Telegraph article defaming the Prophet saaw an offence to all muslims

[eemaan]

In the name of Allah , the Beneficent , the Merciful



Telegraph Article defaming the Prophet

an offence to all Muslims



In one of the most repulsive and disgusting attacks on Islam and Muslims, Charles Moore wrote in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph in defence of those who wish to suggest that the Prophet Mohammed, peace and blessings be upon him, was a paedophile.



Moore’s article, full of falsehoods, lies, skewed interpretations and poisonous remarks, is nothing if not a clear incitement to religious hatred and division. What he wishes to portray as freedom of speech, will undoubtedly be carried further by some throughout society who will see this as a green light to attack Muslims physically and discriminate against them in various walks of life.



The Muslim community in Britain, led by organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain has constantly called for a debate on issues pertaining to Islam and Muslims and has often welcomed remarks intended to promote a constructive dialogue on Islam and its place in the world today. However, to launch such a preposterous tirade attacking Islam and defaming the Prophet Mohammed is to cause indescribable offence to not only Britain’s 2.5 million Muslims, but to more than 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. At a time when the likes of MAB work tirelessly to rebuild Britain’s image in the eyes of the Muslim world, Moore’s attack is callous, misinformed, ignorant and demonstrates an arrogance borne by only the most zealous of racists.



Anas Altikriti, speaking on behalf of MAB, commented early this morning: “Charles Moore wishes to be seen as someone who understands a little bit about Islam, when in fact he peddles feeble lies, misinterpretations and incredible falsehoods. Almost 15 years on from the infamous Salman Rushdie affair, one would have thought that the likes of the Daily Telegraph and its editors would have known better than to allow such filth and drivel to adorn their pages. Unfortunately not. “More than a billion people around the world will be shocked and horrified by this attack, and every single Muslim in Britain and beyond will feel deeply offended by the remarks made by Moore”.



The Muslim Association of Britain demands the immediate dismissal of Charles Moore from the Daily Telegraph and a full retraction and apology from the paper’s editors, to not only Muslims, but to followers of all faiths, whom Moore believes should welcome attacks on them, their beliefs and their revered figures.



To read the article by Charles Moore Click here



Action Requested:



1) Write a letter to the Daily Telegraph Daily Telegraph: 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DT, tel: 0207 538 5000 fax: 0207 538 6455,

email: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk,



2) Write a letter to the Press Complaints Commission: complaints@pcc.org.uk



3) Write a letter to your MP: Contact details at www.faxyourmp.com







The Muslim Association of Britain

Shawal 29, 1425 Hijri

11th of December, 2004











The Muslim Association of Britain has local branches across the UK that provide localities with a wide range of regular events and activities, including study circles, talks, social gatherings and much more. Click here to see what is going on in your area.

The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally

[eemaan]

Assalam Alaikum,
I hope Insha Allah, that the management won't mind me calling on all the members of this site to please read the article and respond to the newspaper in question in measured but firm tones. I also hope that anyone who buys the telegraph will now boycott it and get as many people as they can to boycott it. If we join together we can make them suffer financially because they expected to gain by printing such articles.
Below is the reply I submitted it took me 5 minutes, please read the article and then send your reply via the link its easy.
Jazaik Allahu Khairan
Wa Salam alaikum

Dear Sir,
I think its an absolute disgrace that a paper of such standing as the Telegraph would stoop so low as to print such a biggoted and misinformed article intended soley to antagonise muslims in this country. Mr Moore's reasons for writing such a defammatory article are quite obvious he hates muslims, and has no intention of printing the truth about the religion or the Prophet of that religion. Mr Moore can enjoy his brief moments of fame with his little games of annoying muslims now, but he will, eventually, be called to account by a Higher Authority on the Day of Reckoning as will we all.
What the Telegraph hopes to achieve by printing such blasphemous and deflammatory and totally inaccurate articles is beyond my ken. The only achievement I can see off hand is that you will alienate many muslim readers including myself.
yours,
an ex- Telegraph reader

[Deathpasser]

Akhi, the link to the article isn't there so I didn't get to read it.

