What would you call a teddy bear?
Posted by: BigH47 on 29 November 2007
?
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by DIL
I've been trying to follow this 'teddy bear called Mohamed' story and thus far have seen nothing written that actually explains what great sin has been committed. An insult to Islam yes, but why?
OK, I'll be the first to admit that I am not up to speed on the ins and outs of Islam, what is OK and what is not OK, and I'm probably not alone in this. Can some one explain?
Is it the fact that it is an inanimate object that has been named? Is it Islam the forbids the depiction of humans and animals, so lots of geometric patterns in their art, right? So are cuddly toys OK. Are Barbie dolls big sellers in the middle east? Picture books in schools? What about photographs? TV? Anyone care to put me right here, or is this just a (sick) political game that is being played and there is no consistant interpretation, just the one that suits the circumstances?
/dl
OK, I'll be the first to admit that I am not up to speed on the ins and outs of Islam, what is OK and what is not OK, and I'm probably not alone in this. Can some one explain?
Is it the fact that it is an inanimate object that has been named? Is it Islam the forbids the depiction of humans and animals, so lots of geometric patterns in their art, right? So are cuddly toys OK. Are Barbie dolls big sellers in the middle east? Picture books in schools? What about photographs? TV? Anyone care to put me right here, or is this just a (sick) political game that is being played and there is no consistant interpretation, just the one that suits the circumstances?
/dl
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by BigH47
Idolatry is the quoted reason I heard. Remember the earlier fuss about the mohammed cartoon?
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by Analogue
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
?
Theodore?
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by DIL
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
Idolatry is the quoted reason I heard. Remember the earlier fuss about the mohammed cartoon?
So are teddy bears OK as long as they aren't called Mohamed?
/dl
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by David Legge:
So are teddy bears OK as long as they aren't called Mohamed?
So it seems. Fuck me, this would be funny if it wasn't true.
EW
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by Beano
The naming of a soft toy “Muhammad” is not an incitement to hatred. But, the Sudanese Government are ridiculing Islam by pretending that it is, and as such “Conservative Islam” will be given a bad name by this incident. At least we know now that some of the Sudanese population are willing to protest about something so disproportionate and comedic however absurd it may seem to us British, in reality it’s a serious situation.
Anyhow, this little fellow is no longer on sale… http://www.simplyislam.com/iteminfo.asp?Item=56174
Adam, named after Islam's first (as opposed to its last) prophet has sadly been discontinued despite its popularity. However, he was certainly a bear of some considerable brain:
*He's Different…He's Unique
*Ideal learning tool for young Muslims
*Press his paws and ears
*Six Different Islamic sayings in Arabic with English Translation
*Have fun learning Islam with Adam
Size: Height is 11"
The sayings are:
01 Allah-o-Akbar
02 La-illaha ilallah Mohammad ar rasulullah
03 Asalam-o-alaikumwa rahmatullah
04 Al-humdullilah
05 Bismillah ar Rahman nirahim
06 Subhanallah
Absent the religion, would this incident of occurred at all?
Beano
Anyhow, this little fellow is no longer on sale… http://www.simplyislam.com/iteminfo.asp?Item=56174
Adam, named after Islam's first (as opposed to its last) prophet has sadly been discontinued despite its popularity. However, he was certainly a bear of some considerable brain:
*He's Different…He's Unique
*Ideal learning tool for young Muslims
*Press his paws and ears
*Six Different Islamic sayings in Arabic with English Translation
*Have fun learning Islam with Adam
Size: Height is 11"
The sayings are:
01 Allah-o-Akbar
02 La-illaha ilallah Mohammad ar rasulullah
03 Asalam-o-alaikumwa rahmatullah
04 Al-humdullilah
05 Bismillah ar Rahman nirahim
06 Subhanallah
Absent the religion, would this incident of occurred at all?
Beano
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by u5227470736789439
It makes me question whether the non-Muslim, secular Western countries have any further interest in trying to give aid to peoples who so obviouusly have a dislike of our customes and culture.
There is no reason to try to convert them to liberal ways, and there are enough rich countries who could fill in the aid for them, and who share their cultural values.
Sincerely, George
There is no reason to try to convert them to liberal ways, and there are enough rich countries who could fill in the aid for them, and who share their cultural values.
Sincerely, George
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by BigH47
quote:There is no reason to try to convert them to liberal ways, and there are enough rich countries who could fill in the aid for them, and who share their cultural values.
Which is what the west (US) is trying to stop.
Think cold war domino effect with communism. Islam is the new communism.
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by droodzilla
quote:Islam is the new communism
yeah, funny that innit?
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by KenM
The people calling for the death of Mrs. Gibbons are just animals. All societies have them. Remember doctors in the USA being shot for carrying out (legal) abortions? Remember the disgraceful campaign against suspected or imagined paedophiles in the UK? The "teddy bear" affair has little or nothing to do with religion. It's just thuggery.
