Salam

Cartoon crisis is now being used by Iran to stir up muslims to deny the Holocaust.

Iran has already said openly that 6 000 000 Jews did not die in world war two. President has contradicted Ayatollah Khaminei who accepts the horrors of Nazi crimes against the Jews.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/87D59C35-9F1A-424A-B4D9-BE1D55380...

Iran's Ayatollah does not deny Holocaust:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4705246.stm

Omrow

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2038975,00.html]Holy cow![/url]

"AFP" wrote:

Cairo: About 20,000 people converged on a south Egypt village to be blessed by a calf born, they believed, as God’s reply to the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Its skin folds were said to have formed, “There is no God but Allah”.

Now that's an interesting development. Any truly learned Muslim, which being Jewish I am most probably not, will know that the prohibition on images of Mohammed is not a guard against disrespect, but against idolatry. And sure enough, in response to the publication of images of Mohammed, some 20,000 superstitious people have flocked to an Egyptian village seeking a blessing from a calf. Oh my.

"100man" wrote:

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2038975,00.html]Holy cow![/url]

"AFP" wrote:

Cairo: About 20,000 people converged on a south Egypt village to be blessed by a calf born, they believed, as God’s reply to the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Its skin folds were said to have formed, “There is no God but Allah”.

Now that's an interesting development. Any truly learned Muslim, which being Jewish I am most probably not, will know that the prohibition on images of Mohammed is not a guard against disrespect, but against idolatry. And sure enough, in response to the publication of images of Mohammed, some 20,000 superstitious people have flocked to an Egyptian village seeking a blessing from a calf. Oh my.

Maybe they should erect a golden statue of the calf to commemorate Islam's victory over idolatry.

People amaze me sometimes.

stupidity is contagious.

A person can be smart, but people are always stupid.

"100man" wrote:

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2038975,00.html]Holy cow![/url]

"AFP" wrote:

Cairo: About 20,000 people converged on a south Egypt village to be blessed by a calf born, they believed, as God’s reply to the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Its skin folds were said to have formed, “There is no God but Allah”.

Now that's an interesting development. Any truly learned Muslim, which being Jewish I am most probably not, will know that the prohibition on images of Mohammed is not a guard against disrespect, but against idolatry. And sure enough, in response to the publication of images of Mohammed, some 20,000 superstitious people have flocked to an Egyptian village seeking a blessing from a calf. Oh my.

OMG. :shock: that is crazy. 100, i dunno if this happened in the Jewish version of the story of Moses, but Muslims believe that when Moses ascended mount sinai to be alone with God and receive the tablets of law, he left Aaron in charge, but his people were led astray by a man named Samiri, who melted their gold and made a calf out of it...

Quote:

They said: "We broke not the promise to you, of our own will, but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the Pharaoh's people, then we cast them into the fire, and that was what As-Samiri suggested."

Then he took out of the fire, for them a statue of a calf which seemed to low. They said: "This is your god, and the god of Musa, but Musa has forgotten (his god)."

Did they not see that it could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no power either to harm them or to do them good?

And Harun indeed had said to them beforehand: "O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is Allah the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order."

They said: "We will not stop worshipping it (the calf) until Musa returns to us." (20:87-91 Quran)

Thus my rather brilliant joke about making a golden statue to commemorate the birth of the Holy Calf - a sign from God demonstrating his triumph over idolatry.

ohh boy... still not feelin so good

I think I should call a hospital or something, this is like food poisoning on crack

ahhhhh!!! get Well soon Dave!!

lol i'm well now thanks mez!

Glad you are feeling better!!

What others think about muslims:

[img]http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonfunny.jpg[/img]

The mistake made there is while we donot rant and rave when other religions are insulted, neither do we laugh.

With that Jerry Springer Opera, I was dead against it. Also with that sikh play.

And muslims are actually FORBIDDEN to just attack other religions. We are told that if you just abuse another religion, they will abuse Islam. and since we do not like Islam to be abused, we do not abuse other religions.

Granted we can discuss other religions from a critical angle, but we can also take that critical angle when it focusses on us.

What we (or anyone else for that matter) do not like is insults.

I am against that caricature compo by that newspaper in Iran testing freedom of speech.

Seems like the bosses of the danish paper are aswell, as when the editor said he would consider publishing such things, he was sent on leave. And previously he did not allow jews and christians to be insulted by cartoons. After this was made open, they said they lied in previous reasons to artists, and the reason was that they were poor.

