A school teacher from the UK incited hatred and insulted religion in Sudan and faces 40 lashes and a year in jail after she insulted Islam by allowing her pupils to name a Teddy Bear Mohammad. (Which happened to be one of the pupil's name.) This article spells it all out, every heinous act of Islamodescration.

It looks like this is much ado about nothing but the usual RoP Ragers want her executed. It seems unlikely she'll need to do more than apologize.

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?

How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?

*******
UPDATE
*******

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - British teacher Gillian Gibbons has been convicted of inciting religious hatred for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation from Sudan, one of her defense lawyers said Thursday.
"The judge found Gillian Gibbons guilty and sentenced her to 15 days jail and deportation," said Ali Mohammed Hajab, a member of her defense team.

I wondered how long it would be before this story made it into these pages.

She's British. She's in the Sudan. Britain doesn't set Sudan's laws - only the Sudan gets to do that. If they want a law that makes stupid things illegal and punishes them barbarically for doing so, that's their decision.

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

They've managed to keep it up for 1200 years so I dare say the fruitiest nuts among them will be able to keep it up for 1200 more. If they so much care about offending the dignity of a man that their holy book specifically states was never and never will be in any way divine, then they'll persist in passing stupid laws and acting on them stupidly. (I notice that none of the children who all agreed that "Mohammed" was a good name for this bear to have appear to under a similar threat of punishment. Maybe they've all been executed already, and this teacher's punishment is what passes for lenience on an ignorant outsider who didn't know better. I somehow doubt it though.)

What's missing, in my opinion, are the moderate (but still literalist) Islamic voices who are pointing out that this particular interpretation of the Koran and Hadith is not only barbaric and practically designed to live up to the prejudices of the rest of the planet about the worst excesses of Islam, but that it is a bad interpretation. I do not doubt that such voices are out there, but I think that the most extreme and backward strains of Islam (Wahabi and Deobandi - both bankrolled by oil revenues) now shout so much louder than anything more moderate that it's hard to notice anything moderate, let alone pay attention to it.

When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?

Be careful what you wish for. Plea bargaining and capital punishment are seen as barbaric by many, so the US justice system might have to get used to foreign nationals being plucked from the barbarism of the USA to the relative safety of den Haag if you subjective opinions about barbarism come into play. You and I might agree that this is barbarism, but the people who think it's a good idea to chop off the extremities of petty criminals, kill rape victims and put bounties onto the heads of authors living abroad and writing in languages most of their people can't read or understand probably don't think of themselves as barbarians. They likely think WE are barbarians because of the things WE do that THEY don't like. (This is not news, by the way, and if it is to you I've got a bridge to sell you.)

"When in Rome" is just easier to administer.

How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?

My understanding is that, under Sudanese law, the penalty is a fine or up to 6 months in prison or no more than 40 lashes.

Given the high profile of this case, I'm guessing that behind the scenes all sorts of appeals and flattery and bribery is going on and that she'll be let off with a warning with a nominal fine and sent back to England. Here, she'll make far more than money she lost in the fine from the British tabloid press, who will be falling over each other to get her exclusive to the tune of £100,000 or more (that's nearly $210k at current exchange rates).

And we'll all congratulate ourselves over how superior we civilised westerners are to those far off dusty foreigners, and conveniently forget than the (Arab Muslim) Sudanese government is busy exterminating millions of Black African Muslims in Darfur. After all, one innocent but fairly dimwitted British schoolmarm is worth far more than uncounted millions of heathens.

This is us laughing at Hitler because he's got a silly moustache, when we should be trying to stop him killing millions. In fact, it's worse than that, becuase at least we DID stop Hitler part-way through. Nothing similar is happening for Darfur. (Sorry to invoke Godwin's Law so early in the thread, but I couldn't think of a better analogy.)

Edited to add: "What does RoP stand for, anway?" and "Okay, so she has to wait two weeks for her tabloid payday. Given the options on offer, this was still a lenient outcome - she was always going to be found guilty, if only for Sudanese domestic/Islamic fundamentalist consumption."

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?
As long as there is interest in using it as opposed to western law than such action can continue in indefintely.

When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?
Depends on your perspective. I'd like to get one of their judge's interpretation of western law. If one maintains the right to intervene here, maybe we should consider a panel that can override supreme court decisions?

How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?
I'm going to pretend this wasn't a rhetorical question and refer to Singapore law requests at least three strokes for unlawful entry into the country or unlawful stay beyond ninety days. If this an accepted lash barometer which is technically less than insulting a prophet I'm guess between 3-5 strokes on the back. I've been studying the effectiveness of Singapore caning for years. In my opinion, such "barbaric" action have yielded more consistent results in behaviour modification than any prison term. I'd love to see judicial caning brought here to provincial jails and used as a substitute for mass sentencing and incarceration.

I think that it's about time that the British Prime Minister informs the government of Sudan that if this woman serves another moment in jail that Her Majesty's government will drop a low yield thermonuclear device on Khartoum. Sorry, friends, Romans, and Sudanese, but enough already.

The rank hypocrisy here is otherwise rather stunning. For starters, we have, courtesy of the Palestinian Authority, via its Religious Affairs employee Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris [and some wonder why there is no peace in that locale]:

"Then came the great battle of Badr, where the Muslims grew stronger. This brought the third stage of dealing with the Jewish existence in Al-Madina. We have tolerated you for a long time - you offspring of apes and pigs! We have tolerated you for a long time!"

Then there's the Imam of the Al-Haram mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayis, who reports:

"Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies ... the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs ... These are the Jews – an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..."

And then there's little Basmallah on Saudi t.v.:

"BASMALLAH: Allah's mercy and blessing upon you.

DOAA 'AMER [IQRAA-TV host]: What's your name?

BASMALLAH: Basmallah.

'AMER: Basmallah, how old are you?

BASMALLAH: Three and a half.

'AMER: Are you a Muslim?

BASMALLAH: Yes.

'AMER: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?

BASMALLAH: Yes.

'AMER: Do you like them?

BASMALLAH: No.

'AMER: Why don't you like them?

BASMALLAH: Because...

'AMER: Because they are what?

BASMALLAH: They're apes and pigs.

'AMER: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said they are so?

BASMALLAH: Our God.

'AMER: Where did he say this?

