Don't Name Teddy Bear After Prophet Mohamed: UK Teacher Faces Lashes and Jail

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A British teacher in Sudan, Gillian Gibbons, faces severe punishment for allowing her students to name a teddy bear after the Prophet Muhammad, which some view as blasphemy. The incident has sparked debates about the interpretation of Islamic law regarding names and depictions of the Prophet, with many arguing that naming a bear does not equate to idolization. Critics of the reaction emphasize that the children chose the name innocently, reflecting a common practice, and that the harsh response highlights issues of cultural sensitivity and fundamentalism. The Sudanese Embassy has downplayed the situation, calling it a "storm in a teacup." The broader discussion raises questions about the balance between respecting cultural beliefs and upholding human rights.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
Mohamed.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article3198874.ece

A British primary school teacher in Sudan is facing 40 lashes and up to a year in jail for allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear after the Prophet Mohamed. Gillian Gibbons has been imprisoned under strict blasphemy laws for showing "contempt and disrespect against the believers".

I think a short prison term is the outcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
So, is it against Islamic law for a person to be named Muhammad? If it isn't, who's to say the bear isn't carrying a normal every day name? I thought Muhammad was a common name.
 
There are three people called Mohamed in this factory.
 
Evo said:
So, is it against Islamic law for a person to be named Muhammad? If it isn't, who's to say the bear isn't carrying a normal every day name? I thought Muhammad was a common name.

Well, the entire issue was that some (a lot) Islamic fundamentalists thinks that she, by allowing students to name the teddy bear Muhammad, make a depiction of the 'prophet' Muhammad, which is, according to the Qur'an, blasphemy (well, not really; making it of Allah is and then Islamic scholars extrapolated it to fit the prophet too).

So, therefore, she 'insulted religion' and some people want her to die.
 
Evo said:
So, is it against Islamic law for a person to be named Muhammad? If it isn't, who's to say the bear isn't carrying a normal every day name? I thought Muhammad was a common name.
Muhammad, and its various spellings, is reputed to be the most common boys name in the world.

She did not call the teddy bear Muhammad, there was a competition in her class for the name and the 6-year-old Muslim children chose Muhammad as their favourite. Her 'crime' was to allow their choice.

Had she disallowed it what is the betting she would have been arrested for anti-Islamic prejudice?

The real blasphemy, i.e. the bringing of the name of God or Allah into disrepute, is the action of those who publicise to the world that you want somebody to die in the name of that God for such an 'offence'.

Garth
 
Last edited:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7116401.stm

"Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested on Sunday in Khartoum, and could face charges of insulting Islam's Prophet after her class named the toy.

But one boy said: "The teacher asked me what I wanted to call the teddy. I said Muhammad. I named it after my name."

The Sudanese Embassy in London said the situation was a "storm in a teacup"."
 
Moridin said:
Well, the entire issue was that some (a lot) Islamic fundamentalists thinks that she, by allowing students to name the teddy bear Muhammad, make a depiction of the 'prophet' Muhammad, which is, according to the Qur'an, blasphemy (well, not really; making it of Allah is and then Islamic scholars extrapolated it to fit the prophet too).

So, therefore, she 'insulted religion' and some people want her to die.
It seems rather obvious the whole thing is preposterous. Sometimes I think we live in a world of knowledge and enlightenment, then I read the news.
 
Let the children be children. There is certainly something wrong with the adults in Khartoum who have a problem with this. What the children did is apparently common enough out there in the world. The problem seems to be Gibbons heritage.

Those calling for violence against Ms. Gibbons are the true blasphemers - against humanity and all else.
 
  • #10
I agree that it's absurd. What disturbs me is that I can see the same thing happening to a teacher in Mississippi or Kansas who allows her students to name a bear 'Satan'.
 
  • #11
Danger said:
I agree that it's absurd. What disturbs me is that I can see the same thing happening to a teacher in Mississippi or Kansas who allows her students to name a bear 'Satan'.

Actually, it is not so absurd after all; it follows rationally provided that one accepts the premises.
 
  • #12
It's the premise that I find absurd, not the action itself, so I kind of agree with you.
 
  • #13
Are these people just looking for something to be offended by, or what. :rolleyes: It is the worlds most common name and the second most common name in the UK.

Every other Mexican boy has Jesus either as his first name or among one of his multiple names.
It drives the cops nuts because they like to switch all or parts of their names with cousins, but Christians aren't offended by it.
 
  • #14
It seems that they want to be apart from the rest of the world.
 
  • #15
I have a classmate named Mohammed... What an oddly moronic, easily offended world we live in...
 
  • #16
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm

In the UK we suffer guys like this, note what the judge said.

