I have decided to email US television network Comedy Central twice: the first, to complain about the censorship of episode 201 of South Park, withdrawn after threats have been made against the lives of its writers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The second email, when the episode will have aired, will be to complain about said episode, for disregarding the religious sensitivities of many viewers, both in the US and around the world.
It’s simple really. Parker and Stone are allowed to mock. And I am allowed to object. Both rights are equally important, and I choose to stand for both.
The entire affair, I must say, is infuriating. Most of all because two idiots in their mothers’ basement - in New York City, apparently - have decided to issue a threat against two cartoonists. While the entire affair was barely noticeable on most Muslims’ radar, it somehow got treated as a mega news story by some B-class news networks, and a flurry of reactions ensued, most anti-Muslim. It is a desolate sight.
The reason: a cartoon episode which pokes fun at Muslims’ sensitivity of visual depictions of Prophet Mohammad - by hiding him inside a bear suit.
Admit it, you are laughing. Even if you’re Muslim.
(it ultimately turns out that it wasn’t Mohammad in the bear suit, but Santa Claus. Sorry for the spoiler, but it’s important for the argument).
It’s simple really. Parker and Stone are allowed to mock. And I am allowed to object. Both rights are equally important, and I choose to stand for both.
The entire affair, I must say, is infuriating. Most of all because two idiots in their mothers’ basement - in New York City, apparently - have decided to issue a threat against two cartoonists. While the entire affair was barely noticeable on most Muslims’ radar, it somehow got treated as a mega news story by some B-class news networks, and a flurry of reactions ensued, most anti-Muslim. It is a desolate sight.
The reason: a cartoon episode which pokes fun at Muslims’ sensitivity of visual depictions of Prophet Mohammad - by hiding him inside a bear suit.
Admit it, you are laughing. Even if you’re Muslim.
(it ultimately turns out that it wasn’t Mohammad in the bear suit, but Santa Claus. Sorry for the spoiler, but it’s important for the argument).
‘Intent’ is an important part of this analysis. It is ludicrous to compare Parker and Stone to a Geert Wilder, an Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or as the threat issued by those wankers did, to a Theo Van Gogh; renowned Muslim-haters, deliberately attempting to cause maximum damage, to instigate anti-Muslim sentiments particularly in Western Europe and North America - to make life more difficult for many people of Muslim faith. It is important to pursue every legal recourse to prevent such people from achieving their intent.
Everyone who watches South Park, on the other hand, is familiar with its brand of ultra irreverent humour based on current events - from Mel Gibson to Jesus to Tiger Woods, all were drawn in less than gratifying figures. (And punched in the eye, too).
But South Park is honest and straightshooting. As a good comedian does, it finds humour in our everyday.
And I can understand how Muslims’ sensitivity regarding visual depictions of Prophet Mohammad can be a matter of puzzlement to the writers - and a potentially immense pool of jokes.
Joking is often the best medium of communication. If we, as Muslims, wish to get the message across that this is a matter we care about, then perhaps a South Park joke is the best medium to deliver the message - we will all laugh, get the point, and move on.
But most importantly, what do we have to fear from a harmless joke? Save for the people who seem to think that the foundations of Islam will be shaken by Eric Cartman and his fellows - and those I pity - there is really no serious harm that can come from a South Park joke. And if Christians can handle this, surely we can deal with a bear suit...
And when the episode is finally aired, I will email Comedy Central again - to protest against the depiction of the Prophet in a cartoon. Having defended Parker and Stone’s right, I will also defend my own: the right to stand for my belief, to object on what upsets me and goes against my belief. I am entitled to believe that prophet Mohammad shouldn’t be depicted; and to demand that my preference and choice in that matter be respected. Not imposed, and surely not by cowardly threats; but respected in a spirit of human camaraderie - in which we don’t necessarily need to agree with one another’s beliefs to respect them.
But South Park is honest and straightshooting. As a good comedian does, it finds humour in our everyday.
And I can understand how Muslims’ sensitivity regarding visual depictions of Prophet Mohammad can be a matter of puzzlement to the writers - and a potentially immense pool of jokes.
Joking is often the best medium of communication. If we, as Muslims, wish to get the message across that this is a matter we care about, then perhaps a South Park joke is the best medium to deliver the message - we will all laugh, get the point, and move on.
But most importantly, what do we have to fear from a harmless joke? Save for the people who seem to think that the foundations of Islam will be shaken by Eric Cartman and his fellows - and those I pity - there is really no serious harm that can come from a South Park joke. And if Christians can handle this, surely we can deal with a bear suit...
And when the episode is finally aired, I will email Comedy Central again - to protest against the depiction of the Prophet in a cartoon. Having defended Parker and Stone’s right, I will also defend my own: the right to stand for my belief, to object on what upsets me and goes against my belief. I am entitled to believe that prophet Mohammad shouldn’t be depicted; and to demand that my preference and choice in that matter be respected. Not imposed, and surely not by cowardly threats; but respected in a spirit of human camaraderie - in which we don’t necessarily need to agree with one another’s beliefs to respect them.




