KHARTOUM, Sudan - Sudan charged a British teacher Wednesday with inciting religious hatred — a crime punishable by 40 lashes — because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad as part of a class project.

The country's top Muslim clerics pressed the government to ensure that the teacher, Gillian Gibbons, is punished, comparing her action to author Salman Rushdie's "blasphemies" against the Prophet Muhammad.

The charges against Gibbons angered the British government, which urgently summoned the Sudanese ambassador to discuss the case. British and American Muslim groups also criticized the decision.

Gibbons, 54, was arrested at her home in Khartoum on Sunday after some parents of her students accused her of naming the bear after Islam's prophet. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but the parents saw applying it to a toy animal as an insult.

Etc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_on_re_af/sudan_british_teacher;_ylt=Aus1BA5drCvRHsdsnONECIZ vaA8F).

Guilty, or not guilty?

Well, if the teddy bear is female, then I can definitely understand why they'd be upset. :D

It called the incident part of a broader Western "plot" against Muslims

Ah yes, first teddy bears, followed by nukes. :rolleyes:

Not guilty.

Sidenote:
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.
:confused:
Edit: Nevermind. I didn't realize until now that signatures are allowed for SPS holders.

Ever since those damn cartoons they've gone absolutely mental...

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/28/sudan.bears/index.html

I don't think anyone can agree with this.

Don't they know that they are actually proving that something is fundementally wrong with their politics and religion. I rarely post in the alley but these kind of incidents actually make me angry.

We have a politician in our country that is making a movie to show how retarded (his words) this religion can be. Now I think he is just full of himself and takes his arguments to the extreme. But things like this makes me doubt myself.

This is nothing but further proof that subjective laws have no positive effects, only negative ones.

If Ms. Gibbons is guilty of anything, it's of being so naive as to think that her innocent project would be seen as she intended, and not twisted to support some extremeist agenda. That, or thinking that people who object might come to her first instead of squawking to trigger-happy authorities. :rolleyes:

First thought: Political/ religious correctness on Arabic? In America, been she a prominent person, she'd have to go through the humiliating ritual of apologising in front of a delighted press, maybe go to rehab. In Sudan she is being punished by a beating for what in Sudan basically is interpreted as blasphemy.

On second thought, of course the issue is being scandalised way out of proportion by political people. There cannot be a doubt about it.

On third thought, we ought not to be so self adulatory as to think that the West, Christians, is above and beyond that - and here I am referring to our rather recent past. I don't know how well a teddy bear named Jesus would play with the Christian right. Some names are just names, others aren't. You will be very hard pressed to find Germans named Adolf nowadays.

Let's wiki a bit. As for criminalising blasphemy, just this law from MassachusettsChapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.By the way, blasphemy is a crime in Germany, too. So, forty lashes? The poor lady, but compared to that poor Saudi lady that got herself raped and was sentenced for violating segregation laws, that's nothing.

And corporal punishment? Iirc In the United States, 23 states allow corporal punishment in schools. So the Sudanese apply it to adults (of course of a different severity)? Delaware was the last US state to abandon the whipping post. Although the last lawbreaker was to feel the sting of the lashes in 1952, the practice of corporal punishment for crimes like rape, theft and assault was not stricken from the state code until the early 1970's.

What else? Of course: The US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

Good point of view. But such an attitude has to grow. It hasn't grown in Sudan, and I don't think it will. In fact, I think that the idea of separating religion from the state is anathema to Islam. Like the American Christian right the Islamic right finds secularism dreadful.

Interesting post Ragusa, except that there at the very end you fell into the very same trap you were criticising all the way through. Separating religion from state isn't anathema to Islam, it's anathema to any islamic state in which the clergy has an near-absolute stranglehold on the political system. See the difference? Just like separating religion and state is not anathema to Judaism, but certainly is to Israel (and to the more right-wing branches of Zionism). Just like, as you said, separating religion and state is not anathema to Christianity but certainly is to certain right-wing Christians in the USA (and a whole bunch of European countries). The three cases are far more similar than most people (of all sides) feel comfortable admitting.

As for Tal's initial question, I'm afraid the poor teacher will probably be found guilty, unless the British government finds some way to pressure Sudan into changing their mind without making a diplomatic mess. Which is a shame, because I cannot see how what she's done can in any way be viewed as an insult. I've asked several Muslim friends their thoughts, and they all unanimously said they found the charges against the teacher "utterly ridiculous".

Way to make it about America, Ragusa! Amazing how you can stretch any thread into a critique/attack on America! Give this man a prize!

On topic, it's appalling. 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear.

I named my penis Mohammed this morning in honour of the prophet. I hope some Muslim zealot hangs himself over this post.

