Stone and Parker on South Park's 200th, litigious celebs and Mohammed


In this Boing Boing Video exclusive, South Park co-creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker speak with Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin on the eve of the 200th episode of the hit Comedy Central series. Stone and Parker reveal their plans to revisit battles over the boundaries of what can and cannot be done on television—including a quest to see just how many celebrities they can manage to piss off in a single episode, and whether Comedy Central will once again try to stop them from depicting the image and voice of a cartoon version of the Muslim prophet Mohammed on the show.

The 200th episode airs Wednesday, April 14 at 10pm on Comedy Central. Fan tributes here: South Park 200 (

Related: on the Mohammed/South Park/Comedy Central controversy.

(Special thanks to the production team of Matt West and Eric Mittleman)


Watch on YouTube. or Download MP4


  1. Man, Parker and Stone have changed their look. I wouldn’t have recognised them without the subtitle. Xeni sounds a bit like Betty White.

    I find the Mohammed issue really interesting. Both in terms of western fear of offending the muslim world, and in terms of how the muslim world seems to vary in its reaction to such portrayals (I don’t seem to recall riots or fatwas after the last relevant SP episode, does anyone?).

    1. what a weird-ass way to start a comment. betty white? wtf?

      (this vid rocked, btw. can’t wait!)

    2. I never get used to hearing her talk. It always sounds like she’s just returned from cheering camp and is still hoarse from all the shouting. But now that she has presented herself in front of Matt and Trey… I can’t help but wonder… Will we see Xeni in a future episode of South Park?

      Actually, I’d love to see them riff on Boingboing. :)

    1. @#2: Just like every other religion, Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. The “Muslim world” is NOT a monolith and is also part of the “American world”, btw.

      In any case, SP is one of my most favorite shows. I was first introduced to SP while a student overseas in the “Muslim World” 13 years ago. All the Muslims I know think SP totally frickin’ rules. We watched SP DVD’s almost every night at the time while enjoying massive amounts of herbage.

      Whether or not I agree, offending a bunch of extremists is good publicity for SP, regardless of whether they may be ignorant of the fact that the “Muslim World” still hasn’t forgotten the historical wounds of the West’s Crusades that raped and pillaged such a world for a few hundred years, due to the West’s intolerance, bigotry, and Latin Christian fundamentalism that didn’t accept the Greek Orthodox presence and protection within the “Muslim World” as legit- since they were basically Arab Christians. The recent Iraq Wars and support of Zionist apartheid in have only added salt to such collective historical memories/wounds – where the “Muslim World” constantly feels attacked from Western imperialism, colonialism, racism, and illegal invasions/occupations of such a world – that again, is NOT a monolith of a world.

      As long as SP equally offends everyone and ALL religions, then it shouldn’t be perceived as prejudiced if they make fun of Islam. The thing is: what would they make the Muslim prophet look like? And does SP have the right to decide what his image should be? Regardless, he probably looked a lot like Jesus Christ… being that Arabs are descendants of the Canaanites. And I think SP should also include a “Black Jesus” to bring this point to home with Christians of European descent. Jesus most certainly did NOT look like a freakin’ blond/blue-eyed Viking… being that he was basically a Palestinian.

      My lame two cents. Peace in Middle East! \m/

  2. This is my FIRST Boing Boing post ever!
    Just wanted to say,
    This interview is simple and profound,
    just like every South Park episode,
    Love it and THANK YOU!
    I am an avid BOING BOING and SP fan,
    Thank you for your blog and these short snippets of popular culture.
    -Adam Podolec

  3. Pretty sure that Comedy Central wimped out the last time. In 2006, for cartoon wars, no image of Mohamed was shown. Although from what I recall, it ended with Jesus, the president, and maybe some other people all pooping on each other or something.

    k, found it on the south park website (skip to 20 minutes)

    The last time that they actually _showed_ Mohamed on southpark was in 2001, before the world went ape-shit. (Super Best Friends episode, at about 13 minutes)

    1. Ok maybe not a ‘clip show’ per se but really, they’re rehashing. I will watch it of course ‘cuz rehashing South Park is like being able to smoke a ball of black over again. Rehashing, get it? I’m available if they need writers.

