[joesixpack]

Last week at the University of Reading there was an incedent with the student atheist society. They were at an event where, as a publicity stunt, they placed a card with the Prophet's name on a pineapple. The stated goal of this little stunt was to provoke discussion about the Gillian Gibbons blasphemy case from 2007 in Sudan.

According to the Daily Mail story (which, it turns out, Ican't link to)

The Reading University Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society (RAHS) said they wanted to celebrate free speech and promote their upcoming debate 'Should we respect religion?'

But they were ordered to remove the offending fruit by union staff who said their actions were causing 'upset and distress' to a number of Muslim students and other societies.

RAHS refused, citing that they had labelled the pineapple after the Islamic prophet to 'encourage discussion about blasphemy, religion, and liberty'.

A spokesman said: 'We wanted to celebrate the fact that we live in a country in which free speech is protected and where it is lawful to call a pineapple by whatever name one chooses.'

They claimed the union then issued them with the ultimatum: 'Either the pineapple goes or you do.'

This story was being discussed on another forum (of which I am a member) made up of mostly atheists, a few Christians and no Muslims (from what I can tell). The argument seemed pretty evenly split among the participants on that forum. It seemed about half the atheists (and the one Christian taking part in the discussion) felt it was intentionally disrespectful towards Muslims and should have been taken down, the other half felt that "free speech" is sacrosanct and, though the atheist society was intentionally rude and sophomoric, that the speech was protected.

The atheist society makes it quite clear that they intended a reaction, while at the same time pretending that the issue of free speech was at stake. From my perspective, I see a minority group (who have been the target of hate crimes) being singled out for intentional insult. I think most Muslims, even the most insouciant follower, would perceive that as a veiled threat, at the very least. I think I made my views on free speech pretty clear in another thread (Does Free Speech exist in Islam).

I find it rather ironic that the Gillian Gibbons case was what they wanted to invoke when It was, in fact, British Muslims who lobbied the Sudanese government so hard for her pardon and release.

My question is, in a case where a non-Muslim uses the Prophet's name in a disrespectful manner accidentally, wouldn't a Muslim simply point that out to them? I think the Sudanese case was more politically motivated than religiously. Clearly, Ms. Gibbons hadn't mean any offense, and has apologized repeatedly. And as I said, there were many Muslims who came to her defense when the case made headlines. I have been told (not by any Muslim) that it would still be considered a crime in an Islamic society, yet I find this difficult to believe based on the Muslims I've known in the past. What are your thoughts?

Also, I'm going to have some follow up questions.

 

[Scimitar]

My personal opinion Joe?

Let them do as they please. As a believer in Allah, I believe that these hate mongers who use the free speech laws to incite animosity, are having grave sins recorded in their book and will have to answer for their sin on the day of judgement...

Let them do it. I'll even defend their right to abuse the free speech laws but I won't defend them against a mob of angry Muslim extremists.

Scimi

 

[Snowflake]

Their derogatory speech and actions cannot lower the Glory and Might of Allah, or the honour and status of the Prophet (peace be upon him). But they are themselves lower than animals.


“Already have we urged unto Hell many of the Jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle - nay but they are worse! These are the neglectful." Quran (7: 179)

 

[joesixpack]

Well, My question is more specificially about the Gillian Gibbons case. Would it be normal in an Islamic society to punish a non-muslim for an accidentally offensive act, or would a Muslim simply correct someone? In the case of Gibbons, I believe it was a teddy bear that was given the name Muhammad because that is what the kids in her class had decided on. I know Muhammad is a very common name so it's likely that's why the kids picked it (like "Joe" here in the US). As I said above, it was pretty evident that Ms. Gibbons hadn't actually meant to insult the Prophet, but she was punished as if she had. Surely the idea of intent has some weight in Islamic law? As an example, accidentially stepping on a persons foot is not assault, where intentionally stepping on someones foot would be. In the first instancce, and "I'm sorry, please excuse me" would suffice", but in the context of two people with bad blood between them, even scuffing the other's shoe while looking them in the eye might start a fight.

 

[Scimitar]

you can't ask us this question, maybe you should ask on islamQA.com - probably your best avenue of approach buddy

 

[sister herb]

Or go to nearest mosque and ask it from imam.

 

[dusk]

In respect to this Gibbons case I guess there is one valid argument.
Are Muslims offended by Mohammed being depicted as a pineapple which seem rather harmless, it is just a fruit and a very tasty one, is it perceived islamophobia or is it that Mohammed is depicted at all?
In the pineapple case I am not sure, in the G. Gibbons case is was the last one and this is a ridiculous one in any free secular country.
It would not be a call to respect them, it would be call to obey islamic laws.