I named my penis Mohammed this morning in honour of the prophet. I hope some Muslim zealot hangs himself over this post.

After the naming did you give him a quick 40.... Nah, I'm not going to go there :p

Speaking as a birthright and convinced citizen of the US of A, I like Ragusa's post and agree with it. But mayhap that is my international background speaking.

As I understand it the teacher 'allowed' the children to name the teddy. Which to me means the children chose the name and she gave permission. On that ground I think the whole thing is silly and a tempest-in-a-teapot. Maybe the whipper will carry two Qurans under his arm.

Speaking as a birthright and convinced citizen of the US of A, I like Ragusa's post and agree with it.

He has made it an art form!

The teacher has been sentenced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7115821.stm) to 15 days in prison plus deportation from the Sudan. No lashes.

The US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."


But that is how we keep our religious crazies under control: The Constitution. It does not have to "grow," since the Constitution is quite clear, it just needs to be left intact.

Well, Ragusa, I think you are being a bit unfair in this instance. We are a country of 300 million people in fifty states. There are examples of idiot laws passed in almost every locality, given the many thousands of laws that are passed every year. But to equate America with this nonsense in Sudan is too much of a stretch. I'm surprised you did not bring up the Salem witch trials. Ah, but we were English then.... :p

First thought: Political/ religious correctness on Arabic? In America, been she a prominent person, she'd have to go through the humiliating ritual of apologising in front of a delighted press, maybe go to rehab. In Sudan she is being punished by a beating for what in Sudan basically is interpreted as blasphemy.

Do you have something to back up your "first thought", or are you just making an unsubstantiated generalization? FYI, America isn't the only country hell-bent on political correctness. Great Britain, at the least, is another marked example, and there are quite a few others. So in the future, please also post something that will back up statements like that.

Ziad,Separating religion from state isn't anathema to Islam, it's anathema to any islamic state in which the clergy has an near-absolute stranglehold on the political systemOh no. I disagree. I do not think I fell into that trap. It in my understanding is anathema to Islam as a religion. The reason IMO lies in Islamic theology. I am very serious :)

I think the comparison between US Christian right and Islamists is very illuminating. That doesn't have anything to do with putting down the US but with core critiques on secular western societies that the two groups share. Such a comparison is worthwhile because the Christian right is not as alien as Islamists appear to western eyes. Fundamentalism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. It is instructive to look at their arguments, because they show interesting parallels. In this respect Chandos is right, in the Western country with the starkest extremes, you will almost inevitably find examples if you only search a bit.

Except for that, the West likes to say how civilised it is, it feels good, but that is first of all a narrative, asking for reflection. What I say is that we ought not be too enthusiastic about calling the Sudanese barbarians for things we did ourselves, or rather our countries and societies, only some 70 or so years ago, and with gusto. Germans are especially humbled in this respect.

After 1945 well meaning Americans educated the German people about that it is bad to discriminate minorities, to then return to a country that had race segregation, and Jewish quotas at the Ivy League universities. That's why the the early neo-conservatives went to state universities. Ivy league didn't want Jews. That is not about hypochrisy - the Nazis undeniably committed barbaric excesses - and I do not doubt that the Americans who came to Germany were generally well meaning. They just didn't get it, because they didn't note segregation as something special because they were used to it, and that's they way the world was, and certainly it was much less bad than what the Nazis did. It certainly was unreflected.

What I aim on is this: I do think that we today in the west are very much used to some things that are not normal. We can be happy that we have all that, and that we after spilling oceans of blood over some five centuries to get there can enjoy the blessings of the freedoms a western society grants every individual. I find it preposterous that it is there to be adopted off the shelf by everyone. And that is one of the largest problems I have with the classical neo-cons who believe that there is a final goal, the universal standard for all mankind.

In respect to the Islamic world, they are basically asking them to, faster please, push through a similar process. And I doubt that Islamic theology allows for making such adjustments, not without the doors of Ithijad being re-opened. And even then it might not be possible because of the fundamentals of Islamic faith. Anyway, if that happens, if the doors open, the Islamic world might change, slowly. If that is really desirable is an open question. One only needs to look at what happened to Germany after the reformation re-opened 'our door of Ithijad'. We had almost 300-200 years of war. After the Thirty Years War that was fought on our soil, as much about religion as under the pretext of it, one third or more of the German population had been killed. I wonder whether we really ought to wish for something like that in the Islamic world in the age of industrial scale killing in wars.

I only point that out because that is in my view the inevitable consequence of calling for change toward western standards in the Islamic world. That is not directed at any poster. It's my take on this.

The West, and that includes all of it, has a tendency to take many things for granted, and not to think too much about it. That goes double for it's most vocal exemplar.

