Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations presented a luke-warm response to these demands from European Moslems, saying: “Freedom of religion is non-negotiable. It is a fundamental right of individuals and communities and entails respect for the integrity of all religious convictions and all ways in which they are exercised. Similarly, freedom of expression is central to Europe’s values and traditions. It is also non-negotiable. But it does come with responsibilities and should be exercised with the necessary sensitivity to others.”

According to Jyllands-Posten today, Amar Hariba of the World Islamic Call Society said: “The insult of prophets in the name of Freedom of Speech is a crime which cannot be ignored. We therefore ask the European Union to adopt laws to prohibit that kind of insults.”

To this blog, it seems clear that the European commissioner has chosen sides: For Religion and against Freedom of Speech. By qualifying Freedom of Expression and not Freedom of Religion, she has once again said to the world that Europe at large has no special interest in defending Freedom of Speech.

The delegate from Denmark was Imam Abdul Wahid Petersen who has declared himself in favor of making Sharia the law of the land.

The conference is expected to agree on a statement that will be issued today.

Related links:
Description of the Conference from April 3rd

Who is Asmaa Abdol-Hamid?

Asmaa is a social worker in the town of Odense. She came to Denmark in 1988 when she was six. She and her family - six siblings and her mother and father - had fled first from Lebanon to the United Arab Emirates and then to Denmark.
Source: Article in Jyllands-Posten “Asmaa på hjemmebane”. March 16, 2005

The earliest news I can find about her is from June 16th, 2001. At a bazaar in Vollsmose, an immigrant-dominated neighbourhood in Odense, she and her sisters are photographed selling falafels, cookies and snacks. She is reported to be heading the Young Women’s Activity Organisation.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Hyggedag in Vollsmose”, June 16th, 2005

At a demonstration two months later, the Young Women’s Activity Organisation is heard from once again. This time they are demonstrating against the to-be-appointed Israeli Ambassador to Denmark, Carmi Gillon. Carmi Gillon was once the head of Israel’s intelligence service, Shin Beth, which has used “physical pressure” against detainees. Quoting:

With blood and soul we’re liberating Denmark, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid shouts to the demonstrators.

Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Piger demonstrerede mod ambassadør Gillon”, August 16th, 2001

In a debate in Fyens Stiftstidende’s Letters section during July and August of 2004, she debates the 24-year rule, which says that Danes (though it’s aimed at immigrant who have a tradition for arranged marriages) cannot bring their spouses to Denmark before they’ve turned 24. Asmaa claims that the purpose of the rule is to lessen the number of foreigners in Denmark and that the rule may be in violation of Human Rights. That wasn’t the intention of the rule, many respondents say. It was aimed at preventing forced/arranged marriages between young immigrants and desperate young people from their home countries.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, letters to the editor through July and August of 2004

On December 23rd, 2004 Asmaa is told by the local Social Democrats that she won’t be a candidate for the Social Democrats.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “S-forening vragede Asmaa”, December 23rd, 2004

On March 22nd, 2005 she instead decides to run for the Unity List, a hodge-podge of Socialists and Communists.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Muslimsk debattør stiller op for Enhedslisten”, March 22nd, 2005

In a letter to the editor of May 18th, 2005, she attacks the Queen for having made some remarks about immigrants in a new biography about her. Quoting from her letter:

It’s very sad that the Queen of Denmark in the biography ‘Margrethe’ makes remarks about limits to tolerance when it comes to Moslems in this country and that Denmark at the moment is being challenged by Islam.

Quoting Queen Margrethe from Nomos:

We are presently being challenged by Islam. Both globally and locally. […]Resistance has to be shown and sometimes one has to run the risk of being labelled something less than flattering. Because some things one shouldn’t be tolerant about. When one is tolerant, one should stop and make sure whether it is out of convenience or conviction.[…]Perhaps we are at a crossroad. Crossroads unfortunately very often only show themselves after one has passed them. But we’ve in any case understood that we mustn’t submit to what’s frightening. We cannot sell our conception of justice and legality.

Her letter received a flurry of responses, all of them condemning her.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Dronning svigter”, April 18th, 2005

In May of 2005, 24 year-old Ammar Hasan was shot outside a the Copenhagen disco Rust by a bouncer. Imam Abu Laban urges the bouncer’s family to pay 200,000 DKK to the family of the deceased in blood-money so they won’t be bothered. In a letter to the editor in Fyens Stiftstidende of June 16th, Asmaa supports him.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Se på krigen i Irak”, June 14th, 2005

On July 6th, 2005 Asmaa participates in a demonstration against George Bush.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Bush-modstand samlede bredt”, July 7th, 2005

On October 29th of 2005, acting as the coordinator for 11 Moslem organisations, she filed a complaint with the police against Jyllands-Posten’s caricatures of Muhammed, saying:

The Culture Editor of Jyllands-Posten says in the article that Moslems must be ready to be subjected to insult and ridicule. This proves to us that the purpose of the article was to insult and ridicule a legally existing faith community and that is prohibited by the article regarding blasphemy.

Source: Jyllands-Posten, “Muslimer melder JP til politiet”, October 29, 2005

On November 1st, 2005 Asmaa refuses to shake hands with a Alex Behrendtsen of the DPP at a debate, saying that Moslem women don’t touch men. This is disputed by many Moslems and Danes.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “DF forsøgte med en udstrakt hånd”, November 2nd, 2005 + Fyens Stiftstidende, “- Det er høfligt at give et håndtryk”, November 4th, 2005

On November 8th, 2005 the Unity List distances itself from Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, saying:

The message Asmaa sends [through her actions] is not the primary message of the Unity List

Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Afstand til Abdol-Hamid”, November 8th, 2005

On November 11th, 2005 Karsten Hønge of the Socialist People’s Party attacks Asmaa, saying she is a Moslem fundamentalist who shouldn’t call herself a socialist. Quoting from the clip:

We [the socialists] are rooted in Free Thought, Liberation, Tolerance and Humanism and I think that if you are trying to limit Freedom of Speech in Denmark by banning some so simple drawings as those in question, then you belong to the reactionaries.

Source: Clip in TV2/Fyn, November 11th, 2005 - link

The election turned out to be a succes for Alex Behrendtsen of the DPP and Karsten Hønge of the Socialist People’s Party. Asmaa Abdol-Hamid wasn’t elected.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende, “Odense Byråd 2006-2009″, November 16th, 2005

On March 16, 2006 Asmaa tells the Danes that the 11 Moslem organisations she represents are going to take the case of the Muhammed cartoons to the European Human Rights Court in Brussels, since the Crown’s Prosecutor found that the cartoons didn’t break Danish law.
Source: Jyllands-Posten, “Muslimer vil gå til tops med klage”, March 16th, 2006

Comments on her history
I find it strange that the publicly-owned Denmark’s Radio is willing to allow Asmaa Abdol-Hamid on the air as a host of her own programme. It’s just not done, allowing people so involved with politics and with such extreme views to be hosts on a programme. I wonder what their reasons for hiring her were…

The Programme
The first programme was shown March 29th and was called “The Dangerous Multiculture”. Karen Jespersen, a former Minister for Integration for the Social Democrats was the guest.
Here I will translate some excerpts from the programme. It can be viewed online by clicking this link.
This programme is actually a perfect example of media bias. Here we have a person who tried to get the newspaper which published the cartoons censored and who now attacks Denmark as such for not censoring it, asking this question:

Has [the Muhammed-crisis] increased the distance between Moslem and non-Moslems in Denmark?

Of course it has, you silly twit! Censorship is not taken lightly by the Danes. A fact which I find it difficult to believe you haven’t noticed. And what’s with the “Moslems and non-Moslems”? Surely you mean Danish Moslems and Danes in general? Moslems aren’t the majority yet, you know… Or didn’t you have the courage to say “Moslems and Infidels”?

Talking about the cartoons, Asmaa says:

[…]the Prophet Muhammed - God’s peace and blessings be upon him - […]

That was just uncalled for. Fuck the Prophet and don’t use your religious language in a programme that’s financed by MY money where I’m paying part of your salary, you dumb bitch.

Something I noticed just after that, is that whenever the camera turns to Asmaa, she has a mocking little smile on her big cow-face.

At one point Karen Jespersen says that the whole thing was about fear of retaliation - that Jyllands-Posten was testing the limits of free speech because some people didn’t dare to draw Muhammed. This is a well-documented fact. Quoting Wikipedia:

On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline “Dyb angst for kritik af islam”[12] (”Profound fear of criticism of Islam”). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children’s book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (”The Qur’an and the prophet Muhammad’s life”). Three artists declined Bluitgen’s proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[12].

Asmaa obivously doesn’t do much homework, otherwise she wouldn’t have asked this question:

But wasn’t that something we discovered after the crisis erupted and not before the cartoons were drawn?

The rest of the programme is more or less a normal debate programme. Asmaa asks critical questions of Karen Jespersen where she does her best to try to prove that the poverty and the conditions in Moslem countries have nothing to do with Islam. She also asks whether the 24-year rule is reasonable - a subject we know her opinion on from my history of her political ‘career’. Adam asks question in the best tradition of leftist academics which are critical of the “tone” of the debate and at one time accuses Karen Jespersen of being kind-of-a-xenophobe because she isn’t a full-blood multiculturalist like he is.

The programme would have been very depressing had not the guest been Karen Jespersen who gives good answers to all the questions. My impression is that it is more of a court of multiculturalism and Islamophilia than it is a debate programme. If a leftist Moslem multiculturalist was invited to the studio, there wouldn’t be much to debate.

Natasja Crone: Good evening and welcome, Naser Khader.

Naser Khader: Good evening.

Natasja Crone: What happened the first time you heard about this clip where Akkari made the remarks we are about to see?

Naser Khader: I would like to emphasise this: I didn’t have a nervous breakdown. I didn’t go into hiding. But I needed a time-out. And that’s not so much because of what the ridiculous Akkari says that’s the problem. It was what came before. I was contacted by the French journalist who produced the programme who told me that this group, they hate me with a vengeance, that my name is mentioned every five minutes, that they’re conducting a massive smear campaign against me, not only in Denmark, but also in the Islamic world.

Natsja Crone: So he just called you up?

Naser Khader: Yes, and then he told me, before the programme was aired. But also the build-up to the airing of the programme, the day before, the media almost went on berserk. That made my family very worried, so I needed to withdraw, take a time-out and consider my situation.

Natasja Crone: But what were your thoughts when you heard this? When the things you describe happened in the media - the headlines, they’ll bomb you and so on. When did you make the decision, what were your thoughts?

Naser Khader: The threats, they’ve been there for several years. that was a factor. And the more threats I receive, the more limits are placed on my freedom. And I also had to consider my general position; is it a condition for the rest of my life that I’ll have to limit my Freedom of Movement? Is it also a condition for the rest of my family? They also experience pressure from people around them. The new thing is that now I’ve begun receiving unpleasant calls and so on from the Islamic world. All those things combined… By the way, in connection with the founding of Democratic Moslems I have been ‘on’ for several months, almost every day. I needed a time-out, a break. I haven’t had a minute to think things through.

Natasja Crone: what did you do? You say you had a need to.. What did you do?

Naser Khader: Well, together with my family I want far away and got some fresh air and began thinking things through. I also need to have my family on my side, because they’re also… There’s both support from my family but also concern. So the first couple of days I was mostly resigned, thinking ‘What now? - should I resign from politics?’ and then I thought that if I do, they’re gonna hate me anyway, no matter whether I stay on or resign. After a couple of days I started getting more and more angry. Now I’m simply so angry that I’m back in shape.

Natasja Crone: What does your family say about this?

Naser Khader: There is a lot of concern. I have the support of all members of my family, but they also experience a big pressure. They’re also punished because of me, and that’s disturbing. And not everyone in my family agree with me, yet they still experience annoyances, harrasment. If I was the only one who was targeted, it would be one situation. But when both my family and members of Democratic Moslems experience harassment, threats - we’ve seen examples of that recently. I ask: ‘What is our crime?’ Our crime is that we want to combine Islam and Modernity and Democracy and being Danish. I don’t see any crime in that, but some seem to do.

Natasja Crone: But about Akkari - the threat we saw in the French documentary was the drop that made the cup run over. But that cup is also filled with a lot of threats you’ve received for years. What kinds of threats do you receive? How do you feel this in your everyday life?

Naser Khader: Well it is… I won’t go into details about this, but it does leave marks when you’re told what people are going to do to you. It also leaves a mark when you’re an object of hate among certain groups. If only they could accept that my position is very different from theirs, but that isn’t the case. They’re organizing - the people who dislike me - organized, massive smear campaigns against me. It’s also on Arab websites. My address, which is supposed to be a secret, is also on Arab websites. Even my family in the Middle East have experienced some unpleasantries. I think that’s disturbing. Therefore, I have to take care not to be too egoistic, but also consider the welfare of my family.

Natasja Crone: These threats also mean that you live under constant Police protection. How does that work?

Naser Khader: That’s also a factor. The more threats, the more protection and the less freedom. That’s unpleasant. It’s unpleasant to have to constantly have to plan what to do. Just having to go and buy a litre of Milk needs to be planned. Just going to the movies with the kids, or to BR to buy some toys it has to be planned.

Natasja Crone: How many people come when you go to BR to buy toys?

Naser Khader: I won’t go into that, but it’s something that has to be planned. Before, I had protection when I went to certain places, to certain risk areas, but now it has entered my private sphere as well. It’s comforting to have protection and I am very pleased with it and the people who protect me are very professional, but it still makes me feel almost a prisoner. I think: what I’m fighting for is freedom, also freedom of movement for others but the more I fight for freedom, the smaller my own freedom gets and what I ask myself sometimes, especially when I get threatened, is if it’s a condition that I must accept or one which I should fight? Is it a condition of life? How long will this last? Will it get worse? That’s some of the things I have considered during that time.

Natasja Crone: In the French documentary which we saw a clip from before, there’s also another clip that worries you. A clip where it is mentioned that there are Salafists in the Islamic Faith Community. Let’s take a look at the clip.

[Clip from French Documentary “The Cartoons of Wrath” by Mohammed Sifaoui]

Abu Zachariah: The Moslems’ problem is that they’re too divided. Like in France there are 60 branches. I won’t mention all of them. But there’s the Salafists, the Jihadists, and so on.

Mohammed Sifaoui: Are you…

Abu Zachariah: We are Salafists. Moslem Brothers.

VOICE: Salafists, Moslem Brothers. This man confirms to us that Abu Laban’s Faith Community is among the most radical Islamist movements.

[Studio]

Natasja Crone: Naser Khader, please explain what this means, when he says that there are Salafists.

Naser Khader: Well, I didn’t see the programme when it was aired. I first saw it a couple of days ago. What shocked me the most wasn’t the threats directed at me, it was more what was said here.

Natasja Crone: And why does this shock you so?

Naser Khader: The man whose face we don’t see is Abu Zachariah, one of Abu Laban’s closest associates. He admits that they’re Salafists, of the Moslem Brotherhood, but Salafists. In short there are two kinds of Salafists. There’s the Wahabi-Salafists which include the Al-Qaeda movement and Osama bin Laden. They mean to achieve their goal through direct violence and terror. Then there’s the Brotherhood-Salafists - the ones he is talking about there - who admit that… their ideology is that they admit to being weak and therefore they don’t use violence, but what they do is that they play a double game. On one hand, they are obliging to society at large, but at the same time they have a hidden agenda that is to spread their faith, to educate and to influence young people to think like them, to embrace their ideology. I think that’s very worrying. Actually, that’s what worried me the most. I discovered that we have a number of Trojan Horses among us and that’s worrying.

Natasja Crone: I would like to add that we have confronted Ahmed Akkari with this and he denies that there’s a Moslem Brotherhood here in Denmark…

Ahmed Akkari: Well, then I don’t understand that Abu Laban’s closest associate is revealed… admits… he doesn’t admit, he’s revealed to be a Brotherhood-Salafist.

Natasja Crone: Would you say that Men like Ahmed Akkari and Abu Laban are dangerous?

Naser Khader: No, I don’t think… I wouldn’t say that they would directly encourage violence, but what we have to remember is that they are role models. There are many who look to them, also some semi- and fully psychopathic people. What we have to remember is that Van Gogh in the Netherlands… No Imams encouraged the killing of him…

Natasja Crone: Who is a director of documentaries…

Naser Khader: Exactly. What happened was that massive hate- and smear-campaigns were directed at him, that he was made all but lawless. He was called a rat - Abu Laban has called me a rat. And he was called an Islam-hater and things like that. That made a 25-year-old with a Moroccan background take matters into his own hands and become Allah’s self-appointed judge and jury.

Natasja Crone: So it’s also there that they participate in creating a situation. But they themselves say that much of this is part of the Arab rhetoric, that it shouldn’t be taken literally, that when there’s talk of a Martyr operation in this documentary, what’s meant is really to do one’s best. Do you see something there?

Naser Khader: They’re lying straight to our face. I have been an interpreter and a translator - i.a. here in Denmark’s Radio many years ago - and I know Arab rhetoric. I don’t think this can be excused with bombastic Arab rhetoric. I know bombastic Arab rhetoric. I’m flabbergasted when Abu Laban is in TV-Avisen’s studio, saying that four interpreters don’t understand Arabic. I know what’s rhetoric and what’s not. So it’s… Last week, the spokesman of the Islamic Faith Community Ahmed Garzen was here and he was sitting in my spot, saying that those remarks Ahmed Akkari made have consequences - he’s no longer going to be our spokesman. What I’m thinking is that if this was harmless and common Arab rhetoric, then why did those remarks have consequences?

Natasja Crone: Naser, we’ve asked if Akkari would like to come here today. You didn’t wish to meet him here in the studio, but we met him and he had a question for you.

[Ahmed Akkari on camera]

Ahmed Akkari: I would like to ask whether, he is aware that the things he say, it’s something… That he’s being used… there.

VOICE: How?

Ahmed Akkari: I think they’re being used to profile a larger critique, one-sided critique of Islam - spoken with his tongue - which isn’t balanced.

VOICE: So what you’re saying is that Anders Fogh or the Danish People’s Party are using Naser Khader?

Ahmed Akkari: There’s certainly some who might have an interest in Naser Khader only focusing critically on the errors his Moslem Brothers and Sisters have.

[Studio]

Natasja Crone: What is your response to this? That you’re being used in a game and tha….

Naser Khader: It’s obvious… I’m just so tired of their conspiracy theories. There are some who are using somebody else… You know what? I’m an independent, critical individual who knows my own mind. Nobody’s using me. Nobody’s telling me what to think. My opinions are mine. And moreover, what I think is also found in the Arab world. Notice the debate programmes on the Arab satellite channels… Al Jazeera. There people who have never been to Denmark and who don’t know Anders Fogh and Pia Kjærsgaard, who are saying the same things I do. They’re also critical of the Islamists. I think I’m acting in the best interest of the majority of Moslems by isolating the Islamists, the Salafists and saying that the majority of Moslems in Denmark have behaved themselves properly during the Muhammed-conflict. It’s not here we’ve seen burnings of Danish flags. It’s people who want to be integrated, it’s people who want to be part of Danish society but there are people who want to create an us-them. And they expound on things that almost make me vomit, conspiracies. Some are using some. When things happen it’s the fault of others. I’m tired of it.

Natasja Crone: But it’s an extreme contrast, because while you are hated and seen as a traitor in some Moslems millieus, you’ve never been more popular with the voters, all polls show. How do you feel about that?

Naser Khader: Well, I’m pleased by the support I’ve received, but I realise that there are some… If Akkari and his peers start supporting me and agree with me, I’ll start worrying. So I recognise it as a condition that we disagree and I have no problems with people being fundamentalists and literal and choose to lead a boring life. That’s one’s own concern. What I see as a problem is that they try directly or indirectly to make others live as they do. That’s what I don’t like.

Natasja Crone: The proselytizing way they do…

Naser Khader: Yes, exactly. I’m not… Recently A4, the weekly newsletter A4, did a survey that showed that 16% of Moslems feel that I represent them. I’m pleased with that. That’s more than support the Social Liberals in Denmark. So if 16% of the Moslems are Socially Liberal fanatical Democrats, I’m very happy.

Natasja Crone: Briefly, you’ve said today that you want to be Minister for Integration - is that your final goal?

Naser Khader: If you’d asked me a year ago, I would have said no. That policy area is nothing but trouble. But the fact that they see me becoming Minister for Integration as a nightmare, as worrying, makes me think that if that’s their problem, then my one goal from now on, in the short run, is to become Minister for Integration. If that’s their fear, I’ll give it to them. I’ll do everything to become Minister for Integration.

Natasja Crone: Thank you very much.

This article appeared in Berlingske Tidende on Sunday, April 2nd, 2006. It’s a long interview with Naser Khader where he ouitlines his thoughts on the Danish Imams and their extremist organisations and how to counter them as a democratic Moslem.

“We are Facing an Incognizable Enemy from Within”
By Jesper Larsen

Much of Naser Khader’s time is currently spent in his office where newspapers are cluttered about and books line the walls from floor to ceiling. The literature is diverse - everything from the Koran and other holy books to Anne Vibeke-Holst and that sort of thing.

[Note: Anne Vibeke-Holst is a paperback writer. Mushy stuff.]

His bodyguards from the Police Intelligence Service are constantly within reach and follow him 24 hours a day. Recently an advertising distributor who was confused and semi-suspiciously going to and fro on the sidewalk, carrying ads for a new pizza place felt this. He was detained immediately.

“My family felt it. My wife Bente said that I sometimes repeated myself and talked nonsense. I am constantly tense. When we’re out of the house, I am almost paranoid and just want to get back home. But I know I have protection and that does make me feel safer. The thing is though, that I feel I am wearing manacles.”

Naser Khader turns to face the computer and goes to the website of Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke and enters a special chatroom about Moslem youths’ lives.

