Parker and Stone repeated this plot for the 200th episode "200". Again, the depiction was censored throughout the episode. After the episode aired, a leader of Revolution Muslim, an obscure New York-based radical Muslim organization, targeted South Park’s creators for satirizing issues surrounding the depiction of Muhammad. The author of the post, who goes by the username Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, wrote on Twitter that he prayed for Allah to kill the show’s creators and “burn them in Hell for all eternity.”[77] He also posted a similar entry on his blog and on the Revolution Muslim website. The post included a picture of the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist in 2004 with the caption: "Theo Van Gogh – Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?" He also noted: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh if they do air this show."

Parker and Stone note the contradiction in being allowed to feature a profane depiction of Jesus, while being forbidden to feature a purely benign depiction of Muhammad, but claim they harbor no hard feelings toward Comedy Central for censoring the scene, since the network confessed to being "afraid of getting blown up" rather than claim 'religious tolerance' like other networks.[3][50] Parker and Stone claim the only regrets they have over the incident was that their mocking of the show Family Guy in the episode generated more attention than its commentary on the ethics of censorship.[75] Previously, Muhammad was depicted uncensored and portrayed in a heroic light in the season five (2001) episode "Super Best Friends", which resulted in virtually no controversy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_controversies

So so as long as Mohammed is depicted as strong and virulent, then, mo problem, but the the second you air a funny version of Mohammad,
We all know,
people die.

Yet mock ANY other figure all you want. You are perfectly free to, sing, "Fuck your God in the ass, pnssy and ear" in a Book of Mormon on Broadway without fear of any negative repercussions. In fact you get rewarded with fame and fortune, You get 9 Tonys and a Grammy for best showtune!

Why?

Why pretend there's no difference between Islam and Mormonism or Christianity, when the fact is Mormons and Christians don't threaten your life if you mock their God/Prophet/Holy Book or faith. Nobody but Muslims behave this way, yet we're all supposed to just accept this behavior as the new normal instead of fighting for our freedom like we used to?

How'd the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave become the Land of the Oppressed and Home of the Chicken Shits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2018 09:38PM by koriwhore.

I don't accept the different treatment. Draw him all you want in a free country, say I.

I'm not sure what it means to the discussion, however, that images of Muhammad are strictly, universally banned in Islam and always have been, and it doesn't matter if they would be admiring, heroic images. A picture of the "Prophet" would be yet another situation of blasphemy.

It's why there's no equivalent in Islam of our Bible movies with Jesus Christ as a character.

Centuries ago in Persia among the Shiite "heretics" (from the majority Sunni POV) Muhammad might sometimes find his way into an illuminated manuscript -- but with a white space like a veil where his face would have been.

Curelom Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't accept the different treatment. Draw him
> all you want in a free country, say I.
>
> I'm not sure what it means to the discussion,
> however, that images of Muhammad are strictly,
> universally banned in Islam and always have been,
> and it doesn't matter if they would be admiring,
> heroic images. A picture of the "Prophet" would be
> yet another situation of blasphemy.
>
> It's why there's no equivalent in Islam of our
> Bible movies with Jesus Christ as a character.
>
> Centuries ago in Persia among the Shiite
> "heretics" (from the majority Sunni POV) Muhammad
> might sometimes find his way into an illuminated
> manuscript -- but with a white space like a veil
> where his face would have been.

Actually, portraits and paintings of Muhammad were found throughout the muslim world until around 1500 BC, and many Shia muslims portray him to this very day.

But even IF islam prohibited any portrayal of Muhammad whatsoever, the best reason why we shouldn't obey this rule is that we aren't muslims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#/media/File:Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#/media/File:Investiture_of_Ali_Edinburgh_codex.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#/media/File:Mohammed_receiving_the_submission_of_the_Banu_Nadir.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#/media/File:Young_Muhammad_meets_the_monk_Bahira_-_from_Jami%27_al-Tawarikh.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#/media/File:Muhammad_1514.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#/media/File:Maome.jpg

I could go on ;)

Thanks for the pics,

I will draw a caricature of him for practice now.

Twitter and Facebook go wild around that time down here ;)

Their are many historical depictions of of muhammad. The ban is a relatively recent the evolution in doctrine.

Parker and Stone will depict Muhammad. It's comedy Central that censors.

Knowing I would become targeted for death by nutcase Muslims I would not show pictures of Muhammed either.

Why ask for problems when you know you will bring them on by doing something? It is not as if these religious idiots are rational thinkers.

brigham666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knowing I would become targeted for death by
> nutcase Muslims I would not show pictures of
> Muhammed either.
>
> Why ask for problems when you know you will bring
> them on by doing something? It is not as if these
> religious idiots are rational thinkers.
Because I am determined to leave behind a world where my children and their children are free to excercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech, without fear of violence as a consequence.
I fully support any and all efforts to make that dream a reality, including eliminating any and all threats to our freedom of speech, by whatever means necessary.

brigham666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why ask for problems when you know you will bring
> them on by doing something? It is not as if these
> religious idiots are rational thinkers.

That's just what most Germans thought around 1934. They regretted it within a decade.

I call a polite bullshit.

Censorship is a buzzword that has no place in this discussion. The distributor has every right to decide what content to distributed and I support their freedom of expression in doing so. To tell the distributor what they can or cannot distribute would be censorship.

The creator of the content is in an unfortunate situation because they may not have a way to distribute to as wide an audience as they would like but they are not prohibited from distributing it, so they to are not being censored.

As for why people choose not to show this. Probably because they don't want to, and any reason beyond that is immaterial. Sure we can say they don't want to alienate their audience, or invite possible violence. But it doesn't matter, because they get to choose not to because freedom of speech.

So Koriwhore, since your children already live in a world where they are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of expression, this is a straw-man.