"A spokesman for the embassy said that up 35 people had mounted a peaceful demonstration. "The police didn't use teargas or anything like that and they left of their own initiative. They were from the Sufi sect, which is a very peaceful sect," he told the Press Association."

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/12/muhammad_teddy_teacher_to_be_f.html

peaceful?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 3, 2007 9:54 AM

most of the british back lash seemed to be nothing more than quiet tongue in cheek humour. such as a naughty school boy at the back of the class room, breaking wind and making a few of his class mates giggle, only to be scalded by the teacher, who in this case represents authority and islam.
get ready for the media circus when she returns. then we will see the damage in which her case has led to the islamification and dhimmitude of the british isles.

i await with anxiety any leaders to emerge this week that will denounce the sudanese government and call this incident what it is, bloody farcical and an outrage to commonsense and a threat to democracy.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 3, 2007 10:01 AM

"It’s madness, mind-boggling madness: what Bush, Brown, Blair, Rice and the rest keep calling a “great religion” brought to its knees by a teddy bear."

It really is. It's total Theatre of the Absurd.

I still can't figure out why in the world this madness is happening? When TV News reports about this came on, the reporter delivered with a straight face. Straight face? This is farce! This should be news that appears on Saturday Night Live! As Robert said, this story SHOULD have been delivered with ridicule, and eyes-rolling! Why are we tolerating these insane Islamic 7th century shenanigans? Why aren't we condemning?

Posted by: darcy at December 3, 2007 10:05 AM

I'm waiting with bated breath to see the reaction of Englands muslim population after this weeks Friday seethfest.

I'm guessing this entire weekend will be filled with more "behead those that call islam violent" type protests throughout England.

Posted by: walterc at December 3, 2007 10:26 AM

The well meaning teacher didn't name the goddamed bear - the kids did. Kids most likely named Mohammed themselves.

This isn't about religious principles or sensibilities. It's about taking the opportunity to intimidate a western woman and by proxy intimidate the West in general. It has nothing to do with the bear.

But I hope Ms. Gibbons learns at least this: some days you name the bear and some days the bear names you. :)

Stupid, stupid... but the more these common incidents become commonplace in our media the better off we'll be. This illustrates Why We Fight better than most scholarly speeches. Everyone understands what this irrational stupidity means.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 3, 2007 10:32 AM

"She might have had to join Salman Rushdie in the elite category of those condemned to death -- irrevocably -- for disrespect to Islam."

It remains to be seen if she hasn't. Just like the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh, there are probably plenty of Friday mosque incited, self-appointed Muslim whackos lining up to be the first to get rid of this woman.

Look at the poor woman. She appears to be a kindly, middle-aged grandma type with a big heart and a soft spot for kids. From a western point of view, she has real value as a teacher of sensitivity and substance. Letting those little kids name the bear was a non-selfish, inclusive act. From the Muslim point of view she is a piece of crap to be swept away on a whim. And leads to a most important question: as human beings who sometimes make mistakes and aren't perfect, do we in the west really want to let in an ideology that allows this sort of collective insecurity to dominate our political systems, our personal beliefs, heck, oour very lives?

Any good mom knows that to give in to this kind of behavior, when exhibited by their children, invites more of the same. The Muslim cry-babies need to be spanked and put to bed without their supper, not invited to come in and colonize us. Where is there a strong dad to back up this tired mom of the west and get these people in line?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 3, 2007 10:45 AM

Wait till someone names a warhead The Mohammad.

And takes a million people on their own Night Journey.

Teddy Bears are child's play.

Islam aims at far worse.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 3, 2007 10:47 AM

From CNN, the following:

"Sudan's influential Council of Muslim Scholars had urged the government on Sunday not to pardon Gibbons, saying it would damage Khartoum's reputation among Muslims around the world."

You see, a "good" reputation among many Muslims in the world means being rigid, harsh, unyielding, angry, ignorant, and arrogant.

Plus, here again we see the word "scholar" being bastardized by association with primitive Muslim clerics pretending to be wise and worldly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I see that Ms. Gibbons still has the 'greatest respect for Islam and will miss the Sudan greatly.'
Maybe 40 lashes wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Finally, the above cartoon perfectly encapsulates this idiotic travesty of a tale. Yet once again in Islam, truth is stranger (and more barbaric) than fiction.

Posted by: alexon at December 3, 2007 10:51 AM

Pat Condell's latest: Laugh At Sudan.

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 3, 2007 10:53 AM

This is a hoot. Naming a teddy bear, mocks Islam and the profit (spelling intentional but not the meaning)? In this incident. the Religion of Peace becomes the laughing stock of the world. Knock the stuffing out of them mister bear, whatever your name may be.

Posted by: DeadRecknoning at December 3, 2007 11:00 AM

I'm sorry, but where were the millions of peaceful-moderate muslims worldwide demonstrating and demanding this misunderstood teacher be released?
Surely, they should had been protesting her imprisonment as it would make islam look intolerant before the entire world?
Perhaps they just were unaware they she was locked up in a Sudanese prison.
Where was Amnesty International?
Where was the National Orgainization of Women?
Where was the European Union demanding her release?
Where was Rosie O' Donnell demanding her fellow female be respected and released?

The silence from the islamic world and the left is again defeaning and predictably hypocritical.

Tolerant islam is the same as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny,and Peter Pan......it does not exist.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at December 3, 2007 11:01 AM

Same Condell video at LiveLeak: Laugh At Sudan.

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 3, 2007 11:03 AM

It’s madness, mind-boggling madness: what Bush, Brown, Blair, Rice and the rest keep calling a “great religion” brought to its knees by a teddy bear.

Good article, good insights as usual...if and when she ever gets to Britain, she still will not be safe. She will probably have to go into gov protected hiding.

If I remember correctly. WW1, was started by a thrown snowball. That's a little before my time, maybe Hugh remembers. It is odd that a teddy bear may signal the downfall of Islam, but Allah does work in strange and mysterious ways...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 3, 2007 11:10 AM

If we ever get a pet in the future its name will surely be Mohammed.

I guarantee it.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at December 3, 2007 11:10 AM

Thanks for the great video link Shy Guy; Man does he hit the nail squarely on the head!

Posted by: alexon at December 3, 2007 11:12 AM

Explain this "alleged" snowball.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at December 3, 2007 11:16 AM

Sing it while you can. It will probably be banned tomorrow!

If you go out in the woods today
You're sure of a big surprise.
If you go out in the woods today
You'd better go in disguise.

For every bear that ever there was
Will gather there for certain, because
Today's the day the teddy bears have their picnic.

Chorus:
Picnic time for teddy bears,
The little teddy bears are having a lovely time today.
Watch them, catch them unawares,
And see them picnic on their holiday.
See them gaily dance about.
They love to play and shout.
And never have any cares.
At six o'clock their mommies and daddies
Will take them home to bed
Because they're tired little teddy bears.

If you go out in the woods today,
You'd better not go alone.
It's lovely out in the woods today,
But safer to stay at home.

