Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain Statement
December 1, 2007

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain calls on the British government to demand the immediate release of school teacher Gillian Gibbons. Her arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment in Khartoum, Sudan, for insulting Islam because she allowed her class to name a teddy bear ‘Muhammad’ reveals the inhumane nature of Shariah or Islamic Law and its incompatibility with civil rights and 21st century values.

The CEMB notes that Islamic organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain find the events in Sudan ‘embarrassing’ – as indeed all supporters of the Shariah should. But they do so on the grounds that no insult to Islam was intended by Ms Gibbons. This implies that had an insult been perpetrated, it would have been deemed a crime and punishable according to the Shariah, which could have resulted in 40 lashes or worse. Recent death threats against apostates or the case of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad two years ago are some examples of how any criticism is deemed offensive or insulting. Islamists will not hesitate to use Islamic law where possible or other violent means to stifle such criticism. In line with this, they have been aggressively campaigning for a law on incitement to religious hatred in the UK, which will severely curtail freedom of expression.

The CEMB strongly defends freedom of expression, which crucially implies the freedom of criticism of all beliefs and ideologies including religion. Wherever this precious principle is abandoned, the appalling vista of the imprisonment of an innocent teacher, and the baying for her blood by Islamists, becomes a frightening reality.


  1. Aren’t those British Muslim Peers wonderful?Yes, it’s a PR job for the MCB.Lord Ahmed is a terrorist facilitator with a pre-9/11 history of attempted disruption of of law-enforcement agencies in order to bring about the murder of Salman Rushdie.”TWO Labour Asian peers called yesterday for Salman Rushdie to be stripped of police protection….They said it was time Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, removed the round-the-clock Special Branch protection that Mr Rushdie still received, which is estimated to cost taxpayers up to £1 million a year. Lord Ahmed and Lady Uddin, both Muslims, said the author of The Satanic Verses was hooked on publicity “whether it’s with a model or saying his life is in danger” and the money would be better spent providing more police for everyone else.Lord Ahmed said: “It is debatable whether Mr Rushdie should still receive protection, bearing in mind the amount of money he earns. Do we pay for all important people in private industry to receive police protection because they may be the target of criminals? And that is what Salman Rushdie is in, private industry.”His comments were endorsed by Lady Uddin who said Mr Rushdie was too ungrateful. She said: “Public money should be used for someone who is grateful. We should not pay for this protection when he has so little gratitude. It is a mockery of democracy.”Mr Rushdie, who is currently in London, said he was “furious” at the remarks, not least at claims that taxpayers were funding Special Branch protection when he was abroad as well as in London. He said that it was the police who insisted on protection in Britain,”From

  2. As one looks at the – entirely correct – reactions from so many Muslims in the UK, it becomes clear that the Gillian Gibbons affair has little to do with teddy bears or Mohammed and everything to do with throwing up a smokescreen to help Sudan continue to resist UN and Western efforts to halt the rape, slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Darfur.Maenwhile, Jean-Marie Guehenno, the United Nations peacekeeping chief, has said that the obstacles raised by Sudan are putting in doubt the planned deployment of a peacekeeping force for Darfur.(More at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.