The Danish Embassy, one sees above, is located on Aurangzeb Road, in New Delhi. So there is still a road in India, named after the most ruthless and cruel of the many ruthless and cruel Muslim rulers, oppressor and mass-murderer of Hindus? Why is there a road by that name? Change it, for god's sake.

As for the little missive itself, the Danish Embassy should not even accept it. It should hand back the damn thing, nicely stamped (with apologies to Kressmann Taylor): "Address Unknown. Adressat unbekannt."

Yes, that should do it.

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2006 5:16 PM

Fold the little missive up and print in bold dark letters on the front "NUTS"

Posted by: a10billr at February 28, 2006 5:36 PM

"criminal prosecution and conviction for dissemination of any communication by which a group of people is ‘threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin or creed…” The initiative of the prosecution would serve to cool down religious passions all over the Muslim world.

Even if this were to be considered actionable, where in the above statement by Mr. Freamon does it say anything about religion? Race, colour, national or ethnic origin or creed are all mentioned, but by his own admission, religion isn't mentioned and, therefore, not susceptible to prosecution.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at February 28, 2006 6:16 PM

Shahabuddin signs off, "Accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration." Hmm..is the correct translation of that platitude, "Accept, Excellency, that the Danish people will continue to be threatened, reviled, and terrorized until Denmark declares itself a Muslim state or enters an agreement in which all non-Muslim Danes become dutiful dhimmis."

Posted by: maryrose at February 28, 2006 6:24 PM

Obviously neither this guy nor the american he refers to have any idea what the extent of the law in question is.

There is no way any danish judge would ever consider a verdict of guilty for the harmless cartoons. And in any case its not our governments job to take such a case to court. Any person is welcome to visit their local police station here in Denmark and report it if they think someone has violated danish law. Then the police will decide whether there is any basis for prosecution and a judge will decide whether the accused are guilty.

Muslims in Denmark have already tried this route, and offcourse they were unsuccesful because its a very weak court case.

Posted by: ExpatriateDK at February 28, 2006 7:10 PM

I have two comments:

1) Lets have a class action lawsuit by the Catholics against anyperson or government agency that insults Christianity in any way. Example: removes the Ten Commandments or Holy Cross from a public place without having a priest reside over the proceedings. Let someone start this test case now before my Muslim brothers start one. That way it will get thrown out of court before the Dhimmis hand the country over.

2) I am starting to get an ugly gut feeling that the US should get out of Iraq because there may be no hope of bring civility to this worthless group of people. Imagine the stupidity and total disregard for humanity by destroying a religious place of worship. Whether it's Buddist, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim places of worship the jihadists doing this are infected with the psychosis of EVIL.

If the jihadists get their way with the US leaving and a civil war occurring then I propose to the western governments of locking out the ones responsible from the civilized, western world. We need to start identifying the people responsible and also play hardball with them and their families.

Watching the American troups get gunned down by the stupid As%h*%3s taking that video hit home to me that these are retarded people that worship death. The good people of Iraq need to band together and focus on killing these idiots.
If they don't start doing it now while the US is there then once we leave they will be hopelessly doomed.

To the remaining good Muslims of Iraq prove to the world your's is the religion of peace! Oh People of Sunni" stop your sons from killing. Prove to the Shiites you have the Religion of Peace. Push out the Arab jihadist invaders from your land. May Allah shine upon your land. Allah loves life, he is not death, why...because he created you.

Posted by: Mekoots at February 28, 2006 7:54 PM

Why isn't he more direct? He ought to just ask for a cool million to be deposited in a Swiss bank account and then promise those that break knees (or in this case .. behead and burn) will be called off .. for now.

Posted by: Daisytoo at February 28, 2006 7:57 PM

illustr8rg8r

"but by his own admission, religion isn't mentioned and, therefore, not susceptible to prosecution."

Could it be that he's admitting Islam is not a religion after all?

Posted by: Daisytoo at February 28, 2006 7:59 PM

Hugh,

Yes, there is an Aurangzeb road and a Qutbuddin Aibak Road and many many others. Changing such names is called 'saffronization' in my country of birth and hence can only be for evil 'communal' purposes.

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at February 28, 2006 8:06 PM

Placenames are not forever. Burma becomes Myanmar (though Burma Shave jingles are immortal, and cannot be touched). Saigon becomes Ho Chi Minh City. Stalingrad becomes Volgograd, and Leningrad reverts to Sankt Peterburg. Bombay becomes Mumbai. Ceylon, Sri Lanka. So why in god's name does "Aurangzeb Road" have to stay?

Would that modern, bustling young Hindus, all those computer whizzes we keep reading about, would not ape the Western world's young in their indifference to their own history, and especialy in this damn fear, by Hindus abroad, of being accused of narrow-minded communalism.

Muslims invaded India. They destroyed tens of thousands of Hindu and Buddhist artworks. They killed, over time, 60-70 million Hindus. They had a deplorable effect on Indian civlization, interrupting its natural and healthy evolution with mass murder and rapine on a colossal scale. The forced conversion of many millions of HIndus, the ancestors of today's Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India itself, should be recognized by those who are those descendants, and by the lucky Hindus whose ancestors managed to escape forced conversion, possibly because as HIndus they continued to be the jizyah-paying stratum that the Muslims wished to preserve (after all, if everyone forcibly became a Muslim, who would pay for things?).

It was only under the British, and beause of people such as Sir William -- "Oriental" -- Jones, that the sympathetic study of India's pre-Islamic and non-Islamic past was undertaken, and rediscovered by Hindus themselves. Whatever other high crimes or misdemeanors may be attributed to British colonialism, forcing people to forget their own pasts was not one of them -- that is a feature of Islamic conquest.

Why memorialize a killer like Aurangzeb? Why not make a little statement, by removing his name?

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2006 8:47 PM

The only reply:

"We find your request ridiculous."

Enough of even pretending to take these patent-pending imbeciles seriously.

Or a simple stamp:

VOID.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 28, 2006 10:21 PM

Mekoots,

You claim "Allah loves life, he is not death, why...because he created you."

Really? Actually, the Koran says that Allah does not love the disbelievers.

3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).

30:45 That He may reward out of His bounty those who believe and do good works. Lo! He loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).

The Koran says Allah abhors the disbelievers (abhor is a synonym of hate).

34:45 Those before them denied, and these have not attained a tithe of that which We bestowed on them (of old); yet they denied My messengers. How intense then was My abhorrence (of them)!

35:26 Then seized I those who disbelieved, and how intense was My abhorrence!

And what’s the deal with pigs? Does Allah love pigs? Allah created them, and the “prophet” Jesus is supposed to kill them all on the Last Day. Why would Allah create pigs only to kill them off in the end?

Allah does not love life. He loves himself. He likes obedience and blind faith. He uses up much of the Koran in flattering himself.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 1, 2006 1:37 AM

The Danish Embassy, one sees above, is located on Aurangzeb Road, in New Delhi. So there is still a road in India, named after the most ruthless and cruel of the many ruthless and cruel Muslim rulers, oppressor and mass-murderer of Hindus? Why is there a road by that name? Change it, for god's sake. Posted by: Hugh

Hugh

It gets worse. In Maharashtra, the land of Shivaji, where the Marathas bogged down Aurangzeb for the latter years of his despotic reign, the city near where he died and is buried is called Aurangabad. Nothing could be a greater affront to the Marathas, yet they have done nothing to change that. Even though the Shiv Sena, (which is the closest thing India has to the BNP), demanded that the name be changed, it hasn't happened. This despite Maharashtra having had a BJP-Shiv Sena coalition government that didn't include any secular parties. Oh, and those aren't even Muslim majority areas.

Placenames are not forever. Burma becomes Myanmar (though Burma Shave jingles are immortal, and cannot be touched). Saigon becomes Ho Chi Minh City. Stalingrad becomes Volgograd, and Leningrad reverts to Sankt Peterburg. Bombay becomes Mumbai. Ceylon, Sri Lanka. So why in god's name does "Aurangzeb Road" have to stay?

One needn't even go that far. If you've noticed, in addition to Bombay becoming Mumbai, Calcutta has become Kolkata and Madras Chennai, and Bangalore is on the verge of being renamed Bengelaru. With the exception of Mumbai (named after Godess Mumba Devi), all of the above changes are meaningless: they are akin to the Germans renaming Germany Deutschland, Italy Italia, Cologne Koeln, Rome Roma, Vienna Wien or from the above cases, Burma Myanmar.

On the other hand, in Gujarat, there has been a long standing demand to rename the major city in that state, currently named Ahmedabad (after one of the several despotic sultans who ruled Gujarat in the 15th century), to Karnavati. That demand has fallen on deaf ears, despite the fact that Ahmedabad is not a Muslim majority city. And in a lot of the cities in India, name changes of streets happen all the time - from colonial rulers to Indian freedom activists. However, let someone suggest that a name change happen from a Mohammedan name to an Indian nationalist, and all hell would break loose.

Bottom line - there aren't 150m Anglo-Indians baying for anyones blood at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras changing their names to things they never were.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 1, 2006 1:44 AM

Now, about Syed Shahabuddin. For those in D/W outside India who haven't heard of him, this swine is the equivalent to Jesse Jackson here, but for Muslims. His major 'contribution' to Indian Muslims in 1984 was to contrive a separate Muslim law, so that a woman could be divorced by the 'Talaq x 3' statement by her husband. When a court overruled that, Shahabuddin was at the forefront of the demand that the law change so that it is legal, and Rajiv Gandhi, like the good dhimmi he was, complied.

Shahabuddin's other expertize over the years has been to rally Mohammedans into a constituency (much like Jesse Jackson does here with Blacks) such that he can then fix alliances with different political parties in various elections to be a backroom power dealer. Not that that has done much for Mohammedans, but as far as that goes, with their inshallah attitude, that's something no one ever can get them out of.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 1, 2006 1:52 AM

Would that modern, bustling young Hindus, all those computer whizzes we keep reading about, would not ape the Western world's young in their indifference to their own history, and especialy in this damn fear, by Hindus abroad, of being accused of narrow-minded communalism.

Hugh

In my experience, Hindus abroad are more sensetive to the threat that Islam always posed and poses, as opposed to Hindus in India. Nonetheless, it's the fear of being branded not just communal, but worse epithets (like langots i.e. loin cloth clad fanatic) that keeps many from being outspoken about our history.

The other dirty but open secret is that freedom of expression does not genuinely exist in India. If any Indian politician even carved out your speeches and paraded them in public, he would have police cases registered against him, even if he constrained his criticism to Islam, but not Muslims. The closest person to you I can think of is Arun Shourie, who since the 80's stated the truth, not about Islam, but about the marginalization of Muslims by the likes of our correspondent above - Shahabuddin. While he wasn't branded communal, his articles were taken with a pinch of salt, and juxtaposed against articles by Mohammedan commentators like MJ Akbar. In 1989, when he spoke out in favor of a solution that would return the mosques in Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi to Hindus, in return for drawing the line there, he lost his job as editor of the Indian Express. In the last BJP led government, he was a cabinet minister in charge of implementing economic reforms.

Also, in addition to Muslims, criticism of Gandhi is another taboo that either gets his clan to react like Mohammedans, or again, gets police cases against one.

Note that India has been at the receiving end of terror for years, and not just Kashmir. In 1992, there were the Mumbai blasts that killed some 1000 people, and which was the closest India had ever had to 9/11. Yet, terrorism was never recognized in India as a serious threat until the real 9/11 happened. Apparently, only after the West turned on Islamic terror (albeit temporarily) did India see fit to follow suit.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 1, 2006 2:16 AM

Well it could have been excusable had it been an Old Delhi road (Old Delhi is a Muslims majority city). New Delhi was built from scratch in 1925!!

Hinduism's 3rd holiest city Prayag is still officially called Allahbad (City of Allah, name given to the city by Mughals).

@Infidel Pride: As a half-Maratha (originally from Gwalior though) i can tell you that Aurangabad was atleast called Khadki (its original name) until a few decades back.

In my experience, Hindus abroad are more sensetive to the threat that Islam always posed and poses, as opposed to Hindus in India.

It is maybe because we are surrounded by Fundamentalist Muslims in Asian areas here. I grew up with more Pakistanis around me than Indians! In India on the other hand Muslims tend to be restricted to their ghettos, hence the two communities are somewhat insulated..
Much of VHP is financed from here in South-East England! My Indian cousins call me a "Hindutva drone" . These Macauly's Children brainwashed on years of pinko propoganada coupled with their hendoistic self-centric lifestyles, care less about our history.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at March 1, 2006 5:24 AM

Hugh,
You are very correct about the need to rename places when they currently shower praise on Muslim fundamentals and oppressors of Hindus in India. But as some pointed above, this is seen as saffronisation by a few narrow minded Hindus who want to create divisions based on communal lines. Such seemingly harmless moves such as renaming a city back to Prayag or removing reservation in educational instituions for the minority (how are Muslims a minority when they contsitue more than 110 million, about 12-15% of the total population??) etc.

However, the below part of your post isnt accurate:
It was only under the British, and beause of people such as Sir William -- "Oriental" -- Jones, that the sympathetic study of India's pre-Islamic and non-Islamic past was undertaken, and rediscovered by Hindus themselves. Whatever other high crimes or misdemeanors may be attributed to British colonialism, forcing people to forget their own pasts was not one of them -- that is a feature of Islamic conquest.
British rule had actually divided the Hindus and Muslims for ever. Their plans were solely responsible for creating Pakistan. Divide and Rule was a policy that was used very cleverly by Britishers from the time the Queen took over governance.
In addition, to create a huge army of babus (or clerks) for aiding in administration, the British or Macaulay education sysetm was imposed. This distorted history, with theories such as Aryan Invasion which had no proof or credibility. Such theories were the manifestations of a few racist Westerners who continued, in those days, to look down upon coloured people in spite of looting them.
History was also distorted by adding heapfuls of praise for the Muslim rulers. The Tughlaqs, Mughals etc who were the first to impose Muslim rule in India were glorified in history texts. Explore India's rich past and you'll see that no Hindu ruler ever imposed his faith on the people. However, all the Muslim rulers imposed their faith and forced the "infidels" to pay jizya.

It is a pity that modern day governments in India lack the spine and the guts to revise such history texts, which were created by the British for their agenda.

Posted by: Mohd Is Satan at March 1, 2006 11:15 AM

I can assure all that The Society for Introducing Free Expression in Denmark and various other groups and individuals are working on the expansion of free speech by trying to get removed paragraph 266b of the Danish penal code.
And The Society against Islamization of Denmark is trying to get the Koran forbidden at the minister of Justice of Denmark.

Posted by: PeterBuch at March 1, 2006 3:21 PM

@Infidel Pride: As a half-Maratha (originally from Gwalior though) i can tell you that Aurangabad was atleast called Khadki (its original name) until a few decades back.

In my experience, Hindus abroad are more sensetive to the threat that Islam always posed and poses, as opposed to Hindus in India.

It is maybe because we are surrounded by Fundamentalist Muslims in Asian areas here. I grew up with more Pakistanis around me than Indians! In India on the other hand Muslims tend to be restricted to their ghettos, hence the two communities are somewhat insulated..
Much of VHP is financed from here in South-East England! My Indian cousins call me a "Hindutva drone" . These Macauly's Children brainwashed on years of pinko propoganada coupled with their hendoistic self-centric lifestyles, care less about our history.
Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar

Vikrant

I am talking about the official names of cities in English, not what they are called by their inhabitants in their own languages. Just has Bombay has always been called Mumbai in Marathi, Aurangabad too has been called Khadki in Marathi. Similarly, Ahmednagar is just called Nagar.

That isn't the point. In English, the Indians have consciously renamed cities to their vernacular equivalents, which make little sense. On the other hand, genuine name changes, like Ahmedabad to Karnavati, or Allahabad to Prayag, wouldn't be given the time of day.

Personally, I thought that calling Aurangabad Khadki is confusing, since there is a Khadki cantonment area just north of Pune. And the whole district? Why not call it Daulatabad, or better still, revert to Devagiri, as it was called before the Tughluqs?

Here in the US, there aren't more Pakistanis than Indians, but still then, a majority of Indians here do seem to be pro Hindutva. As for your relatives in India, it seems to be a case of Scindia fascination, if they are from Gwalior.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 1, 2006 3:53 PM

Why doesn't this pig repair to Pakistan where he belongs, as do ALL Muslims who now infest India?

Posted by: jsla at March 1, 2006 4:30 PM