South Park Parodies Religion

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caissa
South Park Parodies Religion

 

In the 200th episode of South Park, broadcast in the US and UK last week, Muhammad appeared several times inside a bear suit. Figures from other religions were also depicted, including a drug-snorting Buddha.

Wednesday's 201st episode saw any spoken references to Muhammad bleeped out, while a prominent banner stating "censored" was used in the programme.

Speaking in an interview with the Boing Boing website before the 200th show aired, the South Park team defended the scenes.

"We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'okay, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us,'" said Parker.

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

Snert Snert's picture

Curious question:  if a fundamentalist Christian website decided to warn doctors, in a friendly way, that if they perform abortions then they're likely to end up shot dead, would that be construed as a threat, or just some well-meaning advice? 

Caissa

I think going down that road led to another thread being closed an VGE  put out on his ear, Snert.

ygtbk

I think Stone and Parker should be free to parody religion. Religion has often been an oppressive force, and ridicule can be a potent weapon against it. 

Snert Snert's picture

I don't think it's an unfair question, nor do I think it's in any violation of the AUP here.

Edit:  remember "Chef" on SP?  They lost him when they insisted on parodying Scientology, against his protests.  They walk the walk when it comes to ripping on religion.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Me neither. And while I don't normally criticize moderators, I think that decision, re: VGE, was hasty and wrong. I don't think it's anymore Islamaphibic to criticize Islamic fundamentalists then it is Christophobic to criticize Christian nutcases.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Depiction of the prophet Muhammed, for whatever reason - parody, veneration, ridicule, or simple biography - is objectionable for many Muslims. This is completely different from the other world religions of Christianity and Buddhism in which depiction of Christ or Buddha is more acceptable and "normal". It's interesting how this basic truth is so carefully avoided.

To me it's just a lack of imagination on the part of Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they can't find some other way to parody Islam. OTOH, I can't think of anything at the moment that makes religion, in general, look so stupid and harmful as its uneasy relationship with humour (of whatever kind).

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Islam is the demonized religion here in the west.  Think harder.  It deserves no truck here.

al-Qa'bong

Truck?

Does anyone remember "what would Muhammad drive?"

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Depiction of the prophet Muhammed, for whatever reason - parody, veneration, ridicule, or simple biography - is objectionable for many Muslims. This is completely different from the other world religions of Christianity and Buddhism in which depiction of Christ or Buddha is more acceptable and "normal". It's interesting how this basic truth is so carefully avoided.

[...]

Can you give me directions to the world in which you live? It would be interesting to see a place where your observation about how depictions (especially those that are not flattering or not sufficiently reverential) of a certain Nazarene and his family members don't excite rabid responses from the Greek Orthodox Church (Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ), Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches (Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary) and the diverse (and seemingly ever schismatic) Protestant denominations (damn, where do I start the list here, hey I know, how about South Park itself). Of course there outrage is not portrayed as irrational in the MSM... it is considered valid and reasonable... and the pronouncements of popes, priests, preachers, parsons and politicians are reported on with great seriousness.

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

What an obtuse reply, bk. You just don't get it. Christian churches are full of images of the Christ figure, and Buddhists have all sorts of images of the Buddha left, right and center. This just isn't done for most Muslims. There are no images of the Prophet anywhere in or around Mosques. So it's a kind of double insult to (a) depict the Prophet in any way, and (b) do the usual parody, or mockery, or whatever (about which, in principle, I don't really have any objections in case you were wondering). Am I clear yet?

By the way, you forgot to mention the Piss Christ in your list. Not that it makes any difference, really.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You could for example, make fun of the fact that you can't depict Mohammed, and not depict him. But that would take Monty Python writing ability to carry off.

Papal Bull

And they did. I think that was the joke. They did not depict Muhammad at all, bleeping out his name. It was a side show to the plot of the show that people actually cared about, who Cartman's father was. The Muhammad-Tom Cruise plot was mostly about the fact that South Park in recent series had given up on trying to offer a definitive moral in an episode, instead focusing on making fun of celebrities and such in the news. I thought that, as a two part episode, it was very well written and, despite the childish humour that turns off the 'I am always right and I hate that show' crowd, was a very clever and unexpected way of dealing with it. Of course, it won't make a lick of sense if you've not closely watched South Park - and when people start talking without fulfilling that prerequisite I believe that is about as honest as Mitch Connor.