[Note: Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke is a cross-cultural cooperation organisation. Literally translated: Cooperation between Peoples. The website referred to is probably this: http://ungdomsliv.dk/]

“Look at this, see the hate,” he says and in quick succession reads from several postings: “Naser Khader is a pig, I hate Naser Khader, fucking hypocrite, he should be trampled to death, Naser Khader doesn’t care about us other Moslems.”

He closes the website where much more of the same kind can be read.

“Even on a website as harmless as that I am smeared massively, even by school-children. And that’s my point, that we are dealing with extremist Imams who defer from encouraging violence and terror. But when Abu Laban e.g. says that I am a rat - why does he say that, why doesn’t he say that I am a pig? It’s because rats are exterminated. An Imam in the south of Jutland said that those who hate Naser Khader will go to paradise. The Imams do not directly encourage violence and terror - but when they focus their hate on a single person, it can have serious consequences. The same thing happened to Van Gogh - no Imams in the Netherlands said he should be killed. But the organized hatred was so massive that he was made an outlaw and in the end someone killed him independently.”

So it’s the psychopath you fear?

“Yes. If you take a look at some of the people in the entourage of some of the Imams, they’re short-cropped psychopaths, they remind me of Nazis.”

How does your family feel the pressure?

“My niece went to an Arab wedding where several people walked out because she was related to the traitor. My nephew was apprenticed to a Pakistani mechanic - when he found out I was his uncle, he was fired. My mother receives calls from the Middle East where she is told what will be done to me and the family.”

What?

“All kinds of things, I won’t go into details. But I’m not the only target, my extended family is also a target.”

Are you afraid that the threats will be acted upon?

“Yes.”

What are your thoughts about that?

“I have asked myself many times: What is my crime, what did I do? My crime is to say that I want to combine Islam and Democracy. That is what some see as a crime. Now the Imams are saying that with the Muhammed-affair they have put limits on how much Islam and Moslems can be offended. They think the Danes have been taught a lesson. I say that founding Democratic Moslems has acted as a lightning rod which has helped hinder a smear campaign and lynch-justice against Moslems in Denmark. That is also the impression I get from my emails, that now it is clear that Moslems are different.”

Double-dealing and Brain Washing

Naser Khader goes online again, this time to search for some material about the Imam conference in Bahrain last week where both Abu Laban and Ahmed Akkari where delegates. He finds a photograph of the Council of Fatwas for Europe, chaired by a certain Professor Youssouf al-Qardawi.

“The ones who arranged the conference in Bahrain, that is, amongst others, al-Qardawi - him, that’s him,” says Naser Khader and points to the image. “It’s him who talked about the Friday of Wrath, it’s him who said the Moslem wrath must strike Denmark. Al-Qardawi was among the first to issue a fatwa justifying the killing of innocents for purposes of Jihad. We’re seeing the consequences of that in Iraq where innocent civilians are slaughtered. Al-Qardawi helps decide how to be a Moslem in the West. With the others he issues fatwas about how women should work, fatwas against fraternisation between the sexes, fatwas against Moslems working in banks because they collect interest. And al-Qardawi also organises a conference which the Danish Imams were delegates to. I have realised that they have a very strong international network.”

Naser Khader sees al-Qardawi et al. as Salafists - a very intolerant branch of Islam. They aren’t just Islamists and several of the Danish Imams are Salafists, he thinks.

“There are two kinds of Salafists. One is the Wahabi-Salafists, which includes people like Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network and then there are the Salafists of the Moslem Brotherhood. Salafism means to go back and live life like it was lived at the time of the Prophet. The bin Laden-salafists are for global Jihad using terror as the means. The Brotherhood-Salafists acknowledge the weak position of Moslems at the moment and therefore discourage violence. Their means are to educate, spread the faith and gain control of Moslem societies. They think Sharia should be the law where Moslems live. That means that that youth thing is actually the consequence of that education, where they refer to quotes from the Koran and are in the process of being brainwashed,” he says referring to the homepage from Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke.

“What is significant about both kinds of Salafists is that they have embraced the concept that as long as you’re weak, it is acceptable to be double-dealing. That was what shocked me most, that some Danish Imams are salafists. Salafists hate everybody who’s not like them, they are also against other Moslems. And especially secular Moslems and Moslems who want to combine Islam and Democracy.”

We Need to Wake Up

Naser Khader thinks that they and only they should be the matter of concern - the Salafists. The Muhammed-affair is neither about the government’s handling of the issue or about immigration policies.

“Maybe we should investigate who should have met who and so on, that may be. But I think that we should be careful that it doesn’t distract us from what is the real issue. The real issue is to strengthen the integration and it’s about the fact that we have some Trojan Horses among us. The Salafists. And they worry me sick.”

You don’t want to talk more about that investigation?

“I don’t want to talk about that investigation because it distracts from what it’s really about. We’re facing an incognizable enemy from within. That’s why we need to be united in the fight against this enemy. But I would like to make it clear that I am a fanatical Democrat. I don’t want Ministers to abuse their power and not inform the parliament - all that needs to be in order. That said, there’s something more important than that. We need to wake up. We are dealing with an enemy within who is more dangerous than you can imagine. I recently realised that.”

And Salafism isn’t about the Government’s immigration policies either?

“Salafism has nothing to do with the Government’s immigration policies. Salfists are present in the Netherlands and Spain too - the ones who blew up themselves in Madrid were Salafists too. The Salafists try to maintain pressure and in my opinion they are the ones who are responsible for the Muhammed-conflict. It might be true that the way our allies act, the lack of support from the other Eu-countries and the US, it might have something to do with our immigration policies, I won’t reject that notion out of hand. But this is about something much bigger than that. Consider the Egyptian Ambassador to Denmark, who’s a Christian by the way. She said that the main culprit is Naser Khader. Because when he said that he disagreed with the Islamic Faith Community, an apology had almost been imposed on the Danish Government. He split the Moslems - so a hidden agenda was most certainly present. There was a fight about who would command the Moslems in Denmark and the West. They used the cartoons as an excuse in that fight.”

I want to be Minister for Integration

What is your opinion of the general attitude towards the Muhammed-affair in your party?

“I am worried about the general lack of knowledge of what we are dealign with - and that is true for the political system in general. Ask people in Christiansborg if they know the Salafists. In all parties - not just my own - there is a desperate naivity and lack of knowledge in regard to the Salafists and the threat we are facing. This disturbs me.”

[Note: Christiansborg is the Danish Parliament Building]

How does what has happened affect the integration in Denmark - the large majority are neither Islamists or Salafists?

“No, they’re not. That is what we need to remember always and that is why we need to stop talking about ‘the Moslems’ - the Salafists hate the majority of Moslems who aren’t like them. The problem is that they wield a lot of power. There are 100 Imams in Denmark but only five or six are prominent.”

And that’s the Salafists?

“it’s been revealed that they are Salafists. Thay have hidden agendas. Them going to a conference arranged by a man like that — really… Who bankrolls them, by the way? You can’t go to a conference like that in Bahrain for less than 30,000 DKK. Where does that money come from?”

I think the theory is that the Muhammed-affair has been good for certain Imams because they’ve shown that they’re really fighting for the Prophet up here and that that has yielded them economic support from elsewhere?

“Yes, they receive a lot of support. They’re also backed by totalitarian regimes with their own agenda. That’s also why they fear me becoming Minister for Integration.”

They do?

“Yes, that’s why Akkari talks about someone blowing me up. If I’d been asked six months ago, I would have said no, I don’t have the energy. Now I only have one goal and that’s to become Minister for Integration.”

Why?

“Because I am their worst nightmare. Because I understand them, because I know their ideology and their agendas. I know how to resist them and I understand the various connections. That’s the first. The second is that concrete initiatives are needed to really turn on the switch for the majority of Moslems who are marginalised, unemployed and unintegrated. One of the most important things is to unite them and all other Danes under the flag of some common values. I think that’s more important than standing around throwing rocks at each other, calling each other sheeps, goats and dangerous.”

You say that the goal now is to become Minister for Integration, that that’s the most important thing for you…”

“Yes.”

…yet the prospects for the Social Liberals joining a coalition government seem remote?

“I can tell from the polls that there is a possibility for a majority consisting of the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Social Liberals. That chance at pulling the government in the right direction mustn’t be missed. I think there’s a strong backing for this view - also among the Liberals and the Conservatives. I think that this possibility is more realistic than the possibility of a government consisting of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. Three quarters of the emails I receive are from people who don’t understand me being a Social Liberal. As one says, it’s been impossible to understand up till now how to combine Islam and Democracy. He’s understood that now, but he doesn’t udnerstand how I can be a Social Liberal.

Naser Khader laughs in a disarming way and shows some other emails.

“Hi Naser Khader! When I vote I usually vote for the Danish People’s Party, but if I promise to vote for you, will you promise me to stay on in Danish politics?”

Don’t worry, Naser Khader will stay.

“Once I was very racist and voted for Jonni Hansen (NOTE: Nazi) for local elections because of people such as Abu Laban and Ahmed Akkari,” another email says. “It’s nice to know that Democratic Moslems exist and I will join the support organisation immediately. It’s way cool that you’ve tatooed Democracy in Arabic, in case you should run into one of the Imams.”

Naser Khader nods.

“I see myself as a Classic Social Liberal. And I very much feel a connection with the original spirit of the party. And that’s why I think that what I represent is pure radicalism (NOTE: See note at top). That is what the Social Liberals have been known for and they have been frontline soldiers in the fight against blind religiousity and against intolerance. They’ve been frontline soldier for Democracy and the Rule of Law. As Søren Bald says, take a look a this,” says Naser Khader and shows a short note from the Chairman of the Social Liberals.

“Dear cousin. It’s an extraordinary pleasure to see that the strongest and the best values of the Social Liberals, centered about Freedom of Speech, Democracy and Secularism are represented by one man who has come to both Denmark and the Social Liberals from without but who in such an elegant way has understood what Democracy is about. A man who doesn’t want to implicate all kinds of pseudo-considerations into the substance of Free Formation of Opinions and real Freedom of Speech. It’s an honor for the Social Liberals that this man has come to us as his party of choice.”

The words of the chairman have been pinned to the wall in Naser Khaders office

Have you ever considered changing your party?

“Why should I change my party? I am a Social Liberal and I think that what I do is in keeping with the radical spirit of the Social Liberals.”

Well, the question wants to be asked when you aim to be Minister for Integration while disagreeing with your party. What would you do if Anders Fogh Rasmussen calls you up this Monday and asks you to be his Minister for Integration?

“It can’t be done - something like that would be possible in the US, for the Republican president to appoint a Democrat to be a Minister, but it can’t be done in Denmark.”

Why not?

“We don’t live in the US”

Okay..?

“To be honest, the matter of integration is in need of us going beyond calling each other sheeps, goats and dangerous. It’s simply that which I feel - people need unity, cooperation and in the end, some form of national, bi-partisan agreement. It’s more important than party politics.”

And you say that you resist the Islamists because you know them?

“Yes, they need to get the thing they fear. They are the greatest enemy of integration, they are greater enemies of integration than the Danish People’s Party. The Danish People’s Party are nothing compared to them. But it’s not enough to resist them - it’s also important to do something real for the integration. Look at the cooperation the Democratic Moslems have with employers - it shows that it can be done.”

It’s become an advantage to be a Democratic Moslem?

“Yes, to take an example, there’s a bank that has contacted us and said that they would like 50-100 new apprentices from the Immigrants’ millieu and we help them get them. As the leader of the Democratic Moslems I have had meetings with some of the biggest Danish companies who want to contribute. The fact that we have shown ourselves to be democrats means that we meet greater understanding. We’re also planning to do job-sites on our website. Before the Muhammed-conflict, employers were worried that employing Moslems would be problematic. But now we can tell the sheep from the goats among the Moslems.”

Do you think you’ll be Minister?

“I will turn down all other offers.”

Until it happens?

“Yes, I want to clean the place up. Because that’s what they fear the most because so much swindling, cheating and humbug is going on.”

Agrees with Fogh: Less religion

What kind of support have you received?

“The many thousands of letters from citizens have touched me deeply. And I have also received a lot of support from fellow politicians. Marianne Jelved (Note: Leader of the Social Liberals) has called, she was very worried. And it also impressed me that Fogh, in the middle of last week’s EU-summit, called me and spent half an hour supporting me. He caught me on my cell phone - all I said was that I needed some breathing space to reconsider my priorities. I didn’t say that I wanted to leave politics.”

So you didn’t consider leaving politics, you were thinking of the opposite, to become a Minister?

“Yes, and I mean it. That is my goal. It may be that some won’t like it. But I am my own best advisor, because I have a project for life now and that is to fight those intolerant Islamists. I am so tired of them -they and their big beards make me want to vomit and then they issue a fatwa that you can’t shave. Many of the refugees from Iran fled those things - and then we have to face it here again. Their goal is to impose Sharia on Moslems in the West. And the motto of the Salafists is - and in Arabic it sounds almost poetic: Allah is our goal, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way and death as a martyr our highest aspiration. That’s the motto and that’s why they need to be fought to last fucking Democrat.”

Is it out of the question to make the Democratic Moslems a political party?

“Yes.”

Why?

“The political is not the primary thing in the Democratic Moslems. On the board are people from several different parties. The primary goal is to spread Democracy among Moslems. And to do everything to draw away the marginalised Moslems from the Islamists and to include them in Danish society. That’s also why I don’t like defining myself by my religion - I agree with Fogh that religion has too big a place in the public space and I disagree totally with Haarder’s wish for more religion. So, no, Democratic Moslems will not become a political party. Even though I am sometimes frustrated, I feel more at home with the Social Liberals. I have been a member for 22 years and I feel that my actions are in keeping with spirit of the brothers Brandes and Hørup.”

NEWS ANCHOR: After ten days in hiding because of threats on his life the leader of the Democratic Moslems, Naser Khader, today for the first time appeared in public. It happened at the organisation’s annual general meeting. Heavily guarded, he was interviewed by TV-Avisen.

VOICE: Noone, not even the nicest ladies, could escape being searched if they wanted to enter the Democratic Moslems’ annual general meeting. This was to protect the leader, Naser Khader, who right now is one of the most threatened persons in Denmark.

Naser Khader: It’s unpleasant to be threatened. It makes you feel very bad. Especially when your family is included and I think it’s okay to take a breather to consider your position. You can only understand how it’s like if you’ve tried it. It’s very hard to illustrate how hard it can be.

VOICE: Khader withdrew from the public eye after it was revealed ten days ago that Imam Ahmed Akkari made this remark, which could be interpreted as a threat on his life.

AKKARI: If he becomes Minister for Foreigner or Integration, won’t people appear who will blow up him and his ministry?

Naser Khader: I’m mad at the anti-democrats who try to shut people up whose only crime is to want to combine Democracy and Islam. I’m very mad. Now they’re going to get a fight. To the finish line.

Naser Khader: I’ve just been in need of a time-out to think things through and to make sure I have the support of my family, because all my family members have experienced the pressure. My sister feels unsafe living where she does because of my opinions and she and I aren’t of the same opinion.

[Naser Khader looks up, his voice almost breaks]

Naser Khader: And it’s things like that which I had to consider with my family. But I have received my family’s support to continue the fight. And I will.

Segment about threats against Democratic Moslems.
Link to clip.

NEWS ANCHOR: Several members of the Democratic Moslems organisation have been threatened on their lives and harassed. A member of the board is so frightened that she is considering to resign.

VOICE: Wissam Muhanna is a member of the board of the Democratic Moslems organisation. For that, he has received threats.

Wissam Muhanna: Some have said to me: It only costs one knife and you’ll be finished, leaving no trace.

Interviewer: A threat on your life, in other words?

Wissam Muhanna: A threat on my life, yes.

VOICE: Threats have also been made by phone.

Wissam Muhanna: I have received telephone calls where someone says: You’ll get your punishment, don’t worry.

VOICE: The threats frightened Wissam Muhanna to the point where he decided to live in hiding for a while.

Wissam Muhanna: I went into hiding for a while. I also have a wife and kids and they need me. But I want to say this: I’ll continue on in Democratic Moslems.

Yildiz Akdogan: One of our board members has been threatened because she decided to become an active member of our organisation.

Fathi el-Abed: She’s been spit on and she has been asked day after day about what she thinks she is doing, whether she’s a Moslem or not and also that she might not find it comfortable living where she does.

VOICE: The female board member does not wish to have her picture or her name publicised and she is now considering leaving the board.

Interviewer: Have you reported this to the police?

Wissam Muhanna: They’re investigating and I can’t say more than that.

VOICE: The threats are making the democratic Moslems stand firm in solidarity.

Yildiz Akdogan: It’s certainly not going to make anybody - neither me or any of the others - resign.

Jamilla Jaffer: It only shows that this is needed and that we need to stand firm. They’re not going to frighten us.

Wissam Muhanna: If I stop, if the others stop, how are we then going to show our Democracy in this country the good side of Islam?

Commentary about the atmosphere of the Democratic Moslems’ annual general meeting.
Link to clip.

NEWS ANCHOR: The meeting is still in progress at Parken in Copenhagen. Our reporter Claus Buhr is there. Claus, luckily it is very unusual with a meeting where threats of murder have been made against several of the participant. How has this affected the mood of the meeting?

Claus Buhr: The primary effect has been that there are fewer participants than was imagined. Some of those who wanted to come have called the organizers and said that they simply dare not come. Apart from that, we’ve all been searched going in and the Police Intelligence Service is out in force. It’s not so that you notice them particularly, but they’re here and there’s quite a few of them. Body searches and the presence of the Police Intelligence Service is rather unusual for something as normally boring as a general annual meeting.

NEWS ANCHOR: There’s been a lot of attention directed at Naser Khader as we see. How has the police strengthened the security surrounding him?

Claus Buhr: I would say that Khader at present is better protected than the Prime Minister and Queen Margrethe. There is a number - more than two - security guards near him. E.g. when he arrived here at Parken, it was secret by which entrance he arrived, when he arrived and how he arrived. Rather unusual for a mere member of parliament. The threat against him is estimated by the Police Intelligence Service to be directed not only at him but also against his family, his children. He is considered by the Police Intelligence Service to be one of the most threatened persons in Denmark at the moment.

NEWS ANCHOR: That was Claus Buhr in Parken in Copenhagen. In the programme ‘Søndag’ tomorrow evening you can see Naser Khader in a long interview about the death threats and his thoughts about leaving Danish politics entirely.

Related posts:
A Prize Immigrant
Danish Imam Abu Laban knew about planned Martyr operation
Danish Imam Ahmed Akkari: Kill Naser Khader
Ahmed Akkari: Latest News

Danish Moslems: Arise and Protest

Feature article from Politiken, April 1st, 2006
By Ibrahim Ramadan

My religion is threatened in this country.

Not because I am a part of a Moslem minority in a Christian country. Not for lack of Mosques. And not by the Danish People’s Party and their stereotypical depiction of Moslems.

My religion is threatened by people who claim to belong to the same faith as I do. Threatened by organisations such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and by people such as Ahmed Akkari, Abu Laban and Raed Hlayhel who all claim to work to spread the word of God. In reality, they’re working towards another goal entirely - to control what other Moslems should believe, think and do.

Some Moslems in Denmark have accepted the Danish Imams’ words and take strong exception to Naser Khader. They think he has sold out the Arab cultural heritage and that he’s shed Moslem values to become accepted by the Danes.

But what few Moslems in Denmark understand is that Naser Khader more than any other works to ensure that we qua Moslems are seen as assets and aren’t looked down upon as a problem in Denmark.

Is it really so heretical when Naser Khader dares say that to achieve that, we Moslems must embrace Democracy and Freedom of Speech and that it must mean that we reconsider some things in our cultural and religious background.

Lately this had some inhuman consequences for Naser Khader and his family. Some fanatical fellow Moslems have tried to threaten him into silence because they would rather not have other Moslems critically analyze the context in which our religion is seen.

But it’s time that we - the great silent majority of Moderate Moslems in Denmark - let our voice be heard and take our watch as champions of Democracy. We can’t let Naser Khader carry that burden by himself.

Because what we are witnessing at this moment in Denmark, of all things resembles most an inquisition, one which doesn’t leave out much from the horrors the unorthodox thinkers of the Christian world had to go through during the Middle Ages. In the year 2006, Moslems who don’t approve of authoritarian Islam are condemned as heretics with no right to call themselves Moslems.

Many of those who like Naser Khader champion the idea of integration of Islam and Moslems are marked by co-religionists as bad Moslems. But how did we freethinking Moslems allow this to happen?

“Read!”, was the first word of God which was revealed to the prophet Muhammed in the 7th century. But what we as Moslems do in the 21st century is the direct opposite.

Instead we turn off our brains and let ourselves be dictated to by people who call themselves religious scholars and who claim that only their interpretation of Islam is the right one.

What they omit to say out loud is that they have another agenda: to transform our religion into a political movement. The French documentary about the Danish Imams proved to be a frightening example of that.

As Moslems in Denmark we have a unique opportunity which isn’t given to our Brothers and Sisters in most of the Islamic world. We have every opportunity to get an education. For free. We’re even being paid to educate ourselves.

There is therefore no excuse in Denmark for not using the opportunities we have to seek knowledge. Here we are allowed critical questions and here we have a constitutionally secured right to speak our mind.

If we don’t use that opportunity - well, we’ll be doing the opposite of what god dictated to us. And that makes our future prospects frightening.

Not only will that entail that we as Moslems close in around ourselves, isolate ourselves from the society in which we live and passively let ourselves be led in chains back to the Dark Ages. It will also entail that we increasingle will be hated because of the words and actions which are practiced in the name of Islam without protests from us.

Naser Khader has long been a single lighthouse, leading the way in the dark, while many of us who either came by ourselves or are descendants of those who came here looking for a better life for too long have acted as if Democracy and Freedom are a matter of course which places no demands on our persons.

But its time for us Moslems to choose sides. Do we want to live in this country with all that that entails of Freedoms, opportunities and Rights - or do we really want that the intolerance, the dictatorship and the limitation of the personal freedom which we have left must also be part of our lives in the country we’ve come to?

