Slashdot Mirror
Extremists Warn South Park Creators Over Muhammad In a Bear Suit
An anonymous reader writes "A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of South Park that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week. RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park."
They already had depicted him before in season 10 "Cartoon Wars Part II":
http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/504/superbestfriends.gif
I was kind of surprised when I watched the show since they did this right after the danish
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
What surprised me even more is that I don't recall anybody saying anything back then. Nevertheless, apparently Comedy Central is now refusing to show depiction of Muhammad so it seems the authors decided to masquerade him as a bear.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Al Amrikee said the website is considering a protest against the "disgusting" show, which also depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an episode on July 4, 2001.
I remember that one, I think it opened with a bugs bunny-ish skit depicting Bin Laden in some slapstick comedy.
What I want to know is how Al Amrikee feels about Fox news hosting the image of Muhammad in a bear suit in the article? And how does he feel now that his comment has had the Streisand effect and Foxnews.com is showing it to many more people that don't have access to cable television. Wouldn't he, as part of the distribution channel and medium, be also on said "black lists" he warns of?
My work here is dung.
"Modern Religion"? Answered your own question there, sport.
They could have put him in a pedobear costume.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I think they actually knew what they could be getting themselves into when they did this. Even though South Park seems "childish", it does do social commentary, and it shows that the authors seem to be paying attention to the world around them. I may not agree with everything they have done, but in my opinion, it's better that they do too much than too little. It's important that someone has the balls to stand up and speak out. And now they dared to touch Muhammad.
That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?
Muhammad might be sacred to Muslims, and they may be offended by this. But this is exactly why Muhammad needs to be ridiculed even more. Nothing should be above criticism and ridicule, and if some think that they or their symbols are, they should be the target of even more ridicule, until they understand that they will not be able to do anything they please without criticism for their wrongdoings.
Let's hope Matt and Trey won't end up as "martyrs" of free speech, though. We need them around to keep doing what they do.
Clever signature text goes here.
...is to increase the number of targets by several orders of magnitude. No, really, I'm quite serious. If everyone posts or publishes a cartoon simultaneously mocking Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses, there will be no practical way for religious extremists to respond. (Yes, I know there are other religions, but it's the big three monotheist camps that are making most of the trouble.)
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Part of the plot of the episode was the characters worrying that Muhammad was going to appear in their town. They kept asking "is that okay" in the episode... representations of Muhammad as a stick figure to Muhammad inside a U-Haul prompt worried questions from the characters... eventually the characters opt to place Muhammad in a full-body bear suit so he was not visible.
"is that okay?"
I guess not.
[signature]
I mean, so far, South Park has lampooned Christ, Budda, etc....and yet none of these groups have threatened them with anything more dangerous than possibly a boycott.
Seriously, what the fuck is with these people? Isn't it time to move into the 21st century with the rest of us?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's even more ironic that the prohibition against depicting Mohammed was originally (IIRC) to prevent him from being idolized and treated like a deity.
This is exactly the reaction that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were looking for.
If you watch the episode, the members of South Park conclude that the only way to _NOT OFFEND_ Muslims is to put him in a bear suit.
Unfortunately, it looks like in the real world, the Muslims are even more crazy than South Park has depicted them to be. It shows exactly how wacko the muslim community is.
It's similar to the Scientology episode...except, they didn't actually get sued by Scientologists. I daresay, that Scientologists are more sane in this regard than Muslims.
Religion needs to be mocked, but Islam more so than Christianity. The stronger the reaction to parody and ridicule, the more parody and ridicule is required to smack religion into its rightful subdued state (in society).
Clever signature text goes here.
I mixed up things, they actually depicted him 2001 as TFA says in "super best friends" , but as I stated, I don't recall anybody said anything back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends
"Cartoon Wars Part II" is a different show aired after the danish
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_II
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
OK, OK, *Somebody* had to make the joke.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"Extremists Warn South Park Creators Over Muhammad in a Bear Suit"
What a total wimp-out of a headline. A 'warning' is when the weatherman says 'it looks icy out today, drive slow.' When someone calls upon the nut-jobs of the world to murder you because you pissed off their bronze-age sky fairy, that's inciting violence, an explicit threat. I'm willing to go pretty far in support of free speech, but this is definitely "fire in a crowded theater" material.
Islam, true Islam, is extremely peaceful. However like any large faith, it is often perverted by those who seek to use it to gain political power. A perfect example of this is Paul from the Christian faith. A simple skim over the books he wrote even leaves the most ignorant aware of the fact that he did not follow the teachings of Jesus. His books have been altered even more in the centuries since then to suit the political pressures at the time.. some parts were cut out, some were added in.
