Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sudan On the Brink: The Battle Over a Teddy Bear Named Muhammed

Posted by Gregg Zachary, Africa Works at 5:27 PM on December 1, 2007.


Gregg Zachary: There must be a way to condemn the Sudanese government for violence against minorities without defending attacks on core Islamic beliefs.
moballeghi20071130181518234
Gillian Gibbons

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Gregg Zachary, originally appeard on Africa Works

I feel sympathy for the British school teacher, Gillian Gibbons, jailed in Sudan for disrespecting the prophet Muhammed. Sudanese jails don’t have a reputation for hospitality. Gibbons’s crime — naming a stuffed animal after the Muslim holy man — seems trivial. The British government is outraged over the jailing, and human-rights activists around the world are understandably disturbed by the sentence. Yet at the risk of appearing uncharitable, I think the Sudanese officials who say they have shown charity towards Ms. Gibbons are making a good point.

We are crossing a fault-line between the West and the Rest when it comes to teddy bear named Muhammed. The school teacher was not teaching European kids but rather Muslim children of priviledged Sudanese families. Ms. Gibbons need not possess some unusual knowledge of Sudanese society, or Islamic culture, to know about prohibitions against idolatry. These prohibitions are basic to Islam and a respect for these prohibitions ought to be considered a minimum practice of multi-cultural tolerance. That Ms. Gibbons failed to display minimal respect for Islamic practices in Sudan would seem to be beyond rational debate. The only question is whether she should be punished for her lapse — and how.

My feeling is that dismissal from her teaching post, and deportation, should be sufficient punishment for her mistake. Even devout Muslims in Sudan should not insist on a greater punishment. To give Ms. Gibbons jail time — even 24 hours no less the 15 days given to her by a court in Sudan — is excessive and unjust. Yet the suggestion that Sudan’s officials have no justification in sanctioning Ms. Gibbons isn’t credible either. Ms. Gibbons is not being punished for exercizing her free speech or free expression. She was, after all, a paid employee of a school, and schools everywhere have their own standards. Governments too. It would seem to be much more productive to think of this hapless British school teacher as running afoul of a cultural tripwire that, while trivial, is nonetheless not inconsequential, especially in an African-Muslim society where mores are well established.

Finally, I worry that the over-reaction to the punishment of Ms. Gibbons is fueled by animus towards the Sudanese government — and isn’t a reflection of the case itself. Sudan’s government, through its repressive actions in Darfur and South Sudan over many years, has provoked a good deal of justifiable condemnation from many responsible and informed people. Yet opposition to Sudan’s awful government does not justify insensitivity towards Islam. There must be a way to condemn the Sudanese government for violence against Christian and non-Muslim minorities without defending attacks — witting or unwitting — on core Islamic beliefs.

UPDATE from the AP: A British teacher jailed for insulting Islam after allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad was released Monday when Sudan's president pardoned her, a British Embassy spokesman said.

The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, said she did not intend to offend anyone and had great respect for Islam.

Digg!

Tagged as: sudan, islam

G. Pascal Zachary, editor of Africa Works, contributes the Ping column on innovation to The New York Times and writes often about African affairs for newspapers, magazines and journals. He has reported on more than 40 countries since 1995 and most recently completed assignments in Peru, China, Uganda, Rwanda and Malawi.


