Muhammad Teddy teacher to the pokey

On the same continent--Africa--where the teacher was sent to prison for blasphemy because of the bear, a powerful Anglican bishop supported a law that would have criminalized two men being in public having a meal because they could be perceived to be gay. A wrong touch on the shoulder between two men could have landed the men in jail because of laws based on traditional Christian (and Muslim) views of homosexuality.

The same Anglican bishop, of course, is the nascent leader of well-connected conservative Anglicans in the U.S.

If some of the kids in the classroom were Muslims, then shouldn't they have known that it was a crime to do this? Did the kids get any lashings? I'm sure Sharia Law says something about disobedient children.

Daniel - Can you give some evidence to back up your claims? I'm not saying they're untrue, but it would be good to see a link or a story or something. Thanks.

Of course. The Christians have the same God, same Adam, same Abraham, same story of the beginning, same Hell, and of course share the same silly concept of religion, religion is silly, if you think not look at a faith different from your own, as Islam. They even share the same silly rules to enforce conformity.

The biggest difference between Islam and Christianity is Christianity has been molded by modernity. If we remove the changes in Christianity caused by modernity we see a twin, well triplet of the Abrahamic faith.

With all due respect, Harvey, this only proves conclusively that (1) you really have it in for Christianity and (2) you cannot have seriously read any significant amounts of the Quran or ahadith.

Daniel gets a kick out of constructing these false symmetries between Islam and Christianity, the purpose of which is to show that we have as much to fear from Christianity as Islam.

Reality is different. And that's something the left can't deal with: reality.

Jeez, this is too easy.

Daniel gets a kick out of constructing these false symmetries between Islam and Christianity, the purpose of which is to show that we have as much to fear from Christianity as Islam.

Reality is different. And that's something the left can't deal with: reality.

The righteous right, er, uh, wrong, have their fantasies to support their position, reality, really?

Morning Dale, I have it in for religion, period. For me the squaring off of Christians against Muslims is not unlike the Klan protesting the presence of Black Panthers. Even though the superficial difference is skin color we both know the greater commonality is ignorance and bigotry.

I take you at your word, Harvey, but it seems that you take an especial shine to Christianity. No doubt because you live in a country still-permeated by the fading remnants of Christian belief of all stripes, and the Muslim presence is still relatively miniscule, so I understand that.

But, again, facile equations of Christianity and Islam, starting with the theological level and moving on to practice, only betray the lack of knowledge of the one making the equation. And the "Islam hasn't had it's engagement with modernity" argument is wrong.

First of all, it flies in the face of the other card: "Islam was much more advanced and enlightened during its early era" (partially correct). Then the Muslim world turned its back on the Greek rationalist heritage as fundamentally un-Islamic, and slammed shut the gates of "ijtihad (independent interpretation not bound by the Islamic sources such as the Quran, ahadith or sunna) shortly thereafter.

Secondly, the dominant strands of Islam have indeed encountered modernity, and forcefully rejected it. The Ottoman Empire was the pre-eminent Muslim power in the world until the 20th Century, and was the European superpower of the sixteenth century. The Ottomans had regular interactions with the rest of Europe, including full awareness of the intellectual ferment going on in Western Europe. The reaction was to ban such things as observatories and printing presses as un-Islamic. When the Ottoman sultans finally woke up and began real Western-style reform efforts in the mid-19th Century, they were often condemned as un-Islamic, especially by the Wahhabi fanatics arising in the Empire's Arabian provinces. More to the point, they had to give up any pretense of trying to conform the system with Islamic law.

In other words, the facile comparison, bad as it is on a theological level, disintegrates completely on the social/political level. From its beginnings, Islam came complete with a unified social and political order revealed by Allah. Christianity did not. That makes a huge difference.

I'm sure a few more indignant posts by outraged bloggers will bring the Muslim world into line with 21st century Western values.