Any faith can be abused by those who want to get more money, land, power, opposite (or same) sex... Looking at Muslims who would threaten people with death over their depictions of Mohammad and taking that as the width and breadth of Islam is no more absurd then looking at the actions of Westboro Baptist and their "Got hates Gays" protests at fallen soldiers and thinking they are representative of all Christians.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
Christianity used to honor a similar tradition to prevent idolatry.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Sort of, but I think it mostly derives from certain Muslim traditions that either discourage or outright ban visual depictions of any living creature, particularly humans. This is part of the reason the Taliban in Afghanistan blew up those giant statues of Buddha, and also the reason we had all those stories early in the "war on terror" about how hard it was to find specific bad guys we were looking for (because few or no pictures of them existed, because having their picture taken was forbidden). Extremist Islamic groups have taken these traditions and radicalized them to the point where basically any depiction of Mohammad (or presumably anyone else, although they seem to get particularly offended if it's Mohammad) punishable by death by suicide bomber.
More mainstream Muslims don't care quite that much about it, and it's worth noting that there are plenty of paintings and other art works in Muslim areas featuring visual depictions of Muhammad dating back hundreds of years. This is just another symptom of what happens when people with extremist views have access to lots of explosives: their views get a whole lot more attention than they normally would.
Too be fair, the terrorists are no more about Islam then Pat Robertson is about Christianity.
Now, I'm not condoning war or murder or terrorism or anything like that, but would it be at all ironic (and hilarious) if this lead to a an American "war on Islam" à la the "war on Canada" in Bigger, Longer & Uncut?
"How dare you portray Muhammad as violent! We shall kill you for that!"
Table-ized A.I.
I just can't help it!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The one constant truth of all zealots is that obedience to the rules they fight for is far more important to them than the reason for the rules' existence.
If they're such extremists what are they doing watching South Park?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Right. Which is how you view it, but not how they view it. The "logic" goes something like this:
1) My religion is right, all others are wrong
2) Since it is the only right answer, all should follow
3) If you don't follow, you are wrong and I am right to smite thee
4) When in doubt, refer to rule 3.
How "fundamental" (read: dedicated/crazy) they are determines whether #3 is a rebuke, a slap, or a death squad.
I'd say you've never even heard of a little country called Ireland...
From watching the episode, the entire point of it seemed to be to show the absurdity of a prohibition on any depiction of someone. By making a depiction of Muhammed (PBUH) that involved no image that was recognizably of him, they showed that the prohibition was ridiculous, because it is then a blanket prohibition on any image. I could say that the category icon for this story was a depiction of the Prophet disguised as a white man in glasses with a black rectangle over his mouth - suddenly that would be a prohibited image.
CAVEAT: This line of argument also means that prohibitions on depictions of things that _we_ think shouldn't be allowed are also absurd.
Finally, this is not to say that I think that any image is acceptable, but it must have to do with the objective content (or at least consensus agreement of what the objective content is), rather than what the artist intended it to depict, or what it may have been interpreted as depicting.
Obviously you have not watched this episode. The intent of putting Muhammad in a bear suit was not to mock Muhammad but to criticize the fact that no one is allowed to depict Muhammad at all in his human form. South Park has made fun of just about every celebrity, religious figure, and political leader possible. They regularly make fun of Jesus in a country full of Christians and are not threatened by violence, but simply depicting Muhammad without even showing his human form subjects them to threats on their lives. The social commentary is simply that these people are way too extreme and this reaction is certainly proving them right. This isn't "fire in a crowded theater" material - it is about censorship of discussing fire in general.
When someone calls upon the nut-jobs of the world to murder you because you pissed off their bronze-age sky fairy,
I'm an Atheist myself, but to exactly what "bronze-age sky fairy" are you referring?
The Bronze Age ended more than a millenium before the birth of Muhammad.
If you're going to disparage a religion, at least try to educate yourself minimally about it. Be a responsible Atheist.
Perhaps "medieval sky fairy" would be more appropriate
Is that Islam has not undergone a process analogous to the Enlightenment.
Pre-Enlightenment, much of Europe was basically a mass of warring theocracies, split between the Catholic ones and the Protestant ones. Separation of church and state were basically nonexistent, blasphemy laws were on the books(and had real teeth, with limited exceptions[thanks a whole fucking lot Ireland] the ones that remain are just relics at this point). You easily could be, and people were, killed for having the wrong doctrinal positions. Censorship was rampant. Things pretty much sucked.
