British Teacher Faces 40 Lashes for Naming Class Teddy Bear 'Muhammad'

reply to post by Jim_Kraken


Chill, don't worry about it. We're used to it by now. We now know how the Soviets felt during the cold-war

Originally posted by johnsky
What is with this religious hatred?!

I've seen it from all sides, all religions, and don't try to claim any of them are peaceful, all religions have been guilty, and will be guilty again in time.

Yeah you see modern Christian mobs going around all of the time handing out lashes, and cutting off the heads of infidels don't you?

All religions are not the same. The wonderful religion of peace is to blame for this once again. Here was a teacher trying to bring an education to those still stuck in the 12th century and instead of a grateful people she gets attacked for something as stupid an innocent as naming a teddy bear. Let's hope these fanatics don't decide to now go after the children for blasphemy because they actually named the bear.

reply to post by centurion1211


No, you still can't do that, because the hate messages are coming from state-sponsored textbooks, NOT the Koran.

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
Though, I am disturbed by the Muslim-bashing on this thread that otherwise wouldn't be tolerated if it were another group.

Please name another "group" that does this sort of thing and I'll bash them the same.

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
reply to post by centurion1211

 

No, you still can't do that, because the hate messages are coming from state-sponsored textbooks, NOT the Koran.

And, as we dicussed earlier, these states are theocracies based on the muslim religion. That makes the "state-sponsored textbooks" also religion-sponsored textbooks.

Game, set, match on this part of the issue. Tally-ho on the rest, I'm in!

[edit on 11/26/2007 by centurion1211]

I am going to play devil advocate here.

But as barbaric an extreme as the beating sounds people forget that the British Teacher was a guess in a foreign country and as a guess she is to abide by the laws of the nation that she is been welcomed in.

Allowing a child to name a Teddy with the name of the countries most idolized religious figure was indeed braking the law of that nation that she is a guess off.

That she deserve to be lashed, that depends if the laws of that nation extends to her as a british citizen .

So I see this to become a political issue between the UK and Sudan.

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
the hate messages are coming from state-sponsored textbooks, NOT the Koran.

Exactly! Brought to you by your good friend and ally, Saudi Arabia, homeland of the Wahabbi Intolerance sect.
Another thread that seems to be sinking fast:
60% of Foreign Insurgency from Allies Saudi Arabia & Libya

No rebuttals with out-of-context Quran quotes from anti-Muslim sites, please. Use the original copy: USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

Three different English translations for your viewing pleasure!

Originally posted by centurion1211
Game, set, match.

Hardly. See above.

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
No, you still can't do that, because the hate messages are coming from state-sponsored textbooks, NOT the Koran.

Really?

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).
[8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire.

From the holy book itself. Unless translated wrong?

Source: quod.lib.umich.edu...

reply to post by centurion1211


So, using your logic, we may condemn Christianity because governments in the past claimed to acting in its name when persecuting individuals?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Jim_Kraken]

reply to post by marg6043


What do you mean abide by their laws? It isn't against the law to use the name muhammad; it's the most popular name in the world (literally, that's a fact). This is an example of bias and hatred towards Westerners. I'm sure if she'd been arab it wouldn't have been a big deal.

and besides, the kid's named the bear!

reply to post by marg6043


Is there really a law that she would have known about that forbids her to name a teddy bear "Mohammed"? Especially since the name "Mohammed" is used quite frequently in naming others. Is this a known law that any "guest" would even know about?

I mean, how many United State laws are there, that foreigners just do not know about?



[edit on 26-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
reply to post by centurion1211

 

So, using your logic, we may condemn Christianity because governments in the past claimed to acting in its name?

In the past, in the past, in the past. (failed attempt at thread deflection)

We're talking about what the muslims (in question) are doing now.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
No rebuttals with out-of-context Quran quotes from anti-Muslim sites, please. Use the original copy: USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

Three different English translations for your viewing pleasure!

OK.

008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Three different English translations for your viewing pleasure.

All organised religions have their zealots and extremists.
Organised religion, of any kind, is the bane of mankind and has done more harm to mankind than any other belief system.
Count the number of dead who have been killed in the name of the Godhead of any religion through the ages from every continent.

