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

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A British primary school teacher, Gillian Gibbons, faces severe penalties in Sudan, including 40 lashes and up to a year in jail, for allowing her students to name a teddy bear after the Prophet Muhammad. This incident has sparked significant debate regarding blasphemy laws and cultural sensitivities, with many arguing that the name Muhammad is common and should not be deemed offensive. Critics assert that the real blasphemy lies in the violent reactions from fundamentalists rather than the innocent actions of children. The case highlights the complexities of cultural interpretation and the consequences of perceived disrespect towards religious figures.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Islamic blasphemy laws
  • Knowledge of cultural sensitivity in educational environments
  • Awareness of the implications of freedom of expression
  • Familiarity with the historical context of religious names
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the legal framework surrounding blasphemy laws in Sudan
  • Explore the cultural significance of the name Muhammad in Islamic tradition
  • Investigate case studies on freedom of expression in educational settings
  • Examine the impact of cultural misunderstandings on international relations
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for educators, cultural anthropologists, legal professionals, and anyone interested in the intersection of religion, law, and cultural practices.

  • #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"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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 definitely 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:
  • #51
Gokul43201 said:
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.

I'm not talking about where people are from (Wolram I believe is actually from the UK.), I'm talking about a "Western sensibility". I call it that because the Westerners have been very vocal in their cultural bias - Americans certainly, though I grant that media coverage I get is highly Western-biased. Much of that is due to Bush's "why do they hate us" propaganda.

Yes, everybody thinks for themselves. But if they want their opinions to be treated for themselves (at least by humble 'ol me) they'll have to make rational claims, rather than resort to disgust, derision and dismissal.

Upon review, this sounds so condescending. I guess I'm just surprised by such a dichotomy of behaviour depending on the topic.
 
  • #52
DaveC426913 said:
Yes, everybody thinks for themselves. But if they want their opinions to be treated for themselves (at least by humble 'ol me) they'll have to make rational claims, rather than resort to disgust, derision and dismissal.
Rational claims? Ok, what's irrational? Calling for the death of a teacher for asking children to name a teddy bear. THAT'S IRRATIONAL.

Rational - Knowing that calling for the death of a teacher for asking children to name a teddy bear is IRRATIONAL.

If Muslims wish to be accepted by the rest of the rational, civilizied world, then they have to act civilized and rational.

Even the world Muslim community has spoken out against this insanity.
 
  • #53
It seems she was pardened today, and is on her way back home to the UK.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
Rational claims? Ok, what's irrational? Calling for the death of a teacher for asking children to name a teddy bear. THAT'S IRRATIONAL.

Rational - Knowing that calling for the death of a teacher for asking children to name a teddy bear is IRRATIONAL.

If Muslims wish to be accepted by the rest of the rational, civilizied world, then they have to act civilized and rational.

Even the world Muslim community has spoken out against this insanity.
Yes. Those are all rational. Not all comments are so ... well thought out, or ... specific.
 
  • #55
To be honest, I think that the reason that Muslim moderates spoke out against the treatment of her is that, well, they where moderates.
 
  • #56
And I don't think the "outrage" had anything to do with the scholarly learnings of Islam.

Just the angry mob's knee reaction to naming a BEAR "after" the Prophet.
 
  • #57
Moridin said:
To be honest, I think that the reason that Muslim moderates spoke out against the treatment of her is that, well, they where moderates.

Just so you know, Muslims don't come in flavours.

Have a great day.

EnumaElish said:
And I don't think the "outrage" had anything to do with the scholarly learnings of Islam.

Just the angry mob's knee reaction to naming a BEAR "after" the Prophet.
It had everything to do with the shortcomings of a heavily restricted, communal, organized (i.e. baaaa) religion and a government who saw an opportunity to milk it.
 
  • #58
dst said:
Just so you know, Muslims don't come in flavours.
Just so I know? Who the hell are you to post this?

What flavor are you, dst?
 
Last edited:
  • #59
The problem here I believe, is the generalization of irrational behavior of a select few, to be the common behavior of a whole religion(many have pointed this out already). I have a lot of great Muslim friends who I am sure would never support the punishment that was sentenced.
However it is a fact that Muslims are easily offended by references and actions, that may seem casual to followers of other faiths. I believe that this is not for others to judge and that faith is to be respected(if reasonable) . Many Christians would not like comments made by an atheist. However in Islamic states with rampant illiteracy and almost no democracy, the fanaticism of mullas become law, leading to a situation similar to what happened a long time ago in Christian monarchies where heretics were burnt at the stake.
I see good, equal education and a democratic government as a solution to most of these problems.
 
  • #60
Muslims are easily offended by references and actions, that may seem casual to followers of other faiths.
Which Muslims are easily offended? Are all Muslims easily offended? Are Indonesian Muslims easily offended? Or, are a subset of Iranian muslims especially easily offended? Are Arabic Muslim men more easily offended than non-Arab Muslim women? Are radical Shiites more or less easily offended than secular Sunnis? Is it easier or harder to offend African-American muslims who vote Democrat relative to British Muslims who vote for the Tories? (By any means, do not feel constrained with these examples, feel free to suggest your own.)