Washington Post Editorial Board Peddles 'U.S. Knows Best' Position on Iraq
The Washington Post still doesn't believe Maliki, Iraqi officials.
Post by Steve Benen. July 23, 2008.
Looking Back: Rumsfeld Praised Mass Murderers Over PM Maliki
Apparently the Bush Administration not liking Maliki isn't a new thing.
Post by Jonathan Schwarz. July 23, 2008.
Mukasey Asks Congress to Legitimize the "War on Terror"
"This is nothing but a transparent attempt to get bipartisan buy in, before the election, to the Global War on Terror."
Post by Digby. July 23, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Who are we to tell the Sudanese to change their laws, customs, mores,
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 1, 2007 7:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or beliefs simply because apotasy is trending in the decadent West? When travelling, living, or working in foreign lands you are subject to the laws of that country. When an immigrant, legal or otherwise, is caught in the peaceful, holier-than-thou USA they can, and have, been sentenced to death. Yet when a "black or brown country" asserts its sovereignity everyone gets up in arms. Naming a teddybear Mohammed, peace-be-upon-him, deserves the death penalty in that country and many other Islamic countries. Everyone knows, or SHOULD know, before they go to travel, live, or work in Islamic countries that they have certain rules. When you are a guest you should obey the rules or risk the sanctions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oddly enough, agree with ABK. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Oddly enough, agree with ABK. Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» Way to miss the point Posted by: moflard
This entire case has been severely misrepresented...
Posted by: YeahToast on Dec 1, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than half of my extended family is Muslim, and despite my own atheism I am certainly all for a certain level of religious sensitivity. But what this teacher did was ask the students in her class to nominate names for the teddy bear, and then have them vote for one, with "Mohammed" being the name that won.

I do not see how this teacher could have possibly seen this as a cultural sensitivity issue, especially since a conservative estimate would be that a quarter to half of the boys in her class have "Mohammed" as part of their names.

This is simply a case of a religious government choosing to apply a ridiculous and unjust punishment to what should, at worst, have been viewed as a minor faux pas. It is basically like the ecclesiastic trials which took place during the Inquisition, if with a less horrific outcome. I can only hope that the young lady does not suffer too much during this Kafka-esque ordeal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Set your watch back 600 years
Posted by: ohb0b on Dec 1, 2007 11:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are the same dark ages the religious right in the US wants to take us back to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Set your watch back 600 years Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Set your watch back 600 years Posted by: appleton14
Not Politically Correct, But Factual
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 2, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The extremists demanding her execution consider any slight, no matter if unintended, a capital crime. However, most Muslims are also very touchy about issues of Mohammed's character, stifling legitimate inquiry about the basis of a religion that rests entirely on the assertions of one man. It's a matter of historical fact that he was an armed robber, murderer and incestuous child molester--unpleasant facts, but facts all the same. This raises serious concerns about the hadith and even the Koran itself. If Jews and Christians permit debate about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Moses's murder of an Egyptian and Joshua's genocides, Muslims must be willing to honestly confront all aspects of their faith as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What this is really about
Posted by: Steve M on Dec 2, 2007 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This incident has little to do with teddy bears or Mohammed and everything to do with throwing up a smokescreen to help Sudan continue to resist UN and Western efforts to halt the rape, slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

Now, Jean-Marie Guehenno, the United Nations peacekeeping chief, has said that the obstacles raised by Sudan are putting in doubt the planned deployment of a peacekeeping force for Darfur.

Is the UN any use whatsoever?

(more at blogolob)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Cultural Issue
Posted by: QQOblivion on Dec 2, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story has angered me, especially since many radical Sudanese Muslims have called for the teacher's execution.
It should be pointed out, however, that British Muslims, for the most part, support the teacher, not the lynch-mob mentality of those wanting her to be put to death for her "slight".
So, the issue is not truly about religion as much as it is about culture; and in that sense it is about the relatively conservative values of the Sudanese Muslims verses the relatively liberal values of the West.
Conservatism versus liberalism -- isn't that what it always comes down to these days?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr Zachary should perhaps
Posted by: moflard on Dec 2, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
check the story out properly before getting his keyboard out.

The teacher, working in a school for both Muslim AND Christian children; That's right Christian children too; did not choose the name. Rather she encouraged the children to come up with names and then vote on their favourite. The most popular boy in the class put forward his name, Mohamed, and the children opted for that one. So the bear wasn't named for some 5th century prophet, but for a child of today. How pray tell is that blasphemous? The mere coincidence of names?