      1. I wouldn’t call it rehashing. It’s a celebration of a bunch of really cool moments that make SP the best satirical show on television.

        General comment:

        They also make a serious point about something being lost after the Danish cartoon incident. That reaction, like much of the billions of dollars being wasted on the war on terror (and giving up our civil rights), are proof that we’ve lost our ability to get over our fears and deal rationally with the problem of terrorism.

        We need to do all that we reasonably can to stop terrorists, but what is reasonable. The truth is that the risk of terrorist attack has been hugely inflated by those in government and the defense industry for their own gain. Since 9/11 about 400,000 people have died in car accidents. Every year more than 10 times the death toll of 9/11. Most Americans risk death every day when they drive a car, but most would probably say that the greatest threat to the country is terrorism. So they let government and corporations run rampant. This is not a rational response.

        Matt and Trey are cool, but it’s kind of sad that we need two guys who make a cartoon to be the voice of reason.

        1. “giving up our civil rights?” if you are in the u.s., which civil rights have been taken away from you? if anything, there have been more civil rights granted to u.s. citizens over the years (HIPAA comes to mind). if your concern is the patriot act, it’s been re-written and judged by many in congress to sufficiently limit governmental powers. if you recall, there was a pretty dang good reason why it was written in the first place… and it was signed into law with bi-partisasn support. sunset provisions were included which allow it to be re-examined and re-written after pre-determined periods of time. it remains a work in progress. rest assured, the aclu et al is working to make it more acceptable without compromising the security it offers the u.s. citizenry.

          why is it sad that “we need two guys who make a cartoon to be the voice of reason?” why not? zealous politicians, blowhard talk-show hosts and eccentric celebrities are often seen as the “voice of reason.” why not two guys who don’t take themselves so seriously? sometimes the true voice of reason comes from unexpected places and i’ve seen much more reason displayed in episodes of south park than in many political debates. at least matt and trey aren’t pandering to lobbyists or fearful of being voted out of office. they generally make a case for both sides of the issue du jour, albeit in a funny, absurd or shocking way, but if you look past the comedy to what they’re actually saying, it’s usually a more level-headed and even-handed approach than most other talking heads offer.

          just my two cents.

          1. You seem to have not noticed (or maybe forgotten, it is a long comment) the part where I said “that make SP the best satirical show on television.”

            Also, the sadness in my last line is obviously not directed at Matt and Trey (and the fact that they are the voice of reason), but rather at all the other possible sources of “the voice of reason” in our society. You mention a few in your response.

            In other words, I am saddened that politicians and journalists are not reasonable voices. I am not saddened that the creators of South Park are reasonable voices, which, of course, they have every right to be.

            Perhaps, if your reading comprehension improves, you will be able to better understand the evil perpetrated on our society in the name of security.

          2. i never questioned your comment about SP being a great satirical program. i questioned your comment about civil rights and what i perceived as a slam against matt and trey. y dn’t hv t b snrky dck bt t.

            s… wht hs th “vl prptrtd n r scty n th nm f scrty” tkn frm y?

          3. “and what i perceived as a slam against matt and trey.”

            That you did not understand (or perceive) what I wrote is the entire point of my previous comment. I then went on to question your ability to understand the more complex issues of national security and the abuses of government and industry.

            Pointing this out does not make me a snarky dick. It makes me someone who values precision in language, and someone who fears a populace without critical thinking skills.

            The fact that I enjoyed it is what makes me a snarky dick.

          4. s smn msndrstnds sngl cmmnt y mk nd y wrt thm ff s ncmptnt? y mght s wll tck “pmps ss” nt yr b.

            hy, hw’s tht rspns t my qstn rgrdng yr cvl rghts bng tkn wy cmng lng?

