http://www.pakmarine.net/filmprotest.htm (This is also available on the Internet.

Click above) Protest Letter against Blasphemous Film, YouTube Clip and against French Magazine Cartoons after Protest Rally in Tokyo to the United Nations Secretariat in Tokyo

To His Excellency, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon Secretary General United Nations, SA-1B15 New York, NY 10027 USA September 21, 2012 Through: Chief of U.N Secretariat in Japan, Tokyo Subject: Protest Rally from Miyashita Koen in Shibuya-KU, Tokyo, upto UN office at Aoyama Dori in Tokyo Against Both the Anti-Islam American Film and Against the French Magazine that has Published a Series of Cartoons, Both Mocking and Blaspheming Our Most Revered Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Theme: Blasphemy laws should be legislated in all countries of the world so that the Prophets, Messengers and Pioneers of all religions are not mocked or defamed and the basic tenets of all faiths and beliefs and all that is sacred in any religion be respected by all. Your Excellency, We have held a peaceful demonstration today in front of your office in Tokyo after a Protest Rally from Miyashita Park in Shibuya up to your office on Aoyama Dori, Tokyo. The main purpose of this Protest Rally is to protest both against anti-Islamic film and its clip on YouTube and also against the French magazine that has published a series of cartoon both mocking our most revered Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). The American anti-Islam film and its trailer on YouTube has mocked our great prophet (PBUH). Addressing to the American President Barack Hussain Obama, we would like to assert that Mr. President, we respect your Christianity, as Jesus Christ (PBUH) is our Prophet as well. We also believe in his 2nd Coming as you and all Christians believe. But we are sorry to note that your Administration is giving more importance to the socalled American values, in the name of Freedom of Expression, which allow mocking and defaming a No.1 Great Man of History, who has changed the destiny of the world and the course of history during the last fifteen centuries. Same is the case with a French satirical magazine which has published a series of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, setting off a new wave of outrage among Muslims and condemnation from French leaders amid widening unrest over an amateur video that has provoked violence throughout the Islamic world. The illustrations, some of which depicted Muhammad naked and in pornographic poses, hit newsstands across the country and were met with a swift rebuke from the government of Franois Hollande, which had earlier urged the magazine, Charlie Hebdo, not to publish the cartoons, particularly in the current tense environment. But this rebuke from the French President is nothing more than crocodile tears. If the French government is really serious about the matter, why does it not legislate blasphemy law to protect Islam, as it has made it a punishable crime to deny Holocaust to please Jews? In Egypt, representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslims all over the world denounced the cartoons as blasphemous and hurtful. Mahmoud Ghozlan, a spokesman for the group, noted that French law prohibits Holocaust denial and suggested that similar provisions might be made for comments deemed blasphemous under Islam. If anyone doubts the Holocaust happened, they are imprisoned, Mr. Ghozlan told Reuters. It is not fair or logical that the same not be the case for insults to Islam, he said. French government pays lip service by condemning the cartoons, but it allows publishing them in the name of so-called Freedom of Expression. In France, there is a principle offreedom of expression, which should not be undermined, Laurent Fabius, the foreign minister, said in a French radio interview. Under the French law no one can undermine Freedom of Expressionagainst Jews, as legally it is a crime in France to deny Holocaust. Then why the French government does not prohibit mocking of a great man of history to protect Muslim sensibilities? The anti-Islam American film and its YouTube trailer has resulted in protests and demonstrations all over the Muslim world and even in some Non-Muslim countries like Australia, Japan and others, such as we are holding it today in Tokyo. Protests have been held in almost all 56 Muslim countries of the world in some form or the other. Flames of fire are burning in the hearts of almost all about 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world. The job of United

