Teacher in Mohammed Teddybear situation

[Dany Boy]

Cjd, hope the Sudanese government overlooks the Toilet issue and you have given it the famous teddy's name....

As Ray mentioned let this thread not descend into a bun fight.

And lets give it a thought from Jayne's perspective...

 

[LisaHoughton]

Not being flippant ... but think this might beat the recent franchise thread!

 

[Alice3537]

Right - the lady in question was given 15 days in jail rather than 40 lashes, a 'large' fine or three years in jail. Not what I would have wanted for her by any means and a decision that, in my opinion , demonstrates that this is a political issue.

How do you guys feel about the sentence? Did she 'get off lightly'? Should the UK have been able to negotiate a, er, what would it be called ....pardon? Or a dropping of the accusation? COULD they have done more? (we are not the 'be all and end all' on the world stage any more!)

 

[RayB]

Not being flippant ... but think this might beat the recent franchise thread!

Lisa - you are such a fox

 

[Jayne]

Sadly, it is the God of the Christian Bible, the Islamic Koran and the Hebrew Tanakh - all the same God - that apparently not only OKs it, but quite literally demands it.

Maybe I should have worded that better.

What sort of people would think 'God' would want them to do this?

If we were all supposed to be like Gods image, no matter which God! Surely he must have the same compassion as I do? To me it's simple, treat everyone with respect and love life. It ends quick enough without any help from government figures hanging people and whipping them.

Jayne

 

[Alice3537]

Mohammed was a profit, not a god.

 

[RayB]

Mohammed was a profit, not a god.

Freudian slip, or irony on a business forum :|

Prophet anyone.................

 

[dave_n]

i think the UK govt may have done something if the lady had got lashes.
I think there will be a knee jerk reaction (i admit to it a little) that is perhaps a little over the top but I think that it may be down to other factors regarding islam that people aren't happy about here in the UK rather than just the incident with the teacher.

 

[cjd]

What sort of people would think 'God' would want them to do this?

If we were all supposed to be like Gods image, no matter which God! Surely he must have the same compassion as I do? To me it's simple, treat everyone with respect and love life. It ends quick enough without any help from government figures hanging people and whipping them.

Jayne

Couldn't agree more - if religion was only about Jesus's 'Love thy neighbour' and the Mohammed's (piece be upon Him) equivalent message, then the world would be a better place. (Though still sadly deluded.)

But unfortunately it's not - it's about power, politics, money and control as well, so we have the nightmare of 16th century religious practice inpinging on 21st century culture.

We live in interesting times.

 

[streetslocal]

The thing that stands out in this thread loads of people seem to think people are getting the wrong end of the stick.

Great choice of words LMAO.

 

[streetslocal]

From a personal oppion.
Even though we may think this is wrong,i would not go to work in a country knowing there laws were like this.

 

[dave_n]

I doubt she realised that a child naming a teddy bear muhammad would be illegal!

 

[streetslocal]

Put it this way she worked in an international school working with english children and apparently she was breifed prior to job acceptance.

Big news night debate on now.

 

[Alice3537]

Freudian slip, or irony on a business forum :|

Prophet anyone.................

I put that one down to being tired!

 

[RayB]

I put that one down to being tired!

And that is why we luv you so, it's so...............human

 

[basic]

Give over.

Most Muslims (even a decent proportion in the UK, let alone in the mud huts of remote desert villages) want and believe in Sharia law. They literally believe it right to stone adulterers and the ONLY reason they believe it to be right is because their book tells them that.

As does yours. You've just progressed a little, that's all.

Monty Python says it better - give yourself a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks

God's Bible (christian) does not instruct us to stone adulterers. If you remember some men were about to stone a prostitute, when Jesus intervened and said 'He who is without sin, cast the first stone'. So if you want to talk about progression, I guess it began with Jesus.

 

[RayB]

God's Bible (christian) does not instruct us to stone adulterers. If you remember some men were about to stone a prostitute, when Jesus intervened and said 'He who is without sin, cast the first stone'. So if you want to talk about progression, I guess it began with Jesus.

