Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Your Rights Online

Extremists Warn South Park Creators Over Muhammad In a Bear Suit 1131

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the religion-is-wonderful dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Extremists Warn South Park Creators Over Muhammad In a Bear Suit

Comments Filter:
  • by Kashell (896893) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:02PM (#31924392)
    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.
  • by norfolkboy (235999) * on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:03PM (#31924418)

    That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?

    I suspect not. They seem consistent.

    Remember Chef/Isaac Hayes - despite being a great character, they were happy to let him protest and walk, in the name of freedom of expression.

  • by hkmwbz (531650) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:04PM (#31924422) Journal
    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).
  • by ls671 (1122017) * on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:05PM (#31924466) Homepage

    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 [wikipedia.org]

    "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 [wikipedia.org]

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:11PM (#31924596)

    Christianity used to honor a similar tradition to prevent idolatry.

  • by jimboisbored (871959) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:15PM (#31924690)
    They already do. The opening credits have had him in EVERY episode since super best friends, he's small, but he's there.
  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:20PM (#31924802)

    Maybe it's because although some Christians might send angry letters they are very unlikely to act on it. Muslims, on the other hand, already have. One recent high profile example: Theo van Gogh. Then were all the violent protests over those cartoons.

    Then there are those who had to go into hiding. Salman Rushdie had a bounty on his head for many years as have many others who criticized or mocked Islam in some way. And sometimes this happens for fairly benign reasons, but it just happens to draw the ire of the right people.

  • by organgtool (966989) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:29PM (#31925036)
    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.
  • Bronze Age? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wowlapalooza (1339989) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:32PM (#31925104)

    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

  • Read your history (Score:4, Informative)

    by Itninja (937614) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:37PM (#31925208) Homepage
    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".
  • Re:Pedobear? (Score:2, Informative)

    by gtall (79522) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:40PM (#31925282)

    Hardly, his first wife was a widow in her 30's and he younger than she. His youngest though was 6, but he held off until she was 10 before dipping the stick. At that time, he was in his 50's.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:40PM (#31925288)

    (Posting anonymous for obvious reasons)

    Haven't you heard what the Danes have been going through with the Mohammed Cartoons for years now ? Getting threats from any kind of religious fanatics should be taken seriously. From breaking into cartoonists House's with an Axe trying to murder him and his grandchild to bombing newspaper trucks. Funny is though its not only the fanatics, it is also Muslim lawyers from said countries going after the newspapers and writers here some quick links off the top of my head in english from Denmark.

    Somali attacks Mohammed cartoonist http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article871593.ece [politiken.dk]

    Cartoon paper was to be truck bombed http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article880501.ece [politiken.dk]

    Saudi demand on Mohammed cartoon http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article778665.ece [politiken.dk]

    Politiken settles Mohammed cartoon issue http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article911102.ece [politiken.dk]

  • by liquiddark (719647) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:42PM (#31925342)

    I really don't understand why the Muslim community is not publicly outraged at these people that give their faith a bad name.

    They are. There have been plenty of attempts by communities all over North America and the Middle East to raise awareness about the section of the community (read: a big slice, probably the biggest slice ie the majority) that is completely opposed to these assholes. I've gone to public discussions about the true nature of Jihad (it's an intellectual and spiritual struggle, not a physical or fanatical war), I've visited the Middle East, and I've talked to my Muslim friends in Canada, and pretty much as a unit they don't consider these idiots to be Muslims at all, just violent thugs with wrong-headed ideas that have nothing to do with Islam proper.

  • by linumax (910946) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:43PM (#31925368)

    According to a 2 June 1999, article in The Virginian-Pilot,[23] Robertson had extensive business dealings with Liberian president Charles Taylor. According to the article, Taylor gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda. In response to Taylor's alleged crimes against humanity the United States Congress passed a bill In November 2003 that offered two million dollars for his capture. Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country." At the time Taylor was harboring Al Qaeda operatives who were funding their operations through the illegal diamond trade.[24] On February 4, 2010, at his war crimes trial in the Hague, Charles Taylor testified that Robertson was his main political ally in the U.S., and that he had volunteered to make Liberia's case before U.S. administration officials in exchange for concessions to Robertson's Freedom Gold, Ltd., to which Taylor gave a contract to mine gold in southeast Liberia.

