South Park recently aired two episodes in which the prophet Mohammed is depicted—or, perhaps more accurately, not-depicted. The conceit is that the litigious celebrities who have been the butt of the comedy series' jokes want access to Mohammed so that they can take his “goo”, which would mean that they would acquire the Power To Not Be Ridiculed. At one point, Mohammed is supposedly ferried around in a bear suit (to avoid accusations of depicting him—though this makes no sense within the reality of the show itself), but it is revealed that in fact it is Santa Claus in the suit. This, of course, cleverly anticipates any extremist reaction: Mohammed was not represented as a bear, nor even as being dressed as a bear, yet there will still be controversy around his role in the episodes. At other times, Mohammed is covered with a giant “CENSORED”. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, its creators, have hinted that Comedy Central have censored more than was intended. The extent of this is unknown, but it seems certain that the censoring of Mohammed was deliberate on Matt and Trey’s part, since when Mohammed’s goo is transferred to Tom Cruise, the recipient is censored as well. The comment is clearly on the seeming arbitrariness of who can be made fun of.

So far the only reaction to South Park’s not-depiction of Mohammed has been from a fringe group based in New York, making liberal use of the freedom of speech they would deny to others. Of course, when Mohammed has been directly represented in the recent past, the reactions have been considerably less muted. Not only have there been death threats, but actual murders as well; and although this reaction has hardly ever been condoned, there are many in the more politically correct quarters of the West who have pinned the blame on those to whom the violence was directed, arguing for the respect that they say religion deserves. But clearly such a violent reaction is not warranted even if Islam was clear that illustrations of Mohammed are sacrosanct.

The Qur’an contains absolutely nothing about depicting Mohammed. It is only the Hadith, most of which came several hundred years after Mohammed’s death, that discuss this—one of them bans all depictions of living creatures outright, and another merely says that such illustrations are not to be encouraged, but does not decree that those found guilty are to be punished. The major reason it is widely considered wrong to depict Mohammed, especially among the Sunni majority of Muslims, is that it might encourage idolatry. This might be fair enough within the Islamic world, but is clearly absurd to apply outside of it. After all, non-believers cannot make themselves any more guilty of non-belief or idolatry by drawing pictures. But if the justification behind fatwas against depicters of Mohammed is based in the Hadith, then clerics would have to issue fatwas against all those who draw pictures of living creatures—a crime which virtually every person on earth is guilty of.

As is usually the case with the more extremist sections of the Muslim community, many of the ideas they are so convinced of are far more modern than they would have us believe, and have their origins in human invention that is clearly separate from the holy texts. Mohammed has been visually depicted many times in the past, both by Muslims and non-Muslims, presumably without a word spoken of blasphemy. The following are a few examples:

The Investiture of Ali at Ghadir Khumm, MS Arab 161, fol. 162r, AD 1309/8 Ilkhanid manuscript illustration.

A 16th century Persian miniature painting with a veiled Muhammad's ascent into the Heavens, a journey known as the Miraj.

Muhammad's Call to Prophecy and the First Revelation; leaf from a copy of the Majmac al-tawarikh (Compendium of Histories), ca. 1425; Timurid. From Herat, Afghanistan. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The second of these, given that the painter saw fit not to include any facial detail, is the only one to betray an element of ambiguity, but it is a depiction nonetheless, and it is in the minority.

Reasoning with extremists is clearly impossible. Once groups like Revolution Muslim have been convinced that visual depictions of Mohammed are the height of blasphemy, and that threatening (or not-so-subtly hinting at) death to those who do so is perfectly moral, not even the wisest, most knowledgeable scholar of Islam could convince them otherwise. More responsible Muslims, though, should do far more to promote a good, unbiased understanding of Islam, both in the West and in the Muslim world, than they are currently doing: only a truly concerted effort will prevent the fear that presently accompanies something so basic as freedom of speech, and, consequently, the feeling of persecution experienced by many Muslims in the West.

Captions borrowed from Wikipedia.