The paper was caught red handed.

I am for not having thiose cartoons insulting others published. At the same time I ask Islam is not a special case, and is allowed to be insulted like that.

wat the Danish did was completely wrong it was absolutely disgraceful but wat the people afterwards did was terrible also ranting on about da west is going 2 die and behead the people hu did dis. and u know da guy who dressed as a suicide bomber i know him disapointed proper

Hey Fonzy!

[i]Happy days![/i]

oops its f4nzo!

Yep wjhat the danish paper did was wrong. Then the danish gov put their foot in it.

However what was worse was the subsequent insults made in the name of freedom of speech by german, french and norwegian papers.

They did it just to cause insult.

salaam

excellent article on this issue...

[b]
A call to prevent a clash of civilisations[/b]

The world is facing yet another challenge following the world-wide controversy caused by the publication of blasphemous and defamatory caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in some European newspapers. The failure of governments to address this situation has allowed it to spread all over the world, with no end in sight. This situation has been unnecessarily allowed to spiral out of control and has threatened the concept of peaceful co-existence. If not addressed, it can lead to a potential clash of not only civilisations but religions and societies as well.
[b]
This memorandum aims to put the issue in perspective and to propose realistic and practicable measures to address it.[/b]

Much of this debate has focused on the ‘right of freedom of expression’ with its defenders advocating the sacredness of freedom of speech which needs to be upheld no matter what the consequences. However in reality the issue is not one of curtailing the right to freedom of expression since this is a right that is not absolute and no one can claim so. Rights are reciprocal and their enforcement is interdependent on other fundamental rights. To insist that a right is absolute is erroneous since such a right can infringe other basic human rights. Every country that claims to be part of the ‘civilized and democratic’ world has put its own limits on freedom of expression in the interests of society in order to maintain a certain level of human behaviour, be it based on local norms and customs, culture or religion but in essence to protect the dignity of their moral and religious, social, and societal values
[b]
So to suddenly create an outcry that the right to freedom of speech is being undermined by Muslim protests is clearly a fallacy.[/b] The free propagation of child pornography for instance or the incitements of religious or racial hatred in the media is banned in many countries and quite rightly so.

In many European countries it is a crime to deny the holocaust, being a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and a jail sentence.(1)

When the British newspaper, The Independent (27 January 2003) depicted the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying, ' What's wrong, You've never seen a politician kissing babies before’, this caused an uproar in Israel and other parts of the world raising tempers especially in the Jewish and Israeli community around the world. Whatever the matter of that caricature, the uproar was a natural reaction of a people for their leader.

More recently when the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi compared himself to Jesus Christ the Vatican including Italian politicians immediately expressed shock and anger at these comments. A senior Catholic Church official added, “I know he will say he was speaking in jest but such things should not be spoken of in jest.”2 The issue here is not one of curtailing freedom of expression but objecting to the ridicule and insult towards the scared elements of an entire civilisation.

There is also a law of defamation normally under the Law of Tort that can lead to an individual being compensated for offence caused. The absolute right to free expression is curtailed in order to balance the rights of an individual. In the same way an act that causes offence to a whole community can never be justified under the banner of freedom of speech. Moreover in many countries it is illegal or at least discouraged to degrade or abuse the constitution or certain national institutions such as the army, courts of law, or parliament. Contempt of court also exists all over the world which severely limits freedom of speech, violation of which can lead to imprisonment. [b]If the right to freedom of expression is absolute, why are there no objections to laws such as these?[/b]

To give respect to an individual's honour and dignity is a fundamental human right protected by law as is the prohibition on blasphemy and defamation as well as the right to religious freedom. The UN Charter, Constitutions and Laws from many countries provide protection to these rights.

