When Gillian Gibbons set out to have her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear I am certain that she did not have in mind seeing the inside of a Sudanese prison.
Yet this is precisely what happened to Ms. Gibbons when her class named the bear Muhammad and then wrote a journal about him. When the children told their parents about the assignment they were aghast and reported Ms. Gibbons to the authorities. Never mind that those same parents saw fit to name their sons Muhammad. The 54-year-old schoolteacher from Liverpool was arrested and charged with blaspheming Islam and inciting religious hatred. The only hatred here was on the part of the parents and authorities who turned a children’s teddy bear into an instrument of jihad.
Not surprisingly, Gibbons was swiftly convicted. While the charge of incitement was dropped she was convicted “of insulting the faith of Muslims in Sudan.” Gibbons could have faced a fine, six months in prison and most egregiously forty lashes. But no doubt even the Sudanese government knew the specter of a middle aged white woman from England being lashed would have made them look like the monsters they truly are. So Gibbons was instead sentenced to 15 days in jail (including the five days she had served prior to her trial) and is to be deported back to Britain at the conclusion of the sentence.
Lashing or not, this verdict should come as little surprise. If Sudan is prepared to murder millions of its own people it certainly has no compunction about jailing a middle aged female schoolteacher. It is a lash of civilizations.
There is the consolation that Gibbons gets to leave Sudan and go home. The same cannot be said of the 19-year-old woman in Saudi Arabia who was gang-raped and sentenced to receive 90 lashes. When her lawyer had the temerity to appeal her sentence, the punishment was increased to 200 lashes. Of course, her rapists saw their sentences increase as well. But all this tells me is that Sharia law cannot discern between aggressor and victim. The Saudis called the woman an adulterer. In the eyes of Sharia law, she is as much of a criminal as the men who raped her.
It is very likely that being from England, as well as her age and gender, saved her from a harsher sentence. There is little doubt if Gibbons were Sudanese and from the Fur or Zaghawa tribes she would have received a much harsher sentence and without much fanfare. Some might argue that Gibbons was in a foreign country and failed to appreciate its laws and customs. Perhaps. Yet it is worth noting that Rabie A. Ratti, a Sudanese government spokesman, said Gibbons got off very lightly and told The New York Times, “It should be considered a warning that such acts should not be repeated.” And what acts would those be? Choosing name shared by a majority of the class? The sight of children engaging in an act of democracy? Or being a woman in a position of authority?
This goes beyond mere respect of custom and tradition. Islam demands submission and Sharia law is the mechanism by which this subjugation is enforced. Don’t think for a moment that Islamists wouldn’t love to have America, Britain and the rest of the world under Sharia’s shackles. Of course, this might not come to pass but then again it could. It is not a far fetched proposition that a British schoolteacher could one day face in Kent what Gibbons faced in Khartoum. If British schoolteachers can be discouraged from teaching the Holocaust or talking about Winston Churchill they can surely be discouraged from teaching other subjects thought to offend Islam.
How else does one explain the likes of Abu Izzadeen? Born Trevor Brooks, he converted to Islam from Christianity in the mid-1990s. Izzadeen is a disciple of Omar Bakri Muhammad, an individual who praised the September 11th attackers as “magnificent.” Izzadeen gained notoriety in September 2006 when he publicly heckled then Home Secretary John Reid. Izzadeen told Reid, “How dare you come here to a Muslim area.” After being ejected from the meeting, Izzadeen declared, “We’re not British Muslims.” Two days after the incident, Izzadeen told John Humphrys of BBC Radio 4 that Britain should abandon democracy and become an Islamic state. Consider this exchange between Humphrys and Izzadeen:
HUMPHRYS: If this country is so offensive to you…you don’t have to stay here you can go somewhere where there is Islamic law.
IZZADEEN: You have misunderstood the reality. As a Muslim I believe Allah…created whole universe; he created the UK. It doesn’t belong to you, it doesn’t belong to the Queen, it doesn’t belong to the Anglo-Saxons…Allah has put us on planet earth to live wherever we want and implement the Sharia rules.
HUMPHRYS: You want Sharia law in this country? If you want to change the way this country functions, why can you not do it in a democratic way?