Or perhaps it started when sensible, humane people stopped beating each other up, regardless of religion/race/creed/colour/rank :|

 

[basic]

Sadly, it is the God of the Christian Bible, the Islamic Koran and the Hebrew Tanakh - all the same God - that apparently not only OKs it, but quite literally demands it.

Just to make it clear, the God of the Christian Bible does not demand this barbaric behavious - he demands that we are loving and forgiving. I'm interested to know where you get your information from regarding 'all the same God'. That would be like saying Diamond, Cubic Zirconia and Silicon Carbide are the same Gem

 

[basic]

Freudian slip, or irony on a business forum :|

Prophet anyone.................

gee whizz lol

 

[Dany Boy]

Teachings of Jesus "Do unto others what you want done unto you", just be sensible do anything do it the right way and have some consideration after all the other person is flesh & blood just like you and I.

Thought - "After all the good teachings love you neighbour as yourself and don't be barbaric, Jesus was crucified", that's how it is...

Its a shame

 

[Spiderden]

Teachings of Jesus "Do unto others what you want done unto you"

What about masochists?

 

[Dany Boy]

Masochism is just a complex and it can also be related to psycological feature of a person, can be called a saddist who just wants to gain pleasure from others pain, that's not the case with the Teacher's issue, its going on the grounds of blasphemy. Its pertaining to their laws....

 

[Spiderden]

I think you missed the point of my post, I was referring to the "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" comment. What you would like done to yourself is very subjective. I used masochist as an extreme example, a masochist likes to be hurt, so if he was to take that saying literary he would then hurt other people.

 

[Dany Boy]

Ah I got the wrong end, any ways that's a point to ponder

 

[Chris H]

Sadly, it is the God of the Christian Bible, the Islamic Koran and the Hebrew Tanakh - all the same God - that apparently not only OKs it, but quite literally demands it.

All the same God? Seems a sweeping statement. Like to share the proof?

 

[Sally@CC]

Most Muslims (even a decent proportion in the UK, let alone in the mud huts of remote desert villages) want and believe in Sharia law. They literally believe it right to stone adulterers and the ONLY reason they believe it to be right is because their book tells them that.

God's Bible (christian) does not instruct us to stone adulterers.

The word rajm (translated stoning) does not appear in the Quran, not once. Please don't make assumptions about what the Quran teaches based on what some Muslims choose to do.

Or perhaps it started when sensible, humane people stoppe beating each other up, regardless of religion/race/creed/colour/rank :|

How many innocent civilians has our country killed now in Iraq?

Good job we have stopped beating people up.


As I live in an African Muslim country may I just say that in the same way that Brits sit in pubs and on the net bitching about the latest idiotic thing our 'leaders' have done, Muslims sit in their coffee shops and do exactly the same. Most of these issues are simply political and they feel the same helplessness that we do when it comes to the insane things our political figures do.

Political power, that is what this is about. The Prophet Mohammad said 'Deeds are Judged by Motives'

Some posts on this thread have asked why Muslims are not speaking out about this - they are:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=497219&in_page_id=1770

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4208/34/#jreactions

 

[Sally@CC]

For anyone interested in understanding just how political these religious radicals are I would urge you to read the book The Islamist by Ed Husain.

He used to be a member of a radical Islamist group and explains how his group managed to twist the Islamic teaching to allow pornography. He also explains the political motivation behind many of the twisted beliefs of these people. It really is an eye opener.

 

[Chris H]

For anyone interested in understanding just how political these religious radicals are I would urge you to read the book The Islamist by Ed Husain.

Think he was on one of these 'Panorama' type programs recently?

Anyways, wouldn't these radicals would argue that Islam is a personal, social and political system?

As regards stoning, it may not be in the Koran but it's in the hadith as a punishment?

 

[Sally@CC]

Think he was on one of these 'Panorama' type programs recently?

Not sure but I saw him on the news about 6 months ago, got the book and couldn't put it down. It is a brilliant peek into their world.