BASMALLAH: In the Koran."

The difference here otherwise is that Pat Robertson blames "gays" for all our problems, but that's his opinion and he is not being funded or otherwise supported by the state. In marked contrast, the miscreants noted above are supported in their hate by the state and/or are being taught by the state to hate. And so these miscreants wish to complain about inciting hatred?

Oh, and Julian, how does one take seriously those who think that a meteorite from outer space is something from God [in their case, Allah]? One might as well move to Ephesus and then report that Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!

The nuclear genie has been in the bottle for 62 years KHT. Suggesting that it should be unleashed over this matter is both inflammatory and irresponsible.

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

As if they could.


When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?

As if they could!

In case it has escaped any ones attention, the Muslim countries now constitute the largest voting block in the UN.


How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?

As many as are necesary I guess after all, as Julian says, its their country and stupid westerners who go there thinking the ethic of reciprocity is going to enable them to 'teach Muslims' and not be seen as a kuffar bring such madness on their own heads. After all, what did this British woman expect? Its not like there haven't been enough warnings. What more do these do gooders need to see before they'll put aside their rose coloured spectacles? Beslan, 9/11, Salman Rushdie, Darfur, Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali... speaking of whom

Link.




I haven't forgotten Darfur, and can you tell me why I shouldn't consider western civilisation to be superior to Islam?


Not all Muslims are guilty of the excesses of Islam, but they all worship the same god whose sacred prophet commanded them to kill the kuffar and take their lands.

How can any sane person defend this insane ideology?


edited just because

Dear God, KHT. What the hell do those quotes have to do with Sudanese Muslims deifying Mohammed, and why is private-funded bigotry (Pat Robertson) proof that biblical bigotry isn't hateful? Is Gillian Gibbons even Jewish?

Sovereign countries have the right to make their own laws, no matter how ridiculous they are. The teacher isn't very bright for not knowing that drawing or depicting the prophoet Mohammad in any way, is a serious cultural fly in the soup behavior there. There is no need to have the UN go in and take care of things. If they did, I don't see why they wouldn't do that for the people that we have on death row who are about to go to the electric chair, which is more than barbaric.



This story is a great example as to why secular law and the constitution should never be compromised by private belief. I don't see us at that point, but I think there are folks who definitely want to take us in that direction. When a guy gets up at a debate, holds up a holy book, and then proceeds to do a litmus test question to the candidates(a clear violation of the principle of no religious tests in the Constitution mind you!) then that tells you that we are clearly on the road to something like this. While we don't prosecute teddy bear namers, we do fund flawed abstinence only education programs, have an office of faith based programs unconstitutionally run out of the White House, and let matters concerning homosexuality be based not on reason or science, but rather, personal prejudiced belief coming out of the first century and the B.C. time period.

Sounds good to me. I'd welcome the UN taking and holding our most violent death row inmates. As long as they never bother us again...heck, we should pay them to take 'em and 'save' those serial killers from the 'barbaric' early demise (we'd more than make up the cost in saved legal fees).

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

I don't imagine there is much of a way for the moderates to quiet the nutty. Religious states are bad.

When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?

Well, Sudan didn't actually make the bottom ten on the UN's human development list so how bad could things possibly be? It's only the birthplace of Al Qaeda, afterall. If the UN were able and/or willing to intervene in any concrete way they could start by saving the one million child soldiers in that country rather than the teddy bear namer. Bad luck for her, but it's Sudan. I wouldn't expect to get out of that country alive myself.

How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?

Proportional to other religious states? Let's see...In Saudi, if a woman gets gang-raped, she could be sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail. And the lawyer who defends her can be suspended and face disciplinary action for doing his job. 200 lashes for being gang raped....how many for naming a teddy bear? Hm. Off with her head!

*sigh* It seems that the people of Khartoum prefer a firing squad

As I said before, I suspect that 15 days' jail followed by deportation is being looked on by the Sudanese (however daft it may seem to me - and it does) as generous leniency, given that the available punishments included 40 lashes and/or 6 months' in jail and/or a fine. Clearly there are some who think that death is the only sufficient punishment for taking Muhammed's name in vain.

Just as there are people who think that death is the only sufficient punishment for those who work in vivisection labs, abortion clinics, etc. I don't think the Khartoum protestors are any less (or any more) deranged than clinic or lab bombers.



We've got British citizens on death row in the USA, which goes against British government policy just as much as incarcerating people based on the names they let kids in their charge give to soft toys. Should we also nuke Washington DC?



I don't take them seriously for their beliefs. I don't take anyone seriously because they think that a meteorite is a sign from God any more than I take anyone seriously who thinks the world was created in 6 days, that gods can have the head of an elephant, that some obscure biblical verse on dietary discipline means refusing any invasive medical procedure, that being nice to other people will gain a favourable place in the afterlife, that there even is an afterlife, that being born in January creates people with significantly different personalities to people born in February or December, that homeopathy has more than a placebo effect or that a pleisosaur lives in a big freshwater lake in Scotland.

What I do take seriously - more seriously than an insane but entirely predictable overreaction to one rather silly mistake that anyone who's been paying attention ofr the last 20 years would not have made - is genocide.

The Sudanese government is currently engaged in genocide in Darfur, and the world's governments - sworn by treaty and honour to prevent and punish genocide in all circumstances - are refusing to call it that. Not because it isn't genocide or isn't happening, but because by not using the word genocide, they can justify not doing anything to themselves. (This applies to China, Japan, Russia and Brazil just as much as it does to the USA and UK, though probably for different domestic excuses. Oops! Sorry, I meant to say "reasons" there.)



I haven't defended the ideology. If I've defended anything, it's the right to self-determination.

The Sudanese get to decide exactly how stupid their laws are (and clearly, they are very stupid) and anybody visiting has the same obligation to obey their laws when visting their country as they do when visiting ours. We have laws against honour killings and gang rapes, and we're not about to change those laws to suit the protestations of people who think such things can be justified.

Of course, we're objectively right and they're objectively wrong, but whoever said that objectivity ever persuaded those engaged in reilgiously-inspired viciousness to change their ways? Religion is, almost by definition, subjective. If it were objective, two things would happen.

