Author, @Steve in MI has a point. How about livening things up with some guest appearances – the virgin mary, Satan, the apostle paul, the Holy Ghost? Ayesha?
I want to see St Paul too!!!, specially talking with the barmaid…Im already laughing đ …I just don’t get why he hated everything so much!!!!
Can T: I thought it had something to do with “cock and bull stories”, but Im not familiar with Mithras’ mystery cult, so you may be right.
I actually googled these c&b stories, being from argentina, i had no idea what it meant
(in case someone else doesn’t know, “cock and bul stories” are higly elaborated stories with not actual proof…meaning religion)
—-
So how to explain that the patriarchal, misogynistic males that were responsible for inventing the Christian heaven managed not to create a sexy hedonistic one as an incentive for themselves? Seems like they really missed a chance there.
Seventy-two white crystal grapes aside, the muslims did generate a more enticing fiction.
Author, be a dear and get some new blood in … there’s such a wonderful cast of nutters to choose from … raving old testament prophets starting with son-sacrificing Abraham through to hallucinogenic Ezekiel, philandering king Dave, incestuous Lot… for a more contemporary feel you could bring in Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, L Ron Hubbard and the much rev Jim Jones….
Indeed – Some of Allah’s topics of choice include –
* Rewards of bitches in heaven or booty on Earth (if you survive going on a murderous rampage for Allah).
* Pain and punshment for the disbelievers – drinking scalding hot water and eating pitch.
* Telling Big Mo over and over and over again that he’s not a crazed lunatic telling “stories of the ancients”.
Jonnie C.: You raise an interesting point. I think that part of the difference is that the Koran was written as a recruiting document by a deliberately cynical manipulator who knew how to motivate men who were young dumb and full of cum, whereas the bible agglutinated more gradually over time- more the work of committees, eventually used as a political document.
Having said this it certainly does not explain everything- both groups are inordinately hating of women.
What is even more puzzling is how the Koran appeals to some women. It used to be said that women only submitted to the veil etc (yes, yes- I know this isnt in the Koran directly) because they were living in patriarchal societies and had no choice. Fair enough.
What is more puzzling is the large numbers of women in countries like the UK who convert every year. I heard a figure of 20000/year quoted. These can’t be easily explained.
@daoloth – note that the Bible, being as you put it an agglutinative potpourri of odds and sods written by dozens of different authors over thousands of years, does nevertheless contain a few gems of truth which have an almost contemporary egalitarian flavour to them:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The same can’t be said about Islam. (I stand to be corrected)
Not sure what my point is but I think it may be that certain interpretations of Xtianity have at least some redeeming features (no pun intended) whereas it’s very difficult to see any in Islam. Hence I’m unsure that “both groups are inordinately hating of women” is a fair assessment.
As to why women are drawn to Islam, my Google research has uncovered several theories, some more insulting and patronizing than others. One is that it is a less complex theology than trinitarian Xtianity … another suggests that turning to Islam is a response to the “chaotic” sexual mores of western society. One bright young thing believes that “… Islamic teaching [makes] perfect, logical sense. You can approach it intellectually and there are no gaps, no great leaps of faith that you have to take.”
So there you have it. This article has some interesting facts/stats/quotes from the newbie houris mouths:
Well, spong. In some forgotten place, Koran says “There is no compulsion in religion”. It also tells about respect for the other “Book religions”. However, a lot of Muslims prefer to take these few passages as an allegories that must be throroughly interpreted instead of practice them literally.
One difference between the Bible and the Koran, it is that the Koran was written purposely as a sacred book. The Bible was compiled as a sacred book of books, which is different. Of coure, the Book of Mormon was literally produced as a piece of revelation.
The Koran is a collection of individual teachings probably recorded from Mo in person. However, e. g. Solomon will be very surprised to see some of his sexually explicit poems included side by side to the Pentateuch.
For a bunch of atheists, you guys know way too much about Christianity and Islam, clearly from reading all those Books of Revelation and Mormon and what not.
