Talk:Islam

If you have come here to complain about Uncyclopedia taking the piss out of your religion, go and read Atheism (religion).

We are proud of the fact that we insult everyone equally...

• Talk:Islam/archive01 contains discussions about Islam from August 2006 through September 2009.

Rewritten in October 2009

I rose to a challenge to make this page equally offensive to everyone. Reviewed this talk page before starting the edit; above, El Sid tries to mollify a Muslim by pointing out that the page is really ridiculing closed-minded Christians. But the real problem (which recurs in many of our collaborations) is that the point of view shifts wildly. Any explanation that the material is the point-of-view of a redneck Texas sheriff was gone from the article before I got here, and what is here now is not humor but mocking and put-downs you might hear in a US elementary school. It is more insulting than funny, and the contrivance that "I didn't say any of it, the redneck did" doesn't work. In any case, it breaks the encyclopedia canon to lapse into advocacy and cheerleading, no matter in whose voice. (By comparison, Section 5.2, on the holy war against "the Juice," is hilarious. It doesn't mock anything fundamental; it notes credulously an obvious misunderstanding and runs with it.) Spıke Ѧ  03:16 23-Oct-09

There's a Facebook fan page dedicated to this article

You can become a fan of the deletion of this article here!

Apparently, various people are unhappy with this article. Who'd have thought? pillow talk 00:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that about a week ago. The Muhammad sausage picture is on there nao too. lawl! --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 00:48 Feb 4 2010

Seriously? Fucking lol. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:51, 4 Feb

Pelargonium gave me a Ninjastar a month ago for what he called a gentle treatment of a subject he had studied in detail, and I take that more seriously than I do this knee-jerk Facebook page. Spıke Ѧ  01:07 4-Feb-10

They think this article's offensive? Someone should show them ED's article. It's much less...subtle than this one is. —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, fundamentalists take their ideals and beliefs as what ED would call "srs business". I'm just waiting for the fatwa-issued death threats, because exercising the freedom of speech is always grounds for a jolly beheading. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:28 Feb 4 2010

There is one other measurement to consider: the total lack of drama on this talk page in the last three months. Of course, as opposed to starting a Facebook page, someone objecting here would be required to justify his assertions. Someone Friending to the Facebook page need not even read Islam, much less compare it to Atheism as the top of this page challenges critics to do. Spıke Ѧ  01:52 4-Feb-10

Well, they're not gonna get it deleted by talking about it on Facebook, that's for sure. Not that it'll get deleted anyway. This place should be a bastion for freedom of speech, not political correctness. —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 04:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mockery of Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Scientology? Yeah, sure. Mockery of the One Revealed Truth? YOUR BONES WILL BURN FOR YOUR INSOLENCE! DEATH TO THE INFIDELS! ALLAAAAAAH!!!! --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 20:33, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Initial quotations

[Why'd you revert my edit--] I thought it was pretty damn good --SadisticWolf 16:22, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

There were two quotes at the start of this article. One made the point that the 9/11 attacks converted the aimless Bush presidency to--well, non-aimless, for better or worse. That's irony. The other made the point about the hypocrisy of Islam violently protesting against the charge of being violent. Both quotes made a substantive point. To that, you added Captain Understatement, a category as trite as Russian Reversal. I thought it was comparatively weak, and I don't like adding quotes to an article that already has them unless they add something.

Separately, someone revised the initial photo of bin-Laden and Bert (pbuh), first to a cartoon, then to a photo of feces in a toilet, and I reverted that. Straight anti-Islam advocacy is not at all as funny as humor is. Spıke Ѧ 16:39 14-May-10

Understood. Sorry for that, I'm kinda new and I don't know the difference between new in-jokes and old ones. BTW, IN SOVIET RUSSIA 2 COWS HAVE YOU LOLOLOLOLOL RUSSIAN REVERSAL CHUCK NORRIS AND UR MOM ROFLLOL </sarcasm> --SadisticWolf 16:41, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Initial photo

I'd like the Bin Laden/Bert picture to go away. Uncyclopedia should be a place for original humor, not for reposting someone else's 12-year-old joke. pillow talk 18:31, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Stealing facts and sporking articles is cool; stealing jokes is just stealing. Where did this joke occur 12 years ago? and what do you propose to replace it with? Spıke Ѧ 21:23 14-May-10