Gibbons then asked the students to pick names for the bear and they voted to name it Muhammad.

Yes, lets lash the teacher, who's students named the bear.

She is not guilty by my standards, although by their law I guess she is. It is stupid to punish her for letting her students name a stuffed bear the most common name in the world. It is a fake thing, it is not like they are saying that their prophet resembles a stuffed teddy bear...

And, why did they pick religious hatred?

I think the comparison between US Christian right and Islamists is very illuminating.

Yes, but the "Christian" right is not the US, nor is it representative of what most Americans want. With that aside, yes, it is illuminating. I remember an interview with a group of Isalmic Mullahs, commenting how they agreed with the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And how they sided with GWB's notion of eliminating gay rights in the US. You would think there would be no mullahs for Bush, but in fact they share a great deal in religious perspective.

On your other point, I could not disagree more about the need for reform in some Islamic countries. How would the 300 years of warfare of which you complain be different from the previous 300 years of religious wars that swept Europe? The Crusades, the Cathar Wars, the open warfare with the HRE and the Italian city states, are a few that come to mind at once.....

I disagree. I do not think I fell into that trap. It in my understanding is anathema to Islam as a religion. The reason IMO lies in Islamic theology. I am very serious :)
I don't doubt you are. What I find a little strange is how you managed to combine "my understanding", "IMO" and "it is" in the same paragraph. You're presenting an opinion based on your personal understanding as being a rigid fact, and that undermines your argument. I suspect this is due to your sources regarding Islam not being entirely accurate themselves.

I think the comparison between US Christian right and Islamists is very illuminating. That doesn't have anything to do with putting down the US but with core critiques on secular western societies that the two groups share.
I think the reason Tal, Chandos and JF criticised your generalisation is because you turned the "core critique" (which may or may not be true, I personally agree with parts of it, but that's not the issue at hand) into a specific example about why something is bad in the USA. Tal is right - the UK can be incredibly picky about PC, just like the USA. And, just like the USA, some UK figures have occasionally thrown PC out of the window and got standing ovations for it (Jack Straw and John Reid anyone?). The point is, if you're going to pick a single example, just make it clear it's an example and not a sweeping generalisation (in this respect your last post made your thoughts much clearer than the previous one, I think)

In respect to the Islamic world, they are basically asking them to, faster please, push through a similar process.
Why not see this pushing forward as something good? If it took you 500 years (let's say) to realise you were doing something wrong, and then you notice someone else still does it, wouldn't you want them to get to the same conclusion much faster than you did?

(yes, I know I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as I'm aware of how easily criticisable my statement is)

And even then it might not be possible because of the fundamentals of Islamic faith.
This is not true. There is nothing in Islam (as a religion) that says naming a teddy bear Mohammad should get the teacher 40 lashes (or prison, or deportation, or anything at all). That's a purely political construct. Just like there is nothing in Christianity saying that muslisms are more likely to be terrorists. This is (again) a political construct. The vast majority of the points in Islam that tell people what to do and what not to do have very specific reasons behind them, and the reasons are very clearly stated, be it not eating pork, wearing a veil, and so on and so forth. As I may have said earlier, politicians who use religion as an excuse will always attempt to twist it to suit their needs, and the twisting will usually (almost always?) skip over the actual explanation in favor of one of their own cooking. That does not mean that their arguments are truly based in religion.

The West, and that includes all of it, has a tendency to take many things for granted, and not to think too much about it.
That's true to an extent, but in itself isn't a problem. I would say it does become a problem when taking things for granted becomes so rigid that you are no longer able to accept that your vision of things could be wrong, that your sources of information may not be 100% accurate, even after you see the evidence. It doesn't help that the world media are becoming incredibly polarised, to the extent that true journalism is increasingly hard to find, and short of going somewhere and actually seeing for yourself what's going on there you're almost certain of either not getting the full picture or, worse, getting an entirely wrong account (but that's a completely different topic)

Ziad,I don't doubt you are. What I find a little strange is how you managed to combine "my understanding", "IMO" and "it is" in the same paragraph. You're presenting an opinion based on your personal understanding as being a rigid fact, and that undermines your argument. I suspect this is due to your sources regarding Islam not being entirely accurate themselves.
...
This is not true. There is nothing in Islam (as a religion) that says naming a teddy bear Mohammad should get the teacher 40 lashes (or prison, or deportation, or anything at all). That's a purely political construct. Just like there is nothing in Christianity saying that muslisms are more likely to be terrorists. This is (again) a political construct. The vast majority of the points in Islam that tell people what to do and what not to do have very specific reasons behind them, and the reasons are very clearly stated, be it not eating pork, wearing a veil, and so on and so forth. As I may have said earlier, politicians who use religion as an excuse will always attempt to twist it to suit their needs, and the twisting will usually (almost always?) skip over the actual explanation in favor of one of their own cooking. That does not mean that their arguments are truly based in religion.I feel profoundly ambivalent on this. On the one hand Islam is consensus driven, and the larger number of sectarian groups in Islam gives testimony to that. It also indicates that Islam is open to change. Yet 'progressive groups' in Islam have always had a hard time in the past. How come?