You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred. That is what you did."
 
  • #17
Danger said:
I agree that it's absurd. What disturbs me is that I can see the same thing happening to a teacher in Mississippi or Kansas who allows her students to name a bear 'Satan'.
That's somewhat easier to argue against, in a technical sense.

Islam prohibits idolatry. As far as I understand it, one cannot be a true muslim if he or she paints people's portraits or sculpts busts or faces, because that would be committing idolatry in an Islamic sense (representing objects of faith/love/etc. through inanimate objects). In that narrow technical sense, it is okay to write on an inanimate object like a teddy bear "I love Mohammad" or "Allah is great," or whatever, because that does not idolize the prophet or Allah in an inanimate object.

There is enough religious dogma that can be used to incite hatred toward almost anything and anyone.

For Sudan this may be one way of getting even with the "outsiders" who have been pressuring them on human rights and Darfur. Also a convenient excuse to divert attention from things that matter, like human rights and Darfur.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
When will the human race grow out of religion? Or at least, the more absurd aspects of religion...
 
  • #19
It is the naming of artificial idols (idolatry) that is offensive. It is not the naming of people that is offensive.

(I wish people would understand what it is they're judging when they pass judgement.)


And by the way, idolatry is also one of the Ten Commandment no-nos.


I'm not sayin' it was right. I just get so tired of seeing how black-and-white the world is to some people.
 
  • #20
If the name was offensive, why not just have one of the religion teachers come in and explain why and ask the children to rename the teddy bear?
 
  • #21
I guess a psychiatrist would diagnose some kind of mania, if they did these people are ill.
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
It is the naming of artificial idols (idolatry) that is offensive. It is not the naming of people that is offensive.

(I wish people would understand what it is they're judging when they pass judgement.)


And by the way, idolatry is also one of the Ten Commandment no-nos.


I'm not sayin' it was right. I just get so tired of seeing how black-and-white the world is to some people.

Close, but no cigar. Islam does not have the ten commandments (though they appear throughout the Qur'an in various forms). The real issue is that you cannot make depictions of the prophet, even though no real scriptural support exists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4674864.stm

There is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.

However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.

The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative.

If something is black-and-white, I'd say it is the fundamentalists view.
 
  • #23
Moridin said:
The real issue is that you cannot make depictions of the prophet, even though no real scriptural support exists.
But you can call a child Muhammad??

If a child then why not a teddy named after the child??

Garth
 
  • #24
Garth said:
But you can call a child Muhammad??

If a child then why not a teddy named after the child??

Garth

To name a child Muhammad is one of the greatest sacrifices, and some think that naming their child after the prophet will make them go to heaven automatically. Apparently, assigning the name to a teddy is equal to depict the prophet, and thus blasphemous. It is right up there with apostasy in some areas.

But then again, I never said that it made sense.
 
  • #25
Since when is a term of endearment the equivalent of idolizing? It think that is the key issue here.

The kids are not worshipping the teddy bear, nor are they idolizing it.


Having affection for something/someone is considerably different than idolizing or worshipping something/someone.
 
  • #26
Astronuc said:
Since when is a term of endearment the equivalent of idolizing? It think that is the key issue here.

The kids are not worshipping the teddy bear, nor are they idolizing it.

Having affection for something/someone is considerably different than idolizing or worshipping something/someone.

It is about making the depiction. According to their "logic", the depiction was the thing that was obscene, independent of worship.
 
  • #27
I suppose the thinking is that naming a teddy bear with the name of the prophet somehow diminishes or denigrates the prophet. I myself don't see that.
 
  • #28
Moridin said:
Close, but no cigar. Islam does not have the ten commandments (though they appear throughout the Qur'an in various forms).
Exactly. Islam's teaching are not some far-off alien culture that we can't understand. We see the same things in Judeo-Christian worship.
 
  • #29
Astronuc said:
Since when is a term of endearment the equivalent of idolizing?
Since that's what their culture says.

Why do "we" always end up judging whether foreign cultures by our own sensibilities?
What? We think idolatry is OK, therefore eveyone should?

How will mankind ever come to accept each other if we act so ... provinically?


I think Evo hit on it. The punishment may violate human rights, and that we can judge as a species, but that doesn't give one culture the right to judge the culture (and thus the offense) of another.


And I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for getting her off the charges, we should. But Jeez, you guys are beating a straw man to death.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Why do "we" always end up judging whether foreign cultures by our own sensibilities? What? We think idolatry is OK, therefore eveyone should? I think Evo hit on it. The punishment may violate human rights, and that we can judge as a species, but that doesn't give one culture the right to judge the culture (and thus the offense) of another.