Nations is to extinguish such fires and violence all over the world. In some Muslim countries, American embassies and even some Western embassies like that of German embassy in Sudan has been the target of mob violence. American ambassador and other diplomats have been killed in Libya and the British soldiers and other foreigners have been bombed to death in Afghanistan. Is it not the duty of your Organization to find out the root cause of sudden eruption of such violence and the protests all over the Muslim world and to take measures to eliminate it? It is not for the first time that such violence erupted all over the Muslim world that resulted in a great loss of human lives and property. UN should have taken notice of it when it erupted for the first time in 1988 for the same reason. Our holy book of God, Al-Quran was blasphemed as The Satanic Verses and our Prophet and his wives were mocked and ridiculed in a book by Salman Rushdie. The ensuing furor, conducted on an international scale, caused 22 persons to lose their lives and many scores to be injured in riots, a disruption of diplomatic relations between the West and some Muslim countries, book burning and book banning, and a price on the head of Rushdie as a blasphemer of Islam.[1] Then again same phenomena occurred on a larger scale for the same reason, as UN remained mum on the first occasion in 1988. The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad (PBUH) cartoons controversy began after 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophetMuhammad (PBUH), were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. Muslims protested across the Islamic world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of police firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths, including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist, and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism.[2] On every such occasion UN had been a silent spectator of the situation. This time too, even though we welcome your condemnation of such provocative anti-Islam film, yet only lip service is not enough to prevent such violence, heavy loss of lives and property. United Nations has to take some effective measures to eliminate the real and basic cause of the eruption of such spontaneous violence and protests. The fundamental cause is a wrong concept and uncontrollable misuse of the Freedom of Speech or Expression in the West. In this regard, Zubair Bin Umar has written:: The Western values of the right to freedom of speech and expression do not permit a person to break all the values of decency of speech and language in expression. This is the total misuse of this basic human right to ignore all norms of civilized expression and instead turn to calling names using foul and filthy language against others especially about sacred religious figures of the history which may result in disturbing the social fabric of a peaceful community and inciting them to violence. As regards the outbreak of Freedom of Expression in the West, Khalid Baig has written, With the latest inyour-face act of the Facebook, the issue is once again attracting headlines. Should Muslims react? How should they react? Where do they stand on the philosophical issue underlying all this? In the media the issue has been framed as a clash between two camps. One camp stands for freedom of expression. The other wants to curtail it. Needless to say the first camp is enlightened and virtuous. The other is a relic of the dark ages. The clash in other words is between a civilized and civilizing West and Islam that just refuses to be civilized. Once you accept this framing of the whole issue, the outcome is already decided. Are you for freedom of expression or not? It is a loaded question, and just like the yes/no question, Have you stopped beating your wife? no matter how you answer it, you remain guilty. Look at the typical Muslim response which begins, We also believe in freedom of expression but It matters little what you say after that. It is obvious that you are trying to add exclusions and limitations to a basic moral value while the other side is asking for no such limits. It is not difficult to see which side will come out ahead. But this predicament is a result of uncritically accepting a false statement about the nature of the clash. For the real clash is not between those who are for and those who are against a freedom. Rather it is between two different freedoms. On the one hand is the freedom to insult. On the other is freedom from insult. Whether it was the Satanic Verses of the 1980s or the Cartoons of 2005 and their endless reproduction since then, if they stand for any freedom, it is freedom to insult. Pure and simple. Muslims, on the other hand, have stood for and demanded freedom from insult. Nothing more. Nothing less. These are certainly opposing values. You can be for one or the other. And the question does arise, which one is a better value. To see that let us imagine a society that truly believes in the first as a cherished moral value. It celebrates freedom to insult and guards it at all costs. Every member of it enjoys this freedom and practices it regularly. In a business everyone insults everyone else. The boss is insulting the employees, the employees are insulting the bosses. The salesmen are insulting the customers. The accountants are insulting the creditors. Everyone is enjoying the great freedom to insult. The same is true of the home. The parents are always insulting the children. The children are constantly insulting the parents. The spouses are incessantly insulting each other. And in doing so they all stand on the high moral ground because freedom to insult is such a fundamental freedom on which the society is built. Actually contrary to the claims of the pundits if the Western society was truly built on this cherished moral value, it would have perished a long time ago --- consumed by the fires of hatred and negativity generated by this freedom. No home, no neighborhood, no village, no business, no organization and no society can survive for long if it makes freedom to insult as a cornerstone of its freedoms. Clearly most who advocate this freedom do not practice it in their daily lives. But they are making an exception in the case of Islam and Muslims. The driving force behind this is not any great moral principle but a deep rooted hatred born of ignorance.

