Raven said:
Not wanting to beat a dead horse here, but can anyone else see this case being filed under 'Evidence pointing to the necessity of separation of church and state'?
<insert random "captain obvious" picture here>
It seems to me that radically Islamic countries like the Sudan and Saudi Arabia don't exactly have the most balanced judicial systems
By
your definition. And perhaps by mine. But to the ones who implement these judicial systems, what matters is compliance with the faith. And for that matter, it is a well-regarded fact throughout the Muslim world that faith -which, in this context, is
identical with the Qur'an- is a matter of interpretation.
It is a severe faux pas to represent the Prophet in any shape or form, and I can only presume that some of the parents saw the naming of the teddy bear...you know what, fuck playing the Devil's Advocate, even Satan himself wouldn't be able to convincingly argue that side of the case.
Let me pick up where you left off. The official argument is that animals are considered inferior beings in the faith, and representation of such is just as inferior. God created man from his image, while animals are meant to play a role in the course of the world, yet are ultimately destined to be subdued by man. Hence, giving the name of the Prophet -the greatest of men, though still a man- to an inferior being is considered an insult to him. The child is not expected to know this, but the teacher is.
Now clearly, the matter of naming a teddy bear is not explicitly covered in the Qur'an, and neither is the matter of loving affection towards an animal or inferior being. Therefore, it is once again a matter of interpretation. The Sudanese lawgivers chose a certain interpretation, and I guess we will have to deal with that.
I firmly believe that Sudan needs a lesson in secular lawgiving, but before that happens, we should at least try to understand
what exactly is happening.
As far as I see it, the only conspiracy going on is an attempt to force out a foreigner for making a cultural faux pas (if that!).
Wrong. From what I gather, the conspiracy going on is revenge against the UK. And to be honest, Sudan has quite a few reasons to hate the UK.
Oh, and while we're at it, isn't half of Sudan still in a state of civil war? At least the central government have their priorities right.
Not half. Only Darfur. And given that the international community has more or less taken over the case, Kharthoum can sit back and watch there.
If you refer to the civil war between Muslim North and Central African South, that issue has been resolved for a couple of years now.