 

[Hulk]

Well, My question is more specificially about the Gillian Gibbons case. Would it be normal in an Islamic society to punish a non-muslim for an accidentally offensive act, or would a Muslim simply correct someone? In the case of Gibbons, I believe it was a teddy bear that was given the name Muhammad because that is what the kids in her class had decided on. I know Muhammad is a very common name so it's likely that's why the kids picked it (like "Joe" here in the US). As I said above, it was pretty evident that Ms. Gibbons hadn't actually meant to insult the Prophet, but she was punished as if she had. Surely the idea of intent has some weight in Islamic law? As an example, accidentially stepping on a persons foot is not assault, where intentionally stepping on someones foot would be. In the first instancce, and "I'm sorry, please excuse me" would suffice", but in the context of two people with bad blood between them, even scuffing the other's shoe while looking them in the eye might start a fight.

In short, unintentional mistakes are easy to forgive.

 

[جوري]

Well, My question is more specificially about the Gillian Gibbons case. Would it be normal in an Islamic society to punish a non-muslim for an accidentally offensive act, or would a Muslim simply correct someone? In the case of Gibbons, I believe it was a teddy bear that was given the name Muhammad because that is what the kids in her class had decided on. I know Muhammad is a very common name so it's likely that's why the kids picked it (like "Joe" here in the US). As I said above, it was pretty evident that Ms. Gibbons hadn't actually meant to insult the Prophet, but she was punished as if she had. Surely the idea of intent has some weight in Islamic law? As an example, accidentially stepping on a persons foot is not assault, where intentionally stepping on someones foot would be. In the first instancce, and "I'm sorry, please excuse me" would suffice", but in the context of two people with bad blood between them, even scuffing the other's shoe while looking them in the eye might start a fight.

They didn't punish them even when they could. As you may already know Maimonides was kicked out of spain and found his home and haven in the Muslim world, which he abused and wrote a book mocking the sons of Ishmael that was the title but in Arabic, so what the Muslims, his hosts did was simply write a book rebuttal. The problem now a days is that no voice is given to Muslims, they only like to present certain images on TV and don't want that challenged.
It isn't just a matter of free speech it extends to everything. This famous French singer 'Diem' converted recently to Islam, she gave a brief interview to her and then had to go into major damage control for how dare she portray a positive image. They wrote of her everything from mentally unstable to looking like a bug in her veil etc. etc.
Does that sound like folks who value 'free speech' or folks looking to defame, malign, marginalize and vilify? So stupid are they I think they're unable to rise above a play ground bully brand of torture to their victims.

Here's a thought what is they started a rally and no one showed up. I think that's how the atheists seeking a reaction should be treated but you know they're looking to bait just one guy to start a chain reaction.

 

[sister herb]

This question came to my mind last night: what if this Gillian Gibbons would name that teddy bear as "Jesus"? What kind of reaction it would gives? Maybe out of topic...

 

[Independent]

what if this Gillian Gibbons would name that teddy bear as "Jesus"? What kind of reaction it would gives?

Depends where you did it. In the UK Jesus would be a hugely unusual name for people, so it would be seen as 'poor taste' and 'inappropriate' (although not actually criminal). The press might pick it up if they wanted to make a story about falling standards in the teaching profession. In Spain and Portugal however Jesus can be used as an ordinary Christian name so perhaps they might see it as OK (you'd have to ask a local.)

As has been said, Muhammad is a tremendously popular name in the Muslim world so Gillian's mistake - and the childrens' - is understandable.

 

[hur575]

Free speech does exist in Islam believe ii or not, we just seem to disagree on the methods, and I don’t understand why do Atheist seem to be concerned with this” outdated religion”. Surely they have figured it all out with their great mind so why bother with us?? It is really beyond me.

In regards, of Gillian Gibbons’s case she didn’t know what she has done was insulting to our beloved prophet, and should have not be treated that way. Let’s remember there are no country today which apply the Islamic sharia law.

The prophet peace be upon him, showed us great examples, for allowing free speech and actions for that matter. See how the prophet peace be upon him responded to a person urinating in mosque ( he clearly didn’t know) A Bedouin urinated in the mosque. Some of the persons stood up (to reprimand him or to check him from doing so), but the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Leave him alone; don't interrupt him. He (the narrator) said: And when he had finished, he called for a bucket of water and poured it over. (Muslim hadith 557, Book of purification).

There is also many examples of this, this teacher did not know even though she is not excused, as when you decide to live somewhere new, out of respect you should know check the do’ and don’t.

As for drawing our beloved Muhammad or making films, those people know what they are doing is insulting, and we are meant to encourage it??