For every bear that ever there was
Will gather there for certain, because
Today's the day the teddy bears have their picnic

TO CHORUS

Every teddy bear, that's been good
Is sure of a treat today
There's lots of wonderful things to eat
And wonderful games to play

Beneath the trees, where nobody sees
They'll hide and seek as long as they please
Today's the day the teddy bears have their picnic

;-)

Posted by: Peter at December 3, 2007 11:19 AM

"If I remember correctly. WW1, was started by a thrown snowball. That's a little before my time, maybe Hugh remembers."
-- from a posting above

I don't remember any fatidic snowball thrown by a Serb in Sarajevo.

But then, my memory is now highly selective, especially for those dear dim days of summer 1914. I can't remember the name of the hotel. I can't even remember the name of the girl. But the wine was Chambertin.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 11:25 AM

What does it say about the people who can so easily be incited to carry out such extreme acts of assembly and threat?

It will take generations of exposure to non-madrassa type education and economic opportunity before this area of the world will be able to temper its ready manipulation.

It reminds me of the cult in the old Cary Grant movie "Gunga Din".

Posted by: VA_Voter at December 3, 2007 11:28 AM

"Our greatest weapons can be humor and ridicule."

Lemme see, A Muslim, a Jew, and a Methodist go into a comedy club and . . .

Did you hear the one about the car bomb in front of the comedy club that went off and killed fifty people and destroyed three hundred pints of Guinness?

After a while all the commedians, satirists, and cartoonists will be either dead or in a bomb proof bunker. The brave ones will be forever looking over their shoulders until one minute of lapsed vigilance, and Ka-Boom.

I assure everyone that we can be killed and mained into silence. The pen is mightier than the sword as long as there is someone alive and willing to wield the pen.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 3, 2007 11:30 AM

Pelayo-

"The pen is mightier than the sword..."

-as long as you have a gun to back it up.

(Some secret services made pens that fired a round, for double-duty.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 3, 2007 11:40 AM

Hungarian Crusader, I would name my dog Sh*thead before I would name it Mohammed. I had an Uncle who once named a dog Dammit. "Dammit, stop barking." Dammit, stop scratching the door." Pretty soon the dog actually answered to Dammit.

I might get a pet garden slug and name it Mohammed, but a dog is too nice an animal to hang that monicker on it.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 3, 2007 11:42 AM

This IS madness. Why...ANY thinking person would give into these savages on any issue at all is completely beyond me. People with this sort of mindset cannot be reasoned with. They are not bound by treaties. They are not bound by honor. They are hell bent on the destruction of civilization to the point of making the Nazi's look like amateurs.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at December 3, 2007 11:43 AM

Ridicule requires enough understanding to be cynical and wit to create irony. Now which candidate can do that? Rudy comes close, being a sophisticated New Yorker. Definitely not Hillary. Tancredo has a good sense of humor and is cynical, but not electable.
Has to be a Republican, but Bush is way too respectful.

Posted by: jewdog at December 3, 2007 11:54 AM

The real question of the hour is ... how long before you start seeing people arrested in European countries for similar offences, and by whom, and for what reasons. Then what will happen?

Posted by: ethoman at December 3, 2007 11:56 AM

OH MY....IS THIS NOT FUNNY???
http://www.therudenews.com/?p=178

Posted by: skydash at December 3, 2007 12:02 PM

I copied this from the British anti-jihad site UP POMPEII

30 Nov 2007, 11:33 PM

Mr Edward Behr wrote:

This insult cannot be forgiven. The woman must be publicly shot or beheaded as an example to others.

I am the secretary of the International Union of Teddy Bears, Fluffy Bunnies, Cuddly Toys and allied operatives.

As you may be aware, our union has millions of members throughout the world and representatives in every child's bedroom.

A major part of our duties consists of sleeping with children in an entirely innocent and comforting manner. For over a century parents have had absolute trust that they could put us to bed with their sons and daughters and they would not be harmed.

Imagine therfore our horror when we found that this 'teacher' had so corrupted her students as to associate one of our members with history's most notorious pedophile.

Off with her head!!!!

- Mr Edward Behr

Posted by: Fred at December 3, 2007 12:07 PM

The View is on the telly in the next room and the guest today was the great Charles Gibson, Anchor of ABC News.
In a very short period of time he gave us some very intricate details of the Mormon church and it's inner workings and then when the 'girls' mentioned the Teddy bear incident he said he 'didn't know what all the fuss was about'.

Of course it is possible the fuss he was referring to was the Western reaction to those nice Mohammedians.

But I suspect he just doesn't know or want to know about Islam.

I guess he needs more details about the workings of the Mormon church because of all those terrorists they keep breeding out there in Utah. Romney is certainly more of a danger than people who are misunderstanding us to death.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at December 3, 2007 12:13 PM

"The pen is mightier than the sword as long as there is someone alive and willing to wield the pen."
-- from a posting above

"Morally, democracy is invincible. Physically, that side will win which has the better guns."

(Vladimir Nabokov, speaking at a "Why We Fight" meeting at Wellesley College during the first year of World War II)

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 12:14 PM

"Our greatest weapons can be humor and ridicule."

The problem is that the Islamists have a countermeasure: ASSASSINATION.

There actually is a Muslim comedy troupe, "Allah Made Me Funny," that tours Britain and tries to do self-deprecating humor like the Jewish comedians in the U.S. used to do.

http://www.allahmademefunny.com/

The difference is that these Muslim comedians are constantly fending off death threats from their "fans."

To do stand-up comedy that mentions Muslims is to invite assassination.

That's the reason it's rarely done.

Posted by: Steven L. at December 3, 2007 12:25 PM

Well, (as I posted earlier),
looks like someone, sick of islamist hypocrisy as everyone else is, has gone a step further...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58996
Say hi to...mohammed the PIG!
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at December 3, 2007 12:30 PM

Greetings:

I certainly agree that ridicule and humor can be both releases and morale builders, but having grown up in the Bronx, I am afraid that I am more on the side of Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" where he explains the "Chicago Rules" to Kevin Costner.

"If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue."

The Islamic form of physical and psychological bullying has both short term and long term effects. For all those who stiffen their spines, many more will follow their pleasure principles and find a "work-around."

My recommendation would be a couple of dozen B-52s loaded with teddy bears with Mohammed printed across their chests making a run over beautiful downtown Khartoum as the "schools" are letting out.

Let the Muslim parents explain it to their children why they can't have the toys. And let the parents and the government think about what else could have been dropped.

Kind of an iron fist in a velvet teddy bear.

Posted by: 11B40 at December 3, 2007 12:39 PM

I still can't figure out why in the world this madness is happening?

I think it's a fatal convergence of two phenomena:

1) The media's recently found ability to program opinion and implement fake reality. Some call this PC, I call it Fictive Reality. Whatever it's called, a key to this powerful force is self-censorship, whether conscious or unconscious.

2) The global jihad called by Osama is just starting. There are over a billion of them. 9/11 gave us a full glimpse into how awful their belief system, how awful it can make its people. Throw in a dash of Marxism, and you come up with a very disciplined form of agitprop.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

Turnspeak from the lips of Blair, Bush, Rosie, Glen Beck, Condi, Hoop from CAIR, the Archbishop of Cantebury, Whoopi, the whole crowd.

It's what Ann Coulter said, we're too terrified of the unbelievable mess we're in that we'd rather lie to ourselves about the whole thing. And to one another, of course.

