Death to What’s-His-Name!

May 10, 2011

Yeah, I’d say it kind of spoils your big moment on TV when you pronounce death on the President of the United States … and can’t remember his name:

More seriously, while this is the usual (and not all that well done) condemnation of the Great Satan for killing a noble mujahideen (and sociopathic mass-murderer), note Sheikh Sa’id’s justification: that Obama is a Muslim who has left the faith and therefore, as an apostate, must die:

“Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” —Bukhari 9:83:37

This just goes to show that the “Obama is a Muslim” myth(1) has spread far and wide, even to faraway Sudan, and will probably never die. But I can see where Sa’id is coming from: Obama’s father was a (non-practicing) Muslim and, under Islamic law, if you are born to a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. (Daniel Pipes has a good discussion of this.) Practicing Islam doesn’t make a difference, so, in Sa’id’s view, it’s not unreasonable(2) to accuse Obama of being a murtadd — an apostate. That modern Christianity largely sees membership as a matter of some form of baptism and active profession of faith doesn’t matter; after all, as it says in the Qur’an, Christians are the ones who have “gone astray.”(3)

So… Death to What’s-his-name!

(1) For what it’s worth, I’ve never bought into that; it’s just a variant on the “Manchurian Candidate” meme. If Obama is drawn to any religion, its the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, which meshes well with Obama’s Socialist politics.

(2) To a totalitarian mind straight out of the Middle Ages, that is.

(3) That passage is generally interpreted to mean the Jews (“…those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down…”) and the Christians (“…those who go astray.”)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Teddy Bear of Blasphemy(tm) update

December 4, 2007

It seems the Islamist Sudanese government came to their senses and released teacher Gillian Gibbons early.

To quote the great Bugs Bunny, “What a bunch of maroons!”

More about the Teddy Bear of Blasphemy

December 1, 2007

It seems those peaceful, tolerant demonstrators calling for the death of teacher Gillian Gibbons were working for the Sudanese government:

The protesters, some carrying swords, screamed, “Shame, shame on the U.K.!” and, “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

They were calling for the death of Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in jail. Under Sudanese law, she could have spent six months behind bars and received 40 lashes.

Despite the display of outrage, witnesses said that many of the protesters were government employees ordered to demonstrate, and that aside from a large gathering outside the presidential palace, most of Khartoum was quiet.

The article fairly points out that, while imams across the city denounced naming the toy "Muhammad," few called for the head of Ms. Gibbons. Still, their drawing of an equivalence between the name given a stuffed animal by children on the one hand and idolatry on the other is asinine. Nor, given events of recent years or the treatment of non-Islamic people under Islamic law, does this do anything to change my opinion of Islam as a tolerant religion.

It isn’t.

This does throw another light on the affair, however. As the Times article points out, Gillian Gibbons may be a pawn in the chess game between the international community and Sudan over Sudanese depredations in Darfur:

It seems that Ms. Gibbons and the teddy bear became enmeshed in the larger struggle between the Sudanese government, which routinely accuses its Western critics of being anti-Islamic, and European and American officials pressing for an end to the crisis in Darfur.

In early November, Sudanese officials said that peacekeepers from Scandinavia could not serve in Darfur, the troubled region of western Sudan, because of a dispute two years ago, when several Scandinavian newspapers published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

United Nations officials have said that the Sudanese government was simply looking for ways to block or delay the deployment of an expanded peacekeeping force. This week, United Nations officials said that unless the Sudanese government started cooperating, the expanded mission might not be possible.

The Arab-dominated government of Sudan has been engaged in a genocidal pogrom against the Black African (and Muslim) population of Darfur for several years, now, using the Janjaweed militias as proxies. Faced with growing international pressure to accept a peacekeeping force, the government has agreed, but raises objection after objection to stall its implementation, as with the above-mentioned Scandinavian participation. If the Times article is correct, then Ms. Gibbons’ predicament is another attempt by the Islamist government of Sudan to play the "insult to Islam" card in order to work up popular sentiment against intervention in Darfur.

All it has done instead by picking on a middle-aged schoolteacher is to show its own barbaric nature and expose Islam to further opprobrium in the West.

LINKS: More at LGF, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Contentions. Power Line comments on the madness in Sudan and points out where you can buy your own Teddy Muhammad.