Thanks to the dedicated(and at times heroic, not a few faced jail, or worse) efforts of various Enlightenment figures, along with a number of political occurrences(the French Revolution had its minuses; but it did have the salubrious effect of annihilating a schlerotic and corrupt divine-right absolutism and replacing it with a secular nation-state. The Glorious Revolution in England was less dramatic; but went rather better. Then, of course, you had the American Revolution, which was absolutely dripping with Enlightenment sentiment[much to the displeasure of today's crop of "America is a Christian Nation founded on the Bible!!! Dominionist nutjobs]).
The Enlightenment was not an easy process. Much blood, sweat, and ink were spilled; but the results helped make the modern west the more-or-less pleasant place it is today. It was basically the death-knell of absolutist theocracy in the west, and the impetus behind the broad introduction of fun concepts like "human rights" and "freedom of religion"(also coffeehouses and atheism, what's not to love?).
The relatively benign forms of Christianity that we think of today are basically creations of the Enlightenment(even among the zealous, things like persecution and warfare between Catholics, protestants, and various sects thereof are basically off the table). It wasn't always that way. Even today, there are reactionary hardliners who would really prefer to roll things back(Rushdooney and the "Reconstructionists", for instance, "Dominionists" more generally, are the main thrust of that in the US, where the hardcore are predominantly fundamentalist protestants. On the European stage, we still have the Catholic church pretending that its "canon law", rather than being simply a set of rules for a private club, somehow takes precedence over Civil Law. Without substantial moderating influences, Abrahamic monotheisms are mean, ugly, primitive, and brutal.
Unfortunately, Islam has not, historically, experienced an analogous process. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of more-or-less modern people who are nominally "muslim" in the same way that much of the west is still nominally "christian"; but it does mean that none of the major strains of Islam have been subjected to the radical reduction in power that all the various flavors of Christianity have. For instance, a Christian advocate of theocratic government qualifies as a right-wing nutjob(they exist in surprisingly large numbers, unfortunately; but they still qualify as a fringe position). In large areas of the world, Islamic theocracy(either as a matter of law, or in the form of a state so heavily subservient to religious enthusiasts and Sharia courts that it might as well be) is simply the local form of government.
This is not to say that there is anything intrinsically superior about Christianity. It fought progress tooth-and-nail, every step of the way, during the Enlightenment. To this day, it harbors downright nasty reactionary elements. And, despite protestations to the contrary, most of the noblest aspects of our society exist in spite of rather than because of it. (Fun stuff like "Civil law" and "freedom of conscience" are either classical, or modern derivations from the classical philosophical tradition). However, because Islam has not been subjected to the moderating(some would say "neutering") influence of an Enlightenment, it retains many of the ugly elements that Christianity no longer has the political power or cultural clout to employ.
To be fair a good percentage of those being brought up as Muslims are being taught that it'd be an honor to kill a few infidels like Matt and Trey.
Remember Islam is about 6 centuries younger than Christianity. Read some of the history of Christianity from the 1400's and you will find similar violent reactions of Jesus depicted in any non-sacred way. Jesus was not even portrayed in cinema until 1961's "King of King's".
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Source.
To be taken metaphorically, of course.
And now you tell me? shit...
DON'T PANIC.
but in the end, this hobbles and impoverishes the islamic world, because you have essentially banned freedom of thought in your culture, which is the only means by which social and technological progress occurs. the muslim world has money because they have oil. but the world is moving past oil. eventually, the muslim world will find that oil doesn't pay anymore, and that nothing else in their sphere of influence pays anything either, and they will sink into poverty
a culture is rich when the ideas the culture cherishes are rich. but if your culture values extreme obedience to unquestionable static ideas, you will have a poor culture (unless its artificially propped up by things like natural resources, as is the current situation). either the moderate muslims effectively control and shut up the large number of fundamentalists in their midsts, or the future of the muslim world is poverty and violence. that's the simple truth
there are fundamentalists in every culture and religion, and every culture and religion in the world has a problem with fundamentalist assholes running around insisting on regimented obedience to unquestionable ideas and ready to do violence if no one listens to them. but you are blind and intellectually dishonest if you don't see that the muslim world has a greater than average amount of such fundamentalists. and the key point: they are funded by the petrodollars
therefore, it is the moral duty of the rest of the world to move off of oil as an energy source, in order to drain the well of muslim fundamentalists dry. there is the pollution argument, the national security argument, the limited resources argument, but to me, the most compelling argument for getting off oil is the humanist argument: there is direct connection between using oil and funding muslim fundamentalism in this world. this is the crucial realization everyone must understand: the best way to fight muslim fundamentalism, better than wars, better than idea exchange, better than political maneuvering: move off of oil as a fuel source
stop using oil, on a personal level and a national policy level, every country in the world. or we will all suffer more, in the wider world and the muslim world, due to the braindead fundamentalist assholes running around
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A Micky Mouse suit would have been better. Then everytime you see Micky Mouse you'd have to try to figure out if it was really Muhammad under there or not.