Islam is a religion of peace.
-- George Bush exhibiting his ignorance and cowardice just after the towers fell.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 3, 2007 12:46 PM

The culture of Islamania is indeed brittle. That bunch has a huge inferiority complex and for good reason-their "culture" IS inferior. Look at how they live in the ummah, the constant immigration out of (never into) their cesspoolian nations, the reaching for a knife at the slightest "insult", the general propensity for violence, the fact that they have elevated a deeply flawed man into a virtual god (smelling like polytheism) by constantly following in his footsteps- all of this is ridiculous in infidel eyes because that's exactly what it is-ridiculous. The Koranists know all this-that's why they try to tear down Western civilization in ways great and small, violently and otherwise. This is their defense of their "culture"-always attacking a superior one in order to deflect attention from the obvious flaws they have in their own. If they can't convert it, then they must destroy it, so that there is no yardstick to measure Islamania unfavorably against. Unless a reformation takes place regarding the Koran (unlikely since those who would attempt it will be killed) this inferiority complex will continue to be a problem-much to the detriment of infidels everywhere.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 3, 2007 12:53 PM

"The real question of the hour is ... how long before you start seeing people arrested in European countries for similar offences, and by whom, and for what reasons. Then what will happen?"

Posted by: ethoman

It's already happening. Recent postings in these JW pages have pointed out that one can be arrested in the U.K. for using the expression "Paki", and that in one of the Scandinavian countries, one can be arrested for pointing out how much of the crime wave is due to Moslem immigrants.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 3, 2007 12:53 PM

The insightful Flemish journalist Paul Belien observed last year, when Muslims were rioting over the Pope’s quoting the 600-year-old words of an obscure emperor: “If a person is incapable of tolerating criticism, including mild criticism, and especially if he perceives criticism where there is none, this is often a sign of this person’s deep psychological insecurity. Rude aggression and wild rage, too, are usually not the normal behaviour of a self-confident person, but rather of someone who knows that he will lose an argument unless he can bully others into silence….It looks as if Muslims cannot cope with an open society and the modern globalized world.”

It’s like the Mohammed cartoon riots, wait until a group of mean hearted imams take this issue to “Arab street”, and expect more fun. What will they do, burn Teddy bears in effigy? It’s so silly its sick, the absurdity of a humanity stuck in some primitive savagery of the 7th century. Keep laughing humanity, or else it’s enough to make you cry yourself asleep into silence. Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at December 3, 2007 1:06 PM

This freeing of Gibbons was based not on some new view that Muslims had arrived at, some new understanding of the primitiviness of their reactions, and desire to change their attitudes. There will be no discussion, in the ranks of Muslim clerics, in the Sudan or elsewhere, about the absurdity of the original charge, the original punishment, the original "good-natured" crowds in Khartoum "good-naturedly" screaming for Gibbons' "good-natured" decapitation.

The "freeing" of Gibbons, after what has already been an ordeal, may lead to a further unseemly spectacle. For it is not unlikely, it is likely, that she will return to England, and safely home, instead of discussing her amazement at the crazed behavior of so many Sudanese, and the Sudanese government, and the supposedly “advanced” parents – it’s the Sudanese elite that sends its children to the school at which Gibbons taught – she will tell us all, possibly selling her story to the tabloids, just well-treated she was by her Sudanese captors, how wonderful those children and the Sudanese “in general” had been. She will even add, no doubt, that if things die down a bit, she wouldn’t hesitate to return to the Sudan and take up teaching again if she were asked to do so.

Of course, she may surprise us. She may not end up gushing insensately about what happened to her, as so many Western hostages taken by Muslims do, unable to understand the significance of what happened, and certainly incapable of publicly stating what one should state about such treatment, and such a government, and such a Total Belief System of which, I am sure, Mrs. Gibbons has not the faintest idea. She doesn’t look as though she might in a year pull an Yvonne-Ridley, and “embrace Islam” after being invited to study it by a local imam, eager to win her favor, and then some. But who knows? Nowadays anything is possible when it comes to non-Muslim naifs who have been captured, sometimes only figuratively, by the forces of Islam.

And she might even declare how grateful she was to Lord Ahmed and Lady whatshername,the two Muslims who had come to Khartoum in a noisy effort to obtain her release, hoping thereby to win points for themselves, and for Islam. If anyone thanks them for their effort – which did not succeed in its goal because the cruel and murderous Bashir, the man behind the Janjaweed, had decided, for good and sufficient reasons of his own (to insure no interruption in the extensive British and other Western aid, and to make sure that there is no Western reaction on the ground, that the Western Infidels don’t decide to seize the southern Sudan and Darfur and hold them, as I have suggested dozens of times here, until a referendum on independence can he held)—it will be outrageous. For this business of Muslims in this or that Infidel land taking it upon themselves to go and attempt to free non-Muslim citizens taken by Muslims elsewhere, always done highly selectively of course, if in any degree praised, when it should be denounced, will merely give Muslims, and some non-Muslims, the idea that “our” Muslims are “our secret weapon” for they, you see, can always be sent out to prevent the worst from happening. And it will give them a quasi-official role, and instead of being regarded as part of the problem of Islam, they will be regarded as part of the solution. Lord Ahmad and Lady whatshername are nothing of the sort. They were merely, by attempting to free the Gibbons lady, to promote Islam, to burnish the image of Islam, in Great Britain. In other words, they were using the same incident to strengthen Islam as the Sudanese judge who sentenced Gibbons, and the rioters who demanded her death, thought they were doing.

We, as Infidels, know that Lord Ahmed, unlike those Sudanese calling for the death of Mrs. Gibbons, has a much greater knowledge of the outside world, of how Infidels think, and of how Infidels can get angry, and how there are certain danger signs that possibly the Infidels are getting just a little too fast, too large a dose of the real Islam – and not what the smylers with the knyfs under ther clokes present as the real Islam. He was protecting his own position, and the position of Islam, in Great Britain. Don’t let him or the well-heeled Muslimah who went with him, get away with this. They are, in their own way, furthering the Jihad, indeed furthering it far better than are those who wanted Gibbons punished, or even killed, for her act of sweet innocent all-too-understandable non-Muslim ignorance of the nature, and scope, of the menace of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 1:11 PM

Leon wrote:

i await with anxiety any leaders to emerge this week that will denounce the sudanese government and call this incident what it is, bloody farcical and an outrage to commonsense and a threat to democracy.

Walterc wrote:

I'm waiting with bated breath to see the reaction of Englands muslim population after this weeks Friday seethfest.

I'm guessing this entire weekend will be filled with more "behead those that call islam violent" type protests throughout England.

Hungarian Crusader wrote:

I'm sorry, but where were the millions of peaceful-moderate muslims worldwide demonstrating and demanding this misunderstood teacher be released?

I've not been here for a week, so perhaps some other UK poster has already commented on this. But what I've noticed is that, just this once, all the usual suspects have come out on the side of the good guys.

We had Inayat Bunglawala (yes, the Asian Percy Weasley) laying into the man from the Sudanese Embassy on Newsnight even more effectively than Paxo (at least, the Sudanese guy looked extremely taken aback, like a man being savaged by a killer rabbit).