Ken
Ken
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Deane F
*
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
It makes me question whether the non-Muslim, secular Western countries have any further interest in trying to give aid to peoples who so obviouusly have a dislike of our customes and culture.
I thought that foreign aid was based on humanitarianism being part of the culture and customs of the West - rather than on whether the people in need of it liked our customs or culture.
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Howard,
Would you think that a more reasonable comparison than between Islam, and Communism, might be the one between Islam and Christianity?
My feeling is that Communism has proved to be unsustainable as a system, and failed, whereas Islam has survived and flourished [as a religion] for a millenium so far, and Christianity for two millenia.
As Christianity entered its second millennium it produced the Crusades. What a terrible thought that Islam may also be moving into such a phase, but it does look to be a possibility ...
In this way it may be necessary to accept the cultural values and notions of Islamic peoples as indeed being those of a fearful foe, and actually to face them off with considerable vigour.
It may well be sensible to keep friendly relations as far as possible, but we should not forget the Messianic nature of Islam, and the fact that without question there are elements in it that will not rest until the whole world is subjected to Sharia Law by whatever means, whether the peoples thus governed are Islamic or not. We certainly need to retain enough respect to allow Islamic peoples to follow their customs and cultures in their own countries, as they see fit, and however repugnant they may be to us, but we must utterly ensure that these customs and cultural values are not imported here forced on us in the Liberal West. If Islamic peoples move here there is absolutley no reason why they should import their most contemptible customs with them in my view. I am no multi-culturalist.
"When in Rome," as the saying goes, "do as the Romans do."
ATB from George
Would you think that a more reasonable comparison than between Islam, and Communism, might be the one between Islam and Christianity?
My feeling is that Communism has proved to be unsustainable as a system, and failed, whereas Islam has survived and flourished [as a religion] for a millenium so far, and Christianity for two millenia.
As Christianity entered its second millennium it produced the Crusades. What a terrible thought that Islam may also be moving into such a phase, but it does look to be a possibility ...
In this way it may be necessary to accept the cultural values and notions of Islamic peoples as indeed being those of a fearful foe, and actually to face them off with considerable vigour.
It may well be sensible to keep friendly relations as far as possible, but we should not forget the Messianic nature of Islam, and the fact that without question there are elements in it that will not rest until the whole world is subjected to Sharia Law by whatever means, whether the peoples thus governed are Islamic or not. We certainly need to retain enough respect to allow Islamic peoples to follow their customs and cultures in their own countries, as they see fit, and however repugnant they may be to us, but we must utterly ensure that these customs and cultural values are not imported here forced on us in the Liberal West. If Islamic peoples move here there is absolutley no reason why they should import their most contemptible customs with them in my view. I am no multi-culturalist.
"When in Rome," as the saying goes, "do as the Romans do."
ATB from George
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
I thought that foreign aid was based on humanitarianism being part of the culture and customs of the West - rather than on whether the people in need of it liked our customs or culture.
Quite right, and I totally agree, but if it is effectively thrown back in the face of the giver by some countries, as has been done in this case with the inprisonment of a teacher on the most rediculous trumped up case, or sponsoring terrorism and so forth, then one must eventually question the wisdom of this aiding. I question it, and have no problem saying so. Islam seems to be moving into a militant phase, and you may say that this is justified.
I would say nothing justifies terrorism, and this only follows from my previous post from a few minutes ago. These are the actions of a fearful foe, indeed, and what worries me is that the so called mainstream Islam leaders do little if anything to try to alter the ways of the extremists. Thus I take it that they either agree with the extremists, or that they do not care that much about such actions. We should think carefully about the way we aid and interact with Islamic countries, and base our degree and style of aid on their reciprocated behaviour towards us.
ATB from George
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by 7V
quote:The idea of cutting UK aid to Sudan has been mooted as a possible retaliatory measure for Ms Gibbons's detention.
Perhaps surprisingly, nothing would please the hardliners more.
Throughout the Darfur conflict, Sudanese officials have accused donor countries of perpetuating the crisis with their aid, rather than reducing its severity.
The reason why the UK and the West feeds about four million Darfuris every day is not because the Sudanese government is too poor to do so itself.
On the contrary - Khartoum receives billions of dollars a year in oil revenue.
It just believes its priorities lie elsewhere.
The uncomfortable truth is that if the estimated billion dollars a year in Western aid dried up, the food would stop too - with potentially serious consequences for the millions of victims of the conflict.
Jonah Fisher - BBC News
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by JamieWednesday
quote:Jonah Fisher - BBC News
Yeah I read that, very interesting and articulate article for the brief amount of space (& opinion) usually available on the BBC news site
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
I thought that foreign aid was based on humanitarianism being part of the culture and customs of the West - rather than on whether the people in need of it liked our customs or culture.
