Gillian Gibbons

[Lizzie]

Does anyone seriously think this teacher has insulted Islaam?

 

I'm sure the kids she taught didn't think so when they named the bear. Who complained?

 

I have a worrying feeling that this is more political than religious, to stir up more anti western feeling in that part of the world.

[Katiebob]

As a non-Moslim I am amazed by all this but I don't know if it insults their religion or not.

 

I do think she is naive and perhaps should have researched better but then I suspect I'd have been in the same situation as she currently finds herself because I'm sure I wouldn't have been worried about such a straightforward exercise either

[EGAR]

Oh, let's hope the Pope isn't as easily offended, I personally know 3 guys all called Jesus .

 

Sharia is outdated even for that part of the world.

[akitas]

No, I don't think that she insulted ISlam. I think she did a very naive thing, with good intentions. This should be taken into consideration.

I find it horrible that there is always somebody who has to stir things up.

Saying that the catholic church was always very quick about blasphemia, so I think you can find those people in every corner of the world. Very sad, very sad. I feel very sorry for Gillian and find the punishment that was mentioned atrocious.

[pboae]

Using the name Jesus or Mohammed for a person is different, the issue is with idolatry and making images, (as it is in all the Abrahamic religions). For some reason it has gained huge importance in Islam, but is dealt with very liberally in most Christian religions, despite being one of the 10 commandments. The theological arguments (grossly simplified) come down to whether it is acceptable to make an image of God or whether idolatry only applies to other gods. It is still something that is disputed between Catholics and Protestants, because a crucifix depicting Christ is a common icon in Catholicism, but is believed to be idolatry by fundamentalist Protestants.

 

However, there is little argument about interpretation in Islam, and it is clear that with that interpretation naming an object after Mohammed is insulting to Islam. It is also illegal in Sudan.

 

Whether it is 'truly' insulting, or whether it should be illegal, are different issues again, and at this point largely irrelevant. She chose to live in that country, so she should live by their laws, or accept the consequences if she does not.

 

Every society has it's taboos, and many people within that society will feel genuinely hurt and distressed if they are broken. I am not religious personally, but I recognise and respect that it is something that some people do feel strongly about. England is a fairly secular country these days, and blasphemy rarely provokes much public outrage, but we still have our taboos. If school children here named their teddy Ian no-one would think anything of it. If it became known that it was named after Ian Huntley, the teacher would get lynched. Many people would feel disgusted and outraged by it. Not because there is any similarity, between Mohammed and Huntley, but because a taboo has been broken and it has resulted in something that would seem completely and utterly inappropriate under those circumstances. Maybe most other cultures would understand our reaction to that, but maybe not. But even if they didn't understand, it wouldn't make our reaction any less valid.

[lil_angel]

I think she did it perfectly innocently. It said she suggested the name Faris but the children want to name it Muhammed. Even the British Muslim Council are saying it is outrageous. Personally I would not be offended if someone named a teddy Jesus or Moses like their authority claims we would. I do feel lashes is barbaric form of punishment for any crime.

Edited November 28, 2007 by lil_angel

[Sheplover]

Using the name Jesus or Mohammed for a person is different, the issue is with idolatry and making images, (as it is in all the Abrahamic religions). For some reason it has gained huge importance in Islam, but is dealt with very liberally in most Christian religions, despite being one of the 10 commandments. The theological arguments (grossly simplified) come down to whether it is acceptable to make an image of God or whether idolatry only applies to other gods. It is still something that is disputed between Catholics and Protestants, because a crucifix depicting Christ is a common icon in Catholicism, but is believed to be idolatry by fundamentalist Protestants.

 

However, there is little argument about interpretation in Islam, and it is clear that with that interpretation naming an object after Mohammed is insulting to Islam. It is also illegal in Sudan.

 

Whether it is 'truly' insulting, or whether it should be illegal, are different issues again, and at this point largely irrelevant. She chose to live in that country, so she should live by their laws, or accept the consequences if she does not.

 

Every society has it's taboos, and many people within that society will feel genuinely hurt and distressed if they are broken. I am not religious personally, but I recognise and respect that it is something that some people do feel strongly about. England is a fairly secular country these days, and blasphemy rarely provokes much public outrage, but we still have our taboos. If school children here named their teddy Ian no-one would think anything of it. If it became known that it was named after Ian Huntley, the teacher would get lynched. Many people would feel disgusted and outraged by it. Not because there is any similarity, between Mohammed and Huntley, but because a taboo has been broken and it has resulted in something that would seem completely and utterly inappropriate under those circumstances. Maybe most other cultures would understand our reaction to that, but maybe not. But even if they didn't understand, it wouldn't make our reaction any less valid.

What a well written and informed post

[Ian]

However, there is little argument about interpretation in Islam, and it is clear that with that interpretation naming an object after Mohammed is insulting to Islam. It is also illegal in Sudan.

