South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8636455.stm

by shrikant • 16 years ago

45 72 16 years ago

news.bbc.co.uk

Ah man - I'm in China, and I've gotten used to Youtube and Blogspot not working, but the BBC is banned? This is bloody ridiculous.

Anyone got a way through it that still works? When I was here five years ago the translate-English-to-English thing worked, but no more. I tried a good 20 or so proxies I knew as well before giving up... probably Hotspot Shield would work, but it slows down everything and there's nothing so important I need to do. Thoughts?

cturner2• 16 years ago

Set up ssh on a server outside china. Run sshd on port 443. You may be able to just ssh to it. Or you can set putty up to tunnel to over HTTP, and because of the port choice it won't be blocked, unless they've made a specific rule for that IP. Tunnel all your operations through that link.

In time, authoritarians will start profiling internet activity to sniff out people who do this (assuming they're not already). If you're a Chinese citizen then you might want to think about this.

Other readers - what's a good way to set up squid or another proxy to complement this arrangement?

asnyder• 16 years ago

Absolutely outrageous. There was no depiction. They merely suggested that Mohammed was inside the bear costume, this too is ridiculous and the point of this aspect of the episode.

1. It's a cartoon, there is no Mohammed. If I draw a stick figure and suggest it's Mohammed it's unreasonable to suggest that this is a depiction of Mohammed, it's a stick figure.

2. It's a bear costume, just because someone says Mohammed is on the inside no way depicts Mohammed. The only thing that suggests this is dialog, if one mutes the audio there's no more suggestion.

3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed.

So crazy...

ajju• 16 years ago

Well, even if there was a depiction, so what?

The issue is crazies threatening to kill someone over a cartoon. What the cartoon depicted or did not depict is moot.

mapleoin• 16 years ago

3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed.

Wait. So you mean you think there's a possibility that they drew Mohammed under that 2D bear costume and that layer of pixels is the only thing preventing us from seeing the Prophet?

jheriko3• 16 years ago

I think you misunderstand depiction - depiction with words is depiction all the same. There is no question that they depicted Mohammed - although I agree that the fuss is completely disproportionate.

PG-13• 16 years ago

They already had an actual depiction of Mohammed several seasons ago. His full body and face were shown. He was a superhero. Nobody cared. If they depicted Mohammed now, nobody would come after them. The networks won't allow it now.

People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts.

gizmomagico2• 16 years ago

People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts.

Really?

Were these the cartoons portraying Muhammad as a terrorist and performing lewd acts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoo... ?

From the article: This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in a total of more than 100 deaths),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.

- Now, how fucking insane do people have to be, to have that kind of reaction to a fucking cartoon, even if it actually had been "lewd"?

cturner2• 16 years ago

I love this game. What they do is hacking on a different format.

If I were them, I'd put an unnamed character in an episode, and have it on television and let it go by. Then I'd refer to that character in a subsequent episode and point out that it had been Mohammed.

Build it up as a three-part who-shot-JR-style episode series with no viable plot conclusion except one where the depicted character is 'the prophet', in order to strongarm the network into putting the revelation episode on TV.

tome8• 16 years ago

Perhaps the way to get these stupid and illiberal threats to stop is a massive DDoS attack.

If a large proportion media outlets and content creators make a point of "portraying" Mohammed then there's no way these criminals could make all of them "probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh".

anthonyb3• 16 years ago

I can see big full page ads with some bearded guy and "C'est nes pas une Prophet Mohammed" underneath it...

tome8• 16 years ago

That's brilliant! Perhaps this is an idea that will catch on like the atheist bus campaign.

tamersalama2• 16 years ago

Muslim Here - I don't know the full story (a bit late).

Before this gets any hotter - just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited [wiki: Aniconism, Idolatry, Islamic Art, ...]. I personally don't watch any episode/movie/play with Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Moses (PBUT) drawn or acted (I don't feel comfortable - Silly Me).

Religion is the only boundary that some have left. It encapsulates things as simple and beautiful as ethics and manners. What's wrong with a little of these?

freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values.

I don't like Southpark (but I'll be waiting Futurama) :)

gort• 16 years ago

"freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values."

Actually, it is.

I have read the Qur'an, all of it. Page after page it tells me that people like myself deserve to be tortured for zillions of years. I find it pretty offensive and hateful. But I don't call for it to be banned.

tamersalama2• 16 years ago

That was quick.

ivenkys• 16 years ago

This is absolutely spot-on.

I have seen debates on T.V where respected Muslim scholars agree on and defend this interpretation - its the duty of a Muslim (Mu'min) to kill or convert an unbeliever (Kaafir).