9 comments:
I am impressed with your contention(s) and how you defended each point;
"And when the episode is finally aired, I will email Comedy Central again - to protest against the depiction of the Prophet in a cartoon. Having defended Parker and Stone’s right, I will also defend my own: the right to stand for my belief, to object on what upsets me and goes against my belief."
I must say that when I began to hear the seemingly asinine complaints against Parker and Stone I was taken aback,assuming these "threats" were being spun out of control by the mainstream media.
In part,they were but I do acknowledge that there are many who side with the flawed and objectionable premise the "extremists" had.
One issue that plagues my mind involves South Park and the Prophet Jesus (Alayhi Salam/Peace Be Unto Him).
Prophet Muhammad (SAW.WAW/Pace be until him and his progeny) warned us,the Muslims,from worshiping him; we are instead told to worship our Creator - Allah.
Where were these "radical" voices when Prophet Jesus (Alayhi Salam/Peace be unto him) was being defiled by the series? They do it on a seemingly relaxed and regular basis.
There are many flaws with their premise but I agree with your argument - our objections should be made public while still acknowledging Parker and Stone's right to produce a series by which their own 'comical' taste can be shown.
No one is being forced to watch and I certainly find the show tasteless thus would never subject myself to such asininity.
In the end,the death threats were out of line (and certainly against Islam) but the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (SAW.WAW/Peace be unto him and his progeny),Prophet Jesus (Alayhi Salam/Peace be unto him) etc are also disrespectful.
Great commentary bro,I really enjoyed reading!
I agree with iRevolt. I'm appalled at how some Muslims find it perfectly acceptable when Jesus and Moses (AS) are mocked.
We should be speaking out against this too.
@iRevolt, @Bibi-Aisha
Thanks!
I agree, of course. But to some extent I can understand when regular Muslims don't speak up against the disrespect of Jesus (et al.) when it's "not our fight", so to speak, and if Christians are okay with it, who are we to object?
Despite that being, of course, very wrong. Jesus is very much a prophet of ours too and it is insulting to see him being ridiculed.
My pet peeve personally is how some tool in NYC is considered a spokesman to a religion of 1+ billion people. As Muslims I believe we have a responsibility of outing such fools from our ranks. I encourage you to read the wikipedia entry on Revolution Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim
Now regarding the "re-imaging" any prophet or supreme being, if it does not result in the worship and idolization of such figure, then technically it does not violate the intent of the Islamic rules. Additionally, even if it broke any of the "Islamic laws", South park creators are not Muslim and therefore the laws of islam are unapplicable to them. All of that does not take your right to protest, this right is guaranteed by your choices of not watching their shows, writing a letter and not purchasing advertising space on the show and/or channel.
Personally I fail to see how episode 200 and 201 of SP was disrespectful to any faith/race groups aside from the Hindu's and the gingers!
Assem -
Agreed. It seems to me that virtually no one had heard of those idiots before the South Park thing (and only when Comedy Central reacted as a wimp, for that matter). The Wiki entry - very interesting, thanks for that - seems to give them far more weight than they have.. I'm curious to know how many 'followers' they have. It takes what, 3 people to print leaflets and hand them out "mostly outside the Islamic Cultural Center of New York". Pfff...
Re: images: well, legislation doesn't do with intent but actions. As for South Park creators not being Muslim so the laws don't apply -- Well, you were recently vocally objecting on the #NigerianPedophile who married a 13 year old. Now if what he did wasn't illegal in Nigeria, does that make it any less morally wrong? It doesn't. Just because he doesn't officially abide by the regulation doesn't mean it shouldn't apply.
Furthermore, something like drawing the prophet isn't like, well, eating bacon; the latter only affects the person (and indeed, if he's not Muslim he shouldn't care about the rule against eating pork); but drawing the prophet concerns me as a viewer. As such I am entitled to demand that no depictions of the prophet be made, and not just because i have 'the right to protest' but also because the existence of this depiction, just liek the actions of the nigerian pedophile, hurt me as a person.
As for gingers - they should give me a call. We'll organize La Resistance together. :)
lol
ok a few items, the #NigerianPedophile is breaking international and national laws in Nigeria. My rant also included that I don't give two shits if the guy in the sky told him so.
Second, I disagree with the comparison of the #NigerianPedophile and SP. The first committed a violent crime, the second did a comedy show!! Even if the second was a crime, and it isn't, it is a victim-less crime.
Third, Sunni Islam (Hadeeth not Quran) and not all Islam, forbid Muslims of depicting the prophet. No where in faith where it forbids non-muslims of doing so. And even if it attempted it has no jurisdiction over non-muslims.
In close, as a viewer, you have the right to protest, but not the right to censor. Culture, Art and literature should never be censored, and yes I consider SP a form of art :) although last weeks episode was an #EpicFail
You're missing my point ya Memz. Assume the pedophile was not breaking the law in Nigeria. (and i'm sure there are a few countries in the world where marrying a 13 yr old isn't illegal).