• all adherents to a particular religion would agree on all aspects of it e.g. ALL Muslims WOULD be "Islamofascists" and suicide bombers and the rest. They clearly are not (doing those thing), so it clearly is not (objective). And
• Everybody else would agree about it. We'd all be Muslims (or Christians or Copts or Druids or what-have-you.) We clearly aren't, so it clearly isn't.

The Darfurians also have a right to self-determination, which is being violated as openly as could be imagined. But, as far as I can tell, Darfur hasn't garnered a tenth of the column inches (certainly not the banner headlines and "top story tonight" coverage) in the past four years that this one story has in the past four days.

And that say to me that, while there is clearly something wrong with Islamic society, we should not be quite so pleased with our own.

Cultural symbolism whether national or theological always manages to pull some innocent abroad into kafkaesque intrigue. Sacred symbolism is protected by law more commonly throughout the world than suggested in the posts of this thread, but I would agree it is amusing at best and dangerous at worst. I feel sorry for the teacher who accidentally tripped and fell into it.

I would like to remind the people jeering at the teacher's persecutors, many western democracies often have their own sacred cows protected by law. In the U.S. there are various laws guarding against the abuse of the American flag, for example. Fortunately, most courts grant wide latitude in applying such laws, preferring to interpret almost any use as some form of free speech.

If I recall correctly however, there are plenty of patriotic vigilantes in the U.S. who rally under that symbol and would gladly see someone who trampled on it thrown in jail, or worse. All for a piece of cloth.

I spy a contradiction here...

This 'right' you say Darfurians have to self-determination. From whence does it spring if in the same post you say 'anybody visiting Sudan has an obligation to obey their laws'?

By your own argument, if the Sudanese deny minorities any rights of self-determination as a result of Sudanese (read Islamic) law, then that doesn't grant the Darfurians any rights to self-determination. Do you follow me? You can't say the law in Sudan is up to the Sudanese then impose an exterior set of legal rights on them. Either the Sudanese make their own laws or they don't.

It seems to me that the Darfurians 'right to self-determination' is a fundamentally western concept, one that was born of a fundamentally western crisis (even if we call it a world war) and this is fundamentally why western style, democratic civilisation is superior to Islamic civilisation... because we give people like the Darfurians human rights and they don't.

The reason why Darfur doesn't get more head lines in the UK is because there is no news in repeating oneself day after day about wars taking place in foreign parts. Darfur is at heart an Islamic African crisis. In other words, it has nothing to do with the news concerns of British newspapers. In this particular instance a British woman has been caught up in the crisis and thus it makes headlines in the UK (and her neighbours whose nationals may also be in the Sudan). This in no way reflects badly on the British media. It is simply the VERY human trait of being primarily concerned with one self, followed by ones family and friends, followed by ones city and its football team, followed by ones country and its football team and then finally with humanity at large.

Darfur is a tragedy but it in no way reflects badly on the British public for not paying more attention. Darfur is in the news if you care to read beyon the bold text and Great Britain, along with the rest of the EU is already attempting to intervene in Darfur, but are finding it impossible due to the restrictions and conditions placed the EU forces by the government in Sudan, a government you say we are obliged to obey 'since its their country'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Do they also gather in large numbers to demand the flag burned be executed?


edited for spelling

Well Moif- in answer to your own very last question- well, they would if they could. If you think life would be any better in the US than Darfur under Pat Robertson or the "moral majority" in the US- you are seriously uniformed into American religion.

I have heard from many a pulpit the call for stoning your "rebelious" teenager in my time- and, when I was around 16-17, this was for things like- oh, wearing jeans, too long hair or women wearing pants. Seriously.

This was "mainstream" right wing conservative churches- Fallwell, Robertson, Oral roberts, Bob Jones (they still believe this and call for it publically, including the killing of homosexuals, according to gawds law)

The difference here, is, thank gawd, is the lip service most americans pay towards thier religion- they may be christian- but it is more of a Christmas/Easter thing.

Basically- the devout aren't in power- and that is what really makes the difference- orthodox/devout followers of any of the Judeo/islamic/christian sects, that believe in the literal words, that must be followed, are the ones that do this kind crazy crap like whipping women (and not to forget the man that was raped in Saudi along with her ) for being a victim of a crime, a horendous one at that.

It is the devout and orthodox that commit these kinds of crimes against humanity, and are quite fine with those decisions, because they "come from gawd" .

Difference is- not so many poeple willing to sacrifice so much for thier religion here, because there is so much to lose, by comparison.

I remember the Palestenian father of 8 that was over 30 that blew himself up one day, to try and kill as many Israelites as possible.

he just didn't fit the mold- he was raising nine kids, never been radical before, worked hard etc- someone had to make him desperate- and the Irael goverment obliged him- fired him from his job arbitrarily for being Palestenian, limited his ability to make a living to the point he couldn't feed his family, until he started to believe the Inams and took it upon himself to kill as many of his (as he saw it) tormentors as possible.

Triumvirate of evil behavior being dropped on the laps of those that would do evil- Desperation, Devout, mindless following of dogma and the need to act out in a horrible enviroment.

That being said- I am just no fan of religion, of any type, being used to make legal decisions. Moif- you only have to look at the way America denies rights to gays, and the rabid anti-gay behavior of conservatives in America to see how little difference there is between the ROP and Haysus's followers.

In fact, there is more in common with those religions than there are differences, really.

Although the exact wording of your question appears to be a non sequitur, I believe you mean, "do these patriots act out their anger in protest and in threats against flag burners, etc."? Yes. Conflicts between people desecrating the flag and organized counter-protests by flag-waving patriots are still quite observable in video tape archives spanning from the 60's to the present, although the last really public case with the threat of violent protest I recall was in the 80's. You can hear verbal threats and see spitting, fist waving, etc... Plus, of course, the laws are still intact even if rarely prosecuted.

All that being said- is there a good case here as to why we need to actually start a REAL holy war here? I am not talking one religion vs another- but secular goverment vs religious goverment? I am amazed at how many poeple I know that echo KVTs idea to 'nuke" the place.

Actual quote "Listen, if they are rallying to kill this woman for a teddy bear name, why don't we spare the whole world, put them out of our misery, and just drop a nuke on them while they are conveniantly all in one place?"

that kind of logic is hard to argue.

