Trust Me

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Boycott Denmark

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Christian Double Standards...

South Park's creators have renewed their "battle" with Scientology, after a US TV channel dropped a show which mocked its church and actor Tom Cruise.

"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!" Trey Parker and Matt Stone told trade paper Variety.

Comedy Central said the schedule change enabled it to screen two extra episodes featuring Isaac Hayes, who played Chef.

Hayes left South Park this week after objecting to it sending up religion.

Parker and Stone added in their statement to Variety: "Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies."

Comedy Central's spokesman said the channel wanted to "give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for".

The channel also denied it had axed the episode featuring Cruise after reports of pressure from the actor to drop it from its schedules.

And the actor denied reports suggesting he had threatened not to promote his latest film Mission Impossible: 3 if the episode was broadcast.

The film is being brought out in May by Paramount, which is owned, along with Comedy Central, by Viacom.

Cruise, an outspoken follower of Scientology, starred in the first two Mission Impossible films.

In a recent episode, one of the gang, Stan, did so well in a Scientology test that church followers thought he was the next L Ron Hubbard, the late science-fiction writer who founded Scientology.

Hayes, 63, had been a regular on South Park since its US TV debut in 1997.

The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", Hayes said.

But Stone said Hayes had "never had a problem" until the Scientology Church, to which Hayes belongs, was parodied.

Hayes, who has played the ladies' man/school cook in the animated Comedy Central satire since 1997, said in a statement Monday that he feels a line has been crossed.

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

Last November, "South Park" targeted the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers, including actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

History dispels lies about Islam

A well known technique in any propaganda war is the spreading of "disinformation" about your enemy. Disinformation is the new postmodern word for lies.

If you repeat the same lies over and over again, listeners' critical thinking skills are numbed; and in the absence of any opposing argument, the lies eventually cannot be differentiated from truth.

Islam has had many enemies over the centuries and still has. One of the most persistent lies repeated by its detractors is that Muslims spread their faith by the sword.

Yet of all mainstream religions, none is more precisely documented as to its origin, revelation, message and teachings. Since its emergence through the Prophet Muhammad and his transmission of its holy book, the history of Islam has been well recorded. From the Prophet's time until today, the Quran has offered guidance and discipline for everyday life. As Islam spread, the lives and teachings of its messengers have also been documented.

As with Judaism and Christianity, the most influential and revered figures are those from the time when the faith was newly revealed; in Islam, these were Muslims who lived in the age of Prophet Muhammad and who embodied the teachings of the Quran as examples to their fellow human beings. Many of their thoughts and deeds were recorded for the benefit of future generations.

To return to the questions of whether the Quran encourages Muslims to spread their faith by force, or whether the Prophet himself set a violent example for Muslims to follow, one has only to consult the source.

The Quran is crystal clear in stating, "There is no compulsion in religion." (Quran 2:256) The commandment is absolute; there are no exceptions. Coercion, compulsion, force -- whatever one chooses to call it -- is forbidden. No other holy book lays down such a clear directive to its adherents.

Believers in the world's largest Muslim country of today, Indonesia, have never in history encountered foreign Muslim soldiers on their soil. The same is true for today's Muslims in Malaysia, China, sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, Europe, and Turkey. All of these countries or regions were introduced to Islam through other Muslims, not by Muslim armies.

Even in Egypt where the earliest Muslims were mostly Arab soldiers, Islam was diffused slowly throughout the country over more than 400 years. The Egyptians loved Islam because the values it embraced, such as justice, equality, modernity and freedom.

And in Egypt, as well as in Persia, Greater Syria, India, North Africa and Spain, converts freely accepted Islam because it offered comparatively more than other religions of the day.

During those early centuries, people who felt oppressed or restricted by the rigidity of Christian and Jewish traditions, or excluded from the caste system of Hinduism, were attracted by the Islam's de-emphasis on hierarchy. They loved the Islamic teachings that God is One and the Lord of All, that humans can talk to God directly, and that there is no Original Sin Ð every human being is wholly accountable for his/her deeds.

