PLEASE Make YOUR Donation!
Go Monthly if you possibly and reliably can!
You Can Help Drastically Shorten FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
VERY Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 01/10/2015 6:52:31 AM PST by Citizen Zed
"Can't they take a joke?" That's the question that came up after the 2005 Danish cartoon controversy and now, again, after the massacre at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The suspected killers obviously reflect a tiny minority of extreme religious fanatics, but the question made us wonder: What is the role of satire in the Muslim world?
First let's establish that saying "the Muslim world" is like saying "the Christian world" or Africa: We're talking one and a half billion people all over the globe — of different races, ethnicities and languages — who believe different things. That said, Duke University religion professor Bruce Lawrence does have an answer when you ask him about Muslim traditions of satire. He says, "I've been studying the Muslim world for I guess now almost half a century, and one of my heroes has always been a ninth-century literary figure called al-Jahiz."
In a golden era for Islamic music, art and science, Jahiz studied everything from zoology to literary theory. He wrote merciless social satires, and he was also famously ugly. "He could satire himself as somebody who was very unattractive," Lawrence says, "and yet he could make fun of the rock stars of his generation in Baghdad, which was the capital city of the Muslim world in that time."
According to Lawrence, Jahiz remains a beloved figure in Islamic literature, and it's not because he recorded the glories of Islam. "He poked fun at contemporaries, at his co-religionists, at anybody who seemed to him to have too great a sense of self-importance, whatever their station in life."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
"His exact cause of death is not clear, but a popular assumption is that Jahiz died in his private library after one of many large piles of books fell on him, killing him instantly."
More likely he was assassinated because he dared to laugh.
“... The suspected killers obviously reflect a tiny minority of extreme religious fanatics, but the question made us wonder:...”
Yes, folks, the NPR minions really like lying to us, because they KNOW that the above statement is a tremendous pile of bull-Obamastuff.
Make something taboo and it’s the first thing people will want to do.
Can the Islamic zealots take a joke? The short answer is “No”, punctuated by the fact that a fatwa is immediately pronounced, and “taking offense” is a blood sport.
The picture of Mohammed with a lit bomb wrapped into his turban is perhaps the most edifying of the images. It does not matter to the Islamic jihadist that he may die, if it is possible to also take a crowd, or even only a couple, of “infidels” with him.
Life is worth so little to these homicidal maniacs. But then, perhaps even a rabid dog may convince himself he is doing the work of Allah.
If a dog had that much introspection.
Actually, it's not at all obvious.
The seventh century was devoid of humor and that is where the muzzies live.
***In a golden era for Islamic music, art and science, Jahiz studied everything from zoology to literary theory.***
Opening lines to EL CID (Now playing on DirecTV pay per view)
The Prophet has commanded us
to rule the world.
Where in all your land of Spain
is the glory of Allah?
When men speak of you,
they speak of poets...
music makers, doctors, scientists.
Where are your warriors?
You dare call yourselves
sons of the Prophet?
You have become women!
Burn your books.
Make warriors of your poets.
Let your doctors invent
new poisons for our arrows.
Let your scientists
invent new war machines.
And then, kill!
Burn.
Infidels live on your frontiers.
Encourage them to kill each other.
And when they are weak and torn...
I will sweep up from Africa...
and thus the empire of the one God,
the true God Allah...
- Allah is the one God.
- will spread.
First, across Spain.
Then, across Europe.
Then, the whole world!
NPR is Always sucking up to irrational Islam, and its terrorists.
They Never do a deep dive into Islam’s insane, inhumane, blood-thristy history, past and present horrible treatment of women, homosexuals, and apostates.
I honestly have no Eff’ing idea why the left is so afraid of the truth about islam, and continually kisses Muslim ass.
Strong sunlight is an effective disinfectant.
Oh, come on. It’s only about two-thirds of them which make the rest look bad! ;-)
Also playing on Netflix, or was a few months ago.
A really, really poor movie, BTW.
No, the muslim world is the one conquered by Islamic hordes and forced to submit to Sharia law. It is a system of theocratic rule.
The "Christian world" is not a unified concept. There is a shared faith. Western civilization got where it is because of it's Christian foundation and the Left has sought to tear that down for the same reasons. And the "Western world" exporting Christian missionaries was considered a BAD thing to alter the native cultures.
NPR, shilling for Communist and Islamist imperialism for nearly half a century.
The key here is that their “Golden Era” was the 9th century.
***A really, really poor movie, BTW. **
Them’s fightin’ words Pardnah! MY FAVORITE!
Saw it at the theater back in 1963. NO CGI crap in it! Got the Miriam edition on DVD! WIDESCREEN!
The VCR version was horrible. faded color, full screen horrible.
Agree to disagree?
Stilted dialogue. Negative chemistry between Charlton and Sophia. Wildly inaccurate history.
I particularly liked the King’s champion (Sophia’s father) who Charlton defeats in single combat. Not only does the extended clash of arms in the castle not bring a single observer, but “the champion” is a middle-aged butterball actor who wouldn’t last 30 seconds in any type of hand to hand combat. (Heston was at least believable as a fighter.)
Anything that can possibly defeat the West must be championed by Liberals.
Should have said that they did do the crowd and battle scenes pretty well.
What NPR is trying to say is that “the Muslim world” is highly diverse. Which it is.
Your counter-argument is not, I think, a particularly good one.
“Theocratic rule” means rule by God, or rule by priests. Neither applies in the Muslim world, with the exception of Iran, and that’s the first true Muslim theocracy that has ever existed.
Muslim rule, at least since the first few caliphs, has always consisted of men taking control with military force and ruling (in theory) by sharia, but in practice as they see fit. This has always created great stress between the rulers and the people and their religious teachers, who are always trying to encourage more devout rule.
Intermittently this has broken out in “reformers” taking power to bring rule “back to Islam.” However without exception the rulers quickly become decadent and corrupt, as we see with the kings and dictators throughout the Muslim world today.
I think you’d have a better argument against NPR if you pointed out that the Muslim world is MUCH LESS diverse than just a few decades ago. Saudi and other petro countries have been funding initiative to “purify” Islam around the world. They’ve been quite successful. The average Muslim of today is far more radicalized than 50, much less 200, years ago.
One of the most interesting books I’ve ever read was the story of a young Irish woman who rode her bicycle alone from Dublin to New Delhi in 1963. She was treated with great courtesy by Muslims in Iran and Afghanistan.
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Tilt-Ireland-India-Bicycle/dp/1906011419
What’s interesting is to try to imagine how long an Irish girl who tried to do the same today would last. Would she even make it all the way across Turkey?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.