Thursday, August 03, 2006

Mahomet the Pædophile Prophet

Continuing in our new role as a clearinghouse for Mock-the-Muslims humor, Gates of Vienna presents the following piece of light verse, composed by Edward M. Bridle of Newcastle, Australia:

Mahomet the Pædophile Prophet

The Chieftain of Zind, by Dr. SeussMahomet, Mahomet the pædophile prophet
Rode on a camel until he fell off it.
Up went his heels and he fell on his head.
Everyone thought that Mahomet was dead,
But “A blow to the head is so good for the brains,”
Mahomet the pædophile prophet explains.

Mahomet, Mahomet the pædophile prophet
Said he saw angels. They all said “Come off it.
“It’s all the result of that blow to the head.
“You ought to be seeing a doctor instead.”
But “It’s not a delusion. My vision persists,”
Mahomet the pædophile prophet insists.

Mahomet, Mahomet the pædophile prophet
Heard them all laughing. Mahomet said “Stop it!”
He jumped on his camel and rode far away.
He said “I’ll return and get vengeance some day.
“They’ve got no respect for my poor, aching brains,”
Mahomet the pædophile prophet complains.

* * * * *

Mahomet, Mahomet the pædophile prophet
Thought up a plan, and thought nothing could top it.
“If they won’t believe me, I’ll kill them all dead.
“If anyone laughs, then I’ll chop off his head.
“It’s not a delusion if no-one complains,”
Mahomet the pædophile prophet maintains.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Readers with Terpsichorean skills might consider setting these lines to music…

Update: Eteraz has taken offense at the refence to the Prophet as a child-molester. He objects, and cites his own work that shows that Aysha was not in fact a child when Mohammed married her.


Susan Humeston said...

Awesome!! Very clever.

A. Eteraz said...

this is deeply offensive to me,

especially in light of the fact that i've shown you (and Muslims) evidence that Aysha was not 6 or 9 or even 14 at the time of her marriage.

think of how you feel when people enage in 'mock-the-christians' or 'mock-the-jews' or 'mock-the-blacks.'

why is it ok to 'mock-the-muslims'

this is a clear violation of your self imposed standard: that you only attack radical islam.

dirty dingus said...

Another thing your your collection here

Share & Enjoy

A. Eteraz said...

I have written a response to this post here:

The Post

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

So, Eterz, What exactly are you offended by? Mohamed was a woman hating, narcisstic, murderering, lying, sadistic, thieving paedophile. It says so in the Koran, right alongside the Jewish apes and pigs. Of course it may not be factually correct - that may be just a reflection of the culture that produced such literature, and its attitudes. So, even if Mohammed was not a woman hating, narcisstic, murderering, lying, sadistic, thieving paedophile, his followers aparently either believed him so or wanted to believe it.

Mohammed : The original prototype terrorist. Its too bad they didn't have suicide belts back then.

Ah for f***s sake any loser offended by this should go rent a copy of Monty Python's Life of Brian or Blazing Saddles.

Baron Bodissey said...


I'm sorry you're offended.

Humor is my weapon of choice against radical Islam. Unfortunately, you're collateral damage in this case.

The radical Islamists hide among folks like you the way Hizbullah hides in peoples' houses. Inevitably, innocent folks get hurt, even by the most precision-guided weapons.

And Fellow Peacekeeper is right -- I'm a Christian, and when I saw The Life of Brian I laughed out loud. Although the movie was deeply offensive to Christians, it was also funny.

When I was a kid, the grossest jokes about Jesus were told from one kid to another (in whispers) during Sunday School. Do Muslims do the same kind of thing about Mohammed?

Just wondering...

Exile said...

Now what was that about the right to offend....?

It comes with the territory. No big deal. Nobody ever died of poetry.

Well, not yet Baron....!

BTW, breaking news on Qana over at my place..On the wing

civilian-at-arms said...

