By BareNakedIslam •
Laughing at Islam •
February 28, 2015 @ 3:49 am
Islamic doctrine is so tenuous and self-contradictory that the slightest criticism might raise questions that can’t be answered or encourage a closer look at the doctrine – which will show that it was NOT a spirit or angel that told Mohammed he was a prophet – it was his wife, who was horrified when he told her he thought his Epileptic seizures meant he was going crazy. Comparing the Koran, returned to the order of suras as Mohammed dictated them, and Mohamed’s most trusted biography, by Ibn Ishaq, the reader will find the suras are autobiographical additions to the biography; Allah was giving Divine sanction to whatever Mohammed wanted, whenever he wanted it. Then it may occur to the reader that the Koran is supposedly “a perfect copy of the book that’s been beside Allah in paradise since the beginning of time,” somehow predicted every breath Mohammed ever took – or Mohammed wasn’t serving Allah at all, but using the former moon-god to get his way among ignorant, gullible people. That’s why Muslims are discouraged from studying Islamic doctrine without guidance by an imam (or mullah). Muslim doctrine cannot stand close inspection – or logic (“mountains holding up the sky”?).
February 28, 2015 @ 1:49 pm
That is exactly correct. When a Muslim is challenged about their doctrine that they cannot answer, they get angry.
Even Muhammad could not explain away his very own doctrine. If you did question Muhammad, he would put you to death. Why? To discourage anybody else challenging Muhammad. If Muhammad told the truth that he was using his prophethood for self gain, he would be killed himself, so it also seems to me that, whether he wanted to or not, continue playing this game until he died. He was in too deep.
Just think of Jimmy Swaggart. When he messed up the first time we forgave him after he said he wouldn’t do it again and when he did it again, well, too bad. You’re out. Muhammad couldn’t take that chance if he didn’t want to take it that far. However, I see him wanting to go that far. Muhammad glorified himself!
February 21, 2015 @ 2:16 pm
Yet, so many are named Mohammad, and I bet some of them drink alcohol, f@ck goats, don’t pray. So ISIS, what you gonna do?
February 21, 2015 @ 9:55 am
I am puzzled as to why she thinks it necessary to explain why muslims don’t like images of people. Either they already know about their own blasphemy laws – or they are not muslims. The casual inference that anyone else gives a damn, why should we?
Has she bothered to explain that beef will no longer be served in any restaurants because of Hindu beliefs? Of course not. Eat it or leave it.
They are so many bloody stupid religious laws, Catholics still have streets full of huge carvings of a man being tortured to death despite “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”.
And yet, no one ever bothers to say “Well if they are offended, don’t you think that is their problem”?
February 20, 2015 @ 10:50 pm
How do they know what he (the profit) looks like since there are no images of him? I think it is an excuse to cause violence in the name of isLAME.
February 21, 2015 @ 7:15 pm
Because they did not take his picture. If they had, Muhammad would have them killed.
Somehow, I know Muhammad wishes he could live his life all over again knowing now how stupid the religion he made up really is!!
February 20, 2015 @ 10:30 pm
Let me see if I understand her correctly.
I am to understand that a picture of Muhammad is considered Blasphemy. Images are Blasphemy.
So, does that mean cameras are off limits in the Muslim world? The way I see it, if you can’t take a picture of Muhammad, then you can’t take a picture of ANY Muslims!
Did I get it correct?
February 21, 2015 @ 9:39 am
Bista….no,it means you shouldn’t make any images of muhammad,images,say,taken by a camera of a fellow sand rat are ok.It’s seen to be blaspemous.In fact,Christianity strictly speaking says the same thing in the Old Testament,but unlike the sand rat we don’t say kill someone for it.How many images of Jesus have we seen,even if we aren’t religious,most people have this image of a dark haired,bearded face,but in reality,nobody knows what he looked like.It’s the fact that an image,be it taken by camera,or drawn,whatever is meant to represent muhammad that offends them….apparently.
February 21, 2015 @ 6:00 pm
Actually, Sheik, the Old Testament and Ten Commandments say “Thou Shalt Not Bow to any Graven Images”. It doesn’t say you can’t have any.
That’s why you’ll never find a picture or statue in a synagogue or mosk; just the written word.
Many Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches follow this command as well.
February 21, 2015 @ 9:09 pm
I’m very familiar with what you said. It’s their stupidity that irritates me the most. as I said, I was being illogical with them as they too are illogical.
February 21, 2015 @ 9:45 pm
Their stupidity is infinite. I swear they “spin the wheel”, like a cheap carnival game, whenever they need a new rule.
February 22, 2015 @ 11:47 am
Had…..correct me if I’m wrong,but I’m sure it says in the Bible that you shouldn’t make any images of anything sacred(not the commandment you quoted),in one of the books of the Bible? I will,of course,bow to your superior knowledge on this….
