“Revenge.” “Blood.”

Those were the words shouted by a 28-year-old Somali man last month, as he attempted to assassinate Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, for the grave offense of drawing a picture.

Westergaard’s editorial cartoons were the source of worldwide outrage from the Muslim community in 2005 because they depicted Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, an act that many Muslims find offensive. Creating visual representations of Muhammad is strictly prohibited in hadith, or narrations about Muhammad’s life.

The infamous caricature shows only Muhammad’s head with a giant bomb in his turban.

It is sadly ironic of course that, five years later, Westergaard still finds himself having to shield his 5-year-old granddaughter from an axe-wielding lunatic in a “panic room” he had installed in his house.

As great as it must be to have an actual panic room, what with all the cool electronic gear and armored doors, it is hard to believe Westergaard is still paying repercussions for having the audacity to have commented about a terrorism link by way of a cartoon.

In response to the attempted assassination, Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, a spokesman for al-Shabaab, said, “We appreciate the incident in which a Muslim Somali boy attacked the devil who abused our prophet Muhammad and we call upon all Muslims around the world to target the people like [him].”

Although disgraceful, the spokesman’s statement gives rise to an extremely important question: Should there be limits to free speech, especially with respect to the criticism of religious beliefs?

Nahid Hiermandi, a Muslim student and global health sophomore, said, “There is a difference between free speech and blatantly trying to offend people. People need to exercise free speech responsibly.”

There is certainly merit in this position. Some forms of speech are undoubtedly restricted, and rightfully so. Speech that is intended to incite violence, for example, is not protected, and most reasonable people would probably agree that is a good thing. The commonly referenced example of somebody yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is another instance where speech is limited because its only intent is to cause panic and chaos.

But should these restrictions extend to the criticism of religious beliefs?

I don’t think they should.

Speech is unavoidably involved in religion. It goes against the very nature of free speech to elevate religious beliefs to a point where it is no longer acceptable to question or condemn them.

Without the ability to examine, criticize and voice disapproval, there is no freedom of speech.

I think A.C. Grayling put it best when he said, “The only coercion should be that of argument, the only obligation should be that to honest reasoning.”

And for that, I stand by Westergaard and the Danish newspaper that published his cartoons, and continue to support the notion that freedom of speech must supersede people’s religious beliefs both in this country and free countries elsewhere.

Reach Austin at acyost@asu.edu