Anyways, wouldn't these radicals would argue that Islam is a personal, social and political system?

Yes probably but then some of them also say pornography is okay, which goes against every teaching of the faith. I can say I am an elephant but it doesn't make it true. There is no longer an Islamic state, so everything is personal and subjective.

As regards stoning, it may not be in the Koran but it's in the hadith as a punishment?

The hadith cannot abrogate the Quran, on any matter.

Also the people that narrated the hadith about stoning were asked whether the punishment was given before or after the verse of the Quran, they replied "I don't know". Therefore it is simply a desire to continue this practice that has made it continue, as there is no proof whatsoever that this was a prescribed practice after the revelation of the Quranic verse giving the punishment for adultery (which was not stoning).

 

[Chris H]

Yes probably but then some of them also say pornography is okay, which goes against every teaching of the faith. I can say I am an elephant but it doesn't make it true. There is no longer an Islamic state, so everything is personal and subjective.

They sure would like to try and create one though. If they could stop arguing amongst thmselves.

The hadith cannot abrogate the Quran, on any matter.

But unless it's refuted in the Koran then they would say the hadith stand.

Also the people that narrated the hadith about stoning were asked whether the punishment was given before or after the verse of the Quran, they replied "I don't know". Therefore it is simply a desire to continue this practice that has made it continue, as there is no proof whatsoever that this was a prescribed practice after the revelation of the Quranic verse giving the punishment for adultery (which was not stoning).

I know.

You're spelling of the Koran is how I learnt it ( minus an apostrophe ) at school in the 70's. Much more pleasing than the 'Koran' that's more common now.

 

[Sally@CC]

They sure would like to try and create one though. If they could stop arguing amongst thmselves.

Let us pray they never stop arguing.

But unless it's refuted in the Koran then they would say the hadith stand.

But it is clearly refuted in the Quran. Sorry this is one of my soap box issues. If something is clear in the Quran then we are not allowed to go looking elsewhere to justify ourselves, yet that is what is happening.

You're spelling of the Koran is how I learnt it ( minus an apostrophe ) at school in the 70's. Much more pleasing than the 'Koran' that's more common now.

That is just lazy typing on my part :redface: I agree, it is much more pleasant than the hard sounding Koran.

 

[Dany Boy]

Hope you've seen the news....

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2219608,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007...sh-Teacher.php?WT.mc_id=rssfrontpage#end_main

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7119917.stm

 

[Sally@CC]

Have been watching the news all night. It is beyond disgusting, the whole 'Islamic' situation has got completely out of hand. You have this issue, with no justification whatsoever and the UK are about to jail a Muslim girl for writing stupid poetry about wanting to be a suicide bomber.

My view is that there re people called Mohammad in jails all over the world (rapists, murderers, thieves) so why aren't they seen as an insult to the Prophet? The world has gone mad.

 

[ken_uk]

The muslim girl was not just writing poetry, she had extensive terrorist material in addition to openly admitting her belief, and desire to support terrorism, and called for executions of westerners etc...

Malik, who worked as a shop assistant airside in a branch of WHSmith at the airport, also owned an Al Qaeda encyclopaedia of Jihad, a Mujahideen poison handbook and a 'terrorist handbook' which explained how to make bombs.

On the hard drive of her computer police found a copy of a sniper rifle manual, a firearms manual, anti-tank weaponry, a document entitled How To Win Hand To Hand Fighting, and pictures of weapons.

and

She also tried to donate money to a terrorist group. She had the ideology, ability and determination to access and download material which could have been useful to terrorists

and

She had a profile on the social networking website Hi-5, where she called for the execution of "depraved" Westerners .

The British-born Muslim listed her interests as helping the Mujahideen "in any way I can".

source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492460&in_page_id=1770

It seems justifiable to lock her up, I would not like the thought of her being loose on the streets.

But locking someone up for naming a teddy bear is another matter entirely, its ludicrous.