Why not just eradicate what has been shown to be a bunch of nasty, disgusting savages at this point? I am talking all of Islam at this point- why NOT start with Saudi Arabia and work our way through every major population that supports this kind of savagery? What is to stop them from being savages to US in the future? We have seen how little they care for freedom and real morality, and they are obviuosly bent on our destruction- so, in the face of an implacable and non-caring enemy, and make no mistake, Islam IS an enemy to freedom, where do we draw the line and say "cross that line, we kill you all"?

Will we have to sacrifice OUR culture and freedom, so that they can worship in the manner they see fit?

Everytime I see these rallys, or see another brutal case of oppression in Saudi Arabia, I ask these questions- not specifically- but more like "okay, at some point, for our very survival, ARE we going to have to ask ourselves these questions?

Who? Not these guys.

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

I thought that the only reason they were taken seriously in the first place was because they did nutty stuff like this?

This is just another part of the ritual posturing an flexing of muscles that a conservative, insular culture undergoes when it feels threatened by a foreign culture. You know the sudanese; they can;t communicate unless suffering is involved somewhere in the communication process.

Look at how "communicative" they've been in darfur!

If the muslim world were to abolish its strict religious conservatism, it would lose what makes it a world player in the first place; thousands of religious fanatics, willing to blow themselves up in the name of _______ insert name here. (He has ninety-nine of them, according to the Koran. Just pick-and-choose.) Their oil is running out, high-hem miniskirts and low-rise jeans approach from every corner--of course they're going to throw a tantrum.

THe radical muslim world has really fallen on hard times, when its best statement of aggression against the west is jailing a schoolteacher for "teddy bear offenses."

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?

How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?

I personally have lost all respect for the religion. Any religion that promotes this kind of behavior is false. In this instance, it's brutal, murderous and blasphemous to demand torture and blood in the name of God.

Guess they don't see it that way. Goes to show just how wrong people can be. Now it's up to the Muslim world that actually wants respect to do something about this. Otherwise, continue to lose the respect of everyone else. I am tired of trying to understand inanity and insanity all wrapped up in fake spirituality. The things about beards and burkhas, pigs and apes, jihad and praying to Mecca are all just annoying. Demanding the life of a school teacher trying to "teach your stupid kids to read" crosses the line to being just disgusting, despicable, dastardly, damned, dimwitted, doofus dingbats.

And you're angry about what your freaking kids did. They named a teddy bear. Kill them, since you're so dang close to God.

AM stated it better than I could and without profanity
How many times does a group have to jump the shark before we can finally admit their is something very wrong with them.
I have yet to actually see any response from the "moderate" Muslims outside of the single persons dragged onto newstalk shows.
Rape victims are beaten for being raped because they were "asking for it" and then have the sentence doubled for having the gall to complain it isn't fair.

It is long past time to give benefit of the doubt without some very intense actions on the part of the "moderates"

The fact that we take them seriously is because they continue to threaten us.
Even if you try to quiet the nuttiest, you'll see more nutties pop up to take their place.

Oh. No. No. No. No. No. :no:

The U.N. couldn't even back up 17 resolutions to simply search Saddam for WMD. And for all the scandals and payouts that happen in the U.N., I think the last thing we need to hand them is the ability to administer "justice". Shoot, the first thing they'd do in America is claim gun owners are criminals (which is true in pretty much any other part of the world - fortunately we have our own Constitution that doesn't bend, even for the U.N.) and scoop them up!

And for the run the NRA gave the U.N., They'd probably drop us off in Sudan holding Teddy Bears with monogrammed shirts with "Mohammed T. Bear" on them.

None, obviously. But we don't even see that naming something Mohammed is offensive. That'd be like saying here, "You named a Teddy Bear 'John'"?!

I'm with the "When in Rome" crowd. Respecting awkward customs is definitely an exercise in tolerance - and further proof that tolerance ALWAYS needs to go both ways.

I don't doubt that you've heard this kind of garbage preached, but there's a difference between what rich, white-suit wearing televangelists think, and what the Bible says. It's unfortunate that the only "Christian" many people will see is holding a microphone, "healing" people, asking for pledges and peddling cheap books and plastic trinkets... or getting arrested for abortion bombings (7 in the last 10 years) or the GodHates guy. And that's a darn shame.

However, I have to call shenanigans for the sweeping generalization, with due respect. Calling for the death of homosexuals is pretty much exclusive to one church group of lawyers led by a disbarred, drunken wifebeating and child-abusing ex-barbiturate and former alcoholic named Fred.

I'd be hard pressed to defend Falwell, Robertson, Robers, or Jones on pretty much any topic - but I've never heard them call for the killing or death of anybody.

Is it fair to judge millions of adherents worldwide because a couple hundred of them are nuttier than a Snickers bar? No.
Is it fair to judge millions of adherents worldwide because 20% of them are nuts? No, but it's definitely time to pay attention.

No actually, his question was "do they also gather in large numbers to demand the flag burnER be executed. It's not a hypothetical. Lots of people died in the rioting from the Danish cartoon incident and the Newsweek article about the Koran being "flushed down the toilet." Their fact-checker obviously not being a plumber not withstanding, Newsweek was able to incite a riot about the mistreatment of a book.

Hey, speaking of hypocrisy, here is a perfect Christmas gift, courtesy of simplyislam.com.
Cute and cuddly and obviously non-blasphemous, it's Adam, the Muslim prayer bear.


I couldn't agree more, moif. Whether you believe that we are endowed by these rights by our Creator, or you just believe in the rights now that they have been secured for you by your Western forebears, they are Western rights. Those living in Muslim lands do not get those rights. Most of the globe do not enjoy those rights, unless they are visiting a Western democracy.

Just to update on the source story - Gillian Gibbons has now been officially pardoned by the President of Sudan.

So that's all right then...

moif my earlier point about rights was more to illustrate that there are more important things to worry about in the way Sudan treats people than one teacher being prosecuted, punished and then pardoned for a what I consider to have been a fairly obvious blunder, albeit an innocent enough one.

Though I take your point about "human rights" being a Western construct, if we don't defend them as if they are - or should be - universal, then surely we are the unprincipled self-seekers who change our ideals to suit whatever is going to do us the most good that much of the non-Western world, including but not exclusively the Islamic world, criticise us as being? (With some justification: Saddam's Iraq- a brutal regime suspected of having WMDs - gets invaded; North Korea - a brutal regime suspected of having WMDs - doesn't. An oversimplified argument, but that's probably all that filters through to the man in the street in Dar-Es-Salaam or Caracas, for good or ill.)

