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

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
In summary: Teddy bears.In summary, a British primary school teacher in Sudan is facing imprisonment for allowing her students to name a teddy bear after the Prophet Mohamed. This has sparked controversy and debates about blasphemy laws and freedom of expression. Many are speaking out against the absurdity of the situation and criticizing those who are calling for violence against the teacher. It is also noted that similar situations could potentially happen in other parts of the world.
  • #36
I think "innocent mistake" is a loaded term. :sarcastic smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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:
  • #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" propoganda.

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.)
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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%?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top