[b]The UN Charter recognises this right [/b]in Article 1(ii):

"To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

[b]It is also recognised in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 9[/b]:
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The constitution of the USA, Amendment I of Bill of Rights states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Some US states have blasphemy laws on their statute books. The U.S state of Massachusetts General Laws states (chapter 272 section 360)
“Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail...
[b]
Other countries having blasphemy laws are:[/b]

1.Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the criminal code)
2.Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)
3.Germany (Article 166 of the criminal code)
4.The Netherlands (Article 147 of the criminal code)
5.Spain (Article 525 of the criminal code)
6.Ireland: Article 40.6.1.i of the constitution of Ireland provides that the publication of blasphemous matter is an offence. Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred act 1989, this includes hatred against a group on account of their religion.
7.Canada Section 296 of the Canadian Criminal code. Offence against the Christian religion is blasphemy.
8.New Zealand Section 123 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961

Churches for instance hold sanctity in the Christian world and are protected under the constitution in some European countries. An example is the constitution of Denmark, section 4 [State Church] which states:

"The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State."

[b]It is evident from the above mentioned laws that freedom of speech is a fundamental right but this right is not absolute. [/b]

There are hundreds of books and newspaper articles that have been published attempting to criticize Islam and the basic tenets of its faith yet Muslims never object to scholarly debate since they are well aware that this is part of an ongoing debate on Islam and within the tenets of ‘freedom of expression’. There have been countless newspaper articles completely misrepresenting Islam, often publishing clear lies and exaggerated stories about Islam and its law yet Muslims are tolerant and appreciate that this is part and parcel of living within societies who claim this to be part of their ‘liberal democracies’.

However when this right of ‘freedom of expression’ is abused and the most sacred elements of Islam are deliberately insulted then this will definitely create great unrest among Muslims around the world. By depicting the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as wielding a knife and wearing a bomb disguised as a turban on his head is a deliberate attempt to insult and stir up controversy, presenting him and his followers as violent terrorists. Another caricature portrays him as supporting suicide bombers and saying “Stop, Stop we have run out of virgins”. How can such caricatures be justified under the banner of free speech? Moreover these caricatures were not printed within a vacuum but in an environment of an anti-Muslim bias where tensions were already running extremely high within the Danish community and indeed throughout Europe. Only recently the Queen of Denmark had made controversial remarks stating that: “We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”3

Moreover many countries have passed anti-terrorist legislation, severely restricting the civil liberties of individuals, with the legislation drafted in a manner that is clearly aimed at focusing upon Muslims in the countries concerned. There is a strong feeling that a substantial minority is being continually abused and misrepresented in the mass media through the portrayal of negative images not based upon reality, and then subjected to humiliating checks and procedures when going about their lives on a daily basis, all in the name of freedom of speech and national interest. It is thus highly surprising that the sacred elements of its faith are ridiculed just in the name of freedom of expression and speech knowing that the reactions will be extremely tense. There is no doubt that the publishing of these caricatures by the newspapers involved was an exercise to demonstrate control and power directed against Muslims, either subscribe to our culture and way of living or suffer the consequences and be ridiculed and debased.

[b]Realising the significance of this right some world dignitaries have condemned the publication of these caricatures and have emphasised the restriction of the right of the freedom of speech too. [/b]

Kofi Annan: "I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgment."4

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: “There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory.
I believe that the re-publication of these cartoons has been insulting; it has been insensitive; it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.
“There are taboos in every religion. It is not the case that there is open season in respect of all aspects of Christian rites and rituals in the name of free speech. Nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of rights and rituals of the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh religion. It should not be the case in respect of the Islamic religion either. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation.”5

The US State Department: “These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims.” Spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: “We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable.”6

Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Foreign Minister: “The principle of freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance, respect of beliefs, respect of religions, which is the very basis of secularism of our country.”7
Vatican cardinal Achille Silvestrini condemned the cartoons, saying Western culture had to know its limits.

It is thus clearly apparent that using freedom of speech to imply that there are no limits to what one can say or do is a myth. An act that offends the religious and moral values of a community such as solidarity, integrity and sanctity, resulting in endangering the peace, cannot be regarded as a right to express ones freedom of speech. Islam too teaches the principle of tolerance and co-existence, to live and let live. It discourages the defamation of other Gods and religious symbols teaching respect to mankind. (Al-Quran: Al-An‘am: 6:108). Islamic Law lays great emphasis on the security, dignity and respect of all other religions together with their beliefs without any discrimination.