Can you please post a working link, JazakAllahKhair ya akhi

[macmuslim]

Assalamu alaikum

I found this one about Kilroy Silk's buddy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/26/nukip26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/26/ixhome.html

[lubna]

Assalamoalykum and hello to all

here is the link bro deathpasser

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml


and i have also added, what they said to my reply, and my intention was to give a bit of dawah to the top head of the news paper and shake his guilty conscience, (if it is still alive) and did not use any angry word at all... which could be a bit of dissappointment for them as their sole objective is to angry muslims by throwing insults at our prophet saw and our deen.
and distract them from their right course of supporting muslims/mujahideen for their physical efforts.

inshaAllah islam will withstand any attack done by kuffar/taghut as it always has Alhumdulillah. this Faith is a muslim's most precious comodity, that he never ever doubts the truth of his religion. and never thinks that it is only him who is going to save his religion, but Allah is alkways there for him inshaALlah.

so our replys to the people like these should be just like a quick glance on the side but should never take the place of our focussed front line goals inshaALlah. i.e to strike the enemy with our full might and not to beg for his mercy by petitions and pleas....
may Allah guide us all to the truth and give victory to the muslims Ameen

wassalam
lubna
-------

Subject : Your mail regarding re: charles moore... can someone teach him ?
The Editor wishes to acknowledge your email with thanks.

If you have sent it as plain text, we will have received it. If, however, it
was sent as an attachment, please send it again in plain text.

This address is for letters submitted for publication only. All other queries,
complaints and comments should be emailed to: readrel@telegraph.co.uk

If you haven't included your address and telephone number your letter will not
be considered for publication.

Publication of all letters is subject to our terms for submission of works to us
(past and present), namely that, if your letter is used:

1.You will retain your copyright.

2. During the copyright period and afterwards, The Daily Telegraph and those
authorised by it have the world-wide assignable right to use your work in any
publication or service in whatever media (e.g. CD Rom, newspapers, online etc).

3. The Daily Telegraph may further allow others to authorise
scanning/photocopying of cuttings that include your letter.

4. The Daily Telegraph may shorten or edit your letter for publication.

Many thanks again for taking time to write to The Daily Telegraph.


This e-mail is from Telegraph Group Limited of
1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5DT
Registered in England No. 0451593.

If you are not the intended recipient of this message
please notify us immediately.

[macmuslim]

And here's Sister Eemaan's story
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml

The thing with the Telegraph is that this is more than the actions of one journalist - this is indicative of the culture and identity of said newspaper and those who own it.

OK

Here's the Cambridge online dictionary's definition of the word 'Paedophile':
Definition
paedophile UK, US pedophile [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children

This ugly and disgusting word is reserved for those who habitually prey on children, to rob them of their innocence and dignity for the perpetrator's own twisted desires.

This cannot be applied to the highest form of human being, the most sublime and distinct man in history, the Prophet Muhammed - may the peace and blessings of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala be upon him always.

Of the Prophet's (pbuh) wives, only A'isha had not been married before, the others being mostly widows. Had the Prophet pbuh been a habitual kiddie predator, this would have been easily and serially obvious to all, especially the Sahabah of the time.

We Scots have a great word for this type of trash - 'Bumpf', which means absolute and utter, ridiculous rubbish - and this recurring story is complete and utter Bumpf.

[wildlifer]

Did it run in response to this?
Madrassas hit by sex abuse claims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4084951.stm)

A Pakistani minister has revealed hundreds of cases of alleged child sex abuse at Islamic schools, or madrassas.

There were 500 complaints this year of abuse allegedly committed by clerics, Aamer Liaquat Hussain, a minister in the religious affairs department, said.

That compares with 2,000 last year, but as yet there have been no successful prosecutions, Mr Hussain told the BBC.

The minister's revelations have sparked death threats and infuriated some religious political leaders.

Mr Hussain said he had received death threats from clerics, but that he had done his job and his conscience was clear.

But I'm sure somehow this is the "West's" fault.