The crusades ended over 700 years ago. Since then the Catholic church has changed dramatically. The pope is no longer the ruler of any kind of an empire. In fact, in the US, he is pretty much just a dirty joke. Since the end of the crusades western civilization has gone through the Renaissance, the Reformation, a long series of civil wars, that has all but eliminated the direct influence of organized religion on government. We've gone through the whole experience of the new world and contact with the civilizations of the Americas, Japan, China, India, Africa, Southeast Asia.... the list is too long to write and I appologize to those I missed.
In other words we have changed. We are not the people who carried out the crusades.
In the US we have as a basic concept of law that the government may not interfere with the practice of your religion so long as that practice does not infringe on the rights of other people to live their lives as they see fit. We aren't perfect on holding to that principle. But, it explains why I can be a Buddhist living in Texas who drives past a Mosque on my way to the grocery store. My friends, neighbors, coworkers, and relatives include everything from born again fundamentalist Christians to Wiccans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Mormons, and Atheists.
Here in Texas you can celebrate Cinco De Mayo in front of the Alamo. We can watch Anime on December 7th. And on St. Patrick's Day, my Irish relatives can sit down with my Scots Irish (Orangemen all by their ancestory) relatives and all drink a beer and toast Ireland. Not one of them cares about which side their ancestor were on. We're all just Irish on St. Patty's day.
And yet, when I listen to Muslim Clerics and such talking about why they hate us they always talk about something that some people from Europe did some folks from where they live 700 years ago. We aren't the people who did it them. And you are not the people it happened to. What kind of sickness is at the core of a society that keeps a grudge for 700 years?
Of course, that is the problem. The extremist Muslims seem to still be nursing a grudge from 700 years ago. Every heard a European express a grudge against the Mongols 700 years ago? No? Me neither. But, we are dealing with people who use something that happened 700 years ago as justification for killing us.
One last comment: You don't want to piss off every South Park fan in the world. You really don't. Kill South Park and millions of people who don't currently even bother to vote will become your implacable enemies. Blowing up lower Manhattan is one thing. Messing with a favorite TV show, now that is something you do not want to do.
Stonewolf
P.S.
I'm a great great grandson of John D. Lee. (look up "The Mountain Meadow Massacre. And yes, according to my family he did it.) So I understand what religious fanaticism can do to people at a deep personal level. I truly hope that this problem passes into history with no more violence. But, I deeply fear that it will lead to the deaths of millions, if not billions, of people.
The Middle East has had more time to modernize than Western Civilization has. They have have no excuse for not being world leaders; the Middle East was at one time the greatest center of learning and science in the world. To say they have not had an opportunity to modernize is bull. They have continued to live in the iron age due to the choices they have made; not a lack of opportunity. And this garbage has persisted even into the current century.
Agreed, and the Iranian experience up until the collapse of the Shah proves it. Up through 1979, Iran was rather "civilized" by Western standards, at least culturally/economically. In many ways similar to China today. It is difficult to imagine now, but there was an alliance between Iran and Israel .
At one point, Syria and Lebanon were both developing briskly. For the most part, the Islamic extremist/militant/political resurgence sprung up with the Iranian Revolution. Since then, each nation in the region has done its damnedest to Islamicize as fast as possible, most likely as a counterweight to their economic failures.
I can speak from family experience, and friend experience, that Iran pre-1979 was culturally very liberal; with public social behavior that would make Westerners' blush. Pre-1979 Iran was the number one customer of AT&T's USA Long Distance minutes, worldwide. The 1973-74 oil embargo had resulted in vast amounts of wealth heading into the Middle East, and many had assumed that in the long run Tehran would be the new banking/financial capital of the world.
Development is not an inevitable force. One merely has to look at the promising states of the third world, such as Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba; many of these places were considered economic miracles at one point.