Funny how that free speech system can be adjusted according to the situation. At the same time the stupid film was released the French media has released indecent pictures of Kate Middleton, and suddenly we see people getting offended for posting such pictures even though celebrity’s privacy has been invaded many times, funny how that free speech decided to stop here, and after reminded the same rubbish about public figures that they should not have private lives, and that their lives are owned by the people, suddenly all that changed and the public outraged for this cute innocent princess!! But to the hell with billion of people who love, respect, and will give their lives away to this man.

 

[glo]

Depends where you did it. In the UK Jesus would be a hugely unusual name for people, so it would be seen as 'poor taste' and 'inappropriate' (although not actually criminal). The press might pick it up if they wanted to make a story about falling standards in the teaching profession.

You think?
I don't think it would be news-worthy at all or raise any eyebrows ...

 

[Insaanah]

This question came to my mind last night: what if this Gillian Gibbons would name that teddy bear as "Jesus"? What kind of reaction it would gives? Maybe out of topic...

I once came across a person whose name was Jesus. I commented to a colleague what a lovely that name that was, but she looked horrified and said that it was blasphemous because Jesus was God.

That was the first time I realised that Christians believed that Jesus (peace be upon him) was divine. I thought they believed that he was God's son, but not divine, and didn't realise they believed that he was both God and God's son.

 

[Independent]

I don't think it would be news-worthy at all or raise any eyebrows ...

Instead of being seen as attacking or mocking religion, it would probably be seen as promoting it in an inappropriate way. (Because in the UK, the name can only be seen in a religious context.) As for the Press, criticising the teaching profession has been a running theme for decades. It might get picked up if they were already running stories about crazy teachers but it would be very minor.

 

[hur575]

Depends where you did it. In the UK Jesus would be a hugely unusual name for people, so it would be seen as 'poor taste' and 'inappropriate' (although not actually criminal). The press might pick it up if they wanted to make a story about falling standards in the teaching profession. In Spain and Portugal however Jesus can be used as an ordinary Christian name so perhaps they might see it as OK (you'd have to ask a local.)

As has been said, Muhammad is a tremendously popular name in the Muslim world so Gillian's mistake - and the childrens' - is understandable.

You think?
I don't think it would be news-worthy at all or raise any eyebrows ...

The thing is you comparing two different things, It's Like Comparing Apples and Oranges, they are both fruits and that when the similarity ends.

There was great advert on British TV about HSBC, it was advertisements to show people in different countries adopting different habits to the UK. For example, showing the soles of your feet in Thailand is extremely rude, so you can’t go to Thailand and do that, and claim ignorance, or worse, force people to accept it, because it is acceptable to do that back home!

 

[جوري]

I once came across a person whose name was Jesus. I commented to a colleague what a lovely that name that was, but she looked horrified and said that it was blasphemous because Jesus was God.

That was the first time I realised that Christians believed that Jesus (peace be upon him) was divine. I thought they believed that he was God's son, but not divine, and didn't realise they believed that he was both God and God's son.

Indeed this happens often as such they try to pronounce it differently as it is mostly folks of Hispanic background so they pronounce it like this ''hay seuss' instead of Jesus at any rate they don't pronounce the J all together but yes there's only so much you can get away with with blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Mexicans so the only thing left to take out their devils are Muslims and we don't seem to fight anything back at all!

 

[joesixpack]

This question came to my mind last night: what if this Gillian Gibbons would name that teddy bear as "Jesus"? What kind of reaction it would gives? Maybe out of topic...

The entire cultural milieu is different. The difference in reaction between the west (in the case of naming a toy "Jesus") would be entirely different than the reaction of naming a toy "Muhammad" in the Muslim world. In fact, the reaction to naming a toy "Jesus" would be different in those two places, and not in the way that some people believe. Muslims would take umbrage at the treatment of Jesus' name as well, in many cases I have seen.

Why is this? Well, there is a cultural element involved. In the west, it appears that people are much more tolerant of certain forms of speech, and much less tolerant of others. These differences probably have roots in the initial formation of the different cultures due to vastly different objective material conditions. But what I see here is that people are fundamentally the same in that they respond more to the perception of meaning in the actions of others than to some strict legalistic code. If something is meant as an insult, it will generally be taken as one, and if it is an accidental offense, people generally aren't offended.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

this is intentional cause of offence.

there is nothing but incitement of hatred and anger here.

why cant people see this? What is so hidden that people cant see the bullying here. It is nothing but bullying now !

 

[جوري]

Why would they? It is all part of the game..
It is funny the comment of that atheist guy on the other thread.. How he & others are bending over backward to be nice and it should be met in kind.
Firstly as no one is addressing him as a person rather the ideology secondly because on one thread he's toting his 'free speech' like a badge of honor yet sees fit to deny others that same right..
and by the way I write with calmness & a dimpled smile in fact my blood pressure and pulse are usually below average :skeleton: