Patterico's Pontifications

3/3/2011

In the Annals of Really Bad Public Relations… (Update: Satire?)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 6:21 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: Via Ed Driscoll there is some evidence that this is just site is parody. I would say look over the site for yourself and, well, given what I know about the ridiculousness of radical Islam, it’s hard to know. For instance on this page they call off a proposed march. But on the other hand, on this page they discuss the Islamic punishment for pedophilia, which is death. But then they suggest they do it by impaling them on top of the Washington Monument. Which sounds crazy, but, um… have you ever watched Memri for a week? Have you ever seen respected Egyptian academics suggest that Mossad is controlling sharks? Its really hard to know satire from reality with them.

So, I think the right answer is to classify this as a dubious story. Certainly I cannot stand behind it any longer. And it proves you can’t satirize something that is already ridiculous.

Update (II): The Jawa Report has an excellent post on this, including on the issue of it possibly being a satire.

Here’s a friendly tip to those who plan to march on Washington in favor of Sharia.  It is pretty dumb to declare to the world that you would like to demolish the Statue of Liberty.  From the organizers’ website:

The Statue of Liberty, designed by Frederic Bartholdi, stands on Liberty Island in New York Harbor; representing Libertas, the Roman (false) goddess of Freedom, it is symbolic of the rebellious nature of the US constitution that elevates the command of man over the command of God.

In Islam, the public veneration of idols and statues is strictly prohibited. This has forced sincere Muslims to develop realistic plans that will aid in the removal of the Statue of Liberty.

Post demolition, it is recommended that a minaret be built as a fitting replacement, allowing the glorification of God to be proclaimed daily as well as act as a powerful reminder of the superiority of Islam over all other ways of life.

But as dumb as that is, it is even dumber to suggest that in the interim that we put a burqa on this beautiful statue:

Due to the scale of the task at hand, it is highly likely that rigorous safety checks will need to be employed before the demolition of the Statue of Liberty can commence; thus as a temporary measure, it is proposed that a large burkha is used to cover the statue, thereby shielding this horrendous eye sore from public view as well as sending a strong message to its French creators.

And it is downright idiotic to accompany all of that with a photoshop of what Lady Liberty would look like in a Burqa:

Now, I know what you are thinking…  “Really, Aaron?  They really did that on their site?”  Yes, they really did.

It’s also worth noting that this rule against idol worship is the exact same rule that declares it blasphemy to depict Mohammed even in a respectful way.  For instance, this cartoon that appeared at my blog would be considered blasphemous and forbidden:

At that site, I even created a special category of posts containing cartoons that were solely offensive because they depicted Mohammed, here.  Needless to say, a lot of other posts were objectively offensive well beyond the mere depiction of Mohammed, but yes, even that stick figure would be seen as offensive.

(We also had a special category called “The Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy.”  There was some overlap.)

So if the media is going to respect that rule of blasphemy, wouldn’t that require them to refuse to show any pictures of the Statue of Liberty from now on?  Or do we say at some point that our faith in freedom is more important?

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers, via The Blaze.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

26 Responses to “In the Annals of Really Bad Public Relations… (Update: Satire?)”

  1. Why do i keep thinking of that iconic final scene of The Planet of the Apes?

    There’s a good joke in there somewhere.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  2. well at least they are honest enough to tell us what they plan to do if they gain power.

    SGT Ted (5d10ae)

  3. Did you see this on SNL?

    Jim (844377)

  4. Jim

    if you told me the pic started on snl, i would believe you. stupider things have happened:

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. My first inclination was to think this was a parody website. Did you notice the page imagining the White House as the “White Masjid”?
    And the picture of their spokesman has for background a picture of the White House draped over with an Arabic language banner?
    But it’s not a parody, unfortunately. And that jihadi imam from London is featured prominently.
    I do think it’s telling that the contact numbers are outside the US.
    Also I think, based on the tone and focus of the various essays (for instance, one arguing that Muslims should not obey American law, but only those rules that are congruent with shariah) it’s fundamentalist propaganda directed at other Muslims, and therefore, while retaining its claim to complete idiocy, probably shouldn’t be qualified as FAIL!public relations.

    kishnevi (2d88a8)

  6. Not at all surprising, when you recall what the Muslims did to the Giant Buddhas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

    gp (72be5d)

  7. It is, however, a definite FAIL! that they had to cancel their demonstration in DC today.

    kishnevi (2d88a8)

  8. Seriously? Is Sharia4America a “reverse moby” site? Am having a hard time believing that whole post of theirs. Although I admit I’ve seen this face before on legitimate British news shows, defending Sharia.

    (that page shows that they’re postponing the planned march, BTW) All I can say is, thank God they’re so tonedeaf about the effects of their visuals.

