What the *bleep*?!

The latest episode of South Park has once again sparked controversy, but this time, it's not over what Matt Stone and Trey Parker have done.  Rather, it's what Comedy Central did that's got people up in arms.  The 201st episode (the 200th was the week previous and ended on a cliffhanger) concluded the bizarre story they had started by basically bringing back everybody that the show has ever mocked for one more round.  Central to the premise of the storyline was the attempt by Hollywood celebrities to steal the power of "not being able to be mocked" from the Prophet Mohammed.  At the end of the episode, as usual, Kyle launched into a soliloquy about what he'd learned from the whole affair.  What was different this time was that it was essentially two straight minutes of nothing but a single very long "bleep," with a tiny break from Stan before continuing to cover the end of Kyle's soliloquy and a rejoinder from Santa Claus that was also bleeped out.

I'll be the first to admit, I did laugh when I heard it, but I was also kind of irritated because I kind of figured that it couldn't possibly be two minutes of nothing but Kyle cursing since the "bleep" was continuous as opposed to being broken up like it normally is when a character goes on a blue streak.  After the show aired, Stone and Parker came out and expressed considerable disappointment that Comedy Central would make such a radical effort in censorship.  It came out that a group calling themselves Revolution Muslim issued a death threat against the pair and against the network, being about as subtle as a chainsaw by putting a picture of murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh up with their statement.  Comedy Central caved, not only obscuring Mohammed with a giant "Censored" sign (apparently another thing that I had assumed was originally part of the script) but bleeping out Mohammed's name as well as the monologue at the end which didn't even MENTION Mohammed or Islam.  I do not always agree with Jon Stewart, but on this particular topic I find myself in considerable agreement with him.

Consider, for a moment, the fact that South Park already got away with showing Mohammed years ago when they came out with the episode "Super Best Friends."  While the show might have been partially spoofing the 70's cartoon series "SuperFriends," they nonetheless did show Mohammed just as they showed Lao Tzu, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, and Joseph Smith.  Horrors!  They made the Prophet a superhero!  I don't seem to recall there being a hue and a cry over that, much less death threats.  Most likely because there was nothing mocking nor disrespectful about Islam or Mohammed in that episode.  In the years since that episode, we've had the murder of Theo Van Gogh as well as the Danish cartoon controversy, incidents which have apparently cemented in the minds of a very small number of Muslims that it's perfectly acceptable to issue death threats for something that they find offensive, and in the case of Van Gogh to carry those threats out.  I find it highly disturbing that it is only now, nine years after the fact, that there's such a fracas over this.  The cat's been out of the bag for a long time now.  It seems foolish and petty to be giving Stone and Parker any grief over something that they did once before without any previous complaint.

I can certainly understand the arguments that are usually employed when dealing with the visual depiction of Mohammed.  Islam, just as with Judaism and Christianity, forbids idolatry.  That prohibition stems from the concern that people will be more interested in worshipping the image than what the image is representing and, by extension, the larger ideas connected to that representation.  Considering that the Christian Church split into Catholic and Orthodox branches over just such an issue, it's not that surprising that it should remain out there, and to some extent it's still alive and well even in some modern Protestant churches.  The fact that I can understand those arguments doesn't mean I agree with them.  For myself, religiously themed art has never been an object of worship.  Admiration, to be sure.  Aesthetically pleasing, quite often.  But worship?  Never.

This whole affair is contemptible and there are only two parties that deserve my scorn.  The first is quite obviously Comedy Central.  You guys have known since you first put South Park on the air that it was satirical, which means that it's going to offend somebody somewhere at some point in time, and it has been proven over the years to be an equal opportunity satire.  Nothing is sacred, everything is fair game, and while the writers may have devoted more attention to some targets than others, they have never pulled punches over the larger issues that they put into their crosshairs.  Sure, they cuss a lot.  Yes, they delve into some seriously gross humor in order to make a point.  THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN PAYING THEM FOR ALL THIS TIME!  When you censored the final scene of "Cartoon Wars," they took it with a lot more grace than you probably deserved.  This time, you stabbed them in the back.  Worse, you made it look like it was part of the show, trying to create a meta-joke that didn't exist and quite frankly never should have existed in the first place.  If you can't or won't shoulder the responsibility of artistic integrity for a show that you know is going to be pissing people off at some time, cut them loose and let somebody with more sack pick them up.  Pious platitudes about "safety concerns" be damned.  You knew the risks then, you know them now, and to continue to air the show is a tacit acceptance of those risks.  Anything less than unflinching support for the show and its crew is a gutless renunciation of principle.  Not to mention that it makes you look chickenshit.  Somebody makes a death threat?  Call the cops and let the show go on.  Laugh while making the call.

The other target of my scorn, and quite a lot of fury in the bargain, is not just Revolution Muslim, but every outfit like them, no matter how big.  There are, by most counts, some 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.  Groups like Revolution Muslim make up less than one very tiny fraction of one percent, yet their actions will have a tremendously disproportionate effect on the Muslim community, not only here in America but around the world.  And believe me, the effect is not going to be anything even remotely positive.  To put it bluntly, they're fucking it all up for every other Muslim out there.  First, they are continuing the disturbing and morally abhorrent trend of countering even the slightest thing they don't personally agree with by threatening death and violence instead of any kind of effort at reasoned debate.  Second, they are helping to perpetuate the stereotypes that motivate and justify atrocious behavior by non-Muslims towards Muslims.  Third, they are not merely undermining efforts at fostering understanding and tolerance of Muslims, they're actively sabotaging those efforts with their thuggish shenanigans.  If these self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith bothered to actually read their Korans, and take a trip through the Hadith while they were at it, they might find something terribly surprising.

There is no explicit prohibition on depictions of Mohammed.  Not in the Koran.  Not in the Hadith.  Nowhere.

To be sure, the Hadith does make several references to Mohammed's pronouncement that "painters of pictures" would be sent to Hell, but does not specifically instruct or suggest Muslims take action against such people.  The judgment of "painters" is solely in the hands of God.  The Koran does not make prohibitions against the creation of pictures, but does prohibit worshipping the pictures, as that would clearly be idolatry.  The prohibition against depicting Mohammed is most likely a prophylactic measure to avoid the potential or the appearance of idolatry.  Yet there are numerous examples dating back to the medieval period that do depict Mohammed (primarily Persian in origin), which seems to support some contemporary fatwas indicating that, as long as the depiction is respectful, it is permissible to create figurative representations of the Prophet, particularly in film and television.  It should also be pointed out that the Hadith relating to Muslims and images only forbids looking at them.  It does not demand their removal or destruction, and as was mentioned before, it certainly doesn't advocate the destruction of their creators.  More importantly, it applies only to Muslims, not to non-Muslims.  As a final thought, while it is a generally bad idea to take any religious text too literally, one could certain take the position that the admonishment in the Hadith, "Breathe soul into what you have created," has actually been satisfied in the case of South Park, as it is not a static image of the Prophet but rather an animated figure.

Stone and Parker have stated that the show will go on, that a new episode will be delivered to Comedy Central, and that we'll all just have to wait and see what happens.  For myself, I more than willing to support the show, but I'm beginning to reconsider if I should be supporting the network, since it seems clear they haven't got the backbone needed to support their creatives when they truly do need it.