British Muslims protest in London - image

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Isn't it ironic that freedom of speech allows them to make such statements.

I wonder how long a protest of western workers in Saudi would last, if they were unhappy with local cultural norms

[UmmSqueakster 54]

According to Indigo Jo, these are serial demonstraters, who show up at protests organized by the mainstream muslim community, and then hijack it with their crazy signs and own agenda.

There, I set about telling various journalists, and some who were not journalists, that the core of the people across the road were in fact "serial demonstrators" who have a history of attending other people's demonstrations, shouting slogans largely unrelated to the issue at hand, and casting a bad light over both Islam itself and the demonstration. So, last year the media reported that a demonstration had taken place outside Grosvenor Square at which former Guantanamo detainee Martin Mubanga spoke and violent anti-American slogans were chanted ([1], [2]). I later discovered that the demo had been crashed by people the organisers said were al-Muhajiroun. And I suspect that the same was true here.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

According to Indigo Jo, these are serial demonstraters, who show up at protests organized by the mainstream muslim community, and then hijack it with their crazy signs and own agenda.

There, I set about telling various journalists, and some who were not journalists, that the core of the people across the road were in fact "serial demonstrators" who have a history of attending other people's demonstrations, shouting slogans largely unrelated to the issue at hand, and casting a bad light over both Islam itself and the demonstration. So, last year the media reported that a demonstration had taken place outside Grosvenor Square at which former Guantanamo detainee Martin Mubanga spoke and violent anti-American slogans were chanted ([1], [2]). I later discovered that the demo had been crashed by people the organisers said were al-Muhajiroun. And I suspect that the same was true here.

al-Muhajiroun... isn't that the British Muslim extremist group that "took over" a mosque somewhere in the UK? I vaguely recall reading about how they took it over and used it to preach hate for a few years before 'mainstream' Muslims, under pressure from Scotland Yard, took it back. Or am I thinking of a different group?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

You might be thinking of the Finsbury Park mosque and Abu Hamza?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

[UmmSqueakster 54]

al-Muhajiroun... isn't that the British Muslim extremist group that "took over" a mosque somewhere in the UK? I vaguely recall reading about how they took it over and used it to preach hate for a few years before 'mainstream' Muslims, under pressure from Scotland Yard, took it back. Or am I thinking of a different group?

Hmm, not sure. I do know that they're a split from Hizbut Tahrir, who themselves are a fringe group. If you split from the fringe because the fringe isn't radical enough for ya, you know you're a little bit more than a wee bit crazy.

Some aquaintences of mine are hosting a peaceful gathering in Birmingham this Saturday. I hope it gets as much press as other protests, although I know it won't.

You don't get the media attention if you're not acting crazy. I have a beautiful protest sign that is arabic calligraphy of the words peace and love in the shape of a dove. At all the protests I've attended (anti war, etc), I've never made it into the paper, but rest assured, the ones that make fun of the president, or make outragious claims always do.

Edited February 6, 2006 by rahma

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I have a beautiful protest sign that is arabic calligraphy of the words peace and love in the shape of a dove. At all the protests I've attended (anti war, etc), I've never made it into the paper, but rest assured, the ones that make fun of the president, or make outragious claims always do.

I don't doubt that for a minute.

[rebeccajo 14]

True there's been hate speech by the Muslim community in the UK for some time. But has it intensified since the UK joined the US in the war on terror?

Really asking cause I would love to know......

[ChristinaM 0]

Short answer Becca is "yes".

A lot of people dislike Tony Blair for following blindly where Bush led, and the Muslim community weren't slow to, ahem, "voice their disapproval", shall we say.

Edited February 6, 2006 by clmarsh

[Jaylen Brit 0]

One reason, which I belive to be correct, that the idiots protesting werent arrested at the time was that it would have likely escalated matters to riot proportions.

Photos are usually taken so that the perps can be traced and arrested WITHOUT the glare of publicity, at their own homes.

I wish WISH these idiots who held up these stupid placards (wich the Britsh Muslim council have condemed as 'appalling' btw) would realise that far from furthering their cause they serve only to give power to those like the BNP.

Most of the protesters weren't immigrants who can be deported but British born muslims.

One wonders however, if they want SO much for the UK to be 'Islamic' and hate SO much that it is not (and will never be), why they don't emigrate immediately to a country strict with the laws of Islam. Lemme take a guess: cos they'd lose too much freedom

/cynic

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One wonders however, if they want SO much for the UK to be 'Islamic' and hate SO much that it is not (and will never be), why they don't emigrate immediately to a country strict with the laws of Islam. Lemme take a guess: cos they'd lose too much freedom

/cynic

I'm afraid your guess would be right. Freedom of speech and various other freedoms, it is said, are not quite so prominent in the lands that are predominently Muslim.

[almaty 19]

freedom of speech indeed..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Gwladys Fouché and agencies

Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the email: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

"I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."

He said that he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.

But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, told MediaGuardian.co.uk that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

"The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

The decision smacks of "double-standards", said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten.

"How can Jyllands-Posten distinguish the two cases? Surely they must understand," Mr Akkari added.

Meanwhile, the editor of a Malaysian newspaper resigned over the weekend after printing one of the Muhammad cartoons that have unleashed a storm of protest across the Islamic world.

Malaysia's Sunday Tribune, based in the remote state of Sarawak, on Borneo island, ran one of the Danish cartoons on Saturday. It is unclear which one of the 12 drawings was reprinted.

Printed on page 12 of the paper, the cartoon illustrated an article about the lack of impact of the controversy in Malaysia, a country with a majority Muslim population.

The newspaper apologised and expressed "profound regret over the unauthorised publication", in a front page statement on Sunday.

"Our internal inquiry revealed that the editor on duty, who was responsible for the same publication, had done it all alone by himself without authority in compliance with the prescribed procedures as required for such news," the statement said.

The editor, who has not been named, regretted his mistake, apologised and tendered his resignation, according to the statement.

[junglee069 0]

the plot thickens.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the plot thickens.

Not really. It's up to the newspaper what they are going to print and what they aren't. It's the other side of freedom of speech - not having to print something you don't want to print. I mean, the Muhammad cartoons would not have been published by Al-Jazeera either of they were just submitted by someone unsolicited...

[daisy16 0]

Such hatred only breeds more hatred. The peace-loving majority of muslims will be the ones hurt by increased anti-muslim furor.

I am curious, what would happened here in the US with such a protest?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am curious, what would happened here in the US with such a protest?

Hard to say. But I tend to think that nobody would run around with a placard praising 9/11 and threatening a repeat or the anihilation of America and then go home for dinner to be "possibly" picked up later.