Yes, but as George is saying - in not so many words - giving succor to those who wish to assail you isn't very clever. We are having the proverbial taken out of us.
EW
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Onthlam
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this? I am not sure the name itself is the big issue here.I think that it was more the fact that a teddy bear is an American thing. This is the issue.
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by droodzilla
quote:giving succor to those who wish to assail you isn't very clever
Perhaps, in matters of humanitarian aid, we must aspire to be more than merely "clever"?
quote:We are having the proverbial taken out of us.
Maybe, but let's not take it personally, eh?
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by droodzilla:quote:giving succor to those who wish to assail you isn't very clever
Perhaps, in matters of humanitarian aid, we must aspire to be more than merely "clever"?
Indeed. There's also a case for being judicious...
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by 7V
So, let the enemies of the state starve because we've fallen out with the state?
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by 7V:
So, let the enemies of the state starve because we've fallen out with the state?
Let the enemies of the nation starve because, um, they're our enemies...?
Look, there are millions of people in the world - both within our country and without - who need aid of one sort or another. We can't help them all. Certain kinds of behavior should bump one right down to the bottom of the queue, that's all I'm saying, as it's likely people will take the view others are more deserving.
EW
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by u5227470736789439
"On the contrary - Khartoum receives billions of dollars a year in oil revenue."
In which case there certainly are more worthy cases for our aid than this one. Or should we revert to a Colonial position where we decide what governance countries we disagree with actually have. At the bottom of the previous page I give a reason why that is not the case. It is a question of respecting other and different cultures enough to let them have the freedom to pursue their own ideals in running their own countries. We did not oppose the Collectivisation of Agriculture in Russia in the 1930s. That was their business, though we would see it as a horrible thing.
When it comes to civil war then it remains my view that getting stuck in as a third party only prolongs the agony. Let it burn itself out in short order, and then move on. [In practice this is exactly what we did in Zimbabwe, and I don't recall too much objection to that]. Assistance should come from countries from which it would be gratefully received - countries who have a similar cultural outlook, and some are indeed wealthy enough to do so without difficulty. Or even the UN if that organisation would be welcomed.
We must avoid a new Colonialism based on some highhanded ideal related to our own very different cultural values, which are clearly inimical to those we have been trying to aid. If they wanted our help, then the response would be gratitude and not animus. The answer to this is clear.
Sincerely, George
In which case there certainly are more worthy cases for our aid than this one. Or should we revert to a Colonial position where we decide what governance countries we disagree with actually have. At the bottom of the previous page I give a reason why that is not the case. It is a question of respecting other and different cultures enough to let them have the freedom to pursue their own ideals in running their own countries. We did not oppose the Collectivisation of Agriculture in Russia in the 1930s. That was their business, though we would see it as a horrible thing.
When it comes to civil war then it remains my view that getting stuck in as a third party only prolongs the agony. Let it burn itself out in short order, and then move on. [In practice this is exactly what we did in Zimbabwe, and I don't recall too much objection to that]. Assistance should come from countries from which it would be gratefully received - countries who have a similar cultural outlook, and some are indeed wealthy enough to do so without difficulty. Or even the UN if that organisation would be welcomed.
We must avoid a new Colonialism based on some highhanded ideal related to our own very different cultural values, which are clearly inimical to those we have been trying to aid. If they wanted our help, then the response would be gratitude and not animus. The answer to this is clear.
Sincerely, George
Posted on: 02 December 2007 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:In which case there certainly are more worthy cases for our aid than this one.
Aid is given to people not nations in my opinion. The people who die are the ordinary africans, in grinding poverty and battered by war and disease. They are also the victims of religious fanatacism as much as anything else.
One of the key goals of LiveAid was to give aid wherever possible direct to communities rather than nation states. Doing the latter means that the aid itself can become a weapon, or just be used by the corrupt. These lessons have largely been learned by aid agencies ever since-although it is difficult. It seems to me that government aid from the UK is often used for political leverage rather than direct action. Perhaps this is a useful bargaining counter but I'm not always sure.
I'll not stop giving to the victims of Darfur because 'Sudan' has acted in this way. The starving have nothing to do with it, and up to 1/2 million Sudanese have died without generating 1 percent of the column inches devoted to a foolish teacher, and her publicity hungry (but otherwise well-fed) prosecutors.
Bruce
Posted on: 03 December 2007 by 7V
Well said, Bruce.
Earwicker, I was referring to the enemies of the Sudanese state, the oppressed people of Darfur. I don't see why they should be made to suffer even further because we've become pissed off with the Sudanese government.
Earwicker, I was referring to the enemies of the Sudanese state, the oppressed people of Darfur. I don't see why they should be made to suffer even further because we've become pissed off with the Sudanese government.