Vahin Junia Wallpaper and Music Blog: [MyTuneBD.Com] Freedom Of Speech Against Islam But Not Against Holocaust And Christianity

Freedom Of Speech Against Islam But Not Against Holocaust And Christianity;

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

Dear brother Abdel-rahman, (President, Muslim Students Association, Japan)

Further to my previous mail, to make the Protest Letter final, I have replaced the 4th paragraph with the following 2 paragraphs:

Please have a look on the attached document under the caption, "Hypocrisy of the Freedom of Speech in the West". It documents many cases showing there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in the West. We give here a few excerpts from it. In your own country,Denmark, when a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper describing homosexuality as "the ugliest kind of adultery", she and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosecution. In June 1995, Princeton University professor, Bernard Lewis, was fined $2,062 for having denied that Armenians were victims of genocide in Ottoman Turkey early in this century. Moreover, Lewis was ordered to publish the court ruling in the daily Le Monde and warned that he risked further judicial action if he repeats his denial on French soil. An imposing scholar such as Noam Chomsky who has been described by the New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive" has never appeared in any of the US major television networks because his views always upset the American elite. In 1986, author George Gilder (whose book Wealth and Poverty was a worldwide best seller in 1981) had a great difficulty in finding a publisher to republish his earlier book, Sexual Suicide, because of protests from feminists who think (as one of them has recently said on ABC) that "Sexual differences should not even be studied." Michael Jackson's latest album generated a wave of protest because some of the words therein were deemed racist by some American Jews. Charges of anti-semitism prompted Jackson back to the studio to get rid of the offensive words. In April 1994, the German constitutional court declared that denials of the Holocaust are not protected by free speech. In order not to be outdone, the German Parliament passed a law declaring it a crime punishable by 5 years in prison to deny the Holocaust whether or not the speaker believes the denials. In Austria, one can get a prison sentence for denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. In 1992, the government modified the language of the law such that it would be considered a crime "to deny, grossly minimize, praise or justify through printed works, over the airwaves, or in any other medium the National Socialist genocide or any other National Socialist crime." In France, the French national assembly, in 1990, passed new laws to toughen the existing measures against racism, "The measures also outlaw revisionism -- a historical tendency rife among extreme right-wing activists which consists of questioning the truth of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II. House speaker Newt Gingrich has dismissed a House historian when it was brought to his knowledge that she has once written: "The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and is not presented." In Britain, laws against blasphemy still exist. British Muslims tried to make use of these laws against Salman Rushdie. They discovered that only blasphemy against Christianity is outlawed.

Your Excellency, from all the examples given above it is clear that all countries of the West have put restrictions on freedom of speech whenever it was something inconvenient to them or when it was against Christianity or against Jews. Why you cannot make similar laws to restrict the freedom of speech, if it goes against Islam and especially when it is something against Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), the most revered personality by 1.2 Muslims of the world? As a matter of fact, the West as whole and your prejudiced anti-Muslim government in particular has double standards for the Muslims. You value the freedom of your editors but do not care for those who are hurt by the abuse of such a freedom.

Regards,
Hussain Khan

The final form of Protest Letter will therefore be as below:

His Excellency, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen,

The Prime Minister of Denmark,

Copenhagen

Through The Danish Ambassador in Japan

Your Excellency,

Subject: Protest Against Anti-Muslim Prejudice Of Danish Government

And Against Publication Of Provocative Cartoon In 17 Danish Newspapers;

Make laws to prevent humiliation of our Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him)

On behalf of the Muslims living in Japan, we, the representatives of various Muslim organizations in this country, want to convey our feelings to your government with the hope that you will consider them seriously and apologize to the Muslims all over the world for the publication of a provocative cartoon in your 17 leading newspapers.