Sineed

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Me neither. And while I don't normally criticize moderators, I think that decision, re: VGE, was hasty and wrong. I don't think it's anymore Islamaphibic to criticize Islamic fundamentalists then it is Christophobic to criticize Christian nutcases.

Agree; all fundamentalism should be fair game.

Sven Sven's picture

Sineed wrote:

Agree; all fundamentalism should be fair game.

It may make sense to you that all religions should be fair game for criticism and mockery.

But, a lot of people view everything, including religion, through class lenses -- where individuals with certain chosen or inherent characteristics are assigned to various groups and each group (relative to other groups) is then classified as being either "oppressed" or "privileged" (depending on which other groups a particular group is being compared against).

In that world view, it is wrong for an individual in a privileged group to criticize, question, or mock a group which is, relative to that privileged group, an oppressed group.

If you live in North America, the chances are extremely high that you are, relative to Muslims, a member of one or more privileged groups.  If so, you would be an oppressor and Muslims would be classified as being oppressed and, as an opressor, it would be politically incorrect for you to criticize or mock Muslims.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Depiction of the prophet Muhammed, for whatever reason - parody, veneration, ridicule, or simple biography - is objectionable for many Muslims. This is completely different from the other world religions of Christianity and Buddhism in which depiction of Christ or Buddha is more acceptable and "normal". It's interesting how this basic truth is so carefully avoided.

 

When Comedy Central prevented South Park from riffing on the Danish cartoon controversy, Parker and Stone chose instead to feature Jesus Christ defecating on an American flag and George Bush.

 

You're right that a simple image of Jesus isn't considered blasphemous by Christians, but I'm thinking that Jesus pinching a loaf might be. Would you agree?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Does anyone know anything about the "posting on a website" that has sparked this sensationalist, fearful controversy? Like, anything about the website, who posted it, whether it was posted as an article or as a comment, whether it was endorsed by this mystery website, or whether anyone affiliated with this menacing website has been connected with criminal or terrorist activity? Why is it that such a "threat" has been transmuted into the voice of "Islamists" (another scare term) in general?

Sven, I don't know if you're being facetious, but you've almost got it right. Actually, I don't really care much about the South Park episode. I don't think it's particularly insensitive to Islam any more than it is generally insensitive to any of the things it parodies, often in offensive ways. What I find interesting--and this is also what we as Westerners can control--is how this apparently inconsequential comment has been translated into an fairly large, reactionary and fearmongering story on national news broadcasters. What's with that?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

From this LA Times article:

Quote:
Revolution Muslim, the extremist group that issued the graphic warning, is a relatively small fringe organization based out of New York, said Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

The organization, which formed in 2007 and includes about a dozen members, is mostly known for posting inflammatory and often threatening comments on its website, including a poem last October during the Jewish High Holy Days asking God to kill all the Jews. Its members also stage protests in front of New York mosques, advocating a more fundamentalist form of Islam.

Interesting. I don't remember hearing a bunch of news stories decrying this highly influential group praying for genocide. I wonder why that is?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
What I find interesting--and this is also what we as Westerners can control--is how this apparently inconsequential comment has been translated into an fairly large, reactionary and fearmongering story on national news broadcasters. What's with that?

 

I think that speaks back to the first thread's question as to whether this was a "comment" or a "death threat".

 

I asked above whether a Christian website that chose to "warn" doctors that they might get shot in the head if they perform abortions would be regarded as giving some helpful advice or making a thinly veiled threat. What if that same site, at the same time, asserted that abortion is an abomination to God, published a gory photo of Bernard Slepian's corpse, and listed the work addresses of a few local doctors?

ygtbk

Death threats are not an appropriate response to being offended, and I think all sensible people know that.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

My point is not whether the comment is a death threat or not, or even if it is a credible death threat--although I have opinions on those. The point is whether or not a more-or-less anonymous poster (yes, I know he posted a name, but I don't think the situation and context qualifies as coming out publicly) who makes such a death threat should then become a national--actually, international--news story. Why are we so eager to disseminate such an innocuous piece of news? What is going on in our imaginations that we see such monsters in a pretty pathetic internet comment. Would our comments here on babble be considered so powerful!