Software professionals sometimes use a term called beature. It stands for a bug turned into a feature. A bug is a defect in the software. A feature, on the other hand, is a desirable attribute. A beature is a defect that is presented (thanks to slick marketing) as a feature. Freedom to insult is also a beature. It is the growing sickness of Islamophobia in the West which is being presented as a high moral value, packaged by the slick marketing departments as freedom of expression. Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedomfrom insult. It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions. Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Quran, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged. (Quran, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs. As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslims also with respect even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants. Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here. What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults. [3] An article in the Social Worker says, This is not about freedom of speech. Its not about a war of civilisations. Its about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious anti-Muslim cartoons last September. It would have us believe it was all for a noble principle of freedom of speech. Oh, really? This is the same paper, Jyllands-Posten, which: Campaigned in 1984 to censor an artist who produced an erotic image of Jesus. Refused three years ago to print a cartoon because the editors said it would provoke an outcry among Christians. No brave commitment to freedom of speech there. That was only invoked, cynically, when the editors chose to target Muslims, not for debate about religious views, but with bigoted caricatures that imply every Muslim is a terrorist. One rule for the majority, another for Arab, Asian and African immigrants. Theres a word for that its called racism. And the same scapegoating, masked by the same hypocrisy about freedom, is oozing from the other right wing papers in Europe that have leapt to give these racist images a wider circulation. The French paper France-Soir claims it is committed to freedom of expression. But not, it seems, for Muslims. The same paper supports the French governments ban on young Muslim women wearing headscarves in school. Whats tolerant or liberal about that? As for those who claim it is impossible to be racist against Muslims because Islam is a religion not a race, consider the followers of the Jewish faith. If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and anti-racists for being outraged. None would say it was merely a question of debating religious views rather than being about spreading racism. Yet in Britain, while no paper has republished the cartoons, we have not had furious editorials in the millionaire-owned press exposing the racist demonization of Muslims. Instead, the media is further demonizing Muslims by suggesting that they dont understand Western democracy and press freedom. These well paid editors could do with learning a thing or two themselves about standing up to censorship. The lot of them, with the exception of Socialist Worker and the Morning Star, have gone along with government censorship in refusing to name Nicholas Langman, an MI6 agent implicated in the illegal seizure of Pakistani immigrants in Greece. What kind of fearless media is this that refuses to stand up to powerful secret government agencies, but berates some of the most powerless people in society? And make no mistake; Muslim immigrants in Europe are among the most downtrodden across the continent. In Britain they fall behind the average on every social indicator housing, earnings, employment, and education. The same is true in France, Germany, Demark and the rest of the European Union. And since 11 September 2001 they have been systematically targeted. Anti-Muslim racism, Islamophobia, is the ideological cover for George Bushs endless war on terror. The US and British military refuse to even count the number of dead in Iraq. That would not be the case if they, their governments and the bulk of the media considered the lives of brown skinned Muslims in the Middle East every bit as valuable as those who have been killed in New York, Madrid and London. They dont. Our names honored, theirs not even recorded racism. The British government cannot admit that the war on Iraq and decades of Western intervention in the Middle East are the reason why Britain and the US are so hated in the region and beyond. Instead, we are told it is something to do with Muslims themselves. And in order to prove you are a good Muslim, not an evil extremist, you have to sign up to Bush and Blairs campaign. Hence there are the endless loyalty tests. Supposedly liberal commentators feel no restriction, show no signs of self-censorship, when they routinely abuse people who were born here (and who happen to be Muslim) of being insufficiently British racism. Government ministers sense no shame in telling one group of people what language they should speak in their own home, as if every British resident on the Costa del Sol spoke Spanish round the kitchen table. This respectable Islamophobia fuels the violent racist attacks of the Nazi British National Party (BNP), which exploits the general antiMuslim climate and whose leader, a Holocaust denier, walks away from a court case over incitement to racial hatred. And when those on the receiving end of all this speak out and protest, they are demonized again.[4]