We regard it a matter of great regret that deserves full condemnation from all Muslims of the world that your government is determined to pursue anti-Muslim policies reminiscent of 11^th and 12^th century Crusades of Christians against Muslims. You are not preaching Christianity to us, but in the name of the so-called "freedom of speech", your government has embarked upon a campaign of abusing Islam and its sacred prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him); and for which you have never expressed any regrets.

Unfortunately, your government is hiding its secret desire to abuse Muslims under the plea that the media in your country is free and not under your control. This is absolutely a false plea. Suppose your media starts an anti-Danish campaign and invites some foreign country to militarily attack Denmark and make all Danish people slaves of some foreign power, would you allow your media to carry on such a press campaign against the interests and basic values of your country? Would you allow a criminal to continue killing your countrymen in the name of his freedom of action? No, absolutely not. Then you will forget the plea of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of action", and use your political power to control such non-sense.

Please have a look on the attached document under the caption, "Hypocrisy of the Freedom of Speech in the West". It documents many cases showing there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in the West. We give here a few excerpts from it. In your own country, Denmark, when a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper describing homosexuality as "the ugliest kind of adultery", she and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosecution. In June 1995, Princeton University professor, Bernard Lewis, was fined $2,062 for having denied that Armenians were victims of genocide in Ottoman Turkey early in this century. Moreover, Lewis was ordered to publish the court ruling in the daily Le Monde and warned that he risked further judicial action if he repeats his denial on French soil. An imposing scholar such as Noam Chomsky who has been described by the New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive" has never appeared in any of the US major television networks because his views always upset the American elite. In 1986, author George Gilder (whose book Wealth and Poverty was a worldwide best seller in 1981) had a great difficulty in finding a publisher to republish his earlier book, Sexual Suicide, because of protests from feminists who think (as one of them has recently said on ABC) that "Sexual differences should not even be studied." Michael Jackson's latest album generated a wave of protest because some of the words therein were deemed racist by some American Jews. Charges of anti-semitism prompted Jackson back to the studio to get rid of the offensive words. In April 1994, the German constitutional court declared that denials of the Holocaust are not protected by free speech. In order not to be outdone, the German Parliament passed a law declaring it a crime punishable by 5 years in prison to deny the Holocaust whether or not the speaker believes the denials. In Austria, one can get a prison sentence for denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. In 1992, the government modified the language of the law such that it would be considered a crime "to deny, grossly minimize, praise or justify through printed works, over the airwaves, or in any other medium the National Socialist genocide or any other National Socialist crime." In France, the French national assembly, in 1990, passed new laws to toughen the existing measures against racism, "The measures also outlaw revisionism -- a historical tendency rife among extreme right-wing activists which consists of questioning the truth of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II. House speaker Newt Gingrich has dismissed a House historian when it was brought to his knowledge that she has once written: "The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and is not presented." In Britain , laws against blasphemy still exist. British Muslims tried to make use of these laws against Salman Rushdie. They discovered that only blasphemy against Christianity is outlawed.

A Western scholar, a leading British commentator on religious affairs and author of Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong says, "..........I think it was criminally irresponsible to publish these cartoons. They have been an absolute gift to the extremists - it shows that the West is incurably Islamophobic. It sends a very bad message. But, more seriously, it is letting ourselves down. We trumpet abroad about what a compassionate culture we are. But these cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist are utterly inaccurate, feeding into an Islamophobia that has been a noxious element in Western culture since the time of the Crusades. It can only inflame matters at this very crucial juncture of our mutual history. And now we are all living in this multicultural society cheek-by-jowl with one another, not even within a single country but we are linked to one another in our global village. We have to learn to live side by side better than this………"

George Bernard Shaw said about Muhammad (peace be upon him), "He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness."

The distinguished French Marxist orientalist Maxine Rodinson has told us in his book, Mohammed, that "The Comte de Boulainvilliers, early in the eighteenth century, hailed him as a free-thinker, the creator of a religion of reason. ……The eighteenth century as a whole saw him as the preacher of natural, rational religion, far removed from the madness of the Cross. The academies praised him. Goethe devoted a magnificent poem to him, in which, as the very epitome of the man of genius, he is compared to a mighty river."