          5. w, ws hpng “smn wh vls prcsn n lngg, nd smn wh frs pplc wtht crtcl thnkng sklls” wld b bl t frmlt thr wn pnn rthr thn rlyng ths f thrs.

          6. I have no interest in wasting my time debating someone who needs to return to the third grade for lessons on grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. My suggestion stands; educate yourself by reading a book.

          7. i’m not debating you. i asked you a question and you failed to answer. i have no interest in wasting my time with someone who can’t bother to answer a question with his own opinion.

          8. for what? asking a question of someone who made what i deemed to be an inflammatory statement, then when he fails to answer my question about it AND insults me, you tell me to compose myself? nice moderating.

          9. i’ll not be coming back or getting into any shit over this, but warrant-less wire-tapping and access to library records stand out to me as two pretty obvious examples of loss of civil liberties in response to the new york attacks.

            also: have you been through an airport lately? shit didn’t used to be like that.

  4. The Clash – the only band that matters
    South Park – the only television show that matters

    Yes you guys are still punk rock.

    Seriously it amazes me every day that South Park is still going strong after all these years. What is more mind blowing, Simpsons after 20 years or South Park on their 14th Season.

    You can have Family Guy, Simpsons, The Flintstones – all shows I love, but there is only one animated – or non-animated show that I care about and that is South Park.

    Gratz Matt and Trey – and Orgazmo is still one of the funniest movies ever.

  5. To be fyst upon one’s own petard as Southpark doth trod the boards wouldst seem high praise.
    Clever hooligins, scofflaws of the hysterical type, only laugh at those worthy of such note.
    Think this one would take odds in Vegas.
    (In The Garden Of Allah- Don Henley)
    Allah Ackbar

  6. This idea reminds me of the Seinfeld finale, but with more celebrities being impersonated (poorly).

    Rulers of the underworld (timmay)
    darkness fills my heart with pain (t-t-timmay)

  7. South Park the best satirical program on television? I guess, if you like your satire to be utterly devoid of nuance or subtlety.

    1. What is the best satirical program on television? I’d be inclined to say Colbert. It’s not exactly nuanced or subtle most of the time though.

      1. When it comes to subtlety, The Reporr is an essay by Jonathan Swift and South Park is a bash in the head with a rubber chicken.

        1. Yeah, but dick jokes filled the seats for shakespeare. and these guys still got a medium for those with ears to hear. (not really disagreeing with you.)

        2. It’s ironic you choose to keep beating us over the head with the same post about lack of subtelty

  8. Did I watch a different video clip than the rest of you? I missed the part about Stone and Parker being Dauntless Defenders of the American Way.

    What I saw was pretty much what I expected: Stone and Parker talking about how they have spent 199 episodes pissing off pretty much everybody, and how they plan to cap it off with a 200th episode that should piss them all off again.

    This is what they do. They make fun of people. All people. Equally.

  9. I missed the part about Stone and Parker being Dauntless Defenders of the American Way… What I saw was pretty much what I expected: Stone and Parker talking about how they have spent 199 episodes pissing off pretty much everybody

    Pissing off everybody IS the American Way, silly!

  10. Matt and Trey are a couple of cowards, they complain about corporate censorship while hiding behind it.

      1. Really? They couldn’t find a workaround for a Muhammad based episode? Fear is a powerful thing.

        1. Work-around?

          They presented the episode with Muhammad in it, and the network censored it.

        2. Really? They couldn’t find a workaround for a Muhammad based episode? Fear is a powerful thing.

          They made the episode exactly the way they wanted to and the network aired a censored version against their wishes so I don’t really see how that makes Trey and Matt the cowards here.

  11. I just wanted to throw out there that in the midst of a neat interview I was surprised to find that Xeni is totally gorgeous.

  12. “does the muslim world even care about south park?”