If the latter is the case, we must take the consequence and go home the the poor neighborhoods, the refugee camps or the persecution which most of us left but which many - of both the first and the second generation - apparently have a tendency to remember in a softer light.

But if the former is the case, if we as Moslems really want this country and its principles, we’ll have to wholeheartedly and unambigously say, in a way which will leave noone in doubt, that those who speak for intolerance and fundamentalism have only a small following among Moslems in Denmark.

I clearly remember my time at the University of Cairo in the 1980s. Then there was also a small group of Islamists who tried to terrorise all of us who had an ordinary, relaxed attitude to the religion. Islamists crashed parties, destroying everything because there was music and dancing. Young men and women who were seen holding hands were beaten, humiliated and portrayed as amoral. And those who who dared criticise the actions of the Islamist students were beaten brutally.

At the end of the 80s and the start of the 90s, the Islamists took to more drastic measures. Primitive nail-bombs in the metro, in cafés and outside schools in Cairo.

Innocent children, women and men were were killed and mutilated. They were almost all of them Moslems. But for the Islamists, the goal sanctified the means and the killing of innocents was the price to pay to overthrow the ‘infidel’ governments of the Middle East in favor of the ‘true’ Islamic state.

In the years following, the Islamists’ fight was escalated to a head-on confrontation with the intellectuals who dared speak out against them. The chairman of the Egyptian parliament was mowed down with a machine gun. He had worked dilligently to modernise the Egyptian divorce laws, which had till then been run by the Sharia principle.

The aging Egyptian nobel prize winner of literature, Nagib Mafouz, was stabbed in the street. He had dared speak against fundamentalism in his hard-hitting columns.

The writer Faraq Fouda was shot dead outside his office. In books and in a debate programme he had dared suggest seperating church and state in Egypt.

The argument the Islamists made in all three cases was that they were apostates or bad Moslems who deserved death for their heretical thoughts.

We, the majority, who opposed the Islamists strongly, chose to stay silent. We bowed our heads and went about our lives out of fear of suffering the same fate. But we were many who had clouded consciences because we didn’t speak up in time.

While the Islamists were spewing hate, violence, fear and chaos, their organisations ran and organised a number of charities, free clinics, feeding the poor, school projects in blighted neighbourhoods and more. Projects which helped where the government failed and created an enormous amount of goodwill among the poorest and least educated.

But Islamism always has two faces - a mild and caring one which claims to be the protector of the poor and the true guardian of Islam and another, which in ideological phrases open to interpretation preach hate and violence, murder for the infidels and the overthrow of existing society.

That is why it is uncanny to see that the same methods employed by the Islamists in the Middle East in the 1980s and which were used to spread terror in the United States, in Madrid and in London are also being used by Imams here in Denmark.

They’re speaking with forked tongues - on one hand, the impression is conveyed that all they want to do is help those who can’t help themselves. On the other, thunderous hate speeches and calls for defending the Prophet, Islam and the Moslems in terms that by the wrong kind of people can easily be seen as a call for Holy War and killings, securing the high status of Martyr.

But the most uncanny thing is that the same unwillingness to stand up and protest this abuse of the religion which I saw in the Egypt of my youth, is predominant among the majority of Moslems in Denmark today.

The Imams who went to the Middle East with the single purpose of arousing the wrath of the Islamic World under cover of defending the Prophet have too long been allowed to be seen as representing the Moslem majority and portray all who disagree with them as deviants.

Naser Khader and the people who’ve supported his union of Democratic Moslems are generally spoken of by these Imams and their supporters as bad Moslems, as rats, as apostates, even atheists who one should warn one’s children, friends and co-religionists against associating with.

To be an apostate is one of the worst things to be in Islam. Something which is comparable to a brand, which gives every true Moslem the right to murder the apostate. So accusing the protesting moderate Moslems of being apostates is a method which makes most keep their protests low profile.

Several members of Democratic Moslems have received death threats, have been spit upon by Moslem ‘brothers’ and have been threatened to be excluded from their Moslem communities if they don’t distance themselves from Naser Khader and the cause he champions. And in the long run, the most dangerous thing about the Muhammed crisis is the consequences it will have for how we as Moslems associate with each other and our fellow Danish citizens in the future.

It’s hard to explain to people who haven’t lived in the Middle East how liberating it is to live in a country such as Denmark. A country where you’re free to say whatever you like, read whatever you like, act however you like, believe whatever you like and join any organisation or party with no repercussions for your life, career or family. But some seem to want to deny us Moslems that right and therefore we must now stand together and denounce these Men of Darkness.

The vast majority of us, the almost 200,000 Moslems in Denmark, have a relaxed and moderate attitude to our religion. Most of us have been passively observing during the Muhammed crisis, many have - rightly so - felt offended by the cartoons’ defamation of the Prophet. But few have realised that it isn’t the caricatures but those who have wielded them as a lever who threaten our religion.

It time for us to choose our sides. Will we as Moslems silently keep accepting that a herd of power-hungry people have taken Islam and the World as fearsome hostages? Or do we want to take back our religion and our right to practice it and live in peace and harmony with the surrounding world?

Our Prophet is not diminished by a handful of caricatures. But we are diminished and crippled as human beings by the hate the fanatics have tried to instill into us as a consequence of the cartoons.

The tone of the immigration debate may be hard and degrading. But have we ourselves done enough to abolish the stereotypical image of Islam as a religion of hate and the image of Moslems as people who have no wish to integrate into and much less accept the West which is persecuting us?

To become accepted and integrated in this country first and foremost demands that we as Moslems must stop pretending we are victims. Though we may be the victims of prejudices, they are prejudices which some Moslems by their behaviour have helped create and they are prejudices which all the rest of us with our passivity and lack of protests have helped keep alive.

The image of Moslems we thus help solidify is far worse than anything the Danish People’s Party have ever said.

To do well in Denmark has as a precondition that the rules of the land are supported - to educate yourself and play an active role in the community and the debate and to not only take from, but also give something back to society.

And to do that, you can’t just watch from the sidelines when someone tries to reintroduce the abrogation of our personal freedom and our freedom of speech which I think all of us left behind with a sigh of relief in the countries we once considered home.

There’s only one solution for us Moslems — use the first words that were revealed by God to the Prophet: Read! Study, be critical and take exception to those who abuse Islam.

And get out of your couch, participate actively in the Democracy because it’s not something that is just given to you along with your Danish passport. Support Naser Khader as the man who is guarantor of us and our children living as an accepted and appreciated part of this country in the future. Help make sure that our children in the future with pride in their voices can say that they are Moslems.

As Moslems we have to loudly insist that religion for us is also a personal matter between ourselves and our God. It’s not the job of any earthly being to go around with a ruler, measuring who are bad and who are good Moslems.

That measurement only God can make on the day of judgement, where all of us will answer for our deeds.

DR Nyheder (from Arabic): “If he becomes the Minister for Foreigners or… Minister for Integration or for Foreigners… won’t two men come and blow up him and his Ministry?”
TV2 (subtitles, from Arabic): “If he becomes Minister for Integration, I wonder if two men won’t go and blow up him his Ministry?”
TV2 (from French): “If he becomes Minister for Integration, oughtn’t there be two who paid him a visit and blew up him and his Ministry?”
Jyllands-Posten(presumably from French): “If he becomes the Minister for Foreigners or Integration, oughtn’t one send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?”
Ekstra-Bladet (incorrect headline): “Why don’t we blow up Nader?”

Finally, from the latest interview with Mohammed Sifaoui in Politiken:

I wonder if a couple of men oughn’t to go see if one can blow him up…

Personally, I tend to think the French journalist got it right - he reports that he used three different Arab translators from Lebanon, which is where Ahmed Akkari is from. Akkari clearly (in jest or otherwise) considers Naser Khader such a menace that he wouldn’t mind if he was blown up.

That out of the way, the latest news in Ahmed Akkari’s case is this:

Saturday, March 25 in the 22:30 edition of the Deadline programme on DR, Ahmed Akkari was interviewed about the case. Having finished a repeat of his non-excuse for calling for the death of a Danish elected parliamentarian, the interview proceeded:

INTERVIEWER: What are you ging to do - you’ve already done something - but what more do you want to do to reassure Naser Khader?
AKKARI: I think I am going to write a letter and address it to him personally - more in person than the open letter I’ve written. But people need not worry about this unproportionally and turn it into more than it is. Any person can, under some conditions, say saomething that one doesn’t have intent of doing or mean in the same way. It was presented in the studio as if I am saying tyhat someone should go get him, but I think what I perhaps thought or expressed was that if he gets that ministry, if he isn’t going to get enough problems with what will follow from that in the form of critique. That may have been said in a way that was very unfortunate and which has resulted in this.
INTERVIEWER: I’d like to know — Earlier today I talked to Fati el-Abed who is a cofounder of Democratic Moslems - he is functioning as a kind of spokesman for Naser Khader who right now has chosen to not talk to the press. I want you to hear what Fati el-Abed said:
Fati el-Abed: Naser Khader has does not wish - at all - to speak to Imam Akkari. Neither now nor later. The dangerous about Imam Akkari’s remarks is twofold: First, that it is not the first time he wishes for something like that. We don’t think this, we know this. Secondly, that he is influential, many look to him [for leadeship], many listen to him and that is why it is dangerous. And I hope he knows that.
INTERVIEWER: Ahmed Akkari, that was three significant items. One, that Naser Khader doesn’t want to know of you, he doesn’t want you to contact him. Two, that you, apparently, on an earlier occasion said something that Naser Khader sees as threatening. Three, that you have bigger influence - so he says - than many Danes know of, in the Moslem community. What say you?
AKKARI: About item number one, it is of course his choice. I only did it to try to reassure him.
INTERVIEWER: So you can live with the fact that Naser Khader wishes to have no contact with you?
AKKARI: Easily. I don’t think I will become more different.. or that something happens. It’s only for his sake, because I’ve heard he is depply shaken by something he need not be shaken about. About item number two, I haven’t heard about. You’re welcome to give me something to refresh my memory about this. About the last item, I would like to say that if Fati thinks people look to me [for leadership], and listen to me, I would like to say clearly that both for now and later, now that I have the chance, that I call for everyone to both not say such things [as I said], whether it be in jest or in earnest and we have nothing against saying that we have made an error. We aren’t holy men, come to earth to pass judgement. We are people just as everybody else. We have a role to play in a special situation to help people as Imams. But it’s OK to say that you’ve made a mistake and that people shouldn’t follow you in your errors.
INTERVIEWER: That remark, no matter how you interpret it, which you did make, was interpreted as if you don’t, at all, like a person such as Naser Khader. How do you view him? Is he dangerous for Islam?
AKKARI: No, we disagree with Naser Khader on very many points [of policy] and very many Moslems say “what is this? Why don’t we make a mass demonstration to show who our real champions are, here in Denmark.” So it’s one thing to disagree, it’s another thing entirely to be for violence. We’ve prosecuted this case through our lawyer, we’ve prosecuted it through the courts of law and through the political, you see? We wrote a letter to the Minister for Culture at the outset. And that shows that we understand perfectly who we are addressing in this cartoon affair, and I don’t think we are for any kind of violence. But allow me to point out in this context that it is really too bad that the only stories that are shown, when we finally get to see some stories about this, is stories like this one. We’ve just been to the conference in Bahrain….
INTERVIEWER: We’ll return to that. I just want you to answer in short: Is Naser Khader dangerous for Islam?
AKKARI: I don’t fell he is dangerous for Islam because Islam is bigger than Naser Khader, than me, than anyone else. It is Islam which gives space, it is not Islam which is given space. All cases have shown that Islam turns out to be the one that is bigger and to which people give themselves. We are person, who can act in the one way or the other, do right or wrong. I think Naser Khader should reevaluate some of his opinions and harsh criticisms, because I really think he is being used. I think he is being used…..
INTERVIEWER: Is he a puppet, is that what you say?
AKKARI: In a way he is, some people are trying to evade something here.
INTERVIEWER: Who?
AKKARI: There are several parties that carry a responsibility in this affair, the least of which is not Jyllands-Posten who right now, is made out to be a completely innocent party from whom nothing is demanded as much….
INTERVIEWER: Are you sayin that he is channeling them?
AKKARI: No, not in that way, but we have several parties in this. The main parties have been the newspaper, the government and us as a third party. We have tried many things, the latest of which was at the conference in Bahrain, with good results… partially good results. The government has been very delayed in its action. And then there’s Jyllands-Posten which does not respond in any real way, in a way that would help. We’ve seen Arla, who’ve been in the Middle-East for forty years, who’ve never been addressed as second-rate citizens in any way. And it’s opinions like that we need to hear because everyone needs to carry their proper share of responsibility in this society.

He then went on a whine-binge, whining about how unfairly he’s been treated. My stomache wasn’t up for translating and transcribing that.
On March 25, it was also annnounced that the two Danish Imams would be questioned Monday, March 27.
Come March 27 at 10 O’Clock, Imam Ahmed Akkari was questioned by the Danish police with the rights of an accused. No formal indictment was presented. Per Larsen of the Copenhagen Police said:

Wheather it is punsihable or not, investigating this may have a good, old-fashioned preventive effect. It’s an important signal to send. It seems positively absurd to have thoughts like that. That’s why it is useful to debate this. Whether the charges can bear an indictment the investigation will have to show.

That was the state of things Monday. You might’ve thought it wise to keep your trap shut if you were Ahmed Akkari, but unfortunately for Ahmed Akkari, you’re not. This Wednesday he suffered another “misstatement” when he told Al Arabia that the Danish Foreign Ministry has prohibited the Imams from speaking out about the conference in Bahrain they recently attended. From TV2 Nyhederne, Wednesday, playing a clip from Al Arabia, translated from the subtitles:

We’ve just been questioned by the police and we weren’t indicted in connection with that. In Denmark we were prohibited from speaking about the conference. The Danish Foreign Ministry has prohibited everyone from speaking speaking about the conference before an official translation of the conference’s conclusions is available.

In the same segment Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller, speaking from the Faroe Islands, denies the truthfulness of that:

It’s pure rubbish. I don’t know of anything of the sort. We aren’t in contact with and we haven’t been in contact with the travelling Danish Imams. So I don’t understand that he said this to Al Arabia

Ahmed Akkari responds:

I think it was said in the wrong way. What I wanted to say was that this subject isn’t discussed in Denmark. I’ve asked Al Arabia to issue a correction.

The Spokesman on Foreign Issues for the Liberal Party, Jens Hald Madsen comments:

Honestly, I think we are all of us getting tired with Akkari’s frequent lies. I think the people and the media ought to just ignore him in the same way all other village idots are ignored.

This is a translation of an interview Mohammed Sifaoui did yesterday with Politiken. Sifaoui is the French Journalist who did a documentary exposing the Danish Imams Ahmed Akkari and Abu Laban as dangerous extremists:

French Journalist: Danish Imams are Extremists

The man behind the controversial French documentary thinks that Abu Laban and Ahmed Akkari are extremists disguised as moderates.

By Thomas Lauritzen, Paris

He is rather reluctant to say the words because he has the greatest respect for the Danes - but Mohammed Sifaoui feels that it is necessary to tell us that we are “naive”.

“All you good and well-meaning people at Politiken, in the rest of Denmark and Europe, you hurt your and moderate Moslems’ cause when you let extremists call the tune,” he says.

“They’re not bombers - they’re worse”
And for Sifaoui there’s no doubt the Danish Imams such as Ahmed Akkari and Abu Laban are just that, extremists but disguised as moderates.

“Actually, I was sort of seduced by Abu Laban the first day. He seemed both friendly and tolerant. But it was lucky that I stayed with them for some days, because then all of the extremist ideology was revealed,” Sifaoui says about his travels in Denmark this February which, i.a., revealed Ahmed Akkari’s famous ‘bomb threat’ against the Social Liberal politician Naser Khader.

“I have never suggested that Abu Laban or Ahmed Akkari are terrorists themselves - in the sense that they’re bombers. They’re something much worse: They’re the the ideologues which give the young mad-man the necessary excuse - the ideological grounds - for carrying out an act of terror in Denmark.”

Lives with Death Threats
The Algerian-French journalist and writer Mohammed Sifaoui has spent 18 years revealing and criticising the extremist movements which in his opinion slowly but surely have infiltrated a naive Europe.

He hasn’t been lacking in death threats. He lives under police guard and our meeting at a Parisian café is set up at the last minute.

“I do know with who I am dealing. I know the millieu and take my precautions,” as he says.

A Man with a Mission
Sifaoui is both loathed and admired, a controversial man with creative journalistic methods who refuses to be afraid. He doesn’t hide that he is a man with a mission.

“I have never wanted to condemn or hurt anyone and I have never attacked the Koran or Islam. I am a practising Moslem myself. But I have a mission and it is journalistic: To reveal the truth about extremists and terrorists.”

But don’t they know this about you - why do they let you into their confidence and say that sort of thing in your presence?

“I didn’t mention my surname and nobody asked . My first name, Mohammed, is what everyone and his cousin is called in the Arab world and I also used a middle name. They accepted me as a ‘brother’”

Don’t you have any reservations about not presenting yourself as yourself?

“If I have to steal information, I will. I have no scruples about that with these people. Besides, they knew very well that I was a journalist.”

Has no Concrete Knowledge of an Attack
Why is it that they threatened you anyway in the end - as the documentary shows?

“A delegation of Imams arrived from Sweden and I think one of them recognised me. Then the threats came, warning me to not show anything creative. And that’s the point: How can those people say that they are democrats and moderates? They threaten a journalist just because they find out that he’s against terror and extremism.”

There’s been some confusion in Denmark about the interpretation of what you’ve filmed. For example, whether Ahmed Akkari had concrete knowledge of a possible plot against Naser Khader?

“I have never thought he was talking about organising an attack himself and that’s not the way my documentary portrays it. He says ‘I wonder if a couple of men oughn’t to go see if one can blow him up…’ I have no knowledge of a concrete plot. But I know for sure that Akkari and Abu Laban hate Naser Khader abysmally. If someone were to kill him, it wouldn’t bother them the least.”

The Conversation about the ‘Martyr Operation’
Now you’ve also supplied an outtake to the Danish media where Abu Laban apparently speaks of his knowledge of someone who want so create ‘havoc’ and execute a ‘martyr operation’. Why didn’t you use that in your documentary?

“I brought 40 hours of tape to France and I couldn’t use all of it. I don’t know who he’s talking about either. And I have no precise information that this person will do something concrete.”

It seems strange that Abu Laban in the same outtake mentions that he - or someone - wants to contact the General Secretary of the the Arab League. He isn’t a terrorist, I wonder?

“No, the two remarks are seperate, the way I see it. First Abu Laban speaks of Amr Moussa and then he changes the subject and speaks of the martyr operation.”

Ready to supply outtakes
What does it mean? And why are you showing it now?

“Because it shows the same as the piece in the car with Akkari: that these people are extremists who have no problem talking abour martyr operations.”

Abu Laban says it’s just a figure of speech?

“Of course he says that. And Ahmed Akkari is suddenly a great comedian. It’s very normal double-dealing for the extremists that they hide behind explanations like that in the West. But as an Arab and a Moslem I can assure you that no normal person in the Moslem world sees the word ‘martyr operation’ as a figure of speech.”

Are you prepared to show more outtakes?
“Yes, if they keep saying it was all a joke, just a figure of speech and so on. In that case, I have loads of material showing that that is their normal rhetoric. ”

For example?
“For example I have a take from a sermon where Abu Laban tells of how to behave when burying ‘our brothers who die a martyr’s death in the fight against the zionist enemy.’ Will Abu Laban say that that too is a metaphor? And do the Danes really believe a man who supports suicide bombers in another country but maintains that he is against them in Denmark?”

The Police have questioned Akkari and Abu Laban and not yet indicted them. Do you know anything more concrete about their intentions?

“I have no precise knowledge of concrete plans. If I had heard anything like that, I would have gone directly to a police station. If the Danish police wish to talk to me, if I can be of assistance, I am always available. I am a public person. But I really hope that the Danish intelligence service know significantly more about Abu Laban, Ahmed Akkari and their friends than I do.”

PIS are naive
On the contrary, a high-ranking commander with the Police Intelligence Service (PIS) has said that the Imams have often been helpful?

“That makes me smile. In that case, either the Imams of Denmark have succeded in hoodwinking the PIS and that would make the PIS would be very naive. Or else - and I think that’s the case - the PIS wants to pour oil on troubled waters, though they know otherwise.”

Why should we, the Danes, believe your account of this - a French journalist with a mission, a man who knows nothing of Denmark?

British journalists used to ask me the same question, right until the terror bombs in London in July of 2005. The same thing happened: the same ideological framework, created by spiteful speech, which led to the actions of some mad people. And the same thing happened with the murder of the director Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands. That climate, that vulnerability has now been given to Denmark and all Danes abroad by Abu Laban and Ahmed Akkari.”

But what is the answer to the question: Why should we believe you?

The answer is that that’s up to you to decide. I am positive that the Danes are smart enough to form an opinion about this themselves. What I’m saying is: I mean you no harm. But others do because they think it will give them power in the Moslem community in Denmark. Did my visit harm you? No, the visit the Imams paid the Arab countries, spreading false, dangerous accusations about your country harmed you. They are the ones who owe an apology to the Danes. Not the Prime Minister and not Jyllands-Posten.”

What is your opinion of the Jyllands-Posten’s caricatures?

I am shocked by several of them as a Moslem. I don’t like them at all. But I will always defend the right of an artist to draw whatever he likes. That’s democracy for you. And that’s what Abu Laban and the others don’t understand.

{He’s doing everything to get contacts.}
{He’s contacted Amr Moussa and he means to wreak absolute havoc.}
{He wants to join the fray and turn it into a Martyr operation right now.}

Screenshot of Imam Abu Laban before entering the car where he spoke the words that already now spell the doom of his career as a spokesman for Moslems and a citizen of Denmark.