Then crappy dictators took over, corruption ran rampant, and the rising stars collapsed. Venezuela is on this path now.
Some of these states survive, and turned things around, slowly; like Vietnam, and to some extent Lebanon.
They have have no excuse for not being world leaders; the Middle East was at one time the greatest center of learning and science in the world.
I cannot agree with this statement more. In addition to having advanced societies, the incredible oil wealth of the Middle East was probably the greatest concentration of natural wealth in a given region, ever. That the regimes of these nations have managed to squander these vast, immense, incredible resources is nothing short of criminal. Criminal isn't even the right word for it.
It is *simply* *unimaginable* that gas is about $0.29 in Iran; and that most of it is imported since they no longer have the refinery capacity to manufacturer it. It is *simply* *unimaginable* that it is a common sight to see gallons of fuel splashed into the streets of Tehran, because it is so "value-less" to the consumer. It is *shocking* and *disturbing* that Iran and Syria trade away vast quantities of high-quality, industrial resources to China or Russia for a pile of worthless, outdated weaponry which will inevitably used to oppress their citizens.
These things are a humanitarian tragedy of epic proportions. These nations have truly squandered their wealth. 20-50 years from now, they will have no natural resources left, and will have nothing to show for that massive destruction of wealth; and most of them will endure starvation and poor standards of living between now and then!
There *is* *no* *excuse* for this mismanagement!!!
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Rubbish. Fire is physically dangerous, and fear of that danger can cause panic - which is itself dangerous. Insults are not - and don't try to make out that the reactions to them are the same thing.
So it's really more like shouting "you're all poopy-heads" in a crowded theater.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
so I thought I'd comment on this. 1) RevolutionMuslim.com is as you say a "radical website," although from my understanding the majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars do not agree with the ideas promoted by this website. 2) Every religion/system of beliefs/philosophy etc has extremists willing to violently get their objectives done. 3) According to Islam as interpreted by authentic Islamic scholars, Muslims living in a non-Muslim state must abide by its laws as they have signed an agreement (citizenship, green card, etc.) with the country to do so. The only exception is with laws which require a Muslim to violate the Shariah (Islamic law). (Living in the United States all my life, I haven't found any such laws and am commonly told by Muslim immigrants that practicing Islam in the United States is easier than in some Muslim countries.) 4) Such demands made by salafi-jihadi Muslims are primarily for rhetoric purposes (i.e. to "scare" people) and will most likely have no basis in reality. Of course, that said, I'm not going to be an apologist. The creators of South Park should obviously have more concern and sensitivity towards Muslim sentiments. The members of a pluralistic society should learn to respect one another and not deliberately provoke / intimidate one another. Somehow it seems to me that people only selectively have the Western belief "I can do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt others." When it comes to insulting Muslims or Islamic beliefs, "freedom of speech" is cried, yet "respect for all people" is forgotten. Muslims often take their way of life more seriously than Christians or Jews. Islam is a complete way of life, not a ritual that's done once a week.
Oh no! Power hungry politicians might use appeals to "progress" in order to dominate and control us! Quick, lets establish a class of politicians(yes, a religious leader is nothing but a politician in a funny hat) who already have absolute power, and thus don't need to promise anything, aside from an afterlife, which is a very cheap promise indeed, in order to dominate and control us. Problem solved!
In the same, contradictory, vein, you mention "In the US, the President can wage his own private war; in Iran, only the Ayatollah can." as though that were some sort of advantage. Yes, the US executive has too much ability to do whatever the fuck he wants, with the only real penalty being losing office after 4 years. The alternative proposed, though, is even worse. (Incidentally, the idea that the Pope would be a moderating influence is largely only true because of the Enlightenment. Wasn't so long ago that Popes had their own standing armies, and called crusades[in a manner rather similar to today's more militant "fatwa" declarations]. Nor were all of these crusades external. The reason that the "cathar" variant of Christianity is mentioned only historically is because of the thoroughness of the Albigensian crusades[best line of that particular conflict: "Kill them all, God will know his own"].)
Yes, it must, undeniably, be admitted that the Enlightenment didn't live up to the highest hopes of its backers. That much is undeniable. However, it was an improvement over what came before, and subsequent reactions against it have, unequivocally, been steps backwards.
Fascism and Communism in Europe, and Fundamentalism in the Middle East, have preserved most of the vices, and destroyed most of the virtues, of Enlightenment. If you think that religious authoritarianism manages to create "rules that apply to rich and poor alike", where secular rule of law has not, you are dreaming.