Simon Basketter has written that Much has been made in recent days of the commitment to free speech in the Danish press. But Jyllands-Posten, the right wing paper that first published the racist caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, refused to print a cartoon of the resurrection of Jesus in 2003. The paper feared that publication of the cartoon would provoke anger among Christians. And in 1984 it campaigned against the artist Jens Jrgen Thorsen, who was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station. The work showed a naked Jesus. The paper has shown no such sensitivity towards MuslimsThe racist provocation by Jyllands-Posten is just the latest episode in the papers right wing historyIn the 2001 election, Jyllands-Posten played a crucial role in support of the victorious right wing Venstre party. It has since supported the governing coalition led by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen which includes the rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim Danish Peoples Party. A number of its journalists have been employed as spin doctors by the government. The cartoons were published amid a climate of growing anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant racism in Denmark. In September 2004, a new immigration act was passed specifically in order to make it harder for Muslims to enter the country. Islamophobia runs through the establishment. In April last year, an authorized biography of Queen Margrethe expressed her view that Danish people should oppose Islam.[5] Joseph Choonara writes The anger expressed by Muslims over the caricatures of the prophet Mohammed is rooted in the growth in Islamophobia since 9/11. That was the overriding message of Muslims interviewed by Socialist Worker. Anas Altikriti is a spokesperson for the Muslim Association of Britain, which has co-sponsored the Stop the War Coalition demonstrations against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I dont see this as a matter offreedom of speech I see this as incitement, he said. We live in an era of the war on terror. Most sane people oppose terrorism, whether committed by states or by organizations and individuals. But the war on terror has become a conflict with Islam. These cartoons reinforce myths that Muslims have been trying hard to dispel. Today, if you ask a five year old child to draw a picture of a terrorist, they would more likely than not draw someone with a beard and turban someone who looked like a Muslim or an Asian. The media frenzy endangers the solidarity many Muslims have built up with other groups since 9/11, Anas added: We yearn to stand together, but many Muslims no longer know where to stand. They feel they are being targeted by the police, the media, and by foreign and domestic policy. Muhammad Ali, founder of the Islam Channel, expressed similar concerns. This is not an isolated incident, there is a context there is a worldwide war on terror, he said. The cartoons show a man with a turban that is a bomb. They are saying that he is the root of terrorism around the globe. They are saying that to fight terrorism, you have to fight this man. They are saying you have to root out Islam. In singling out Muslims for attack, the papers that published and republished the cartoons were joining a much broader racist onslaught. Yvonne Ridley is a leading member of Respect and a convert to Islam. She said, There have been continued attacks on Muslims in Britain. These include 3,000 police raids since 9/11. Stop and search of Muslims has rocketed since the 7 July terror attacks on London. Im sick of people thinking that Muslims are an easy target. All those Socialist Worker spoke to were clear that free speech could not be held up as an abstract right. With free speech comes a responsibility, said Anas. Your freedom stops where other peoples freedom begins.[6] But on every occasion, starting from the Rushdie affair in 1988 up to now, Europe and America have given protection to all blasphemers of Islam in the name of the Freedom of Speech.Britain has over a million Muslim residents, mostly recent migrs from India and Pakistan. The Union of Muslim Organizations sought to get the Rushdies book legally banned in Britain and its author prosecuted for blasphemy. An inflammatory Muslim letter written to Prime Minister Thatcher, whom The Satanic Verses had libeled as Mrs. Torture and Maggie the Bitch, got nowhere. She replied that there are no grounds on which the government would consider banning the book. It is an essential part of our democratic system that the people who act within the law should be able to express their opinion freely. Appeals to the Lord High Chancellor, the Attorney General, and the Home Office also failed. A group of Muslims who had employed a law firm to assist in getting a prosecution were advised that the law against blasphemy protected only Christianity. That did not appease Muslim outrage or sense of injustice.Nor did the judiciarys summary decision to reject a private blasphemy prosecution by a Mr. Choudhry against Rushdie and his publisher. The high court held that the law did not protect Islam against blasphemy.[4] This is how the Freedom of Speech is practiced in the West! It is allowed against Islam but this right of free speech cannot be used to blaspheme Christianity.[7] Criticizing the discriminatory provisions of the blasphemy law against Islam, some leaders of other religions tried to reform it to cover Muslims. But the Western frame of mind did not allow it again in the name of Freedom of Speech.Opposing such a united effort by the leaders of other religions to cover Islam as well, The Economist said: Rabbis, priests and mullahs are, it seems, uniting to restrain free speech, lest any member of their collective flock should have his feelings hurt.The Rushdie affair is showing that not just that some Muslims do not understand the merits of free speech. It shows that many Western clerics do not either.[8] It is the same frame of mind that allows America to exhibit an anti-Islamic film and its trailer on YouTube. Be it a Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain or an Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany or a Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State of America, they all recall tradition of free speech in their respective countries if that freedom of expression is to be used to blaspheme Islam. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad caused anger in 2006. A depiction of Muhammad's turban as a fused bomb sparked global outrage when it was published in Denmark. Presenting him with a press freedom award, Mrs Merkel said Mr Westergaard was entitled to draw his caricatures. "Europe is a place where a cartoonist is allowed to draw something like this," she said. Germany's Central Muslim Council (ZMD) criticised Ms Merkel for attending the award ceremony.