If in Islam faith is a seamless garment that encompasses all aspects of life, there is no place for a separation of faith and a secular world. That is a very fundamental observation. A secular state, with secular laws must then appear as an aberration. Islam already has laws. Now think of Christian fundamentalists setting up the ten commandments in front of courthouses and their implicit demands and you see my point. They think very much alike: Against the orders from God or Allah, secular laws are meaningless.

The character of Allah as a deity is another point. In the Islamic tradition, God has given his word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting the Koran. That is IMO why those reformists ultimately failed. Biblical literalists are thinking along the very same lines. Calling for reform in face of this is simply disregarding the nature of the Weltanschauung in the target society (pun not intended).

Insofar, citing the Koran and searching for passages about teddy bears and lashes is entirely beside the point.

So why can't Muslims take a joke (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html)? Get real folks. Deprecatory cartoons of Jesus would have earned you the dungeon or the stake during most of Christianity's 2,000-year history. Britain still has not abolished the Blasphemous Libel Law against mockery of the Church of England, although the last Englishman punished for blasphemy was a certain William Gott, who received nine months' imprisonment in 1922 for comparing Jesus to a circus clown.

Indeed, with the help of Spengler I wouldn't have needed to look to America for examples.

Muslims rage at affronts to their faith because the modern world puts their faith at risk, precisely as modern Islamists contend. That is not a Muslim problem as such, for all faith is challenged as traditional society gives ground to globalization. Christianity and Judaism barely have adapted to the modern world; the Islamists believe with good reason that Islam cannot co-exist with modernism and propose to shut it out altogether.
...
As the pope explained, the eternal, unchanging character of the Koran that the Archangel Gabriel dictated verbatim to Mohammed admits of no doubt. Muslim belief is not dialogue, but submission. It is as defenseless before the bacillus of skepticism as the American aboriginals were before the smallpox virus.
...
That is why Muslims cannot respond to Western jibes at the person of their Prophet except as they did to the Jyllens-Posten cartoons.

Or accept teddy bears named Mohammed. And that are profoundly religious reasons.

The past years have made me very pessimistic on the utility or good sense of pressing for change abroad. I say that in the knowledge that one cannot insulate oneself from the outside world. Engagement is inevitable, but there always is something like too much. Multiculturalism is probably a great idea, if only in foreign policy. In saying that I inevitably express my disapproval for the US policies of the past years.

Muslims rage at affronts to their faith because the modern world puts their faith at risk, precisely as modern Islamists contend. That is not a Muslim problem as such, for all faith is challenged as traditional society gives ground to globalization. Christianity and Judaism barely have adapted to the modern world; the Islamists believe with good reason that Islam cannot co-exist with modernism and propose to shut it out altogether.


I don't know if I agree with that, because there are many forward-looking Muslims who are eager for reform - they reside in the rational, 21th Century, while the old authorities are reacting to the "modern challenge" with open hostility. The picture that is painted here, is that the modern world and religion cannot reside in the same house, so to speak.

Yet, I think that many know that they can, while surely at a point of some accomandation. For instance, many Christians are not the raving nut cases who want to stop stem-cell research. Or go around blowing up abortion clinics. Or substitute the Bible for a High School sceince text book. Yet, they remain committed to practicing their religion. Many Americans would rather not mix religion and politics, as have many in the religious right movement. As you point out, many Christians have seen that mixing politics and religion can often lead to unforseen and dangerous results. I think the same problems exist in Islam. Most Muslims are not like the Taliban, wanting to take their countries back to the 8th Century.

Yet 'progressive groups' in Islam have always had a hard time in the past. How come?


Because they lack the political tools to accomplish the reforms. The government is openly hostile towards progressives. It's called tyranny.

The teacher has been sentenced to 15 days in prison plus deportation from the Sudan. No lashes.

After that, Would you want to stay?

Chandosmany forward-looking Muslims who are eager for reformThat's what they tell on the talk show conduit, and probably that's also what they themselves think. We have a lot of them here, too, who tell how wonderful, tolerant and mystic Sufi Islam is for example. That's beside the point. While Fundamentalism does necessarily not represent the mainstream, it is probably no accident you meet such friendly, well educated and articulate folks in Berlin, Paris, London or Washington and such.