I don't understand why this argument(of banning the Qu'ran) is not made whenever this topic comes up.

xenthral6• 16 years ago

> "just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam"

Hold on there, don't go speaking for all of Islam, in Sunni Islam, yes, its considered a sin by all major schools of thought, but thats not really the case in the shia tradition. Until not that long ago you could buy posters of Mohammed in Tehran (saw it done in a british documentary... Mo looked like he went heavy on the make up).

> "freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values."

Freedom of speech/expression isn't merely the right of saying what _you_ want, it is also the right for others to hear/see it, so when asking for people not to express their views because some can be offended, you have actually attacked my values, because maybe (and in this case, definitely) I'm very interested. So I do hope you'll condemn a campaign of whispered threats of horrible violence for people who just want to express themselves, rather than condemning southpark (which granted you didn't, just said you didn't like them).

tomhoward• 16 years ago

That's fine, don't watch it. If it offends you, turn off the television, close the YouTube tab, whatever. It's very simple for you to avoid allowing this to cause you offense.

What offends non-religious people is the expectation that we should censor our statements and cartoons on the threat of murder.

So much for "manners".

I mean really. It's a bear suit. The whole point of this South Park portrayal is to show - as if it needed to be shown again - just how absurd is this lust among certain religious believers for any opportunity to be offended. Is there any point at which you're able to be a little reflective and think "yeah ok, I guess we're being a touch precious here"?

arethuza2• 16 years ago

Clearly not all religious people - the same episode had Buddha snorting cocaine and I don't see anyone getting too upset over that.

arethuza2• 16 years ago

"physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited" is there any explanation in the Qur'an why they are prohibited?

oozcitak3• 16 years ago

Koran prohibits idolatry only. Physical depictions are prohibited in hadiths not in the Koran. From Sahih Muslim:

"Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures."

tome8• 16 years ago

freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values.

Freedom of expression is absolutely freedom to attack others' values. It's the freedom to criticise them openly without fear of physical violence. It's the freedom to lampoon them in public, and make them the subject of satire and riducule.

I can understand you might not like that when it affects you, but I suggest to all muslims -- or indeed to anyone who feels their values are being attacked, religious or otherwise -- that the correct response is to publicly debate why you feel this way, and why you think your feelings should be protected. Threats of murder are unacceptable.

jsz0• 16 years ago

My understanding is in the US, in modern times, the freedom of expression is only restricted in cases where some other law would otherwise come into play. For example I could express myself by suggesting I would pay someone to commit a murder for me but I would still be charged with criminal conspiracy to commit murder. Since the US is not an Islamic theocracy we have no laws on the books regarding the physical depiction issue. Basically I think you could say the freedom of expression is paramount in all but a few very specific areas and we have a special flare for protecting freedom of expression in relationship to religion since this country was founded also on religious freedom. I'm probably not representing the actual argument properly but I think it's pretty close.

ilkhd2• 16 years ago

Yes, probably this is true, but, it is like saying that "by nature, all humans have facilities for speech, and they are free to speak up whatever they want; however there are many laws they can be used for punishment afterwards". I remember in the movie "Food Inc" in Colorado there is a law that prevents you from public criticizing businesses if you can hurt there profits. So "freedom of speach" is quite narrow term in fact.

jheriko3• 16 years ago

Should Muslims be upset about this? Probably not.

Muslims themselves have depicted Mohammed in art in the past, although usually covering the face - nobody knows what he looked like so it is not possible to depict his face accurately... so I have always assumed it was just a mark of respect. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg

Besides that, I think retaliating with violence is pretty unacceptable if you truly live by the Koran - It says nowhere inside of it that such depictions are forbidden - but it does say in plenty of places that unlawful killing (by the law of the Koran) is forbidden and that it displeases Allah. Since depictions of Mohammed break no law in the Koran, how can murder be justified in retaliation? (Koran 4:29, 5:28-32 etc.)

In his own lifetime, Mohammed offered shelter and guidance to those who had defamed him public, removed him from his home, chased and persecuted him and his people... I wonder what he would think of all this today?

tome8• 16 years ago

Who cares whether violence is or is not permitted in the Koran? Retaliating with violence is completely unacceptable for any person who values sense.

jheriko3• 16 years ago

Muslims care - that was why I took that line of argument. Its much easier to convince people on their own terms.

xenthral6• 16 years ago

> "In his own lifetime, Mohammed offered shelter and guidance to those who had defamed him public, removed him from his home, chased and persecuted him and his people... I wonder what he would think of all this today?"