 

Whether it is 'truly' insulting, or whether it should be illegal, are different issues again, and at this point largely irrelevant. She chose to live in that country, so she should live by their laws, or accept the consequences if she does not.

 

As much as I hate to admit it - because I'd like to say they were being ridiculous - I have to agree with this. I'm a firm believer that if any foreigner wishes to come and live in this country then they must expect to respect and live by our laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. Likewise if we wish to live in their country then we are entitled to do the same.

 

I genuinely feel sorry for the lady but to be naieve / plead it as a defence in such a country is more foolish than naieve I'm afraid. It seems to me that her only hope of clemency is if they should decide that this child who has apparently said it was his idea to name the teddy after him not Mohammed the god is believed sufficient excuse.

[merledogs]

I have a worrying feeling that this is more political than religious

Hit the nail on the head IMO

[jackin]

I think it is to make the government of sudan look good to the rest of the muslim world.Look this is how we treat christains who dare insult our prophet we are really good muslims.

Lets not forget it is the same government that is doing the killing in durfur refugee camps.

 

The lady I pray will be safe and soon home,

[cycas]

However, there is little argument about interpretation in Islam, and it is clear that with that interpretation naming an object after Mohammed is insulting to Islam. It is also illegal in Sudan.

 

Whether it is 'truly' insulting, or whether it should be illegal, are different issues again, and at this point largely irrelevant. She chose to live in that country, so she should live by their laws, or accept the consequences if she does not.

 

Every society has it's taboos, and many people within that society will feel genuinely hurt and distressed if they are broken.

 

I don't think it's as simple as that. A taboo that is innocently broken by someone who has no idea they are breaking it is not an appropriate subject for physical punishment or imprisonment: it's a subject for education and teaching, which is something that historically, Islam has been rather strong on (stronger than Christianity, one could say). The Sudanese law is primitive and barbaric, and the fact that it's an islamic law doesn't mean we should just go 'Oh, it's all right, it's their culture'.

 

In fact in this case the poor woman didn't even commit the crime: she's being punished for not preventing a class of small children from innocently making a mistake. The sensible, appropriate, effective approach would have been for the parents to talk to their local imam, and for him to use the incident to explain things to the kids (and find a new name for the bear). Maybe the teacher would make a public apology. Instead we have an international incident which makes Sudan look medieval and Islam idiotic, and I very much doubt that the kids understanding of their culture has been improved in a positive way either.

 

There are a lot of issues around imagery in Islam - I've not studied this in depth, but my understanding was that most of them are debated or interpreted differently depending on where and when you look at them: as with most religions there are lots of different views. An extreme interpretation allows for no images of people at all. I bet that Sudan has TV and newspapers that publish photographs.

 

The original idea behind the prohibition of 'idolatry', as I understand it, was not that Mohammed was too holy to be depicted, it was that he didn't want to be worshipped in effigy after his death like a little god: he thought that what he was saying was more important than he was himself. Seems it didn't work:one could almost say they have made an icon from the name instead.

[JACKYSIAN]

I think she's a very silly woman. Anyone living and working in a foreign country should make sure they know the rules and regulations. She must of known this would of offended and if she didn't she should of! I don't agree with how she is being treated of course but she's bought it on herself. I have lived and worked in many different countries and I always make sure I know exactly what is expected in my behaviour.

 

Obviously I hope she comes home soon.

[sproggie14]

I think only muslims can truly say whether she insulted their religion. If they find it offensive then that is their perogative (sp) and they have every right to have laws banning it.

 

But, I do think they ought to exercise a little common sense. I think it is quite clear that it was an innocent mistake. Yes it was silly that she didn't educate herself a bit better about rules and customs but there was no malice and I'm sure she won't do it again. To imprison her seems excessive and there can never be any justifications for lashes. I think she should be given the opportunity to apologise and let on her way.

[pboae]

I don't think it's as simple as that. A taboo that is innocently broken by someone who has no idea they are breaking it is not an appropriate subject for physical punishment or imprisonment: it's a subject for education and teaching, which is something that historically, Islam has been rather strong on (stronger than Christianity, one could say).

 

Except that in this case it wasn't 'just' a taboo that was broken, it was the law. Ignorance and naivety does not exempt people from prosecution in most societies, including ours. Although it may be considered a mitigating factor when it comes to the actual punishment.

 

 

The Sudanese law is primitive and barbaric, and the fact that it's an islamic law doesn't mean we should just go 'Oh, it's all right, it's their culture'.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that. I agree their punishments are completely barbaric, I'd like to see more done by our government to try and pressure the Sudanese government to change that. I will support public condemnation of their laws, and I support the people campaigning against it. Some choose to put themselves as risk by deliberately flouting laws as a protest, I think they are incredibly brave for doing so.