So while it is true that Islam spread in some places with the speed of a bullet, no literal bullets have been involved. The whole concept of "convert or die" is utterly foreign and reprehensible to authentic Islamic beliefs and conduct. And the Quran itself further reinforces the sanctity of all human lives in saying that to kill another person is as evil as killing the entire human race.

Muslims do not blame any religion for the atrocities committed by those claiming to be its adherents.

Thus, Muslims do not blame Judaism itself for injustices committed by Jews against Palestinians. Nor do they blame Christianity per se for the crimes committed by Church-sanctioned medieval Crusades; for atrocities committed during the conquest of Spain by Christian armies and the subsequent persecution and expulsion of Muslims; nor for the horrors of the Inquisition, the St. BartholomewÕs Day Massacre, or any number of similar tragedies. All three faiths, rooted in Abrahamic tradition, teach similar values of non-violence, justice and equality. Those who take up the "cause" of any faith through violent means are in effect blasphemers of it.

The earliest Muslims in Arabia were persecuted and subjected to torture. They fled for their lives from Mecca to Medina, but their pagan enemies followed, determined to annihilate them. Then and only then, did Muslims take up arms in self-defense. This was no a religious war, however, but rather a forced political conflict in which the rich and powerful of 6th-century AD Arabia perceived their status being challenged. The MuslimsÕ aim was not to convert their pagan countrymen, but to defend themselves; similarly, the anti-Muslim pagans were not interested in suppressing Islam itself, but in subjugating its believers through political power.

When the Prophet Muhammad and his followers returned peacefully to Mecca in triumph, he granted pardon to the same people who had persecuted and waged war against him and his fellow Muslims.

This humane and generous behavior reflected the teaching of many Quranic verses which stress the importance of courtesy, politeness and civility, even where there has been severe conflict: "And the true servants of the God of Mercy are those who walk upon the earth humbly; and when the ignorant address them, reply ÔPeaceÕ; and they pass the night praying to their Lord, prostrating and standing." (Quran 25:63 - 64)
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Waterloo and national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Questions about Islam: Threat to the West?

Question: I recently heard Islam characterized as the next major threat to "Western" civilization, the new Evil Empire that will succeed Communism. Sounds like a major oversimplification, but could you comment on it?

Answer: At the risk of oversimplification in the other direction, I would respond that, alas, every society needs its Evil Empire. When no obvious candidate fills the bill, we will conjure one up in the vain hope that somehow it will make us feel better about ourselves. During the past couple of decades there has been much talk about "resurgent Islam," fueled by such events as the Iranian Revolution, the Palestinian Intifada, and the ascendancy of the Afghan Taliban. Books with titles like The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East (1982) raise the specter of some sort of nuclear conspiracy, as though Islam represented a unitary political will intent on world domination. In fact, "Islam" is nothing quite like the various "isms" one can realistically imagine bringing political and economic resources to bear on some global or even regional objective - capitalism, communism, colonialism, imperialism, or - on a smaller scale - Zionism, for example.

On the other side of that coin, neither is "the West" anything like a unified secularist bloc of political, economic, and cultural determination, set adamantly against the real or imagined religio-moral fervor of "the East,".

Still, it is much easier to construe the world as neatly defined opposing forces than to come to terms with the common humanity that underlies all our differences.

Muslims are on the whole just about as susceptible to these kinds of generalizations as non-Muslims, however, and are often co-responsible for perpetuating the sweeping dichotomy. In short, Islam as a religious tradition is in no way a threat to world peace and order. On the contrary, it is as important a force for maintaining peace and order as any other tradition.

Excerpted from 101 Questions and Answers on Islam by John Renard. The author holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from Harvard University and is a professor of theological studies at st. Louis University.

Monday, March 13, 2006

'We are in a grave'

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Ahamed Abdul Aziz has been held in a prison at this United States military base for more than three years, has been interrogated 50 times, but has never been charged with a crime. He waits with anguish for freedom but fears it will never come.