Can Islam continue to be offended like this and be taken seriously or should they try and quiet the nuttiest amongst them?

No. This in no way rises to the level of offense that say, a crucifix exhibited in a jar of urine in an art gallery would. Plenty of people were offended, but no one's death or incarceration were called for.

The Muslims (the actually peaceful ones who follow the Qu'ran) have a real problem right now. Like my own Catholicism where many pedophile priests have been exposed, they and we have to live down what miscreants among us are doing or have done.

It reminds me of when Jesus criticized some people for "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

When a country's laws seem barbaric should an organization like the UN pluck the criminal out of the country and have an international trial - or should the "When In Rome" rule be applied?

Theoretically, yes. As to "when in Rome," I can't believe that this teacher didn't have an inkling of the irrational zeal some of Islam's adherents demonstrate. But I also understand how this one could have blindsided her. How about stoning the kids instead, or are children actually immune from these draconian policies? If so, how "liberal" of these people!

How many lashes should an Offensive Teddy Bear Namer get?

Yeah, right. I think it was mighty nice of Sudan's president to "pardon" Gibbons. Geez.

Well, whatever keeps her out of the clutches of the fanatics...

Well, to be fair, theirs is a system that has worked well for centuries. Its understandable that they want to continue with it; go with what works, right?

In the desert, women were tossed around out of necessity--they could not fend for themselves (no longer the case, as we are all too well aware). In the desert, thieves and those who blasphemed (read: challenged the system) were killed. In the desert....you get the point. These necessities shaped the region, as Islam and harsh living conditions have done for dozens of other african countries.

True, Sudan is no longer a desert kingdom. But should they completely adopt american customs, then there will be nothing left of Sudan! THis is why the vicious military regimes are still in power; not because of their superior military strength, but because their own citizens are wary of what shall become of their national identity should they merge with the west.

Could the same be said for the Sudanese, choosing to defend their belief that the prophet's name should not be used in vain where ignorance is no excuse? Now that this is a done deal and cooler heads prevailed I cannot help but wonder if this event will radicalize the people of Khartoum because from the shots I saw, there were thousands of angry people protesting the "light" sentence.

The problem perpetuated from the media is her ignorance was seen as the proverbial "what's the big deal". This will not endear the Sudanese to western ideals, especially if they we never take Islam seriously and get a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, as long as it's working. Let's see - Sudan boasts a whopping 60% literacy rate, a whopping $2400 per-capita income, good enough to rank #146 among the world's 200-or-so nations.

So, if corruption, persecution of women, summary execution of homosexuals, extreme poverty, rampant disease, no human rights, rejection of science and education, etc., equals "working" society, I guess your standards are a little low for my taste. Care to elaborate?


Well, women are still "tossed around" and it is excused by the Koran. What is the justificaton now exactly?

By the way, Muslim nations are already "merged wth the west" - it's called Earth. Just sayin'

I meant that five-hundred years ago, having several wives, and trading daughters with other families, in order to protect them, was a legitimate concern. Now, however, women have learned to fend for themselves. Perhaps they have all along, and are only now beginning reveal it to us men.

As for the earth--hah! National barriers rise higher than any mountain range. Just look at us--over three centuries of peaceful non-aggression of Canada, and we still maintain Alaska's national guard. You know. Just in case the "Up-Norphers" try and start something, eh?

Perhaps. So, can we agree that women's genitals should not be scraped off with a knife and no anesthesia pre-puberty? And that they should be able to walk about sans burqa? And leave the house without a male relative?

No matter what you feel women are revealing to men, it's a moot point when Saudis won't allow them to drive. I do not believe that property can fend for itself.

I admit, the muslim world is one deeply rooted in mysongyny. and i do not advocate that, in fact, some of their practices, female circumcision included, disgust me. I am all for changing them. But see things from a Muslime veiwpoint, if you could possibly deign to do so; no matter how reprehensible, these acts, these traditions form the central base of their dogma. Should we pull it out from under them, and replace it with a culture and system of our own (several points of which are just as reprehnsible as those of our Muslim counterparts), what is to prevent Sudan, and other countries of its kind,from becoming myriad "little satans," swallowed whole by the "big" one?

It needs to happen. Just like we turned the USSR into a shambles of cellphones, drugs and legalized prostitution (a volatile combination indeed!), we must do the same for the Muslims, by eating their culture whole.

But perhaps, as we witness the death of their world for our convenience, we could take but a moment to mourn.

I realize I'm running afoul of Godwin's law but I think in this case it serves to illustrate a point rather than just appealing to emotion or attempting to sensationalize the issue:



The highest ideal is to live your life as you see fit while harming no one, and to allow others to do the same. I would never mourn the extinguishing of any idealogy that does not respect the rights of all humans.

Five hundred years ago and the Muslim world may have been the most open minded place on Earth, certainly if we are to believe our modern day historians. If we read what the Muslims themselve wrote in the Middle Ages then we find a slightly curious thing however. The Muslim world has not developed at all in five hundred years.

Compare the Muslims to the Jews and ask yourself how can a tiny minority of Jews out perform, on every level, the vast number of Muslims? Regard the multitude of famous Jewish scholars, scientists, bankers and artists and ask yourelf where are their Muslim counter parts from the past five centuries? Where is the Muslim Spielberg or the Muslim Einstein? How can it be that the Jews, so heavily out numbered, continue to leave the Muslims standing?

Five centuries ago, Europeans were burning people alive as witches, flogging and amputating for theft and bent in pray to the god of Rome. If we had the complacency and indifference to the world around us that I see in the Muslim world today, Europe would still be like that and the USA would never have existed. The only reason to regard Islamic tradition as a legitimate concern is by placing faith above reason.


What evidence is there to suggest we are seeing the the death of their world? Islam is the fastest growing and fastest spreading religion in the world. If you want to mourn, mourn for Europe, for at the current level of colonization, Muslim breeding patterns, one of the traditions which you rightly point out forms the central base of their dogma, means Europe as a secular society will not see another century. Some countries face Muslim majority within the next twenty five years.