Danish Politicians are shocked.

Marianne Jelved of the Social Liberals:

I find it very unpleasant. Very unpleasant indeed. And I think that Abu Laban, if he wishes to remain in Denmark, ought to consider the rules here.

Helge Adam Møller of the Conservatives:

With 99 percent certainty it’s an act of terrorism to which we are referring. Because a martyr operation is to blow oneself and innocents sky high. Whether it’s in Denmark or someplace else, it’s equally serious. It’s innocents who are killed. He apparently knows something about that. If he hasn’t himself gone to the police, he incurs a colossal responsibility and he is in direct breach of Danish law.
[…]
With 99 percent certainty it’s an act of terrorism to which we are referring. Because a martyr operation is to blow oneself and innocents sky high. Whether it’s in Denmark or someplace else, it’s equally serious. It’s innocents who are killed. He apparently knows something about that. If he hasn’t himself gone to the police, he incurs a colossal responsibility and he is in direct breach of Danish law.

Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party:

I have come to think that all of these more or less festering persons from the Islamic Faith Community should be interrogated, all of them, by the police naturally, and that this matter must be thoroughly investigated because it sounds very scary. And that isn’t something we as politicians should let pass by. Therefore I will talk to the Justice Minister and inquire as to the reaction to this and get her to step in.

Direct link to News footage which is transcribed and translated below. Link to article that describes the news clip.

Note: I plan to post updates below this and just push the transcript lower and lower.
UPDATE 1 MARCH 25 00:52 CET
Photographs of Abu Laban:
Abu Laban at home
Abu Laban preaching. Subtitles say: “These people I call rats in holes.” From this article. The ‘rats’ are Naser Khader and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Abu Laban looking smug at a press conference
Abu Laban captured by Mohammed Sifaoui’s hidden camera at home
Abu Laban preaching again. Pointy fingers.

UPDATE 2 MARCH 25 01:07 CET
Gateway Pundit reminds me of his dossier on Abu Laban. Excerpts:

Entertained the “Blind Sheikh” behind the first World Trade Center attacks

Praised Osama Bin Laden after 9-11 Attacks

Preached he “Shed no tears” after 9-11 Attacks

Accused of giving Political support to Osama bin Laden’s network

Accused of giving Financial support to Osama bin Laden’s network

Joined with 225 Islamic Radicals to form Global Jihadist Group in 2003

Said that Theo van Gogh - “Had it coming!”

Called on his flock to Give Their Lives to Global Jihad for Palestinians

Met with Sheikh Qaradawi in Saudi Arabia who has legalized the murder of American soldiers in Iraq

Much more at Gateway Pundit

UPDATE 3 MARCH 25 01:42 CET
Killgore Trout remarks at LGF that he’s still a little unclear about what the quote means. Mohammed Sifaoui explains (from the transcript):

{I didn’t use that piece in my documentary because we assesed -}
{- that we didn’t have enough details to know of whom he was talking -}
{- and whether the operation was to take place in Denmark or somewhere else.}
{But I am convinced that he was speaking of someone -}
{- who was ready to execute a suicide operation.}

Amr Moussa is the Chairman of the Arab League.

—————–
Transcript of DR news programme where Abu Laban talks about his terror ties.

Everything in [] is to describe the general environment of the transcript.
Everything in {} mean I’m translating from the subtitles. Each pair of {}s is a full translation of each subtitle.

[In news studio]

NEWS ANCHOR: Good evening, this is the late TV-Avisen, which will also take a look at this evening’s EU meeting in Brussels.
First, new accusations by the French TV journalist who infiltrated the Danish Imam environment. One of hisrecordings with a hidden camera reveals that Imam Abu Laban speaks of a person who, quoting: “Wants to wreak absolute havoc and conduct a Martyr-operation.” Danish Police plans to question Imam Abu Laban about that as soon as he return from a conference of Imams in Bahrain.

[cut to recording of Danish Imams. Imam Abu Laban in picture.]

MALE VOICE: Tuesday, February 21st this year. The Muhammed cartoons crisis is raging. Imam Abu Laban is on his way to a friend’s car outside Abu Laban’s mosque in Copenhagen’s North-West quarter. In the car is a French camera-man and Abu Laban knows that the camera-man doesn’t speak arabic. With a hidden camera, the camera-man records the two mens’ conversation.

[camera entering car. people speaking in unknown language, presumable Arabic.]

MALE VOICE: Suddenly Abu Laban starts speaking, with a lowered voice, of a man who has contacted the president of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

ABU LABAN:
{He’s doing everything to get contacts.}
{He’s contacted Amr Moussa and he means to wreak absolute havoc.}
{He wants to join the fray and turn it into a Martyr operation right now.}

[Picture cuts to Abu Laban’s office. Picture of Mohammed Sifaoui in lower right corner. He’s speaking to DR’s TV-Avisen by phone from Paris]
[Text in yellow box says: “Mohammed Sifaoui
TV-Journalist, Paris]

Mohammed Sifaoui:
{He says, quoting:}
{”He wants to blow everything up. He wants to commit a Martyr assassination.”}
{To be exact: a Martyr-operation. I.e. a suicide operation.}

[Picture changes to Abu Laban preaching in a mosque]

[Picture changes to archive footage of Mohammed Sifaoui]

MALE VOICE: The journalist Mohammed Sifaoui for four days followed the doings of a number of Danish Imams with a camera man and used his hidden footage for a documentary.

[Picture changes to hidden footage of Ahmed Akkari in a car with Hlayhel.]

MALE VOICE: The piece with Abu Laban wasn’t used for the documentary.

[Text in yellow box says: “Mohammed Sifaoui <line break> TV-Journalist, Paris]

Mohammed Sifaoui:
{I didn’t use that piece in my documentary because we assesed -}
{- that we didn’t have enough details to know of whom he was talking -}
{- and whether the operation was to take place in Denmark or somewhere else.}

[Picture cuts to archive footage of recently ended conference in Bahrain]

Mohammed Sifaoui:
{But I am convinced that he was speaking of someone -}
{- who was ready to execute a suicide operation.}

[Picture cuts to Abu Laban leaving his office.]

MALE VOICE: According to the French journalist it isn’t possible that this is jest.

Mohammed Sifaoui:
{No, no, no. This is very definitely not a jest, because this is a very serious situation.}

[Picture cuts to Abu Laban in car. Back of front seat in view.]

MALE VOICE: Let’s take a look at the piece again.

Abu Laban:
{He’s doing everything to get contacts.}
{He’s contacted Amr Moussa and he means to wreak absolute havoc.}
{He wants to join the fray and turn it into a Martyr operation right now.}

[Picture cuts to DR’s TV-Avisen cutting room]

Kristian Sloth: We would have liked to ask Abu Laban who the person who want to wreak absolute havoc and conduct a martyr operation is, but he has told us, from Bahrain, that he doesn’t wish to speak to us.

[Picture cuts to still image of of Copenhagen’s Police Departments’ central station.]

MALE VOICE: Chief Inspector Per Larsen of the Copenhagen police department says in a statement tonight: “The information from the new recordings made with a hidden camera will cause Abu Laban to be taken in for questioning.

[Picture cuts to Abu Laban preaching in a mosque]

MALE VOICE: Abu Laban will return from Bahrain in the forenoon tomorrow.

[cuts to news studio]

NEWS ANCHOR: Danish politicians are shocked and Pia Kjærsgaard now demands that Justice Minister Lene Espersen take action.

[Picture cuts to hidden footage of Abu Laban]

Claus Letort: Politicians at Christiansborg, to say the least, do not like the new recordings of the Imam Abu Laban, who lives in Denmark.

[cuts to Christiansborg (Danish Parliament building)]

Marianne Jelved (Social Liberals): I find it very unpleasant. Very unpleasant indeed. And I think that Abu Laban, if he wishes to remain in Denmark, ought to consider the rules here.

[Picture cuts to place in front of Christiansborg]

Helge Adam Møller (Conservatives): He is a man, a man like Akkari, a man who cannot be trusted. A man who speaks with a forked tongue.

[Picture cuts to Abu Laban in car. Back of front seat in view.]

MALE VOICE: It’s these words said by Abu Laban, recorded with a hidden camera, that cause the politicians to be shaken.

Abu Laban:
{He’s doing everything to get contacts.}
{He’s contacted Amr Moussa and he means to wreak absolute havoc.}
{He wants to join the fray and turn it into a Martyr operation right now.}

MALE VOICE: Even though we do not know of whom Abu Laban is speaking and where the martyr operation is supposed to happen, the politicians do not like the sound of things.

[Picture cuts to place in front of Christiansborg]

Helge Adam Møller (Conservatives): With 99 percent certainty it’s an act of terrorism to which we are referring. Because a martyr operation is to blow oneself and innocents sky high. Whether it’s in Denmark or someplace else, it’s equally serious. It’s innocents who are killed. He apparently knows something about that. If he hasn’t himself gone to the police, he incurs a colossal responsibility and he is in direct breach of Danish law.

[Picture cuts to Christiansborg]

MALE VOICE: One can’t discern the context of this and one can’t discern of whom he is talking and so on. So we have to take care not to over-react, don’t we?

Marianne Jelved (Social Liberals): That’s true. But nevertheless, there is wording here that clearly indicates we’re talking of martyrs, i.e. a suicide bomber of some kind. If Abu Laban knows something of that, I think it’s the Police Intelligence Service, it’s the Danish Police that needs to take action. Quickly.

[Picture cuts to Abu Laban speaking to Mohammed Sifaoui]

MALE VOICE: Abu Laban has told TV-Avisen that he doesn’t wish to comment on the matter.

[Cuts to Pia Kjærsgaard’s home]

Pia Kjærsgaard (Danish People’s Party): I have come to think that all of these more or less festering persons from the Islamic Faith Community should be interrogated, all of them, by the police naturally, and that this matter must be thoroughly investigated because it sounds very scary. And that isn’t something we as politicians should let pass by. Therefore I will talk to the Justice Minister and inquire as to the reaction to this and get her to step in.

First, the good stuff. I bring you blasphemy. This satirical cartoon was published this Tuesday, March 21 on the last page of Berlingske Tidende’s first section.

Now, for some reason, this piece of satire has made some Moslems feel ‘disgruntled’. In the same way postal workers who are about to go postal are ‘disgruntled’, I imagine. Allow me to
translate. Note that Jyllands-Posten has a motto that goes: “Jyllands-Posten: Denmark’s International Newspaper”.

[white letters on blue background] Smear Street

[Caricature of Imam dragging a suitcase and carrying a white paper bag with “Tax-Free” written on it with taxfree bottles of an unidentified substance in it]

The trip goes to….
Itinerary for the Danish Imams’ trip to the conference in Bahrain:

Buy some Bahrain-clothes at the airport at the last moment in case some Bahrain-weather is coming up.

Remember to turn back the clocks 632 years before landing.

Orientation about the Crown’s Prosecutor who refuses to flog the Prime Minister and burn Jyllands-Posten down to the ground.

Following a short round of misinformation, the book “French Clowns in Colours” will be distributed to the 300 other delegates - it is known to usually make Denmark’s International Newspaper even more known abroad.

Possibly catch halal an hour of shut-eye before departure.

Today the Prime Minister refused to give his opinion on whether Berlingske Tidende has overstepped the bounds of “demonisation” of religions. Quoting and translating the last part of this article from B.T.:

The Prime Minister has as one of his few areas of responsibility the Press, yet Anders Fogh Rasmussen states to Ritzau’s Bureau that he has no opinion on whether Berlingske Tidende in the name of fun has overstepped the bounds of “demonisation” of religions.

“I refuse to enter that fray. What you’re asking only emphasises that it’s wise to stick to what’s true in a state founded on the rule of law, i.e. that we have a very far-reaching Freedom of Speech. The law defines some boundaries and if anyone thinks those boundaries have been crossed, it’s a matter for the courts and certainly not for the Government and the Prime Minister,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen says.

|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|
	
|

Imam Ahmed Akkari has issued death threats against Naser Khader of the Social Liberals. Naser Khader founded the organisation “Democratic Moslems” in February, as an organisation for moderate, Democracy-minded Moslems to join. See this article for biography and background on the enmity between Naser Khader and the Imams in Denmark.

Today Jyllands-Posten reports that Imam Ahmed Akkari was recorded on a hidden camera by journalist Mohamed Sifaoui of the French TV-Station France 2 which will show a documentary tonight detailing the doings of the Danish Imams. The documentary also reveals that the Danish Imams have been using the affair as a lever to go against their political opponents in Denmark.
Ahmed Akkari is quoted as saying:

If [Naser Khader] becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why don’t we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?

The Danish reaction to this has been consternation and revulsion.
Peter Skaarup of the Danish People’s Party:

It’s pure threats and it only goes to show how crazy these Imams have been acting. I will at once ask the Minister what punishment can be given for making such statements and whether it is a punishable offense,

Jens Rohde of the Liberals:

This is certainly very disturbing and it shows what we’re up against. That’s also why I am worried about what is happening at that conference in Bahrain which Ahmed Akkari is a delegate to

Ahmed Akkari denies:

I’ve never said anything like that about Naser Khader, but they are welcome to try and prove it

UPDATE 1
Politiken reports that Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen of the Social Liberals has reported Imam Ahmed Akkari to the police:

The police must investigate whether the French documentary checks out and whether things are as Jyllands-Posten says. If they are, that statement deserves the harshest condemnations.
[…]
I feel very sorry for my colleague and his family . It’s absolutely horrible that he has to live with threats of murder and must be guarded by the police.

The police say that an inquiry is under way:

From what we know so far, it is relevant to start an inquiry.
[…]
[whether it is punishable] depends on under what circumstances the statement was made. And whether they create real fear and discomfort. The fact that the threats are now being quoted in the media is also relevant.

The police in Berlingske Tidende:

We’re investigating whether there is grounds for prosecuting him for these threats. We need to find out what kind of documentation the journalists have and we need to talk with the persons involved.

Ahmed Akkari now calls it a “joke”:

If they think I have said that, then I must have been jesting.
[…]
You also need to understand, from the context, that I wasn’t being serious because I usually don’t say stuff like that - not even in jest. But sometimes things happen.

This blog would like to remind Ahmed Akkari of the time he beat a little boy till he bled. Was that just “one of those times”?

UPDATE 2
Naser Khader has recovered enough to give a statement to the news agency Ritzau. Ritzaus reports that he is still shaken by the statement but wants to see the documentary and hear what is said in Arabic before he issues a statement.

But this is in any case still very, very discomforting.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has issued a statement:

I only know of the case from the media. But if things are the way they seem, I find reason to express horror that anyone could seriously consider saying that. It’s quite shocking shocking that an elected Danish politician is threatened like that. I assume the police will investigate what’s what in this case and then I count on them to deal with it.

The Vice President of Democratic Moslems, Fathi el-Abed says:

Words are powerful - we learned that from this crisis. I think it’s childish, shocking and reprehensible that he says something and then takes it back because the public gets wind of it.

This is the latest from the police. Per Larsen, Chief Inspector:

This seems to be serious. If the words that have been reported to have been said were said, this is a case of Threats on a Person’s Life. This needs to be thoroughly investigated.
[…]
With the reservation that we must know how the threats were made, it sounds like we might want to interrogate the people who are on their way home from Bahrain.

UPDATE 3
From the ten o’clock TV2 news programme.
Ahmed Akkari by telephone from Bahrain:

If I said that, I think the cirumstances must have been not very serious and only in jest ehh… and I of course clearly distance myself from any thing of this kind and also assure Naser that it isn’t anything I can vouch for.

Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller:

What I’ve seen from the newspapers doesn’t look very nice at all. And if he was joking, he’s got a very bad sense of humour.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen:

I think that, in any case - even if one is only toying with the thought of terrorist attacks against elected representatives - it is a gravely serious matter, which one must distance oneself from to the greatest degree. Apart from that, I assume as a matter of course that the Police will make inquiries into this matter.

Peter Lautrup Larsen, TV2’s Resident Political Expert:

Of course [Ahmed Akkari’s remarks] have been noticed. That the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister feel that they must comment on this, shows that it is something the politicians view very gravely. Even if Ahmed Akkari says it’s just a joke. As the Foreign Minister said; it’s a very bad joke indeed then.

Peter Lautrup Larsen also says that the Prime Minister said off-camera that it’s funny how it’s seemingly okay to joke about something in one context [Ahmed Akkari’s remarks] and not in another context [the Muhammed Cartoons].

UPDATE 4
Hat tip: Uriasposten
The programme will be sent tonight 8.50 on France 2 in the series of programmes known as Envoye-Special (Trans: Special Correspondents). Link to the introduction to the programme here.
Translated:

Caricatures: Beneath the Anger
A report by Mohammed Sifaoui

Following the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed, the Moslem world ignited. Ransacked embassies, flag burnings and confrontations between police force and demonstrators caused the death of thirty people.

Following the violent reactions in many countries, several Danish newspapers spoke about manipulation. That is what a team of Special Correspondents wanted to investigate in Denmark.

At the source of the extensive media coverage in the Arab Muslim world: a group of imams. They’re Danish and it is they who gave international significance to what was at the beginning only a simple matter of the press.

The investigation very quickly will show that these Imams are actually islamists. They use the matter of the caricatures to settle a score with Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper which published the drawings. This daily newspaper on several occasions had criticized the goals and activities of these imams. To ignite the Islamic world, these clerics prepared and disseminated to a wide audience a file with accusations against Denmark which didn’t contain only the famous caricatures of Muhammed. It is this file which was sent with the assistance of certain ambassadors to the Moslem authorities of several Arab countries. The imams admit adding these vulgar photographs and insulting drawings which have no relation to the caricatures.

The journalists of the Envoye-Special gained the confidence of some of these imams. These “clerics” do not hide their views. They regard secular people as “enemies” and try to promote a radical Islam.

A report about Mohammed Sifaoui: Journalist penetrated Islamic extremist groups in Paris

UPDATE 5
Berlingske Tidende have been quick to get their correspondent in Paris on the case and have an interview with Mohamed Sifaoui here. Note that Ahmed Akkari is of Lebanese origins.
Translated the good bits:

Are the quotes by Jyllands-Posten correct?
They are entirely correct(…) He said it in Arabic and I had three different persons translate it. I speak Arabic myself, but to exercise due dilligence, I also had it translated by some Lebanese people to be sure.
Ahmed Akkari denies that he has ever been in a car with Sheikh Raed Hlayhel and a French journalist?
I think that the best answer is that you see him for yourself in the car with me filming him with a hidden camera.
In your opinion, was he serious when he said he would blow up Naser Khader?
I don’t know.
Did you ask if he was serious?
I didn’t ask. I didn’t even react. I was there as an observer, I didn’t want to react. I looked out the window while filming and pretended not to follow their conversation. I didn’t want to interrupt their conversation. Since they were talking, I was filming.
It was Akkari and Hlayhel who were talking?
Yes, I pretended not to be there. I didn’t encourage them with questions, nothing at all. I said nothing. I got into the car, they started talking and I was filming. I didn’t ask any questions at all.
How did you gain the trust of the Imams?
I won the trust of Abu Laban first and foremost… (…) Abu Laban was in the other car. He was being filmed by my colleague.

UPDATE 6
Screenshots from the documentary:
Abu Zakaria talking with Mohamed Sifaoui
Ahmed Akkari in the car
Sheikh Raed Hlayhel

Ahmed Akkari has issued a public apology. It’s funny that he has to defend himself with the words that were used to defend the cartoons. Funny in a hilarious way. Really hilarious. “In Denmark there is a tradition for humour, irony, sarcasm and jests…” I don’t believe him, by the way.
Translated from TV2:

No threat to Naser Khader
I have learned that a recording made with a hidden camera has caused much debate in the media in Denmark.

The recording was of a group of people talking and having a good time. The mood was loose and free, and jokes were made. In this mood and spirit I said what has now been understood as a threat against Naser Khader.

I would like to emphasise that my remark carried no serious intent and that Naser Khader of course need not feel threatened by me. It was said in jest only and looking back I see that it may have been a bit out of place and too rough on the edges.

In Denmark there is a tradition for humour, sarcasm, irony and jests and I have often heard jests of an equally jestful nature from many different parties. Not just Moslems.

Both I and other Moslems in Denmark have have always had the position on Naser Khader and his political career that when we feel we must oppose him we do so, but only with words. Unfortunately a cheerful mood can sometimes escalate and I deeply regret that this statement, which was made in jest only, has been taken seriously.

Who only sees jest as jest

And the serious as only serious…

The last part is part of a gruk (kind of a saying) by Piet Hein, which goes so in Danish: “Den som kun tager spøg for spøg, og alvor kun alvorligt, han og hun har faktisk fattet begge dele dårligt”
Translated: “Who only sees jest as jest, and the serious as only serious, he and she has understood both things poorly.”

So which is it? Jest or serious?

When we’re talking about people who supported the September 11 attacks, it is hard for mere mortals to tell the difference.

UPDATE 7
DR.DK has brought a list of statements by politicians about this case. Some of them are new.

Spokesman on Immigrant Politics, Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen, Social Liberals:

Murder threats are not somthing to jest about and particularly not in the current situation. I can’t distance myself enough from those statements. Some things seem to indicate that he is a criminal or in any case insane.

Chairman of Conservatives’ parliament group, Helge Adam Møller:

We have long known that Ahmed Akkari speaks with a forked tongue, but that one of its forks is so poisonous is, after all, a surprise to me.

Coming up in next update: Translation of an article which describes the documentary.

UPDATE 8
Sorry, didn’t get that translation done. This interview came up. From Denmark’s Radio. Link.

Interviewer: Akkari, I would like to begin this with reading to you a quote: “If he becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why don’t we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?” who spoke those words?

Akkari: I don’t recall saying anything either in jest or in earnest. If it happened, it is regrettable and a very crude jest, which I immediately and at once want to express my regrets for and distance myself from.

Interviewer: What is it you find jesting about those words?