"We are in a grave here," he told his lawyers, echoing the despair felt by many of the roughly 490 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. About 98% of the prisoners have never been charged with a crime.

Transcripts of hearings at Guantanamo Bay released by the Pentagon on Friday show the frustration among prisoners waiting for months and years while the military decides whether to charge, transfer or release them.

Boudella al Hajj, an Algerian cleric who said he worked with orphans in Bosnia for a humanitarian group and the Bosnian army, was accused of being in contact with al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah and belonging to an Algerian militant organization, among other things.

In the transcripts, he denied the allegations. He asked why he'd never heard them before.

"I've been here for three years, been through many interrogations and no interrogator ever mentioned any of these accusations, so how did they just come now?" he said. "It's weird how this just came up now."

Danish vandalize Muslim graves

About 25 Muslim graves have been vandalised at a cemetery in Denmark.

Anders Hansen, a spokesman for the local police, said vandals had pushed over headstones, smashing several into pieces, at the cemetery in Esbjerg.

Esbjerg is Denmark's fifth biggest city and is 250km west of the capital, Copenhagen.

"We don't know who did this," Hansen said, adding the attack probably happened late on Saturday or early on Sunday.

The cemetery has both Christian and Muslim graves, but only the Muslim graves were desecrated, he said.

This is what denmark is all about. Racism, Religious hatred and intolerence to minorities. Yet, they pose to be the champions of free speech. Shameless Cowards!

Welcome to Nazimark!

With Prime Minister like Rasmussen and Queen like Margrethe it is evident that the notorious KKK has found a new breeding ground in the form of Denmark. To put an icing we have the extremist Peoples Party. Welcome to Nazimark!

If this cartoon issue is not resolved it may result in another cold war between Denmark and Muslim Countries. Do'nt think anyone else would be standing by denmark in the hour of need.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

The European Hunger

France's president, Jacques Chirac recently went to saudi arabia to seek economic gains for france. Yet another european who goes after muslim money and resources even when they mull and marooning the local muslim population in france. Yet they are shameless in going to muslims for their money. In the wake of recent Oil price hike many countries including the likes of UK, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Norway and the father of all destruction the U.S are now focussing on encashing these oil producing gulf countries to help rejuvenate their staggering economies.

Shameless europeans then go on objecting to muslims living in european countries. In reality, muslim countries pay for their muslim brothers living in these european countries.

We pay far more then we get in return. A huge price...

Friday, February 24, 2006

Free Speech or hate speech?

Free Speech or hate speech?

Why can’t we see that those who are on the streets protesting against their Prophet being depicted as a terrorist are in reality distancing themselves from terrorism?

By Mahmood Mamdani

I empathise with those baffled by the rapidly spiralling controversy around the series of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons were first published in the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, nearly five months ago, in September. The initial protest was limited to Denmark’s Muslim minority but was brushed off by both government and civil society. This is when some of the ultra-conservative Danish imams took up the matter and set off for Saudi Arabia and Egypt with a dossier containing the inflammatory cartoons. Last week came the diplomatic explosion: Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador in Denmark and Libya shut its embassy. Then followed the boycott of Danish goods, demonstrations, strikes, flag burning, and now fires set to embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

All this before the disclosure that a Danish illustrator had in April 2003 submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten, only to receive an e-mail from the paper’s Sunday editor: “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.”

One wonders about the intensity of the protests. Especially since 9/11, Prophet Muhammad has been vilified in print by several public figures, from Reverend Franklin Graham — son of Billy Graham and spiritual advisor to US President George W. Bush — who has publicly called Islam “an evil and wicked religion” to Reverend Jerry Vines, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who called Prophet Muhammad “a demon-possessed paedophile” during a keynote address. But none evoked the tide of public protest as have the cartoons.