    In any case, as another commenter said yesterday, this week’s news is going to make tomorrow’s Sockpuppet Friday thread…a lot of fun.

    no one you know (325a59)

  9. No, Chaudary is as serious as a heart attack, his previous group, al Mujahiroun, celebrated ‘the magnificent 19′ the 9/11 hijackers, that’s in part
    why he was banned in the UK

    narciso (bf58f6)

  10. kish

    > therefore, while retaining its claim to complete idiocy, probably shouldn’t be qualified as FAIL!public relations.

    I would agree with that… if it wasn’t in English. Putting it in english for the whole world to see makes it a fail!

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. gp -

    The first thing I thought of was those same historic statues.

    I am not a Buddhist, but I would never have considered destroying them. Nor, for that matter, am I an Islamic, but I would never advocate demolishing the Blue Mosque.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Ahmed_Mosque

    jim2 (851efa)

  12. “It’s also worth noting that this rule against idol worship is the exact same rule that declares it blasphemy to depict Mohammed even in a respectful way.”

    It’s always seemed to me to be a ridiculously stunted understanding of the concept of idolatry that one can engage in it only by creating a image, object, or other material thing, yet not be considered engaging in it if the same blind adoration, reverence or devotion is done in an abstract manner.

    Consider, for example, the degree to which men are given or take on the name Mohammed. If that isn’t reverence, I find it hard to believe much else could be.

    And what kind of adoration and devotion in the extreme is being given to a man by holding that one cannot under any circumstance draw a picture of him and display it, to the point I may add, that that person doing so could suffer the penalty of death?

    If that isn’t idolatry, then nothing really is.

    Dusty (9e8f04)

  13. dusty

    > If that isn’t idolatry, then nothing really is.

    absolutely agreed. that point came up alot during the everyone draw mohammed debate. certainly no one would accuse JD of idolizing mohammed in his dreaded stick figure of blasphemy.

    Let’s just say that unconsenting underage goats were involved.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  14. Very well said, Dusty. Unfortunately logic, consistency, reverence and idolatry has absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s all about power over others.

    Suburban Scarecrow (801a3b)

  15. I went on a boat ride around the statue of liberty with a muslim friend of mine one time and it was a nice day except for the food for lunch on the boat was sub-par

    also it was a boat and like a dumb-ass I wore a white shirt and thought I’d walk around a boat drinking red wine and that this was a good idea

    Fail.

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  16. Couldn’t a minaret be considered an idol? I mean if you take it to its logical end. Aren’t there old illustrated books about Islam that have images of Mohammed that have never been a problem written by Muslims?

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  17. blazign cat fur wrote to me and said he thinks its a hoax. i will find out and get back with you guys.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  18. “blazign cat fur wrote to me and said he thinks its a hoax. i will find out and get back with you guys.”

    The Lady Liberty photoshop does seem a bit too good for a bunch of crazed ideologues.

    Dusty (9e8f04)

  19. Screw it. I say we nuke ‘em and build a McDonald’s on the former site of the Holy Mosque in Makkah…

    Bigfoot (8096f2)

  20. Aaron, about the update questioning the S4A site. I don’t know this Reza Soltani or whether one could register a site in a false name. I suppose the inference is he’s not an Islamist, and so it’s a parody.

    I did note in perusing S4A that their contact phone number (a UK number) is the same one for this site, which appears to be radical Islamist and it references work they do in NYC as well as the UK.

    Now it could still be a parody, in which case the phone number is to annoy this other site, which I don’t know (but doesn’t seem like) is a Soltani tactic. Or S4A is not a parody and it’s intent is meant to antagonize here.

    Just FYI.

    Dusty (9e8f04)

  21. A.W. – The Jawas have tracked these guys and have a post up. You need to check it out.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  22. daley

    thanks i will and update as appropriate. certainly this demonstrates one thing. its hard to parody nutty islam.

    i said to blazing cat fur, its like parodying charlie sheen. its not easy to do.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. When some iman says he thinks the black flag of Islam will fly over the White House, I tend to take him seriously. I just wish the federal government and the touchy-feely crowd would do the same.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  24. I should have stopped before the end of Jawa’s link, the last time I didn’t it showed what happened
    to Tucker and Menchaca, in Mahmoudiya.

    narciso (bf58f6)

  25. If this was not parody, could it be a “fatwa” or instruction for individuals to make attempts to damage/destroy the Statue? If somebody made an attack with Muslim Extremism as motive would the people behind the website be liable for conspiracy charges?

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  26. Just as a note, Aaron, there is no punishment in Islam for pedophilia. That is a practice in which Mohammed himself regularly indulged with virtually anything which had a warm body and a hole of sufficient size. The pictured punishment for pedophiles is closer to one of the prescribed dispositions for homosexuals.

    {^_^}

    jdow (98e9d7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4051 secs.