A ZMD spokesman, Aiman Mazyek, told public broadcaster Deutschlandradio that the Chancellor was honouring someone "who in our eyes kicked our prophet, and therefore kicked all Muslims". He said giving Mr Westergaard the prize in a "highly charged and heated time" was "highly problematic". (BBC News, 8 September 2010) [9] Hillary Clinton has also made a lip service,To us to me, personally, she said, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and provoke rage. But in the same breath, she is not ready to stop the recurrent daily appearance of such so-called disgusting and reprehensible new videos, as for her to uphold theAmerican values, i.e. Freedom of Speech is more important. In the next breath, she emphasizes the importance of upholding the American values in the following words: .. our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be. In other words, if such films are made daily against Islam and against our Prophet (PBUH), American policy will be, . we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.[10] American government has even retracted its own embassy statement given in Cairo: The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. The Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, attacked President Obama that by condemning the anti-Islam film, the Obama Administration has apologized for American values instead of upholding them. A Washington Post report says, The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, Romney told reporters. Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think its a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. Heeding to this criticism of the Opposition candidate, Obama Administration retracted the above American embassy statement saying that it was not cleared by Washington. It means that it is not the official thinking of the American government. Romney said I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions. It's never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasnt cleared by Washington... It means that both for Obama Administration and the Opposition Presidential candidate of Republican Party, upholding American value of free expression is more important than any blasphemous film against our Prophet (PBUH). So, it is in the values of America to allow such anti-Islam films to be produced and exhibited even on a daily basis without any restriction of any kind. This is the American concept of Freedom of Speech or Expression.[11] But where that concept of Freedom of Expression disappeared when, according to a New York Times report, American government and its Congressmen sent requests to remove 6,949 items from YouTube, as they were Jihadist videos? The report says, Requests for content removal from United States governments and courts doubled over the course of last year to 279 requests to remove 6,949 items, according to Google. Members of Congress have publicly requested that YouTube take down jihadist videos they say incite terrorism,.. Why these Jihadi groups were not allowed to uphold the American valueslike the Freedom of Expression for their 6,949 clips? You uphold American values only for anti-Islam clips against our most-revered Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) but not for the jihadi clips?[12] As posted by Andrew Brown on 12 September 2012 in guardian.co.uk, [13] It is obviously blasphemous to Muslims. Less obviously, it offends against the central values of liberal democracy. The justification of free speech put forward by John Stuart Mill ( [14] is that the remedy for bad speech is better speech. But this presupposes an interest in truth, and perhaps some agreed means of deciding on it. It's a system that breaks down when confronted with determined and malevolent liars. Some people will want to defend the (anti-Islam) film as critical of an idea, or of a belief. But I don't think that will do. No Muslim could think of Muhammad as he is portrayed in the film, and very few can suppose that Islam commands them to behave the way the Muslims in the film do. The beliefs criticized are entirely imaginary. If any other group but Muslims were the target this would be obvious at once. This film is purely and simply an incitement to religious hatred. It stokes hatred in both of its intended audiences Christians and Jews in the US, and Muslims in the wider world. If jihadi videos are banned in this country, and their distributors prosecuted, the same should be true of this film and for the same reasons. David van Mill, in his article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [15] on Freedom of Speech writes, . These are powerful claims forfreedom of speech, but as I noted above, Mill also suggests that we need some rules of conduct to regulate the actions of members of a political community. The limitation he places on free expression is one very simple principle, now usually referred to as the Harm Principle, which states that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. (1978, 9).[15] Without going into further details of this argument, it is obvious what a great HARM this anti-Islam film has caused not only to about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world but also to the interests of the United States and to its diplomats and embassies in the Muslim world. An obvious solution to eliminate such HARMon such a wide and large scale to humanity is to promulgate blasphemy laws in all countries of the world. Rector of Azher University of Cairo and the Mufti of Egypt, Mufti of Saudi Arabia and almost all Islamic scholars in the Muslim world are unanimous in demanding that Laws should be made in all countries of the world that no one can defame or mock Prophets, Messengers and pioneers of all religions and the beliefs, faiths and all that is sacred to the followers of any religion.We want the UN to work for this goal effectively, instead of just paying lip service. It is not only a voice of Muslim clergy, Islamic scholars or the entire Muslim Ummah after this American antiIslamic film; even in 1988 the same voice was raised. The Muslim effort to reform the law of blasphemy by having it extend to the protection of the major religions received respectful support from influential clergy. Dr. Robert Runcie,