February 22, 2015 @ 10:35 pm
Oh, don’t do THAT. I’m just as dumb as your average houseplant. Never take for granted what I say. Look it up!
This is a good site to save for research.
February 23, 2015 @ 2:49 am
Had….I did,Exodus 20! Sorry…!
February 23, 2015 @ 8:28 am
Sheik; I stood corrected when I found that verse so that makes me just as ignorant as anyone else. Had you not brought it up, I wouldn’t have been corrected. I thank you.
My apologies for making an inaccurate correction. That said, now we BOTH know…
February 21, 2015 @ 7:12 pm
I was being stupid. Or to be more blunt, Muslims should not have cameras. If pictures of Muhammad is wrong, then so is pictures of Muslims. That’s what I think of this stupidity!
February 20, 2015 @ 7:22 pm
A Malaysian newspaper cannot use the word “Ällah”? The Pope, Archbishops of Canterbury, the Dalai lama and other leaders have been caricatured for centuries. What the hell is so special about Mohamed????? He referred to himself as än ordinary man”. (Erroneously, of course.)
February 20, 2015 @ 10:14 pm
I am amazed, how does anyone even know what this ‘bloke’ looked like? If we go by the ‘looks’ of sexual predators, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and crazy people, I guess a good ‘forensic artist’ could draw something that might look like a mohammed, ha ha, fancy naming your children after a bloke who, by what islam says, should be killed immediately because it dishonours the prophet, i mean, if you can’t draw a picture because 1 billion go loopy, how can you use his name. The lunatics have definitely been let out of the asylum, ha ha
February 20, 2015 @ 6:37 pm
Faux news Islamic infomercial.
If Muslims don’t like images of their little butcher boy they don’t have to make them or look at them. As for us, we’ll do what we want. Suck it up, crybaby Muslims.
February 20, 2015 @ 6:31 pm
Muslims don’t love anything. They are addicted to blood, gore and death, however. And, oh yeah, whining.
February 20, 2015 @ 5:12 pm
Lincoln Applegate Hahn
February 20, 2015 @ 4:53 pm
I just wanted to say …. I admire Benjamin Netanyahou …. and I challenge the Muslims …. to produce a Muslim …. with just 1/10th …. of Bibi’s class ! Take the challenge, Schmucks !
February 20, 2015 @ 5:53 pm
At 1/10th, you’re asking the impossible. Kindly move your decimal to the left two (2) positions to make it attainable. Thanks!
February 20, 2015 @ 4:40 pm
what minds? these slimebags are so offensive to the rest of the world it is unbelievable
February 20, 2015 @ 4:03 pm
“we love mo” , its just so childish , theyre like a bunch of teenage girls with a crush on some camel jockey hero , God i wish this pathetic cult would just grow up and get over it
February 20, 2015 @ 6:30 pm
You know what they say about wishing …
February 20, 2015 @ 3:37 pm
This Indonesian (probably muslim) journalist’s explanation is severely lacking. The fact that they go buckwild over images of Momo shows that they deify him. Especially since they apply the same rule to the other prophets, yet the images of these other prophets don’t garner the same type of reaction.
February 20, 2015 @ 6:39 pm
She’s not a journalist. It’s fake news. It’s an infomercial for Islam.
February 20, 2015 @ 3:26 pm
Muslims get angry for everything. That is how the brain develops when you are the result of generations of people getting laid among close relatives.
February 21, 2015 @ 9:41 am
February 20, 2015 @ 3:14 pm
There are so many reasons to prohibit Islam in our Western culture and this is another one among a long list of reasons. It’s just plain incompatible.
February 20, 2015 @ 3:12 pm
February 20, 2015 @ 3:03 pm
Bonni, you hit the nail or bomb on the head with “little minds.” Mushits have their heads filled with 14th century bullshit and there is no room for compassion, understanding, tolerance, love (except for moooohammmmed), etc. They all have SFB.
February 20, 2015 @ 3:31 pm
Indeed. It’s also all the inbreeding, especially in Pakistan.
February 20, 2015 @ 6:40 pm
Seventh century and prior.
February 20, 2015 @ 3:01 pm
It has to be due to generations of inbreeding
February 20, 2015 @ 2:56 pm
At 1:43-1:45 does that actually read across the top “CRUSH DENMARK & WIKIPEDIA”?
They clearly have no idea how bloody ridiculous that looks, and makes them look.
Those guys could actually be productive members of society if they’d spend less time making banners and placards; ever notice how these protests always seem to heppen during normal working hours?
February 20, 2015 @ 6:41 pm
If they could be productive members of society, they would be.
February 21, 2015 @ 11:01 am
I’ve just found out there’s a site called Wikislam, they have quite a few images of Mahound there, that’s probably what the Paynims are on about.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.