Harvey. the problem with your viewpoint is that it is really no different than me equating you with Stalin because your both anti/religion therefore you must both be equally bad. I think, if I actually made such an assertion, which I would not, it would say more about me than about you. Likewise, I find that your assertions about religion tell me more about you than about religion, which is, after all, a very complex and varied subject.

I think it's nonsense to suggest that Islam and Christianity, in their basics, are simply. That's simply based on not reading the Koran or NT (neither of which I believe in myself). Christianity has on occasion behaved more like Islam, however.

"Secondly, the dominant strands of Islam have indeed encountered modernity, and forcefully rejected it"

I think it's arguable that Muslim fundamentalism, especially Wahhabism, IS modern, in just the same way that US Christian fundamentalism is modern. Neither existed 200 years ago. A non-modern Islam would be the folk traditions of highland Turkey or somewhere, just like non-modern Christianity would be, say, Slovakian peasant Catholicism. I don't think we should necessarily assume that modernity automatically tends towards tolerance.

Rombald:

That's a good point about the Wahhabis being in a very reals sense "modern." I do recall reading a Muslim commentator making an argument that the Wahhabis actually reject significant aspects of Islamic tradition--allowing a "confession" of adultery to replace the "four witnesses" requirement, for example. Largely, though, I think the Wahhabis would describe themselves as a reform movement, most definitely reacting to corruption within the Umma.

And, yes, I do agree that Christianity has a horrific collection of its own atrocities, no question.

P.S.--I think I get what you are saying in the first two sentences, but I believe something may have been elided.

I could defend outraged Muslims who became angry(excluding those who murdered because of it)over the cartoon depicting Muhammad with a bomb on his head, but this is crazy. I guess the disgruntled secretary is having the last laugh. The clerics should be asking why the elementary students didn't know better than to name a teddy Muhammad. Obviously, the Muslim parents aren't doing a very good job of teaching their children about Islam. Not one student knew that it was a no-no? I would like to think that if a teacher served shrimp in a Jewish day school that one of the kids would know to object. The clerics should be directing the whips at their own. I feel sorry for this poor teacher. She comes across as being a really good person who was trying to do her best to teach the children.

Yes, there are big cultural differences around the world. You couldn't pay me enough to work and live outside of western society. Despite all of our warts, we are blessed to live in the USA.

Here's to separation of church and state. HIP, HIP, HOORAY!

So, is it safe to say that it is really the "War on Islam"?

If a teacher in this country had allowed her students to name a teddy bear Jesus, she and the school district would have been sued by the ACLU and she would have been fired. We're so much more sophisticated in this country.

I assume the Nigerian Bishop referred to is Peter Akinola. In Nigeria, I think there is a competition between Islam and the Anglican Church over whose fundamentalist/extremist credentials are stricter, and in this "race to the bottom" I don't think Akinola has a prayer of winning the "strictest fundamentalist award."

Yes, this story of the teacher is a travesty, but the real travesty is the demagoguery that is going on among Muslim clerics, whether they are Wahabi or Salafi or Muslim Brotherhood or whatever.

There is a good book on fundamentalist religion that makes the very point that Rombald made above, that most fundamentalists are actually modern, since they usually incorporate modern technology, media, and so forth while rejecting other aspects of modern life.

A clear condemnation of this insanity is essential, in my opinion. Those who rush to say, "Christianity is just as bad, etc." are playing the "Yes, but" game. No reason for radical Muslims or Islamists to change, because they have a whole chorus of well-intentioned people who rationalize absolutely everything bad that is done in the name of Islam.

In other words, the facile comparison, bad as it is on a theological level, disintegrates completely on the social/political level. From its beginnings, Islam came complete with a unified social and political order revealed by Allah. Christianity did not. That makes a huge difference. Posted by: Dale Price :

Afternonn Dale, Thank you for providing support for my assertion. Double doggone darn you claiming it didn't support my position. Almost Biblical of you, giveth and taketh away if you know what I mean.