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 The point is whether or not a more-or-less anonymous poster (yes, I know he posted a name, but I don't think the situation and context qualifies as coming out publicly) who makes such a death threat should then become a national--actually, international--news story. Why are we so eager to disseminate such an innocuous piece of news? What is going on in our imaginations that we see such monsters in a pretty pathetic internet comment. Would our comments here on babble be considered so powerful!

 

Our comments here typically aren't death threats, thinly veiled. I have to think that's why we're not making the news.

 

Have you heard of [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1091345/Blogger-who-targets]Jean-Claude Rochefort[/url]? He's the guy with the blog that talks positively about Marc Lepine, with a photo of L'Ecole Polytechnique and the caption "Where it all started". He made the news in the MSM and here as well. Should we have ignored him? Is he similarly small potatoes? To borrow your question, why would we see a monster in such a pathetic internet comment?

Caissa

In related news:

The RCMP are investigating a posting on a Facebook page calling for Vancouver Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh to be shot.

"Someone shoot him - ASAP," one commenter posted on the site titled "Ujjal Dosanjh is a Sikh Traitor," the National Post reported Friday.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/04/23/bc-ujjal-facebook-threats.html#ixzz0lwoEbcqa

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Right, Rochefort made local news in Quebec, and remind posted his story in a thread documenting how violence against women is, in fact, ignored or minimized in the MSM. Of course he should be reported. I am also not saying that this South Park story shouldn't be reported. I will, however, note that Rochefort's trial didn't spark any editorial-page torrents about the right to free speech, etc.

Maybe I also have to explitly state that I don't know the answers to the questions I am asking--I have my suspicions, of course, but I see them as questions not being asked rather than excuses as to why Muslims are right and Westerners are wrong, which seemed to me to be what earlier posts were seeing in objections to how the MSM was relating this "news."

I also recall a facebook poster back in tha day making an idle threat something along the lines of "we should kill George Bush and replace him with a monkey, because a monkey would do a better job." The Secret Service showed up at his house six months later. That story was digested and dissemiinated in very, very different circumstances and dynamics.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 I will, however, note that Rochefort's trial didn't spark any editorial-page torrents about the right to free speech, etc.

 

We generally don't believe that free speech gives one the right to make threats, so certainly nobody's going to come out and endorse his right to threaten anyone. But for the last hundred years or so, most of us have upheld the right to "blaspheme" the various imaginary beings that people insist on worshipping.

 

I'm not sure HOW someone could have made a free speech argument in the Rochefort case. In one case the contentious speech and the threat are one and the same. In the second, the contentious speech is being met with the threat.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

From remind's link:

Quote:
Rocherfort has said his website is "humorous," and that feminists made a hero out of the Polytechnique shooter by constantly talking about the tragedy.

This sounds dangerously close to Parker and Stone's argument. I don't want, of course, to align what South Park is doing to what Rochefort is--in many ways the analogy is patently false and analogies don't really work as a model of critical thinking anyway--but it is interesting in what ways identical logic is taken up, perverted, ignored and substantiated in various ways by our non-biased MSM.

Snert Snert's picture

I should think that if his blog were, indeed, humourous then we might find some humour in it.  I really can't compare his blog with a longstanding comedy show on the Comedy Channel.  I mean, he could say his blog is just a haiku that breaks a few rules, but I hope nobody is obligated to give that consideration.  If anyone wants to similarly say that South Park isn't humour, let them make the case.

