Download_Free_Wallpaper: [MyTuneBD.Com] ( Revised) A draft for Danish Ambassador & Hypocrisy of the Freedom of Speech in the West

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:38 AM

Subject: A draft for Danish Ambassador Hypocrisy of the Freedom of Speech in the West

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

Dear brother Abdel Rahman Mohammad, President, Muslim Students Association, Japan,

As per your email and telephone request, I have written a protest letter and prepared an appendix attachment of an Egyptian writer, Sherif Mohammad.

Please have a look on both of them and please send me an email before 11 a.m tomorrow, if you or any of your friends want any changes or amendments in it. If it is Ok, then please make 20 0r 30 copies of both these documents to distribute tomorrow to the participants of the meeting at Otsuka Mosque.

I will also circulate it to all my email addresses to elecit opinion of friends to make further imporvements in it.

Regards,
Hussain Khan

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

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 12^th and 13^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. 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.

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………"

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 a matter concerning the cattle, known as Muslims in your dictionary. 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 embassy, representing your interests, was burnt in Benghazi, Libya. Dozen of deaths occurred in Nigeria, Libya and Pakistan. Your Islamophobia has made you insensitive to all these losses. Now your adamant unapologetic attitude is again inviting repetition of this cycle. Your government never made any attempt to call a meeting of your media representatives to persuade and request them to apologize to Muslims for their provocative publication of anti-Muslim 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. 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. What a laughable standard of justice, Danish ethics and media traditions! 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. What a mockery of Danish justice!

Unfortunately, on such a baseless, unproved, suspicion, you, by your unapologetic attitude, and your media, by reprinting those cartoons, are taking revenge, not from those 3 suspects, but from the Muslims all over the world.

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 request your government to come out of your narrow confines of prejudices against Muslims and apologize for the needless provocation by all leading 17 newspapers of your country.

Sincerely Yours,

For Muslim Organizations in Japan

Hypocrisy of the Freedom of Speech in the West

By: Sherif Abdel Azeem Mohamed

(Excerpts from an article by Sherif Mohamed. Please click below for the full article: "http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/respond/free.htm")

"……..As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of Westerners would justify the West's attitude by citing the magic phrase "Freedom of Speech." If one argues with them "Do you mean absolute freedom of speech even offensive and hurtful speech?", they would proudly affirm: "Yes unconditional freedom of speech. Anyone is entitled to express his/her views regardless of whether others will be pleased or offended by these views." If you ask them: "Is this theory practiced unconditionally in the West today?" So many would not hesitate to give an affirmative answer. At this stage one should say "It is not the first time in history that so many have been so wrong for so long." The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech neither in the West nor any where else. Skeptics would, rightly, demand evidence for this claim. Here are some haphazardly collected examples that I have mostly encountered by chance while reading Western newspapers, magazines, and books in the last few months.

Let us start with Germany. In 1991, Guenter Deckert, leader of the ultra-right-wing National Democratic Party organized a lecture at which an American speaker claimed that the Auschwitz gassing of Jews never took place. Deckert was prosecuted and convicted for arranging the lecture under a statute prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. In March 1994 he was tried again. Finally, he was given only a suspended one-year jail sentence and a light fine. The judges were criticized by other judges for the light sentence. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the light sentence and ordered another trial. The public was outraged by the series of events and the law responded. 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.

A German publisher based in Munich withdrew and destroyed the German language version of an American book titled, Eye for an Eye, by John Sack (Basic Book, 1993) because it alleged that Stalin had deliberately chosen Jews to oversee secret police activities in the former German territories of post war Poland.

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 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 Japan, a 250,000 circulation magazine, Marco Polo, carried, in its Feb. 1995 issue, an article claiming to present the new historical truth and argue that Nazi gas chambers are historically dubious. The reaction to the article was swift and severe. Major industrial firms such as Volkswagen and Mitsubishi cancelled their advertising in protest. The publishing house of Marco Polo withdrew all copies of the February issue, announced that it was dismissing Marco Polo staff, and shut down the magazine itself.

In Australia, any unfair written material that could be described as inciting racial vilification is banned by the 1989 Anti-Discrimination act. The writer and the publisher of such material may be exposed to damages of up to $40,000.

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. That is, one is free to blaspheme against the religion of one's neighbor as long as the neighbor does not happen to be a Christian. Therefore, the Satanic Verses was not proscribed. Ironically, a Pakistani movie ridiculing Rushdie and the whole affair of the Satanic Verses was banned from Britain.

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." Many intellectuals were disturbed by the words "measures" that "outlaw ... questioning" included in the French legislation.