Again, one more time, the big difference between Islam and Christianity is the molding of Christianity by modernity.

Actually I should say fundamentalist Islam. I'm sure there are millions and millions of Muslims just like there are millions and millions of Christians who have been able to swallow faith and fact without choking. I think it's about portion size.

Either or, Christianity or Islam, any other faith too if you want to get into getting into it, the more serious a person is about their faith the more silly they look. I'm not talking about silly silly. I'm talking about really really silly silly. Look at Pat Robertson and tell me with a straight face he isn't silly personified. The same goes of Osama Bin Laden, silly silly silly. These boys need caretakers because they've gotten entirely too serious about their faith. But I'll bet you the hole against the donut they are on the same page when it comes to Hollywood, women when they're too womeny, and homosexuality as a fatal disease, er, uh, decision.

I really have a hard time understanding the posers who claim the righteousness of righteousness while looking righteouness in the eye and seeing a monster. That's exactly what we have with Rod standing type (tip) to type (tip) with fundamentalistic Islam.

"If a teacher in this country had allowed her students to name a teddy bear Jesus, she and the school district would have been sued by the ACLU and she would have been fired. We're so much more sophisticated in this country."

I beg to differ. The students were allowed to pick the name. I assume (someone please tell me if I am wrong!) that among Muslims in Sudan, "Mohammad" is a popular boys' name. (It is in the parts of the Muslim world I am familiar with. For example, I have 2 male Iranian cousins, both named Muhammad, as is their father. There is a saying that if you have 1000 sons you should name them all Muhammad.) So the students were picking a name common among people they know.

The equivalent here would be if some Hispanic students voted to name a bear Jesus. And I doubt a teacher would be fired for that. It's hard enough to fire a teacher for feeding her class the test answers on standardized tests...

If we are to trust our Muslim neighbors, don't we need to hear from them that in their view this is unbelievably medieval, and not what they are all about? Posted by: Susan

Wouldn't this be comparable to you calling every non-Christian you know to make sure they know for sure that you're not the same kind of Christian as Rev Phelps. Of course you might surmise they're assuming that after seeing Phelps, right?

Don't know any Muslims?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Here is some of the gazillion differences:

(1) Fred Phelps is seen universally-minus-himself among Christians as a loon; Islamism is a respectable position within Islam, even when not agreed with;

(2) Fred Phelps is never cited as either an authority or an exemplar, except by anti-Christian liberals trying to play Moral Equivalence; Islamists are drawing on real strains of Islam and respectable authority therein;

(3) Fred Phelps's followers haven't committed mass murder and terrorist attacks; Islamists have, for decades;

(4) Fred Phelps has a few dozen mostly-family-members as followers; Islamism has at least tens of millions of followers and whole states at their disposal;

Victor and Susan, my apologies, it's obvious I underestimated both of you. Instead of Phelps, how about George Bush?

In the Islamic world he's comparable to at least Osama Bin Laden. Do you believe all real Christians should disavow this warmongering idiot?

Do you believe all real Christians should disavow this warmongering idiot? (President Bush)

Oh yes, harvey, absolutely. And this is being done in many quarters. Read the newspapers?

The Islamic equivalent - say, some outrage at 9/11, the murder of some 3,000 innocent people???? - we listen in vain. No Muslim voice has suggested in public, at least not so's I've heard it, that maybe this wasn't quite appropriate? They were dancing in the streets the way I heard it.

But y'know, it's not quite the same. Given that our "adventure" in Iraq is a bad idea, no American has sent nut fanatics to take over airliners in peacetime and crash them into occupied office buildings. THEY BOMBED NEW YORK CITY, get it? Our response might not have been entirely correct, but we didn't start this thing by bombing Baghdad out of a clear blue sky, you know.

There are no dissenting or moderate voices in Islam? At least none who dare raise their heads? It's a puzzle.

Susan, it's not a puzzle at all. How many of the righteous were up in arms over Bush's War in 2003?

