How Worried Should The "South Park" Creators Be?
"Very," writes Ayaan Hirsi Ali in The Wall Street Journal, about the posting on RevolutionMuslim.com by Muslim convert Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee warning that their murder by Muslims is likely:
In essence, Mr. Amrikee's posting is an informal fatwa. Here's how it works:There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture--unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims--called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.
Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the "offense" may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?
...Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend "South Park," producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.
Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews--to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans--all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.
Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.
Streisand and Cruise might well have responded to SP more aggressively if they thought they could get away with it.
This is a human nature problem.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 27, 2010 1:12 AM
Fucking comedy central, my DVR skipped the first 8pm airing of the second half, and fucking comedy central has replaced every schedualed repeat with an older episode.
On the upside, as death threats have proen so effective ith network executives maybe we finally have a way to shut down all those damn "reality" tv programs
lujlp at April 27, 2010 3:31 AM
Nobody would take a death threat from Streisand seriously.
But the left is absolutely convinced that Christians are a bunch of latent psychopathic mass-murderers, so if they started making threats, maybe we'd see something done about the muslims and theirs.
Nah, who am I kidding? They'd just outlaw Christianity and raze all the churches.
brian at April 27, 2010 7:13 AM
Okay, so Islam forbids making images of the Prophet. And Judaism prohibits eating shellfish, and Christianity (at least according to sour St. Paul) says "marry or burn." AND YET, not being a Jew, I'm quit comfortable eating shrimp, and not being a Christian, I'm comfortable being single, so why the hell should Moslem prohibitions apply to anyone who ISN'T Muslim? If your religion says "don't eat blue crayons", okay, that's between you and whatever deity or deities with whom you have an arrangement, but it's not binding on anyone else. Making images of Muhammed should certainly fall into that category. If I should decide to worship Mehigba and believe that all women who share my worship should go topless, it doesn't give me any right or moral imperative to go around ripping people's clothes off, does it?
Steve H at April 27, 2010 9:37 AM
I'm curious what you all make of this? Ms. Norris was apparently the one leading the charge for all cartoonists to draw Muhammed cartoons. Now's she's not ... big time. Any inside scoop on the reversal?
Robert W. (Vancouver) at April 27, 2010 11:26 AM
I've never heard of the Norris person... But having viewed her cartoon for first time, I don't get the sense that hers is the steady hand of a steady thinker.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 27, 2010 12:32 PM
Specifically, she's WRONG:
> Maybe [...] it is finally time for Muslims and
> non-Muslims to understand one another more.
No.
I know what I need to know. It's Islam that need to be made subservient to modernity, as Christianity has largely become. And that's if it's permitted to exist at all: When the core of the text is a call for violent interference in the lives of others, it may deserve no tolerance.
I don't need to make peace with Islam, Islam needs to make peace with me. I'm smarter than Islam is, and more virtuous, and STILL a whole lot meaner.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 27, 2010 12:39 PM
I know what I need to know. It's Islam that need to be made subservient to modernity, as Christianity has largely become.
Love how you put that. Exactly right.
As you are about the text that calls for violence - and isn't just shrugged off, but is taken seriously as a call to action by its followers.
Amy Alkon at April 27, 2010 12:43 PM
Lately 4Ch@n has taken on $cient0l0gy. Me thinks they need to take on Islam as well.
Janet C at April 27, 2010 7:14 PM
Leave a comment