If internationally recognised principles of tolerance and co-existence are put aside and moral and religious values are dishonoured then the present situation will worsen and the prevailing tensions will intensify. Europe considers itself to be an educated and civilized society but its response to the gross infringement of the basic right to religion of one of its minority communities has become un-understandable. There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace. Those who advocate that the right to freedom of speech is being eroded and any restraints upon it cannot be tolerated must look within their own ‘democratic societies’ and the extent to which their civil liberties have been eroded through the recent anti-terrorist legislation. These are the measures that have curtailed the rights and liberties of individuals and have much more serious implications which need to be addressed. Muslims are feeling alienated and targeted thus when newspapers begin to ridicule the most sacred elements of their faith, reactions will inevitably be high.

[b]If the publication of the caricatures is not taken seriously and steps are not taken to resolve the situation, then it can generate socio-political and economic crises which may lead to a conflict between civilizations and between nations. [/b]

These are the reasons behind the anger against the publication of these condemnable caricatures and the anger at the disregard shown by the governments towards the rightful protests of the Muslim world against the offence. 1.25 billion Muslims all over the world have been deeply insulted and instead of creating moves to resolve the matter, the act is being continuously justified prolonging world-wide unrest.

[b]In order to solve this international issue and dissolve the serious tension it has caused, I propose the following solutions be implemented:[/b]

1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications.

2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.

3. All Governments should then ensure that any such legislation is enforced through the due process of the law and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens again.

I expect that common sense will prevail and responsible leaders will rise to the occasion and repair the damage that has been done to inter-civilization relations. I also expect that the concerned leaders of the countries will display leadership and bravely extend cordiality to the Muslims of the world.

[b]Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
Founding Leader Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI)[/b]

I had read this biographical information about
Prophet Muhammad when I brought the Independent two weeks ago. Not all information in the article is true.

Note: Some of you may find things in it that are offensive.

------

Profile

[b]Mohamed: Flesh and blood[/b]

The Independent 04 February 2006

"Say what you like about God - but be careful with Mohamed." So goes an old maxim among Western missionaries in Islamic lands, who found that Muslims might sometimes endure insulting references to the Almighty but would rarely tolerate insults to Mohamed or his family. The missionaries couldn't fathom it. Nor, ever since, it seems, has the rest of Western society.

There have been attempts to explain. Shabbir Akhtar took the phrase Be Careful With Mohamed! as the title for his book on the Salman Rushdie affair, after the acclaimed novelist in 1988 wrote a book, The Satanic Verses, which lampooned Mohamed and angered Muslims across the globe - sending Rushdie into hiding under sentence of death. Akhtar dedicated his book " To those on the other side - in the hope that they may understand our pain". The furore this week over the publication across Europe of the Danish cartoons of Mohamed suggests that the message did not make it across the English Channel.

Who was Mohamed? In answering the question we should not make the mistake of beginning with historical facts. Rather we should turn to verse 21 of Chapter 33 of the Koran, which describes the life of Mohamed as "a beautiful exemplar". Elsewhere in the Muslim holy book he is extolled as the model of righteousness, the perfect individual, the one whose wives are seen as the mothers of the faithful. He is a man whose actions and ambitions are held to be worthy of the closest scrutiny and imitation by his followers. And across the world every day 1.3 billion Muslims - almost a quarter of the population of the world - seek to do just that.

Beggars in the slums of India, wealthy oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, scholars in Egypt, shopkeepers in Bradford, landless women in Indonesia, convert intellectuals in the University of Cambridge all seek daily to emulate Mohamed in every aspect of their lives. Christians may purport to act in imitation of Christ in their spiritual lives. But, because we know more about Mohamed than about the founder of any other major faith, many Muslims seek a physical pattern too. Which is why so many Muslims wear beards, as their Prophet did, and the women veils, as Mohamed's wives did. And much more.

So what are the facts we know about Mohamed? A historian might put it thus. He was born, and given the name of Ahmad or Amin, in Mecca around AD570. Orphaned early in life he was adopted by an uncle who took him, while in his teens, on trading journeys to Syria. At the age of 25 he married a wealthy widow, named Khadijah, and became a merchant. He was a member of the Bedouin tribe known as the Quraysh which dominated the city and were the protectors of a pagan shrine there known as the Kaaba.

A man of contemplative bent he would, every year, retire with his wife and family to a cave outside the city to spend a month in prayer. It was in that cave, at the age of 40, that he reported he had been visited by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to memorise and recite verses sent by God. "I do not know how to read," Mohamed replied. But the angel pressed him. He recited and learned the verses which others later wrote down as the Recitation or Koran. He changed his name to Mohamed, which means "the praised one". The year was 610. The month was henceforth known as Ramadan.