 

[cjd]

God's Bible (christian) does not instruct us to stone adulterers. If you remember some men were about to stone a prostitute, when Jesus intervened and said 'He who is without sin, cast the first stone'. So if you want to talk about progression, I guess it began with Jesus.

Christians never read the hard stuff in the bible or if they do they 'interpret' it or put it in 'context'.

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Proverbs 6:32 "But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself." He destroys himself by being put to death.

Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

 

Christians never read the hard stuff in the bible or if they do they 'interpret' it or put it in 'context'.

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Proverbs 6:32 "But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself." He destroys himself by being put to death.

Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

Blimey I hate to imagine what happens if you don't pay your council tax

Earl

 

[RayB]

How many innocent civilians has our country killed now in Iraq?

Good job we have stopped beating people up.

Hi Sal, I agree with you, the point I was trying to make (poorly) is the human race still has some way to on the humanity front - regardless of any religious beliefs

When wars and atrocities are no more - we will have got there

 

[cjd]

I'm interested to know where you get your information from regarding 'all the same God'. That would be like saying Diamond, Cubic Zirconia and Silicon Carbide are the same Gem

Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same God - the god of Abraham.

Abrahamic religion is a term commonly used to designate the three prevalent monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam[1][2] – which claim Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as a part of their sacred history. Other, smaller religions that identify with this tradition – such as the Baha'i Faith – are sometimes included.[3]

A number of commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam exist:

• Monotheism. All three religions worship one God, although Jews and Muslims sometimes criticize the common Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity as polytheistic. Many if not most of their followers believe that they worship the same one God.

• A prophetic tradition. All three religions recognize figures called "prophets," though their lists differ, as do their interpretations of the prophetic role.

• Semitic origins. Judaism and Islam originated among Semitic peoples – namely the Jews and Arabs, respectively – while Christianity arose out of Judaism.

• A basis in divine revelation rather than, for example, philosophical speculation or custom.

• An ethical orientation. All three religions speak of a choice between good and evil, which is conflated with obedience or disobedience to God.

• A linear concept of history, sometimes coined as eschatology, beginning with the Creation and the concept that God works through history.

• Association with the desert, which some commentators believe has imbued these religions with a particular ethos.

• Devotion to the traditions found in the Bible and the Qur'an, such as the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

It is the choice of Abraham as a common label that makes them Abrahamic. It stems from his reputation as the "Father of many" (which is the literal meaning of his name). Since he is claimed by Jewish tradition as the ancestor of the Israelites, and his son Ishmael (Isma'il) by Muslim tradition as the ancestor of the Arabs, and by Christians as a "father in faith" (see Romans 4) the phrase may be meant to suggest that all three religions come from one source.

Adam, Noah, and Moses are also common to all three religions. As for why we do not speak of an "Adamic," "Noachian," or "Mosaic" family, this may be for fear of confusion. Adam and Noah are said to be the ancestors of all humanity (though as named characters they are specific to the Biblical/Qur'anic tradition). Moses is closely associated with Judaism and, through Judaism, continuing into Christianity; Moses is regarded as a Prophet in Islam, but the term "Mosaic" may imply a genealogical lineage which the first Muslims -- being Arab -- did not share (e.g., descending from Ishmael). Thus, the scope suggested by the first two terms is larger than intended, while the third is too small.

Conversely, there are religions that share characteristics of Abrahamisms, but have different origins. The separate origins are generally accepted to preclude them from Abrahamic classification. For example, Zoroastrianism has monotheistic, prophetic, ethical, revelatory, historical orientation, desert-origin attributes. However, it is Indo-Iranian rather than Semitic, and does not identify with the characters and events of the Bible and Qur'an. Similarly Sikhism has monotheistic, ethical, revelatory, and arguably prophetic attributes, though its origins are Indic rather than Middle Eastern [citation needed].

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=362203

 

[Wiggy]

There was a seminar at the Ted Talks a few years ago about countries and development. It showed that on most issues many second/third world countries were developing at a similar rate as most Western countries, just 100-200 years behind.

Following the trends in the graphs showed that many second/third world countries would eventually end up in the same social and financial status as many developed countries are at now, whilst the first world nations would have progressed significantly further, but at the same rate.