As someone who has in the past stocked the Muhammad-as-pedophile arrow in my quiver, I have recently elected to allow that particular barb to fall into disuse—perhaps permanently. That Muhammad married a 6 year old and consummated his relationship with a 9 year old was probably not unacceptable at the time in many parts of the world (and as Eteraz points out, not too dissimilar to the mores held by some today). The exhaustive catalogue of atrocities to be attributed to Muhammad and his legacy are irrespective of the morality or lack thereof involved in the taking this one child bride. Perhaps if Muhammad’s harem was filled with nothing but children, and those children were all unwilling captives, treated brutally and the like, Muhammad’s “pedophilia” would be a more incendiary charge, but I frankly have come to think of it as cheap and wholly unnecessary; establishing the edicts of a religion which pit the believer and the anonymous unbeliever for all time in an eternal death match is far more important and the deeds he committed to that end are far, far more important still.

Eteraz says, “But the fact of the matter is, this most recent post does not just target the “Islamists.” It targets all Muslims.” Of course, Danish cartoon riots were fomented not by “Islamists” but by Muslims that Westerners would otherwise deem as “moderate”--otherwise there are a hell of a lot of “Islamists” living next door. (Of course, we already knew that, but that's not the point.) Nor were those threats from the Muslim world against the publishers of the cartoons specifically, but against anyone, anywhere, at anytime who might dare to draw Muhammad. Furthermore, every foolish concession (e.g., the Danish cartoons again; toilets for Muslim prisoners which must be re-orientated so as to not face Mecca; the boycott of pigs on tissue boxes; the desire by Muslims to have St. George removed from the flag; refusing to swear on the Bible in a (non-Islamic) court of law; calls to prayer on community loud speakers; etc., etc.) are offensive acts sought and perpetrated by—not “Islamists”—but supposedly good, “moderate” Muslims.

So while I agree that the charge of Muhammad’s so-called pedophilia is unnecessary, I’m not about to loose sleep debating hurt feelings over it. Does it hurt all Muslims? Perhaps. I say that the limitations imposed on non-Muslims (freedom of speech and the press; the erasure of history because someone still has sand in their Pampers over the Crusades, for instance) by Muslims—not “Islamist Muslims, not radical Muslims, not extremist Muslims—but Muslims, is the far greater offense. Knowing what we all know about Muhammad, and that Muslims of all stripes are still seemingly loathe to think of him as anything other than “the Perfect Man” is the far greater offense still—it offends sanity and reason.

shoprat said...

If it is so doubtful why do so many Muslims accept it as a fact?

Anonymous said...

Blaspheme the Prophet and you die!

Of course, under Sharia, you can die for many things.

And if you're a woman, don't dare get raped, you could get stoned to death.

Islam gives much more offense than it receives.

Muslims should expect a little pushback.

Frank said...

Its unfair to level the 21st century charge of pedophilia against a 6th century warlord to be sure, since most of Christendom at the time and indeed until one or two centuries ago condoned very young marriage. Would that pedophilia were the sum total of charges that could be leveled at him.

Pedophilia, though, somehow seems tame when lined up beside the very real charges that can be attributed to the brute in the turban. It pales beside rape, murder, assassination, genocide and what would be today considered crimes against humanity.

How can Musselmen even keep a straight face while outlining the virtues of this ridiculous religion and its ridiculous founder? It would be more intellectually profitable to argue that Danish Paganism is a religion of peace than to try to pull off the stunt of convincing people that Islam has any redeeming features whatsoever. If there is a hell, Mohammed must surely be roasting on the main spit.

kepiblanc said...

Scottsa --

How can Musselmen even keep a straight face while outlining the virtues of this ridiculous religion and its ridiculous founder?

Because Musselmen have no sense of humor. Ever seen a Muslim laugh ?

In Russet Shadows said...