Or perhaps it was a complaint made due to personnel grudge - by the secretary of the school no less, who if offended could just as easily have had a quiet word in the teachers ear instead of running to the religious gestapo. Or maybe her real crime was teaching children about a democratic process.

This type of response from the loony left, oh let's respect their darling little folkways (genital mutilation, stoning, 200 lashes for a rape victim etc etc etc) because we're such evil people, is what gives liberal thought such a bad name. Bending over backwards, ignoring the real truth for a desired fictionalised version where Westerners are always in the wrong, just to justify injustice is counterproductive in the extreme.

Mr Zachary do the world a favour and crawl back under your rock and let real liberals, ones who live in the real world, get back to trying to change things - 'cause you sure as hell aren't helping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agree wholeheartedly. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Good post Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Mr Zachary should perhaps Posted by: TheLimit
andrey
Posted by: abemko on Dec 2, 2007 1:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a person came to you with his son in tow and explained that on God's commandment he is going to some mountain to sacrifice his son to prove his love of God, you would call child services and have the person examined by a professional. Yet, when millions of people proclaim their faith in and have their lives guided by the same kind of silly/dangerous beliefs, others are required to express their respect for those beliefs. And if a person does not believe in God or a religion, that person is required to stay silent as they will be threatened by "God-fearing" people if their agnostic/atheistic beliefs are expressed. Does this make any sense?

The US, for example, claims to support the spread of democracy and human rights (perhaps I should just stay with democracy, human rights is currently quite a stretch), yet when the Saudi's flog a gang rape victim or in this teddy bear case, the administration is uncharacteristically reticent.

I've never heard of a secular humanist threatening religious folks with harm today or into eternity. I've never heard anyone even castigated for offending an agnostic/atheist. These seem to be the behaviors of the self-proclaimed pious with a connection to a forgiving God.

Isn't it time to recognize that the emperor has no clothes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: andrey Posted by: ankhet
» RE: andrey Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: andrey Posted by: renelucy
Get a grip!
Posted by: ankhet on Dec 2, 2007 8:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time for everyone to get back a sense of proportion. This whole thing is wildly out of scale. Here is an ill-informed, well-intentioned school teacher in some foreign private school, using a teaching device that worked for her back home. Since there are so many kids named Mohammed, why would she suspect that naming a teddybear Mohammed would be a problem? After all, it was the kids who suggested it, all faithful little Muslims, they. What should have happened is that she should have had relevant instruction about Muslim sensitivity in some (many!) areas, and a second set of cultural training once in Somalia, so she'd have some way of avoiding the pitfalls. And maybe those busybody colleagues in that school need a lesson on how to be decent people - they could have corrected her. She would have been mortified and never erred again. What should happen now is an apology from her to the parents, and let those magnanimous and morally superior followers of the Prophet (pbuh) demonstrate those virtues he promoted. Man, did this ever get unhinged!

If this is the way your religion makes you behave, you need to get a better one. I'm sick of angry mobs demanding death for trivialities. And triviality it is - do you think Islam is strong or viable enough to withstand an innocent faux pas? sheesh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Agreed. But... Posted by: ankhet
PC claptrap
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 3, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a country's custom says that if you eat a meal in someone's home, you should give the host the head of a dead Gypsy girl as a gesture of thanks, do you follow it out of respect for those long-held and respected traditions?

You don't leave the UK and become a schoolteacher in Sudan to make your fortune, live the good life, or have a little impish fun with their teddy-bear laws. And this is the thanks this lady gets?

Deportation is probably a blessing in disguise. Let those fanatics rot in the medieval hell they have created for themselves, and she can move on to some place that deserves her services.

