A Teddy Bear Named Mohammad
desigirl | November 29, 2007Britain is all caught up with the news of teacher Gillian Gibbons being thrown into jail in Sudan, facing a 15-day jail term followed by deportation. At one point, it was reported that she might be looking at the business end of a whip - 40 times. Her crime? Letting her class of 7 year olds name their class teddy bear ‘Mohammad’. All over the country loud, disbelieving gasps can be heard, accompanied by the typical ‘they must be joking, surely!’ Foreign Office is scrabbling about trying to stop the Sudanese government from lashing out on the poor bewildered woman.
One of the guys in my course even made fun of it the other day. That made me think - they don’t get it, do they?
While it is tragic that the poor lady has been thrown in jail, laughing about it or passing disparaging comments about the attitude of ‘those people’ doesn’t help matters. Much as the British might see it as nothing short of ridiculous to get het up by something so trivial, the matter couldn’t be more serious to the other party. If one looks at it from the Sudanese government’s point of view, the teacher has committed a blasphemy, by naming a teddy bear after the Prophet. So, in their minds, she deserves to be punished. In fact, had it been a Sudanese citizen who had committed this act, retribution would have been swift.
This is not the first time the West has been caught with its foot caught in a religious quagmire. A few year’s back, an enterprising outfit in America called Sitting Pretty released a range of toilet seats named, ‘Sacred Seats’. The collection carried images of Lord Ganesha and Goddess Kali in glorious technicolour. Retailing for a whopping sum of $130, the line was augmented by such compelling prose such as this:
“Ganesha the Hindu elephant god, removes all obstacles, destroys evil and provides you with protection on your journey.”
Say goodbye to constipated bowels! Taking the dump and prayers at one go - what more could a harried Hindu want?
Of course, the Hindu community got into a major uproar and the line was withdrawn. A while later, a San Francisco company released ‘designer footwear’ carrying images of, you guessed it, Ganesha and assorted members of his illustrious family. Outraged squawks from all quarters made sure the shoes weren’t released into the general market. Despite this, flip-flops and Hindu gods were once again merged in 2003 by American Eagle Outfitters and the result was pretty much the same . Then there was this French shoe manufacturer who put pictures of Rama onto shoe fronts.
Why would someone do it? While one can arrive at a whole lot of answers, what it all boils down to is that the people behind these never realised (or cared enough to realise) what these images represent and what kind of sentiment they carry for the millions of Hindus around the world. Unfortunately enough, no one seemed to understand the reason behind the furore caused by these incidents so that the circumstances need never be repeated again.
What do all this have to do with this divorced teacher and her impending, frightening future in Sudan? Personally, nothing. She merely went with her students’ wishes, the papers say - after all, why wouldn’t she let them name their toy? That she did not understand the weight the name Mohammad carries and therein lay her misfortune.
The teacher’s inadvertent error just reiterates the fact that it is high time the Western countries start taking into account other cultures, customs and religions. It is that classic rule “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” To this, one more statement could be added: “do not judge everyone or everything by your standards”.
Does the teacher deserve what she gets? No, no, emphatically no. Do the general Western populace need an education on what goes and what doesn’t, with respect to the world’s religions? A definite yes.
While I would agree on some points you made, I
DotMom | November 29, 2007 | 8:55 pmWhile I would agree on some points you made, I think you are missing a very important point here - motive. I don’t think the Brit teacher in Sudan and the French designers of ’sacred’ shoes meant to bash a religion.
Well, I personally wouldn't have a problem with any of
Amrita | November 30, 2007 | 3:00 pmWell, I personally wouldn’t have a problem with any of the above examples whether or not I felt offended by them on some level but that’s just me. I can understand why some folks might feel extremely opposite.
But there were two things about this woman’s case that struck me - one, if you’re going to a foreign country to teach, then the least you can do (especially in these times and in the SUDAN for god’s sake) is learn the local customs and what would or would not be kosher. Didn’t this woman have some sort of organization backing her up that gave her a little head’s up on what to do, what not to do before she left Britain?
Secondly, if all she’s got is 15 days in a horrible prison and deportation she ought to thank her lucky stars and get out pronto. Esp. when you realize Britain has no real pull in that country unlike say, China.
Oh and a third point occurs to me: all this uproar for a teddy bear; how about those folks getting raped and murdered over there?
Ams the point is, had this happened in Britain -
desigirl | December 1, 2007 | 7:49 amAms
the point is, had this happened in Britain - a foreign national had done something to offend the Brits’ moral sensibilities, the said offender wud have been thrown into the slammer for a good seven year period.
Oh who gives a shit to what a country does to itself as long as it a. doesn’t hurt any Brit in the teensiest way b. doesnt have oil?