@vaginarian – what exactly is the danger of knowing “too much” about ones intellectual opponent’s subject material? Personally I find it gratifying to be able to use my understanding of the contradictions and absurdities in “infallible scripture” to poke holes in the flimsy arguments Xtians concoct. I’ve still got a bit of a way to go with my understanding of the Q’uran.
Trust me ‘atheists’ have done a lot more work to understand religionists than the other way round. Ref http://skepticsannotatedbible.com.
@Didac, again I must say in favour of Xtians vs Muslims – while the former are actually willing to engage in debate about the issue (no matter how laughable their reasoning turns out to be) , the latter tend to respond with pleasantries such as fatwas, flogging, burning etc.
@Vaginarian. Know thy enemy! In any case if you are interested in human psychology then you need to be interested in what the majority of humans believe and the story they tell themselves about why they believe it.
@Spoing. I liked your article. I think the point about females converting because they fall in love is a strong one but it still does not explain everything.
@Daoloth – indeed. I think that there is a fascination with the exotic differentness of Islam which has a certain allure for some Westerners; this perhaps in combination with a perception that Muslims are more genuinely devoted to their religion, as evidenced by Muslims’ general adherence to a strict regime of prayer, dietary restrictions, dress-code and so on.
This very tangible, clearly-defined code of conduct stands in stark contrast to the way of life of unbelievers and hence ‘seems’ more genuinely ‘godly’ to the new adherent than the ambiguous behaviour of contemporary Xtians, who in general (to varying extents depending on denomination etc) wear the same clothes, watch the same movies, drink the same demon liquor and get up to all the worldly mischief as the rest of pagan society – safe in the knowledge that their ticket to heaven is secure now that their sins (past/present and future) have been washed away by the blood of the lamb.
So in short, I would say that Islam appeals to some because it seems to be a more genuine faith, with a relatively simple theology and system of observance as compared with the trinitarian/vaguely polytheistic Xtianity.
Mr Gronk is right. And the stats are skewed towards more women converting to Islam than men because, although Muslim men can marry Jewish or Christian women (as it is believed – often correctly, in fact – that they will be able to convert their partner to the one true faith of Islam), men who are Jewish or Christian can never marry a Muslim woman (as it is believed – incorrectly – that she will inevitably be led away from the one true faith…)
A sexist policy to be sure, but that’s religion for you.
Spoing, that’s true. However you are comparing European Christians (European-American Christians included) with West-Asian Muslims. So, it is not only a question of religion but also of “race”. I know PC religion forbides the use of “race”, but I’m not a religious person. However, the main difference between European Christianity and West-Asian Islam is not religion nor race, but economy and social development. It is a fact of capitalist development that community sense is lost in favour of individuality. So, Christianity is mostly, thanks to capitalist development, an individual matter. People can go together to Church, surely, but they have a “personal” relationship with Jesus. On the contrarily, so-called Muslim countries are not fully developed in an economic sense. You have oil fields, some buiding industry, some little industry, and very few more. Most people in these countries have no personal life and relay completely in “group solidarity”. So, religion in these so-called Muslim countries is not an individual affair. So, when they perceive religion attacked (specially from outside), they perceive an attack against community. That, joined to the fact that Semitic peoples tend to have a developed sense of mysticalism is the key of the question. Of course, Hebrew people are also Semitic and they are far more tolerant about religions matters. But this is also explainable by the fact that as an historical minority in both Christian and Muslim countries, they were forced to keep a low profile. Jewish people abhor to impose their beliefs onto other people because they are understandably aware of the aggressiveness of majority religions. So, it is not only religion or the readings of Bible/Koran, here, but a complex question combining anthropology, history, economics, politics, social science, etc.
DĂdac says: August 4, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Well, spong. In some forgotten place, Koran says âThere is no compulsion in religionâ. It also tells about respect for the other âBook religionsâ. However, a lot of Muslims prefer to take these few passages as an allegories that must be thoroughly interpreted instead of practice them literally.
Actually, the rule of abrogation, (meaning, the latest passages count more in case of contradiction) do away with that.