Teddy Muhammad

About that Religion of Tolerance(tm)

November 30, 2007

No doubt most of you have heard of the Dread Teddy Bear of Blasphemy incident: a British teacher in Sudan charged under the Dark Ages, barbaric Sharia code of Islamic law with blasphemy for letting her Muslim grammar-school students name a teddy bear "Muhammad." (A very common name in Islamic countries, such as Sudan or Great Britain.) The punishments she faced ranged from a fine and banishment to a whipping or death. She was (relatively) lucky, however, being sentenced "only" to 15 days in jail and deportation.

But that’s not enough for some people. Hundreds of peaceful, tolerant followers of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance(tm) demanded her execution:

Hundreds of protesters brandishing ceremonial swords and sticks gathered outside Khartoum’s presidential palace Friday to vent their anger against a British teacher jailed for allowing children to name a teddy bear "Mohammed."

At least 600 Islamic demonstrators spilled out of mosques after prayers, chanting: "By soul, by blood, I will fight for the Prophet Mohammed."

Some of the protesters demanded the teacher’s execution, according to The Associated Press. The agency reports that some chanted: "No tolerance: Execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

Let’s see…. A woman in Saudi Arabia is sentenced to 200 lashes after she is the victim of a gang rape because, under Sharia law, she was alone with a man who was not her relative. Cartoonists in Denmark and Sweden are threatened with death after drawing satirical cartoons of Muhammad. Now a schoolteacher who only wanted to teach her 7-year old pupils about bears has been dragged into a medieval kangaroo court and sits in a jail wondering if the howling mob outside won’t yet get their wish.

Religion of Peace? Religion of Tolerance? Why don’t you ask this guy?

rage boy

UPDATE: This is the address for the Embassy of Sudan in the US:

2210 Massachusetts Avenue,
                  NW 20008

How about sending them a teddy bear?

LINKS: More at Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Blue Crab Boulevard, Contentions, and LGF (here, too).

Why am I not surprised?

July 31, 2007

According to the Defense Minister of Sudan, the masterminds behind the massacres in Darfur* are …wait for it… the Jews!!!

I’m shocked it never occurred to me before.

*(Darfur? You know. That place where Arab Muslim militias are massacring Black-African Muslim villagers for their land. All at the behest of the Jews, of course.)

(hat tip: Contentions)

Technorati tags: , , ,

Trivializing a tragedy

June 21, 2007

I have a hard time believing the man said this with a straight face, but UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon blamed the ethnic cleansing in Darfur on global warming:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.

When Darfur’s land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said.

With the drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing.

"For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out," he said.

OK, let’s leave out the leap in logic Ban made to assume the rise in Indian Ocean temperatures were anthropogenic in nature. Suffice it to say for now that the "scientific consensus" on man-caused climate change is anything but.

Secretary-General Ban is guilty of two monstrous misrepresentations here: first, by blaming the jihad  in Darfur on climate change, he removes any responsibility for the burnings, rapes, and killings from those committing them — the Arab Muslim Janjaweed militias, which receive direct support from the Sudanese government and indirect support from the Chinese, who support that government by guarding their oil fields and pipelines. By making humanity –in other words, everyone– responsible, Ban makes no one responsible.

Second, in the classic twisted logic of appeasers everywhere, he then blames the victim! In Ban’s world, by fencing in their lands, the Black African farmers provoked the nomadic Arab herders, leading to the violence. Although he would never come out and say it, his words imply the farmers brought this on themselves.

The insipid cluelessness displayed by the UN’s top clerk is astounding, but not surprising. His predecessors were capable of equally vapid attempts to avoid hard facts.

Here’s a clue for you, Mr. Secretary-General: I agree with you that the climate change in Northeast Africa has caused hardship, even if I don’t agree about anthropogenesis. However, the only ones responsible for the massacres in Darfur are the Islamofascist militias, their patrons in the Islamist government of Sudan, and their enablers in Beijing. Climate change is a fact, but it was the choice of Islamists in Sudan to kill darker-skinned Sudanese and take their lands.

By ignoring the real cause of the problem, Mr. Secretary-General, you only prolong the killing.

LINKS: More at Little Green Footballs and Roger L. Simon, who thinks Ban is doing more for the Darfuris than his predecessor. That’s an awfully low bar.