    Source [wikipedia.org].

  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:47PM (#31925460)

    Oh c'mon. Scientology isn't a religion. It's a pyramid scheme with a lot of lawyers.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:49PM (#31925508)

    Mohammed (PBUH) did have a 7 year old wife. People who idolize that while threatening violence toward a cartoon are, well, not stable.

    Lol, same old bullshit. Gatorboy refers to Aisha whose age at marriage is yet another unknown that anti-islamic extremists like to hang their hats on - there is just as much evidence to suggest that she was 17 as there is to suggest she was 7, for example it was common for arabs to leave the tens digit off of numbers when they thought the magnitude was obvious. There are other contemporaneous references that also suggest Aisha was significantly older than 7, and really only one major reference that she was 7 - except that particular chronicler isn't considered an expert on Aisha and was like 70 himself when he wrote about it long after the fact. In any case, Aisha is probably the most accomplished and revered of his wives, so all the evidence suggests she did not end up damaged so was probably not subjected to the accused immorality in the first place.

  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bemopolis (698691) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:50PM (#31925544)
    Two more words...

    George Tiller.

    There are many more words, but just assume I can rattle off at a dozen Christian terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices without resorting to Wikipedia.

    And just to save myself a round of back and forth with an apologist for these acts of Christian terrorism, let me pre-emptively give my likely response: the Ku Klux Klan. They don't exactly burn those crosses for warmth, you know...
  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:3, Informative)

    by hesiod (111176) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @01:03PM (#31925878)

    Do you have any idea how many muslims there are in the world, vs. how many have committed terrible acts in the name of their religion? That ratio could be considered "isolated incidents" as well. Granted, my gut reaction is that the M ratio would be higher than the C, but it's still a very small percentage.

  • by LandDolphin (1202876) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @01:18PM (#31926216)

    Catholicism != Christianity

    Except for roughly 700 years (300a.d. - 1000a.d.)

    But more to the point:

    Not every rectangle is a square, but every square is a rectangle.

    So, not every Christian is a Catholic, but every Catholic is a Christian.

  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:3, Informative)

    by oatworm (969674) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @01:27PM (#31926440) Homepage
    The Crusades were over 700 years ago. I think it's time to let the statute of limitations expire on them, especially since there are far more [wikipedia.org] recent [wikipedia.org] acts [wikipedia.org] of Christianity-inspired terrorism.
  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:4, Informative)

    by stdarg (456557) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @02:40PM (#31928250)

    Not to downplay the harm that Christianity causes .... but for every one of your dozen Christian terrorist attacks, I can point to a hundred that were conducted by Muslims.

    The sad thing to me is not many people know about those attacks only because they didn't happen here and our media doesn't shove them in our faces 24/7.

    As a result people don't understand the enormity of Islamic extremism. They can peacefully think of it as a fringe activity or "tiny minority" that lives in remote caves or something.

    It would have been great to see more coverage of Taliban activity in Pakistan over the last few years. A lot of people don't understand or don't see the point in "helping" the Afghans, probably because they don't know that e.g. when the Taliban took over the Swat Valley in Pakistan they bombed or burned down over 100 girls schools. They hung signs in the market places saying "No women allowed". It's a very large, widespread, in your face phenomenon, not a few guys with long beards making videos and holding occasional marches.

  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:2, Informative)

    by rapierian (608068) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @03:26PM (#31929370)

    Ah, I knew someone would bring up Abortion as proof that Christianity was just as violent as Islam.

    There's been what, 10 abortion killings, ever? That's so clearly proof that Christians are just as much a threat as the same religion that's exiled Jews from their lands, launched worldwide terrorist guerrilla wars of conquest against practically every other religion, in Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan...the same religion that riots through France and Belgium torching cars, demands Sharia law trump all national laws and customs, and rarely condemns their own honor killings and terrorism against their own members (see Hamas vs. Fatah, Sunni vs. Shiite).

