because of his purported ‘insult’ to Islam in The Satanic Verses but because of his general services to literature, notably, one supposes, Midnight’s Children, which won the Booker Prize.

The crisis reveals both a cultural chasm and the effect of the War on Terror, which many Muslims – probably most – regard now as a War on Islam, a modern Crusade.

Many Westerners cannot understand what the fuss is all about. After all, unlike Osama bin Laden, Rushdie never murdered anyone. The average non-Muslim reaction to Muslim cries that he blasphemed their religion was and is: ‘So what?’ Modern Western mores do not find ‘blasphemy’ offensive, as satires about God are frequent features of comedy.

In many Muslim states, however, Islam is legally protected, and in Pakistan a Blasphemy law exists carrying mandatory capital punishment. The Pakistani law protects not mainly God, but rather Muhammad (and other prophets) and the Qur’an. In 1924 in Lahore, a Hindu published a book called Rangila Rasul (‘The Pleasure-Loving Prophet’), ridiculing Muhammad. Two Muslims killed the author in retaliation, and were executed by the British, but were considered martyrs by their co-religionists.

In Islamic law, blasphemy is usually considered a capital crime: Al-Risala (Maliki Manual) 37.19 Crimes Against Islam: ‘... apostate is also killed unless he repents... Whoever abuses the Messenger of God … is to be executed, and his repentance is not accepted.’

In Islamic society a blasphemer is held in the same hostile contempt as a paedophile in the West. Just as few if any people in the West mourn the murder of a child molester, few Muslims mourn the killing of a blasphemer. So what did Rushdie do to warrant such hatred?

The very title of his book reflects a story that at one point Muhammad inadvertently compromised with polytheism when the Angel Gabriel paused and Satan inspired verses that were later excised from the Qur’an when the Prophet realised his mistake. Muslims generally reject the story’s authenticity.

In Rushdie’s book, the prophet is called Mahound, the Crusader derogatory term for Muhammad. The holy city of Mecca becomes Jahilia, a term denoting the pagan ‘time of ignorance’ before Islam. A film star becomes the Angel Gibreel (Gabriel), whilst someone named Saladin, after the great Muslim hero of the Crusades, becomes a devil.

A follower of Mahound is called Bilal, one of the Prophet’s ‘Companions’, a group equivalent to the Apostles in Christianity. One fanatical Indian girl who leads her village on a fatal pilgrimage is called Ayesha, youngest wife of Muhammad. The city’s brothel has as its prostitutes women who take the names of Muhammad’s wives. Since Muslims believe that the wives of the Prophet are ‘the Mothers of all Believers’, they esteem them.

It is important to recognise that someone attempting to publish such a book in Pakistan would not only be unsuccessful but also very likely be killed. The problem is that modern Western culture has the opinion that God, if he exists, is strong enough to defend himself, and so religious satire is tolerated. The ‘Sacred’ in Western culture constitutes Human Life, Dignity and Liberty, and until Rushdie violates these, Muslim protests will gather no popular support, especially since the Pakistani Blasphemy law is infamous for persecuting non-Muslims.

The first Muslim anti-Rushdie campaign failed because it seemed to the general public that Muslims were attempting to impose Saudi standards on Britain. Indeed, the violent protests, the desecration of the UK flag and burning of effigies of the Queen, the comments by a Pakistani minister that a Muslim might feel himself entitled to become a suicide bomber in revenge for the award, the fact that the Pakistani Ulema Council has given an honour to Bin Laden in ‘retaliation’ for Rushdie’s knighthood all demonstrate the cultural chasm that exists between the Muslim world and the West on what constitutes the Sacred.

Honouring a mass murderer in revenge for Britain honouring a writer – even a blasphemous one -- seems inconceivable to Britons, just as Muslims are incredulous that someone can freely satirise Islam with no consequence. The problem is exacerbated by the general feeling among Muslims that they are under attack – in Iraq, by the West punishing the Palestinians for electing Hamas, by the double standards on Iran’s nuclear problem whilst the Israeli nuclear arsenal is ignored. Rushdie’s knighthood is seen as another aspect of this assault on Islam.

However, to Westerners, it looks as if on this issue, Muslims are trying to interfere with our internal liberties. There appears to be no middle ground on this issue – and confrontation seems the likely outcome.