There also is a reason why Salman Rushie, another friendly, well articulate and well educated fellow is now hiding in Britain. It is not all political, and that Islam is exploited by ruthless politicos. That is a mistake to think. You underestimate the conservatism in the Islamic world.

PS: Here America again offers a striking example: The American Christian Right is also profoundly about religion, with a political muscle. They are enrolled with GOP atm, yes, and politically activist, yes, and habve probably been suckered by Rove, yes, but that doesn't mean their drive and motives aren't religious.

After that, Would you want to stay?

Sorry - I was just quoting the verdict. But to your question: No, I wouldn't want to visit the country in the first place if I risked imprisonment or worse for any misstep.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be happy about being forced to leave, either. I like being asked... )

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/30/sudan.bears/index.html

15 days in jail! It's death we want! according to 600 demonstraters:o

I can hear them from here "15 days!?! rabble rabble rabble!!"

"By soul, by blood, I will fight for the Prophet Mohammed."

I guess mohammed can't defend himself from a 50 year old woman armed with a teddybear :sigh:

I cannot believe there are still laws that involve religion. We probably have them as well in the Netherlands then. That's just sad.

yes, but that doesn't mean their drive and motives aren't religious.

It's an ideology and it's in both their religious views and their politics. And they are not the mainstream here, although they like to pass themselves off as such.

We should spend a minute on Rushdie though. Who was it that ordered him to be killed? The Ayatolla of Iran. What a surprise - the prototypical despot of whom we are speaking. Rushdie is a challenge to that old authority of which the mullahs are so afraid. The well-educated people who read Rushdie are rational - that's what education does to a person, among other things.

The thing to keep in mind is that many of the people in these countries don't have the political and economic tools to feel empowered. Instead, they feel empowered by the emotion of their religion, despite being marginalized in other areas. To be sure they feel resentment and rage because they feel helpless and threatened - the fear of being dragged from their famillies, lashed or imprisoned, beheaded or hanged is always present in their day-to-day lives. Give large segments of the population those political and economic tools and watch as the mullahs become marginalized themselves.

It's interesting that you bring up Muslims residing in the West. We have Muslim women here in the US who walk around with their heads covered with veils. I used to see them all the time on the college campus, especially. That's fine, I suppose it's a symbol of faith and I can admire that. But tell them they can't drive a car, or that they can't go to college, or tell them that they can't work at certain jobs, or that they can't vote, and then see how fast those veils come off. It's always the same - it's the old men who want to keep things as they are. Why? Because they are the most empowered by the old traditions.

Do the women, the poor, the marginalized buy into it? Of course. They are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed crap all the time. Bring them out into the light and see what happens. But that's the tricky part. Look at the opening of Hawthrone's novel, The Scarlet Letter: Who is attacking the protagonist, Hester? It is the women of the town. They buy into it, yes. Progressive reform is a very difficult thing to achieve.

Europeans and those of us of European descent seem to not realize that democracy was not a world wide thing. A lot of the British laws came from the people of Northern Europe who invaded Britain. The Greeks and Romans had democracy. Women in Northern Europe had a lot of rights. I'm not going to go into this depth because it would be very :yot:

There is nothing democratic about a Theocracy. You don't change a religious society by persecuting it; you only make it stronger.

The leaflets condemned Gibbons as an "infidel" and accused her of "the pollution of children's mentality" by her actions.

Well, she did pollute those children's minds. Except for the whole thing about the children naming the bear... -.-

Chandos,
don't let your idealism get the better of you in this. You assume, falsely, that everybody wants to be like us. That is not so. You see that probably the children do want to be like you but are forced into scarfs to dwell in the dark and so forth. That view is a result of your upbringing. It is probably an error. Some children might. I know a couple of very westernised Muslims, but they're Alevites, and as such an aberration. Many conservative Muslims, certainly Islamists and especially Tafkiris, don't see them as Muslims at all. There are others who are very comfortable with the scarf. That is a result of their upbringing.

My sister is a teacher and she sais that her children who wear a headscarf often express to take pride in that, because it is an expression of their religion which is great. They do not have the feeling of dwelling in the dark at all. A good friend, also a teacher, had a major confrontation in school with Muslim parents. Likely the only reason they sent their daughter to school was because they are legally obliged to. They never ever showed up in school at all, didn't want to have anything to do with it at all. Until daughter was told to not wear a scarf in sports because school's insurance wouldn't cover costs in accidents due to the increased risk of injury from wearing a scarf (for similar considerations, piercings, earrings, watches and the like are not allowed as well). The first time they ever appeared in school, father was about as rabid and agitated as his wife. They weren't happy at all with the response that when living in Germany, they have to accept our laws and the way our country is. They didn't accept it, just bowed to the inevitable. It is a fairly safe bet to assume they feel unfairly treated and viewed it as proof that our schools scandalously encourage promiscuity and shamelessness.
Undeniably education can do a lot to improve the chances of Muslim children, but it cannot be counted on to influence what's happening in the nucleus of the family. Like the results or not, that sphere is constitutionally protected and not for us to meddle in except in narrowly defined instances of abuse - and that's in principle a good thing.