It's from the Bert Is Evil website, which predates 9/11. They'd shop Bert into various photos of dictators, terrorists, etc. I think we need something more representative of Islam itself for the first pic - probably just the Islam moon with some joke caption about it adorning outhouse doors. pillow talk 21:35, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

That would work fine. (And probably start a second Facebook campaign against this article!) More simply, a photo of an outhouse door, with no comment at all but only a caption that the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. Separately, your Pac-Man joke was a big improvement over an attempt to work a pun off a very niche epithet. Spıke Ѧ 15:35 15-May-10

Here, now, is what I had in mind (neglected to write a change summary). Your movie tie-in I don't understand, but you certainly put it where there was no humor previously. Spıke Ѧ 20:31 15-May-10

The word islam

Doesn't the word Islam mean "war and genocide" in arabic? I think an arab told me once and I mean it's true. Arabs want genocide for Israel rather than a diplomatic solution. I can't edit because I don't have an account but can someone please add at the beggining Islam (Araabbien for War) or something stupid like that :) thanks 94.9.221.232 11:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

The line we've taken (in Section 1) is that Islam means I-slam, as in "I slam planes into buildings." You can make a case for your point of view. But not, please, in a humor web site. Spıke Ѧ 12:17 23-Aug-10

IP: as an Uncyclopedian, it's my responsibility to tell you that the word Islam means "the awkward moment when you say 'Eww, that girl only has one boob' and your grandma walks up behind you out of nowhere and says 'I only have one boob! What's the problem with that, you want to tell me that, Sonny?!'" But as someone who hates ridiculous rumors, it's my responsibility to tell you that the word Islam means "submission" in Arabic, implying "submission to God." pillow talk 15:18, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Although technically I don't see why it couldn't also mean "submission," implying "submission to a rough trick named Crazy-Legs Tony." pillow talk 15:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten in August 2010

Sorry that our recent visits by one n00b and one Anon have led you to think the article needs rework (or, to quote your change history, "instigation"). Am absolutely sick of the Mohammed-sucking-dick drawing and the attendant drama, and will revert this, plus your deletion of the Koran's advice on the disposition of infidels. You have wisely identified bits of the article that have always been inscrutable (such as "Jaclyn"); but the fact that the spelling of the prophet's name is variable, and that "nappy" has odd connotations in the US, are tangents having nothing to do with the article. PS--Perhaps take the Mohammed drawing to the article on Muslim--They seem to be made for one another. Spıke Ѧ 15:48 23-Aug-10

The article does need rework, SPIKE. Badly. It's inconsistent in tone, probably overlong, and includes dozens of truly, truly lame jokes. The "Islam is violent" joke is beaten into the ground with a ferocity usually reserved for long-dead horses; while it certainly shouldn't be removed entirely, an article should never tell the same joke twice. A casual hidden link to a featured picture shouldn't cause any drama; if you really have a problem with it, I'd recommend gathering consensus instead of blindly reverting me. We don't usually like to revert-war around here. pillow talk 15:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

And let me just remind you that while everyone appreciates your vigilance in being the dedicated vandal patrol on this controversial article for many months now, you didn't actually write it, and it's still a collaboratively-edited mess that's begging for someone turn it into a consistent and funny article. pillow talk 16:02, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Please curb the rhetoric, that I am "blindly" practicing "revert-war"--even though advising you what I intend to revert--whereas you are the Community informing me what "we do...around here." The photo, featured or not, didn't just cause drama but had its own Forum. While I am all for consistent and funny articles, this article has already quieted the drama it used to attract, while some of your edit of today takes it in the opposite direction. And the infidel sentence you deleted was neither ferocious nor a repetition. Spıke Ѧ 16:26 23-Aug-10