Mohamed went out to the pagan shrine and began to preach a creed of strict monotheism which bore similarities to Judaism and Christianity, two other faiths known to the Arabs, whose teachings, he said, he had been sent by God to complete and perfect. He spoke of a Day of Judgement where all people would be held responsible for their actions and called for all men and women to submit to God's will. Islam means submission.
All of this did not go down very well with his own people, who depended economically on the trade from pilgrims from other tribes to the Kaaba. Mohamed's new faith was challenging the authority of the tribe's leaders. He and his followers were persecuted and forced to flee to nearby Medina where he set up the first avowedly Muslim community. The Islamic calendar dates from the year of the flight, AD622.

Mohamed and his followers made their living in the traditional Bedouin way - raiding the caravans of other tribes. Eventually the authorities in Mecca lost patience and sent an army to march on Medina. Despite being outnumbered three to one, Mohamed's followers were victorious at the Battle of Badr in 624. Mohamed then proceeded to use his army to conquer the other tribes of Arabia and by the time of his death in 632 the greater part of the Arabian peninsula was under his authority.

Islam then spread with the speed and ferocity of a desert storm north, towards Syria and Palestine and then through province after province of the Greco-Roman empire. To the east, Islam extended beyond Persia into India. To the west, its warriors moved through Egypt and across the Maghreb and into the greater part of Spain. Within 100 years the empire of Islam stretched from Gibraltar to the Himalayas in a unified enterprise of faith and power. Everywhere non-Muslims were tolerated and taxed rather than expelled.

But the facts are only part of the story. By the ninth century Mohamed had his own Muslim biographers. They eschewed hagiography - they included a less than flattering portrait of the Prophet's second wife, the outspoken Aisha, and recorded controversial details such as those on the "satanic verses" , where Shaitan tempted Mohamed to add thoughts of his own to what the angel dictated, and later had to withdraw them. But much of the detail is historically unverifiable.

Yet where Christians had to make do with gospel portraits of an idealised numinous Christ, more concerned with meaning than biography, Muslims inherited something very different. Mohamed's four main biographers gave accounts of a man with normal fears, hopes and anxieties - who laughed, played with his children, had trouble with his wives, was bereft when a friend died and besotted when his baby son arrived. It offers detail which Muslims even today try to make the pattern of their lives and makes Mohamed a particularly vivid presence to believers.

If some of that detail is mythic, so too is the fear-ridden fantasy which has imbued Western culture. From the ninth century on, Mohamed has been seen in Europe as a charlatan and an impostor who had set himself up as a prophet to deceive the world. He was seen, according to Karen Armstrong, author of Muhammad: Western Attempt to Understand Islam, "a lecher who wallowed in disgusting debauchery and inspired his followers to do the same". Under the derogatory name Mahound he was depicted in medieval Christendom as an evil figure who joins forces with the Devil and King Herod. He was a magician who had concocted false miracles, training a dove to peck peas from his ears so it looked as though the Holy Spirit were whispering to him.

Most lurid of all were the accounts of his sexuality. Mohamed did have 14 wives (not all at the same time) but this is not so much a mark of lasciviousness as the product of political alliances and a responsibility to wed the widows of warriors who died in battle, according to John Esposito, editor of the magisterial four-volume Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World.

Yet on it went. In the 14th century Dante in his Inferno placed the great Muslim philosophers Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd (known in Europe as Avicenna and Averroes) in limbo with the philosophers of Ancient Greece, but Mohamed he placed in the Eighth Circle of Hell to suffer a particularly horrible punishment:

From the chin down to the fart-hole

split as by a cleaver,

his tripes hung by his heels.

The image reveals the disgust that Islam inspired in the Christian breast. Mohamed had become, says Armstrong, "the great enemy of the emerging Western identity, standing for everything that 'we' hoped we were not". To make matters worse, Mohamed had given too much power to menials like slaves and women.

So it went on till the Enlightenment. Then the deists, seeing Islam as a stick with which to beat Christianity, began to say more positive things. Mohamed was a profound political thinker, said Voltaire. Islam was a rational rather than a revealed religion, said Gibbon, bizarrely, in Decline and Fall. Yet even in the Age of Reason the praise was backhanded.

