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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the case of a British teacher in Sudan facing legal consequences for allowing her students to name a teddy bear after the Prophet Muhammad. Participants explore the implications of this incident in relation to Islamic law, cultural sensitivities, and the broader societal reactions to perceived blasphemy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether naming a teddy bear Muhammad is inherently blasphemous, suggesting that Muhammad is a common name and not exclusive to the Prophet.
  • Others argue that the issue arises from the perception among some Islamic fundamentalists that allowing the name is a depiction of the Prophet, which they consider blasphemous.
  • A participant notes that the teacher did not choose the name but allowed her students to select it, raising concerns about potential accusations of anti-Islamic prejudice had she intervened.
  • Some express disbelief at the severity of the reactions, suggesting that those calling for violence are the true blasphemers against humanity.
  • There is a discussion about the broader implications of such incidents, with some drawing parallels to potential reactions in other cultural contexts, such as naming a bear 'Satan' in the U.S.
  • Participants highlight the complexity of religious interpretations regarding idolatry and the representation of the Prophet, noting that there is no explicit ban on images of the Prophet in the Qur'an.
  • Some express frustration with the rigid interpretations of religious doctrine that lead to such controversies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the appropriateness of the reactions to the naming incident, with multiple competing views on the interpretation of Islamic law and the nature of blasphemy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the incident and the cultural context surrounding it.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of consensus on the interpretation of Islamic teachings related to idolatry and blasphemy, as well as the potential influence of cultural and political factors in Sudan's response to the incident.

  • #61
EnumaElish said:
Just so I know? Who the hell are you to post this?

What flavor are you, dst?

If you look at his post, I think it was referring to me. I assume it is a belief of some crazed fundamentalists that if another Muslim do not share all their views on everything, they aren't really "true" Muslims.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Moridin said:
If you look at his post, I think it was referring to me.
I found dst's post insulting, regardless of whom it was in response to.
I assume it is a belief of some crazed fundamentalists that if another Muslim do not share all their views on everything, they aren't really "true" Muslims.
How does that justify dst's post? The best one can say is dst is siding with Muslim fanatics on this point.
 
  • #63
One nicety that I did not notice being brought is the fact that there HAVE been depictions of Mohamaed throughout the ages. WITHOUT calls for death and such. Go to a museum that has Islamic exhibits from various time periods.

We are seeing the rantings and ravings of extremism.
 
  • #64
EnumaElish said:
Just so I know? Who the hell are you to post this?

What flavor are you, dst?


What's that supposed to mean?
 
  • #65
dst said:
What's that supposed to mean?
Whatever you meant when you posted muslims do not have flavors.
 
  • #66
EnumaElish said:
Whatever you meant when you posted muslims do not have flavors.

The term "moderate Muslim" is farcical, just a media construct. People love grouping others. I guess it makes them feel superior in some way.

Moridin said:
If you look at his post, I think it was referring to me. I assume it is a belief of some crazed fundamentalists that if another Muslim do not share all their views on everything, they aren't really "true" Muslims.

Yes, that's a belief of some, but I was referring to your usage of the term "moderate".

In any case, the confusion comes from the usage of the term "muslim" itself. That's a common noun in Arabic but used as a proper noun in other circles. In reality, though, it's such a generic term it carries little meaning about a person's belief and I guess, in the colloquial sense, it refers to anyone who believes & submits to (the) god. Saying "moderate Muslim" is like saying "liberal atheist". It's a ridiculous term. Just like atheists can't be grouped, people under the term "muslim" can't be grouped. It's all semantics & petty differences. Regardless, "muslim" has no flavours.

Back on point, I'm surprised nobody draws parallels to the Dutch cartoons controversy. It's more or less the same, just some strange flavour of patriotism that keeps people distracted from the fact that their religious leaders are inept.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
EnumaElish said:
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.)
I meant Muslims in general, as compared to followers of other faiths. What I was trying to drive home is that there are different levels of tolerances for different religions, and that as long as people of different religions can coexist peacefully, there is nothing wrong with any of these religions.
Irrational religious practices and beliefs for a religion that goes under the same name in other regions where it is seen as rational, should then be attributed to other factors such as lack of literacy, autocratic rule etc, and not the religion itself . Most religions have evolved over the years but in these places of conflict, religion has remained rigid, been contorted at will and become a great obstacle to overall development of the nation itself.
 
  • #68
arunbg said:
I meant Muslims in general, as compared to followers of other faiths.

That's a load of pure rubbish. Considering muslims form around 25% of the world population, do you SERIOUSLY believe that a relatively small vocal group represents that number?
 
  • #69
dst said:
The term "moderate Muslim" is farcical, just a media construct. People love grouping others. I guess it makes them feel superior in some way.
How am I supposed to read this when I put it alongside your reference to
dst said:
(baaaa) religion
? Aren't you the one identifying a number of people by their religion, then bashing them with the auditory reference "baaaa"?
 
Last edited:
  • #70
dst said:
That's a load of pure rubbish. Considering muslims form around 25% of the world population, do you SERIOUSLY believe that a relatively small vocal group represents that number?

