If Islam encourages naming of humans as Muhammud, then why isn’t the bear’s name taken from a human named Muhammud? People often name their cats after people. Why is it assumed that the name came from a prophet?
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7115821.stm
So naming a boy Muhammed is honoring the Prophet, naming a toy is not?
Certainly - if you’re what, 5 years old and travel on the short bus. Time to evacuate our nationals and send the SAS in.
(Number 37 in the long list of reasons why I should never be PM. 
)
It doesn’t matter where the name came from. It’s the prophet’s name. Anything or anyone named “Muhammad” is named for the prophet.
The boy who suggested the name is so named and claims that it was intended to be named after him. Makes no odds apparently.
Yeah, I just saw that here.
If 20 of 23 students voted to name the bear Mohammad, those ignorant 7 year olds need a serious talking to in religious instruction class. 
And maybe some lashes.
Just like a boy named Sue.
I think you may have misread my tone – I was honestly asking where you were seeing such wide acceptance for something I never see talked about as more than a passing sidebar. Though I rarely read Scientific American or New Scientist, I can see how the type of mention they tend to make (“in fact, some scientists believe this is evidence for…”) would give the impression of wider, more active support than actually exists.
And I’ve avoided giving my background because I don’t think this issue should be argued via dueling credentials. (FWIW, I’m a physicist.) What we’re arguing about is something anyone can have a credible position on – how seriously should a scientific theory be taken without concrete evidence? In my opinion, highly abstract theories like string theory have the potential to make important contributions, so I think they should be pursued, but we also shouldn’t ascribe more weight to them than they deserve merely because scientists are writing and thinking about them. And the goal for such theories should always be to eventually be able to make a prediction and/or explain experimental results that previous theories could not. Because of this, theories that are by their very definition untestable should be viewed very skeptically.
Well that seems fair, sorry I misread your tone.
I tend to base my science of prevailing theory and string theory appears to be the prevailing theory, unlike some other areas of science, I will not even pretend to understand string theory in any but a most basic sense. My understanding has been however that if string theory is correct, then multiple dimensions and multiple universes would have to exist.
I felt it was being dismissed as some form of quackery and it is actually based on sound theory though as you point out, untestable at this time and so still very suspect. In fact, that is why I pointed out that today’s view of this might look very wrong in 20 to 50 years. When the theory was ‘seriously introduced’ 50 years ago it did look loony, it has progressed to being seriously debated and accepted as a part of string theory by what appears to be a large number of physicists.
Jim (Of course, none of this has anything to do with the Op, my apologies)
Quit being obtuse. You know damn well that the archetypal Hindu society for the past 3000 years has been India.
How about if go by the number of towers of human skulls created out of their respective conquered enemies? India = 0. Mongols > 0.
Actually, any serious student of history would come to the opposite conclusion, that societies have exhibited great variability in any number of different behaviors. In fact, one might even argue that that provides a basis for differentiating one society from another.
And your reflexive cultural relativism and anti-theism makes it very hard for me to take anything you say seriously. Just for the record, I am not a Hindu, or member of any organized religion.
I’ve never made a claim that I was. However, neither did I dismiss it out of hand as just another “magic book”. Personally, I have gained some wisdom from reading the Bhagavad Gita. As I have from the Bible, though I am not a Christian.
Another claim I have come nowhere near making. However, I think it is fair to see Hinduism as an expression of Indian society. An effect, rather than (solely) a cause.
I hope Britain’s response on this is- one airstrike on the Sudanese Gov’t HQ per lash actually given.
Nuh-uh. But we could threaten to institute “Name Your Dog Mohammed Day”. Just to let 'em know that, while we don’t consider the teacher’s actions to be a clear and calculated insult, one can be arranged if necessary.
…I keed, I keed. We have enormous numbers of reasonable law-abiding Muslims over here.
I doubt very much if the teacher will suffer any lashes but if she does you can bet a pound to a pinch of shit that our Govt. response will be a big fat nothing.
BTW. I had a real nice dump today, I named it mohammed to honour the prophet.
Twat
We can dream I suppose. Zero foreign aid and an order for all British nationals to leave the country and while we’re at it, no more charity work either.
Just out of interest, if she is indeed sentenced to jail time / lashes and the sentence is carried out, what diplomatic sanctions would the UK levy against Sudan that they would actually give a damn about? Do we supply them with anything?
I really want to see the government do something to resolve this situation.
There’s biting the hand that feeds you and whipping the skin from its back.
Sudan has oil, it has ongoing genocide and I’m pretty sure they’re disguising ICBM’s tipped with anthrax as grain silo’s.
Hmm I wonder what part those hundreds of millions play in the western plot to attack Islam. It’ll have to be a preety big part to top the culture stopping blow of naming a teddy bear.
I think the plan is that they’ll spend it all on hookers and blackjack, thereby renouncing their religion.
Communism is more of a Philosophy than a religion. The first Christians were communists in it’s true form. According to the NT, there was a couple struck dead because they held back some of their wealth. The Soviet Union was not a pure form of Communism. Human nature as it is communism just doesn’t work.
Monavis
That’s not quite the whole truth. Ananias and Sapphira wanted to receive credit giving for the whole price of some land they sold, and Peter told them that the land was theirs before it was sold, and the money to do with as they pleased afterwards; it was lying about what they had done that was blameworthy.
And that Indian society has been shaped by many more cultural influences than just Hinduism. And that Indian government today reflects more cultural influences than just Hinduism. And that “Hinduism” as a cultural entity is so loose and broad that nearly any philosophical, spiritual, religious, moral, or social principle can be correctly labeled as “Hindu” or “non-Hindu.” And that the supposed “ideals” of Hinduism as perceived by non-Hindus like you and promulgated by charismatic charlatans like Prabhupada have very little to do with how Indians live and behave.
A completely arbitrary and specious standard. Might as well take the Battle of Kurukshetra as the standard for judging Hinduism and ask how many times Mongols engaged in a battle that lasted 18 days and resulted in the slaughter of 4 million people.
Well good for you, my open-to-all-enlightenment new-age friend. Who’s the cultural relativist now? Speaking as a Hindu and an Indian, let me say that whatever enlightenment you have gleaned from the Bhagavad Gita gives you zero insight into actual Indians and whether or not they are on a real-life, human basis more or less prone to violence or aggression than any other “race” of people.