We're supposed to embrace this as a positive development. We're supposed to welcome this backwards superstition into our very homes and if we don't, if we express fear at the prospect of a new European Dark Ages, we are branded 'Islamophobic'. Funny thing no? In our oh so open minded and tolerant society, even the fear of Islam translates to being a racist.

The EU has brought this immigration reality about because the leadership of the EU, long since understood that in order to break down the nation states they had to blur their national identities. The left wing dream of one big international community, Karl Marx's socialist utopia, requires nothing less than the dissolution of nations. The EU's biggest countries, France and the UK are also the two largest former colonial powers and they have gradually been assimilated into the pan European left wing mentality which has always echoed the Soviet Union, even whilst distancing itself from it. To the EU elite there is a clear distinction between the methods of communism and Social democracy, but the end goal is the same. Global socialism, preferably under one government. This end goal slots nicely into the eons old Muslim dream of a global caliphate so all across Europe, left wingers politicians court Muslim extremists in the name of a common end goal.

Sudan will survive in its backwardness. Will we?

Well, for starters, we could nail the myth that female circumcision has anything much to do with Islam: Wikipedia link

Some Muslims do practice female genital mutilation; some (most) don't. But so do some Christians, so do some animists. And some within Islam argue that it is proscribed, while others argue that it is a requirement, in much the same way that some Christians practice male circumcision and argue it's a good thing (e.g. in America) while others generally don't and argue that it's either generally unnecessary except in special circumstances like phimosis or that it's actively a bad thing to slice bits of small boys off when they're too young to have an opinion (e.g. in Europe).

The reason I draw a comparison with male circumcision is to highlight that FGM is much more a cultural tradition than religious one. Most Americans do it, not because they are Christian, but because they are American and it's normal practice there to circumcise baby boys. Regardless of whether it's a good or bad thing.



Hmm. I think maybe your view of the former USSR (especially modern Russsia) is somewhat outdated. As signified by the flexing of Putin's muscles (and his recent 60% popular vote turnout as reported here), modern Russia - while it still has it's problems - is reasserting it's cultural confidence off the back of greatly increased wealth (from oil & gas, mostly). They haven't been swallowed by "our" culture (which itself makes the assumption that the developed/Western/capitalist world shares a single culture, which is patently incorrect - go to Japan if you don't believe me), nor indeed have they swallowed it.

Not whole, anyway; like most diners - they've picked the bits they like and left the bits the don't on the side of the plate (or, sometimes, spat them there).



I'm not sure their world is dying and ours is expanding. Both worlds are changing, for sure; American culture has changed in the past 30 or 40 years, so it's not that anyone's reached some crystalline perfection and everyone else is catching up (or even trying to).

Also (and back on topic), while there were demonstrations in Sudan complaining that the verdict was too lenient and that death was the only appropriate punishment for naming a teddy bear after the most popular boy in class, who had himself been named after the prophet*, there were also plenty of Sudanese people expressing their shock that this whole thing had blown up at all. Ok they weren't shown demonstrating on Sudanese state TV, but the Sudanese state was not an impartial actor in this. My suspicion is that the whole thing was whipped up in an attempt at showing off their figurative muscles, but when it became clear that the rest of the world was on the cusp between spitting and laughing at them, they back-pedalled into a clumsy display of magnanimity by pardoning the teacher in question.

I heard her on the morning news today, and I have to applaud the way she's handled the whole thing with nothing so much as bemused dignity. (Though I still say that she's naive at best for notfore seeing some adverse reaction, if not the chaos that we've seen this past week.) Her main concern seemed to be that the school she taught at now had a vacancy that needed filling - good for her on that score.



*Interesting that Mohammed and it's variant spellings is the given name of so many Muslims, yet (according to tradition) while he was only a man, the Prophet was such a wonder that any ordinary person would besmirch the name more thoroughly that any stuffed toy possibly could. Or perhaps there's a double-standard; a Muslim can use the name however they wish, but a non-Muslim cannot. Perhaps there's some kind of analogy here to the way some black people want to reclaim the "n-word"; the logic seems to be that they can use it with impunity, but when white people use it, the racist meaning is the only possible interpretation.

Before I get lectured, I know there are some valid reasons why this argument over the n-word is made. I'm more wondering what the arguments might be that prevent teddy bears from being called Mohammed but allow any man to be given the name, no matter how venal or brutal or unpleasant they might be. Wouldn't that be just as much an offence to Islam, or is impossible for a Muslim to offend Islam these days?

Oh yes. THree rebuttals in one sitting; I'm having a field day!

All right, buddies, get in line...



Always, someone seems to bring up Herr Hitler, and his merry band of Aryan men. Godwin's law indeed.

You cannot equate the Muslims to the Nazis. One is a fascist dictator state, another is an organized religion. ANd that makes one far more dangerous than the other. Guess which one.



Because the ony Jews that survived the Holocaust were the intellectuals.

A jewish friend of mine once told me a joke, you know, a jewish one (twenty-five years old, and he has all the humour of a brick wall. A profane one.) He said that the reason that Jews are so smart, is that all the stupid ones died in the Holocaust. It was something that only a Jew could say without being lynched.

ANd it had merit, as well. THe only ones that survived the Holocaust were the poets, the writers, the engineers, the scientists. Those with skills that were considered valuable enough to merit them politcal asylum. The poor, ordinary shmucks without education or higher learning were killed without compunction. Plus, the Jews maintained an insular society, even without a country of their own; like Muslims, they, in their own way, resisted americanization.

Your Zionism, to be frank, lies on the very cusp of religious fanaticism. You seem adamant on seeing only one side of this conflict. Simply because we are at war with a Muslim state, does not instantly mean that its citizens have suddenly become stupid, milling cattle. Simply because we are allies with a Jewish state, does not mean that its citizens are super-intelligent baby-Einsteins.



Thank you Julian. Well, this will teach me to believe Carloswhey's so-called "facts". Hmph!



Oho, you miscontrue! I do not envision America as a "marvelous crystalline paradise". I see it instead, as a wave of filth, mixed in with a few, gleaming islands of respite, in which other countries can swim---or drown.