We had Anjem Choudhary (yes, Anjem Choudhary, the man who called 9/11 'magnificent' and wants to see the UK under the heel of a Caliphate) insisting (with his Sharia-lawyer hat on) that there is nothing offensive about giving that name to an 'item of endearment'.

We've had statements in support of Gillian Gibbons from the Muslim Council of Britain, the Ramadhan Foundation and the Islamic Society of Britain.

And we had a demo at the Sudanese Embassy on Saturday by Muslims carrying 'NOT IN MY NAME' placards and attempting to hand in a 'goodwill teddy' to Embassy staff, who refused to accept it.

Not hard to understand why, of course. Islam is happy to appear cruel, harsh and evil; but most Muslims outside Sudan realise that they've made themselves look ridiculous, and they can't stand that.

Nevertheless, it's a bit of a pity if none of this has been reported in the US media.

WSW

Posted by: Wild Slutty Womens at December 3, 2007 1:13 PM

It was the kids' idea to name the teddy bear, not this poor woman's. Notice, the kids part in this supposed scandal escapes the attention of the islamic gestapos. And the kids may STILL end up calling the toy "Muhammad" anyway (behind the backs of the Islamic gestapos of course).

Islam's "brittle" culture? I would opt for the adjective "brain-dead" instead. And I would replace the term "culture" with another word("sewer" comes to mind).

Posted by: pythagoras at December 3, 2007 1:15 PM

Steven L. said

The problem is that the Islamists have a countermeasure: ASSASSINATION.

And we have our counter-countermeasures. Just down the block from where I am sitting, I know that there is a group of scientists and technicians working on their latest death ray, and others working on a satellite that would be able to aim it from space at a point no greater than a quarter.

Always keep the threat of the jihadis in perspective. They can kill thousands, maybe even millions, by stealing our technology and using it against us. They can corrupt our political system with their petrodollars. They can assassinate a few outspoken critics of Islam. They can use our legal system to stifle free-speech.

But they cannot gather an army to invade us. They cannot overcome our Constitutional freedoms. They cannot defeat us economically or scientifically or industrially or morally or legally or by any other innovation.

They cannot defeat us, they can only temporarily mess up our day. They cannot create, they can only destroy.

And even their ability to destroy is only to the extent that we allow them amongst us, and only as long as we continue the self-deception that Islam is basically the same as Christianity and Judaism, and that they are our friends and allies who want the same things we do.

Posted by: special_guest at December 3, 2007 1:23 PM

The Brittle "Culture" of Islam?....more like....

The Brittle EGO of Islam.

This teddy bear story is really raising awareness with those who would otherwise like to put 9/11 behind them and who still believe that MOST Muslims are a peace loving bunch; and it's also raising awareness with those who still believe that the only Muslims screaming for blood are the radical ones. Not so!

Posted by: champ at December 3, 2007 1:24 PM

Somebody should have polled all those cukoos who were out in the street screaming for blood on Friday-do you consider yourself a moderate or a radical? The results might have proved interesting.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 3, 2007 1:27 PM

I would find it REALLY difficult to bond with a pet named Muhammad, but I would consider naming the rats that munch on our backyard fruit trees after him.

Posted by: champ at December 3, 2007 1:32 PM

"I've not been here for a week, so perhaps some other UK poster has already commented on this. But what I've noticed is that, just this once, all the usual suspects have come out on the side of the good guys.

We had Inayat Bunglawala (yes, the Asian Percy Weasley) laying into the man from the Sudanese Embassy on Newsnight even more effectively than Paxo (at least, the Sudanese guy looked extremely taken aback, like a man being savaged by a killer rabbit).

We had Anjem Choudhary (yes, Anjem Choudhary, the man who called 9/11 'magnificent' and wants to see the UK under the heel of a Caliphate) insisting (with his Sharia-lawyer hat on) that there is nothing offensive about giving that name to an 'item of endearment'.

We've had statements in support of Gillian Gibbons from the Muslim Council of Britain, the Ramadhan Foundation and the Islamic Society of Britain.

And we had a demo at the Sudanese Embassy on Saturday by Muslims carrying 'NOT IN MY NAME' placards and attempting to hand in a 'goodwill teddy' to Embassy staff, who refused to accept it.

Not hard to understand why, of course. Islam is happy to appear cruel, harsh and evil; but most Muslims outside Sudan realise that they've made themselves look ridiculous, and they can't stand that."
- from a poster above

Not the slightest sense of relief, nor of gratitude, should be felt by these examples. These Muslims living in Great Britain have not for one minute ended their attempt to defend Islam from critical scrutiny, and to continue to fool and confuse Infidels. It is just that when something like this happens, and cannot be explained away, and has to be dealt with, then they go into full "war is deception" mode and act outraged, and indignant. It is nonsense. If they thought such behavior by the Sudanese government could be gotten away with, they would have done nothing. They object not morally but only in terms of public relations -- the damage to the "image" of Islam in Great Britain, and possibly elsewhere in the West. Otherwise, they do not give a damn.

No one should allow himself to be fooled. Not for one minute.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 1:34 PM

I named three of my 5 pigs "Moe, Ham, & Ed. The other two are named Osama and Mahmoud.

They'll all be heading to the auction and/or the freezer in the spring. Just in time for my Easter celebration.

Posted by: walterc at December 3, 2007 1:38 PM

Hugh, I live here. You don't. They really do seem terribly embarrassed.

WSW

Posted by: Wild Slutty Womens at December 3, 2007 1:41 PM

"The brittle culture of Islam..."
-- title of the article above

From a much longer posting put up here on May 20, 2004, see especially the last sentence:

"But above all, there must be a discussion of the origins of Islam, as a geopolitcal cult. The new studies of Christoph Luxenberg, casting intelligent doubt through philological analysis, on the Qur'an as first existing in Arabic -- it almost certainly owes much to a pre-existing Aramaic text -- and a widespread awareness of how this religion/geopolitical cult began, can do much to undercut the certainty, and self-confidence, of its Believers, and perhaps, beginning at the non-Arab edges of the cult, such study will begin to eat away at the number of Believers. For Islam itself is far more brittle than Christianity or Judaism, and it cannot stand scrutiny or historical analysis in the same way: it is really a case of accepting the whole thing (all Muslims must be, or must pretend to be, literalists about Qur'an and hadith, and about the unedifying life of one "Muhammad" who may well not have existed)."

Brittle, brittle, brittle.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 1:42 PM

Here's that whole post:

Islam is now the vehicle of choice for all those who are psychically or economically marginal. The first might once have become Nazis or Fascists; the second might once have become Communists. Both find the kind of annihilation of the self in a community of Believers to be welcome relief from the agony of consciousness, both of one's own inadequacy, or of the inability to fit into whatever this civilization, or any other, offers the individual.

That is the problem. There are many such people, for whom Islam offers a Total Explanation of the Universe. They are not offended by its totalitarian aspects; they welcome them. They positively revel in the manichaeism that neatly divides the world in two: the Believers (Good) and the Unbelievers (Bad). How simple, and what ease of use. La vie: Mode d'emploi, to borrow Perec's title.