If such punishment, which violates the right of the individual, is currently part of a culture, then people must speak out to convey the fact that such punishments are not acceptable irrespective of what cultural system is in place. For example, most people would judge that the sharia laws as they were interpreted by the Saudi judges in handing out the sentence was wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
I think Evo hit on it. The punishment may violate human rights, and that we can judge as a species, but that doesn't give one culture the right to judge the culture (and thus the offense) of another.
"We can judge as a species"
"We don't have to right to judge"
 
  • #32
Moonbear said:
If the name was offensive, why not just have one of the religion teachers come in and explain why and ask the children to rename the teddy bear?
My guess is because the religion teachers aren't confident enough to answer questions such as "is it okay to name an inanimate object with a human name at all, (now that we've started down this road)?" and are afraid of the can of worms this will open up, and concerned that they will end up jail or be scorned by their peers who don't know the answers, either, but see no problem in acting as if they do.

(Just guessing.)

Much easier to let it be the Judge's and the teacher's problem.

Kafkaesque.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
If the name was offensive, why not just have one of the religion teachers come in and explain why and ask the children to rename the teddy bear?
If the name was so offensive, why have the dumb kids all vote yes!
 
  • #34
Mk said:
If the name was so offensive, why have the dumb kids all vote yes!

What dumb kids? Kids are born intelligent :-p
All these naming rules are indoctrinated later on.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
One of the things that doesn't seem right is that while it's fairly well known that it's considered offensive to depict the Prophet Muhammad, such as in the case of the cartoonist who drew pictures meant to represent Muhammad, the kids weren't saying the teddy bear WAS Muhammad THE PROPHET, they were just sharing the same name. I could understand people being offended if the teacher was making fun of the religion by saying the bear represented the prophet, but not just to give it the name because it was named after a boy in the class.

By the way, while all the focus is on the punishment the teacher is receiving, I want to point out that this is probably also quite traumatic for the children in the class too. Young children usually have quite a bit of affection for their teachers, and since they were the ones to pick the name for the teddy bear, don't you think a lot of those kids probably are feeling very guilty that their teacher is being punished for the name they gave the teddy bear? That's a lot of guilt to saddle a child with over an innocent mistake.
 
  • #36
I think "innocent mistake" is a loaded term. :sarcastic smile:
 
  • #37
Is there more to this? Are bears (sorry, Moonie!) considered unclean animals in their religion, and could that have played into the outrage of the hard-liners?
 
  • #38
Cut with crap, these people are nutters, debate it as you will, there can be no other logical conclusion.

And bye the way did you see the news of a little kid getting his arm ran over by a vehicle in order to break it.
these guys are sick.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
turbo-1 said:
Is there more to this? Are bears (sorry, Moonie!) considered unclean animals in their religion, and could that have played into the outrage of the hard-liners?

No, bears are not unclean and Mohammed is such a common name that we can be quite sure that quite a few kids name their toys Mohammed WITHOUT realising it is also the name of the prophet (to them it probably their own name or the name of their dad, brother etc) which is also what happened in this case.

However, there is a political dimension. The teacher is british and Britain isn't exactly popular in Sudan at the moment due to the british involvment in establishing the peace keeping force in Darfur. Moreover, the sudanese president relies on support from what is essentially islamist hard-liners (that do NOT represent the majority view in Sudan) and they are most definately anti-western and anti-british in particular (Sudan being an old colony).
The point is that this is probably more about politics then religion; the hard-liners in Sudan sees this as an opportunity to rally support for themselves. They were probably just waiting for someone to make a misstake like this.
When this story broke here in the UK the sudanese ambassador seemed quite sure that she would not be convicted and this would be over very soon. Hence, it seems like even the sudanese government are quite surprised about this turn of event; meaning they are not really in full control of the situation.
 
  • #40
wolram said:
Cut with crap, these people are nutters, debate it as you will, there can be no other logical conclusion.
Yes. The Western way is the only way. Everyone else is an idiot. Why do they all want to hate us?

Bring on another millenium of war.
 
  • #41
EnumaElish said:
For Sudan this may be one way of getting even with the "outsiders" who have been pressuring them on human rights and Darfur. Also a convenient excuse to divert attention from things that matter, like human rights and Darfur.

Bingo.

It's a government ploy, and it has very little to do with religion, aside from religion being used as a tool.
 
  • #42
[ RANT ]
Guys! What gives! This is perplexing to the point of distressing.

The vast majority of the members here are intelligent, rational people, who not only are capable, but in fact, relish dissecting a point of discussion to tease out the subjective, emotional components and leave the rational components for analysis.


Unless, apparently, it has to do with a foreign culture...