Interesting theory.

Accurate too, apart from one small thing. When the powerful people of the now developed countries were hacking out their fortunes at the expense of the common folk, there was no outside help for the downtrodden. No aid for peasants, no protests outside [inexistent] embassies calling for better conditions for underage miners. No call for fairtrade in gold, Ivory, tea, opium, need I go on? Social condition is evolution in action and the current status quo in the west was inevitable.

This won't happen in the rest of the world is because we in our well meaning way, continue to interfere in unnatural ways. We don't have the courage to interfere naturally and we lack the sense and compassion to leave well alone:

Interfering naturally would be to invade, take over, annexe the land and resources and subjugate the people to 'our' way of life by [extreme and brutal] force. This is the human way and a couple of centuries down the line, the atrocities will be forgotten. Nobody is out there protesting the treatment of the Picts, San, Hurons, etc. We all seem to think Anglo-Saxons are native to Britain and Americans are white lol.
Bush and Blair had the right idea recently but lacked the gumption to do it right. They should have said, "the country has loads of oil and an unstable unloved government, it is prime for invasion, lets take it and keep the oil for ourselves" Put that to the vote and let's see where the people stand.
Of course, those days are over, other nations would be jealous and step in [instead of grabbing an oil-producing nation of their own. . .]


Leaving well alone means no aid! Stop feeding people while they fight! Yes, it sounds harsh but instead of fueling decades of civil war. Leave them to their own devices. Use resources to contain them so they don't spread the rot and let nature take its course. None of these conflicts will run for more than 1 or 2 years. When they beat their guns into ploughshares, maybe then some aid. . .As long as men know that some charity will be along to feed their young, they will continue to go off to war. When they are threatened with extinction, then the fighting will stop.

As for people oppressed by their own governments, the same applies, let them feel the full weight of oppression, when it reaches critical mass, they will rise!


Without interference, the world will develop. The Spanish Inquistion was a prime example of religious extremism in practice. Today, Catholics are considered moderate. . .South America is widely considered to be a Catholic continent. . .Every other kid named Joe or Maria. . .Do we remember Cortes and co.? Their excesses were in a class way above anything extremists are doing today. Then like now, religion was so tied up in politics, it was impossible to tell them apart.

If we butt out and leave them to their own devices, undeveloped nations will evolve too and we will not be targets for terror. . .

The teddy-naming teacher has my sympathy but sadly, she and her type are not helping with the situation in the long term. They need to think of generations to come and like good surgery make the cut. What they are doing is like when parents feed their obese kids chocolate "because they won't eat anything else" or "because I can't stand to see them cry" It is child abuse just like providing aid in war-torn countries is war-mongering!
Fewer children will die in the next 20 years if all aid is stopped in countries where the government is oppressive or at war.

True humanity is about doing what is right regardless of how it makes you feel.

So, controversy central here we come!!!!!

BTW, earlier posts suggest that the teacher was there 'helping' and I took this to mean she was attached to a charitable organisation. It seems it was just a normal teaching job in an international school and as such, she is not part of the aid set-up that I blame for the state of the world today.

 

[wilfredw]

Leaving well alone means no aid! Stop feeding people while they fight! Yes, it sounds harsh but instead of fueling decades of civil war. Leave them to their own devices. Use resources to contain them so they don't spread the rot and let nature take its course. None of these conflicts will run for more than 1 or 2 years. When they beat their guns into ploughshares, maybe then some aid. . .As long as men know that some charity will be along to feed their young, they will continue to go off to war. When they are threatened with extinction, then the fighting will stop.

As for people oppressed by their own governments, the same applies, let them feel the full weight of oppression, when it reaches critical mass, they will rise!

My thoughts exactly. Truth be told, we in the West cannot leave these people alone irregardless of how many bad things they do because they have things that we need (raw materials, land and other things). Do you know why the Sudanese are feeling so confident? They have signed massive oil deals with the Chinese and in return the Chinese will protect them for now at least.