It is not enough, not nearly enough, to put troops in Iraq, or to send forces hither and yon to seek and destroy terrorists. They are sown like dragons' teeth; their ranks can be constantly renewed.

Measures of many different kinds need to be employed in the long war against the Jihad. These begin with, but are hardly exhausted by, the use of of the military weapon (qital). There must also be the wielding of an the economic weapon, beginning with attempts to diminish the financial resources of the Arab and Muslim countries so that they lack all discretionary income, and every cent must be spent on subsistence, rather than money from OPEC revenues, or even worse, from Western foreign aid (which must end), rather than on the buying of arms (on which, since 1973, such countries have spent hundreds of billions of dollars), or to pay for the building of mosques all over the Western world, or for the wholesale bribing -- both directly and through institutions -- of diplomats, journalists, academics, and others who help to deceive the unwary in the non-Muslim world). Another measure must include a complete halt to Muslim migration to the lands of those who, in the Muslim worldview, must be subjugated ultimately to Islam. Our civilization has no obligation to commit suicide, or to be prevented by its own hyperscrupulosity from protecting itself. If you do not regard with delight the prospect of Islam taking over Western Europe, then you must begin to discuss the matter of measures to make that area less, rather than more, hospitable to Muslims -- through a host of legislative measures, and through the willed hostility of the indigenous non-Muslims. We do not have to welcome those who wish us and our civilisation, for all of its faults one worth salvaging, ill, even if they sometimes disguise that hostility. Cool, rational, and widespread discussion of the measures that may need to be undertaken, including the mass expulsion of what is clearly a classic fifth column, must take place -- when it is clear that otherwise, within the lifetimes of our children, France, Italy, and Holland will have majority Muslim populations. What would Western civilization be like without the art of Italy? And who will insure the safety of those statues and paintings which are haram, forbidden, according to Islam?

But above all, there must be a discussion of the origins of Islam, as a geopolitcal cult. The new studies of Christoph Luxenberg, casting intelligent doubt through philological analysis, on the Qur'an as first existing in Arabic -- it almost certainly owes much to a pre-existing Aramaic text -- and a widespread awareness of how this religion/geopolitical cult began, can do much to undercut the certainty, and self-confidence, of its Believers, and perhaps, beginning at the non-Arab edges of the cult, such study will begin to eat away at the number of Believers. For Islam itself is far more brittle than Christianity or Judaism, and it cannot stand scrutiny or historical analysis in the same way: it is really a case of accepting the whole thing (all Muslims must be, or must pretend to be, literalists about Qur'an and hadith, and about the unedifying life of one "Muhammad" who may well not have existed).

Philology, scholarship, real study of the origins and growth of Islam, instead of the apologetic nonsense and pap of Esposito, or the anglican pieties of that religion-worshipping--better Islam than atheism was his view -- of Montgomery Watt, or even the subtlest and therefore most deadly form of apologetics, that offered by Bernard Lewis, who has never been a scholar of early Islam, and whose personal ties to so many Muslim friends, colleagues, and patrons (one thinks of those who fete him and treat him as the Westerner who desreves to be the toast of Istanbul, or better still, Amman, where his every bon mot, he fondly thinks, is roundly appreciated, and he himself doth bestride the Islam/Infidel divide like a colossus, writing books fit for reception by the intelligent members of either audience (which is to say he does not tell, and can not tell, the full dismal truth about the tenets, and history, of Islam).

Those whose duty it is to articulate current and future dangers should publicly note the appeal of Islam to the psychically marginal, and economically resentful, of whom there are many. Muslims, whether born into the belief-system, and unable or unwilling, for a host of reasons (including filial piety -- especially among Arabs whose entire identity may be wrapped up in Islam) to abandon its tenets, no matter how impossible they make true accomodation with non-Muslims, or allow for true loyalty to the Infidel nation-state or other polity, or still worse, those who convert and are therefore likely to be even truer believers (unless that conversion was hastily undertaken at the behest of a spouse) need not be indulged by a pretense that all is well, that Islam itself is not the problem but a few fanatical outliers. It is not true; it is not fair to Infidels. Our first loyalty must be to the skeptical, rational, bemused, creative, intelligent civilization that is our heritage and which, it seems, we are hardly doing enough to deserve.

[Posted by: Hugh at May 20, 2004 4:12 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 1:44 PM

Hugh said

She may not end up gushing insensately about what happened to her, as so many Western hostages taken by Muslims do, unable to understand the significance of what happened, and certainly incapable of publicly stating what one should state about such treatment, and such a government, and such a Total Belief System of which, I am sure, Mrs. Gibbons has not the faintest idea.

Maybe I am unwisely optimistic, but I don't think the public is continuing to follow the statements of the Gibbons' of the world. These naive hostages (like the BBC's Alan Johnston, or Fox's Steve Centanni, or the Christian Science Monitor's Jill Carroll), are released and come back and tell us how nice and polite their kidnappers were to them as they threatened to behead them or worse. And they've done it often enough that the public is catching on that maybe these aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack.

I'll agree that we should be standing up clearly and forcefully for any dhimmis caught in the grip of the Muslims. But we should also be stating clearly and forcefully that dhimmis do not belong teaching in schools in Sudan, or doing other any other work anywhere in Dar al-Islam.

An analogy would be the climbers who get stuck on the face of Half Dome in Yosemite or elsewhere as a storm is moving in, and then expect the park rangers to risk their lives coming to rescue them. At some point they have to take some responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

Posted by: special_guest at December 3, 2007 2:24 PM

Looks like the British are going to start standing up for their own for a change given the wild backlash seen all over London.

Okay, so the British government will most likly issue a formal apology to sudan -- and pass more hate-crimes legislation as a solution.

What was I thinking anyway.

Posted by: witness at December 3, 2007 2:27 PM

Wild Slutty Womens said

And we had a demo at the Sudanese Embassy on Saturday by Muslims carrying 'NOT IN MY NAME' placards and attempting to hand in a 'goodwill teddy' to Embassy staff, who refused to accept it.

Did they refuse to accept the 'goodwill teddy' because it was ticking?

Posted by: special_guest at December 3, 2007 2:27 PM

Wild Slutty Womens said

They really do seem terribly embarrassed.

Embarrassed? Or concerned that the infidels are becoming uncomfortably aware of the core beliefs of Islam? This is a big, big problem for them, and they know it. The term, I believe, is "damage control".

Posted by: special_guest at December 3, 2007 2:31 PM

Now is the time to pour it on. To pour it on about the central duty of Jihad, Jihad meant as a permanent struggle to remove all barriers to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, which means subjugating all non-Muslims, in what were their own lands, causing them to become indifferent to, and forgetful of, their own pre-Islamic histories, and to force them to endure a condition of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, that condition known as the status of being a "dhimmi."

And to pour it on about what Islam means for art, music, literature, science. It means a crippling of artistic expression, reduced to mosque architecture and calligraphy. It means a greatly-reduced role for music, which to the most fervent and fanatical Muslims must be entirely prevented. It means literature of praise, or blame, for the ruler, and praise of Muslims and Arabs, and denunication of Infidels for being responsible for everything that has ever happened, that wasn't quite right, to Muslims. It means an end to free and skeptical inquiry, to habits of mind essential for the enterprise of science. It means the collectivist faith of Islam that does not recognize, much less enshrine in law codes, the rights of individuals as opposed to the collective, the Umma, the Believers.