In the concluding chapter of his book, the Frenchman goes on to say that Thomas Carlyle put Muhammad among the heroes of humankind in whom the spark of divinity is to be seen. Rodinson tells us the nineteenth-century Arabist Hubert Grimme "saw Muhammad as a socialist who was able to impose fiscal and social reform……….."

In the inimitable words of Alfred de Lamartine, "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator,
warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness my be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he? (Historic de la Turquoise, Paris, 1854, Vol. II pp. 276-77). Stanley Lane-Poole, who hails Muhammad (SM) as "the most excellent of the creations of God" provides us with a beautiful graphic description of the tender virtues of the towering personage: "He was gifted with mighty powers of imagination, elevation of mind, delicacy and refinement of feeling. `He is more modest than a virgin behind her curtain', it is said of him. He was most indulgent to his inferiors, and would never allow his awkward little page to be scolded for whatever he did." "There is something so tender and…., and withal so heroic, about Muhammad, Edinburgh, 1882). But it is the `secular' attitude of the Prophet of Islam (SM) which has perhaps enabled him to exert the greatest influence on the course of history. He was kind and merciful not only to the Christians, Jews and Sabeans, but to the pagans as well, always upholding the Qur'anic maxim that "there is no compulsion in religion." And this `secular' attitude of the last and the greatest Prophet prompts the renowned astronomer and historian to declare very boldly: "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels....Muhammad unlike Jesus was a secular as well as a religious leader. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in history." (Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York, PP. 33. 39, 40).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica testifies: "Muhammad is the most successful of all prophets and religious personalities". [11th edition, article entitled "Koran"]
With some of the world's greatest scholars of Islam providing historical context and critical perspective, three years in the making, MUHAMMAD: LEGACY OF A PROPHET, airing on WTVS Detroit Public Television, Sunday, December 22 at 9 p.m. ET, travels in the footsteps of the prophet to the Arabian desert and the holy city of Mecca, where much of Muhammad's story unfolded. Noted actor Andre Braugher narrates, "His name was Muhammad, and in the next 23 years, he would bring peace to the warring pagan tribes of Arabia and establish the new religion of Islam, which today has 1.2 billion followers."

The significance of the Prophet in the life of a Muslim can not be over-emphasized, as the renowned South Asian poet Allama Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) said: "You can deny God, but you can not deny the existence of the Prophet." Muslim scholars have written extensively on how the Prophet's love for all invites any believer from any tradition to him. Nevertheless, place of the Prophet in the daily lives of Muslims is at the center of their increasing their knowledge of Allah and surrendering themselves to the creator.

Your Excellency, we are not making any baseless allegations against your government. You have never asked your newspaper editors to stop acting against the very interests of Denmark itself, if it happens to be a matter concerning the cattle, known as Muslims in your dictionary. Your country has lost its reputation by demonstrations against it all over the world. On February 18, 2006, there was a peaceful demonstration against these cartoons in London. British police said about 15,000 people were present, and there were no reports of violence or arrests. Organizers estimated 40,000 people marched. Two years ago your economy had suffered by millions, rather by billions, of dollars due to boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries. Your embassies were burnt in Damascus and Beirut. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi asked for the resignation of a Cabinet minister, Roberto Calderoli, who wore a T-shirt featuring the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) cartoons. The Italian consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi was set afire and besieged by protesters incensed at the cartoons. At least 10 people died. The Italian Foreign Ministry noted that the Italian consulate was the only western representation in Benghazi. Dozen of deaths occurred in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan. Your Islamophobia has made you insensitive to all these losses and uproar. Now your adamant unapologetic attitude is again inviting repetition of the same vicious circle. Again demonstrations against your government have started in Muslim countries like Indonesia , Pakistan and in several others. Your government never made any attempt to call a meeting of your media representatives to persuade and ask them to apologize to Muslims for their provocative publication of anti-Islam cartoons.