Mohamed was "a very subtle and crafty man, who put on the appearance only of those good qualities, while the principles of his soul were ambition and lust ", said another contemporary of Gibbon. And though Thomas Carlyle undermined the medieval fantasy of Mahound, he dismissed the Koran as " full of insupportable stupidity".

It was in this tradition that Muslims saw Salman Rushdie's rewrite of the early history of Islam in The Satanic Verses. There Mohamed is portrayed as " a smart bastard", unscrupulous politician and a debauched sensualist with "God's permission to fuck as many women as he pleased". And it is the context too for the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Prophet which stalwarts of "free speech" across Europe are now insisting on printing and reprinting.

Small wonder that Muslims do not recognise in it the man they call: Al Mahi, the one who removes disbelief; Al Hashir, the one who is first resurrected; Al Aqib, the last prophet; Al Dahuk, the one who smiles; Al Mutawkkil, the one who entrusts Allah with his affairs; Al Sadiq, the truthful; Al Amin, the trustworthy; Al Khatim, the seal; Al Mustafa, the distinguished one; Al Rasul, the Messenger; Al Nabi, the Prophet. Mohamed has at least 1,548 such titles. In none of them do Muslims recognise the man they see caricatured in the West still today.

[b]A Life in Brief [/b]

BORN: Ahmad or Amin Ibn Abdullah. Mecca AD 570 or 571. Member of the Quraysh Bedouin tribe.

FAMILY: Father, Abdulla, died before he was born. Mother, Aminah, died when he was six. Adopted by his uncle, Abu Talib. Aged 25, married well-to-do widow named Khadijah. Four daughters, who survived, and one son, who died aged two. Had 14 wives, in total, after Khadijah died.

CAREER: Merchant for 15 years, warrior thereafter. After a vision of the Angel Gabriel in 610 he changed his name, aged 40, to Mohamed and founded the Muslim religion, which now has 1.3 billion adherents. In the early years he and his followers were persecuted in Mecca. Fled to city of Medina in AD622, which became year one in the Islamic calendar. Caravan raider. Defeated the army of Mecca at Battle of Badr in 624. Conquered other tribes of Arabia. Died AD632.

HE SAYS: "The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."

THEY SAY: "Mohamed is easily the most maligned religious personality in the whole of history."

----------
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article343048.ece

That is a very good read.

These Europeans are really idiots...ain't this freedom of speech...these ppl are really morons..for creating silly laws...we are in 21 century why would we need such a harsh law for just denying the existance of the Holucast.

[size=24][b]Holocaust denier Irving to appeal [/b][/size]

[size=18]British historian David Irving is to appeal against the prison term imposed by an Austrian court for denying the Holocaust of European Jewry. [/size]

Irving, who appeared stunned by the three-year sentence, told reporters: "I'm very shocked."

He had pleaded guilty to the charge which arose from comments he made in Austria in 1989 denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Austria is one of 11 countries with laws against denying the Holocaust.

During his one-day trial in Vienna, the 67-year-old historian admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews.

He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.

"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

'Learned a lot'

In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.

On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice." He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.

"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said.

'Battles via censorship'

His lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said the verdict was "a little too stringent". "I would say it's a little bit of a message trial," he said.

Mr Kresbach said Irving was unlikely to serve the full three-year term because of various factors, including his age. I'm not a Holocaust denier - obviously, I have changed my views

David Irving

Case prompts Austria debate
European press split

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust, welcomed the verdict.

"Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.

But the author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

Sources:
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4734648.stm[/url]

If there was such a law protecting all religion, would you dusagree with it?

there are two sides to every coin.

This may be harsh (3 years imprisionment?!?), but if applied equally, I have no problem with it.

"ahmed_7" wrote:

These Europeans are really idiots...ain't this freedom of speech...these ppl are really morons..for creating silly laws...we are in 21 century why would we need such a harsh law for just denying the existance of the Holucast.

These laws all proved unworkable here - remember when they tried the hate speech legislation?

The best we've worked out stateside is to make jail time more severe for normal crimes with a "hate" motive.

The speech itself is impossible to proscribe without curtailing rights.

Go Steelers

Salam

Iranians love to blame everything on US or Israel.

I was reading their website. They say Israelis were being behind the cartoons crisis; and America was behind the bombing of shrine.

[url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CD1FC321-C15C-4F92-BA21-8D11A120E... Bombing[/url]

[url=http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=2/23/2006&Cat=14&Num=001]C...