According to some hadith he also ordered the assassination of poets and artists who mocked him, after he rose to power, so its not a black and white issue of precedence, though it seems many fundamentalists interpret the assassination as the last say.

jimfl• 16 years ago

You will find it to be a challenge to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

pmichaud• 16 years ago

The injunction against pictures of him is part of a wider injunction against idols. Muslims don't generally create realistic art for fear that the representation could lead to temptation to worship a false idol, which IS against the book. Because of the source of the rule, pictures of Mohammed are especially forbidden, because they pose an extra risk of being worshiped.

JCThoughtscream• 16 years ago

The fact that they're facing death threats for it is made doubly hilarious in light of the episode's content.

guelo• 16 years ago

Seems they took down all their content including their 404 page, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com

You can still see the post in google's cache.

jk4930• 16 years ago

No, they were taken down. Them and some like-minded sites. Now guess...

sharpn• 16 years ago

I think South Park may have been alluding to this sad story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7112929.stm

acg• 16 years ago

I did not see the episode but it could be satire:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7119399.stm

omarqureshi• 16 years ago

One crazy bastards death threat does not represent what the entire Islamic community believes in, remember that there are crazy people from all religious backgrounds.

tome8• 16 years ago

Sure, there are crazy christians and crazy hindus and crazy athiests.

I don't think anyone here is jumping to the conclusion that all muslims are horrible. I -- and others I think -- are reacting to the horrific example of intolerance regardless of where it came from. This level of intolerance is one thing that a liberal permissive society should indeed not tolerate itself.

gizmomagico2• 16 years ago

Islam has a very special kind of Crazy though: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/this-is-an-outrage.jpg

This guy looks like he just might get all worked up about South Park too.

maxklein10• 16 years ago

Different cultures is not about food that is a bit more spicy or that smells different. There are real differences that, even though they may not be important for you, are important for many people in the world.

We are no longer living in places with closed borders - this stuff is now global. South Park is global entertainment, it's not American entertainment. Respect other cultures, particularly with things that cause no hurt to anyone else.

If you are against FGM as a cultural practise, I can understand that. It causes harm to other people. But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this.

confuzatron3• 16 years ago

I'm afraid I have 'negative' respect for any culture (actually, we're talking about some bigoted crazies on a website) that threatens death to those who claim that a historical figure is inside a cartoon representation of a bear suit.

maxklein10• 16 years ago

What parts of your own culture do you have 'negative' respect for?

kunley• 16 years ago

You may think that cultural impact has no borders but certainly one thing has borders: the countries and laws respected inside them.

Your country respects one's life no matter whether he hurt somebody's feelings or not. It is a sane system of values, right? We're so used to these ideas that we assume all people in the world, except of some insane margin, are using the same ideas. But the problem is: they're not. Now those folks are saying publicly that they will take an criminal act by killing somebody who offended them and that act will be ok from the pov of some barbaric ideology. Does it comply with your country's general ideas?

Do you want to life in a country with American-like law or rather Shariat law, which legalizes and encourages killing a woman by her family because they didn't accept her partner?

C'mon people, read some stuff about who you're talking about. Look at what's happening in Europe for instance.

maxklein10• 16 years ago

Those are not 'laws'. The people who kill anyone else for whatever reason will face the laws of the land and have to deal with whatever punishment that entails.

Nobody is under an obligation to pay attention to another countries culture. If I am living in the Vatican, I can make a TV show showing 12 year old girls having sex with 40 year old men - it would not be against the law of the land, but it would against American culture and would not be accepted on TV. And the people who watch this would likely be enraged enough that someone may kill one of the producers.

Different cultures should be respected in their differences, particularly where it causes nobody any harm to do so.

xenthral6• 16 years ago

> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this."

I see great actual and potential harm, not to mention you don't know the effect before expressing/airing this to know it can be nothing but negative, such knowledge is impossible for any man to have, thats the point of the first amendment to the US constitution, and last I checked southpark was made there.

You could have made the same argument about "Life of Brian", whats the point of ridiculing jesus after all? The result of that movie has been harmful? Thats not the case at all for me, "Life of Brian" is a very important movie for me, and so is southpark.

What about all the muslims who could enjoy poking fun at Mohammed? How is it that their view is any less valid? Arguing for self-censorship legitimizes and treats muslims as a unified group, identified by voices of extremism. You delegate to them the task of identifying what is harmful and offensive, and once you've done that, it can be anything. A cartoon in an obscure danish newspaper. A 15 minute movie made in the netherlands. What children call a teddy bear in a classroom in Uganda. What southpark decides to do.

This is a capitulation that erodes freedom of speech.

maxklein10• 16 years ago

Is abstaining from calling a person a "nigger" eroding freedom of speech? No, it's simply a sign that you recognize that it will cause another person distress.

Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech, because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed. And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people.

lyudmil• 16 years ago

That's a ridiculous and dangerous argument. We're talking about a group of people threatening violence. Implicit in your concern for said group's feelings is the assumption that religious motives are sufficient grounds for retaliation. I think that notion is to be resisted.

Let's take the context of Islam away and follow the analogy. Suppose me and a bunch of friends of mine were deeply offended by UML diagrams. I think it's obvious you would not grant me the right to physically retaliate against anyone who drew them. Why is it that you would in this case?

No, violence is justified only in extreme circumstances. There are no victims here and freedom of expression should be upheld. It is almost embarrassing to debate it.

maxklein10• 16 years ago

I'm not concerned about the group that threatens violence. Obviously they should not do this, and the country that they are in makes this against the law.

I am saying that South Park should have respected the culture initially enough to not show this.

Imagine that you were deeply offended by UML diagrams. If I come into a company you are working at, and then draw a cartoon showing you hand in hand with UML diagrams, then all I am doing is offending you to no gain to myself.

Obviously, I do not advocate you should retaliate. But I should never have done this in the first place - out of respect for you.

oozcitak3• 16 years ago

> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this."

You are making the "Peyote-Popping Native" argument: http://lesswrong.com/lw/24o/eight_short_studies_on_excuses/

If you respect this, it will be an example for more to come. How about prohibiting alcohol production? Since it is forbidden by Islam and its consumption does not have much positive effect on the society.

maxklein10• 16 years ago

That argument does not work. What this is equivalent to is the U.S passing a law in the U.S saying that Saudi Arabia should start serving Alcohol.

The prophet comes from Islam. Without Islam, there would be no prophet. If you are going to use this figure, then I believe you should abide by the rules of the movement that created it, otherwise don't use it.

This is an old law that harms nobody. There is no slippery slope here.

anthonyb3• 16 years ago

I see plenty of harm, mainly because most religions come as a package. There's weird harmless stuff such as hurt feelings about depicting Mohammed, particular dietary practices, fasting, graven idols. And the obvious answer for that is "If you want to believe weird shit, go ahead".

But that's the thin end of the wedge for lots of really insidious nasty behavior like oppressing women or other religons, flogging, FGM, MGM, honour killings, forced marriage, brainwashing, suicide bombers, stonings, stabbing people who criticise you (or stalking them and suing them into oblivion), beating up gay people.

You can't preach respect while that sort of nasty intolerant stuff is going on, and "It's our culture" doesn't hold any weight with me. Violence and oppression are violence and oppression, whether you have a religious excuse or not.

tome8• 16 years ago

The problem is that if you "show respect" to a culture that threatens to kill you if you do not "show respect" then it's not clear to outsiders whether you are genuinely respectful, or just scared. Sometimes this won't even be clear to you yourself. That's when it's called a "chilling effect".

Devilboy• 16 years ago

I'm so glad that SOMEONE is standing up for our rights - threats of violence be damned!

simplegeek• 16 years ago

I'm a Muslim and I've never read anywhere about killing someone who draws Muhammad (Peace be upon him). But drawing Muhammad(PBUH) is definitely considered as a disrespect. Moreover, it definitely upsets people(muslims in this case) so why just keep doing it? On the other hand, my own study of Quran is limited, however, I've yet to come across any study that says something about killing someone who draws Muhamamd (PBUH). People shouldn't draw Muhammad because it hurts Muslims. Whereas, muslims should be silent in this case, imho. There is a story about Muhammad (PBUH) visiting Taif (city of Saudi Arabia) and people of Taif threw stones and tortured him(PBUH)and Allah sent a messenger asking Muhammad for the permission to crush people of Taif. And Muhammad said something along the lines of "No, I forgive them" (this isn't the exact story probably as I'm recalling from memory). My point is that, if Muhammad can forgive people insulting him then why cannot, being beloved followers, we be quite in this scenario. On the other hand, I guess non-muslims should be tolerant of our views and shouldn't do things that makes us sad (and same applies to us).

known• 16 years ago

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

secret• 16 years ago

For the defenders of censorship, this recent ruling should give you a perspective on how strongly free speech is protected in the US: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMolK4XY7...

grrrr• 16 years ago

I never understood why people actually get so angry when they take offence to something.

Consider what happens to someone who is offended, absolutely nothing. If your offended by something, it's not as is something really bad has actually happened. It's not as if you've physically been hurt, or someone you know has been hurt. The world is still exactly the same place it was before you took offence.

Offended? So what, get over it.

South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction

Related Stories