Joking about Islam

[Furrowed Brow]

[youtube][/youtube]
In this sort clip British Comedian Rory Bremner talks about the problem of satirising Islam.

[youtube][/youtube]
Here is a CNN report following the depiction of Muhammad in a bear suit on South Park.

QUESTION: When will comedians, satirists, critics, writers and cartoonists no longer have to fear Islam?

[Furrowed Brow]

Reforming mockery?

It can be. But then “mockery� is an emotionally loaded term. To be true sometimes it is a fine line between comedy and bullying. Comedy in the UK back in the 70s was often racist and sexist. Comedians like Bernard Manning were loathsome. Should Bernard Manning have been banned. Well he was more or less absent from TV for the last couple of decades of his life though he still plied his trade in mostly Northern nightclubs which gave the rest of us a choice to not go see him. We still have modern comedians like Chubby Brown who fix on immigrants as target of their humour. Again loathsome, and again he gets little TV exposure. Likewise if a newspaper prints a cartoon of Muhammad then don’t buy it if it is upsetting. However if there were a wider mindset to use the image of Muhammad in a bullying way to isolate and stigmatise a segment of society then that would be wrong too. So context is pretty important I’d say and context wins out over any absolute rule on this view.

Certainly to draw Muhammad makes a mockery of the rule that says you should not draw Muhammad. It makes an out and out mockery of those who insist this rule must be obeyed. Hopefully it is a challenge to and tweaks the consciousness of those who feel aggrieved that the rule got broke.

I personally wouldn't call waving the swastika a freedom of expression, nor would i call racism "Freedom of Opinion"; but an inflammatory & hateful act.

Mel Brooks movie and stage play “The Producers� is splattered with Swastikas. If there was a blanket ban on swastikas then the whole point and the joke goes missing. The context seems important here. South Parks Muhammad in a bear suit made more of a mockery of the TV station that would not let them draw Muhammad than it does of any Islamic prohibition. Whilst depicting Muhammad as a bear also throws a light on how the prohibition is restrictive of ideas. An abstract artists could draw a box and name the picture “A portrait of Muhammad�. How far do we go with this? Victorians used to cover up tables legs because they were thought to be inappropriately suggestive.

It's just something that's sensitive within Islam,

Very much understood. But will Islam ever reform? Will Muslims ever draw Muhammad or is it ever to be inflexible?

Islam seems to have the most pressing problem with extremists. Do you think there may be a connection between the inflexibility of doctrine and the inflexible mind sets of the extremists?

[Murad]

Reforming mockery?

It can be. But then “mockery� is an emotionally loaded term. To be true sometimes it is a fine line between comedy and bullying. Comedy in the UK back in the 70s was often racist and sexist.

Now why cant you be racist/sexist without drawing the prophet of Islam, why is it a pre-requisite for you to mock a dead man that a religion holds holy? By no means do i want Islam to get a free pass or a special plead when it comes down to freedom of expression or comedy; but i would like to see some humility. I doubt you could wave the swastika inside Israel without causing an uproar.

Comedians like Bernard Manning were loathsome. Should Bernard Manning have been banned. Well he was more or less absent from TV for the last couple of decades of his life though he still plied his trade in mostly Northern nightclubs which gave the rest of us a choice to not go see him. We still have modern comedians like Chubby Brown who fix on immigrants as target of their humour. Again loathsome, and again he gets little TV exposure. Likewise if a newspaper prints a cartoon of Muhammad then don’t buy it if it is upsetting.

Personally, i do not find it that provocative; but i still do not think it should be done. If it was up to me, we wouldn't have this discussion as i do not believe you are forced/bound to accept my ideological orientation.

But look at it from a mainstream muslim's perspective & see how it's circular:
1) Some guy from the west draws a cartoon of Muhammad(pbuh)
2) Ultra conservatives from Afghanistan/Pakistan attack a few embassies & kill innocent people.
3) Muslims as a whole are now demonised because of 2 which was initiated from 1.

Do you think it's fair? What did i & a billion+ muslims do? Demonising innocent people is a hate act, and when it's done purposely to get a reaction (thus newtons 3rd law); it should be classified as inciting hate.

...instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.

However if there were a wider mindset to use the image of Muhammad in a bullying way to isolate and stigmatise a segment of society then that would be wrong too. So context is pretty important I’d say and context wins out over any absolute rule on this view.

It's agreed, the context is the most important factor here. We need to look at the broader & more oblique implications.

Certainly to draw Muhammad makes a mockery of the rule that says you should not draw Muhammad. It makes an out and out mockery of those who insist this rule must be obeyed. Hopefully it is a challenge to and tweaks the consciousness of those who feel aggrieved that the rule got broke.

I believe that satirising society can be positive, i don't know whether you watch Chasers war on everything, but in some instances it's not as simple as it may look on the surface. By drawing Muhammad(pbuh) you are not challenging religious restrictions (contrary to popular belief) but you are challenging whether a muslim is stupid enough to kill someone over something so small ( Majority of us are not that stupid ); and in the process the muslim community as a whole is demonised.

An abstract artists could draw a box and name the picture “A portrait of Muhammad�. How far do we go with this? Victorians used to cover up tables legs because they were thought to be inappropriately suggestive.

If it was up to me; drawing Muhammad(pbuh) by non-muslims would not matter; but i still believe that it shouldn't be done, for multiple reasons.

Mainstream muslims do not plan world domination under the authority of the anti-christ (as some Christians believe); i don't believe you are subjected to my beliefs or that you should be; but in the spirit of humility & virtue; & by analysing the obvious & allusive implications of this topic; i hope you agree with me that it's targeting mainstream muslims more than anything else; currently (and for the last decade) muslims aren't portrayed too positively, hell with it, we are being portrayed as shite who blow ourselves up.

It's just something that's sensitive within Islam,

Very much understood. But will Islam ever reform?

I don't believe mainstream muslims need to reform; but obviously ultra-conservatives do. A group of wahabbis knocked down the grave of Muhammad's(pbuh) mother as they thought it was a sort of polytheism for someone to visit it. & ironically they believe they follow "True Islam" (tm).

Will Muslims ever draw Muhammad or is it ever to be inflexible?

Never, ever.
However; muslims need to understand that not everyone is bound to their worldview.

Islam seems to have the most pressing problem with extremists. Do you think there may be a connection between the inflexibility of doctrine and the inflexible mind sets of the extremists?

Extremism is mutually exclusive with what you believe is "Inflexible Doctrines" & deserves its own topic; i do not believe this is the case. The taliban in Afghanistan beat you up if your beard is not long enough; it has nothing to do with Islam being "Inflexible" but introducing ones own independant ideology as being Islamic ideology.

[East of Eden]

Then when i say that it's a dishonest generalisation; i get the common cliche (from a Christian on this forum): "Yes not all muslims are terrorists; but almost all terrorists are muslim"

Actually, and I don't remember his name, it was an Egyptian Muslim who first said that. Do you deny, from a pure numerical basis, that that statement is true?

There are 1.6 Billion+ muslims on earth; what fraction of that are terrorists? Why aren't we all dead?

What bothers me is the large numbers of Muslims who back despicable, barbaric postions. In Egypt and Jordan, recent polls have shown, over 85 percent of the population supports capital punishment for anyone who converts from Islam to another faith.

Do you agree that it is nobody's business what faith your neighbor practices?

As far as the earlier comment on misdeeds of medieval Christians, what is ignored there is that those misdeeds went against the teachings of Christ. Much of what the Jihadists do is supported by the word and deed of the prophet.

I reject on principle the idea that anyone's free speech should be toned down in deference to threats from thugs. Muslims do not get their own special standard.