I knew a nice Muslim guy, almost a friend, who was at some point 'born again'. He was eventually approached by concerned relatives over his lifestyle (a liked to party and smoke weed). He ended up writing the commandments of Islam on an office flip chart before he was fired because everyone got scared of him, me included. Never heard of him since. I guess if you're caught between two cultures, or disoriented, Islam can be something that gives you 'safe anchor in stormy seas'. Religion generally does that. I see, never meet, plenty of Muslims who don't want to have any dealings with us at all. They are not interested in learning our language. They stick among themselves. Their self isolation is a conscious act, and can be both a result of their upbringing, or because of them 'being born again'.

I do not think this problems of identity and the resulting re-orientation to Islam is only because Europe is not as good in integrating foreigners as the renowned melting pot is. To think so is probably self flattery. It is in my understanding merely an extension of what's happening in the Islamic heartland already. Granted, coupled with poor integration abroad, this likely leads to an accelerated process in that direction. In times of a crisis of identity one natural reflex is to go back to the roots. I think that's also the simple thing about the emergence of the Christian Right. I too think the inherent literalism of Islam naturally expresses itself in conservatism. That conservatism extends well beyond religion per se and informs the way of life.

This is absurd imo. BTW, just how do you allow someone to name their teddy Mohammad? The only way this makes sense is if someone asked her whether they could, in which case I fail to see how she blasphemed herself.

She should be stoned. That'll teach her.

Seriously, what the [snip] is going on here. Really. We have eminent Muslims over here saying it's bollocks. Spot on fellas, it is. Utter bollocks. I'd quite like to see a headline screaming at me MUSLIMS SAY ITS BOLLOCKS. But I note the Standard have one screaming KILL HER and then a story about how Sudanese people were baying for a public execution.

So, what does that do for harmony. Yer average Joe Public thinks "Muslims, all mad." Others think "Muslims, all bad, lets kick one in".

As for Sudan. A [snip] poor human rights record so maybe we should be grateful they really didn't stone her or something. What can the UK Gvt do? They can remove aid and effect those that need it. They can introduce sanctions that have no effect. Or we can moan like pussies.

Pussies it is then.

That demonstration is yet another outrageously ridiculous element in this story. Judging from the number of demonstrators it's so obvious this is orchestrated by a small group of nutters. When witnesses say "close to 1000" you can be certain the number's been exaggerated twofold or threefold. But let's assume it really is 1000 people... then you have the BBC's coverage of the demonstration, talking about "thousands and thousands and THOUSANDS of demonstrators!!!!" Sudan has a population of 40 million. So the demonstrators amounted to about 0.002% of the population. If that's all the nutters they have that's not too bad.

it is probably no accident you meet such friendly, well educated and articulate folks in Berlin, Paris, London or Washington and such.
Ah yes, of course. And I'm sure that every single person you met in the extensive list of muslim countries you've been to was howling for your blood as you walked by.

And while we're on this particular topic... friendly, well educated and articulate folks in Paris??? In London?????!!!! The rudest, most racist, xenophobic and agressive people I have ever met where in Paris and London (I have a hard time deciding which one is worse). Won't speak for either Berlin or Washington, as I've been to neither, but I'll add Brussels to the trio of "large civilised cities which I avoid as much as possible". Oh sure, not everyone in any of these cities was like that, but the worst I've seen was certainly there.

You underestimate the conservatism in the Islamic world.
I believe I know enough about the islamic world, both on a political and religious scale, to distinguish between the two. Yes, there is a LOT of conservatism in both. As you have stated, islam does not have a monopoly on conservatism - that's something you find everywhere, be it in religion, politics, whatever. However, religious conservatism detached from politics is about some random guy deciding he's not going to eat ham or drink alcohol (or whatever). Conservatism backed by politics is when a government decides to punish a teacher because her student named a teddy bear Muhammad. I don't think the two cases are in any way comparable. One is about an individual's decision to live in a particular way that does no harm to him or anyone else (and as a result it's not your or my business to tell him whether he can do it or not), the other one is about a tyranny forcing a lifestyle and a belief system on everyone else. An individual detached from politics would not be able to do anything like the second case - and if he tried and got caught, he would pay heavily for it.