Akkari: Perhaps there isn’t anything funny about them. It’s more sarcastic and out of proportions in a light-hearted context… And it’s very unfortunate that something like that is taken seriously because there’s no intent there, at all.

Interviewer: But what might make you - in jest - threaten to murder a prominent Danish politician?

Akkari: Our tongues can, all of us, run to the right or to the left and I think that’s what happened in very simple circumstances where there’s been a slightly humourous situation… and talked a bit to the right or to the left about something funny.

Interviewer: Do we agree that it is serious to threaten a Danish politician with murder?

Akkari: I will write him a letter to insure him that it wasn’t the intent at all… and that I have eh… never wished nor do I wish… I take strong exception to anyone who would plan or think of something like that… Whether it’s in jest or in earnest, it’s totally reprehensible.

Interviewer: What’s your comment on having been reported to the police?

Akkari: Eeehh… I don’t think that anything… comes from that because it’s something that’s totally unserious and something that’s… I take exception to in the most direct way and I also assure Naser that it isn’t something he was meant by.

Interviewer: But if you’re saying that you’ve acted in an irresponsible manner here, how do you imagine Danish Moslems and the Danish population in general respecting you and taking you serious in the future as spokesman for Moslems in Denmark?

Akkari: One thing is what one usually says, another thing is that… anyone can err - we are human, have that as something we were built with that that error may happen so people will have to judge by the whole and not by such a single, unique rather unconcentrated situation in a car where there’s a lot of loose talk.

Interviewer: The last couple of days, I have several times asked you whether you could give me any guarantees that what you’re saying in front of the camera is the same as you’re saying in the nooks while talking to your Moslem brothers. What do you think of the fact that you, time upon time, have told me that you could guarentee that - you weren’t one to talk with a forked tongue, that you’re reliable, that you have but one message: Peace and reconciliation?

Akkari: Eeeh… All people joke about certain things eeeehh… which they usually don’t support… eeeh… or normally say - express that that is their position. I think that’s what happened - there’s come a serious, crude joke which is no more. I have rejected it and taken clear exception to it. It’s nothing I in any way have any intent of doing.

Interviewer: Do you think you can continue on as spokesman for the Islamic Faith Community of Denmark?

Akkari: I think the line is clear and there’s nothing to mix up with this. So.. eh, yes I don’t see that it’s a problem, what’s happened.

Interviewer: But isn’t it hard to have a serious, respected spokesman who goes around and, in jest, threatens to murder Danish politicians?

Akkari: No, because I have threatened to kill nobody and this has been a completely unacceptable situation.

Interviewer: But how do you explain that it happens, that you’re sitting in the company of another Imam and an undercover journalist crack that kind of joke. What makes you crack such a joke?

Akkari: I think it’s been a rather light-hearted situation where people have been talking right and left, and then one can sometimes overdo it in describing a catastrophe, or a problem. So I think that’s all that’s been the meaning of that.

Interviewer: Will there, in the future, be uncovered other quotes where you maybe have threatened other Danish politicians or said anything else, that might contravene your official position of peace and reconciliation?

Akkari: I think that all my official an unofficial positions are of the same cloth, but both you and everybody else can sometimes say and use some words which they normally don’t.. approve of or really mean in conditions of light-heartedness and… I don’t drink [alcohol] but others do and the things one say when there’s a light-hearted mood, that is what happens.

Interviewer: But have you made other, similar, remarks where you’ve threatened to kill other Danish politicians or doing something similarly radical?

Akkari: I couldn’t even remember the reference to that, before you mention it, so I don’t think I have said it, and if I have said that then I take exception to myself and those statements - if there’s something to it - where my tongue was faster than my brain in such a special situation.

Interviewer: How do you think the Danish people should view you after these statements - in jest - about killing a Danish politician?

Akkari: It’s not statements about killing a Danish politician. And I think the people have more reason and sense to understand these kinds of things than one would think.

Interviewer: So you’re certain that the Danish people will forgive what you call an innocent joke?

Akkari: That’s up to them, but I am sure that people see that this isn’t anything to be taken seriously at all.

[Camera changes, interviewer out of picture. Ahmed Akkari seen being interviewed]

Akkari: We have made satire and poked fun at many things and…

[Camera changes back]

Interviewer: Do you understand that it might be hard for Danes to accept that it’s not okay to make caricatures of Muhammed, but that it’s okay to threaten - in jest - to kill a Danish politician?

Akkari: That’s a wrong conclusian and comparison to make of this.

Interviewer: Isn’t it very natural? You’ve been very angry, very offended that your prophet has been offended, but now you’ve - in jest - threatened to kill a politician. How do you think Naser Khader feels today?

Akkari: I hope he feels only safe because we all know that stuff like this is ridiculous and not acceptable. Good.

[Camera moves, another journalist moves in]

Interviewer 2: You were confronted with your statement…

[time lapse in interview]

Akkari: … recorded it, then I must have said it, otherwise I wouldn’t remember it.

Interviewer 2: So you DID say it?

Akkari: If they can document it with a tape, it must have been said, I can’t say more than that.

[another journalist]

Interviewer 3: Do you doubt that you’ve said it? Because they write..

Akkari: Yes, I do. But I don’t have…

[time lapse again, original journalist back in the game]

Interviewer: How do you think your threats against Naser Khader affect the situation for Danish Moslems?

Akkari: I don’t think they have to affect anything, because if we have a public who understand things in proportions, nothing will happen, but if one is very narrow-minded, I do understand how…

Interviewer: But don’t you think you’ve hurt the cause of Moslems in Denmark by threatening to kill a Danish politician?

Akkari: No, I don’t think that will happen, because, as I have said, it’s something that’s.. a unique situation.

UPDATE 9
Naser Khader is considering resigning his mandate in the Danish parliament Folketinget. JP has published a report by Ritzau’s bureau quoting a statement made to TV2’s news programme by Naser Khader saying that he is considering leaving Danish politics following the death threat made by Ahmed Akkari. It says that the last few months have put him under intense pressure and he has had to accept protection by the Police Intelligence Service. According to TV2, Naser Khader has experienced very unpleasant episodes, i.a. confrontations with the Moslem extremist of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and other radical organisations. He has also received death threats by mail.

Therefore he has chosen to take a political time-out before announcing his decision.

Marianne Jelved, the leader of the Social Liberals says to DR about the news that she has had contact with Naser Khader and that:

He and his family are understandably very shaken. They need a bit of peace this weekend. We in the parliamentary group will give all possible support to Naser Khader and his family. I don’t hope that he does that, resigns from politics. It’s unbearable, but I respect that he needs a few days of peace.

Friend of Naser Khader, parliamentarian Morten Helveg Petersen of the Social Liberals says to Politiken:

Naser is the symbol of seperation between religion and politics and that is why this is bigger than just that forked-tongued guy Akkari. As a religious leader he has a responsibility to not create a situation and to not deceive. That responsibility he has failed totally and my fear is that it has an effect in places we don’t know well enough. That’s why there’s cause for concern.

UPDATE 10 MARCH 24 18:41 CET
Naser Khader has issued this statement on his website:

My Situation
March 24, 2006
There’s a lot of speculation about my situation right now. But let me make this clear: I have not gone under ground, nor did I have a nervous breakdown. I need to rest after having endured several months of stress, and I need to be with my family.

Thank you very much for the many mails I have received supporting me and and my family.

Regards,
Naser Khader.

Ekstra Bladet reports that Naser Khader has hired a crisis psychologist to help him. He says to Ekstra Bladet that:

I have said all along that I would overcome the threats, but I just can’t anymore. It’s just become too much.

This blog hopes that Naser Khader gets better. He’s a great man.

Sandmonkey had a post up with a link to the first 6 minutes of the programme yesterday. Before the post was deleted, I snatched the link.

DR.DK reports that Imam Ahmed Akkari is no longer the spokesman for the Islamic Faith Community. Board member of the Islamic Faith Community, Kasaem Said Ahmad:

Akkari cannot be our Spokesman after these remarks.

Akkari didn’t have much to say:

I have no comments to that.

Which is surprising. He usually comments on everything.

Board member and co-creator of the Democratic Moslems organisation, Fathi el-Abed Friday reported the Danish Imam Ahmed Akkari to the Danish police for his statements in the French programme. Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen of the Social Liberals has already done this, making that the second report the police received. These high-profile cases usually generate quite a number of reports in Denmark.

UPDATE 11 MARCH 25 00:01 CET
BREAKING NEWS
Imam Abu Laban of the same group as Imam Ahmed Akkari was caught on tape by Mohammed Sifaoui talking about a person who santed to execute a suicide operation. More here.

UPDATE 12 MARCH 25 00:14 CET
From Sandmonkey, the clip where Imam Ahmed Akkari goes all goofy, talks about killing a Danish Politician. Cracks me up he does. What a joker.

————————–
Translated the first article to report on this, from Jyllands-Posten today:
(Not available online, though an online shorter version is available here)

Imams Busted by Hidden Camera

By PERNILLE AMMITZBØLL and JØRGEN ULLERUP

French TV tonight reveals the truth about the Danish Imams. According to France 2, Imam Ahmed Akkari mentions the possibility of blowing up Naser Khader of the Social Liberals, while Sheikh Raed Hlayhel want to create an atmosphere of hate against Jyllands-Posten. Major protests from Danish politicians.

/Paris/

The aggressive defense by the Danish Imams in the row surrounding Jyllands-Posten is accompanied by an aggressive campaign against the Democratic Moslems organisation and against critics in the press, especially Jyllands-Posten.

That will be revealed tonight in a documentary from Denmark on the French TV-Station France 2, whose journalists have used hidden cameras to get a look at the Imams’ real doings.

Threat with a smile
In a central part of the documentary, Imam Ahmed Akkari indirectly threatens the leader of the Democratic Moslems, Naser Khader, who he suggest they murder if he becomes a minister.

“If he becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why don’t we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?” says the spokesman for the delegation of Moslems who travelled the Middle East.

The remark was delivered with a smile in Arabic, while the Arab journalist behind the programme, Mohamed Sifaoui, was sitting next to him in the car’s back seat. But Akkari didn’t know he was being recorded. Sifaoui didn’t make clear whether the statement should be considered as being ironic or a provocation.

Khader Shocked
Naser Khader yesterday was still too shocked to comment on Ahmed Akkari’s statements.

Peter Skaarup of the Danish People’s Party plans to bring the matter to Minister of Justice Lene Espersen’s attention.

“It’s pure threats and it only goes to show how crazy these Imams have been acting. I will at once ask the Minister what punishment can be given for making such statements and whether it is a punishable offense,” says Peter Skaarup.

Jens Rohde of the Liberals is also shocked by the statement.

“This is certainly very disturbing and it shows what we’re up against. That’s also why I am worried about what is happening at that conference in Bahrain which Ahmed Akkari is a delegate to,” says Jens Rohde.

Also Jyllands-Posten is targeted by the Imams’ wrath. During the same drive in Copenhagen, Sheikh Raed Hlayhel, Imam for the Mosque on Hrimhøjvej in Aarhus that, that it is important to keep the pot boiling and to create a climate of hate against Jyllands-Posten. He didn’t know he was being recorded, either.

Targeted Campaign
From other parts of the documentary, we learn that the Imams have consciously targeted their campaign specifically against Jyllands-Posten and not against any of the other newspapers who have printed Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons. Imam Abu Bilal from Aarhus accuses Jyllands-Posten of being run by Jews and Abu Laban explains that it’s about getting at the root of the problem.

“This only confirms my suspicions. These Imams aren’t going for the ball, they’re targeting the player. They’ve given Jyllands-Posten the evil eye and use religion as a lever, but now they’ve been caught red-handed at trying to use the situation for political gains,” says Peter Skaarup.

Ahmed Akkari denies ever being in a car with Sheikh Raed Hlayhel and a French Journalist.

“I’ve never said anything like that about Naser Khader, but they are welcome to try and prove it, ” he says.

Sheikh Raed Hlayhel also denies having said what the French documentary says he did.

“It’s absurd, the hatred against the newspaper has always been there,” says Raed Hlayhel.

H/t: Sugiero in comments

“We are working full steam to shed some light on this case, a case which we find very serious. No formal indictment has been filed yet. Our representatives to Afghanistan are examining the matter together with the EU and the UN and the accused has also been contacted by international agencies.”
[…]
“This in no way corresponds with Afghanistan’s constitution which says tthat the Afghans have Freedom of Religion.”

Spokesman on Foreign Issues, Naser Khader, Social Liberals, Jyllands-Posten, March 21:

The government must act on this matter and show that Denmark is at the forefront in the fight for Human Rights and international rule of law. That is why we are in Afghanistan. If necessary, the Danish forces in country must liberate Abdul Rahman and offer him asylum in Denmark. This case underlines the need for Sharia law to be fought wherever it is found.”

Spokesman on Foreign Issues, Søren Espersen, Danish People’s Party, Jyllands-Posten, March 21:

“I don’t give a damn what laws they think they have. We are sort of an authority in Afghanistan and the President must prevent an execution, or we’ll give it to him good. If the Americans, the British and the Danes weren’t there, President Hamid Karzai would be butcher’s meat in the roadside before long. He knows the stakes and he better do what the Allies say in this matter.”

Spokesman on Foreign Issues, Søren Espersen, Danish People’s Party, Politiken, March 21:

“It’s time for Denmark, the United States and Great Britain to apply the thumbs screws to the Afghan government. We are the ones calling the shots in that country and this case displays a complete disregard for all decency - to execute a man for converting. We just will not accept that and we’re gonna tell the Afghan government that”

Spokesman on Foreign Issues, Mogens Lykketoft, Social Democrats, Politiken, March 21:

“[this case must] lead to some very, very direct reactions from all countries who are aiding Afghanistan”

Note: Inter alia = among other things
recrudescence = a return of something after a period of abatement
vulgarizing = to make more common/widespread/accepted

III. THE MATTER OF THE CARICATURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMED PUBLISHED BY A DANISH NEWSPAPER

23. The most serious demonstration of the deterioration of the situation of the Arab and Moslem populations in general and of the resurgence of islamophobia in particular is illustrated by the publication of some caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. This newspaper published, September 30, 2005, 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed. Inter alia, three of these caricatures show: the head of the Prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit wick, the Prophet in the likeness of a devil holding in his hand a grenade, and the Prophet offering virgin girls to committers of suicide bombings. This constitutes an illustration of three significant tendencies at the heart of the recrudescence of islamophobia. The publication of the caricatures is, in its chronology, its initial motivation and with regards to the public concerned, revealing of the vulgarizing of defamation of religions. The caricatures published are the result of a contest launched by the newspaper in answer to allegations according to which the Danish cartoonists were so frightened by fundamentalist Moslems that they wouldn’t illustrate a biographical work on Muhammed. Thus the original motivation of the contest is the expression of a challenge and of an opposition to a group, the fundamentalist Moslems, suspected of causing an atmosphere of self-censorship. The identity of the public aimed at by the biographical work, children, reveals a concern for influencing the perception of a religion by a particularly significant and vulnerable age group. The object of the publication, a biography, showed the intention to present not a fiction but the life of the Prophet. The dominating message of the caricatures was therefore to associate Islam with terrorism. The caricature relating to the sexual gratification of suicide bombers with virgin women suggests the return of a age-old historical islamophobic Western imagery: the association of Islam and its prophet with sexual depravity. The way in which these caricatures defames Islam has now been defined.

24. Finally, the initial reaction of the Danish Government[1], refusing to take an official position on the contents and the publication of the caricatures while referring to respect for the freedom of expression, and the non-reception of the ambassadors of Moslem countries, is revealing not only of the political vulgarizing of islamophobia but also, by its consequences, of the central role of political leaders in the national arena and the international repercussions of the demonstrations and expressions of islamophobia. On the legal level, the government of each State which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is bound, with regard to the relation between Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Thought and Expression, by three articles: article 18, which protects Freedom of Religion, but whose paragraph 3 poses limitations with regards to, inter alia, the protection of the law and order and safety as well as the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; article 19, which protects the freedom of expression and opinion, but whose paragraph 3 interjects, inter alia restrictions, the “respect for the rights or the reputation of others”; and, finally, article 20, which states the principle of prohibition by law of any call to hatred on the grounds of nationality, race or religion which constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The fundamental principle which these articles express is the founding principle of all legal systems: any freedom or right finds its limit in the respect and the right of the other. Therefore, on the legal level, in particular with regard to its international commitments, the Danish Government was under an obligation to give its opinion, always respecting Freedom of Expression, not only on the impact the caricatures had on the liberties and rights of its community of 200,000 Moslems, but also on the impact on protection of law and order.

25. On the political level and with regards to the ethics of international relations, the Danish Government has not shown in this question, in the alarming context of the recrudescence of the defamation of religions, in particular of islamophobia as well as anti-semitism and christianophobie, the engagement and vigilance which it usually shows with regards to counter-acting religious intolerance, counter-acting religious hatred and promoting religious harmony. These values are precisely those which give direction, legitimacy and opportunity to the recent launching by the Secretary General of the initiative for an “Alliance of civilizations”.

A. Political and ideological context of the publication of caricatures

26. The special Rapporteur cannot avoid the question of the political and ideological national context in which the publication of the caricatures occured as well as the position of the Danish Government. This context is, first of all, marked by an agreement signed on December 8, 2005 between the Government and the Danish People’s Party, an extreme-right party, to tighten the conditions for access to citizenship in a country considered as having an immigration policy among the most restrictive of Europe, a country where 13% of the seats of the Parliament are occupied by the Danish People’s Party, of which one of the spokesmen, Søren Krarup, described “Moslem immigration as a means to overrun Europe, the same as they’ve been doing the last 1.400 years.” According to the French newspaper L’Monde of December 11, 2005, an imam filed a complaint against a deputy of the Danish People’s Party who, in Parliament, compared Moslem women wearing scarves to the motorcyclists who raise a swastika. The Special Rapporteur has indicated to the Commission and the General Assembly, in all his reports, one of the principal causes of the vulgarizing of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia: the increasing infestation of the political programs of the traditionally democratic parties with the racist and xenophobic platforms of the parties of the extreme right.

27. The special Rapporteur noted with interest, while finalising this report, the evolution of the position of the newspaper and government concerned. The editor in chief Monday January 30 “apologised” not for the publication of the caricatures, which he continues to deem “sober”, but “for having offended” the Moslems. But the nature of the consecutive publication of the caricatures by several European newspapers, in spite of the strong emotions caused by these drawings in the Islamic world, is beyond the legitimate defense of the Freedom of Expression, and tends to affirm Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “Clash of Cilizations”. By publishing the caricatures of the Danish newspaper at a time when this newspaper had presented its apologies for the offence they caused, these newspapers favored a posture of confrontation and not of dialogue towards the domestic and foreign Moslem communities, which were offended by these caricatures.

28. Their uncompromising defense of a Freedom of Expression without limits or restrictions does not conform with international standards which keep a necessary balance between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion, in particular non-initiation of religious and racial hatred, agreed upon by all the Member States of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This position is indicative of an alarming lack of sensitivity and comprehension of the religious convictions and the significant emotions of the communities concerned. Because of this attitude, these publications consolidate criticisms which have been formulated especially by certain mass media, and in particular since the tragic events of September 11, which associate Islam with terrorism and which is a central explanation for the recrudesence of islamophobia in the world and in particular in their own countries. However, it’s precisely this amalgam which is at the core of the criticisms formulated against the caricatures of the Danish newspaper. The consecutive debate about the publication of the caricatures revealed in a more worrying way the emergence, from certain intellectuals, media and politicians, of a rhetoric of conflict of cultures and civilizations dividing the world between civilized secular democracies characterized by defense of Freedom of Expression and retrograde and backwards closed countries identified by the defense of religious freedom and insisting on their religion’s place in their societies. The debate would be reduced in this spirit to an irreducible conflict between “our values” and “their values”. This kind of dialectics, which is in the same black and white spirit as the Danish newspaper’s caricatures, identifying the West with the first group and the Moslem countries with the second group, thus presenting two opposing worlds, antagonistic cultures and civilizations, obscures not only the diversity of opinions, policies and individuals on this debate in the European countries and the United States, but especially the great multiculturalism of their own societies which is illustrated by the importance of their own national Moslem communities. The critical reaction towards the caricatures expressed by leaders of Jewish and Christian communities is not only the expression of their feeling that these caricatures illustrate the recrudescence of the slandering of all religions and the dominating ideological climate of intolerance as demonstrated by facts and practice. This response also constitutes the most effective defense against the risk of a clash of religions which these caricatures can cause. Their exemplary reaction confirms the fundamental fact that the contemporary islamophobia, like anti-semitism and christianophobia, owes more to politics and ideology than to religion. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction the reactions of the leaders of various religions, illustrated also by the statement made by the European Council of Religious Leaders[2]. This declaration invites all religious leaders to do their utmost to reject and stop the acts of violence and terror which are carried out in the name of God, and condemns the use of the Freedom of Expression for blasphemous ends, which is seen as a violation of this freedom when it is exerted without taking into account the detrimental effects on individuals and groups.

29. Lastly, the special Rapporteur deplores the violent reactions which followed the publication of the caricatures in question, and in particular the threats and attacks against people were in no way related to the publication of them and which were targeted only on the basis of their nationality, as well as the attacks against diplomatic representations. The Special Rapporteur deplores also the violence exerted towards places of worship of other religions, such as was done against a catholic church in Beirut. This constitute a lack of respect and an attack towards other religious communities and does not help the fight against defamation of religions, quite the contrary.

[1] With regard to the later evolution of the Danish position, see the section “Position of the Danish and Norwegian Governments”.
[2] Declaration of the Executive Committee of the European Council of Leaders of Religions, Oslo, Februrary 6, 2006.

Saturday, March 18th Jyllands-Posten broke the story about an attack by UN special rapporteur Doudou Diéne on Denmark. The report has yet to be released to the public in full, but it was leaked by the UN to press sources in Denmark. The reasons for this are obscure. This blog thinks it is because the Human Rights Committee has been dissolved. This means that the new Human Rights Council won’t be able to meet until sometime this summer. Therefore Mr. Diéne probably leaked the report to the press in Denmark to ensure that it could become part of the debate before it would be seen as old news.