It means all these things, everywhere it goes and manages to conquer. It has happened everywhere that happened, in time for the past 1,350 years, in space from Spain to the East Indies. Why should it be the slightest bit different, in Western Europe, now? It isn't. And it won't be, no matter how often the sly tariq-ramadans talk about some "European Islam" of their own rhetorical fabrication, that is no different from the Islam of North Africa, the Middle East, or Pakistan. For it has, at its core, the same texts, the same Qur'an, same Hadith, same Sira, and the same tenets derived from those texts, and the same attitudes that arise naturally in societies whose members have Islam as the sum and substance of their lives.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 2:44 PM

With reference to Hugh's post: all that you said can be summarized thus:

"Islam is death."

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 3, 2007 2:46 PM

...Ban Muslim Immigration.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 3, 2007 2:54 PM

The collective insanity of Islam beggars belief. What with the Iranians believing that the end of the world will come when a fairy emerges from a wishing well, and now this farce. I used to think that it was a little bit over the top when lord Kitchener machined gunned 15,000 Sudanese at the battle of Omdurman, now I am not so sure. He did by the way have the body of the Mahdi dug up and the head sent back to Cairo for further research. Hopefully it was used as an ashtray in one to the army messes. I never did find out what happened too it. This is just too stupid for words.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at December 3, 2007 2:58 PM

Humor and ridicule may be a worthwhile response to most absurdity, but it depends on the target of the humor/ridicule having a sense of humor/a sense of irony/a sense of proportion. All those things are sadly missing in the Muslim world, which will interpret the humor directed at its backwardness as just one more assault on Islam. Meanwhile, the humorous treatment of this kind of barbarity runs the risk of undermining the seriousness with which it should be taken in the West. The answer to this type of insane fanaticism isn't humor, it's firepower - overwhelming amounts of it, liberally applied.

Posted by: oldefarte at December 3, 2007 3:10 PM

If you want to get at the west try the guilt trip. If you want to get at the muslims it has got to be the shame trip. they cannot stand being made fools of. It is as simple as that, it is what makes them such a load of hypocrites. Lord Achmed of Rotherham or what ever his name is went too the Sudan not to get Miss Gibbon out, but to tell the Sudanese that they were making Islam look foolish. The lot of them are cringing in embarrassment. They have been made to look stupid.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at December 3, 2007 3:35 PM

RoobartSbunsar said

With reference to Hugh's post: all that you said can be summarized thus: "Islam is death."

I think Hugh puts a little more substance to it than "fire good, Islam bad". Not that there's anything wrong with bumpersticker sayings, but it would take a double-decker bumper to fit one of Hugh's postings on it.

Posted by: special_guest at December 3, 2007 3:36 PM

“The pen is mightier than the sword as long as there is someone alive and willing to wield the pen.”
Posted by: Pelayo

The celebrated Arab poet ِAbu Timam has summed up the Arab and Muslim view when he began his poem which celebrates an Abbasid victory over the Christian Byzantines with “The sword is more telling than books.” I tend to agree with him myself, recalling how barbarians managed, time and again, to burn the libraries of civilized peoples.

In Arabic
السيف اصدق إنباء من الكتب

Posted by: have_mercy at December 3, 2007 3:46 PM

Well, "Hugh" is a worthy polemicist and I agree wholeheartedly with his points, however buried they may be in his oracular excesses. For my part, I was looking at an art book of Italy a couple days ago and, with every treasure revealed, all I could think of were the Bamiyan Buddhas and the dire predictions of Oriana Fallaci. The real enemy, however, is not Islam in the raw - no right thinking individual can hold any respect for it, rather, the real enemy are those, such as Bernard Lewis, who would seek to excuse it and make it palatable, who seek their own destruction by preaching "multiculturalist" tolerance for the practitioners of Islamic intolerance. A religion which cannot abide a "Teddy Bear" can hardly be expected to kindly treat a "Pieta", should ever its fate fall into their hands. For which reason, I rather uncharitably wish that the radicals of the Sudan had, indeed, carried out the sentence against Ms. Gibbons, rather than releasing her to return to England preaching "respect for Islam" - the same Islam which would have beheaded her but for those who refused to respect its vilest expressions.

Posted by: oldefarte at December 3, 2007 4:18 PM

Bush called Islam is a 'Religion of Peace' in his usual half-finishing sentence manner. He did not utter the complete and appropriate sentence - "Islam is a religion of piece of S##t."

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 3, 2007 4:40 PM

Islam's "brittle" culture? I would opt for the adjective "brain-dead" instead. And I would replace the term "culture" with another word("sewer" comes to mind).

Posted by: pythagoras at December 3, 2007 1:15 PM

If you peal-off the layers of:
- deception
- smoke-screen
- cover-up
- pretend
- propaganda
- and whatever else Islam uses to decieve non-muslims
... in it's truest form, For a non-muslim, Islam starts with hostility. From there on, it just gets worse, until the non-muslim is:
- comverted
- subjugated
- killed.
.. Islam is that simple, really..

Posted by: Alert at December 3, 2007 4:43 PM

Bernard Lewis is hardly the worst example of an aplogist for Islam. He has done some good, and some bad. The bad he has done has been chiefly the result of a failure to make sense of what he knows, to substitute his friendship with certain unrepresentative individual Muslims, and his great desire to speak simultaneously to two audiences, consisting of Muslims (who must not be offended, hence the constant desire to placate them) and non-Muslims (hence, in order to placate those Muslims, the shying away from the most troublesome matters -- which in turn misleads Infidels).

His disturbing treatment, possibly prompted by a recognition that she identified, and studied, and researched, and wrote about the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam, a gigantic and central question that Lewis had, throughout his career, avoided dealing with, and which he shamefully discusses in his work for the mass market, "The MIddle East: The Last 2000 Years" in all of three paragraphs, two of them exculpatory. Lewis was an enthusiast for the Oslo Accords. He now says, if pressed, that he was "mistaken" but he has never told anyone what it was that he was mistaken about, leaving the impression that it merely a matter of Arafat, when in fact it was a matter of Islam. For no PLO or PA or another other Arab Muslim, whether called a "Palestinian" or not, will ever, can ever, sign a treaty of permanent peace with Israel, and Lewis does, or should know that. In failing to discuss the attitude in Islam toward Infidel nation-states, and especially toward those that now sit on territory once possessed by Islam, in choosing to write and speak in a manner too subtle, sometimes, for his audience -- for he clearly takes pride in his own feline prose -- he does neither that audience, that needs tuition, nor his own reputation, any good. He was an enthusiast for not only invading Iraq to find weapons, but to bring something -- call it "democracy" -- to a place called Iraq, and he failed to heed the advice of his old friend J. B. Kelly who, in a three-way phonecall (the third party was someone in Pentagon planning), when Kelly said that it was madness to remain in Iraq and that "it would all end in tears" to which Lewis replied, lamely, "perhaps you're right."