Nothing spreads faster than a system promulgated by human greed. In particular, conservative countries, in which carnal desires have been suppressed for centuries, are at the greatest risk. Countries like...oh why name 'em? "THe whole middle east" is much more accurate anyways. Maybe a bit of "the majority of africa as well" for good measure.

They're insular. They're xenophobic. But in the end, these governments will be brought down, not by freedom-fighters, but by careless young men who flaunt government restrictions on pornography, women who blog where, and when they wish, and little children who text all the time.

Take that muslim world! Your holy clerics can do naught but weep, in the face of the deadly trifecta of spiritual, mental, and sexual perversion!

I normally do not post, but read as an open minded observer. I have a few points to make and I will not entertain anyones half whitted rebuttle on my points.
#1. State Sponsored Radicalism
+ A country sentenced this lady to jail, and its people wanted to have her executed. For what! She was teaching in a class room full of that countries children that wanted to name a teddy bear after a fellow classmate that was popular in that class!!
- If a JUDGE who is a representative of the core of a country sentenced someone in this situation and deported this person.... I don't see this as a good representation of anything peaceful of the muslim / islamic world, however unless someone wants to just come out and say oh yea that whole countries government is run my radicalists.

#2. Cleaning house
+ A country that allows this sort of close minded radical operation within its own government is showing acceptance of this. If they don't clean house after this and replace that person or group of person with someone else then they ARE accepting that they are in approval of the decision.

#3. Understanding
+ Muslims and the followers of anything islamic expect people who are not following their religious practices to keep an open mind... Hello pot kettle calling!

#4. USA and the rest of the Civilized world (tolerance = maturity)
+ In the usa and other civilized world, do not deport people for naming a teddy bear, mohammed, jesus, nor david - I know of a half dozen people with those names and even some people that own pets such as DOGS with those names.

Summarization:
It is these types of activities and radicalistic behaviors that breeds outward thrusted violence. Some call this terrorism, but I will call it stupidity. You can do your god whichever, and whoever he or she is more service by preeching his or her word, and promoting that word peacefully.
I can't believe that so many were in protest asking for this teacher to be executed.

to recite other not so recent events -
a) Mohamad spread the religion at the end of a sword (this enraged the followers of that faith)
Christianity was also spread through the sword (yea, so what.. I'll admit that, different times, and Id like to think we are evolved past that and all the cave men reside in museums)
The difference: Christians don't sentence people to jail for naming a teddy bear jesus, or being of a different faith.

The regret:
I foresee activities like this and their acceptance as a further wedge between cultures. In a time where lots of people are trying to keep an open mind and some reading a book of a different religion than their own trying to understand the past, so they can understand the present and see some what into the future - the type of closed minded errogantly radicalist behavior almost makes someone like me want to not bother trying to understand why, and just write them off as barbaric adolescents with no tolerance for anything they weren't brain washed from birth with. There is a good amount about JIHAD in their book, and some people think that they've been so bad in their lives that the only way they will get into their heaven is to die in JIHAD. I think that is the regret. They listen to someone with a vendetta against a people and are manipulated to JIHAD against those people in hopes of going to heaven. The regret I am speaking of is the volunteered people who have died in this fashion allowing themselves to be brain washed into suicide bombers for another mans vandetta. We never see Osama strapping a bomb to his body!! Why is that... because he has idiots that will do it for him, and that is why, and regretable.

I don't think the middle east on a whole like some other people do think is a place full of bad people and things. I think that power may unfortunately be in the hands of people that use it in ways that are barbaric. The people from those areas we hear so much bad things about that I have met in my country are wonderful and open minded people, and they've almost all left because they wanted away from the strictness that is imposed and expected of and on them. Sure they will tell me how great allah is, however its not very often, and usually when they're down on luck, and that's expected and I respect them for that (it's called keeping good faith even in tuff times, and not resorting to something other than peaceful means to make ends meet). Most of the people I have met when I ask them of their beliefs they explain it to me the way they see and understand it, and they are glad that someone not of their faith is open minded enough to learn of theirs. I've yet to ask them what they think of the teddy bear incident, but I'm sure they will not be happy either way about it. Im sure they wont like the punnishment, nor the naming, and will express tolerance and understanding, and will also express the need for good, and qualified educators in their countries, and how much of a shame it is to see one deported.

That's all for now. I know someone will have a negative response to my thoughts, but thats life in a free and open society so go ahead and bash my post all to peices if it makes you feel better about yourself.

I'll probably run for president some day, or at least try but I have a little more time to think hard about that kind of responsibility. Even if I don't make it, if at least a handfull of people can hear and "GET" what I say I will have made some impact. I am more focused on a non militaristic peace platform and enviromental issues at the moment in my life. I see lots of things that need change, but also know that without chance change cant happen. Opportunity when not naturally present needs to be created, then peace has a chance once there is opportunity. Peace isn't free, but I would like to think it no longer has to be paid for with human lives. We're all human - cut off our legs we all bleed red. There's gotta be a way to get along globally!

Good luck to all, stay healthy, and be kind to one another it can be contageous.


I can explain this being as I am and have been reading their book, and learning of their ways, and culture. I am a christian with an open mind, and I hope others can be as well. In a religion where you base your entire society and country and rule by that religion things are different.
#1. From birth you are programed with that religion. Ever step of your development you are imprinted and embedded with that religion.
#2. Islam, the men can have many wives and as many children (hopefully men to my understanding) as they can support or so the teachings go.
#3. Those children are then automatic muslims. IE: the nation of islam expands with every new birth.
=-=-=
Now math tells us if every man married 5 woment and there are what, oh well lets just say 100,000 men, and each man married 5 women, and had 2-5 kids with each woman he married...... instantly you're trippling your religions base and spreading your religion without violence. Gives new understanding to the make love not war slogan eh?
=-=-=
Think about things a little more open mindedly and you will see the evolution of ways and things to come more clearly.
=-=-=
The joy of being an american is freedoms most people in other countries do not experience.
I was born under no specific religion. As I grew up I went to churches with friends periodicly. I've been to quite a few different churches, of all different religions. I chose to be a christian, it wasn't thrust upon me or expected of me, but a choice I made freely. Does that mean I am a terrorist to my muslim friends... NO, They have just as much open mindedness as I do, and we maintain what I see as great friendship. I'm learning their religion and they are learning mine, though they dont agree with mine, and I don't agree with theirs, the understandings of the two between us may bring us closer than just friends to being "good, or even cloes to best of friends"

Understanding and tolerance is the key. If I can do it and I don't consider myself a genius or even average for that matter, then why cant at least 25% of the world do it and try to reach out to others peacefully and end this ignorance. We don't have to be a united planet, just a respecting people of all others on the planet.