the Archbishop of Canterbury, extended his sympathy to the Muslims for the hurt they felt because of the book, The Satanic Verses.I understand their feelings and I firmly believe that the offence to the religious feelings of the followers of Islam or any other faith is quite as wrong as offence to the religious beliefs of Christians. Catholic leaders also echoed such views. A joint statement by leaders of six very different religions, members of the World Conference of Religion and Peace, also deplored the hurt on Muslims and supported a change in the law so that all minority religions are fully protected. Some labor M.P.s from Islamic districts abandoned the usual labor opposition to blasphemy laws and campaigned for their extension to cover Muslims. [16] During 1980s there was a debate in England regarding the question, Should all religions be protected or none? Yet the extension of law to protect other religions would discriminate against those who, like Lord Willis, no particular religious beliefs. The Earl of Halsbury replied thatblasphemy was an act of violence to the deeply spiritual feelings of believers. When the law of obscenity was relaxed, he claimed obscenity mushroomed alarmingly; blasphemy would rage if not prosecutable. On the same side, Earl Ferrerr argued that to permit a minority of unbelievers to provoke or insult the majority was wrong. The bishop of Durham opposed abolishing the Common Law, because it protected deep-rooted values and reverential attitudes that benefitted society. The bishop of Leicester, claiming that Christianity, like God, did not require the support of the criminal law, believed that the blasphemy law should be retained to protect peoples feelings scurrility and ridicule.[17] Despite such powerful arguments by their elders, Britain, whole of Europe and all over USA, nowhere blasphemy law to protect Islam and other great religions has been enacted yet. Protection is given to Christians and Jews and the Muslims are discriminated under the pretext of Freedom of Speech. It is applicable only against Muslims and not against Christians and Jews all over Europe and America. These are the so-called prejudiced torchbearers of a 21st century modern one-eyed torch-bearers of a civilized society in a global village. All this exposes the naked double-standards of the Western civilization. How these unfair leaders of the Big-7 or Big-21 can bring about Peace, Justice and Harmony in the world through the United Nations? Your organization, UN, is just being exploited by these Power-brokers of US and Europe for their own selfish ends. In 1912, the British Board of Film Censors banned film-makers from directly depicting Christ at all. Many other films were similarly curbed and prohibited for infringing upon Christian sensibilities. These bans lasted decades. Some similar restrictions existed in America too. That decade still saw Spanish actor Enrique Irazoqui 15 months hard labor in Spain for portraying Jesus in 1964.. .The legal system of England was once ruled by the Christian Church; much of "ecclesiastical law" influenced common law. "The offence of blasphemy was originally part of ecclesiastical law. In the seventeenth century, blasphemy was declared a common law offence by the Court of the King's Bench[...]. From the 16th century to the mid-19th century, blasphemy against the Christian religion was held as an offence against common lawIt was used to persecute the publication of anything that questioned Christian beliefs or the Christian religion. It was an offence to question the Holy Trinity or to question that the Christian Bible was the word of God.[18] Mark Weber writes in the magazine of institute for Historical review on March 4, 2009 (Bishop Williamson and 'Holocaust Denial' Why the Uproar.html?): Williamson is a 68-year-old English-born traditionalist Roman Catholic who has been fiercely criticized in recent weeks for his remarks about the Holocaust. In a Swedish television interview, which has been widely viewed on the Internet and quoted widely in the media, he expressed the view that no more than 300,000 Jews died in German concentration camps during World War II, and none were killed in gas chambers. The uproar, which has received wide media attention, began several weeks ago after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of Williamson and three other renegade bishops as part of an effort to heal a rift with a conservative Roman Catholic group that opposes liberalizing trends within the Church. As the controversy grew,Williamson was expelled from Argentina, where he had been living, and German authorities announced that they might bring criminal charges against him. In Germany and some other European countries it is a crime to deny, justify or play down World War II genocide of Europes Jews. German authorities claim the right to prosecute anyone, anywhere who makes denial remarks that can be accessed through the Internet. After returning to his native Britain, Williamson issued an apology for the harm and hurt caused by his remarks, but he did not retract them. [19] Alex Linder has written in Vanguard News Network Forum that a German court fines far-right parliamentarian for blaspheming 'the' 'holocaust': A suspended jail term and 6,000 euro fine have been imposed on a far-right German parliamentarian who mocked Holocaust Day in 2010. A northern German court found that Udo Pastrs had insulted the memory of dead. The administrative court in Schwerin, the capital of Mecklenburg West Pomerania state, ruled that Pastrs was not protected by freedom of speech nor privilege for parliamentarians when he denied Nazi Germany's murder of six million Jews in what it called his "diatribe" on January 28, 2010 when parliament remembers the victims of Nazi tyranny..The presiding judge in Schwerin said Pastrs' use of prepared notes in parliament showed a premeditated use of significant "criminal energy" that could only be interpreted as Holocaust denial. In his speech, Pastrs had described parliament's ceremony as a "cult of guilt." Pastrs already has a conviction for inciting hatred against Jews and Turks in 2010 during a NPD party gathering in the western German state of Saarland. For that, he was fined 6,000 euros and handed a ten-month suspended jail term.. German mainstream considering NPD ban: Groups with explicit neo-Nazi ideology are banned in Germany. Federal and regional state authorities are considering submitting a fresh application to ban the NPD to Germany's constitutional court in Karlsruhe. Civic groups in Schwerin demand the banning of the NPD. A similar bid failed in 2003 because the top court said the presence of high-place informers had tainted evidence. But public pressure to outlaw the NPD has mounted further since a neo-Nazi cell, the National Socialist Underground (NSU), was exposed in November. The cell is alleged to have killed eight ethnic Turkish shopkeepers, a Greek man and a German policewoman between 2000 and 2007. Latest figures indicate that the NPD has about 6,600 members. [20]