Lewis's most baleful influence has been on such people as Norman Podhoretz, given to exaggerations and to misunderstandings about Islam, who thinks of Lewis as The World's Greatest Expert on Islam, which formula he embarrassingly repeats whenever he feels like telling us that we too must believe this, and therefore are to question nothing. He has been responsible, if we are to believe Scharansky himself, for Nathan Sharansky continuing to believe that "democracy" is the cure for the woes of the Middle East, and Scharansky's failure to come to grips with, or identify, Islam as the problem, Islam as the permanent explanation for the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states, Muslim societies, Muslim individuals who take their Islam seriously. Just two weeks ago Sharansky told an audience at Harvard that he had learned about Islam from "conversations with Bernard Lewis" as if that were enough, as if there had never been any Western authorities on Islam other than Lewis -- see those collected or mentioned in Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" -- and that, furthermore, Sharansky should really ask himself why he thinks Lewis continued to be an enthusiast for the Oslo Accords, when Sharansky himself abandoned all hope, several weeks after they were signed, when he realized that Rabin and Peres had no intention of undercutting Arafat's corrupt despotism, but rather welcomed, as they fondly believed, Arafat's strong-arm tactics in suppressing any revolt in the "Palestinian remarks" which, of course, made him in their credulous eyes a useful -- to employ a sickeniing phrase -- a "partner for peace." Lewis has also had a great influence on former students, because, compared to the local run of professors these days, he is so cultivated, so linguistically gifted and well-trained, so interested in their own trajectories -- and all of these good qualities make him so very different from other professors, and certainly from 99% of the membership of MESA. Who else can offer up an apt epigram from Quevedo for a book? Who else can claim as friends, or patrons, the Ottomanist Hilal Inalcik, or Prince Hassan, or dozens of others? Who else has a house elegantly furnished not merely in good taste, but with things requiring, for their appreciation -- just like Lewis's bon mots -- a knowledge of the Islamic East, and its artifacts? And what other individual is visited, as Lewis has been visited by everyone from Said Eddin Ibrahim, to all kinds of Arabs in exile, and Persians, and Turks, and who else kept up with Ann K. S. Lambton, and has informants in Iran, and the French Parliament, and so on? But in the end, he still doesn't quite see Islam as it is, see the primitive masses for what they are, has failed to see that the secular Turks he knew and knows, even they are now unsettled and on the run, and Lewis knows that Islam will, unless quite a different strategy is offred, take over in Europe.

But he cannot offer it himself, because he is unwilling, even now, when he has absolutely nothing to lose, to explain that he was wrong, just the way that S. D. Goitein, in his own introduction to "A Mediterranean Society," publicly declared that his study of the contents of the Cairo Geniza had changed his lifelong belief in the triviality of the Jizyah, and his understanding of the treatment of Jews in Arab Muslim societies. An admission that Lewis would do well to emulate. But he won't. For all of his learning, and all of his cultivation, at this time of Western imperilment, and Muslim aggression and conduct of Jihad in a hundred ways that go far beyond acts of terrorism, Bernard Lewis cannot rise to the occasion, to what the menace demands. He doesn't quite know how.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 4:58 PM

ISLAMSFORLOSERS,

"The culture of Islamania is indeed brittle. That bunch has a huge inferiority complex and for good reason-their "culture" IS inferior. Look at how they live in the ummah, the constant immigration out of (never into) their cesspoolian nations, the reaching for a knife at the slightest "insult", the general propensity for violence, the fact that they have elevated a deeply flawed man into a virtual god (smelling like polytheism) by constantly following in his footsteps- all of this is ridiculous in infidel eyes because that's exactly what it is-ridiculous. The Koranists know all this-that's why they try to tear down Western civilization in ways great and small, violently and otherwise. This is their defense of their "culture"-always attacking a superior one in order to deflect attention from the obvious flaws they have in their own. If they can't convert it, then they must destroy it, so that there is no yardstick to measure Islamania unfavorably against. Unless a reformation takes place regarding the Koran (unlikely since those who would attempt it will be killed) this inferiority complex will continue to be a problem-much to the detriment of infidels everywhere"

In other words, to be able to make the superior look inferior via "projecting themselves".

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 3, 2007 5:04 PM

"(smelling like polytheism)"

I'll take polytheism over Islam any day.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 3, 2007 5:51 PM

“But above all, there must be a discussion of the origins of Islam, as a geopolitcal cult.

For Islam itself is far more brittle than Christianity or Judaism, and it cannot stand scrutiny or historical analysis in the same way: it is really a case of accepting the whole thing (all Muslims must be, or must pretend to be, literalists about Qur'an and hadith, and about the unedifying life of one "Muhammad"…”

Posted by: Hugh at May 20, 2004 4:12 PM

Hugh,

I have mentioned 2 leaflets that I use when discussing Islam with the uninformed. The first contains 20 selected verses from the Qur’an (9:5, 9:111, 9:123, 3:195, etc.) and the second is an abbreviated biography of Muhammad.

In my brief discussion with a new acquaintance, I explain the contents of the leaflets and that the source is strictly Islamic (Qur’an, Hadith, Sirat,). I also mention that in order to really understand Islam and know why it is the way it is, you need to know who Muhammad was and what he did.

At first exposure, when a person sees the many exhortations in the Qur’an to murder, plunder, lie and so forth, the normal human reaction is a bit of disbelief – how could a RELIGION be so evil? Surely there must be some mistake. Once one learns that Muhammad took a 9 year old “wife”, had numerous people assassinated, tortured a captive for information on treasure and then raped his wife, killed the men of entire captive tribes and took their women and children as slaves – then Islam makes perfect sense.

The 2 leaflets thus work in perfect coordination, one providing some of the content of Islam and the other providing the context and the reasons for why Islam is the way it is.

(I would be most honored and delighted if you or Robert could review these leaflets, particularly the one on Muhammad)

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 3, 2007 6:39 PM

Meanwhile, the humorous treatment of this kind of barbarity runs the risk of undermining the seriousness with which it should be taken in the West. The answer to this type of insane fanaticism isn't humor, it's firepower - overwhelming amounts of it, liberally applied."
-- from a posting above

Both are necessary. Combat, to make sure that no Muslim state or statelet or people or group or people acquires major weaponry, usually called "weapons of mass destruction," or if it has acquired such weapons, as Pakistan was, in a fit of criminal negligence by the Western powers, allowed to do, to make sure that those weapons never are used, never allowed out of Pakistan, and that are destroyed if there is a hint of their being transferred, and all delivery systems should be monitored and, when necessary, crippled. But there are a billion Muslims. We don't have the weaponry or men to invade their countries, and even if they were to be defeated, Islam would remain in their minds, and keep coming back.

What is necessary is to identify, and cultivate, those weaknesses that already exist within the camp of Islam, and to find others that do not as yet exist but can be made to exist. The resentment by non-Arab Muslims of Arab Muslims, and Arab supremacism, can be pointed out, again and again, and the sources of that Arab supremacism to be found in Islam, noted – so that Islam is seen not only by Infidels, but by at least some of the 80% of the world’s Muslims who are not Arab, as a vehicle of Arab imperialism.