Mohammed wrote the first passages including the “no compulsion” when he was a small time charlatan, with not many followers. So he was all tolerant (he didn’t have a choice really)
because the Koran is edited in chronological order, the passages where it says, “if a man choose another religion it won’t be accepted and he will go to hell” are later in the book, and therefore count more, and replace the early ones.
Because at the end of his life Mohammed had more followers, he changed his attitude, and was ruthless with dissidents, by then he felt secure with an army of caravan riders, holding a city like medina,
“no compulsion in religion” is meaningless to the Muslims, and clinically used to convince “the west” with a smile that they are super tolerant…
In Islam, leaving the religion (apostasy) is penalised by death, and they say clearly that Islam is the only truth, and that jews and christians can be “tolerated” as long as they are subdued as dihmmis, and pay special protection taxes… Its a Mafia stile enterprise. You can’t leave the clan, and the competition, when can’t be destroyed outright, then it’s slowly drained until they are gone in a generation or two.
A reply to Didac.
Until Islam had established itself really in the Middle East their societies were actually more advanced than ours. Just look at ancient Egypt. It is Islam that is holding them back now.
As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.
“As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.”
Don’t confuse contemporary Judaism with what the religion was like in earlier historical periods. Jews only gave up proselytizing when it became physically dangerous (under Christianity and then Islam) for them to do so. Judaism used to be very active in seeking new converts – both willing and unwilling. There were forcible conversions of non-Jews by the Maccabees/Hasmoneans for instance, and by several other small Jewish kingdoms who resorted to forced conversions.
“Not imposing your faith on others” back then was a policy of the weaker party; it wasn’t a religious or philosophical ideal. If you were on top, you imposed your religion by various means. If you weren’t on top, you avoided seeking converts in order to avoid retaliation from the dominant religion.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
March 3, 2021
New one!!!. Thanks for the laugh
Oh – plural of “houri”.
So the Koran functions like a glorified chain letter? I like it! you may have hit upon a deep truth here author.
Coming next week: same strip, roles reversed, some religion-specific terms replaced with their sect-appropriate synonyms. Same idea.
Would have been funnier if Mo was looking at the “centerfold” page of the HOURIS.
Hmm…Cock and Bull?
Isn’t that a reference to Mithras’ Mystery cult,basis for Catholicism?
Author, @Steve in MI has a point. How about livening things up with some guest appearances – the virgin mary, Satan, the apostle paul, the Holy Ghost? Ayesha?
I want to see St Paul too!!!, specially talking with the barmaid…Im already laughing đ …I just don’t get why he hated everything so much!!!!
Can T: I thought it had something to do with “cock and bull stories”, but Im not familiar with Mithras’ mystery cult, so you may be right.
I actually googled these c&b stories, being from argentina, i had no idea what it meant
(in case someone else doesn’t know, “cock and bul stories” are higly elaborated stories with not actual proof…meaning religion)
—-
P.s: Loved today’s comic
So how to explain that the patriarchal, misogynistic males that were responsible for inventing the Christian heaven managed not to create a sexy hedonistic one as an incentive for themselves? Seems like they really missed a chance there.
Seventy-two white crystal grapes aside, the muslims did generate a more enticing fiction.
I love Mo’s nonchalance about it all, even as he takes a token chance at trying out a persuasive threat.
Author, be a dear and get some new blood in … there’s such a wonderful cast of nutters to choose from … raving old testament prophets starting with son-sacrificing Abraham through to hallucinogenic Ezekiel, philandering king Dave, incestuous Lot… for a more contemporary feel you could bring in Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, L Ron Hubbard and the much rev Jim Jones….
Indeed – Some of Allah’s topics of choice include –
* Rewards of bitches in heaven or booty on Earth (if you survive going on a murderous rampage for Allah).
* Pain and punshment for the disbelievers – drinking scalding hot water and eating pitch.
* Telling Big Mo over and over and over again that he’s not a crazed lunatic telling “stories of the ancients”.
Jonnie C.: You raise an interesting point. I think that part of the difference is that the Koran was written as a recruiting document by a deliberately cynical manipulator who knew how to motivate men who were young dumb and full of cum, whereas the bible agglutinated more gradually over time- more the work of committees, eventually used as a political document.