The difference is today that the only religion that preaches such hatred on such a wide scale is Islam.

Never known any Christian fundamentalists blowing up innocent woman and children in the name of Jesus Christ for quite awhile now.

Of course not all Muslims believe in these extreme practices that we seem to hear more and more about.
But Muslims seem to be the perpetrators of nearly every single act of religious instigated barbarism that occurs at the moment.
Yes, there is a very small minority of progressive, (and very brave) Muslims who speak out against these atrocities, but the vast majority do absolutely nothing.

Muslims living in "The West" demand to be treat with equality and respect but continue to show little or no respect to followers of other faiths who are in their countries.
Hypocrisy and double standards surely.

It is the tenet's and interpretations of Islam that has caused this situation.
Nothing else.
To suggest anything else is smoke in mirrors.

Islam will grow out of it's peroid of extremism, just as Christianity has done, but in the mean time, how many more will die or suffer?

When will we learn that organised religion serves no purpose but to control and subjugate.

The British government must demand that this person is released unharmed immediately or face severe consequences.

reply to post by Freeborn


Heh, if you think organized religion is bad, you should merely take a look at all the carnage caused in the name of atheistic communism!

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Jim_Kraken]

Originally posted by centurion1211
And, as we dicussed earlier, these states are theocracies based on the muslim religion. That makes the "state-sponsored textbooks" also religion-sponsored textbooks.

O Really?

Please study the following:

American Theocracy

Theocracy

• The Vatican
  The Vatican City State is theocratic in a very limited sense, since it has temporal rule over a small territory, but that is not its primary function.
  
  
• Andorra
  Andorra's government is in some aspect nominally theocratic in that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Urgell is one of its co-princes, although the role is virtually entirely ceremonial.
  
  
• The UK
  England has a minor theocratic aspect because the monarch is "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England and "defender of the faith." This has been the case since the Protestant Reformation in England, under Henry VIII. Henry VIII created the church of england because the Popes would not annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragon.
  
  
• Norway
  While Norway's population is relatively religious in their day-to-day lives by Scandinavian standards, they are by no means highly orthodox, and the Norwegian State retains a few vestigial religious overtones.
  
  
• Israel
  Israel can be regarded as somewhat theocratic given the state promotion of Jewish institutions for the purposes of the country's integrity as the 'Jewish Homeland'. Israel's Law of Return grants any Jew the right to become a citizen of the country with the aim of facilitating their immigration to what the State of Israel views as their ancestral homeland. Israel's Basic Law: The Knesset (1958, Amendment No 9) states that a political list may not participate in elections if its party platform implies the "denial of the existence of the state of Israel as the state of Jewish people"

That is a pretty NON-Muslim list...

Are they also based on Muslim religion?

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
So, using your logic, we may condemn Christianity because governments in the past claimed to acting in its name when persecuting individuals?

Name one Christian country that has done this in the last 10 years.

Now name Muslim countries that have done it in the last 1,000 years.

That's the point.

BTW, I'm against ALL organized religion.

reply to post by avingard


Arab countries are not like western or more open society ones, when my husband was in the middle east in Saudi Arabia he had to make sure that he understood and respected their laws.

It is prohibit for a woman to show her face to a man that is not her family member, my husband happen to be flashed by a group of women waking behind a man and he was so surprised that he thought he will be arrested for looking at the women.

But nothing happen, why they did what they did he still have not clue and was very careful not to ask any Arabs about it.

It was not easy but that is the way their culture is.

This is one of the problems that the western have with middle eastern nations, that our western mentality wants to make everything fit one size.



[edit on 26-11-2007 by marg6043]

reply to post by Griff


Context is key. The verse came down when the fledgling Muslims were under attack from the Quraysh. Further down the verse states that if they ask for forgiveness, then so it shall be.

Ergo the Sudanese theocrats are in the wrong.

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Heh, if you think organized religion is bad, you should merely take a look at all the carnage caused in the name of atheistic communism!

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Jim_Kraken]

Come on.

This is an even more obvious attempt at deflecting the topic of this thread.

If you have nothing more to add to the topic, the usual etiquette is to just stop posting.