The ones I feel the worst for are those Sudanese people who want a civilized society, but are stuck living in that looney bin. Too bad she can't take them all with her when she leaves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PC claptrap Posted by: donl51
Religion should Always be attacked.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 3, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gillian Gibbons has been pardoned. Merely possessing a teddy bear could have
been called idolatry in a moslem country. Religion should Always be attacked.
Religions are all about the same. All religions are anti-scientific, immoral,
unethical and uncivilizing. Religion leads to dictatorship. Religion is caused by
any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses. Religion should be
cured, not tolerated. The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" byVictor Stenger Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain? Furthermore, the 4 Million
years it took to go from chimp brain to "human" brain is much too short for
Nature to get the bugs worked out."

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

Other authors: Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maegabby
Posted by: maegabby on Dec 3, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are statements from Islamic leaders saying that they respect Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism? When Western countries feel the need to fall all over themselves stating that they respect Islam, it's a one way street that can lead only to worsening problems among people of different faiths. If you feel 'disrespected' then you're always looking for the slight, and you're quite capable of manufacturing a slight out of thin cloth. I find it absolutely ludicrous that people are looking at a situation in which a teacher is being threatened with lashing and execution for going along with suggestions of her students on naming a Teddy Bear and finding that in fact she is 'at fault' for cultural and religious insensitivity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maegabby Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: maegabby Posted by: renelucy
Mr. Zachary, You Fail
Posted by: dudelette on Dec 3, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Gibbons did nothing wrong. The school failed her miserably. The school secretary obviously had some reason to report rather than help Ms. Gibbons. And shouldn't the Muslim children have told Ms. Gibbons that naming the bear Mohammed would be idolatry?

Foolishness! It's a toy. Mohammed was a prophet, according to this religion, not God, and children are regularly named after him. The bear was named after a child, not the prophet. To expect Ms. Gibbons to understand what you call a Muslim "core" belief that even Muslims worldwide are arguing about is ridiculous. That Ms. Gibbons may have been murdered over this inconsequentiality is beyond insanity.

Your argument is without basis. You fail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Zachary, You Fail Posted by: renelucy
Teddy Bear named for American President Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by: ruthmarcia on Dec 3, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the interest of perspective - we should remember that the original "Teddy Bear" was named for an American President - Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt: http://www.bearhollow.net/teddy_roosevelt.htm - http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/kidscorner/tr_teddy.htm - http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/roosevelt/tbear.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Teddy bear wars?
Posted by: Old Skeptic on Dec 3, 2007 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole situation has been ridiculous from beginning to end. Every other Muslim male seems to have "Mohammed" somewhere in his name, so why would the teacher have thought there was any harm in letting her 7 year old students name the bear Mohammed? If it was a questionable decision in that society, someone should have told her so and they could have renamed the bear. I'm certain that there was no insult intended.

A bigger question, though, is why the Muslim religion seems to breed fanatics so easily. IMO, you can assess a religion and culture fairly quickly by the way it treats its women and children. AFAIK, every Muslim country oppresses, suppresses, and mistreats its women. These women have no choice, so it's not as if these "ancient traditions" are culturally agreed upon by all concerned. Women are brainwashed from the git-go to believe that they are inferior, they have to run around covered up with bedsheet-like robes, they have to have male permission to cross the street, etc. Let's face it: most Islamic countries are still pretty primitive socially. This is just one more example, just as the decision in Saudi Arabia to inflict 200 lashes on the VICTIM of a gang-rape was! You couldn't pay me enough to ever set foot in any Muslim country! I prefer the 21st century to the 7th!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Teddy bear wars? Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Teddy bear wars? Posted by: donl51
sorry to offend
Posted by: aalif ba ta tha on Dec 3, 2007 10:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with teddy bears named Muhammad, the evil Salman Rushdie, and Danish newspapers insulting Islam, it is no small wonder why these folks don't have the time or energy to get offended at a government sponsored genocide in Darfur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why goad?
Posted by: davidg on Dec 15, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now some greedy toy company is producing a teddy with Mohammed on its T-shirt. As an atheist, I deplore the excesses of religious bullying, but as a person trying to share the planet, what is to be gained by goading? Picking at scabs only leaves scars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]