Having said this it certainly does not explain everything- both groups are inordinately hating of women.
What is even more puzzling is how the Koran appeals to some women. It used to be said that women only submitted to the veil etc (yes, yes- I know this isnt in the Koran directly) because they were living in patriarchal societies and had no choice. Fair enough.
What is more puzzling is the large numbers of women in countries like the UK who convert every year. I heard a figure of 20000/year quoted. These can’t be easily explained.
@daoloth – note that the Bible, being as you put it an agglutinative potpourri of odds and sods written by dozens of different authors over thousands of years, does nevertheless contain a few gems of truth which have an almost contemporary egalitarian flavour to them:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The same can’t be said about Islam. (I stand to be corrected)
Not sure what my point is but I think it may be that certain interpretations of Xtianity have at least some redeeming features (no pun intended) whereas it’s very difficult to see any in Islam. Hence I’m unsure that “both groups are inordinately hating of women” is a fair assessment.
As to why women are drawn to Islam, my Google research has uncovered several theories, some more insulting and patronizing than others. One is that it is a less complex theology than trinitarian Xtianity … another suggests that turning to Islam is a response to the “chaotic” sexual mores of western society. One bright young thing believes that “… Islamic teaching [makes] perfect, logical sense. You can approach it intellectually and there are no gaps, no great leaps of faith that you have to take.”
So there you have it. This article has some interesting facts/stats/quotes from the newbie houris mouths:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/women_converts_find_liberation_in_islam/
Well, spong. In some forgotten place, Koran says “There is no compulsion in religion”. It also tells about respect for the other “Book religions”. However, a lot of Muslims prefer to take these few passages as an allegories that must be throroughly interpreted instead of practice them literally.
One difference between the Bible and the Koran, it is that the Koran was written purposely as a sacred book. The Bible was compiled as a sacred book of books, which is different. Of coure, the Book of Mormon was literally produced as a piece of revelation.
The Koran is a collection of individual teachings probably recorded from Mo in person. However, e. g. Solomon will be very surprised to see some of his sexually explicit poems included side by side to the Pentateuch.
For a bunch of atheists, you guys know way too much about Christianity and Islam, clearly from reading all those Books of Revelation and Mormon and what not.
@vaginarian – what exactly is the danger of knowing “too much” about ones intellectual opponent’s subject material? Personally I find it gratifying to be able to use my understanding of the contradictions and absurdities in “infallible scripture” to poke holes in the flimsy arguments Xtians concoct. I’ve still got a bit of a way to go with my understanding of the Q’uran.
Trust me ‘atheists’ have done a lot more work to understand religionists than the other way round. Ref http://skepticsannotatedbible.com.
@Didac, again I must say in favour of Xtians vs Muslims – while the former are actually willing to engage in debate about the issue (no matter how laughable their reasoning turns out to be) , the latter tend to respond with pleasantries such as fatwas, flogging, burning etc.
@Vaginarian. Know thy enemy! In any case if you are interested in human psychology then you need to be interested in what the majority of humans believe and the story they tell themselves about why they believe it.
@Spoing. I liked your article. I think the point about females converting because they fall in love is a strong one but it still does not explain everything.
@Daoloth – indeed. I think that there is a fascination with the exotic differentness of Islam which has a certain allure for some Westerners; this perhaps in combination with a perception that Muslims are more genuinely devoted to their religion, as evidenced by Muslims’ general adherence to a strict regime of prayer, dietary restrictions, dress-code and so on.
This very tangible, clearly-defined code of conduct stands in stark contrast to the way of life of unbelievers and hence ‘seems’ more genuinely ‘godly’ to the new adherent than the ambiguous behaviour of contemporary Xtians, who in general (to varying extents depending on denomination etc) wear the same clothes, watch the same movies, drink the same demon liquor and get up to all the worldly mischief as the rest of pagan society – safe in the knowledge that their ticket to heaven is secure now that their sins (past/present and future) have been washed away by the blood of the lamb.
So in short, I would say that Islam appeals to some because it seems to be a more genuine faith, with a relatively simple theology and system of observance as compared with the trinitarian/vaguely polytheistic Xtianity.