On to the report. The report has yet to be released to the general public, but Politiken and Jyllands-Posten have copies of it and have posted excerpts of it. The best overview is gained by using Politiken’s excerpts, but Jyllands-Posten have included some nice tidbits as well. All of it is heavy reading, done in Diplomatese, a new language which critters of Mr. Diéne’s ilk has made just for themselves.

Politiken’s exerpts:

“Finally, the Danish government’s first reaction - rejecting to take an official position on the nature and publication of the cartoons while referring to Freedom of Speech as well as rejecting to meet with the ambassadors from the Moslem countries - is symptomatic not only for the political trivialisation of Islamophobia but also, due to its consequences, to the central role those politically responsible have for the national extent and the international consequences in the shape of demonstrations and expressions of Islamophobia.”

“Judicially, the Danish government ought therefore, especially considering its international obligations, to have, respecting Freedom of Speech, taken a position not only on the consequnces of the caricatures for its community of 200.000 Moslems but also for the protection of peace and order.”

“The author of this report can’t omit asking himself what the political and ideological national context the publication of the caricatures is a part of, and what the position of the Danish government is. This context is primarily colored by an agreement reached on December 8th, 2005 between the government and the Danish People’s Party, an extremist right-wing party, to tighten the conditions for achieving citizenship in a country whose immigration policies are considered among Europe’s most restrictive, a country where the Danish People’s Party has 13 percent of the votes and where a spokesman of the party, Søren Espersen, describes “Moslem immigration as a means to overrun Europe, the same as they’ve been doing the last 1.400 years.”

“At the end of this report, the author has especially been concerned with the development of the position of both the newspaper in question and the government. The editor-in-chief of the newspaper on Monday, January 30th submitted his “apology” not for the publication of the caricatures, which he still considered “sober”, but for having “offended” the Moslems. But the publication that followed by several European newspapers, in spite of the strength of the feelings these cartoons have aroused in the Arab world, exceeds the legitimate defense of Freedom of Speech and seems to confirm Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a clash of civilisations.”

“Finally the author of this report the violent reactions which followed the publication of said caricatures and especially the threats and the attacks on persons in no way related to the publication, made targets exclusively due to their nationality, also the the threaths against diplomatic representations are to be regretted.”

Jyllands-Posten’s Excerpts(not available online):

“Their uncompromising defense of a Freedom of Speech without limits or restrictions is not in accordance with the international rules which are based on a necessary balance between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, especially to combat calls for racial and religious hatred, and which all the member countries of UN have decided are the basic rules for Human Rights. This attitude shows an alarming lack of sensitivity and understanding of the religious conviction and deep emotions of the groups of society in question. Thus the newspapers strengthen the connection between Islam and Terrorism which arose after September 11th and which is the most important reason for Islamophobia being on the rise in the world at large and in their own countries.”

From Jyllands-Posten’s article on the case, we learn that the government is accused of breaking its international obligations by not conforming with the following three articles in the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 18, paragraph three:
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 19, paragraph three:
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Which limits certain rights in paragraph two:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Article 20, paragraph two:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

The responses were generally critical, though a few quislings were heard, so let’s take them first:
Expert on Human Rights and International Relations, assistant professor Sten Schaumburg-Müller of Aarhus University:

“I think it’s fair to criticise the government for not fully assuming its responsibility in regards to Article 20. It’s as if the government stopped reading at Article 19. And that is a misinterpretation of current law.”

This blog reminds the dear professor of Article 77 of the Danish Constitution:

Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

So the government is therefore not free to limit the speech of Danish citizens. In fact, the constitution states that the government has no business poking around in what you or I say. Only after a thing has been said may a person be held responsible, and then only in a court of law. To get to a court of law, you have to go through the public prosecutor. And he said recently:

“My decision is that there is no violation of the said rules of the Danish Criminal Code.”

In other words, there was no case.
Anyway, another quisling, Marianne Jelved of the Social Liberals. Jyllands-Posten, March 18th (not available online):

“We must enforce the UN Covenant and all other conventions to which we are signatories. We must accept that the conclusions are not always the way we want them to be - if we want an international rule of law. The UN criticism helps our international reputation. It hangs in tatters as it is.”

Now, a special treat: a hypocrite. Villy Søvndal of the Socialist People’s Party is all befuddled and scared of the big bad UN coming to bite him. From Jyllands-Posten March 18th (not available online):

“The government could have answered the UN that we have Freedom of Speech in Denmark and added that they regret the cartoons. The Prime Minister defends Freedom of Speech but says nothing of the cartoons. It’s an absurd deselection of the right to speak freely”

The reason I call him a hypocrite is this quote from a letter to the editor he published in Jyllands-Posten in December, quoted in Politiken:

“Let us all announce that what you call holy, we call profane - and then you’ll have to learn to live with it. In a modern Democracy all speech is allowed, subject only to the courts and the secular laws.”

Now, on to the righteous criticisms of this report, starting with Jens Rohde, Political Spokesman for the ruling Liberal party from Politiken, March 18:

“I don’t give a hoot about religious feelings. It’s not my concern. It’s not the Danish People’s concern”

“It has nothing to do with [a clash of civilisations]. What it has to with, is that we in Denmark are allowed to criticise religions - as we are allowed to criticise politics. And if I feel like being against Islam, then I should be permitted to be against Islam, and I should be permitted to criticise Islam and I should be permitted to discuss anything I like about Islam, Mission Within [ED: Indre Mission, fundamentalist Christians], Scientology, Nordic Mythology or any other religion.”

To top it all of, a nice little *badabing*:
“A Senegalese sitting in an office of racial discrimination is not going to mandate that we exercise mind control.”

Righteous criticism number 2, Danish People’s Party’s Leader Pia Kjærsgaard in Politiken Saturday March 18:

“The UN Rapporteur has likely never been to Denmark. We have for several years worked seriously with integration in Denmark, and along comes someone like that, who knows nothing of the conditions here, with a very sharp critique. That’s not serious.”

And Pia Kjærsgaard again, now in Jyllands-Posten, Saturday March 18th(not available online):

“This is so damning to [Doudou Diéne] and the whole UN system that he ought to be fired. He has no clue, none at all. Denmark is a tolerant and friendly nation.”

Finally, the luke-warm response. Helle Thorning-Schmidt in Jyllands-Posten, Saturday March 18th(not available online):

“I don’t see Denmark as a xenophobic or racist country and I do not recognise the picture Doudou Diéne paints in his report. We do occasionally talk too roughly here and the government ought to have taken the meeting with the ambassadors. But I don’t see the Muhammed cartoons as solely the responsibility of the government. The Arab countries and the Imams from Denmark are also responsible for that.”

Whoops! That wasn’t the last. This letter to the editor was published today, March 21st in Jyllands-Posten:

The Hopeless United Nations

By Mogens Camre, Member of the European Parliament for the Danish People’s Party

Once upon a time, the world put its trust in the United Nations. It was were just people would meet and negotiate solutions to the world’s conflicts. Here the developed countries would jointly make decisions about combating war, ignorance and poverty. Here battles would be fought to spead Human Rights to people in undeveloped dictatorships.

As time went by, the UN became an enormous bureaucracy with an enormous amount of people, paid with enormous tax-free salaries, which with limited effects were using money which some - but far from all - member countries paid into the system.

During the Kofi Annan’s tenure as General Secretary, we have witnessed the genocides in the areas of the Great Lakes where the UN didn’t react as it ought to. After that followed the extensive corruption in connection with the Oil for Food programme in Iraq and today we are witnessing the lacking response to the murder of Christians in Sudan by terrorist Moslems.

The scandal of nepotism sorrounding the son of Kofi Annan strictly adheres to African and Islamic leaders’ tradition of primarily helping their own families.

The 56 Moslem members of the UN are busy making the UN their vehicle for Islamic conquest of the world. That is of course not the official explanation. It’s called the rights of minorities to special treatment and special rights in countries to which they have migrated or fled.

The UN is trying to force an interpretation of the Human Rights which will mean that national constitutions and cultures must be bent to favor the cultures of losers which through religious extremism, uncontrollable population growth and the poverty that goes with it, are on a rampage of conquest in the Western world.

We must be pressured
It’s in that light we must view the judicially baseless attack by the UN Special Rapporteur, Senegalese Doudou Diéne.

It’s clear to anyone who has read the report that Diéne doesn’t know the meaning of Democracy and that what he wants is a dictatorship where religious guardians decide what the People are allowed to think and how they must live. The purpose of the attack is of course to pressure us and other Westerners to conform to Moslem standards. We must be pressured into silence and inaction so Islam can freely spread across the world and force unto others the culture which has made the Islamic countries the world’s poorest, most underdeveloped, most ignorant and the largest violators of Human Rights.

Islam is not only ancient religious perceptions of the the world and Men. Islam is a political ideology which claims sole power to rule the world and oppress and destroy other People. Forces within the UN are eager to help Islam do that, but their demands are served by Kofi Annan when he tells the world with a mild voice that we must show respect to superstition and not tell the truth. Even as he says that, Islamofascism is spreading across the world.

Islam, as described in the Koran, spites Human Rights and is a threat to development and progress. For that reason alone, it should be granted no place in the West. It’s time to tell that to the UN.

Interview from Berlingske Tidende, March 21st:

“Arla is free to move to Teheran”
By Morten Henriksen

Interview
Arla is free to move their “main offices to Teheran if they feel like it. There they would be free to do business in a culture with which they are apparently more attuned than the Danish,” says the Political Spokesman of the Liberals, Jens Rohde, in a scathing condemnation of Arla’s latest marketing ploy in the Middle East.

Arla’s dearly bought full-page ads in 25 Arab newspapers, which was supposed to entice the angry Moslem consumers to yet again buy the dairy company’s cheese and butter, has instead summoned the wrath of the Political Spokesman of the Liberals, Jens Rohde. He thinks Arla’s ads are an expression of a “pityful genuflection” before the angry Moslems who for nearing on two months have refused to buy Danish goods in response to the Muhammed cartoons. In the ads, Arla directly addresses the Moslem consumers saying that “we understand and respect your reaction which led to the boycott of our products as a result of the irresponsible and unfortunate incident.”

“Arla is within their rights to say and think what they want. They are also free to move their main offices to Teheran, if they feel like it. There they would be free to do business in a culture with which they are apparently more attuned than the Danish. Arla would be willing to barter their grandmother to sell their goods in countries ruled by dictators,” Jens Rohde says of the dairy company which so far has lost 400 million Danish Crowns due to the boycott.

Doesn’t Arla need to be supported in the present situation?

“Do they need to be supported? Denmark needs to be supported. And it is imperative that we hold onto our principles. If you’re willing to throw away our values, no support will be forthcoming from me. Arla seems to think that limits on Denmark are for the better.”

Limits on what?

“Limits on what you can say about Islam. Arla wants to limit other people’s Freedom of Speech in Denmark to sell their goods in the Middle East. I have no sympathy for that. My liberties are not as cheap as two litres of milk. If they would rather sell their milk in the Middle East, I have no problem with that,” Jens Rohde says.

So what are you saying?

“I just simply can’t understand that our principles are taken so lightly. You know what? Arla couldn’t run their business if they weren’t running on Freedom. I think they’re selling our liberties and our culture for their milk. I have no respect for that.”

Are you saying that Arla is working against offical Danish policy, which is to stop the boycott?

“Arla is not running our Foreign Ministry, so they are allowed to do all the ads they like. But I think it is a pityful genuflection before reactions which are entirely unreasonable in contrast to the 12 cartoons. Whatever happened to proportional response? People have their hands cut off and homosexuals are lynched and executed in the middle of the street. Women are being stoned for being unfaithful to their men. General oppression rules. There’s no Freedom of Speech. There’s no Freedom of Religion in the Moslem countries. There’s nothing of that which is the foundation of our way of life in Europe. Our good life and the way Arla does business. All of that appears not to matter to them. And we go and apologise in the Middle East for our way of being in Denmark? I can only say that I don’t hope Arla think they’re speaking for me.”

Austrian Army officers have complained that Moslem soldiers are incompetent, making them skilled to do only the most rudimentary jobs. If they get a certificate from the Austrian Moslem Faith Community stating that they are observant Moslems, they are allowed to pray 5 times a day, no matter the job they are performing at the time. Some who go for Friday’s Prayers stay away the rest of the day. The only punishment they receive for this is more frequent watches during the weekend. Some of the Moslem soldiers eat pork, drink alcohol and some even do drugs, raising suspicions among officers that the certificate is used mainly for shirking their duties and that the certificates are too easy to get.

At the Maria Theresa garrison where most Austrian Moslems serve, Moslems have their own prayer room, a shorter term of service and there many of the problems of the Austrian Army with Moslem conscripts first appear.

The 3 Moslem conscripts who refused to salute the flag were not disciplined, instead an Imam was summoned who issued a fatwa saying that it is allowed for Moslems to salute the Austrian flag. In response to the criticisms of Moslems in the army he says that there will alway be a few black sheep, but that their certificates are withdrawn if they are outed.

The Austrian defense minister, in response to this, has decided that the Austrian army from now on will have Field-Chaplins of the Moslem faith to mediate future conflicts. 3.5% of the Austrian armed forces are Moslems, putting the total somewhere around 1.000 Moslems.

The FPÖ’s spokesman, General Secretary Harald Vilimsky says that “There are signs in the garrisons of an integration that has not taken place.”

Hat tip: Minut

In a not-so-surprising move by Arla foods of Denmark, those of whining fame when the Battle of Khartoon first set in, Arla has launched a new advertising campaign in the Arab world. That’s not too bad in and of itself. BUT. They’ve decided to go about it by printing this statement in Arab newspapers together with TV commercials:

Arla Foods Distancing itself from the Cartoons

Statement from Arla Foods

At Arla Foods we feel that it is our duty to bring to your attention our position on the unfortunate event which took place a few months ago. We are also addressing the conference for International Support for the Prophet to take place on March 22 and 23 2006 to explain our point of view.

Arla foods distances itself from the act of Jyllands-Posten in choosing to print caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed and we do not share the newspaper’s reasons for doing so.

Having been in the Middle East for 40 years, participating as an active and integrated part of the community, we understand that you feel offended. Our presence in the region has brought us knowledge of your culture, values and your religion, Islam. This understanding has been the basis of our being able to provide you with good products of the highest quality and with the taste you demand through many years. We have built brands such as Lurpak, Puck, The Three Cows and Dano through your confidence in our products. Therefore we understand and respect your reaction, leading to the boycott of our products as a result of the irresponsible and unfortunate incident.

We would also like to use this opportunity to provide you with vital information about our company. Arla is a Danish-Swedish cooperative, owned by the farmers. Our subsidiary in the Middle East has investors and business partners from the Arab world. Arla is employing on the order of 1.000 Moslems in the Arab and Islamic world together wth more than 250 in Europe. All of them have felt offended by these cartoons. Arla’s trade was hit in the Middle East not as a result of our own actions but as a result of those of others.

Honored citizens, the years we have been in your world have taught us that justice and tolerance are fundamental values of Islam. We would like to cooperate with Islamic organisation to find a solution to the boycott of Arla’s products. We only ask you to consider this and hopefully, to reconsider your stance towards our company.

Now you know more about who we are, how we think and what we think. We’ll leave the rest up to you.

Arla Foods

The conference they’re referring to is one to be held in Bahrain where the Danish Imams of pig-eared fame will be participating. It was arranged by five Moslem organisation, including The International Union of Moslem Scholars, headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a major spokesman for the boycott. Fahmy Almajid, integration advisor, on the conference and al-Qaradawi: “The man has power, and he is very intractable. February 3 he called for what he called ‘The Friday of Wrath’, resulting in a tightening of the boycott, since the Imams listen to him.”
On the Danish Imams, Almajid says: “They are probably not there to say that everything is dandy. Their demands have far from been met because they still need to get an apology.”
Abdul Wahid Petersen, a Danish imam set to participate in the conference: “We can’t avoid mentioning the decision of the Crown’s Prosecutor, which will probably provoke some. We’ll have to wait and see how the conference progresses and I think the input from Denmark will be essential. I can’t say what the result of the conference will be and I haven’t discussed strategy with the other delegates, but I expect to talk about the decision at the conference and how I, as a Danish Moslem, view the signals sent by the Crown’s Prosecutor.”

The delegation from Denmark will consist of: Imam Abdul Wahid Petersen, Imam Abu Laban, Imam Abu Bashar, Imam Shaykh Raed Hlayhel, Imam Ahmed Akkari and the Chairman of the Danish Islamic Council, Jihad al-Farra.

The position of this blog on the matter of Arla is that of Jyllands-Posten. Fuck ‘em.

UPDATE: According to a DR story, The Danish People’s party has requested from the Foreign Ministry that the conference be monitored and that all statements made by Danish Imams be recorded, to be reviewed at a meeting of the Committee for Foreign Affairs.
Søren Espersen of the DPP says: “It is very disturbing that this disagreeable group of extremist and unreliable Imams has yet again set out to hurt Denmark’s cause.”
Imam Abdul Wahid Petersen says: “I am willing to urge that the boycott of Danish goods be stopped. But if Yusuf al-Qaradawi and other respected Scholars are of a different opinion, I can’t imagine that my voice will be listened to.”

UPDATE: The government responds: Liberals’ Spokesman Jens Rohde says Arla should move to Teheran.

Relevant links:
Statement from Arla in Danish
Article from B.T. with statements from Abdul Wahid Petersen and Fahmy Almajid
Article from Jyllands-Posten: “The Travelling Imams”
Article from Jyllands-Posten: “Danish Imams’ false pictures were misleading”
Arab News article detailing the plans for the conference

Articles about Ahmed Akkari (favourite whipping-boy of this blog):
Jyllands-Posten: “Imam was forced to leave teaching job”
Transcript of DR interview with Ahmed Akkari
Akkari: “Denmark needs to open its eyes”
Jyllands-Posten: “Imam apologized for assault on 11-year-old”

In the translation, the links are all mine, the editor’s comments are the newspaper’s.

You’re an Arrogant Man

Weltwoche, ausgabe 47/04.

By Hanspeter Born and Eugen Sorg

Interview with Tariw Ramadan: What was supposed to have been a critical dialogue with the Islamist writer, ended in fiasco.

We looked forward to a stirring, critical second talk with the Islamist author and preacher Tariq Ramadan. The first took place two weeks before this, and after we had reviewed it, we had a few misgivings - with ourselves and with Ramadan. We talked about Islam and terrorism, Iraq, the backwardness of the Arab world, the United Nations, universal values, freedom of opinion, headscarves. Now we had the feeling that our questions were too ordinary and too tentative. And that his answers were too rehearsed, too evasive and too ambigous - without our asking more questions to gain clarity.

This time we wanted to do better. We wanted to be concrete, harder, more personal and, if possible, to prevent empty retorics and charades.We wanted to know Ramadan’s position on the following questions and issues:In the eyes of most Moslems the West is morally inferior. Tolerance is a sign of decadence. The Islamic law of Sharia demands the death penalty for e.g. Homosexuality, female adulterers, atheism, the apostates of Islam, etc. Assuming the following: Ramadan’s daughter goes to the pool in bikini, wants to move together with her boyfriend, her boyfriend is an atheist; Ramadan’s son announces to his parents that he is a gay and has acted on this: What is Ramadan’s response?

Righteousness and laws are central to Islam, but it has no concept of Freedom or individuals. Islamism is not Humanism. It is significant that the writer Rushdie had a fatwa proclaimed against him, but not Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi or criminals of that ilk. The Koran is the work of man, the Prophet a warlord with a large following. The desolate state of things in the Arab world is connected to the ban on criticism of Islam. The Prophet allows Taqqiya for the believers (Taqiya is the omission and the lie) if they live under the rule of the unbelievers: How can we belive that Ramadan believes in what he is telling us?

Tariq Ramadan asked to meet us at a Café in Genfer Airport; he arrived fourty minutes late, the same as last time. The talk that progressed was not exactly a model for a successful inter-cultural dialogue. Rather, it was a failure. We failed completely and the meeting ended with Ramadan getting up and stalking off, deeply offended, after fifteen minutes. Most of our question remained unasked.

Born: you’ve been quoted as saying that the West is decadent.
No, I never said that. Never. Read my books, e.g. “Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity”. I say exactly the opposite. Recently I was with a Sheikh, an Islamic Scholar, in an Egyptian Mosque. He said to the Believers present that Westerners behave like dogs. After the lecture, I opined that such talk is intolerable, because I live in Switzerland and there they don’t act like dogs. That is a false perception about the West. Also, philosophically speaking, I am against talk of decadence. You’re a citizen of the West, yet you also criticise the excesses, the rootlessness of the West. I am like you.

Born: Mister Ramadan, what is it you don’t like about the West?
The excesses.

Born: Which excesses?
To take an example, this is my current perception, the obsession with consumerism. The truth is that we lose our ethics when we go too far down that road. The obsession with our rights is somewhat… I maintain that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be respected. But at the same time I say: My fellow citizens you must be careful, you mustn’t forget about duties and responsibilities when you claim your rights - the responsibility to the other citizens, to the World, even to the animals. This ethical point of view is very important for me. I say: In the West we are facing challenges and different forms of excess and we must use our reason in many different ways. I do this. The French publicist Alain Grèche once said: “I am more critical of the West than Tariq Ramadan, yet noone asks me to state my allegiance.” So this is really the core of your question: To prove that I am a citizen of the West, I must be blind and silent.

Born: No, no… (is interrupted)
I am critical, yes, but I have never said the West is lost.

Born: Will it fill you with satisfaction when the West is Islamist a hundred years from now?
Never. I have never dreamed of an Islamist Europe.

Born: Why not? Every religion wants to… (is interrupted)
No. When God wills it, we will become a united community. Christians, Jews - even Atheists and Agnostics.