All I'm saying, SPIKE, is that I'm more than happy to work on this article with you, but don't think for a second that have the final say on what goes in and what doesn't. Uncyclopedians don't generally make a habit of telling each other "I will revert your change"; it's better to say "How about this instead?" I'm not particularly passionate about the Mohammedlickingsausage picture either way, but to tell another established Unyclopedian "I will revert your changes" without trying to build consensus is both rude and badly overstepping your authority. pillow talk 16:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I saw Chief's page as regard this article as well. Spike has done a good job in removing the really offensive stuff in this article but seems to act like flypaper when it comes to drama. I hope you guys can come to some compromise and then defend it against vandal hordes out there. My own view is that I don't think it is funny but I doubt there will be an agreement by all the users on that subjective point. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 21:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to compromise on pretty much anything about this article. It's not like this is Wikipedia and I have an ideological point I want to get across. If anyone thinks some of the jokes I added fell really flat, by all means, take a swing at rewriting them. Personally, I think this version after my second round of cleanup is very imperfect and badly in need of work, but also the best one yet. But that's just me. I don't think SPIKE and I are even having serious editorial differences for the most part, honestly. I just got a little peeved this morning when he made a comment on this page that made it sound like he thought he had the final say on the editorial content of this article and was annoyed with me for changing anything. I acknowledge that some of my edits are a little tangential - but I think tangents are far funnier than, say, a long list of sects of Islam and how they're all a bunch of towelhead terrorists. Tangential humor can be funny! Heck, you want to see a recent FA that's basically a study in tangential humor, look at The Doolittle Raid. pillow talk 21:18, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

That's good news. I don't mind 'tangerine genital' humour either. We need more of that. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 21:35, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Specific review comments from Spike

1. "Hatred of the Juice," while out of character with the rest of the piece, is hilarious. It precedes me (see above on this talk page) but I left it in because it is great in its own, "retarded" way. Perhaps reinsert it after introducing Judaism ("Relation to Judaism"). If you really object, let me take the text from the History and make it a separate article.
2. The tutorial on the exact difference between Sunni and Shi'a is unnecessary; so are the swears. Perhaps mention this split when explaining the history of Islam, spinning it to make the need for sects look as ridiculous as possible.
3. In "Nomenclature," I'm okay with getting rid of the acronym; but again, making a big deal about two spellings of Muhammad or the US meaning of "nappy" are fruitless tangents.
4. On the Pillows of Islam, manually numbering the sections looks crappy for those of us who select automatic numbering of sections.
5. I endorse the removal of "Holy animals."
6. I endorse much more weakly the removal of "The religion of logic." This looks like listcruft, but some of the list items are apt and wry references to characteristic and illogical defenses offered by Muslims.
7. "The religion of pussy" needs more work, as it is preachy and salesy compared to the rest of the article.
8. The final external link (to an article that, if I remember correctly, reports that there is pork fat in Doritos) is a nose-tweak to Muslims--and an external link.

I am sorry to have written as though I own the article, which of course no one does. But it was startling to have you jump in as though you own it, plus equally confrontational rhetoric. I've been protecting the thing for months, as you note, and would have preferred to take specific criticisms and make corrections. My original rewrite was not complete, out of deference to prior contributors, but you are correctly seeing fresh some parts of the article that deserved deletion. Spıke Ѧ 21:56 23-Aug-10

PS--What if I archive this damned talk page (everything before Section 22)? It is years old and mostly drama about whether Islam is good or bad, with little relation to anything left in the article. Spıke Ѧ 22:01 23-Aug-10

Responses

1. I didn't like "Hatred of the Juice" primarily because it reminds me of this tired image macro and related jokes. I feel like Uncyclopedia should be a place for original jokes, not a dumping ground for Internet memes. Also, having two arguably contradictory sections about Judaism seemed weird.
2. I think that actually having the Sunni and Shi'a sections have something to do with Sunni and Shi'a, rather than "they're all a bunch of towelhead terrorists" is a good idea, but I'm open for editing if you think it's too expository. We have philosophical differences on profanity that I've noticed before; I think a little profanity can nicely punctuate a point, whereas you seem to think it stops humor dead in its tracks. Don't know what to say about that. If you can find something else that's funny, go for it.
3. The article should mention Muhammed; that was a glaring omission. If you want to replace the throwaway "two spellings" joke, I don't care. I do think there's some comedy to be found in the fact that the British call Muslims "nappy heads" whereas in the States, Don Imus was fired for calling a women's basketball team "nappy heads" because they were black.
4. I did the manual numbering to make it clearer that Jihad was being added to the Pillars of Islam, but if it screws things up, let's revert it. I think "pillows" is a pretty foolish Mad Magazine style joke. I guess that's my own pet peeve; where you hate profanity, I hate simply substituting a word for a similar sounding word for no apparent reason.
5. Sounds like we agree on "Holy animals."
6. I wouldn't mind putting back a "religion of logic" section, but only two or three of the items had even the tiniest bit of redeeming value in my eyes, and I think the section would need a complete rewrite.
7. Yes, "religion of pussy" needs work. The article should try to maintain a more encyclopedic tone.
8. I don't know what you're trying to tell me about that external link. It's about trace alcohol, not pork fat. I waffled on whether it should be there and just left it alone; are you just concerned that I moved it down too low? Honestly, I'd support removing it, for the same reason that Uncyclopedia should be for original humor and not a dumping ground for other people's funny stuff. (Whatever. Yes. Done. Spıke Ѧ 22:44 23-Aug-10)

Archiving the talk page sounds good to me. I doubt the admins would have a problem with it, and if they do, well, I guess we'll find out.