    Yes they do. At least my wife does, although I’ve (kindly) asked her to not piss me of about it or she would find a poster of Salman Rushdie behind the toilets door.

    Xeni, I hope you interview me one day. Or call me (don’t tell my wife).

  13. Best quote ever:

    Parker: On one hand, we’re thinking, “We’re living in a pretty different time now. All this stuff’s getting pulled off the air.” On the other hand, we’re thinking, “Well, the Virgin Mary is shitting blood on the Pope.”

  14. You’re sure took a risk didn’t you: YOU SURE TOOK A RISK DIDN’T YOU?!?

    I don’t want to say anything against a (possibly) local gal gettin’ her report on with a comedic duo that blessed well speaks for a portion of a generation. . .

    BUT: why the Muhammed thing? A super quick one-shot. You could’a brought up ImaginationLand. . . or Joseph Smith. . .Or the excellent post 9-11 Bin Laden episode. . .

    But the one episode (out of 200!) you choose to publicly critique and interview. . .is the one. . .well. . .fatwahs have been spit for less.

    Are you trying to KILL the comedic duo I respect so much???

    Abbott and Costello: Dead.

    Laurel and Hardy: Dead.

    Matt and Trey: Still Alive.

    Let’s try and keep it that way shall we. . .

    And let’s face it: Religious Super Friends is NOT one of the best episodes

    for Santa’s sake

  15. I think it’s about time that someone made ‘the Mohammed Movie’. There’ve been a lot of Jesus movies, so people are fairly familiar with that myth, but wouldn’t it be great to see the life and times of one of the lesser-known lunatics on the big screen?

    1. @insatiableatheist: Dude, your Islamo-phobia, intolerance, and prejudice aside – there already was a movie made about the Muslim prophet in the late ’70s. It was nominated for an Oscar. It’s called “The Message.” It was made by the same producer of the horror film franchise, “Halloween.”

      He was able to make the film from a cinematographic viewpoint where the face of the prophet was never revealed. It’s actually pretty cool that he was able to accomplish this without cheapening the story, nor offend any practicing Muslims.

      Again, I’m OK with Islam being made fun of… however, as long as ALL religions are made fun of… and as long as it’s not disproportionate. The “Muslim World” (problematic term because it’s NOT a monolith) has felt and been under attack by the West since the bastard Crusades. It’s wise not to have historical amnesia about these collective wounds, considering the blood of millions of innocent Muslims is not yet dry on their soils that we have illegally invaded and occupied, ie: Iraq and Afghanistan. (Palestine too, via the US’s client-state, Israel.) Please recall: the U.N. never supported Uncle Sam’s bullshit “war on terror” of the Middle East, aka: American imperialism. Well, at least there’s only 50 years of Arab oil left. So Uncle Sam’s gonna have to invade, kill and fuck over other people in the (Orwellian double-speak) name of “freedom and democracy.”


      1. Manooshi: If the “not showing Mohammed on screen” gimmick has already been done, why should another director handicap himself by emulating it? There may be some novelty in a film where the central character doesn’t appear but it greatly restricts the kind of story that could be told. (The only films I’ve seen that use this technique are pornographic in nature.)
        Millions of religious people get offended every day for all sorts of idiotic reasons. These easily-offended types are free not to watch any of these films, so there’s no reason why artists should restrict themselves only to inoffensive material.
        Also, don’t you think it somewhat strange that you insist that the “Muslim World” is “NOT a monolith” but then declare that the film didn’t “offend any practicing Muslims”? This is especially unlikely as it was banned in several Middle Eastern countries apparently because it did offend some of the most practiced Muslims in the world.
        I agree with you that Islam (and all other religions) should be ridiculed, but I see no reason why it should be proportionate. Or indeed how. What level of ridicule could come close to being proportionate to such absurdity as the claim that an illiterate caravan robber received messages from God and went to heaven on a flying horse?

        1. @funkyderek: Jesus. So many skewed inaccuracies your prejudices reveal. Oh well. OK, check it:

          Re: “There may be some novelty in a film where the central character doesn’t appear but it greatly restricts the kind of story that could be told. (The only films I’ve seen that use this technique are pornographic in nature.)”

          I suggest first watching Mustafa Akkad’s film “The Messenger” as I mentioned earlier before equating it’s cinematographic technique with that of porn. Lol. Then let’s talk. I NEVER said that the central character never “appears.” He’s there. It’s filmed from his perspective, his “lens.” But, no, you never see his face. On one level, it’s weird that a movie could still “work” like that. On another level, the whole point of the religion was not to glorify it’s messenger, who was supposed to only be that: a messenger. Dude, sorry, but it’s not cool to negate or cheapen it’s filming technique by equating it to that of pornography before even seeing it – not that porn techniques are sucky fucky.

          Re: “Also, don’t you think it somewhat strange that you insist that the “Muslim World” is “NOT a monolith” but then declare that the film didn’t “offend any practicing Muslims”?”

          Islam instituted the “don’t ever depict the Muslim prophet” rule as a means to avoid turning him into a god, like how they witnessed with neighboring Christian Arab tribes at the time. Islam believes that Jesus was a Jewish prophet, not a god, and therefore wanted to ensure that the Islamic MESSENGER would not be elevated to a god-like stance as what happened with Christianity. Obviously, it happened anyways, because there are a few million Muslim dudes who try to “look” like him and “emulate” his life, and think by doing so that they are being more pious. Nevermind that the Muslim prophet preached against Islam becoming a static monolith stuck in time. He preached that changes would be necessary as time is not static, and that such changes couldn’t go wrong as long as they were by democratic consensus. Has this actually happened? Lol. Many wish. Anyway, by “looking like him,” I mean, these “pious” dudes grow their beards long and cut their hair short, as he reportedly did – even by “secular historical” accounts. (NYU offers a secular historical class on Islam and it’s messenger if you live in NYC.)

          Also, what do you not get about being raised Muslim vs. being a practicing Muslim? How many people in this country call themselves “Jews” but then don’t observe jack shit about their Jewish religion, except to be gung-ho Zionists? My mother was raised Catholic, but is not practicing. She thinks all organized religion is pretty fucked up actually, but still has a minute sentimental affinity toward the Catholic faith because of her upbringing. And same goes for some non-practicing Muslims. They’re still gonna be pissed to see some practicing Muslims being wrongly discriminated against. Believe it or not, at least half of the Middle East are non-practicing of whichever Abrahamic faith they were raised. And just because European/American colonialism imposed a bunch of tyrannical kings and dictators when they divided and conquered the Middle East, it is NOT the peoples’ fault for living under these mostly Western created repressive, authoritarian, patriarchal, tyrannical regimes that censor shit like there’s no tomorrow.

          Again, I FIRST was introduced to SP while an exchange student in the Middle East many years ago. People find a means to watch and read cool shit – despite the risk of being beaten and jailed. These little acts of resistance happen ALL of the fucking time in the Middle East, but white-ass Dick and Jane aren’t gonna cover those stories… nor probably even know that they exist, since most American reporters do NOT learn Middle Eastern languages, do NOT live a substantial amount of time in the Middle East (except bad-ass Robert Fisk via The Independent UK), let alone formally study it’s culture, history, and politics before reporting on it. That’s why in my Middle Eastern journalism classes at NYU, the visiting reporters/producers we had each week (especially the ones from BBC) insisted that “American media is content-less because American reporters are ignorant of the content they are covering.” I remember the BBC journalists’ visit the most because they were bluntly unapologetic in insisting that most American reporters of the Middle East are pretty frickin ignorant, arrogant, and prejudiced about the content they are covering. Instead, they’ll show another pic of a bunch asses raised up in the air. Try reading Edward Said’s seminal book, “Covering Islam,” to really get what I may not be breaking down well here. He really breaks down Western coverage of the Middle East and Islamic peoples. Btw- he was a Palestinian-American Christian, who was the Chair of Comparative Literature at Columbia in NYC, but despite being a “secular-minded Christian” he saw that Western coverage of Muslim peoples is some fucked up, prejudiced, and inaccurate shit.

          We Americans are so frickin ignorant of history – and I mean contemporary history as well. It’s a bummer, man. It’s why I’m embarrassed to identify as American and find myself apologizing profusely for how greedy, racist, hypocritical, and war-monger we appear to the rest of the world. See, unlike us dumb-shit Americans, the rest of the world still remembers our Oklamhoma City bombing, our WAACO tragedy, and our hurricane Katrina disaster. And that’s just a few of some of our tragic domestic experiences – that our own media and collective conscience could mostly give jack shit about. Just look at how our media FRAMED the healthcare “debate.” What ended up being passed was essentially the same Republican half-ass legislation that was introduced a decade ago by the Republicans. The fact that our media could frame the basic human right of access to healthcare as a threat to the private insured, demonstrates how censored our own media coverage is in general. So, it’s not just those “crazy Muslim countries” that censor, dude. At least they flat out admit to censorship. Here, we pretend our first Amendment rights are stronger than ever. How can that be when our corporate media censors the war? I was disgusted to hear American journalists who visited my classes of journalism/Middle East at NYU on a weekly basis admit that they “dumb shit down,” if not straight up “censor ground realities,” especially in Occupied Palestine, because otherwise, their stories “won’t get past their editors and won’t get published, and they have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed and put through school.” So the “American dream” excuses us from not providing accurate coverage of our fucking wars and our client-state, Israel? Great. Ever wondered why Viet Nam was the LAST time we got to actually SEE what our wars looked like on the nightly news? Our uncensored media coverage of Viet Nam sparked the anti-war movement, dude. Sorry, if this all seems tangential or disconnected… I just woke up from a nap, but I sincerely was trying to connect the dots here. Edward Said does a better job. I sincerely recommend reading his book I mentioned, “Covering Islam.”

          Re: “I agree with you that Islam (and all other religions) should be ridiculed, but I see no reason why it should be proportionate. Or indeed how.”

          Earlier, I suggested a Black Jesus to drive the point home that Jesus was most likely NOT a blond/blue-eyed European-looking Viking, but rather was basically Palestinian, and probably looked more like whatever the Muslim prophet looked like since the Arab tribes were descendants of the Canaanites and the coastal peoples, ie: Phoenicians, etc, were actually coastal Canaanites.

          Re: “What level of ridicule could come close to being proportionate to such absurdity as the claim that an illiterate caravan robber received messages from God and went to heaven on a flying horse?”

          Dude. Why do you have to be sounding like a bigot? Even academic secular historical studies of the Muslim faith and messenger respectfully say that Mohammed was a genius poet, at the very least. There is no religious nor secular historical claim that he was a “caravan robber.” Lol! Where did you get that idea? Wow. Good way of demonizing him for sure. And likewise about “went to heaven on a flying horse.” WTF, dude? Wow. You really hate that religion. Anyways, many native tribes/peoples in various locales of the world would be offended by your ignorance and arrogance toward the respected native tradition of oral narratives. In Islam, they actually have a systematized means of authenticating which stories came from where/whom and via which “chain of narration” as a means of relegating which ones are “strong stories” and which ones are “weak stories.” But you obviously don’t give a shit about learning true aspects of the religion you hate so much. From a secular historical perspective, Christianity has been the most violent and murderous Abrahamic religion from the fucked up Crusades to Christian Europe’s genocide of European Ashkenazi Jews/homosexuals/disabled peoples, etc. to the Christian-American belligerent “collateral damage” of millions of Iraqis we’ve killed via sanctions and wars. Go Christian Team USA! Woohoo! And please don’t talk to me about bullshit “separation of church and state” here. I wish. “In God We Trust.” AND “One nation, indivisible, under God.” A to the motherfucking men. (Amen.)