In a relatively recent poll in the UK, over 30% of Muslims polled indicated that they thought that homicidal bombing was an appropriate action.

Now before I start getting replies about christians blowing up abortion buildings, pause for a second and think. Is that near 30%?
 
  • #71
EnumaElish said:
How am I supposed to read this when I put it alongside your reference to ? Aren't you the one identifying a number of people by their religion, then bashing them with the auditory reference "baaaa"?

The difference being, I'm talking with respect to specifically the rioting people.

Here's a test. When you wake up in the morning, do you:

A.) Eat breakfast

B.) Sleep more

C.) Blow up an embassy and torch a church then protest that a woman should be killed for allowing a teddy bear to be namedI'm guessing the answer is going to be A or B. What makes you different from the people that chose C, if not the herd mentality?
seycyrus said:
In a relatively recent poll in the UK, over 30% of Muslims polled indicated that they thought that homicidal bombing was an appropriate action.

Now before I start getting replies about christians blowing up abortion buildings, pause for a second and think. Is that near 30%?

Wait a second, are you serious about this or just trying to pull my leg? Please... Here's a clue, you could do with one:

Percentage of muslims by country:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6c/Islam_percentage_by_country.png/800px-Islam_percentage_by_country.png Just can't believe some of this. Let's get this right, 30% of 3.6% of people in the UK alone (roughly 600,000) are representative of a global population of which the majority is heavily concentrated in 2nd and 3rd world countries?

A bunch of Arabs with rusty AK-47s and IEDs compared to a "Free World™ Army" which goes around just shredding countries into pieces - @_@
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
seycyrus said:
In a relatively recent poll in the UK, over 30% of Muslims polled indicated that they thought that homicidal bombing was an appropriate action.
Putting all kinds of statistical questions aside, this highlights U.K.'s failure to integrate their muslim population into their mainstream society and to ingrain secular values in muslims.
 
  • #73
dst said:
That's a load of pure rubbish. Considering muslims form around 25% of the world population, do you SERIOUSLY believe that a relatively small vocal group represents that number?
Kindly, reread my post. You will find that I never meant what you are implying. All I am saying is that the religion itself is not to be blamed, but other factors as I have pointed out. In the case of Islam the disparity is obviously very large. You can see for yourself that educated Muslims don't conform to the views of extremists(at least not in my country).
 
  • #74
Kindly, reread my post. You will find that I never meant what you are implying. All I am saying is that the religion itself is not to be blamed, but other factors as I have pointed out. In the case of Islam the disparity is obviously very large. You can see for yourself that educated Muslims don't conform to the views of extremists(at least not in my country).

This seems to be the standard reply to religious apologists, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that religion is the primary incentive.
 
  • #75
dst said:
The difference being, I'm talking with respect to specifically the
Just can't believe some of this. Let's get this right, 30% of 3.6% of people in the UK alone (roughly 600,000) are representative of a global population of which the majority is heavily concentrated in 2nd and 3rd world countries?

That 30% could be construed to representation the worldwide percentage that follows similar beliefs.

You might argue that this is not the case and that everywhere else the percentage is lower, but then I would ask what in would make the muslim population in the UK more violent than everywhere else in the world.

dst said:
A bunch of Arabs...

I don't believe I was talking about Arabs...

P.S. That was a pretty picture.
 
  • #76
his seems to be the standard reply to religious apologists, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that religion is the primary incentive.
Then explain why educated Muslims do not conform to the view of extremists? Are they not Muslims at all?
Sure religion is an incentive, when it becomes contorted to mean something completely different or when what was written eons ago is taken word by word and applied to modern situations.
 
  • #77
seycyrus said:
That 30% could be construed to representation the worldwide percentage that follows similar beliefs.

You might argue that this is not the case and that everywhere else the percentage is lower, but then I would ask what in would make the muslim population in the UK more violent than everywhere else in the world.

I don't believe I was talking about Arabs...

P.S. That was a pretty picture.

You're using 0.038% of a population to describe more or less the eastern hemisphere (minuus china, india, etc) of this planet. There's a slight issue with that. Pretty picture indeed.

then I would ask what in would make the muslim population in the UK more violent than everywhere else in the world

The fact that there are only 1 or 2 generations of immigrants overall, who haven't yet integrated? Possibly the fact that they might see the "War on Terror" as a "War on Terra", and that it's their homelands being bombed under what they see as ridiculous pretexts? And of course, the herd mentality. Regardless of that, saying something on a survery is somewhat different from actually carrying that out. I'd love to see a survey of the other side - the number of people in the more developed parts of the world excluding central Europe, that wish to see the Middle East reduced to rubble. Somehow I don't think the results for that will be great either, particularly around Midwest America.
arunbg said:
Kindly, reread my post. You will find that I never meant what you are implying. All I am saying is that the religion itself is not to be blamed, but other factors as I have pointed out. In the case of Islam the disparity is obviously very large. You can see for yourself that educated Muslims don't conform to the views of extremists(at least not in my country).

Aren't you talking about the idea of "more complaints over trivial things" from this group of people compared to others? I don't understand how religion even factors into that specific idea.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
dst said:
You're using 0.038% of a population to describe more or less the eastern hemisphere (minuus china, india, etc) of this planet. There's a slight issue with that. Pretty picture indeed..