Dotmom, I'd disagree with you there. Just because they didn't 'bash
desigirl | December 1, 2007 | 9:57 amDotmom,
I’d disagree with you there. Just because they didn’t ‘bash any religion’, hurting the sensibilities of people of other faith is alright, is it? How would you define ‘religion bashing’ anyway? Where does the respect for the diversity lie? When you know enough about a religion and its icons to define a deity as “Ganesha the Hindu elephant god, removes all obstacles, destroys evil and provides you with protection on your journey”, I don’t think you can claim ignorance about a religion and its beliefs and hence claim it as a defense.
Anyway, lack of knowledge of a law doesnt constitute as proper defense, does it?
7 years? Okay, I did NOT know that. Britain always
Amrita | December 2, 2007 | 6:08 am7 years? Okay, I did NOT know that. Britain always manages to surprise me. And Sudan does have oil - it’s just not selling any to the West. Smart them
Dotmom - I think that’s the sort of mitigating factor that would work in a more reasonable society but Sudan doesn’t strike me as especially reasonable. And if someone is going there, they ought to understand that IMO.
damn, sacred seats! now that's true devotion! just when u
Aniche | December 2, 2007 | 3:21 pmdamn, sacred seats! now that’s true devotion! just when u thought god didnt listen to u before!
this sort of thing always amazes me. I dont see
the mad momma | December 6, 2007 | 1:43 pmthis sort of thing always amazes me. I dont see Jesus on a potty lid. bloody morons. there is no excuse for that. on the other hand, seven year olds naming a teddy bear - they meant no disrespect. in fact a teddy bear is beloved and precious to kids so if anything they just christened it out of love.
the teacher might have realised its inappropriate but not imagined it would get out of class.
is it a crime. i doubt it. a bunch of little kids playing with a toy in a classroom. a beloved toy. naming it.
either way - i guess i can see where the sudanese are coming from… yet, if she were in Sudan, well its the Sudanese kids who named it after their God. She just stood by.
that said, i agree with the general tone. ppl are getting more politically correct. but sensitive? i dont think so.
ahh MM, glad to see someone going down the same
desigirl | December 6, 2007 | 4:37 pmahh MM, glad to see someone going down the same route as me. *whew*
Whilst I agree she didnt do much but let the kiddies do what they wanted, had she known what the name meant, she would have been more sensitive and might have suggested a compromise. It isn’t the name that’s the crux tho’…
You have highlighted one thing that the West is perennially
Asokan Pichai | December 8, 2007 | 4:46 pmYou have highlighted one thing that the West is perennially guilty of. Looking at the world with a set of blinkers, worn with smug self-importance of their culture. For a moment imagine that the designer of the potty had been imprisoned or punished in India. What would be the West’s reaction?
Now imagine that a teacher from another African nation had been the one who was punished in Sudan. What would have been the West’s reaction?
All's fair in love and war - oh wait, that's
desigirl | December 8, 2007 | 8:02 pmAll’s fair in love and war - oh wait, that’s the way Iraq and Afghanistan went, isn’t it. All’s fair full stop.
I don't agree with the basic premise of the arguments
Karthik Thirumalai | December 10, 2007 | 5:23 pmI don’t agree with the basic premise of the arguments laid to defend the Sudanese regime and it’s abhorent behaviour (atleast it seems like you are supporting it).
While it might have not been sensible on her part to let the teddy bears be named ‘Mohamad’, it’s it outrageous to jail her for a stupid mistake at best. They could have asked her to apologize for the whole mistake and deported her, that should have been the end of that.
Should this be the fate of someone who is trying to help children ( doesn’t matter how she got there or for what reason) and improve their lives? Absolutely NOT.
These bunch of radicals are giving a bad name for the entire religion of Islam. This seems to be the mantra of the day from the west to east. We have the Christian/Jewish radicals in the US formeting trouble in their own way, they are pointing towards this (Islamic radicals) behaviour at home (US) as to why they need harsh policies to bring ‘change’ to the Middle-East and other countries. If we don’t condemn this behaviour whenever and wherever we see it (all religions and countries included), this world is in for a lot a trouble.
Teddy bears are symbolic of compassion, caring, comfort and love.
Natalie Hartman Whitnack | December 26, 2007 | 10:56 amTeddy bears are symbolic of compassion, caring, comfort and love. If only these teddy bear tenents were the lesson we could all learn from the unfortunate classroom naming experience. I would hope that respect and forgiveness for one another would best represent the true spirit of one’s faith and devotion to their higher power. May the teddy bear begins it’s journey as the ambassador of peace and goodwill.