          1. A lot of rambling nonsense there, Manooshi but I’m going to limit my response to areas where you challenge the veracity of my claims.

            “Even academic secular historical studies of the Muslim faith and messenger respectfully say that Mohammed was a genius poet, at the very least.”

            I’m sure you could probably find someone who’ll take that line, but it’s hardly the prevailing opinion. There’s no dount Mohammed was clever – he was after all, able to convince a large number of people of some of the most absurd claims ever made by anyone, but that hardly makes him a genius.

            “There is no religious nor secular historical claim that he was a “caravan robber.” Lol! Where did you get that idea?”

            The hadiths, specifically “Sirat Rasoul Allah” which lists details of caravan robberies and murders commited by Mohammed and his merry men.

            “And likewise about “went to heaven on a flying horse.” WTF, dude?”

            To be fair, it may be considered a flying donkey rather than a horse. Apologies for any confusion in that regard.

            I’m not sure why you’re vehemently defending a set of beliefs you know so little about – perhaps it’s precisely because you know so little about them and are therefore unaware of the full scale of their absurdities.

          2. @funkyderek: Dude, do you speak and read Arabic? You’re really quoting Wiki and the invalidated Sirat to me as “proof” that the Muslim messenger was a caravan robber and murderer? Frickin LOL!

            Are you a Zionist or Evangelical by chance? Is that why you are such a bigot toward the Muslim faith and propagating lies?

            Look dude, I was frickin raised Muslim here in LA, and speak and read Arabic. I formally studied various “chains of narrations”– the validated ones AND the Qur’an, in addition to taking the historical secular study and critical feminist study of Islam/Qur’an/Muslim messenger classes at NYU. So, I think I know what the fuck I’m talking about, homie.

            Regardless, I think all religions generally suck and are extremely problematic. However, it doesn’t mean I’m gonna be an intolerant bigot toward those who are religious, nor am I gonna make up silly shit about their religions.

            There’s enough fucked up shit about religions– especially the Judeo-Christian patriarchal tradition of which Islam is totally an offshoot of– that it’s totally unnecessary to make up invalidated and prejudiced crap.

            I will no longer engage with you as you are totally full of shit, bro.

            Peace in the Middle East, yo!

          3. Manooshi, I take issue with you calling me a liar. That you suggest I must have a hidden Jewish or Christian agenda in order to criticise your religion says more about your prejudices than mine.
            As an expert in Islam, perhaps you could enlighten me on the issues I raised rather than just insult me. I’m sure you’d agree that would be more beneficial for all concerned.
            Do no Muslims actually believe in the Buraq (which is certainly part of Muslim tradition)? If it’s just like the Muslim version of the Easter Bunny, then I apologise unreservedly for slandering a group of people by suggesting they actually believe such a nonsensical story.
            Also, do you believe that all extant accounts of the Battle of Badr are false, or are there some which do not record acts of highway robbery, kidnapping and murder by Mohammed and his followers? If there are, please point me in the right direction as I have been unable to find any.

          4. @funkyderek: I’m sorry, but you have a warped, misinformed, and inaccurate understanding of some of the details of the early history of the Islamic faith. Perhaps you should continue this debate with someone who actually considers themselves Muslim? I already told you that I was done debating this topic. Sorry.

            Again, there’s enough fucked up shit about that religion and other religions that there’s no need to try to demonize them via falsities… unless it’s via a parody on SP, of course. Goodluck to you, dude.

            Peace out.