Your Excellency, in a recent televised speech to the nation, you have called for a halt to the violent protests which have ravaged schools and private property for more than a week in your country. According to a report in the Copenhagen post of 18^th February, the protests are believed to have been sparked by an incident earlier this month in Copenhagen in which a police officer allegedly assaulted an elderly Palestinian immigrant. In the following days, disenchanted minority youth across the country joined in, and as of Sunday a reported 379 fires had been lit, including 108 cars and 11 schools.

Your Excellency, why such a small incident against an elderly Palestinian Muslim in your country goes out of proportion? It is simply because your prejudice against Muslims could not remain hidden for long and the Muslim youth in Denmark have seen your anti-Muslim face and unapologetic attitude toward the entire Muslim Ummah, which is encouraging your newspapers to abuse our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

While your government has always been insensitive to Muslim resentment, other non-Muslim and Christian countries like Russia and Belarus took exemplary action against their newspapers to discourage other publications to follow their lead in reprinting such provocative cartoons. They have banned such newspapers and Belarus has sentenced the editor for three years in Jail.

Even in a much more free country than your Denmark, i.e. the United States, most of the newspapers have followed a self-imposed ethical code, restrained themselves from reprinting such provocative cartoons and did not abuse the freedom of expression as it has been disgraced in your country.

The Editor-in-Chief, Carsten Juste, of the main culprit newspaper, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, who initiated reprinting of abusive cartoon in alliance with 16 other newspapers, speaks of Danish media ethics code and Danish media traditions, while showing his sympathies with his Cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. But in his self-styled ethical code and media traditions, it appears alright to punish over 1.2 billion Muslims for an uncommitted, unproven, hypothetical crime of 3 would-be Muslim assassins of his Cartoonist. Punish the entire Muslim Ummah for an uncommitted would-be crime of 3 persons and never apologize for it! Your government is exposing its secret anti-Muslim bias by remaining a silent spectator to all this drama!

You have no supporting evidence for trying these 3 would-be assassins in any Danish court of law, as you have no proof of their alleged murder plot. You have already freed one Danish Muslim suspect after interrogation and would deport the other 2 Tunisians without any trial. Why don't you prosecute the criminals instead of punishing the entire Muslim Ummah? You are taking revenge, not from those 3 suspects, but from the Muslims all over the world. What a mockery of Danish justice! What a laughable standard of Danish ethics and media traditions!

Guardian Unlimited reported that in April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an e-mail back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands- Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." Why the editor did not use his right of 'freedom of speech'. He was afraid of 'provoking an outcry' from Christians on the cartoons of Jesus Christ. The same newspaper did not bother for the outcry, if it is from the non-Christians like us and published the provocative cartoons of our Prophet twice after a gap of about 2 years. Are these the ethics and traditions in Denmark , which the Editor-in-Chief was speaking of?

As a matter of fact, the West as whole and your prejudiced anti-Muslim government in particular has double standards for the Muslims. You value the freedom of your editors but do not care for those who are hurt by the abuse of such a freedom.

In Islam, we have been taught to respect leaders of all religions and all cultures. But your ethical code allows abusing them just for the satisfaction of your anti-Muslim prejudices. Do your moral teachings allow you to hurt the feelings and sentiments of the people who have never hurt your elders, leaders or heroes?

In a multi-cultural global village of 21^st century, we urge your government to come out of the narrow confines of prejudices against Muslims and apologize for the needless provocation by all leading 17 newspapers of your country and make such laws that do not allow freedom of speech to humiliate Islam and our beloved Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) ensuring that such provocations against Muslims will never happen again.

Sincerely Yours,

For Muslim Organizations in Japan

Trial Version -- for evaluation purposes only

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic