dated August 2

Please find our mails.

We do require to have a personalised answer. Any delay can only increase your potential responsibility. If we do not have a reply with 12 hours we shall introduce a law suit.

Sincerly Ines Wouters

dated July 10

Dear Madam,

I am the attorney of Mr Koreichi in Belgium who draw my attention to the existence of a site that you host since very recently named www.prophetmohammed.co.uk. (it still is) This site was previsouly hosted by Bluehost. After we constacted this provider the site changed of provider as we probably convinced the previous provider of the illegality of the content of thyis site (nope, they just asked me to remove 1 image (a copyright infringement). And as only part of the site was with bluehost I decided to take the opportunity to host the whole site in one place. The email I received from them actually stated that they found the comments left by my Muslim visitors far more offensive than anything else on the site).

As you may not be aware, this site is particularily insulting and diffamatory about the religion of Islam, its practionners the Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad (just telling it like it is). The name of the site is particularly misleading as it is called "Prophet Muhammed" but in fact is a systematic criticism of Islam, Muslims and Prophet Muhammad (I wasn't aware that criticism was an offence).

As you know freedom of opinion and expression in democratic countries have some limitations (yes, but only some), as it does not allow to insult and propagate racist (nothing racist on my site - apart from some of the messages left by Muslims) and discriminatory views (nothing discriminatory - unless you're an intolerant bigot incapable of accepting that others have the right to hold different views to you). In this particular case, the content this site is way beyond what is normally (define 'normally') acceptable by general standards (you mean Islamic standards of Human Rights) in a democratic state (it may be unnacceptable in your beloved 'Islamic' States but I think you'll find it's still legal to express an opinion in Europe - Belgium excepted).

As hosting provider you are certainly not responsible of the content of the sites you hosts since you did not provide the content and might not be aware of it and that you do not have any power to change their content. But under (Communication Decency Act/ (sect. 230)). "No provider (...) of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider (...) considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". (Shouldn't you be quoting a law that gives you the right to sue the webhost provider if they DON'T take the material down?...rather than a law that says I CAN'T sue the webhost provider if they DO take it down? - Just being picky but it sort of shows you're clutching at straws - or maybe you're in the wrong profession - just a thought, but If you're still a virgin then Allah's got a big recruiting drive going on at the moment...feel free to apply).

The question here is not about religious belief, which is for sure open to freedom (?). The content of the site is not religious in itself but is grossly and strongly insulting the religion and beliefs of others, considering among others the Muslim and Arab world as "inferior" (your words not mine) civilization, incapable of being part of the civilized world, comparing among Mohammed to a Nazi (see picture on the site) (OK, you may have a point there - I apologise to all Nazis who feel insulted at being compared with Mohammed) showing very gross images and making all possible to show Islam, Muslims and Mohammed as really inferior type of person, quoting some old writings "ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MUSULMAN" by ANDRE SERVIER in 1924 (Is this another book you want burning?) saying that "To sum up: the Arab has borrowed everything from other nations, literature, art, science, and even his religious ideas. He has passed it all through the sieve of his own narrow mind, and _being incapable of rising to high philosophic conceptions, he has dis-torted, mutilated and desiccated everything._ This destructive influence explains the decadence of Musulman nations and their powerlessness to break away from barbarism; it equally explains the difficulties that confront the French in Northern Africa. It is certainly our duty to respect the religious opinions of the natives; but it is mistaken policy for us to appear more Musulman than they themselves, and to bow down in a mystical spirit before a form of _civilization that is very much lower than our own and manifestly backward and retrograde_. The times are too serious for us to indulge any longer in the antics of dilettantism or of played-out impressionism."

In other words they try to prove "scientifically" (no they don't. They simply use their observations to come to a conclusion - that's what free-thinking people do...try it some time) that Arab culture and Muslim religions are in fact products and causes of a lower type of civilization. (not at all, it's merely stating an opinion that Muslims are held back by their 'religion' and that they have contributed very little to mankind due to the restrictions of a 'religion' that prides itself on not having changed since it was invented 1400 years ago - A very famous man who was responsible for freeing Belgium from the Nazis the first time round also drew the same conclusion ...maybe you find his contribution to history offensive too).

Another example : Can a Muslim be a good American*? *(If you live in the _civilised world_ just substitute your own country)

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran). Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Freedom of Religion and Tolerance...principles he believes to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Spiritually - no. Because Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever described as "loving" in The Quran. Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps _we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country._ _They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. _

This kind of statements are openly really calling for racism (Islam isn't a race - why do lawyers always play the 'race-card' when they realise they have lost the argument) and religious discrimination (try reading the relative surahs in the quran) as it tries to establish that a Muslim cannot be a good citizen just by being a Muslim (now you're being silly. A Muslim can obviously be a good citizen provided he/she doesn't follow the quran - or are you saying it's OK for a man to beat his disobedient wife? I'd like to see you defend that one in court). Examples are countless (that's because of the countless people that keep sending me material to help support freedom of speech) and I invite also you to check all the images. Some are rather offending especially about Aischa (Muslims seem to get offended at most things these days. However, there's nothing offensive about aysha - it wasn't her fault that she was forced to marry a 53 year old paedophile when she was only 9 - or does Afschrift specialise in defending paedophiles too?).

Please have also a look at "contact" to see a man using page of Koran as toilet paper (OK, you win again. It's not on the contact page anymore :o)

Sincerely yours Inès Wouters (ines.wouters@afschrift.com)

Afschrift law firm

Telfa Network

Belgium