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. Professor Lewis did not contest "the terrible human tragedy of the deportation" of the Armenians. But he considers that there was no "systematic annihilation" and that most of the victims died of "famine, disease, exhaustion or cold." That is why, in an interview published by Le Monde in November 1993, when he was asked why Turkey still refused "to recognize the genocide of the Armenians', Lewis replied: "You mean why do they refuse to recognize the Armenian version of that event?"

This comment led to a storm of protest from the Armenian community in Paris. Thirty university teachers published an open letter accusing Lewis of "betraying the truth and insulting the victims of Turkish brutality." At first they tried to prosecute Lewis under the Loi Gayssot, passed in 1990, which makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offense. But it was pointed out to the Armenians that the communist deputy Gayssot had restricted his new law to those denying the truth of the Nazi persecution of the Jews. It should be noted that Lewis is a historian whose specialty is the history of Ottoman Turkey. He is recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on the subject.

In Aug. 17, 1995, A book published in Switzerland by the "Algerian committee of free activists" has been banned from entering French territory because "Its distribution is liable to affect public order...its underlying tone is anti-French", said the spokesman of the French interior ministry.

In the U.S., the government cannot do much to silence obnoxious speech because of the first amendment to the constitution. However, nongovernmental institutions, especially the media and the universities have taken the lead. At the university of Michigan, a student said in a classroom discussion that he considered homosexuality a disease treatable with therapy. He was summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing for violating the school's policy of prohibiting speech that victimizes people on basis of sexual orientation. The case has generated a lawsuit in federal courts. Another student who denounced Dr. Martin Luther King as a communist has been sentenced by his university's judicial board to thirty hours of community service.

The American Media has a long history of voluntary censorship. For example, a series of films which explained why Muslims were growing more furious with the West, were taken off-air in the US. Broadcasters were faced with a lobby against them and there was a threat to advertising. The films titled, Roots of Muslim Anger, were made by Dr. Robert Fisk who has received the British Press Award as the best British foreign reporter for "Foreign reporting at its finest." The reason for the intense lobbying against the series was that it considered Israel responsible for many Muslim grievances against the West. 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.

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 the summer of 1995, The War Veterans Lobby (one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington) has lobbied successfully to remove all the material describing the tragedies caused by the American atomic bombs thrown on Japan in 1945 from a World War II exhibition in Washington. Several historians protested the move as enforcing a kind of "patriotically correct history" which has no thing to do with the "real history."

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."

Oxford University Press rejected Professor John Vincent's book, A Very Short Introduction to History, which it had previously welcomed. The reason was that Vincent had not been politically correct. He had used the word "men" instead of "people", referred to historians as "he" thereby excluding women historians, etc.

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 Canada, CTV Television network on its popular morning show "Canada AM" has, on Oct. 15, 1994, hosted Josef Lepid, a leading Israeli political commentator, who, on the air, called for "a decent Jew in Canada" to assassinate Victor Ostrovosky (a former Israeli intelligence officer and author of two books exposing Israeli intelligence secret operations). The incident received conspicuous silence in the Canadian media. The very same commentators who had clamored for Rushdie's right of free speech uttered no words in support of Ostrovosky's same right.

A couple of years ago, a British historian was giving lectures in Canada in which he denied the Holocaust. He was arrested and deported by the Canadian authorities. Also, a school teacher was relieved of all teaching duties because he taught his students to disbelieve that the Holocaust has ever happened.

A university professor wrote on his campus journal that a woman who had been raped by her partner should bear some of the responsibility for the rape especially if she was improperly dressed. His comments prompted a huge outcry on campus. He was forced into early retirement.

It seems that the West does not only lack absolute freedom of speech, it lacks absolute freedom of thinking as well. One might enjoy the hospitality of German prisons (for 5 full years) for 'believing' that the Holocaust has never happened. In France, one does not have to be a 'true believer', merely questioning the Holocaust will do. One wonders what should be the punishment if some people deny World War II altogether. Perhaps, they should be executed. In North America, one would 'only' lose one's job for disbelieving in the Holocaust. This 'leniency' is perhaps due to the fact that American jails are overcrowded. Questioning the differences between men and women is a taboo that any 'decent' human being should not discuss. Charges of sexism are used to deter those who contemplate exceeding the acceptable limits. Discussions about homosexuality and race are similarly stifled.

The seldom acknowledged fact is that thought control does exist in the West. It is practiced by the governments, the media, the universities, and more importantly by the politically correct crowd. Several insightful Western intellectuals have recognized this fact. For example, Alexis de Tocqueville described America (at a time when America was considered the freest place in the world) by saying: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." George Santayana had this to say about the same theme: "There is no country in which people live under more overpowering compulsions...You must wave, you must shout, you must go with the irresistible crowd: otherwise you will feel like a traitor, a soulless outcast...In a country where all men are free, every man finds that what most matters has been settled for him beforehand."