Their courage is in direct proportion to public dissatisfaction, right?

The Muslims are just like Christians. And when public opinion allows it I'm sure we'll see moderate Muslims come out of the woodwork.

Of course, it would make their coming out of the woodwork a lot easier if more of our Christians jumped up and denounced Bush. When he, Bush, talked about being a uniter and not a divider I don't think he meant his unifying Islam.

harvey, do you read the papers? Christians have been all over the place criticizing the war in Iraq, in 2003 and right up to now.

I can't think of ONE prominent Islamic leader who has even intimated that there might be the slightest problem with flying a commercial airliner full of civilians into an office building full of civilians in peacetime.

Your stance on this is laughable. Stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

Double doggone darn Dale, I think I like you. I know I like your style, great link. And I don't see us at loggerheads. We're looking at the same animal, just different ends.

I guess the biggest difference between us is my faith in the power of modernity, human nature, evolution, the future if you will. I accept that the strength, and terror for outsiders, of Islam is it's resistance to change. I see that resistance, think brittleness, as it's inherent weakness and why it will untimately either modify or disappear as a force to be reckoned with.

Fundamentalism is all about resistance. If there's nothing for it to be against it can't be sustainable. The link you provided reflects why Islam and where Islam is growing. Poverty. We can look around the world and see where Islam is festering and we see two things. We see poverty and we see anger about the poverty. Islam provides the fantasy that explains the poverty and justifies the anger.

What is sad is fundamentalist Christianity is providing the resistance Islam needs to grow. You can see it here on Rod's place. Christians demonizing Islam because Islam demonizes Christianity. I think the old addage about a mile in his shoes wasn't talking about jackboots.

However, this too shall past. The current that will move it out is modernity. A large part of that force of modernity is the world wide web. It changes the scope of technology. More importantly it rewrites the tribal perspective of family. It broadens the picture of us to include them. The resistance to this inevitable change of course is those who want to see the world as us versus them.

Islam and Christianity both lose their bite when "they" are going to Hell and "we" are going to Heaven is no longer in the picture.

Thank you, harvey!

Not sure why everyone is looking at ends of animals here. ;)

I think the Teddy Bear ruling is absolutely ludicrous. As the writer of the article pointed out, there are THOUSANDS of people named Muhammad. Maybe a million, I don't know. A letter of reprimand suggesting that naming a toy for the Prophet, is disrespectful, would have been plenty. People advocating Sharia law with no modifications for the modern world make their faith look ridiculous and pitiable to all outsiders, and plenty of insiders, believe you me.

I have nothing against Islam. As a Christian, I don't believe it's 100% right: where it contradicts Christianity, I think it is wrong. But I respect the faith and I recognize its adherants as fellow Children of Abraham. It is not Islam we should fight, nor CAN we. The harder we resist Islam itself, the harder back they will fight us.

Our struggle is NOT with Islam. It is with a political perversion which uses the most extreme and least merciful interpretation of the teaching of Islam. This perversion not only contradicts such clear and obvious teachings as, "There can be no compulsion in religion," but also the direction that women and children should not be targeted in Jihad, and nor should fellow Muslims. These two statements, among many others, should be virtually inarguable. But these so-called believers see it fit to ignore clear directives for long convoluted interpretations and arguments which somehow end in justifying blowing up small Muslim girls going to school.

This perversion also ignores a long (though not universal) consensus that Jihad should largely be a war of the soul against its baser instincts, or if exterior, should generally be a DEFENSIVE war (this consensus justifies wars of defense against invasion, for instance.) But even leaving aside this consensus, there is no excuse for what passes as religious edicts coming from the mouths of people like Bin Laden.

What fuels the continuing support for men like him is a strange mix of nationalism, tribalism, and anti-modernism. It takes a lot to disentangle these three factors satisfactorily. Sometimes I think I have a pretty good handle on it. Today, I am not so sure.