Well, I think we've agreed to work together on this thing, and that's good. Better to move forward on improving the article than sit here and yell at each other. pillow talk 22:11, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I've addressed most of your review comments in the article; please let me know what you think. pillow talk 18:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hatred of the Juice

On point 1, no, there's a difference. Your links are some cutesy type trying to use a pun to create an Internet meme. In this article, we have identified an authentic moron and have a chance to portray the entire history of Middle Eastern strife as the results of a misunderstanding. The same pun is used in Mein Kampf. I've created a separate article. There is pitifully little there, but it has potential. I'll mention your reservations in its talk page. Spıke Ѧ 23:33 23-Aug-10

Hyperbole returned the illustration to Islam, with better supporting text than it had originally; whereas this separate article immediately attracted {{ICU}}. Given Hype's work, I didn't develop the other article (and in fact listed it on QVFD, which was ignored). The separate article is now gone. Spıke Ѧ 14:46 3-Sep-10

why hasn't this been featured?

it's not only hilarious, but fucking terrible at the same time! classic uncyclopedia -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 23:35, Aug 23

This article sucks

This was about as funny as a baby dying in Africa (then again, the author coming from Encyclopedia Dramatica, I could be wrong).

How about we make it good, aye?

First of all, sign your posts. What do you have in mind? If you check the page's history, you will see what has been written here before. There was a lot of crap, unfunny abuse and overall sense of just adding in a lot of random. Spike and Hyperbole did a major clean-up and if you can improve on that, your edits will be kept. Otherwise they are likely to be reverted. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:03, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated

Some of the information doesn't make any sense whatsoever, looks like a troll edited some of it.

This article is open to improvement - and sign your posts btw. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:13, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

YOU RACISTFUCKS

THIS CONSTITUTEDS HATE SPEECH YOU FUCKING RACIST FUCKS YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO FUCK WITH ISLAM BUT YOU WULD NOT HAVE THE BALLS TO FACE ME TOE TO TOE CHIN TO CHIN MOTHA FUCKRS ISLAM IS THE WORLSDS FASTEST GROW RELIGION HAHAHAHA FKN THIS WEBSITE AND ALL MAKERS AND OWNERS OF IT WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO US SOONER OR LATER CANT WAIT 4 THAT DAY ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.180.159.192 (talk • contribs)

VFH --ChiefjusticePSX 10:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

As shakespeare said: "To be a racialist, or not to be" --MuhammadIbnAbdallah 22:07, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Relation to Nazism

Read somewhere hitler be admirin' islam in the before and after. "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?". Basically he was saying: "Christianity is for pussies, Islame be for the l33t!!"

--MuhammadIbnAbdallah 14:52, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

If you can make a funny article on those lines, trying writing one in your user space first. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:17, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Or you can write one, i'm too lazy yankin' my rod to fag porn. --MuhammadIbnAbdallah 14:52, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

SO BAD ALL FALSE

Bad!!!!! Wait 4 the day when u will have 2 answer for ur bad deeds (Like this one!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nehalisreallythebest (talk • contribs)

Hinduism and Islam

These two religions have long relation from early days of Islam, why it is not mentioned?117.232.214.182 18:54, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of aspects of Islam that are not mentioned, perhaps because the authors are not aware of them. The goal at this website is to make the reader laugh, and neither to be complete nor necessarily accurate. If you have a funny narrative, you might create a follow-on article, such as Hinduism and Islam, which the two articles on the individual religions might link to. I suggest a separate article because Islam is already plenty long. Keep in mind that Uncyclopedia does not require consistency between any two articles, only humor. Spıke Ѧ 19:26 20-Jul-13

Uncyclopedia is not a place for discrimination!!!

this article is contain:discrimination,bad words,etc..... its should redirected ti No Discrimination like in Tolololpedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 110.136.10.99 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your opinion. Spıke 🎙️03:58 11-Aug-20