It should not be construed however that freedoms of thought and speech are nonexistent in the West. Such a conclusion would be untrue and unfair. As a matter of fact, the West does enjoy more freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world today. One cannot ignore the freedom to protest, demonstrate, and strike provided by Western constitutions. One cannot disregard the relatively open and free discussions and debates taking place in parliaments and lecture rooms throughout the West. One cannot dismiss the role of Western media in exposing politicians misdemeanor as insignificant. For example, one cannot forget the role of the Washington Post in the Watergate affair. Nevertheless, these freedoms are neither unlimited nor unconditional. Opinions which might irritate powerful groups, important interests, or significant segments of the population are silenced by many 'nonviolent' means. George Orwell in his article, The Freedom of the Press, has eloquently described the status of Western press: "Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark without the need for any official ban...[the] press is extremely centralised and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

Let us now try to honestly address the ticklish question of free speech. Should there be freedom of speech? Certainly. Absolute freedom of speech? Certainly not. Why? Offensive speech has disastrous consequences affecting individuals and the society at large. It leads to the spread of hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. For example, how many human beings would accept others to accuse their mothers of being whores ? Should the society protect the freedom of speech of the accuser or the freedom from offensive speech of the accused? If one whole group in the society is denigrated as 'niggers' by another group, should the society protect the freedom of speech of the offending group or the freedom from speech of the offended group ? If non-Jews accuse Jews of conspiring to exterminate all other races, whose freedom should be protected? If men describe women as sources of all evil, whose freedom should be protected? When a group of women, whom one billion Muslims revere more than their own mothers, have been gratuitously defamed by Rushdie as whores, whose freedom should have been protected? In general, societies have little to lose and so much to gain by proscribing outrageous speech. In fact, all human societies have, to one degree or another, practiced freedom from speech. However, not all societies have been honest to admit what they practice. The Quran has been unequivocal in forbidding all kinds of insulting speech: "O you who believe; let not some men among you ridicule others: it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let some women ridicule others: it may be that the latter are better than the former, nor defame nor be sarcastic of each other, nor call each other by offensive nicknames..." (49:11)

However, in limiting freedom of speech for the purposes of social peace and harmony, no society should go to the extreme of "outlaw ... questioning." This is the mentality of the dark ages, the Inquisition, and some ailing dictatorial regimes. The whole world must struggle to wipe out all the traces of this mentality rather than enforcing it by democratic legislation. Objective inquiry must never be banned for any reason whatsoever. If some people, for whatever reason, exploit the freedom of inquiry to incite racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious vilification, then a line has to be drawn between benign and malicious motives without sacrificing the priceless freedoms of thinking, questioning, and inquiring. It is exactly the same line that has to be drawn to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom from speech. The Canadian Supreme Court has recently (July 20) drawn a similar line in its decisive ruling on libel law: "criticism, yes, but accusations rooted in non-facts that do gratuitous damage to the reputation of individuals, no." The Quran does not only guarantee the freedom of thinking and questioning, it considers the act of thinking a sign of good faith. Thinking and reflection are considered among the characteristics of righteousness: "In the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for people of understanding. Those who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth.." (3:190-191) The Quran in its numerous arguments with the unbelievers cites compelling evidence for them; not to make them believe, but to make them think: "...Thus does Allah make clear to you His signs: in order that you may reflect" (2:219) "...Such are the similitude which We propound to people, that they may think" (59:21)

To sum up, the whole Rushdie affair and its protracted aftermath has never been a mere question of free speech in the West as any simple comparison between the fate of professor Lewis in France and the treatment professor Schimmel received in Germany would clearly reveal. The support which Rushdie has received in the West and the defamation which Dr. Schimmel has been subjected to in Germany have more to do with Western "Islamphobia" than with absolute freedom of expression. The Western blatant indifference towards the feelings of Muslims is due to intense Western misunderstanding, suspicion, and fear of Muslims and Islam. Had the West really believed in and practiced absolute freedom of speech, then Muslims would have been very wrong to demand a ban on the Satanic Verses since it would have been a violation of a well-established Western tradition. But the West has never practiced this imaginary absolute freedom of speech and probably never will……... Muslims in the West are the least studied, the least understood, the least trusted, and the least respected minority group. According to a nationwide poll conducted for the American Muslim Council, 67% of Americans had favorable opinions of Roman Catholicism, 52% of Judaism, 39% of Christian fundamentalism and only 23% had a favorable opinion of Islam. Muslims in the West, especially in some European countries such as Germany, France, and Britain, live under conditions that can at best be described as contemptuous tolerance.

Profile: Sherif Abdel Azeem Mohamed has a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario, Canada) and is with the department of Electrical Engineering at Cairo University. He is the author of several articles on Islam and contemporary Islamic issues as well as being a Hafiz, i.e. has memorized the whole Qur'an by heart.