Does that mean we're no longer allowed to object or be upset? Absolutely not. Some things are not measured by local jurisdiction.
Whether it's common sense, universal human rights (as badly defined as that is) or if it's the guy in the sky (or the woman in the sky, as a good friend of mine would be quick to add :) who said it.
And, actually under religious law, depictions of the prophet are not allowed, regardless of who does them.
Re: victims: if someone is insulted or slandered, is he not a victim? One doesn't need to die to be a victim...
I'm not aiming for censorship. I don't want us to have to be in that position in the first place; as I wrote, that requires a level of respect of beliefs that we do not have yet.
Ya Mo! I think you are missing the point. First of all, in your hypothetical situation, the pedophile would have broken some international law regulating rights of children!
Now going to the core of the argument here. I will argue that 1)Islam and Muslims have no grounds to be offended, as they are hypocritical on the issue and have no right to impose their beliefs. 2)That your expectation of respect is not realistic, and that we should just aim for tolerance. Which I think is a more realistic standard and makes dealing with victim-less crimes much easier.
I have summarized your arguments and respond to each below:
1) Religious law states no one should depict the prophet. Actually Hadeeth and not the Quran state that no prophet or god should be depicted for fear idolization. It also calls for the destruction of all other idols in Muslim society. So why aren't Muslims pissed about Jesus statues, or drawings of God in churches, museums, cartoons and movies around the world? Why do they ignore the Hindus and the Buddhist? Not to mention the fringe groups such as Kemetism (a revival of ancient Egyptian religions in the US?)
2) Second you argues, that Islamic law does not differentiate between an act and its intent. I find that questionable as Islam clearly states that Al A3mal Bel Neyat. And judging from both SP episodes, all the depictions, well lack of really, of Mohammad in those 2 episodes, do not have the intent of idolizing him or any of the other prophets that participated in the episode. From there, I argue that you have failed in building a case of why you were offended.
3) Islamic rule (or some of them) have authority over non Muslims. As no none Muslim has accepted Islam's authority, evident by the fact that they are non Muslims, then there is no way that Islam's authority extends to them.
4) You argue that the key question is respect not censorship. The problem here is that respect requires self censorship, a form of censorship. I think we, as humans, should aim to demand tolerance and not respect. Tolerance allows us to open our minds to new ideas, a form of Ijtihad, while respect demand that we close the door on some ideas, and I find that a form of Jihad and for that I reject it.
Robin Hanson (link below) does a great job of defining tolerance, although in this example he uses homosexuality rather than religion as the example:
“Tolerance” is a feel-good buzzword in our society, but I fear people have forgotten what it means. Many folks are proud of their “tolerance” for gays, working women, Tibetan monks in cute orange outfits, or blacks sitting at the front of the bus. But what they really mean is that they consider such things to be completely appropriate parts of their society, and are not bothered by them in the slightest. That, however, isn’t “tolerance.”
“Tolerance” is where you tolerate things that actually bother you. Things that make you go “ick”, or that conflict with strong intuitions on proper behavior. Once upon a time, the idea of gay sex made most folks quite uncomfortable, and yet many of those folks still advocated tolerance for gay sex. Their argument was not that gay sex isn’t icky, but that a broad society should be reluctant to ban apparently victimless activities merely because many find them icky.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/04/truetoleranc.html
Re: the pedophile: so you're telling me that you're only upset because he breaks a law somewhere? As in, you wouldn't be upset if it was legal where he is? I'm sure you would anyway, because you'd be guided by a sense of human rights and defense of the weak which transcends legal texts.
Same for when I demand that Muhammad not be depicted. I am led by a sense of morality, and supported by a rightful claim for respect, which may not be in legal texts,
As for the scary word of censorship - Jee, i don't know. If I don't make a joke about someone's mother, does that mean I am self-censoring myself? that's a terrible use of a major concept to describe something that is far less mundane. Because, theoretically, yes, I am allowed by law to make a joke about someone's mother. But basic rules of decency and respect say that I shouldn't. That I ought to follow those rules of decency do not mean that I am being censored - and surely do not allow me to cry wolf.
"So why aren't Muslims pissed about Jesus statues, or drawings of God in churches, museums, cartoons and movies around the world?"
Pissed is one thing, but at the end of the day, objecting on depicting Jesus in churches would be the silliest argument in the world, no?
If we're talking Hadith then we'd be looking at the one that says "if you see something wrong, then change it with your own hand [as in, do it yourself]; if not, then with you tongue [as in, inform and request it be changed]; and if you can't, then with your heart [as in, actively feel that this is wrong, even if you can't change it yourself]".
So if we're talking about the Jesus statues in churches, the best we can do is to inform that we believe that prophets shouldn't be idolized nor depicted in statues. Past that however, we can't demand more.
Besides, what's the 'all or nothing' approach? I hear that argument a lot and it simply makes no sense.
Post a Comment