[lubna]

''Mr Hussain said he had received death threats from clerics, but that he had done his job and his conscience was clear.''


if mr. hussain's claim is valid then isnt there a very important bit of news missing....i.e the death threats to those clerics or the preparations for something like lashing,stoning etc from the authority for those criminals.
isnt this what you expect from muslim authority? as you know we are all very eager to establish shariah, so how come we will miss this chance of taking the culprit behind this evil act?
the punishment for acts like child abuse comes under 'tazeer' and the islamic authority/body has the right to choose the strongest punishment possible for it... but proof/witness is the 1st requirement.

and a bit of information on Mr. Aamer liaqat Hussain, he is the islam basher and hater..... so muslim by name really. and you will come across many of these as they have sold their souls to gain material interest. you can only recognise them by gaining more knowledge of islam.

cos if you dont know the law, you cant tell who is breaking it.

so my verdict it is a complete ''Bumpf''...( i like that word bro macmuslim) and mr. hussain is a ''numpty'' i.e silly person ,another scottish word.... :) ( learnt that from my hubby)





But I'm sure somehow this is the "West's" fault.

west can become guilty ,if muslims authority try to punish the criminal whose crime has proven without doubt, and the west comes forward to save that criminal on the slogan of 'human rights' ;) .

may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen

[lubna]

To: unspun-list@unspun.org.uk
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:18:08 +0000
From: unspun-list@unspun.org.uk
Subject: [UNSPUN] MCB article in Telegraph refutes 'paedophilia' charge


UNSPUN

as-salaamu 'alaykum everyone,

Today's edition of the Daily Telegraph carries a fine comment piece written by Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain in which he responds to the provocative remarks made by Charles Moore, the former editor of the paper, who said that people were 'perfectly entitled' to describe the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) as a 'paedophile'.

Charles Moore's original article in the Daily Telegraph (Saturday 11th December 2004) can still be read at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml

Iqbal's article from today's DT is copied in full below. Send your comments to media@mcb.org.uk. If you want to email the Telegraph a letter then send it to dtletters@telegraph.co.uk - remember you need to include your full name, address, post code and a daytime telephone number. Otherwise the letter will not be considered for publication.
salaams,

Moderators,

UNSPUN

[MCB article in Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 14th December 2004]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/14/do1401.xml

We need protection from the pedlars of religious hatred
By Iqbal Sacranie
(Filed: 14/12/2004)

In his column last Saturday, Charles Moore began with an almost unbelievably provocative question. "Was the prophet Mohammed a paedophile?" he asked.

The charge of paedophilia refers to Mohammed's marriage with Aisha. Yet a paedophile is one who is primarily aroused by children. For most of his married life, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had one wife, who was a widow with children of her own. After her death, he married others, most of whom were former widows themselves. Why would the Prophet have waited three years after his betrothal to Aisha – his only virgin bride – if not because he was waiting for her to attain puberty?

So the charge of paedophilia is nonsense; and, to be fair, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph acknowledged as much in his next paragraph. "People are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile," he wrote. Even so, the conjunction of the Prophet's name and this particular crime will have shocked Muslim readers.

As it happens, poetry in the Muslim world - and, in particular, that of the Urdu poet Allama Iqbal – abounds in complaints and reproaches made to God Almighty. Few poets, however, would dare to cast aspersions upon the name and memory of the blessed Prophet Mohammed. Witness the Persian couplet: Ba khuda deewana basho, Ba Muhammad hoshyar (Take liberty with God if you wish, but be careful with Mohammed).

European writers, though, have a history of taking liberties with the Prophet. As Minou Reeves, a former Iranian diplomat, observes in her book Mohammed in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making: "Over the course of no fewer than 13 centuries, a stubbornly biased and consistently negative outlook had persisted, permeating deep levels of European consciousness. In the works of an overwhelming majority of European writers, Mohammed was portrayed as a man of deep moral faults. Churchmen, historians, orientalists, biographers, philosophers, dramatists, poets and politicians alike had sought to attribute to Islam, and especially to Mohammed, fanatical and disreputable, even demonic characteristics."

It is no easy task to convey to a secular audience the immense love and esteem in which Muslims hold the Prophet. To us, he was the restorer of the worship of the One True God; teacher of an elegant and pristine monotheism; the friend of the orphans and the poor; a wise statesman, brave warrior, loving father, considerate husband; he was also the final of God's Prophets sent to mankind to remind us of the awesome Day of Judgment, when all will be called to account for the deeds we have committed during our lifetimes.

Anyway, back to Mr Moore. We seem to be revisiting the arguments that came to the fore during the Satanic Verses affair. Is freedom of expression without bounds? Muslims are not alone in saying "No" and calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs. Earlier this year, the BBC accepted complaints from Catholics and withdrew its cartoon series Popetown. Why does society not show the same courtesy and sensitivity towards Muslims?

As you may have gathered, Mr Moore disapproves of the Government's proposal to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, seeing it as an "attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam". Quite what "privilege" Islam currently enjoys in Britain over and above other faiths, he does not say.