I note also that Rochefort makes the claim that his site is "humour" in the hope of pulling some free speech rights over his threats.  South Park doesn't really need to make the claim that they're also humour, but if they did it would be in defense of the antiquated charge of "blasphemy".  Unless we're turning around and heading back to the 17th century, I don't really feel like anyone should need to justify or excuse blasphemy.  Threats would be a different story.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Again, you are turning the conversation back to whether South Park should be vindicated and Rochefort condemned. I'm not engaged in that activity, which I hope should be obvious. As it happens, I like some of the work Stone and Parker do to bring certain issues to the forefront and I also find some of their work odious and counter-revolutionary. Whatever. They're cartoons. Rochefort, and probably this Revolution Muslim character for that matter, are lunatics. And both are taken relatively seriously, I suppose, but one of them is a lot more visible in our newspapers and television shows. From a purely punitive standpoint, if we include the fb dude I mentioned above, all three will be approached very differently by government officials (note, for example, that the FBI have taken no action against Revolution Muslim).

I'm not talking about whether Parker and Stone are good satirists or whether or not they are justified in mocking Mohammed. I'm talking about the circulation of these ideas and concepts as they turn up in the media and in our imaginations. And it seems to me that certain buzzwords--namely, Islam and especially radical Islam--get a lot more truck than others. So when Sven talks about oppressors criticizing oppressed or whatever, it isn't about who has the "right" to criticize others, but how that criticism functions in our society.

ETA: Come to think of it, your comment on why South Park qualifies as humour and Rochefort's blog doesn't is instructive: because humour is a social phenomenon. It is constructed by the way we've decided things are funny over centuries. We, socially, agree (kind of) that SP is funny and Rochefort's sexist rants aren't (although, I would argue that there is some cross over between the two--there have been many unfunny anti-feminist tirades on SP as well). So too with why these Islamophobic stories gain so much traction with popular audiences--because popularly, we have constructed Islam in that way.

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

The point is whether or not a more-or-less anonymous poster (yes, I know he posted a name, but I don't think the situation and context qualifies as coming out publicly) who makes such a death threat should then become a national--actually, international--news story. Why are we so eager to disseminate such an innocuous piece of news?

Such reports sell newspapers, magazines, and ad space on television news programs.  As long as there is a free press, there will be sensationalist stories printed and reported.  Now, while I think the Internet threat is an inconsequential "news story," I think it merits monitoring by the authorities (we don't need another Theo van Gogh incident).

The more interesting story is the self-censorship of Comedy Central.  The big-wigs almost certainly didn't censor the show because it would offend someone (otherwise, they'd have to pretty much censor everything on SP).  Instead, I suspect that there was some fear, well-founded or not, that there could be violence of some sort due to broadcasting a cartoon figure of Mohammed (for evidence of that possibility, just consider the moronic, but sad, response to the Danish cartoons). 

While government censorship is a real danger, self-censorship due to a fear of a violent reprisal is also very troubling.  But, the great difficulty is this: If someone anonymously says, "I will kill you if you publish offensive cartoons of Mohammed" or "I will kill you if you peacefully march with signs advocating a woman's right to choose," how do you combat that kind of irrational threat?  A government can be ordered to stop censoring.  Extremist wackos are not amenable to such orders.

What is also troubling is when some people who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent defend either government censorship or self-censorship when it comes to art or speech which is offensive to certain groups.  Art is frequently meant to be jarring and confrontational - or to mock or satirize, often quite viciously, elements of society or certain human behavior.  And even if someone wants to argue that SP (or "Piss Christ") is not art, it is certainly speech.

Snert Snert's picture

Catchfire:  that makes sense.  Have a great weekend.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sven wrote:
What is also troubling is when some people who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent defend either government censorship or self-censorship when it comes to art or speech which is offensive to certain groups.  Art is frequently meant to be jarring and confrontational - or to mock or satirize, often quite viciously, elements of society or certain human behavior.  And even if someone wants to argue that SP (or "Piss Christ") is not art, it is certainly speech.

The mass media in this country, and in the US, functions with this sort of self-censorship all the time in relation to the news, weather, and sports. And these things are as much commercial entertainment as "objective" information. No, more so. However, there is the gigantic fraud of denying that any such self-censorship takes place. This is in contrast to so-called "totalitarian" regimes (i.e., the ones "we" don't like) that exercise a more direct form of official censorship.