In Austria too, it is a crime to speak against Holocaust. A British history Professor Irving, author of over 30 books was arrested on his arrival from London for the crime of his historical research against Holocaust propaganda concerning the Jews. He had spoken against Holocaust 16 years ago in Austria and was punished by an Austrian court and put into jail. European countries have blasphemy laws to please Jews, but they are not ready to give same privilege to Muslims, even if it has resulted in violence and deaths in several countries due to an anti-Islam video clip now and earlier also due to mocking cartoons of our most-revered Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. There are defamation laws in the USA. Our great Prophet (PBUH) was a real living human being about 1500 years ago. There had been billions of his followers during the last fifteen centuries. There will be further trillions until the Last Day of this world. Every citizen in the USA can sue in the courts to defend his honor under these defamation laws today. This anti-Islam film is full of libel and slander against a great personality of mankinds history. While these defamation laws do not allow freedom of speech for libel and slander against any ordinary individual today, why and how does US allow slander against a great personality of history in the form of an antiIslamic provocative film and its video clip on YouTube in the name of freedom of Speech? The origins of the United States of America's defamation laws pre-date theAmerican Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press.. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the media outlet in question knew the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Recent cases have added precedent on The Defamation Laws and the Internet. Laws regulating slander and libel in the United States began to develop even before theAmerican Revolution. In one of the most famous cases, New York publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for 8 months in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case and was acquitted by jury in 1735 under the counsel of Andrew Hamilton. The case established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges.Gouverneur Morris, a major contributor in the framing of the U.S. Constitution said, "The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."[2]..All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, andTennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. On the state level, seventeen states and two territories as of 2005 had criminal defamation laws on the books. Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which sixdefendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences. [21](From Wikipedia Encyclopedia) Judged from Americas own standards of defamation laws, as noted above, freedom of speech is not allowed in the United States which is based on slander. But Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, declares about this anti-Islamic film, which is full of slander and libel against our most respectful Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), . we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be. It is against such a frame of mind of the American leaders, including Romney and Obama, that we are demonstrating today and the entire Muslim world has risen up to protest. We therefore request you to make concrete efforts to legislate such blasphemy laws in all countries of the world that the Prophets, Messengers and Pioneers of all religions are not mocked or defamed and the basic tenets of all faiths and beliefs and all that is sacred in any religion is respected by all. Regards, Hussain Khan Naim Arain (Chairman) (Coordinator) Malik Noor Mohammd Awan Chaudhry Shahid (Coordinator) (Secretary) Abdur Rahman Siddiqi

Dr. Salimur Rahman Khan Nadvi Raees Siddiqui (Adviser) (Adviser) (Adviser)

Lovers of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Committee, Japan

Members of the Committee from different Muslim Organizations in Japan United for the Cause of Upholding the Honor of our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh): Email addresses, Name, Organization 'Salimur Rahman Khan'salim.ktc786@gmail.com Dr. Salimur Rahman Khan Nadvi (President, Ruyet-e-Hilal Committee, President Nadwah Islamic Centre)

