[tomder55]

By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
'South Park" is hilarious, right? Not any more.

Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also "featured" the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.

For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone "will probably end up" like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing "Submission," a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.

There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here's Mr. Amrikee's perspective: "It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," he told Foxnews.com. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality." He's also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh's body.

According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their "outrage" merits little attention.

This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.

Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.

The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.

Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn't include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.

So how worried should the creators of "South Park" be about the "marginal figures" who now threaten them? Very. 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?

The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C. curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.

Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That's a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.

One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. 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.
In "South Park," this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.

Ms. Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is the author of "Nomad: From Islam to America—A Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations," which will be published next month by Free Press.

[excon]

The problem is that it is the radical jihadists that have seized the message. That is why the rest of Islam should stand in solidarity against them in unambiguous terms .

Hello again, tom:

I don't agree, of course. Your expectation that Islam "should stand in solidarity", (or else) is UNREALISTIC, and indeed, CONFRONTATIONAL. I had to ask myself, what explanation would WE owe the world if, say, we invaded a Muslim country based on faulty intelligence. I wonder too, what WE should say, in SOLIDARITY, to Muslims when WE kill innocent civilians with our drone strikes.

Then I look around and see that WE don't speak in SOLIDARITY about anything. To expect that a people should DO, what we ourselves refuse to do, is INVITING trouble. In fact, IF our elected leader DID speak against those things, you'd accuse him of apologizing. Yet that's exactly what you expect from the Muslim world.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Ex,
I'm quite certain that Christians stand in solidarity in denouncing the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. I see this as a similar situation.

[excon]

I'm quite certain that Christians stand in solidarity in denouncing the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. I see this as a similar situation.

Hello again, NK:

You make my point for me. I too, am certain. But we're only GUESSING. I haven't HEARD Christians speak in SOLIDARITY against it. I see NO evidence that they feel that way. Nonetheless, to question whether Christians condemn them, because there isn't an outpouring in solidarity against it, is an unrealistic expectation.

It means NO more that Christians in SOLIDARITY, don't condemn that church, than it does when the Muslims don't, in SOLIDARITY, condemn the actions of their terrorists.

excon

[speechlesstx]

So in other words, there's nothing we can do. Is that it, ex? What exactly is your answer to Islamic extremists?

[NeedKarma]

But we're only GUESSING. I haven't HEARD Christians speak in SOLIDARITY against it.

I'm not guessing, I've seen it: 'God Hates F*gs' Radicals Out-Protested In Coal Mine Deaths

[excon]

Hello again, NK:

I don't believe that meets the "solidarity" test, tom calls for.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I haven't HEARD Christians speak in SOLIDARITY against it. I see NO evidence that they feel that way.

You haven't paid attention. Phelps and co. are the scum of the earth, but they're hardly the threat that Islamic extremism is. But then it's pretty easy to take on a backward family in Kansas, it takes real guts to take on Islamic terrorism.

[excon]

So in other words, there's nothing we can do. Is that it, ex? What exactly is your answer to Islamic extremists?

Hello again, Steve:

There's PLENTY we can do. Putting down their religion and/or demanding that they act in a way that we, ourselves, refuse to act, AIN'T it.

excon

[tomder55]

Here is an OP created by one of the Christians on the board NoHelp4u and similar sentiments were expressed by Steve ,NK,Elliot (ok go Jews!) ,Emland,labman,kindj,and partime . A fairly representative group of mostly Christians at AMHD . If this had been posted in Christianity board I'd bet more would join the universal condemnation of the creap Phelps .

The facts speak for themselves. You may think we don't represent a large cross section of Christians but I disagree .I see no Christian on any of the boards here defending Phelps.

Unfortunately it will most likely be overturned by appeal . Freedom of speech is a stated guarantee while freedom of privacy is what many call an "implied right."

But we can celebrate one of those rare common sense rulings while we can. Fred Phelps is an AH and deserves to lose this case .He at very least should reexamine what it means to be Christian and ask himself if his group is really acting in a Christian manner.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...-147352-2.html

[speechlesstx]

There's PLENTY we can do. Putting down their religion and/or demanding that they act in a way that we, ourselves, refuse to act, AIN'T it

That's a very familiar non-answer.

[excon]

The facts speak for themselves. You may think we don't represent a large cross section of Christians but I disagree .I see no Christian on any of the boards here defending Phelps.

Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry. You guys bring up lots of data, which I don't dispute, but nothing that indicates Christians are speaking IN SOLIDARITY.

Maybe I misunderstand the word "solidarity". But, I don't think so.

excon

[tomder55]

There will never be solidarity between real Christians and the cult Phelps represents . Just like there is no solidarity between mainstream Muslims and the jihadists ( I believe) . I think that is the position Firm would take ;but I'd like to see more . There is no Christian leader except the cultists like Phelps who advance the position he takes . If I take time I'll find church leaders who are out front in their condemnation of him. I'd love to see the Muslim clerics who are condemning the death threats to the South Park authors. The birds are chirping .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I agree. This post ^^ is much less demanding and more Christianlike.

You may think I'm splitting hairs. In fact, I'm the first to use the expression, "it's a distinction WITHOUT a difference". However, THIS post above, tom, is distinct from your other one, and it makes a BIG difference.

excon

[tomder55]

That was a great discussion... if I was counting debating points at the Oxford Union

[speechlesstx]

Southern Baptists have been speaking out against Westboro for years, as in here, here, here, here and here. That's from 1999 to last week if you're counting.

[excon]

That was a great discussion ...if I was counting debating points at the Oxford Union

Hello again, tom:

Well, you're still free to make this a Christian vs Muslim war, if you wish. Certainly, the other side already thinks it is - and maybe in your own mind, you do too.

excon

[tomder55]

You are the master of making generalities yourself that paint a broad brush on "righty's " that may apply to some but are clearly an exageration when applied to all. The you shoot down the generality that you have painted on us . It is brilliant strawman techique that forces us to waste time disputing that the generality applies to us.

But that's OK...

The latest example is the above posting that implies I'm trying to make this a Christian vs Muslim war . It is of course bunk.

[speechlesstx]

Comedy Central, fresh off caving to the Jihadis, is developing an animated series on Jesus Christ titled "JC."

As part of the network's upfront presentation to advertisers (full slate here), the network is set to announce "JC," a half-hour show about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City.

In the show, God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ, "the ultimate fish out of water," tries to adjust to life in the big city.

"In general, comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable," said Comedy Central's head of original programming Kent Alterman.

When asked if the show might draw some fire, especially coming on the heels of the network's decision to censor the Muslim faith's religious figure on "South Park," Alterman said its too early in the show's development to be concerned about such matters.

"We don't even know what the show is yet," he said.

Like all Comedy Central executives, Alterman declined to address the recent controversy over "South Park," where the network aired a heavily redacted episode after the show's creators were threatened by an extremist Islamic Web site.

If nothing else Comedy Central has become useful for illustrative purposes. The folks there are only cowards when it comes to Muslim extremists, so there must be something about Jihadis in particular that makes them more dangerous than that Christian threat so prominent during the Bush theocracy years.

[excon]

so there must be something about Jihadis in particular that makes them more dangerous than that Christian threat so prominent during the Bush theocracy years.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know if you noticed, but jihadists KILL you if they don't like what you say. Christians, on the other hand, will only kill you if you're an abortion provider. It's easy to cast aspersions from the comfort of your couch, on the Comedy Central team, who LIVE in NY, and who can be FOLLOWED home.

excon