    Christians, like practically every other adult religion regularly condemn any extremists. For every abortion killing numerous public groups come out and condemn the killer.

    Next time you want to try and make a moral equivalence argument, try looking at the facts.

  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:3, Informative)

    by LanMan04 (790429) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:03PM (#31930088)

    Matthew 10:14-15 Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24).

    Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.

    anyway:

    The passages in the Qur'an that command fighting pertain to the early Muslims' struggle with the militant pagans (kafirun, kuffar) of ancient Mecca. The mercantile Meccan elite dominate lower Red Sea trade and worshipped star goddesses; they determined to wipe out the new religion of Islam as it gathered converts through the 610s and set up as a city-state in Yathrib/ Medina in the 620s CE. As I have pointed out before, a careful study of the word kafir or infidel in the Qur'an will show that it never is used in an unadorned way to refer to non-Muslims in general. It implies paganism, or alliance with paganism, and often has overtones of militant hostility to Muslims and Islam. In contrast, the Christians are called 'closest in love' to the Muslims, and the Children of Israel are repeatedly praised. There is a passage referring to those who commit kufr or infidelity from among the people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians) [2:105]. But this diction demonstrates that the word for infidel does not ordinarily extend to those groups. The ones condemned probably had allied with the pagans who were trying to destroy Islam and kill all Muslims, against whom the Qur'an advises believers to wage defensive war ("kill them wherever you find them" [2:191]- i.e. defend yourself against the fanatic pagans trying to kill you).

    There are fundamentalist Muslims who use the word 'kafir' to refer to all non-Muslims, but the Qur'an does not support this usage. Anti-Muslim bigots in the US use these simplistic ideas of fundamentalists to condemn Islam and all Muslims.

    All you have to do is look at the fate of the conquered Canaanites under Joshua (who were to be wiped out in a biblical genocide) and the fate of the Meccans when the Muslims overcame them (almost none were killed and they went on to flourish in the Islamic empire despite their earlier attempt at mass murder aimed at the prophet and his followers), to see the difference between the two.

    My experience is, people are people. They're all equally capable of the same good and evil, across religions and cultures, and how much of each they commit has to do with both their opportunities and their character at any point in history.

  • by liquiddark (719647) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:57PM (#31931102)
    Because you're not paying attention? And because the news media you might pay attention to doesn't pay attention? I've seen a room with hundreds of Muslims gathered to try to communicate this to the community (St. John's, Newfoundland, which is not the world's biggest Muslim community to begin with), so it's probably not their fault. Turn the glass to yourself and your sources and you'll have some luck discovering the cause of your ignorance.
  • by liquiddark (719647) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:30PM (#31931690)
    If by "they" you mean "those news sources", I agree. But that's not surprising. It's not good business.
  • Re:Gotta love... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @08:07PM (#31933746)
    Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Muslims don't recognize the Jews as God's Chosen People, and Christians don't recognize each other at the strip club...

    Muslims believe in a line of prophets that included Moses and Jesus, of which Muhammad is the last and greatest. So they beleive the words of Muhammad supercede those of all earlier prophets, although cling pretty tightly to Abrahamic laws, which makes them very similar to the Jews (I believe both were originally Caananites anyway.) Anybody familiar with the Gnostic Gospels [wikipedia.org] might objectively conclude that Christianity HAS been corrupted from it's founders original tenets. Islam has been corrupted to a lesser extent, if only because it hasn't been around as long and it has insisted that study of the Koran be done in the original Arabic, unlike the hundreds of translations that have been done of the Holy Bible. Nevertheless, Muslims continue to kill each other over arguments related to which of Muhammed's sons inherited which responsibilities for preserving the faith. But ultimately, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham. Monotheism was invented by the Jews, and for that I may never forgive them. ;-)
  • by oamasood (1754360) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @11:18AM (#31939982)
    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.

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...