Born: You don’t want Islam to be the dominant religion of the World?
(quietly) I don’t want that, no. Do you know what I tell the Moslems? It is better to be the minority than the majority. Because each is tempted to lie in wait, waiting to oppress the other. My struggle is not about power, it is about values. Don’t say that I am doing Double Talk, that I am talking with a forked tongue. Read my books.

Sorg: How are you an Islamist? You talk about universal human rights. That is a Western concept, an idea from the European Enlightenment.
(Quietly, sharply) Totally untrue. Who told you this?

Sorg: So all the books say. Enlightenment is a European post-religious project.
Untrue. Al-Farabi talked of universal rights. Do you know of Al-Farabi?

Sorg: Who?
14th century. You are displaying your ignorance. This is Double Talk (Editor: Al-Farabi was born in the 9th century)

Sorg: In many Moslem countries you would be killed if you talked of universal rights.
I have not been killed in Moslem countries. Who told you this?

So it says every day in the newspapers. In Saudi Arabia you can be executed for the mere possesion of a bible.
I am as critical of Moslem countries as you have ever been. Where were you and your newspaper when the king of Saudi Arabia came to Switzerland? Nowhere. Do you know why? Money.

Money?
Because he was bearing money - 46 Million Swiss Francs.

Born: Did you protest?
I wrote an article. About how you don’t respect the values.

Sorg: Which values?
The universal values of the Human Rights. Which are not your property. You have never studied Islamic Philosophy. What do you know of Al-Farabi, what do you know of Averroes? And you want to tell me that….

Sorg: I know of Averroes that he too would be killed in Islamic Countries. (Editor:Averroes, Moslem Philosopher, 12th century, died in exile, his writings were burned by the Islamic Nomenklatura of that time.)
What is the meaning of this discussion? What is the point? I am not talking of the world of today. I am talking about universal values.

Sorg: It began in Europe with Descartes (is interrupted)
You know nothing of Chinese Philosophy, nothing of Islamic Philsophy. This ignorance is making you arrogant.

Sorg: But we’re talking of current politics…
(Loudly, offended) You are arrogant. You’re not talking about current politics. You’re talking about universal values.

Born: Let us talk about Freedom, about the Western values… (tries to pour oil on the troubled waters)

Sorg: (Spiteful) …Islam is in opposition to Humanism…
(Forceful) Stop, stop, stop this discussion…

Sorg: Why?
… And understand Islam.. What is it? How many Moslems do you know?`What have you read about Islam? You’re an arrogant Man. A Moslem such as Al-Farabi is more tolerant than you are.

Sorg: How many centuries did he live?
Why does that matter? I am more tolerant than you right now. I don’t say that Christianity is like this or like that…

Sorg: I wasn’t talking about Christianity. I was talking about the Enlightenment, which was European, critical of religions…
(Sharply) So there is no Islamist Enlightenment, then? Name three Moslem philosophers, please…

Sorg: The three most well-known are… (is interrupted)
(Sharper still)… please, name for me, apart from Averroes…

Sorg: I want to ask you something…
… name three for me. You’re an arrogant Man.

Sorg: Thank you. That is the fifth time you tell me that.

Born: No, please excuse…
(Stands) I will do nothing, I won’t talk to this commoner. That’s final. This discussion is finished.

Born: No, no, no…

Sorg: (Loudly) You’re running. Is this your idea of dialogue? I said Islam and Humanism are opposites. Prove otherwise.
(directed at Born, still standing, deeply offended) You brought this commoner here… You don’t listen to my answers… (Looking rattled, Ramadan puts Sorg’s calling card in Born’s breast pocket, very deeply offended and leaves the room grumbling.)…arrogant…unpolite…(loses himself in the crowd without looking back.)

Sorg: (Broken, addressed to himself) He is certainly not used to that.

When we are talking about integration - the full meaning of the word, where Moslems feel welcome and respected in the community - then it is my estimate that it will take 12 years of hard work to get the EU member countries to accept the idea of showing respect to the symbols of Islam.

It’s not my Prophet

“I don’t regret printing those cartoons. I was defending the Prophet, I was defending Islam against those who wish to use the religion to create conflicts and maintain their grip on power,” says Mohammed al-Asadi - the editor in chief of The Yemen Observer who is now on trial for his life for having printed three of the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

By Rune Lykkeberg

The Friday after he was released from jail, he went to pray at the Mosque. Mohammed al-Asadi had become a known face in Yemen: He had been presented as a criminal on national TV and in government-friendly newspapers. He was also a known face outside of Yemen: Newsweek did a telephone interview with him in prison where they called him a “martyr for the free press” and BBC World has told his story. This Friday Mohammed al-Asadi didn’t wish to be recognised. All he wanted to do was to go to Friday Prayers, so he walked towards a Mosque in a part of Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, where he doesn’t usually go:

“When I entered, I bowed my head and listened. The preacher warned against a terrible sinner among us, against one in Yemen who has dishonored our religion and our prophet. He talked of how disgraceful this man was. I realised that I was who he was talking about. I was their sinner. I dared not lift my head. I covered my head with my scarf and looked down. There and then I realised how bad things are. If the others in the Mosque had recognised me, they would have killed me. With their shoes if they had nothing else to do it with.”

Mohammed al-Asadi is at the Shepheard Hotel in Cairo, both proud and humble, telling his story to Information. He is no more than 1.70 [metres] tall and he has just turned 31. Happenstance allowed him to escape from Yemen last Friday:

“They looked at me in the airports and asked: ‘Do we know you from somewhere? Are you famous?’ Then they laughed and let me through. The government’s central records aren’t connected to the airport’s database in Yemen.”

“My trial will recommence on March 22. I have three children and my wife in Yemen, who I must return to. And I have my newspaper and my fight against our fanatical leaders.”

The Yemen Observer is a weekly newspaper critical of the government published in English. Al-Asadi calls it ‘Yemen’s window on the world and the world’s window on Yemen.’ The publisher of the newspaper has close connections to the government, yet al-Asadi was allowed to write of corruption and abuse of power n Yemen.

February 4th this year, al-Asadi chose to print three of Jylland-Posten’s caricatures of the prophet. He printed them as miniatures less than two centimetres square with a big X across. They were the size of thumb nails. Al-Asadi had been to a lokal govery store in Sanaa and reported how Danish goods had been removed and placed in boxes. Signs had been placed on the empty shelves: “This is were we used to sell Danish products.” The Yemen Observer also printed a big photo of the 20-30,000 black-clad Yemenitic women who demonstrated against Denmark.

“You had a large story about the protests, drawings and Denmark with two large photographs. Why did the caricatures need to be shown?”

“For two reasons. The first, professionalism: As a journalist one should alway tell the other side of the story, ask the other side and show their way reasoning. That is what we blame our governments for doing.”

“The other is religious. I don’t understand why Moslems bought into the story that it was their prophet in those cartoons. We’ve made them bigger and more important that way. Our leaders accepted the idea that those cartoons provoke our faith and our prophet. Those cartoons aren’t sacred. I won’t recognise the premise that it is my prophet who is depicted in those cartoons. I don’t get insulted by cartoons, because the prophet, to me, is above insults.”

By accident the miniature reproductions of the the caricatures were printed on the front page. The editor in chief had gone home and an editorial secretary put a small text on the front page about the article about the demonstrations inside the newspaper. The secretary chose the small reproductions with a X to illustrate this text. Shortly thereafter al-Asadi was contacted by another newspaper from Yemen demanding blackmail to not report them to the Ministry of Information. They threatened to collect signatures to a petition demanding that the editorial board be jailed. Al-Asadi refused.

A couple of days later, al-Asadi received a phone call from a friend in Italy;

“Muhammed”, the friend shouted into the receiver. “I have just heard over Reuters that the government has withdrawn your license. Is it true that the Yemen Observer has been closed?”

Al-Asadi had heard no such thing. But the day after he was picked up by some police-men and a public prosecutor.

“I asked them if it was their prophet the Danish newspaper had drawn? If their prophet was insulted by such things? They didn’t answer but took me straight to jail.”

Al-Asadi received a call on his cell phone in jail: His mother had seen him on the BBC. She was terrified:

“‘My son,’ she said ‘How did you become like this? How did you become such a terrible blasphemer?’ I told her thet the Ministry of Information had been spreading false rumors about me through their newspapers and television channels. She believed me in the end.”

But the mother is exposed in the village in southern Yemen where she lives: Neighbours and friends see her son as a ‘criminal’. They didn’t see the Yemen Observer, of course. They’ve only seen pictures of al-Asadi and heard the word ‘blasphemer’ and ‘criminal’ on TV. Al-Asadi made his wife promise him that she won’t turn on the TV while he was in jail.

“Many see me as a criminal now. The advertisers have stopped paying the invoices the Yemen Observer sends them. And they won’t advertise in the future.”

According to al-Asadi it took some time to find staff for the Yemen Observer who both know of conditions in Yemen, have skills as journalists and who can write in English. Now the staff is slowly melting away. The writers have found other jobs to make money:

“It will be hard to rebuild the editorial staff. We have written of the government’s corruption. In our last issue we wrote of how Yemen’s embassies abroad are so corrupted that it is fair to call it ‘exporting corruption’. So when we printed the cartoons, they took their chance and shut us down and destroyed our foundation.”

Mohammed al-Asadi was incarcerated from February 11 to February 22. Before the trial began he was released on bail, following international pressure. Now he is facing 21 public prosecutors:

“They don’t speak English, so they can’t read the Yemen Observer. I have asked to have the article from February 4th transled into Arabic for evidence. They’ve denied that request. They haven’t even seen the Yemen Observer.”

The 21 prosecutors keep adding charges against al-Asadi. They’re stalling:

“They want to continue until I can’t afford my attorney anymore. They tell my attorney: ‘Why do you defend him? A man who defames our prophet.’”

The prosecutors started the trial against him with a parable: There was once a woman who insulted the prophet Muhammed, saying horrible things. When a man of her city heard of this, he went and killed her. A couple of days later, the prophet Muhammed passed through the city and said: “That was good, that was just.” That was how the prosecutors presented their demand for the death penalty for Mohammed al-Asadi.

Mohammed al-Asadi is in the lobby of Hotel Shepheard in Cairo. He doesn’t look like a man who is afraid. And he says he will return to Yemen:

“I don’t regret printing the cartoons. I defended the prophet, I defended Islam against those who want to use the religion to create conflicts and maintain their grip on power. Islam is still a good religion, it is a million times more tolerant than those who persecute others in its name.”

“The important thing is that this is a battle. It won’t stop. We will have to yield for the time being, which lets the fanatics run loose. Right now we have strong hearts but empty vallets. Right now I don’t see how and when we will resume the battle.”

Al-Asadi is responsible to the publisher of the newspaper, Faris Abdullah Sanabani, who hired him as editor in chief a year ago:

“I was nervous of his reaction. I feared he would say: ‘Mohammed, you have destroyed my newspaper and all of ours’ reputation.’ But his reaction was that I did the right thing - professionally and religiously. ‘You are a good Moslem Mohammed,’ he said. And than I felt safe. I knew I was defending the prophet against the fanatics.”

But al-Asadi emphasises that this isn’t only his battle. Reporters Without Borders supports him, colleagues in the West have told his story and international media have appealed to the government of Yemen to release him and two other journalists who are also on trial for having printed cartoons:

“In Yemen we are outnumbered and the fanatics have succeded in pressuring us. But this is an international battle in all countries against all fanatics. And there the balance of power is much more equal. It’s an international battle for release from the bondages of extremisms and fanatics.”

Al-Asadi adds that he doesn’t like his family paying the price for his battle:

“My mother grieves deeply. She has done so for weeks. She is on the verge of breaking. Recently I was driving between Sanaa and Taiz, my hometown. I was thinking: ‘Who is doing this to me? Who has rallied the forces that are making my mother miserable, my wife nervous and my father frustrated?’ And then I hit a stone in the wayside. My car was cooked. I was just sitting there by the side of the road watching the other cars drive past me. And I wondered if they could tell that it was him from the television and that is why they didn’t stop. But then I was given a ride to the repair shop. And now I am in Cairo with my colleagues, telling my story.”

Relevant links:

The Yemen Observer, February 4: Demonstrators Outraged, Apology Accepted
The article mentioned in the interview with “black-clad women” protesting the Danish cartoons.

The Yemen Observer, February 7: The Art of Losing Opportunities

The Yemen Observer, February 8: Government Revokes Yemen Observer for Covering Danish Crisis

Jurist, February 12: Yemen to prosecute newspaper editors for publishing Muhammad cartoons

Reporters Without Borders, February 13: Cartoons controversy : “Absurd and dangerous” measures continue in the Arab world

The Yemen Observer, February 14: An Appeal from Jail from Mohammed al-Asadi, Editor-in-Chief.

Reporters Without Borders, February 17: Call to free journalists imprisoned in Prophet cartoons row

Newsweek, February 17: ‘Of Course I’m Afraid’
Interview with Mohammed al-Asadi from his Yemen jail cell

The Yemen Observer, February 18: FREE AL-ASADI! International Call to Release Yemeni Journalists
Call to free al-Asadi from Observer staff. Details of how to sign a petition in support of al-Asadi.

The Yemen Observer, February 22: Al-Asadi Free But Trial Continues

The Yemen Observer, March 8: Lawyers Demand Capital Penalty for Al-Asadi and Observer Close

FOXNews.com, March 9: Cleric’s Lawyers: Death to Yemeni Publisher of Muhammad Cartoons

American Daughter, March 9: The Shame Of Yemen
Report on the al-Qaeda background of one of the prosecutors

PIA CAUSA, March 9: Demands for Capital Penalty for Al-Asadi
Pia Causa was the first to break the news of the demand for the death penalty to the blogosphere. Links to other blogs at bottom of his post.

Michelle Malkin, March 10: FREE MUHAMMAD AL-ASADI

Jurist, March 15: Tolerance on Trial: Why We Reprinted the Danish Cartoons
Interview with Faris Sanabani, Publisher of the English-language Yemen Observer newspaper

Information, March 17: Det er ikke min profet

Is the Muslim Loaded?
By Jacob Raines

The rule is, “every gun should be treated as if it were loaded.” What is the meaning of this rule? An unloaded gun is merely a heavy blunt object and as much a weapon as a baseball bat, table leg or tire iron. An unloaded gun retains the same properties as any heavy, oddly shaped piece of metal, and could be used as a paperweight, doorstop or crude hammer. Yet place a cartridge into the gun and it becomes an all new different object with inherited and unique characteristics.

Where as an unloaded gun is at best a crude weapon, a loaded gun is an effective deadly weapon, lethal with one shot. A loaded weapon can kill a loved one, an innocent, cause damage, or terrify those in its presence. Because a loaded gun is so powerful, and wields such creditable force, all guns should be treated with the same respect as if it were loaded, that is, until cleared. Guns shouldn’t be left around children or any individual unknowledgeable of such an instrument. Guns are prohibited from being around certain people and banned from certain areas and buildings.

Knowing this rule, all Muslims and Arabs should be treated as if they were terrorists, until checked and cleared. A Muslim that is not a terrorist is simply a human being, capable of feelings and desires. Wanting nothing more than to live and be happy. A human being like any other, able to make his own decisions and strive to live a successful and fruitful life. The non-terrorist could be an architect, doctor, lawyer, ditch digger or burger flipper. The non-terrorist is a human being that may not be entirely content with the way things are, but for the most part accepts the world and lives within the laws. The non-terrorist as any human being chooses to enact change through a civilized method and procedure. Yet, if a bullet of Jihad and hatred is inserted into a Muslim then a very different being is created, a being that ceases to be human and becomes a terrorist.

The Muslim terrorist is lethal weapon, deadly with one explosion. Terrorists strike fear into the masses, and is a vehicle of death and sorrow. Muslims have destroyed buses, pizzerias, naval ships, embassies and skyscrapers. These same terrorists, highjack airliners, and kill Olympic athletes. They blow up nightclubs, military barracks, mosques, synagogues, desecrate burial sites, and randomly kill women, men, young and old. These terrorists kill anyone who does not completely agree their ideology, and destroys anything that may be an obstacle to his hate filled movement. Possessing such power of destruction makes a terrorist a serious concern. Because Muslims have been the most successful and prolific of all terrorists, all Muslims should be treated as terrorists, until proven otherwise.

Until checked and cleared, all Muslims should be kept away from Jews, Israel, mass transportation, media outlets, political bodies, and governing councils. It is all to well known that those safety measures are not in place. Tenacity and sure will alone has not made Arab Muslims effective terrorists. Arabs are cowards, and are absent a backbone. One Arab Muslim man will not fight one Jew, nor will two Arab Muslims fight two Jews however, a pack of 10 Arab Muslims will gang up on one Black Hatter, or on one Jewish girl. This absence of a backbone necessitates a need for support, of which they do not simply gain from themselves but gain from the media, left-wing organizations and the international body politic.

When Muslim leaders speak, they speak with hatred. When that hate speech is given a legitimate voice, that hatred manifests itself in a internationally supported and accepted terrorist organization, namely the PLO, or as the United Nations calls it the Palestinian Authority (PA). The United Nations has given terrorists, Arafat and Ahmadinijad a voice and a legitimate vessel in which to spread the idea of Jihad. The UN gave a gun-toting and military-uniformed Arafat a platform in which he could spread his vision of peace, or rather vision of pieces of Jewish bodies laying in the street. Recently, Ahmadinijad was allowed to speak, his speech came shortly after he left a conference entitled “A world without Zionism” in which he professed a will and desire to wipe the “Zionist Entity” off the map. This is the same man whose country Iran supports Hamas, the governing body of the PA.

The news media has turned terrorists into victims and glorified them as “freedom fighters.” The entertainment industry has produced such pro-Palestinian and pro-terrorist films as “Paradise Now”, “Syriana”, and ironically “Munich”. Each, painting the Muslim terrorist in a sympathetic light, and placing the blame for Middle Eastern woes on heartless Zionists and greedy Westerners.

Jews and Western leaders are also at fault. The Israeli government all too often acquiesces to Arab demands and cow tows to their needs. Instead of protecting the rights Jewish citizens’, the government is more concerned with protecting Arab rights, and operates in constant fear of infringing on them. The Israeli government has kicked Jews out homes and off property, and given large tracks of land to terrorists. Homes of peaceful Jews are demolished due to “illegality”, while illegal Arab buildings are ignored. Contrary to law, Jews aren’t allowed to pray at the Temple Mount, while Muslims are not only allowed to pray but are allowed to operate a mosque built on top of the Temple Mount, a mosque that not only represents Muslim terrorism but acts as inspiration for such violence.

Not all Arabs or Muslims are terrorists, but they should be treated as such. When a Swede is an anti-Semite and speaks hate, no one cares or pays attention. Sweden may or may not have a history of anti-Semitism, but they don’t have a history of terrorism. Swedes don’t walk around with 20-pounds of explosives taped their bodies. However, when a noticeably Arab or Muslim person wearing a big coat walks onto a bus, riders instantly think, “he may be carrying a bomb.” Both the Arab and Muslim community has worked long and hard to earn that distinction.

When international organizations, news and entertainment media legitimize terrorist movements and causes, they in effect point loaded guns at Jews, Western civilization and civilization as whole. When Israel condoles Arab Muslims and protects their rights at the expense of Jewish lives, Israel fosters Jihad terrorism. When the government of a Western nation refuses to profile Arabs and Muslims as they board planes and trains, fearing that such a policy will be seen as insensitive, that very government has allowed a gun to be left out in the open for anyone to pick up.

Yet the question must always be asked: Is the Muslim loaded?

Dumps Danes - Lands Deal with Iran
Båtservice Verft in Mandal had to cut out Danish supplier to land big contract with the port authority of Iran

Bjørn Fjellhaugen of the Shipyard group Båtservice in Mandal has gained a reputation for getting contracts from fae away. Lately the shipyard has delivered ships to both China, Austria and Iran, Dagens Næringsliv writes.

Dumped Danish boats
This time around the shipyard has been tasked with building nine pilot vessels for the port authority of Iran. The contract is estimated to be worth 110 Millions NOK.

“Iranian authorities view Norway as a good country to collaborate with,” Bjørn Fjellhaugen opines.

Though the contract was signed as the Norwegian flag was burning in the Middle East, that wasn’t a problem [at the negotations].

“It’s worse for the Danes. They have problems. I had, among other things, some Danish rubber boats included in the Pilot Vessel project. I had to put in Zodiacs instead, Fjellhaugen says to Dagens Næringsliv.

Good Reputation in Sudan
Fjellhaugen is currently in negotiations with the government of Sudan for an order of several Towboats. The efforts of former Secretary for Foreign Aid, Hilde Frafjord Johnson, to create peace in the country has given [Norwegians] a very good reputation in the country, according to Fjellhaugen.

The Båtservice group last year had a turnover of 280 Million NOK with a surplus of 9 Million NOK before taxes and employs 360 people.

Op Blog: Muhammed was a violent figure

By Poul Højlund, March 16, 2006

It is noticeable that the Crown’s Prosecutor in his ruling states that Muhammad was indeed a violent person, spreading his message by the sword. We all knew that, - and now it’s official: Muhammad operates through violence.

New outbursts of violent Muslim reactions are expected in the days to come as the ruling of the Danish Crown’s Prosecutor becomes known.

The government yesterday with short notice summoned all foreign ambassadors in Denmark to a briefing on the ruling of the Crown’s Prosecutor, explaining once again the sealed doors between the government and the legal system.
[…]

Read it all at Pia Causa

Crown’s Prosecutor: No indictment against JP
The Crown’s Prosecutor dismisses all charges against Jyllands-Posten for having published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammed.

Jyllands-Posten is not to be punished for publishing the hotly debated cartoons of the prophet Muhammed, the Crown’s Prosecutor informs. But Freedom of Speech is not without limits and the law doesn’t allow people unlimited debate on religious subjects, the Crown’s Prosecutor makes clear:

“It is thus not a correct description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and one has to be ready to put up with “scorn, mockery and ridicule”,” Crown’s Prosecutor Henning Fode writes.

