There were times when religion, politics, and I believe the other subject was sex were supposedly not discussed at ‘polite’ society dinner parties.
God, they must have been boring! Although I am sure those rules were broken by the sophisticated. Now, some people mistakenly equate sophistication with breeding and snobbery, but it means being savvy, self confident and not taken in by sophistry.
Controversy is healthy; we would be a morose lot if we all agreed with each other all the time. Having said that, there are certain ground rules, whereby one knows how far to go.
I am now extending the topic beyond the dinner table. With regards to religion, one can discuss and criticise it, but there has to be a degree of sensitivity on one side and balance on the other.
One has to be aware of and sensitive to the culture of a country one is in and religious connotations worldwide, but on the other hand fatwas, lashings and the murder of doctors, the bombings of abortion clinics and other extreme modes of defending religious beliefs are just not acceptable.
There is, however, a big difference in that the Christian extremists are not part and parcel of the State. Although there are some Western governments who operate their own form of ‘fatwa’ and brutality in the guise of today’s crusaders.
I bring this up because of the latest “Muhammad” incident.
What started off as a relatively minor issue, played down by the Sudanese on Thursday, who said that the Western media were blowing up the story, has now exploded out of all proportion with thousands of people, many of them carrying knives and sticks, marching in Khartoum calling for the execution of British teacher, Gillian Gibbons.
Aptly gathered in Martyrs’ Square, outside the presidential palace, the mob bayed for blood. Amazingly enough it all started with choosing a name for a teddy bear.
Ms Gibbons was charged with insulting Islam, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.
She allegedly did this by allowing a class teddy bear to be called Muhammad. Ironically, she was sentenced by judge Muhammad Youssef.
So is not the judge, not to mention all the other Muhammad’s, taking the name of the prophet in vain? But, I suppose there is a distinction between naming a human being and a toy, no matter how cuddly, after the most revered messenger of Allah and founder of Islam.
Then again though, you can have a murderer called Muhammad, and I am sure Muslim jails must have a fair number of Muhammads. However, although a teddy bear is definitely harmless and lovable, it does not carry the gravitas which should be accorded to the Prophet. That is the crux of the matter.
Under Sudan’s penal code, Ms Gibbons could have faced 40 lashes, a fine, or up to one year in jail. Far beyond what was rationally applicable in such a context in Western courts.
Maybe due to the Western media and Her Majesty’s Government’s pressure, the court in fact sentenced her to 15 days in jail after which she will be deported. It was already pathetic that such a relatively small matter got to court and could have resulted in the woman getting whipped.
Losing her job and getting sent back home was punishment enough. It is rather exaggeratedly stretching it to say that allowing the bear to be called Muhammad incited hatred and showed contempt to religious beliefs.
As a teacher, Ms Gibbons certainly showed incredible ignorance of the significance of the chosen name and the environment she was working in. But that is all she is guilty of.
The Sudanese court knew that just sending her back to Britain, which was the most sensible thing to do, would incite the extremists.
When the last, much more serious, “Muhammad” cartoons controversy raged, I understood why followers of Islam felt aggrieved and insulted.
Their prophet was being depicted as a terrorist and warmonger, which implied that all Muslims were terrorists and warmongers.
Had a Muslim cartoonist depicted Jesus as a warmonger, which quite a few of followers of Christ are despite his teachings, there would have been outrage in the West.
We would not have burnt flags and effigies and probably few of us would have taken to the streets in protest, but the Western media would have had a field day.
Yet, there is just no comparison between the cartoons and the teddy bear incident. The marchers, who took to the streets after Friday prayers to denounce the sentence as too lenient, had obviously been primed either by agents provocateurs or their own extremists.
Whereas Muslim anger was understandable over the cartoons, it is certainly not justified in this instance. A teddy bear after all is a cherished toy and incites love rather than hatred.
It all started when as part of a teddy bear project the teacher asked the class to choose a name; understandably Muslim children choose the most popular name in their culture. But five- and six-year-olds do not have the sophistication, which Ms Gibbons should have had. How many teddy bears do you know of that are named “Jesus”? Rupert usually springs to mind.
Teachers defending her said it was not her idea, which is true. But as a teacher of small children she should have had the nous to see the children’s choice of name could spell trouble.
The British Government’s Travel Advice website spells out that local laws reflect the fact that Northern Sudan and the capital Khartoum are predominantly Muslim. “You should respect local customs and sensitivities at all times… Northern Sudan operates Islamic Sharia Law… Although the constitution specifies that in the national capital, Khartoum, non-Muslims shall not be subject to Sharia law, at present this has not resulted in any practical changes and you should expect Sharia law to apply.”
In this day and age it is inconceivable that people working in countries that operate Sharia law can be so naïve. But naivety doesn’t warrant a prison sentence, let alone execution.
Hopefully the Sudanese authorities will ignore the hotheads and send Ms Gibbons home.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com