When the paper at the centre of the controversy apologised because the cartoons had “indisputably offended many Muslims”, the Right-wing European press, outraged by this “caving in”, took up the cause. Led by France Soir in Paris and Die Welt in Berlin, they began to reprint the cartoons, sometimes on the front page with the original frame blown up. Others, including the Left-leaning Der Tagesspiegel in Germany, joined. “It’s the core of our culture,” Die Welt’s editor-in-chief told The Guardian, “that the most sacred things can be subjected to criticism, laughter and satire.”

Everyone agrees that the cartoons are offensive, and not particularly because they portray the Prophet in human form. (After all, you can see such depictions in both Ottoman Turkish and Persian miniatures, as well as in contemporary Iran.) At the heart of the offence is their message. One cartoon depicts the Prophet wearing a turban which turns out to be a bomb with a lit fuse. Another has him tell a queue of ragged suicide bombers: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.” The no-frills genre of the cartoon conveys the message starkly, without qualification: this is a terrorist and sexist religion.

Why do we not draw the conclusion that those who protest against their Prophet being depicted as a terrorist are in reality distancing themselves from terrorism, in fact, demonstrating against it? I suppose because we realise that there is more to the demonstrations than just a vote for or against terrorism. That something more depends on the context of the demonstrations.

I wish to draw attention to two different contexts: Muslim-majority countries and Europe. In both cases, the protests have an overwhelming local significance.

The demonstrations in Muslim-majority countries include a variety of contradictory forces. For one, in this period ushered in by Hamas’ astonishing electoral victory, pro-American governments are anxious about Islamist mobilisation and eager to pre-empt it. Rather than curb, they would wish to claim ownership of the demonstrations. At the same time, those shut out of public life, extremist or not, realise they have found an issue on which they can call their governments to account without fear of facing direct repression; so they press home their point that the War on Terror their governments have joined unreservedly is at its core a war against Islam and Muslims. Here, then, is an issue which allows local civil society an opportunity to exercise freedom of speech to confront their own governments, alongside those of Europe.

In Europe, too, there is a local and an equally complex dimension to the protests. The official American-British dissent from the governmental chorus in Europe neatly echoes the divide on the question of Turkey’s admission into Europe. One is struck about how quickly the issue of free speech has folded into that of civilisation versus darkness. The shift has enormous significance for the European debate.

If the issue is one of free speech, there is no necessary reason why Christian Europe should be seen to be a principled defender of free speech, and Muslim Europe in disagreement in principle. But if the issue is recast as one of enlightenment versus barbarism by Europeans, then surely there is hardly a Muslim who would be in doubt as to which side of the contest he or she is supposed to represent. For those looking for an apt analogy to understand the significance of the cartoon controversy, it would not be an insensitive satirising of Jesus that devout Christians would find blasphemous, a religious transgression, but an anti-Semitic hate cartoon that would alarm all decent people, secular or religious.

The group best placed to sense the gravity of this moment is that of European Muslims. They must be acutely aware that the depiction of Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist goes beyond a general demonisation of Muslims to a direct assault on Muslims in Europe. Surely, even the most assimilated must realise that the demand that they accept not just the principle of free speech but unconditionally support its every use as the price of political and social acceptance in Europe, is a thinly disguised demand that European Muslims renounce their own freedoms and capitulate.

Ex-Danish PM condemns cartoons

Ex-Danish PM condemns blasphemous cartoons as "stupid"

Denmark's former prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen condemned the blasphemous Danish cartoons as "an insult and a humiliation for the people who believe in Islam." "I disagree with those cartoons. I must say it's humiliating, is a lack of respect and it is stupid," Rasmussen told the European Parliament in Brussels during a debate with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

Yes, indeed, we have to stop. There must be no repetition of these things that still pop up in this and that capital, and no violence either."
"I also appeal to you to see the action and the reaction at the same time. Let's see what we can do for the future. It is our duty to prevent that from reappearing in the European Arab relations, in the Christian Muslim relations, on the relations between civilisations.