Yet the proposed legislation does not create a new offence as such. Such an offence already exists in relation to the Jewish and Sikh communities, by dint of their being regarded as mono-ethnic communities. It also exists in relation to all faith and belief communities in Northern Ireland. The Home Office proposal simply extends the current provisions to all faith communities in mainland Britain. If the present provisions in relation to Jews, Sikhs and Northern Ireland raise no concerns - and there is no real campaign to remove these provisions - why should they raise concerns if extended to other religions in Britain?

So, the incitement to religious hatred proposal is not a matter of advancing privileges for British Muslims. It's about establishing equality under the law.

The current loophole in our legislation has resulted in far Right groups such as the BNP modifying their racist rhetoric of yesteryear - no doubt out of fear of prosecution - into a more explicitly and aggressively anti-Muslim invective, this time without fear of breaking the law.

Stirring up hatred against people simply because of their religious beliefs or lack of them ought to be regarded as a social evil. The BNP's ongoing Islamophobia can and has led to criminal acts, abuse, discrimination, fear and disorder. At the moment, there are laws against those who are stirred into committing these offences, but not against those that do the stirring. In opposing the incitement to religious hatred provision, Charles Moore, Rowan Atkinson and the National Secular Society are unwittingly strengthening the hand of those, such as the BNP, who peddle religious hatred.

Quite a few red herrings have been floated this past week about free speech and the dangers of censorship. To be sure, proscribing legitimate free speech is not in the interest of any religion. The death of discussion, debate and robust criticism about a religion is the surest way of routing that religion itself. However, we can make a critical distinction between the substance and form of free speech. The law need not infringe on the substance but can assist to moderate the form, so that all people in this country, whatever their religion, may live in dignity, free from hatred and hostility.

As Martin Luther King observed: "The law might not change the hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." Modern Britain, like the rest of Europe, is now home to millions of Muslims. Some may have sought political refuge in our more democratic societies, some migrating for economic reasons.

Whatever their motives, they are now a part of the social fabric that constitutes these societies. Muslims in Britain do not seek to create an enclave or a parallel culture. They want to be respected as British. That is what they are. And the government that sees and treats them as such, by criminalising offences directed specifically at them, is a government that understands its obligations.


Iqbal Sacranie is secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain

[lubna]

Assalamoalykum all
here is thier real reply , and not the automated one , along with my original post to them.... i wasnt expecting a reply though . i didnt tell them my phone number and address, so they could not publish it, but i will publish my letter here..... :)

wassalam
lubna

From The Daily Telegraph



Thank you for your letter responding to Charles Moore’s article relating to the proposed new law on incitement to religious hatred.



Mr Moore’s piece was a considered look at the possible consequences of the legislation and its potential effect on freedom of speech. He raised the example of the relationship of the Prophet Mohammed and his young wife, Aisha, as a subject which, if debated in public, might transgress the new law.



As he says in the piece, Mr Moore himself believes that any suggestion that the Prophet could be considered a paedophile for taking a nine-year-old wife would be “rude and mistaken”, but also believes that people should be legally free to make this and similarly controversial claims about all religions.



The piece was intended to provoke debate on a topic of extreme importance. Please accept our apology if this article caused offence, this was not our intention.



Best wishes,



The Editor

-----Original Message-----
From: lubna naveed Posted At: 11 December 2004 17:19
Posted To: DTLetters
Conversation: charles moore... can someone teach him?
Subject: re: charles moore... can someone teach him?




hello sir/madam

i am writing in regard to his article:Is it only Mr Bean who resists this new religious intolerance? By Charles Moore


how could you let such an article on your paper!!! prophet muhammad peace be upon him is as much your prophet as it is of muslims, just because you deny this, doesnt change the fact. he was the prophet of all mankind.non muslims dont have proof that muhammad is not the last prophet of God but they are acting merely on assumptions, and their assumptions can prove wrong later but will they have any chioce then?

i have heard ''pen is mightier than sword'' but never seen pen spreading such filth. to be a writer is a sacred job , one must be very careful with his words.

my sincere advice, this charles moore needs to be taught a lot. i am just doing my duty as a muslim to show my respect for the prophet , and will leave you to do yours inshaAllah ( Allah willing)

may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen

your sister through Adam and Eve

Lubna