And by the way, the particular example you gave (Salman Rushdie) actually proves my point. The fatwa against Rushdie was not issued by some random clergyman - it was issued by Khomeini, who incidentally happened to be the self-appointed supreme leader of Iran at the time. I really, really doubt this was a coincidence, especially since Rushdie is not from Iran, had no tie to Iran whatsoever, and that the theological "HQ" of islam is Al-Azhar in Egypt, not Khomeini's government in Iran. Can you see the political link (again)? And while we're on Rushdie, his mother lived in Pakistan for years after the fatwa was issued, and was never threatened in anyway. Rushdie himself has said a few times that the community in which she lived (all muslims, mind you) were very supportive of her and what her son was doing.

Utter bollocks. I'd quite like to see a headline screaming at me MUSLIMS SAY ITS BOLLOCKS. But I note the Standard have one screaming KILL HER and then a story about how Sudanese people were baying for a public execution.
So, what does that do for harmony. Yer average Joe Public thinks "Muslims, all mad." Others think "Muslims, all bad, lets kick one in".
You have to admit the second headline makes for a much better story than the first one. If the media had a parade of muslims condemning Sudan that wouldn't bring as many viewers as having the "thousands and thousands!!!!" coverage I commented on earlier (I know, I singled out the BBC, but to be fair none of the others did any better). When some poor guy gets "kicked in" the media'll go all "this is so awful how could anyone DO this!!!" again. Typical really.

As for Sudan. A [snip] poor human rights record so maybe we should be grateful they really didn't stone her or something. What can the UK Gvt do? They can remove aid and effect those that need it. They can introduce sanctions that have no effect. Or we can moan like pussies.
Well your listing in itself admits that none of the solutions will have the desired effect. You could I suppose add "invade them and install democracy", but I think we've all seen where THAT usually goes. Moaning may not do much, but none of the other options will either (and if it does something, we better be positively certain it's what we were looking for)

I guess even the jury knew this to be a ridicilous incident since they gave such a light punishment, but at the same time they solved it by expelling her from the country. Good thing too, because I can't think anyone who would want to stay there willingly.

Crazy romans...

I still don't believe the entire idiocy. The pieces I see don't even say she suggested the name Mohammad, so just how can she be corrupting the youth's mentality?

Most likely this only brings to light that a) Sudan has some restrictive and/or senseless laws and b) there are some (not necessarily many) conservative nuts there. Well, it's not like we didn't know that already...

Ziad,Ah yes, of course. And I'm sure that every single person you met in the extensive list of muslim countries you've been to was howling for your blood as you walked by.You miss my point. I think I would get along well in the Muslim world, because I wouldn't address anything remotely religious with the proverbial ten foot pole unless I know the people really well. I certainly wouldn't tell them to change their way of life and be more tolerant and adopt western values.And while we're on this particular topic... friendly, well educated and articulate folks in Paris??? In London?????!!!! The rudest, most racist, xenophobic and agressive people I have ever met where in Paris and London (I have a hard time deciding which one is worse). Won't speak for either Berlin or Washington, as I've been to neither, but I'll add Brussels to the trio of "large civilised cities which I avoid as much as possible". Oh sure, not everyone in any of these cities was like that, but the worst I've seen was certainly there.I referred to the talk show setting where western Gutmenschen meet Muslim exiles who tell them: 'Oh, you know, those radicals are not real Muslims!', and that 'real Islam' is tolerant, peaceful and splendid. And then everybody nods majestically and feels good. Except that it's all bollocks. Said talk show Muslims may disagree with those radicals on nine out of ten issues, but that doesn't make either any less Muslim. You won't find anyone who sais that Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, despite his violence and extremism, and despite him representing only a tiny fraction of Islam. They may say he is extreme, but they won't say he is a heretic, because he isn't. As long as they agree on that there is no God except Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet they're all Muslim (that includes accepting the Koran as Gods literal word). Beyond that there is plenty of room for variation. Being clergyless there is ample potential for sectarianism and variation in observance and traditions. I already said that Islam is a consensus driven religion, despite all it's literalism.

What my point was, specifically, is that a lot of those Muslims in Berlin, Paris and London or Washington are westernised, and that their comparatively liberal views don't necessarily represent the Muslim mainstream in the heartland, and not only because they tend to be to a large extent much better educated than the average.