No, I'm not using .038% of an entire population to suggest ramification on the entirety of the set.

I'm using 30% of a specific subset to suggest trends of a larger subset.

Ok, you don't find it troubling, fine.

I bet you'd be whistling a different tune if it was discovered that 30% of mainstream christirans in the UK thought it was ok to bomb abortion clinics.



dst said:
the number of people in the more developed parts of the world excluding central Europe, that wish to see the Middle East reduced to rubble. Somehow I don't think the results for that will be great either, particularly around Midwest America.

Go take a poll yourself of ten of your friends. Report your results.

As for your your bigoted remarks about the midwest, I live on the east coast and still find them offensive.

Maybe all of the people YOU interact with are small minded enough that 30% of them would call for the destruction of the middle east, but that only means that YOU need ot devolop a higher class of friends and acquaintances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
arunbg said:
Then explain why educated Muslims do not conform to the view of extremists? Are they not Muslims at all?
Sure religion is an incentive, when it becomes contorted to mean something completely different or when what was written eons ago is taken word by word and applied to modern situations.

The reason that 'educated' Muslims are not extremists is because practice selective reading and have been cured by secularization, reason and science. Also note that the 9/11 hijackers where middle class, educated people. People in the top layer of Hamas have master degrees.

Religiosity is generally inversely proportional to education.

You are also assuming that the extremists somehow deviate from the "True" religion, when in fact, that is what the moderates are doing, ignoring commands to kill apostates, for instance.
 
  • #80
seycyrus said:
No, I'm not using .038% of an entire population to suggest ramification on the entirety of the set.

I'm using 30% of a specific subset to suggest trends of a larger subset.

Maybe 30% of such people who have similar backgrounds (Eastern immigrants, unintegrated, reasonably well educated - in short, "Western") would share the same views, but to say that's the case for 30% of a global population is quite a stretch.

Ok, you don't find it troubling, fine.

I bet you'd be whistling a different tune if it was discovered that 30% of mainstream christirans in the UK thought it was ok to bomb abortion clinics.

No, I have some faith in humanity and I don't like double standards. Why the comparison against christians, I don't really understand. Again, Christians are a ridiculously generic group. Why not a once plausible threat to the UK, like the IRA?

Go take a poll yourself of ten of your friends. Report your results.

As for your your bigoted remarks about the midwest, I live on the east coast and still find them offensive.

I'd say the same for your bigoted remarks about the eastern hemisphere. So now you understand that you can't generalise. Where did I get the idea for those "bigoted remarks"? Think-tanks like this: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/ - that specific one called for George Bush to be president for life (the article was removed anyway - click). I guess I'm basing that remark on a stereotype, but tit for tat seems to be the rule here.

Maybe all of the people YOU interact with are small minded enough that 30% of them would call for the destruction of the middle east, but that only means that YOU need ot devolop a higher class of friends and acquaintances.

No need to get personal. My friends happen to be sane, so that would generally rule out 99% of what's been discussed here. I form my opinion of the Midwest through the only avenues I can - media. And when you have people enforcing creationism as "science", it doesn't look too good. So I'd say the bigotry comes from within. I didn't specifically mean the mid-west, but some of the Mid-west and some of the Bible Belt.
Moridin said:
You are also assuming that the extremists somehow deviate from the "True" religion, when in fact, that is what the moderates are doing, ignoring commands to kill apostates, for instance.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from because it's a non-canonical punishment and comes from seriously deficient sources of the Abbasid era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
dst said:
The difference being, I'm talking with respect to specifically the rioting people.
1. That was not at all clear from your post, and more importantly:
2. you did refer to a "baaaa" religion -- not a "baaaa" crowd.
 
  • #82
dst said:
Maybe 30% of such people who have similar backgrounds (Eastern immigrants, unintegrated, reasonably well educated - in short, "Western") would share the same views, but to say that's the case for 30% of a global population is quite a stretch.

The Muslims in the UK are said to be the most tolerant, not the least. the stretch is leading in the other direction.

dst said:
No, I have some faith in humanity and I don't like double standards. Why the comparison against christians, I don't really understand. Again, Christians are a ridiculously generic group. Why not a once plausible threat to the UK, like the IRA?

I raised Christians because we were talking about Muslims. That should be obvious.

I think it would be a fair assumption to state that the vast majority of active members of the Ira were proponents of bombing, just like I think it would be a fair assessment to make the same claim for active members alquaeda.



dst said:
I'd say the same for your bigoted remarks about the eastern hemisphere.

You could, but then you would also be lying.

dst said:
So now you understand that you can't generalise.

Oh, I've always understood that.

dst said:
No need to get personal. My friends happen to be sane, so that would generally rule out 99% of what's been discussed here. I form my opinion of the Midwest through the only avenues I can - media.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to cast doubts on the source of your *scientific* information. Keep watching...

dst said:
...So I'd say the bigotry comes from within. I didn't specifically mean the mid-west, but some of the Mid-west and some of the Bible Belt.

So you admit that your bigoted remarks were targeted against Christians.

Nuff said.