Faith Community Disappointed
The Islamic Faith Community expresses disappointment with the Crown’s Prosecutor’s decision and is thinking about how to proceed.

“The decision show that the people who made the blasphemy law weren’t familiar with the religious feelings of Moslems”, the spokesman of the Islamic Faith Community, Kasem Said Ahmad, who was among those who reported Jyllands-Posten.

“It sends a wrong message to the rest of the world. I think the decision is liable to have negative consequences for Denmark. It’s just not about the Moslems in Denmark, but also about the 1.4 Billion Moslems around the world,” Kasem Said Ahmad says.

Kasem Said Ahmad will now review the decision and its appendices with representatives of the other Moslem organisations in Denmark who reported Jyllands-Posten. They will review the option of bringing the case to the European Union’s Human Rights court.

The cartoons were headlined “The Faces of Muhammed”. According to Islam it is forbidden to depict the prophet and the cartoons ignited protests in large parts of the Moslem world.

As you will recall, Jyllands-Posten was reported as having broken the near-obsolete law against blasphemy which hasn’t been succesfully used since 1938. The charges were first dismissed by the Prosecutor for Denmark but the case was reopened by the Crown’s Prosecutor to ensure that all options had been tried.

Update: The Crown’s Prosecutor’s decision is available here.

Quoting:

The Decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of Jyllands-Posten’s Article “The Face of Muhammed”
Press Release March 15th, 2006

The Decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of Jyllands-Posten’s Article “The Face of Muhammed”
I have today decided not to institute criminal proceedings in the case of Jyllands-Posten’s article “The Face of Muhammed”, which was published on 30 September 2005 and where complaints were filed against Jyllands-Posten for violation of Sections 140 and 266 b of the Danish Criminal Code.

My decision is that there is no violation of the said rules of the Danish Criminal Code. My decision is published on the homepage of the Director of Public Prosecutions (www.rigsadvokaten.dk).

Although there is no basis for instituting criminal proceedings in this case, it should be noted that both provisions of the Danish Criminal Code contain a restriction of the freedom of expression. Section 140 of the Criminal Code protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and Section 266 b protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religion among other things. To the extent publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is, therefore, no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects. It is thus not a correct description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and one has to be ready to put up with “scorn, mockery and ridicule”.

My decision in the matter cannot be appealed to a higher administrative authority. This follows from Section 99(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

Henning Fode

Hmmm.. From reading the documents in Danish, this press release seems to be a bit too much of a release for the press as opposed to a release to the press. As far as I can tell, the Danish documents available here seem to indicate that the European Human Rights Court has all but overruled Article 140 of the Danish Criminal Code. More commentary to follow.

Update: Politiken published a statement from Editor-in-chief Carsten Juste. He too is a bit puzzled by the press release:

“My immediate reaction is that I don’t think I quite understand his reasoning. We are all aware that Freedom of Speech is “answerable to the courts”, but to say that one’s Freedom of Speech is limited in advance, doesn’t seem right to me. In my opinion, the Crown’s Prosecutor has chosen the wrong path in choosing that wording.”

He is pleased with the overall decision, though:

“It’s very satisfactory, the decision made by the Crown’s Prosecutor. It would be unbearable if we had to pass through two appeals and then on to the European Human Rights Court with a matter like this. So I find it overall satisfactory.”

Update: Ny Sun has the AP report

Cash and a car for the blood of Danish cartoonists
Peshawar, Mar 15
In his office in Peshawar’s historic Mohabat Khan mosque, prayer leader Maulana Yousaf Qureshi smoothes his beard from the white roots to the henna-orange tips.

“There’s no time limit. If someone kills the cartoonist in 50 years he will still get the million dollars,” he says.

In a blazing sermon on February 17, Qureshi promised the money — and a new car — to whoever assassinates any of the 12 Danes whose drawings of the Prophet Mohammed ignited a firestorm of protest across the Muslim world.

On the same day, anti-cartoon protests in the conservative northwestern city turned into full-fledged anti-western riots that left foreign fast-food joints and businesses in flames.

The unrest has abated since then, but not the anger.

“We want them to spend the rest of their days like prisoners, under police protection,” nods the imam, between two sips of sweetened green tea.

“We would like Denmark to sentence them to death, but since they don’t do that there we would settle for life imprisonment.”

Qureshi himself offered a 500,000 rupee (8,333 dollar) reward while the rest is being collected by the Peshawar Association of Goldsmiths. The group also offered the car.

In Peshawar, the narrow lanes of the gold market adjoin the massive white mosque. Many jewellers bear callouses on their foreheads, caused by years of bowing in prayer.

Ahmed, who would not give his first name, is one of them. In his tiny shop he hammers out a gold sheet. “I’m ready to donate my share. No one is refusing to pay, it’s an honour. I’ll give as much as possible, everything I have.”

A little further off Haji Zarin Khan, the association’s secretary general, sits in his office surrounded by gold and mirrors. “All contributions will be voluntary. The richer ones will naturally pay more,” he says.

“When the Prophet was alive, one day someone insulted him. He ordered they should be put to death. So it’s normal that the people behind these abominations should be killed. It’s simple.”

He lowers his voice. “Look, what we basically want to do is send a message to the rest of the world. No doubt it will be difficult for someone to actually go to Denmark and kill these people. But we want to express our anger. And to ensure this never happens again.”

Some visitors in the room nod in agreement.

“The solution is for them to say they are sorry. The cartoonists or the Danish government. Islam says you must pardon those who repent,” Khan adds.

Rehmat Khan, who runs a modest shop near the entrance to the mosque, said he had “not been told about this reward. The association has not made any official announcement.

“But if they ask me I will give them what I can. I am a small jeweller, I won’t be able to give much… but I will give something.”

Asked if he had seen the offending cartoons, he replied: “No, no, of course not. I’m too busy working every day. And anyway it would be a sin to look at them.”

Sat cross-legged on a rug, behind his three telephones, his fax and his computer, Qureshi closes his eyes and smiles.

“These unfortunate drawings have had one positive effect: they have woken up the Muslim world, which is now more united.”

A ringing telephone interrupts him. “Inshallah (God willing), my son,” he says.

“A mujahedin (holy warrior),” he explains. “He is asking if someone can sort out his trip to Denmark…”

Update: Poul has a post about this article. If you want to praise or comment on the article, go here.

Democracy before Religion

By Poul Højlund

Islam is an unbreakable monolith of religion and politics. Islam as traditionally interpreted is not compatible with democracy, the author of today’s feature article writes.

“Freedom of Religion is included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Danish Constitution. This means that I am free to be a Christian and my neighbor can be a Moslem without this interfering with our basic rights or our recognition by society at large. And our neighbor another door over is allowed to believe in absolutely nothing while remaining a co-equal member of our common society.

Freedom of Religion means that if someone by words or deeds attacks my two non-Christian neighbors on account of their beliefs or lack thereof, I’ll be there to defend their rights. In the same manner, I can count on them - if things get to that.”

That is what I wrote in Jyllands-Posten in November of 2002 in the feature article titled “Freedom of Beliefs and Belief in Freedom”, and I still hold it to be true - indeed I don’t see how I could believe otherwise. But in that article I also wrote of the real and present danger of oppression of Democracy.

“…We must, tooth and nail, combat any initiative - irregardless of its initiator and religiousity - which aims to lead us astray from our road towards a better Democracy. And we must confront all schools of thought which question the validity of the Human Rights that are the basis for Democracy.

Democracy is the guarantor of Freedom of Religion - not the other way around. Presently, the threat is Islamic Fundamentalism. This threat is serious and therefore, this is where we will do battle. Not Christianity versus Islam, but Democracy and Human Rights versus Feudalism; Freedom of Religion against Totalitarianism; Modernity pitted against the Endarkenment and the regress that wants to subdue our liberties.”

That those paragraphs are still relevant was grotesquely underlined by the Battle of Khartoon.

Apparently a lot of people in high places in our Democracy have a hard time understanding the simple fact that Islam as traditionally interpreted is not compatible with Democracy. In a reversal of priorities, they are defending Islam’s Freedom of Oppression by referring to the Freedom of Religion. Some even manage to bring the immigration debate into play: distancing oneself from the lack of Freedom in Islam is the same as discrimination or even racism.

Why is diminished Freedom acceptable when Religion is involved? Did not the Boers of South Africa call apartheid part of their faith? The Ku Klux Klan maintain their right to lynch black people as part of their faith - are they suddenly sacrosanct? No. None can be allowed to justify violations of Human Rights by invoking ‘Religious Beliefs’.

Only when it comes to Islam do some get all respectful and considerate of the intolerable. Where are the wrathful demonstrations against the massive oppression of free thought in the Moslem world? Against the grotesque oppression of women? Against the ongoing human rights violations? The standards by which we judge the Islamic world are obviously lower than the standards we apply to the rest of the world. To me, this seems like some kind of reverse racism, a twisted version of Kipling’s old say about ‘The White Man’s Burden‘.

Helle Thorning Schmidt said it succinctly: Democracy comes before Religion. That is necessarily the order of things in the part of the world that fancies itself Democratic. A prerequisite for Democracy is that all men and women have their spiritual freedom and the corresponding uncensored Freedom of Speech, answerable only to the courts; it presupposes that no power is above the Democratic power of the state and that all exercise of religion takes place within this framework.

Islam has, alone among the great religions of the world, a problem with these demands. Or to be more precise: These demands are incompatible with Islam in the current official version. This is not about racism or xenophobia, nor is it about offending beliefs or ridiculing Moslems. That is not what this is about - notwithstanding that one of the Moslems’ religious taboos has been broken. This is solely about Democracy and its prerequisite, Freedom of Speech.

Islam won’t be democratised before it has had its reformation. There is no “Political Islam” contra a “Religious Islam”, even though it would be nice to think so. Islam is an unbreakable monolith of religion and politics where the Koran is the source of all legislation, a fact which constitutions in many Moslem countries make no secret of.

Maybe a better illustration is the Islamic Republic of Iran which has democratic plebiscites to elect members of Parliament and the President, but the candidates are expressly limited to those approved by the Council of Guardians. The Mullahs must approve of each candidate in this so-called democracy. That Iran, furthermore, often publicly hangs teenagers for acts explicitly covered by the UN Human Rights Declaration only serves to illustrate that the more legislation is based on Islam, the greater is the bloody oppression of the citizens’ Human Rights.

In the Moslem world, religion is always unconditionally above democracy. In spite of all Moslem countries, Saudi-Arabia excepted, having signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, that declaration is simply not valid within the framework of Islam. Instead special Islamic Human Rights have been drafted, which there is pressure on the UN to recognise. They’ve been compiled in the Cairo-declaration of 1990 and they emphasise Sharia as the framework of all Human endeavors.

Freedom of Religion is completely absent from the declaration, on the contrary it starts with these words: “All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam”. In the 25 Articles of the declaration, Shari’ah is mentioned no less than 15 times, God is mentioned 9 times and to be on the safe side, the following two closing Articles have been added:
Article 24: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”
Article 25: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”

It can hardly be said clearer than that: Religion is above all else, Human Rights and Democracy included. Traditional Islam is the absolute contrast to Democracy. There is no use pretending anything else. Islam is the doctrine of the divine order on Earth, and it doesn’t tolerate any aberrations. Traditional Islam sees our Democracy as a secular competitor, an infidel adversary and an enemy of the teachings of the Prophet.

Islam is like a one-way street with no exits. If one goes down that road, there is no turning back, no possibility of reforming or renouncing one’s faith, no possibility of seeking other solutions and truths than those prescribed in the unchangeable and eternal laws of the Shari’ah. The system is self-perpetuating and completely closed. Islam was created by Muhammed with the intention of making it everlasting and universal.

It’s with this in mind that the demand for international legislation against defamation of religions must be viewed. It should be noted that both Nyrup, Elleman, Clinton and Annan support this demand and that the demand is being reviewed by the UN bureaucracy in the form of a resolution proposed by the OIC - the most significant organisation of Islamic countries - who aim to have it included in the Human Rights Declaration. It was OIC who created the special Sharia-based Islamic Human Rights.

The Battle of Khartoon is the perfect pretext for the Islamic countries. Here we have an overt example of a violation of Moslem taboo and thus of the prophet who is worshipped with intense passion - in spite of his own ban on idolatry. The cartoons weren’t the reason - this campaign was orchestrated long ago by the OIC as part of their attempt to reconstruct the Nation of Islam and the great community of the ummah. Doubters are free to check the minutes and documents available at OIC’s website.

The Islamic world is not content with minding its own affairs; it wants for its religion to spread around the world and the means to do so is the demand for respect for Islam. But respect for Islam leads to submission since all criticism of Islam is the same as disrespect, which again means defaming the prophet. It’s hard to understand this for a non-Moslem because we live in the free world. But ask the Moslem dissidents; they know what the price is for transgressing against heavenly laws. Or consider those who are murdered for offending the beloved prophet. Or ask Naser Khader who has around-the-clock protection by the police.

We will probably have, yet again, to establish a policy of containment against the Islamic countries to stop further spread of this anti-democracy - but we cannot limit ourselves to minding our own affairs. To give an example that has a slight touch of humor to it:

Muhammed has been depicted on the Supreme Court building in the US with a sword in one hand and the Koran in the other since the 1930′a as part of a friese about historic lawgivers. Within the last 10 years, big Islamic organisation in the US have demanded that the relief be removed several times, with no succes so far. They see it as offending and it is likely to be removed if the OIC is succesful with their resolution against defamation of religions.

As part of the same process, Islamic countries also want a ban on islamophobia as part of international law. Islamophobia is a neologism which directly translated means fear - clinical fear even - of Islam. I don’t see why the Danish People’s Party should have a letter of patent on this phobia; I have no problem calling myself an islamophobe and I don’t see why it should be considered derogatory.

I fear that our way of life won’t survive the clash with the medieval absolutism of Islam if we don’t resist it and gain clarity about what our values are and what principles our democracy operates by. Let’s turn around the meaning of Islamophobia and make it a positive word, on the order of “democrat”, since Islam doesn’t recognise and will not be brought to recognise that Democracy is above religion. Democracy should be Islamophobic because Islam has nothing good in store for Democracy. On the contrary.

To avoid any misunderstandings and any allegations of racism, xenophobia, bad taste, christofascism or any of the other fashionable allegations of our time, allow me to quote the aforementioned feature article from 2002:

“… I will not live in a Christian country that has no room for other religions. Because that would mean that I no longer live in a democratic country. Democracy and Human Rights are products of Christianity, it is claimed, sprung from the Christian country of France. That may be true - but they weren’t springing anywhere untill clear heads using the Force of Reason rebelled against the oppressive absolutism and Gleichschaltung of the Christian Church.”

We must now likewise unite with all Men of Democracy in a stand against the Islam that doesn’t want Democracy. It’s time for us to take the initiative.

Are you daring enough to do so?

Death Threat against signers of Manifesto

By Jørgen Ullerup, Correspondent to Jyllands-Posten

Warning against Islamic totalitarianism brings death threats. On a website an Islamic group has made death threats against the 12 intellectuals, including Salman Rushdie, who recently signed a Manifesto against Islamic Totalitarianism.

/Paris/

According to one of the signers, the French writer Caroline Fourest, the threat was made this Saturday on the website ummah.net. It mentions a who’s who guide and a list of targets scheduled for termination.

The group urges its adherents to take their time but says it should happen soon. It adds that it isn’t necessary to first have a Fatwa from a religious leader, such as the one Ayatollah Khomeini issued in 1989 against Salman Rushdie’s life for having offended the religion.

“The threat is simply not acceptable. Our Manifesto urges to resistance by means of ideas. But the Islamists have answered with threats of violence. A proof - if such was necessary - of their rejection of democratic debate and of their totalitarianism,” Caroline Fourest says.

She adds that the Manifesto isn’t against Islam but against Islamism and the Islamists’ using the religion politically to oppress, for example, Freedom of Speech. She emphasises that the signers will not be subdued by threats.

Note: I have been reminded by Charles of LGF that this has already been covered somewhere else. It seems they may have learnt of this threat from this LGF post last Saturday. LGF links to this thread at ummah.net. Quoting from LGF:

Abu Hurairah
The Father of a Kitten

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Catistan
Religion: Dean’ul Islaam
Posts: 2,635
Points: 4695
Rep Power: 49

Excellent- makes killing the kuffar all that bit easier…..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Carol
12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

Jezak’illah Ukthi, now we have drawn out a hit list of a ‘Who’s Who’ guide to slam into. Take you time but make sure their gone soon- oh and don’t hold out for a fatwah it isn’t really required here.

Has anyone got that Christian kaffir ‘Ibn Warraq’s’ real name yet?

UN: Denmark Violated Convention on Racism

By Jens Grund and Kristoffer Pinholt

The UN criticises that the Danish state didn’t vigorously pursue allegations of racism of racism against the leader of the Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard in 2003. Pia Kjærsgaard says UN’s decision is preposterous.

Denmark violated the UN convention on racial discrimination by not vigorously pursuing a charge of racism against the leader of the Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard, in 2003.

So says the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in a new decision. The case began in 2003 when Pia Kjærsgaard in a letter to the editor criticised the Minister for Justice for subbmitting a proposed law against circumcision of girls to the Danish-Somalian organisation. The leader of the DPP compared it to asking pedophiles whether they objected to a ban on sex with children.
[…]

This just made me laugh. We are being decided on by a committee who among its members can muster such excellent members of the world community as Argentina, Ecuador, China, Burkina Faso, Guatemala and… wait for it.

The Russian Federation.

There’s actually a majority of borderline democracies and dictatorships on that committe and they think they are morally entitled to decide things for us.

Well, that’s rich.

And since, AFAIR, 80% of all Somali girls were circumcised at the time, the comparison to pedophiles seems quite apt. What kind of people have their girls circumcised? I know, they aren’t actually going to use their clitoris for anything, unless daddy tells them they can, but still. What kind of people?

That’s right. In Denmark they are called felons.

We’ve, by the way, just had to make a special law to make it unlawful to have girls circumcised outside Denmark’s borders as well. Seems the Somalis were just taking the plane to Cairo to have their girls mutilated. Markets in everything, and all that.

Quoting from Punditokraterne. I have only quoted here, I suggest you all go there and read the full article.

The Correspondent’s New Clothes

By Samuel Rachlin

WASHINGTON The picture of Denmark presented by CBS and its 60 Minutes magazine on American TV as a country of aggrandizing, arrogant bigots, blond models and happy-go-lucky fools out of tune and touch with the real world has nothing in common with the country I call home. Moreover, it is home for immigrants from all over the world of all faiths and cultures who have found happiness and a safe haven for themselves and their families taking full advantage of what Denmark has to offer. They are doing much better than one would think after having watched Bob Simon’s story The State of Denmark on 60 Minutes.

This kind of journalism does not have much in common with the tradition of Ed R. Murrow or what his associate, Fred Friendly, taught me at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University when I took my degree there in the late 70ies. The snide asides and sarcasm that permeated the narrative do not mix with the high quality journalism I have learned to expect from 60 Minutes. What we got was a presentation so biased, distorted and corrupted by so many inaccuracies and innuendos that it was impossible to recognize Denmark. I am sorry to say it, but it is shameful for the profession that both Bob Simon and I belong to.

[…]
From speaking to colleagues at Jyllandsposten, I understand that the message from the 60 Minutes producers was that they should line up for the interviews or else… The tone and attitude were intimidating. This is 60 Minutes and we are not accustomed to be turned down. Well, we saw what “or else” means in Bob Simon’s school of journalism. It means pay back time in primetime and dressing down not only the editors but the entire country with its blurry “lines between fantasy and reality”
[…]
We have this disrespectful streak which sometimes gets us into trouble. But quite frankly, we don’t give a damn and, like the little boy in the fairy tale, we will tell anyone that they are naked, if that’s what they are. We don’t care if it is an emperor, an editor - or a correspondent.

Samuel Rachlin is a Danish TV Correspondent and writer based in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Copenhagen University and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University and Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. He has worked as a Moscow Bureau Chief and Washington Bureau Chief for TV1 and TV2 - the two national networks in Denmark.

Last, a list of people who blogged about it then, so you can get a feel for the response then:
Michelle Malkin, quoting a letter from a reader:

It seems so unfair to be pictured in the ’60 minutes’ programme as silly and immature children, when in fact we bear the burden of being those who pricked the hole in the boil.

I believe in a higher justice. If anyone in this world were to handle this madness it had to be the Danes, we are phlegmatic and well-fed enough to survive it. Right now we are sitting quietly waiting for the storm to calm so that we all can address the important issue of the future role of religions.

My hometown is Odense and Hans Christian Andersen wrote in The Emperor’s Clothes that ‘it took a little boy to dare tell the truth’. I would have liked Bob Simon of CBS to have taken that cue.

Ahhh, I feel a lot better now, thank you for your time.

Marwin’s Word:

The useful idiots at CBS strike again. Another hack job, intended to undermine the security of the US. and more importantly, make Bush look bad.

Kim Priestap:

It is unfair for the Danes to be portrayed the way they were by 60 Minutes. It’s slanted journalism at its worst.

Say it somehow:

So, in a nutshell, the report portrayed Muslims as victims who were baited by the cartoonists, the newpaper, and ultimately shunned by Danes and their government. Beautiful. That’s today’s MSM for you.

MacBigot.Com:

On ‘60 Minutes’, the media professionals there decided to lay blame on the cartoonists for the violence that was intentionally baited by those who want to encourage uprisings among Muslims. Impressive journalism, there, guys.

Blue Star Chronicles:

He implied the Danes were shocked by the realities of the world focused on them. Oh really? As I was watching this display of overt propaganda, I was seroiusly offended. Of course, the fact that I was offended does not mean I’m going to be fire-bombing embassies or throwing rocks at journalists as they go by me.