----- Original Message -----

From: Abdel-rahman Mohamed

To: Abdurrahman Siddiqi ; Mr. Hussain Khan

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:31 AM

Subject: Re: Proposal for our revised strategy to Danish

Dear Br. . Aburrahman Siddiqi Br. Hussain Khan
Assalam Alikum,
Dr. Salimurahman and Shykh Aqil and some other brothers already decided to have the meeting on Friday 6:00 pm at Otsuka Mosque. I hope you might have the ability to attend.
I think the main procedure as what we did before:
- Having a delegate from Otsuka Masjid, MSAJ, Islamic Center Japan and Mr. Hssien Khan (I forgot his Association Name) to go to the Danish Embassy and submit a formal letter of protest inside the embassy.
- Mr. Hussien Khan last time prepared a nice letter and all agreed about it.
I hope you can prepare such a letter for this time.
Wassalam Alikum

Abdurrahman Siddiqi <arsiddiqi@yahoo.com> wrote:
wa alikum Assalam. I agree to have the meeting.But I
suggest that the meeting be held on Sunday,not
Friday. It is already late. Find out what the Muslims
of Denmark say about it.More people should be
informed.Please decide and finalise.Place Otsuka is
O.K.but you can also consult Islamic Center and ask
Mr.Salim Khan,acting Chairman to call the
meeting.That will be more effective,I think. I support
your action. A.R.Siddiqi.

--- Abdel-rahman Mohamed
wrote:

> Dear Brothers
> Asslam Alykum,
> All of us for sure read the news of republishing the
> offensive cartoon.
> At least we need to express the refuse of All
> muslims in Japan for this uncivilized actions.
> For that reason after contacting with some elder
> brothers here in Tokyo.
> They agreed about helding ameeting as soon as
> possiple it will be better if this friday 22nd or
> sunday. the suggested place: at otsuka Mosque.
> Please let us know your opinion.
> Wajzakom Allah khayra
>
> note forwarded messages
> Wrote:
> asSalamu alaikom dear brothers
>
> Jazakom Allahu kairan br. Hefny for your idea and
> good intention, and for reminding us to do this good
> deed. I have an opinion: to send one well written
> letter from an organization that represents all
> muslims in Japan like MSAJ. Or at least we send by
> the name of our group ESAJ and we include the names
> and emails of all people who would like to share,
> which I think all of us want to do this. This will
> be more powerful than sending individual emails
> especially if we send them at the same time, the
> embassy may not read all of them.
>
> If you agree with me, let's do it as soon as
> possible since few days already passed on the
> re-publishing of the drawings.
>
>
>
> The Univ. of Aizu
>
>
> wrote:
> Dear all brothers of Esaj members,
>
> This e-mail is NOT for Muslim members only and it
> is not to raise members rage. Also, it is not a call
> for terror action or violence motivation, it is
> simply a call for a well educated persons who have
> modest minds.
>
> All of us for sure read the news of republishing
> the offensive cartoon of our prophet Mohamed (sala
> Alah alihi we sallam) by the Danish newspaper (may
> Alah leads them to the right path) as a gesture of
> support of other newspapers which published this
> cartoon for the first time and after declaring of
> arresting a danish citizen of Moroccan descent and
> two Tunisians for planning to murder the cartoonist
> who draw the cartoon at 2005 (as they claimed).
>
> For sure every one of you thought about what to do
> towards this action and for sure you believed that
> we should solve this problem on the long term policy
> (by changing ourselves to the right way and to
> express our Islam as Alah wants us to do) however,
> I'm suggesting that every member from Esaj send a
> simple fax to the embassy of Denmark in Tokyo with a
> polite words expressing his refuse for this
> uncivilized actions and telling them who is prophet
> Mohamed (sala Alah alihi we sallam) in very simple
> words.
>
> Brothers, we are about 400 members and I think
> the embassy when receive 400 fax saying NO for what
> they did, they will know at least that there are
> followers for prophet Mohamed (sala Alah alihi we
> sallam) in Japan, a country who Arabs themselves
> never imagined that a word of Alah will be here.
>
> For sure many members will say what faxes can do,
> but I think it is better than nothing. At the end I
> do not want to open a topic for useless argument and
> please take care of the fake e-mails which utilize
> this topic to distribute fake data about this issue
> and to gain millions of dollars by commercials.
>
> May Allah bless us and forgive all our seines and
> consider us with those his Majesty accepted them is
> his faithful slaves... ameen
>
>
>
> All the best
>
>
> University of Tokyo
>
>
> Abdel-rahman
> (GRIS)
> Saitama University
>
>
>
> Abdel-rahman
> (GRIS)
> Saitama University
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
> Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Go here to see my website: http://arsiddiqi.imcj.googlepages.com/

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Abdel-rahman

(GRIS)
Saitama University