Omrow

Not surprising. I suspect it will become the popular Conspiracy theory in the arab world before Christmas.

"Admin" wrote:

If there was such a law protecting all religion, would you dusagree with it?

Every other Imam would have been locked up long ago.

well the law is the law.

Would you disagree with it?

Protecting religion from what? Confronting holocaust denial is not about protecting religion. Wierd, man.

You see, that question was originally for Ahmed_7.

He was against the law which prevented the denial of the holocaust.

I asked him, as a muslim if he would approve of a similar law if it protected The prophet (saw).

I was trying to show the two sides of the argument.

I understand but I have grown sick of the comparison. Still thanks for explaining.

"Admin" wrote:

Hey Fonzy!

[i]Happy days![/i]

oops its f4nzo!

Yep wjhat the danish paper did was wrong. Then the danish gov put their foot in it.

However what was worse was the subsequent insults made in the name of freedom of speech by german, french and norwegian papers.

They did it just to cause insult.

long time no see man i mean long time no read man

Salam

There was a massive cartoon protest in Islamabad.

Hundered of blue uniformed police on one side of the road.

Hundreds of brown uniformed army officers on the other side.

Brown and blue everywhere. So dull.

Anger had reached boiling point.

Protesters were at start of the road ready to smash the Danish Embassy.

Then, all of a sudden the whole thing came to a complete stand still.

Why ?

Because two ladies on their way home wanted to cross that particular street.

Then the kick off resumed after the two women were safely away from the stone throwers.

I think they brought a lot of colour to an otherwise dull scene.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/06022...

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/06022...

Omrow

lol

[EDIT]

So thinking latterally... make the riot police be women... and the people will wait for them to leave before rioting?

Nobody shows respect to ladies like Pakis do.

"Admin" wrote:

You see, that question was originally for Ahmed_7.

He was against the law which prevented the denial of the holocaust.

I asked him, as a muslim if he would approve of a similar law if it protected The prophet (saw).

I was trying to show the two sides of the argument.

Yes, indeed, it is a silly to lock up people in this modern time for making such a naive comments. It is a matter of disagreement, David Irving didn’t deny the massacre of the Jews but he denied the gas chambers and I personally think his sentence for three years in prison is a bit harsh. He has the right to question this issue because he is a historian. Moreover, people have different minds and opinions that why we have a disagreements. If we would have disagreements mankind wouldn’t be achieving much in this world. The original purpose for this law was to crush the notions and crimes that the Anglo-Saxons had towards Jews during World War II. “Admin” So my main question was, isn’t the time for this law has expired? Come on people this is the 21st century! I don’t care if people deny that the fact that our beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t exist or discredit his teaching or come up with ridiculous remarks like this. Because for a fact Islam is the fastest religion that is growing and still growing, 1.6 billion Muslims are not on the wrong path. If you look at the bright side of the cartoon controversy somehow I am glad that this incident happened the publishing and republishing of the derogatory cartoons which depict our prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a terrorist. Because many people have discovered the religion of Islam and many people who never heard about Muhammad’s teaching (pbuh) gave the chance to many people to research and try to understand why Muslims were outraged. And I think we Muslims were such idiots for not taking this as advantage of this situation of course we should be angry and at the same time achieving things in nonviolence way. The stupid western media was trying to embrace Islam but what they don’t know was that how many people were discovered what Islam is? Or come to know Muhammad our prophet (pbuh). We Muslims reacted the wrong way. Many of us are forgetting why Muslims are still in this world it is just to spread the word and the teaching of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that is it. Allah doesn’t need us.

And I was using against them since they have created such laws that contradict one another so called “Freedom of Expression.” In the religion of Islam it says your tongue will put in the hell fire. I don’t care if they create such laws that don’t violate Islam or cause disorder in society. Because to me that person is just ignorant and the person that can’t control his/her anger is more ignorant that person, Islam teaches us to be tolerant, forgiving, merciful and much more. It is not like you commit a sin and you should be beheaded. No! I disagree with that. Pull your fellow brothers or your sisters from the hell fire. It’s time to redirect them to the right path not scare away like many Muslims did over the cartoons. I have no fear that Islam would vanish from this world because the holy book is protected by Allah. It is indeed the words of Allah and no pathetic human can erase that or embrace our prophet Muhammad (pbuh)