@Daoloth – I suspect that a fair number of female western Muslims convert to please Muslim partners.
Mr Gronk is right. And the stats are skewed towards more women converting to Islam than men because, although Muslim men can marry Jewish or Christian women (as it is believed – often correctly, in fact – that they will be able to convert their partner to the one true faith of Islam), men who are Jewish or Christian can never marry a Muslim woman (as it is believed – incorrectly – that she will inevitably be led away from the one true faith…)
A sexist policy to be sure, but that’s religion for you.
Spoing, that’s true. However you are comparing European Christians (European-American Christians included) with West-Asian Muslims. So, it is not only a question of religion but also of “race”. I know PC religion forbides the use of “race”, but I’m not a religious person. However, the main difference between European Christianity and West-Asian Islam is not religion nor race, but economy and social development. It is a fact of capitalist development that community sense is lost in favour of individuality. So, Christianity is mostly, thanks to capitalist development, an individual matter. People can go together to Church, surely, but they have a “personal” relationship with Jesus. On the contrarily, so-called Muslim countries are not fully developed in an economic sense. You have oil fields, some buiding industry, some little industry, and very few more. Most people in these countries have no personal life and relay completely in “group solidarity”. So, religion in these so-called Muslim countries is not an individual affair. So, when they perceive religion attacked (specially from outside), they perceive an attack against community. That, joined to the fact that Semitic peoples tend to have a developed sense of mysticalism is the key of the question. Of course, Hebrew people are also Semitic and they are far more tolerant about religions matters. But this is also explainable by the fact that as an historical minority in both Christian and Muslim countries, they were forced to keep a low profile. Jewish people abhor to impose their beliefs onto other people because they are understandably aware of the aggressiveness of majority religions. So, it is not only religion or the readings of Bible/Koran, here, but a complex question combining anthropology, history, economics, politics, social science, etc.
Actually, the rule of abrogation, (meaning, the latest passages count more in case of contradiction) do away with that.
Mohammed wrote the first passages including the “no compulsion” when he was a small time charlatan, with not many followers. So he was all tolerant (he didn’t have a choice really)
because the Koran is edited in chronological order, the passages where it says, “if a man choose another religion it won’t be accepted and he will go to hell” are later in the book, and therefore count more, and replace the early ones.
Because at the end of his life Mohammed had more followers, he changed his attitude, and was ruthless with dissidents, by then he felt secure with an army of caravan riders, holding a city like medina,
“no compulsion in religion” is meaningless to the Muslims, and clinically used to convince “the west” with a smile that they are super tolerant…
In Islam, leaving the religion (apostasy) is penalised by death, and they say clearly that Islam is the only truth, and that jews and christians can be “tolerated” as long as they are subdued as dihmmis, and pay special protection taxes… Its a Mafia stile enterprise. You can’t leave the clan, and the competition, when can’t be destroyed outright, then it’s slowly drained until they are gone in a generation or two.
I am sad to say that I know someone like Mo who talks just like him, but I am glad to say that she does not speak to me any more.
A reply to Didac.
Until Islam had established itself really in the Middle East their societies were actually more advanced than ours. Just look at ancient Egypt. It is Islam that is holding them back now.
As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.
“As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.”
Don’t confuse contemporary Judaism with what the religion was like in earlier historical periods. Jews only gave up proselytizing when it became physically dangerous (under Christianity and then Islam) for them to do so. Judaism used to be very active in seeking new converts – both willing and unwilling. There were forcible conversions of non-Jews by the Maccabees/Hasmoneans for instance, and by several other small Jewish kingdoms who resorted to forced conversions.
“Not imposing your faith on others” back then was a policy of the weaker party; it wasn’t a religious or philosophical ideal. If you were on top, you imposed your religion by various means. If you weren’t on top, you avoided seeking converts in order to avoid retaliation from the dominant religion.
i really wanted to tell the world the same thing after having read through the koran… it is really tooooo much of a repetition and denial of christ…
I’m a just a-floatin’ on de Nile of Christ…