What my point was, specifically, is that a lot of those Muslims in Berlin, Paris and London or Washington are westernised, and that their comparatively liberal views don't necessarily represent the Muslim mainstream in the heartland, and not only because they tend to be to a large extent much better educated than the average.
You're again refering to a very nebulous "Muslim mainstream" that may or may not exist, may or may not be mainstream, and is shared by an unknown number between a few dozen people worldwide and one billion. This is my main issue with your argument, mainly because I get the distinct impression that it's based on an impression you got from reading or watching news in Germany (correct me if I'm wrong) without having actually seen what the "mainstream" is actually like. I don't know about the particular talk show you're referring to, but several of the ones I've seen over here were saying that people like Bin Laden and suicide bombers were bad publicity for islam because they made westerners think that this is a common attitude among muslims. Some of the things you said do seem to confirm that the publicity that extremism is given is affecting people's vision of what the mainstream is. People tend to forget that the loud minority always seems to be the vast majority, but that's not necessarily true.

them again? What do they think of next?

The so-called Sudanese adults don´t care jack about the fact that the kids named a teddybear Mohammed. It´s a lot more simple than that. They´re pissy because that heathen concubine of Satan had the nerve to teach those kids the meaning of voting. You know, free thought and all that jazz. I personally have always thought that we should leave those people alone, period! If they want to spend their days on this Earth living in a Dark Age-like religious psychosis, let´em. For goodness sake, it´s a free world. Let them live the way they want. I just feel sorry for the poor kids in Sudan who will likely grow up to be just as brainwashed.

My head is spinning and I'm getting very confused. What are we arguing about here?
1) Is a specific law unfair?
2) Is a teddy bear a prophet?
3) Is Islam a negative, repressive, evil religion?
4) Are Muslims terrorists simply because they are Muslims?
5) Does one nation have the right to tell another nation what they should do?
6) Is Democracy the best form of government and therefore all governments should be democratic?
7) Should children be taught to think or simply accept what some authority figure tells them?
8) Should I play Morrowind, Oblivion, Caesar IV or go back to Baldurs Gate? oops..sorry :yot: Ah, what is the topic?

You can always count on Nakia to be the voice of reason around here :)

I admit I'm largely responsible for deviating away from the main topic, so I'll suggest Ragusa and I take our discussion to PM. Or we could just agree to disagree :D

I certainly wouldn't tell them to change their way of life and be more tolerant and adopt western values.

That's far from anything that I am suggesting, and you know it, Ragusa. What I am saying is that we need to focus less on our differences and rather on what we have in common. People have many of the same dreams -- most wherever you go -- they want to live in peace; they want to prosper; they want freedom of choice for themselves and their families. If you have studied history then you know that this is a basic, self-evident, truth about most people.

Yet, they never receive these basic rights. Instead they have endless wars, orchestrated by popes and kings, religious leaders and political leaders. And in more recent years, these "leaders" all reach an accomandation with each other, shake hands, and say: "Have a nice day," after they have spilled enough blood, while the average person is left with ruined lives, families, and cities (I know this is NOT the expierence of Germany, but look at the more recent history, mostly Russia, China and the US).

You know that I am opposed to tyranny, whether it is in GWB's "adventure" in Iraq, or the departed Ayatollah and his minons in Iran, or the ruthless Pol Pot or the Taliban. You are being unfair when you suggest that I am wanting to impose anything on Muslims. Please, my friend, read my post a little more carefully.

Nakia: On Number 8, I vote for Morrowind. I did that this afternoon...

You won't find anyone who sais that Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, despite his violence and extremism, and despite him representing only a tiny fraction of Islam.

There is a strong political component to OBL's rhetoric, despite all the religious rhetoric. Also, can anyone say that GWB is NOT a Chrsitian? the "war president?" Yet, look at what he has done in Iraq. I think we can agree that the line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is which side of the line YOU are on. But "imagine" if the lines between us were suddenly erased....

I may be wrong, but I thought I heard on the radio that the teacher was pardoned and being shuttled out of the country as fast as they can.

Yeah, it appears that's what happened. Anyway, I came upon a passage in the Yahoo! News article that confirmed my doubts:

"During her trial, the weeping teacher said she had intended no harm. Her students, overwhelmingly Muslim, chose the name for the bear, and Muhammad is one of the most common names for men in the Arab world. Muslim scholars generally agree that intent is a key factor in determining if someone has violated Islamic rules against insulting the prophet."

You know, the situation could have hardly been more overblown. Whoever is interpreting law in Sudan must be a fundamentalist of epic proportions. I wonder what most Muslims think on the matter - the British ones have been opposed to the arrest in the first place afaik, but it might be interesting to see how this is viewed in, say, the Middle East.

You know, the situation could have hardly been more overblown. Whoever is interpreting law in Sudan must be a fundamentalist of epic proportions. I wonder what most Muslims think on the matter - the British ones have been opposed to the arrest in the first place afaik, but it might be interesting to see how this is viewed in, say, the Middle East.

Maybe she--or the school--simply didn't pay a bribe.

I mean, it is Sudan.