 

But none of that changes the fact that this is their current law, it's not a complicated or even an unreasonable law, many socities including our own have laws against blasphemy. And while it is their law I do not think people have the right to go there by choice, break it and be exempt from prosecution just because they were ignorant of it and we dissaprove of it.

 

 

In fact in this case the poor woman didn't even commit the crime: she's being punished for not preventing a class of small children from innocently making a mistake. The sensible, appropriate, effective approach would have been for the parents to talk to their local imam, and for him to use the incident to explain things to the kids (and find a new name for the bear). Maybe the teacher would make a public apology. Instead we have an international incident which makes Sudan look medieval and Islam idiotic, and I very much doubt that the kids understanding of their culture has been improved in a positive way either.

 

As the adult she was responsible for the class, the children may have made an innocent mistake, but it was her job to correct it. By failing to do so she broke the law. I agree, there would have been much better ways to handle this, but it is primarily our press that has made this an international incident. Personally I think it makes the UK look arrogant and idiotic. Our citizens should be allowed to travel all over the world breaking laws and causing offence without fear of punishment because those other cultures are primitive and ignorant, and we are modern and powerful, and we know best.

 

In the meantime our press continues to whip up a frenzy of outrage and makes it increasingly difficult for the Sudanese government to offer a more diplomatic solution, i.e. an apology and education, without looking like they have been forced into it by Western governments. As a general rule weak governance is despised by the populace. Look at the anger here when people feel like they are being told what to do by Europe. It makes people dig their heels in instead of encouraging dialogue.

 

There are a lot of issues around imagery in Islam - I've not studied this in depth, but my understanding was that most of them are debated or interpreted differently depending on where and when you look at them: as with most religions there are lots of different views. An extreme interpretation allows for no images of people at all. I bet that Sudan has TV and newspapers that publish photographs.

 

Indeed, there is no accepted right or wrong answer to it. Even within one religion there are huge variances in opinion about it. But in Sudan, there is an official interpretation and it has been enshrined in law. So although you can argue about it at a theological level, on a practical level in Sudan there is an absolute definition.

 

 

The original idea behind the prohibition of 'idolatry', as I understand it, was not that Mohammed was too holy to be depicted, it was that he didn't want to be worshipped in effigy after his death like a little god: he thought that what he was saying was more important than he was himself. Seems it didn't work:one could almost say they have made an icon from the name instead.

 

Again it depends on who interprets it, but I find it fascinating that the different religions can take basically the same instruction and adapt it into such wildly different viewpoints.

[cycas]

But none of that changes the fact that this is their current law, it's not a complicated or even an unreasonable law, many socities including our own have laws against blasphemy. And while it is their law I do not think people have the right to go there by choice, break it and be exempt from prosecution just because they were ignorant of it and we dissaprove of it.

As the adult she was responsible for the class, the children may have made an innocent mistake, but it was her job to correct it. By failing to do so she broke the law. I agree, there would have been much better ways to handle this, but it is primarily our press that has made this an international incident. Personally I think it makes the UK look arrogant and idiotic. Our citizens should be allowed to travel all over the world breaking laws and causing offence without fear of punishment because those other cultures are primitive and ignorant, and we are modern and powerful, and we know best.

 

I don't take that interpretation at all. I think if she'd been given some less disproportionate punishment - say a caution, small fine or community service, nobody would be interested. What's causing the fuss is the fact that she's faced with severe physical punishment or a jail term. Of course it would be equally grim if someone Sudanese was faced with the same thing, but sadly, that is unlikely to arouse much international interest. Governments are supposed to try to look after the interests of their residents overseas, including protecting them from the consequences of their own mistakes, if necessary.

 

Yes, she did a stupid, uninformed thing. I don't think it's wrong to make a clear statement that laws that whip people for being stupid and uninformed are barbaric.

 

Actually, I don't even think she was that stupid to not know this. It's not the kind of thing that gets printed on 'introduction to Sudan' leaflets, is it (if those even exist). It's the kind of thing that everyone just knows, because they've always done it that way, but that is horrifyingly easy to miss if you aren't mentally alert enough at the right moment.

 

It's all very well to say that people should not travel and break the law, but in practice, most countries have some sort of leeway provision for idiot foreigners who make stupid mistakes, because knowing the law is hard and complicated, particularly when it's in a different language and coming from completely different roots.

 

I doubt most of us know all the laws that govern us here in the UK, let alone outside of it, but that doesn't matter too much, because if you have an 'OMG I never knew that was illegal!!!' moment, in general, the penalty is not terrifyingly severe.

 

A comparison might be someone moving here from a culture where dogs are traditionally eaten, who arranges for a dog to be killed and served as food. That's a fairly horrifying taboo to most people, I think , but I don't think it's something that is totally obvious and spelt out to people newly arriving in this country. It seems like something that doesn't need explaining, to us, but I bet you could miss it if you were trying to adjust to every other aspect of UK culture at the same time.