Oookay...Let me try and decipher this...



:Everyone else's opinion, should it differ from yours, is nothing but a "half-witted rebuttal."



You are using one act of an insane military dictatorship, that has certain aspects of a theocracy, and you are using this act to bash the entire religion in question.



Need I say more?



You denouce Muslim violence, but make light of christian violence. There are still, in some of the more backwards rural areas of our country, murders based on faith. THese are, of course a minority, committed by a few radical elements of the christian church. THE SAME GOES FOR THE MUSLIMS.



If I could be so presumtuous as to pull off a Reductio ad Christianus (dog latin, I am well aware) , I was under the impression there are certain pastors in the bible belt who wield the "hell card" far better than any Cleric.



So...what? Our rebuttals, no matter how well crafted are childish, "no matter what?" You're goign to be president anyways, so we shouldn't bother arguing with you?

This is a debate site. Others reserve the right to rebuke you when, and how they wish. You, in turn, can rebuke their rebuttals, and they may rebuke your rebuttal to their rebuttals. (You might see now, the reason that the majority of debators eventually go insane.)

Thank you for your...scintillating post, let us call it that.

IE: your response right....




I did not bash the entire religion. I find it odd when folks who seem to talk and use fancy smacey words like to take things out of context. The E-penis does not exist friend!
I said it was not a good representation of the islamic world. It could have also been implied that I was stating if the islamic world did not approve of this act then it should have spoke out against it.




yes.. please do. Muslims are born into their faiths, while others get to choose thier faith. It is expected and thrusted upon a child once born that he will be muslim in those countries. Next... moving right along




The point which you failed to read or didn't sink into your brilliant mind is: those times are historical, ie: no longer happening. However this still happens in the middle east.
Next!




This does not mean that we still have the crusades running rampant now does it. Evolution, understanding and maturity. How long ago did the crusades end?




I never said I would become president, again incerting words into someone elses mouth, wow are you multitasking today?
I said I may run or at least try.


I'd be more than happy to pick apart your picking apart of my post and further aid in your quest for insanity..



No, no... thank you!

So...you're not going to be president. But you will try. WHich means, that at some level, you intend to be president? ANd if not, then you simply enjoy exercises in futility?

Sorry, but why post about running for presdent if you don't think you'll succeed anyway? Why use the possibility of being elected leader of the free world as a sort of "rhetorical force field" for your logical fallacies?



ANd what do we Christians do to our children? Do we not do the same? Have you ever heard of "infant baptism"? I think its pretty bloody well the same thing.


THey never did. The crusades are being fought by the christians still, only now they do so in the battlefield of commerce and culture. And rest assured, in this holy war, the muslim world will suffer far more than they ever did under the rule of good ol' king Richard. Can you imagine? Not death, that would be far too kind...more of a slow, wasting oblivion. The slow digestion of one demographic, deep within the belly of another.

No wonder the Muslims are desperate to "flex their muscles" as Julian puts it. Their culture, or at least the rigid, hierarchical orthodox culture that the americans so detest, is dying.

Simple to answer and fair enough question for someone to ask. I intend to run, however will not say that I will win, not in this but maybe the next of course. I will win only if the people of this country decide I should, and that is the way it should be thought of. Proclaiming a victory before it is acheived is ascinine.




Not entirely. I was not done this way, neither was my wife. As a people our freedoms define us, and unite us. My wife is catholic, and I myself and christian or the catholics some will just call protestant. My son goes to his mothers church and mine, as well I will encourage him to seek understanding in other religions and also encourage him to just as I did choose whats right for himself



I don't recall any recent decaptiations of muslims. I'm sorry maybe the context got a little distorted with your interpretation of my thoughts.



Im an American and I do not detest their culture, I do not like radicalist movements that practice violence that takes lives. I hope that doesn't label me as one that detest that culture?

Asinine, actually. I was in the spelling bee as a child. Made it up to ninth in my state before i got beaten out by this beautiful girl with braces. Never saw her again, terrible business.

Er...where were we?

ah yes;



I mean the decapitation of muslim traditions. How long before the young decide to forgo ramadan? Decide to try out pork, that taboo meat? Find, that suddenly, prayer five times each day is such a drag?

To an american, these are all good things! Democratic things! Signs that, before long, the Muslims will be sitting in bars, cheering on the Patriots during football season, just like the rest of us!

To them, it is several hundred years worth of rich cultural heritage, disappearing before their eyes.

This is a very simplistic perspective. If you want boil things down then national socialism is a political ideology and Islam is also a political ideology. Its status as 'religion' does not change the political aspect of Islam.

And Islam is far more dangerous than National Socialism ever could be. Nazism lasted two decades and was ended with a single conflict. Islam has last 1,400 years and survived and thrived on hundreds of conflicts including the invasion of non Muslim territory and the crusades which were waged in vain as an attempt to stop Muslim expansion. The nazi's as a credible political force in western politics are long gone. Islam, which has been pressing to gain control of Europe since before the time of the first Caliphate is still here amongst us, and has now far more influence on European politics than its ever had before.

This case of the stupid British teacher in Sudan is a case in point. Her release and pardon only happened after British Muslim MP's went to Sudan to plead her case. Any one who fails to see the significance of that needs to ponder why.


Oh give me a break! Thats the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Jewish intellect is due to stupid Jews being exterminated by the nazi's? What planet do you live on?

So what explains the lack of Muslim intellect in comparison? Brain for brain, the Jews completely trounce the Muslims in the world of scientific discovery and this is despite their being out numbered thousands to one. Even before the Holocaust there were never more then 20 million Jews world wide yet they still managed to produce Albert Eistein, Nils Bohr and Sigmund Freud (all born prior to the Holocaust).


Right, so in your mind, pointing out the deficiency of Islam compared to another middle eastern ethnic group equates to 'zionism'?

Wow, does that kind of inbred logic have a name or are you just making up prejudisms as you go?