Noam Chomsky, I think it was, who observed the seeming paradox that the articulate spokespersons for this or that ideology are invariably those who are the most capitulationist prisoners of these ideologies. I think Noam was writing about academia but the same shoe fits on noisy media spokespeople who display the intellectual diversity of ... oatmeal.

By the way, art as only having merit by virtue of its shock value isn't much in the way of art anyway. There' s gotta be more meat on those bones than that. My two bits.

E.Tamaran

I like South Park. When I watched the show wednesday night I thought that all the bleeps were some sort of meta joke. Turns it they weren't. I got mad when I found out. So did a lot of other SP fans. So they hacked the website of the Islamic group that threatened the show's creators.

 

 

 

http://gawker.com/5522966/south-park-fans-spoof-islamic-website-updated?skyline=true&s=i
South Park made jokes about the Prophet Muhammad. An Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, retorted with thinly veiled threats, and the show was censored. Fans were outraged - and they seem to have fought back by mocking the group's website.

Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are forbidden in some interpretations of Islam. Extreme adherents of the faith have a long history of threatening violence when they feel their faith is being mocked. So when South Park skirted the rule by showing him in a bear costume, and dressed as Santa Claus, a Brooklyn-based Islamic group were enraged.

Revolution Muslim said that the show had "outright insulted" Muhammad, and posted addresses for South Park and Comedy Central alongside a picture of the Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh lying dead, stabbed and shot. Van Gogh was murdered for making a documentary film about the abuse of women in some Islamic countries.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey," said the post, written by a member named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, of the show's creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, "that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Comedy Central censored the next episode - blocking out any non-depictions of Muhammad, bleeping any mentions and even, paradoxically, censoring a speech about free speech and censorship. Jon Stewart was not happy.

UPDATED: Now Younus Abdullah Mohammed, of Revolution Muslim, has confirmed to us that hackers briefly redirected the group's website to revolutionislam.com, a site that hosts the image above - a cartoon depiction of the Prophet, originally published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.

South Park Fans Spoof Islamic Website (Updated)

"But it was pointless," said Mohammed of the brief prank. "Our website is down with the amount of traffic now anyway. If these hackers want to show their support for the filth and trash that is America then that is fine by us. We already know the outcome as Muslims."

That outcome? "Islam will take over the world."

Mohammed also directed us to a longer version of the post about South Park on their blog, and added that he felt the press coverage of the scandal was unfair. "It was typical of the mainstream media. It was senseless," he said, "they never cover any of the other crimes against Islam we write about."

Most Americans, he said, are "dumbed down, stupid and pathetic. They're worried more about missing their favourite TV show than they are about the world."

He stands by his group's prediction of violence against the South Park creators. "It's very justifiable to act violently against Western aggression," said Mohammed, who added that his group did not "condone or condemn" terrorist acts against Americans. "We did not start the war on September the 11th 2001. You started the war."

Mohammed implied that he has previously had some contact with the FBI regarding a trip to an Islamic country, but he would not give specific details of the incident. "It is American oppression," he said. But, he added, we probably wouldn't understand such issues as we are "Darwinist faggots who are as despicable as the rest, walking around eating your Triscuits."

(Why Triscuits? We investigate here.)

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

What's an "Islamic" country and how is that to be distinguished from a Muslim country?

milo204

Beliefs should always be subject to satire, and in some cases ridicule.  

 

in the case of religion, the belief is so ridiculous that it definitely deserves ridicule.  that's what good comedy is, social commentary.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Good comedy mocks the imperfections of the world, raises our spirits, and so on. Comedy is universal, like tragedy, and will last as long as human beings are around.

That's a much bigger subject matter than "social commentary" or satire or ridicule.

