When the followers of a religion consider giving a teddy bear the same name as their primary prophet an offense so grievous that it requires prison and violent physical retribution, reasonable people have ample grounds on which to question the foundations of their beliefs.
KHARTOUM, Sudan — A 7-year-old Sudanese boy is defending the British teacher accused of insulting Islam by naming a teddy bear Muhammad, Reuters reported.
The boy said Gilliam Gibbons, 54, asked him, as part of a school assignment, what he wanted to call the stuffed animal and he said, ‘Muhammad,’ after his name, Reuters reported.
Sudanese authorities on Tuesday questioned Gibbons who could face charges of insulting religion — a crime punishable by up to 40 lashes, six months in prison or a fine.
Even if the teacher had meant to insult religion, this would hardly amount to a “crime” worth even a nasty look from the judge. Also, the notion that Sudanese authorities are at all concerned that religion was insulted is laughable. If the teacher had named the bear “Jehova,” “Jaweh,” or “Jesus Christ,” I’m confident that those authorities would have bothered to notice.
I recently watched Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens debate the question “is Christianity the problem?” While I disagreed with Hitchens on many of his premises, at no time in the debate did I feel a need to attack him physically or to demand that he be imprisoned, chastised, or abused by the authorities.
This type of violent, aggressive overreaction to any perceived slight against one’s religion is a sure sign of the aggressor’s lack of faith in their god’s ability to withstand the criticism. That lack of faith speaks far louder about their religion than criticisms offered up by an “infidel.”
As you read through the article, you can also see just how far the postmodern, never offend anyone at any cost mindset has seeped into the British population and government.
The case brought widespread calls in Britain for her release. The Muslim Council of Britain calls upon the Sudanese government to intervene in the case.
“This is a very unfortunate incident and Ms Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that no malice was intended,” said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council’s secretary-general.
British opposition Conservative party lawmaker William Hague called on the British government to “make it clear to the Sudanese authorities that she should be released immediately.”
“To condemn Gillian Gibbons to such brutal and barbaric punishment for what appears to be an innocent mistake is clearly unacceptable,” he said.
While it is good to see both the British government and British Muslim groups contesting the Sudanese government’s ruling and demanding Gibbons’ release, it is pathetic to see them refusing to address the real problem. The Muslim Council is arguing that “no malice was intended” by Gibbons and the opposition party is arguing that she made “an innocent” mistake.
Neither appears willing to simply state that the Sudanese need to abandon their fourth or fifth century mindset and join us in the contemporary world. The action of condemning someone to jail, physical torture, or fines for “offending religion,” or for some alleged “misconduct against the Islamic faith” is barbaric. For the British government to criticize the punishment and not the people who are threatening to carry the punishment out is simply wrong.
The British government, the British Muslim Council and reasonable people all over the world need to openly tell the Sudanese that they are acting in a barbaric manner by imposing such an outlandish punishment for such a petty “offense.”