The long dispute between Sunnis and Shi’a that in the past often flared up into open warfare, and which can be seen today in Sunni attacks on Shi’a, and not only in Iraq, and Shi’a attacks on Sunnis, and not only in Iran, constitutes another pre-existing fissure within Islam.

The split between the rich Arabs and the poor Arabs, too, is a potential source of friction within the Camp of Islam. Why do the Saudis, and those in Kuwait and in the Emirates and Qatar, not share their wealth – really share it, not just hand out paltry sums, usually to other Muslim rulers whose loyalty they wish to rent – with the oil-poor Arabs, and even with the resource-poor Pakistanis, and all the other non-Arab Muslims who are running out of oil, or never had it in the first place?

And why should we not keep up a propaganda campaign to convince both Infidels and Muslims that Islam itself suffocates human potential – artistic and scientific potential, for it limits artistic expression to architecture and calligraphy, bans most forms of music, and encourages the habit of mental submission, while discouraging the habit of free and skeptical inquiry which undergirds the enterprise of science. Would it not be intelligent to explain to Muslims and non-Muslims what Art and Science are like in Islamic lands, because of what Islam inculcates? Should we not harp on this every chance we get?

That’s a start. There’s much more.

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 8:37 PM

"Davegreybeard":

Why not email information about those pamphlets to Robert?

Posted by: Hugh at December 3, 2007 8:47 PM

psychological insecurity. Rude aggression and wild rage, too, are usually not the normal behaviour of a self-confident person, but rather of someone who knows that he will lose an argument unless he can bully others into silence
hmmm is that not what cults try to do

Posted by: grizlybear at December 3, 2007 9:28 PM

Hugh,

Thank you for your reply.

Robert has said he does not open attachments to emails. Would Robert make an exception in this case? These are single page, two sided, so they are not very large.

I have had quite a good response to these, but I would feel very much better if an expert on the subject had reviewed them.

Sincerely,
Dave

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 3, 2007 9:40 PM

This case highlights one aspect of Islam that is never discussed. This is my own impression, from my own reading of pro-Islam web sites, articles written by Muslims, and discussions with people who claim to be Muslims. These discussions have all been on public message boards. I know no Muslims in real life and have never talked to a Muslim face to face. That fact is always used as a criticism by people who claim that they do know Muslims and so my opinion doesn't count. But whenever I have asked these people if they have ever discussed Islam with all these swell Muslims they claim to know the answer is always "no".

Islam is different from all other religions in one basic way: it is entirely centered on the self. Every single thing that a person could possibly want can be had by being a Muslim. Islam appeals to human nature in such a way that anyone searching for anything can find it in Islam, and Islam gives anyone the justification for doing, and getting, anything they want.

Gibbons was reported by an adult female office worker in her school that she had apparently clashed with in the past. Judging by the statements she has made, it's hard to believe Gibbons has ever clashed with anyone, but that's what I read. She was turned in to the local Islamic authorities by a female worker in her school.

Because Islam is centered on the self, any offense taken by anyone for any reason can be seen as an offense to Islam. You piss me off? Gimme a minute and I'll find something in the Islamic texts I can use against you.

Muslims take it personally because it is personal. Islam allows a Muslim man to do anything he wants, to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, as long as he can say it is in defense of Islam. And everything is in defense of Islam because Islam is so closely connected to a Muslim persons own likes and dislikes.

When you couple that with the notion that Muslim unity is important above all else, then you have a mob.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 3, 2007 10:00 PM

Embarrassed? Or concerned that the infidels are becoming uncomfortably aware of the core beliefs of Islam? This is a big, big problem for them, and they know it. The term, I believe, is "damage control".

Posted by: special_guest at December 3, 2007 2:31 PM

I totally agree with special_guest on this one. Islam does not have enough eyes to offset the blackening of them all recently, interms of negative PR.

I am sure the actions of the Islamists have a large part to play in that reality, but JW is always an effective booster.

Posted by: awake at December 3, 2007 10:56 PM

duh swami,

Wassa matta widya, kid? Don'cha know? (Hugh remembers this.) SNOWBALL, ya say? It wass SUMMA' IN SARAJEVO! Sees, in 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir t'da Austro-Hungarian t'rone WAS FELLED BY A TEDDY-BEAR WIELDING ASSASIN armed wid' a SCIMITAR! Sheeesh, don'tdey teachya's nuthin' in schools d'ese days?!

Posted by: John C at December 4, 2007 2:44 AM

Davegreybeard said

Robert has said he does not open attachments to emails. Would Robert make an exception in this case? These are single page, two sided, so they are not very large.

So why not just post/email the text (as opposed to a formatted document)? Why does it have to be an attachment? Cut-and-paste.

Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2007 2:55 AM

I hope all the Freedom loving non-Muslims take a good look at this example of the Future if Islam is allowed to spread it's Cancer to all parts of the Earth .

This is what is waiting for all those Left Wing femiNazis that now align themselves with the Militant Islamists on our Campuses because they have a common goal to hate Bush and America at every chance they get.
Plus , the Gay groups have been taken for fools as well because CAIR has managed to hide behind a "Human Rights" banner as a oppressed "Race" that suffers from a Global attack by Islamophobes and Racists.

Posted by: ala-sux at December 4, 2007 3:32 AM

http://broadband.thecomedynetwork.ca/comedy/?sid=86

You have got to catch this part of a TV show from the 1st Season , it's in the Internet in 3 parts and if you click the >I forward button in the panel menu for the Player it will jump to part 2 , then drag the Slide button to the 5:30 mark and watch a Teddy bear get whipped for not being submissive .

I remember this clip because I have the DVD for Season 1 .

Posted by: ala-sux at December 4, 2007 4:26 AM

OOOOps

Sorry folks , the link is for the player to watch Season 1 , you'll have to scroll down the the Picyure menu on the right and look for EP.110
with Rocko the Dog and Button the Bear standing next to a Satellite Dish in the box.

Then click on that video , the intro after the Credits will be a toilet flushing then a arguement with Dan and Bill.

The Bear flogging starts at the 4:00 mark but the 5:30 point will look more relavent .

Posted by: ala-sux at December 4, 2007 4:41 AM

Allah reminisces: "I had a pet once. I called him Mohammad. He was a pretty useless creature. I just couldn't get him to obey me. Instead he obeyed my nasty, no-goodnik neighbor, Shaitan, who I must admit, looked a lot like me. I would tell Mohammad to stay in the yard, and leave all the neighbors alone. But my neighbor told him to go into the other neighbors' yards and take whatever he wanted and that stupid Mohammad would obey him. The other neighbors were getting pretty angry with me, and I couldn't blame them. I tried everything. I gave him the best food and drink -- suckling pig, smoked ham, tangy sausages, fine wine, and refreshing ale -- and all the females he could want, and a big pack of followers to play with. It didn't help: he refused to eat or drink much of what I gave him, he beat up the females, and killed some of his playmates. In the end I got rid of him; I sent him down to Earth, where I figured the humans would know how to deal with him. Occasionally I wonder whatever happened to him; maybe I'll take another look at Earth some day and see.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 4, 2007 11:51 AM

Jaynie59 --

"Islam is different from all other religions in one basic way: it is entirely centered on the self"

Very true -- your post was great!

Posted by: champ at December 4, 2007 2:21 PM