We cannot afford other incidents of that kind," he added.

Something Rotten in Denmark

"Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark"
Tarek Mishkhas, Arab News

Danish ministers say the government can’t condemn the cartoons a daily published mocking the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and that freedom of speech is guaranteed for all and that freedom of the press is also guaranteed by the Danish constitution. This argument would have been accepted if the constitution does not state otherwise and if the Danish government can say the same thing when it comes to making anti-Semitic remarks. The Danish constitution says:

“The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion.”

And this law was used by the Danish government to condemn “anti-Semitic” activities and investigate them, as mentioned in the human rights report made by the US Department of State regarding Denmark in 2004:

“From January through June, there were five incidents of anti-Semitic vandalism, primarily graffiti, and one incident of an anti-Semitic mailing, which the government condemned and investigated.”

Why a different stand when it comes to Islam? Of course there is nothing new in this. In April last year the queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper as saying that we (Denmark) “should show our opposition to Islam”.

She said: “We are being challenged by Islam these years — globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

“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.”

The problem is not confined to Demark; some newspapers in some European countries used the same cartoons to say that they support the Danish newspaper’s “freedom of speech”.

These countries that boast about freedom of speech and freedom of press are the same countries that make it illegal and punishable by prison for anyone to question the holocaust or brandish Nazi symbols in public.

In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust. In Germany one risks going to jail if one denies the Holocaust or brandishes Nazi symbols in public.

In fact the Italian interior minister confirmed on Thursday that legal action is being taken against 11 football fans for brandishing Nazi symbols during a Serie A game. The 11 face prison sentences of between three months and one year.

There are many examples to show that freedom of press in Europe stops when it comes to some historical facts that two can differ upon, but when it is about insulting Islam then it is freedom of speech.

No freedom is absolute; a person’s freedom ends when it encroaches into another person’s freedom.

Muslim governments should ask the United Nations to pass a law against insulting any religion. We should use all our resources and powers — economical and political — to make this happen.

If we stay silent now then we will never be able to raise our heads.

Muslim people have said their word and took action by boycotting Danish goods; now it is up to governments to take a strong stand.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Slander & get paid!!

Ayaan's law is simple and quite rewarding. Slander Islam i the name of women and you'll be reaping rewards. You can write book or create movies on this topic and the west will make you rich and famous. Ayaan has learnt from the examples of Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen. Nowadays, topic is changed "islamic extremists" but the target remains the same.

Let me give you some historical facts.

According to a report by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), During the first 50 years of Independance, more than 50 million girls have been killed in India. That's Female infanticide for you and its in Hindu religion through "Vedas" (religious scriptures of hindus)

Christians have raped and disgraced men and women during World War 1 and 2. Hitler was a christian who created the holocaust using religion as his shield. Anti-Semitism was their motto.

For centuries Christians have worked for "Christian supremacy" thereby initiating Crusades and destroying muslim countries.

Islam was never spread by sword as admitted by many western historians. Even today after all this slandering and genocidal attempts to wipeout muslims; Islam remains the fastest spreading religion in the world. Are all these people crazy and a couple of greedy souls like Ms Ayyan are correct.

Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) first wife was a business lady. Islam protected and accepted the role of women even when early christians or jews supressed them. It's quite recently, that these religions have emerged by calling themselves the champions of women rights. yet they have the highest percentages of rape and women abuse, domestic violence on women and still they are called civilized.

Ayaan Hirsi may not think twice as she knows where she is heading and what she is getting in return of her services against islam.

Welcome to the club

A small obscured country somewhere in europe, an unknown newspaper with an editor having invisible brain asks the most uncreative mind found on the planet to create some cartoons in order to please his financiers.

The little brat manages to create inflammatory depictions called cartoons by some like-minded creatures.

The brat who calls himself a cartoonist is now found in the company of Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

With a bounty on his head he now lives in seclusion and under state protection.

Welcome to the club ! Asshole...