          5. Manooshi, if my understanding is “warped, misinformed, and inaccurate” then I invite you to correct it. All the accounts I can find of the early history of Islam have Mohammed robbing caravans. Now I understand that Muslims believe that he did this because he was God’s messenger and the victims were infidels, while I believe he did it because he was an opportunistic thug, but I really haven’t seen the events themselves disputed. Again, I invite you to simply name an account that I can read of the Battle of Badr that does not include this element. No need to debate me, just point me in the right direction.
            Similarly with the flying horse, there’s no point pretending I invented the story. You must have heard of it. It would be very easy for you to simply tell me whether Muslims believe these stories or understand them to be legends or allegories.
            You are of course free not to do so, but then you can hardly blame me if my understanding is inaccurate.

      2. Very nice of you to judge me as islamaphobic (as if that’s even a word now), intolerant and prejudiced on the basis of one comment. Attack is the best form of defense it appears.

        I’m more religiphobic than anything else (my new word).
        Intolerant? I’m certainly intolerant of those who would label me as kufar or infidel and who believe a woman’s place is subordinate.
        Prejudiced? I’m definitely prejudiced against beliefs in the supernatural pretending to have equal footing to those based in reality.

        By not showing the prophet (pss b pn hm) that film has already shown itself to be lop-sided.
        We should not be afraid to display the true lunatic nature of all of these so-called holy men, muhammed, jesus, moses and of course the most insane of them all, abraham, who convinced his people to cut off the tips of their own cocks ‘cos god told him they should (this after almost slaying his own son).

        I see no shame in showing intolerance to bronze-age ideals of a perfect society.
        We have a geoid-shaped earth now, not a flat one. Let’s discard the myths and legends shall we? And stop going out of our way to be offended because someone depicts an egomaniacal butcher in his true colours.

    2. there was a movie about Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) called The Message starring Anthony Quinn watch it pretty amazing movie.. unless ur talkin bout a movie that made fun of Prophet Muhamed (pbuh).. i dont think they did…

  16. “What level of ridicule could come close to being proportionate to such absurdity as the claim that an illiterate caravan robber received messages from God and went to heaven on a flying horse?”
    A farmer and part-time treasure digger from western New York, with the help of an angel named Moroni and ‘seeing stones,’ finds golden plates with a never-before-seen message from god (which no one else ever sees) saying kiddie fiddling is okay and native Americans are a lost Jewish tribe being punished in exile.

  17. Sorry, forgot to make my point.
    The ridicule of some religions will always be stronger than the ridicule of other religions, simply because some religions’ belief content is just so full of ridiculousness: No matter how ridiculous Islam may seem, Mormonism is more ridiculous.

  18. I REALLY hope that in part II of this episode we get to see Muhammed in a burka.
    That would really twist things around on those fools.
    Since they can’t bear the thought of their precious prophet being portrayed, show him in a burka instead.
    And maybe imply that he’s gay.
    Twist their homophobia and sexism around in their faces.

    Perhaps it will cause a major incident in Pakistan.

  19. I would suggest Beckett’s Godot to start with. It has nothing to do with the ipad world who talk about the Muslims they knows squat about.

    Talking about this kind of stuff reminds me that Ezra Pound was the greatest American of all times. Ever.

    (Of course you’d have to swallow the Mussolini bits).

  20. So it looks like the prophet is a MacGuffin, and South Park is dredging up all kinds of other plot points now.

    I, for one, find myself completely unable to consider how the plot points are going to be resolved, when I can remember clearly how South Park’s first cliffhanger ended.

  21. Note that they take care to pronounce it “Moo-hamed” instead of Muh-hammed or MO-hamed.

    Although Parker and Stone do reference the Muslim faith straight on, the mispronunciation leaves them an “out” in that the Moo-hamed character may only be some sort of “bovine prophet.” I took this as a bit of a cave on the part of the writers.

  22. If episode 201 isn’t a Terrance and Philip special, I’ll eat my hat. Oh, and Mecha Streisand 2.0 was worth watching the entire episode.

  23. Just re-watched the episode, I think they do pronounce it the other way so, I stand corrected. They are full-on nuts! Apologies.

Comments are closed.