Then, the members turn into emotionally-driven, knee-jerking, generalizing, straw-man-beating thugs who for some inexplicable reason think they have to agree with another viewpoint in order to accept it as valid.

You're all so willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You'll condemn a whole society because you disagree with some of their practices.

What do you people forsee the world to be in a century? Do you really forsee that the rest of the world will have the same sensibilites as you? Really?



Forgive me if this seems like an ad hominem, but really, who are y'all to accuse?


Damn!
[ /RANT ]
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Mk said:
"We can judge as a species"
"We don't have to right to judge"
Yes, but let's judge the wrongdoings eh? not the culture?
 
  • #44
Ah, the classic Well-not-everyone-does-it and it-is-just-the-culture fallacies. In fact, bans against depiction of the prophet and punishment for those who do is basically universal in the Islamic world and it is intrinsically tied into the religion.
 
  • #45
Moridin said:
Ah, the classic Well-not-everyone-does-it and it-is-just-the-culture fallacies. In fact, bans against depiction of the prophet and punishment for those who do is basically universal in the Islamic world and it is intrinsically tied into the religion.
I'm not sure what your point is, nor am I sure whose posts they're directed at.

I'm claiming that they have every right to make that a crime. I don't see why "we" have to "approve" of what another culture considers lawful versus criminal behaviour - providerd it doesn't voilate more basic rights such as human rights.
 
  • #46
I think the teacher should have probably researched a bit more about the customs of the nation she would be teaching in, if they do not approve of what she did that is their own perogative, they have the right to decide what is allowed and what is not in their own country. However I think they have blown the situation out of proportion, a simple explanation to the teacher as to why that is not allowed would have sufficed, it did not need to get blown out of proportion as it has. 40 lashes and a year in jail is a ridiculous punishment for such an innocent mistake. I'm sure had someone brought the matter to the teacher's attention she would have immediately had the students rename the bear and the situation could have been done and over with.
 
  • #47
scorpa said:
I'm sure had someone brought the matter to the teacher's attention she would have immediately had the students rename the bear and the situation could have been done and over with.

Heck, they could have immediately fired her for inappropriate behavior or whatever reason offending such a number of people would fall under. It's the whole idea of violent punishments for non-violent crimes that is disturbing. It's not about them deciding that something is offensive or not permitted or illegal in their culture, we have plenty of laws within our own culture that others would question, but about the types of punishments that are paired with those crimes.
 
  • #48
turbo-1 said:
Is there more to this? Are bears (sorry, Moonie!) considered unclean
Nuh, only fearsome :smile:

unless it's a chained & drugged dancing bear... :cry:

According to Islam, by their nature all beasts surrender to God and are therefore natural muslims ("ones who surrender").

I am in no way an expert, though.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Moonbear said:
Heck, they could have immediately fired her for inappropriate behavior or whatever reason offending such a number of people would fall under. It's the whole idea of violent punishments for non-violent crimes that is disturbing. It's not about them deciding that something is offensive or not permitted or illegal in their culture, we have plenty of laws within our own culture that others would question, but about the types of punishments that are paired with those crimes.

Definitely, firing her would have been much preferable. The punishment they are trying to give her is competely uncalled for and disturbing. They have blown a small innocent mistake completely out of proportion. I wasn't trying to defend them at all, they have no right to be giving the punishment they are.
 
  • #50
DaveC426913 said:
[ RANT ]
Guys! What gives! This is perplexing to the point of distressing.

The vast majority of the members here are intelligent, rational people, who not only are capable, but in fact, relish dissecting a point of discussion to tease out the subjective, emotional components and leave the rational components for analysis.Unless, apparently, it has to do with a foreign culture...Then, the members turn into emotionally-driven, knee-jerking, generalizing, straw-man-beating thugs who for some inexplicable reason think they have to agree with another viewpoint in order to accept it as valid.

You're all so willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You'll condemn a whole society because you disagree with some of their practices.

What do you people forsee the world to be in a century? Do you really forsee that the rest of the world will have the same sensibilites as you? Really?
Forgive me if this seems like an ad hominem, but really, who are y'all to accuse?Damn!
[ /RANT ]
What's with these emotional rants, Dave? :biggrin:

And what basis do you have for clubbing all the posters in this (and the earlier) thread into the "we" of the Western world? Do you know that there aren't any Asians, Middle Easterners and/or Muslims also participating in such threads, and agreeing with the majority? It's awfully provincial thinking that all participants in an internet forum are Westerners, and in this case, it's also wrong. And even otherwise, what gives you the reason to conclude that the opinions of people here are a reflection of some broader geographical mindset. I, for one, do not wish to be clubbed under any "we". I think for myself, thank you.
 
Last edited:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top