786@mail.towardsquran.com Mr. Hussain Khan, Chairman Committee, (Jamaat-e-Islami) raees_jp@yahoo.com Raees Siddiqui (Chairman, Election commission, Pakistan Association) arsiddiqijp@yahoo.com Mr. A. R. Siddiqi (President, International Muslim Centre, Japan) mian@tokyo.com Mian Abrar (Publisher of Japanese Translation series of Holy Quran for free distribution) ntc65@hpo.net Asghar Hussain (Senior Pakistani Social Worker) peoplespartyjapan@yahoo.com Mr. Naim Arain, Co-ordinator, Committee (President, People's Party, Japan) noorjapan@gmail.com Malik Noor Muhammad (President, Muslim League, Japan) worldwiseltd@hotmail.com Sheikh Zulfiqar (Muslim League, Japan) Hafiz Shams (Muslim League......) info@shikratrading.com..Mr. Khalid Faridi (President, Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf, Japan) mohammad majid <tahir1761@hotmail.com> Mr. Taher Majeed (Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf, Japan) 09088770915Mr. Mohammad Siddique (Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf, Japan) 09027633156Mr. Wasim Khan (Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf, Japan) Imranbuttsky1777@yahoo.com, Mr. Imran Zahoor Butt (Vice President, Pakistan Association, JAPAN), 09098021818 Altaf Ghaffar (General Secretary, Pakistan Association, JAPAN) Amin Sajjan (Treasurer, Pakistan Association, JAPAN) ntc65@hotmail.com Jamil Ahmad (President, Islamic circle of Japan) Mushtaq Zaman (Islamic Circle of Japan) minhaju@hotmail.com Inamul Haq (Minhajul Quran, Japan) sayedselim@yahoo.com Mr. Mohammed Salim (Burmese Rohingya Association in Japan) Mr. Noor (Burmese Rohingya Association in Japan) jaro_japan@yahoo.com Mr. Salim Ullah ( President, ARAKAN ROHINGYA ORGANIZATION-JAPAN ( JARO )) Tel : +81-9049-686-779 anwer@memon.jp Mr. Mohammad Anwar Memon (Editor, Pakistan.jp) chshahidraza@hotmail.com Mr. Shahid Raza Chaudhry (Editor, PakJapanNews.com & Geo and BBC Television Cameraman) nasir.nakagawa@yahoo.com Nasir Nakagawa (Editor, Urdu Net Japan) uwn_japan@yahoo.com Rashid Samad Khan (Editor, Urdu World News) fayya75@yahoo.com Sheikh Fayyaz Hussain (Editor, Watan Akhbar) Taher Basheer (Active Social Worker) 07055443458..Nasir Abdullah (of India), Imam Okubo Mosque, Tokyo ....09064954462..Hafiz Alauddin (of Bangladesh), Islamic Mission, Japan, Tokyo Hasnine63@yahoo.com Mr. Hasnain (of Bangladesh), Tokyo Khobaer18621@yahoo.com Mr. T. M. Khobaer (of Bangladesh), Tokyo Haji Ghulam Rasool (From Niigata, Japan) Mr. Mujahid (Niigat Mosque Committee) Mr. Malik Allah Yar (From Niigata, Japan) Mr. Ejaaz (From Niigata, Japan) DrMuhammad Mukhtar Alamnafmor08@gmail.com Dr. M. Mukhtar Alam (from New Delhi, India) coordinates National Forum of Muslim Organizations Gulshan Aalani [pardah52@hotmail.com] Sister Gulshan Aalani, ('Human Rights activist') from Vancouver, Canada.

References: 1. Leonard W. Levy, BLASPHEMY-----VERBAL OFFENCE AGAINST THE SACRED FROM MOSES TO SALMAN RUSHDIE (New York 1993) p. 558 2. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/0096.shtml Freedom of Expression? By: Khalid Baig Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010 4. Socialist Worker 1987, 11 February 2006;www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8267 5. Socialist Worker 1987, 11 February 2006;www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8274Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend; by Simon Basketter 6. Socialist Worker 1987, 11 February 2006www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8243 The furore over the Danish cartoons shows the growth of Islamophobia, by Alex Callinicos 7. Leonard W. Levy, BLASPHEMY-----VERBAL OFFENCE AGAINST THE SACRED FROM MOSES TO SALMAN RUSHDIE (New York 1993) p. 562 8. Ibid p.563 9. Merkel honours anti-Muslim cartoonist; Thursday, September 9, 2010http://www.islamophobiawatch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/9/9/merkel-honours-anti-muslim-cartoonist.html 10. Washington Post September 13, 2012;http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-thepeople/post/hillary-clinton-speaks-out-for-the-same-american-values-upheld-in-retracted-embassystatement/2012/09/13/ccbf05f2-fdd6-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html 11. Washington Post September 13, 2012; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/theromney-campaigns-repeated-errors-on-the-cairo-embassy-statement/2012/09/13/978a6be6-fdf0-11e1-b153218509a954e1_blog.html 12. New York Times, September 14, 2012;http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocksinflammatory-video-in-egypt-and-libya.html 13. Posted by Andrew Brown on 12 September 2012 in guardian.co.uk, (http://gu.com/p/3acfy/em) [13]

14. justification of free speech put forward by John Stuart Mill (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedomspeech/#JohStuMilHarPri) 15. David van Mill, article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [15] (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri) on Freedom of Speech 16. Leonard W. Levy, BLASPHEMY-----VERBAL OFFENCE AGAINST THE SACRED FROM MOSES TO SALMAN RUSHDIE (New York 1993) p. 563 17. 18. Ibid p.551 By Vexen Crabtree 2012 Jun 30;http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/blasphemy.html)

19. Mark Weber writes in the magazine of institute for Historical review on March 4, 2009Bishop Williamson and 'Holocaust Denial' Why the Uproar.html 20. 21. http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16173614,00.html German Court fines far-right Parliamentarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation on Defamation