Give your head a shake and laugh at yourself while you're doing it. See what I mean? Laughing

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/the-radical-muslim-group-the-... "radical" Muslim group that threatened South Park creators was founded and run by Jopseph Cohen, a former Israeli radical who used to live in a settlement in the West Bank.[/url]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Excellent find, Spector. It's not just the US that produces these right-wing loonies. Israel seems to have a bumper crop as well.

abnormal

[url=http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170]No comment necessary.[/url]

 

Quote:
Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"

 

[IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/6pazvq.jpg[/IMG]

 

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."

etc ....

Cueball Cueball's picture

From Spector's link:

Quote:

All of a sudden last week a group called “Revolution Muslim” threatened violence against Comedy Central if they aired an image of Muhammad which forced Comedy Central to censor the show and now you have even liberals talking about those “radical Muslims” and their threats of violence.  Karl Rove couldn’t have done it any better.  

Problem is, Revolution Muslim was started and run by a “converted” Israeli settler who studied at an orthodox rabbinical school in Israel before becoming a settler in the occupied territories.

[SNIP]

Radical Muslim is a COINTELPRO site, run by a “converted” jewish settler pretending to be a “radical Muslim”. He is the ONE Muslim that complained about the South Park episode… an ex-radical Israeli settler, Mr. Stewart… real Muslims haven’t threatened South Park once since 2001 when they FIRST ran an image of the prophet on their show. 

My comment? There is a sucker born every minute who will just love to find evidence that will support his or her predisposition toward prejudice.

 

Mike Stirner

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Islam is the demonized religion here in the west.  Think harder.  It deserves no truck here.

Islam has partly itself to blame, everything from the abandoning of ijtihad to the reactionary decadance that came from soudi arabia.

Personally I think all of the abrahamic religions suck and the whole fertile crescent has a very poisonous air to it but Islam is probably the least worse of the 3 christianity takes the cake for me, having said that it aint what it was.

 

al-Qa'bong

Catchfire wrote:

Does anyone know anything about the "posting on a website" that has sparked this sensationalist, fearful controversy? Like, anything about the website, who posted it, whether it was posted as an article or as a comment, whether it was endorsed by this mystery website, or whether anyone affiliated with this menacing website has been connected with criminal or terrorist activity? Why is it that such a "threat" has been transmuted into the voice of "Islamists" (another scare term) in general?

 

Some of this has been mentioned already, but the site as a whole is worth looking at.

Quote:

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said Revolution Muslim is “an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community” and that the “wild and irresponsible things” they say has led to “a strong suspicion [in the Muslim American community] that they’re merely a setup to make Muslims and Islam look bad. ”

Joseph Cohen, an Israeli settler and fundamentalist Jew, was the founder of Revolution Muslim

Joseph Cohen, a former Israeli settler and ardent Zionist, is the founder of Revolution Muslim

There’s reason to believe that.  The founder of the group goes by the name of Yousef al-Khattab, but his real name is Joseph Cohen.  He was born and raised in the United States as a Jew, and holds both American and Israeli citizenship.   In the late eighties, Cohen embraced an ultra-orthodox interpretation of Judaism, and began attending a yeshiva (rabbinical school).  In 1998, Cohen hearkened to the Zionist call, and packed up his bags to relocate to the Israeli Occupied Territories where he became an Israeli settler.  As an ardent and extreme Zionist, Joseph Cohen fell in with the Jewish fundamentalist group Shas, an extreme right-wing political party that believes in flouting international law based on their religious beliefs.  Less than three years later, Cohen “converted” to Islam, moved back to the United States, and founded the most radical Islamic group in the country. [1] His underling Younus Muhammad–the other half of the dynamic duo–is similarly a mysterious “convert” to Islam.

This pair of former extremist Zionists [2]–who together form Revolution Muslim–conveniently read off a script that could only be written by an Islamophobe.  For example, one of the two claimed that the Quran commands terrorism, something that no sincere Muslim would ever say (and a claim that is patently false); those are words that an Islamophobe (or extreme Zionist) would agree with, not a Muslim.  Considering the founder’s background in an extreme right-wing and fundamentalist Israeli political party, Muslim Americans have reason to be suspicious.

South Park, the “Four Morons” of Revolution Muslim, and CNN’s Epic Fail