IZZADEEN: Democracy means sovereignty for man; and as a Muslim, we believe sovereignty for the Sharia, therefore I would never take part in democratic principles. Rather I will work to change society in accordance with Islamic methodology.
HUMPHRYS: You will not observe the democratic process?
IZZADEEN: We observe Islamic rules wherever we are.
HUMPHRYS: The Islamic process but not the democratic process?
IZZADEEN: That’s right, yes.
As deplorable as Izzadeen’s message is I must commend him for his honesty. No sugarcoating here. Izzadeen believes Allah created the whole universe to be governed by Sharia law and that all of humanity must kneel before it. The same candor could be said of his associate Anjem Choudary, who also heckled Reid at the same meeting. Choudary said, “Muslims have their own set of values – they do not need British values. We believe Islam is superior; we believe Islam will be implemented one day.”
In April 2007, Izzadeen was arrested and charged with violating the Terrorism Act for inciting others to commit terrorist acts overseas and fundraising for terrorist organizations. For its part, the Muslim Council of Britain has publicly denounced Izzadeen. Its press officer, Inayat Bunglawala, called Izzadeen “a thug.” But the Muslim Council of Britain opposes Britain’s efforts against terrorism almost every bit as vigorously as Izzadeen.
After the British House of Commons passed the Terrorism Act of 2006, the Muslim Council of Britain released a statement opposing a provision in the Act known as the “glorification clause.” The provision prohibits the glorification of past terrorist acts that are intended to incite people into committing future acts of terrorism. Those who violate this law could face up to seven years in prison. This provision had been removed from the Terrorism Act by the House of Lords but was later reinstated by the House of Commons. The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the provision in part because it “will criminalize legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes as well as foreign occupation and domination.” In other words, the provision would aversely affect those who supported al Qaeda terrorists who killed British and American soldiers in Iraq as well as those who supported the actions of Palestinian suicide bombers. A very civil way of voicing support for some very uncivilized acts.
In December 2006, I wrote an article titled, “What Do Joy Behar and Muhammed Abdul Bari Have in Common?” ([url=http://www.americandaily.com/article/16909]http://www.americandaily.com/article/16909[/url]) The same week the co-host of The View likened former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to Hitler, the Muslim Council of Britain’s Secretary General likened the British government’s treatment of Muslims to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews. Abdul Bari asked a panel of British MPs, “What is the degree of xenophobia that tipped Germany in the ‘30s towards a murderous ethnic and cultural racism?” Never mind that Abdul Bari sits on the organizing committee for the 2012 London Olympics. Would Hitler have permitted a German Jew to sit on the organizing committee for the 1936 Munich Olympics? Abdul Bari’s predecessor, Iqbal Sacranie was knighted. To paraphrase former Conservative Prime Minister Harold MacMillan, “The Muslims have never had it so good.” But one would never know it by listening to Abdul Bari’s objections. One could very well ask Abdul Bari the same question Humphrys asked Izzadeen. If Abdul Bari finds Britain offensive why not live in a country where Islam is the state religion such as his native Bangladesh? Of course, Abdul Bari could always live in Sudan.
In fairness, the Muslim Council of Britain has publicly taken Gibbons’ side. In a November 29th press release, Abdul Bari said, “Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged and convicted of committing a crime.” He also said the Sudanese “grossly overreacted” in this affair.
Was Abdul Bari exercising common sense? It’s quite possible. But let us consider that the Muslim Council of Britain released a statement the previous day deploring the charges brought against her. I was quite struck by Abdul Bari’s statement, “There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith.” Let us suppose Abdul Bari had thought Gibbons had intentionally insulted the Islamic faith? What does Abdul Bari think should happen to those he believes have insulted Islam? Does he believe they should be on the receiving end of this lash of civilization? Does he believe, as Sarcanie believes, that death is too good for Salman Rushdie? Does Abdul Bari believe he is a Muslim on British soil or does he believe he is Briton living on Muslim land? These are questions to which we must have the answer if the Western civilization is to carry forward.
I hope that Gillian Gibbons will return to Britain safely. However, I worry about the Britain to which she is returning.
Aaron Goldstein was a card carrying member of the socialist New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). Since 09/11, Aaron has reconsidered his ideological inclinations and has become a Republican. Aaron lives and works in Boston. 