Look, there is no doubt that folks used to marry much younger than they do now. However, they only lived 'til 40. The clock was ticking. Now with that said, how many people really believe that a 6 or 9-year old is sexually matured? Even by 0 AD standards, that's outlandish. And that's the point, really. If Muslims have no higher morals officially than those they condemn to the flames, then their religion is worthless. Sadly, this charge is only one of many that Mohammed is surely guilty of. I find Ersatz's reaction laughable -- strain out the gnat and swallow the camel, bro. You complain about this charge, but temporary marriage, slave-holding, and murder are all ok. Right. Freaking check. Gotcha.

X said...

The age of 9 was unusual even in those days. The whole culture of the area had a minimum age of around 14, or thereabouts; whenever the child started to menstruate was considered the limit of her marriagable age, ebcause at this point she was seen to be fertile.

bordergal said...

Well, paint me pink and call me the easter bunny.

Sorry you're offended about indelicate comments about Mo, Mr. E. But you have to live with others not respecting your choice of belief, and sometimes being quite indelicate about it.

I found Piss Christ to be quite offensive. But ultimately, the message is stronger then the attempts at ridicule, so you just shrug and get on with your life. Also, being able to laugh at oneself is a good thing....can you imagine Stalin or Hitler poking fun at themselves, or for that matter, Mr Ahmanutjob?

***Only laughter can blow [a colossal humbug] to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand***.

Maybe Mark Twain's quote explains the startling lack of self deprecating humor I see in the muslim world.

Wally Ballou said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bernie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Bernie --

I had to delete your comment for its bad language. We're PG-13 here, even if we do mention pædophilia.

But -- I preserved your link; here it is: Muslims have no Sense of Humor.

Baron Bodissey said...

Bloodstomper Barbie (great nic, BTW) --

Normally I don't respond to trolls, but you obviously missed our "Dr. Seuss Was Liberal" posts from a couple of weeks ago. I'm too lazy to dig out the URLs, but check through the July archives and you'll find 'em.

Zerosumgame said...


If you are offended by that one thing, then you frankly need thicker skin. And so do most Muslims.

Every day, the media throughout the Islamic world (which outnumbers us Jews by 100 to 1) spews out the most vile Nazi lies; things 100x worse than the humour that Baron just posted.

So I don't feel the least bit sorry for you.

When Muslims start feeling sorry for trying to wipe us Jews off the earth instead of celebrating with orgiastic ecsatasy, then I will feel sorry for you.

But not one moment before.

Pastorius said...

Go easy on Eteraz. The guy is sincerely trying to reconcile his faith in Allah with the modern world. For his efforts, he has a lot of enemies in Dar al-Islam, and he has found a lot of people in Dar al-Harb who won't even give him a chance.

I agree that he needs a thicker skin, but let's face it, the guy who is earnest enough to undertake such a task is likely to also be a bit sensitive.

I agree with the DT guy, Mohammed's young wife was in line with culturally accepted norms of the time. It's easier to attack him on the slavery thing, the Manichean vision thing, the genocide thing, etc.

Still, I do think Baron's poem is funny, and I do see that it was aimed at Islamofascists, not decent Muslims who would probably not want to defend pedophilia anyway.

The Ayatollah did prescribe ways for men to have sex with girls as young as three, so at least in Iran pedophilia has been mainstreamed as acceptable, even if it is not widely practiced.

mts said...

a. eteraz, I've only got one bit of advice to pass on...

Cheer up, eteraz. You know what they say.
Some things in life are bad.
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble. Give a whistle.
And this'll help things turn out for the best.

always look on the bright side of life
(whistle,whistle,pause, whistle,whistle,whistle,whistle,whistle,whistle,)

Chip said...

think of how you feel when people enage in 'mock-the-christians' or 'mock-the-jews' or 'mock-the-blacks.'

Personally, I shoot them in the street and then partially decapitate them with a knife. Usually I leave an angry Christian manifesto pinned to their chests citing all the times Jesus tells us to "strike fear in the hearts of the unbelivers" and wage war against the infidels. I like to keep the infidels laid low, subdued, and subjected.

But that's just me.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

"Is this a sign of narcissism?"

I understand that it is, along with manuy other traits of both the left and Muslims.

Dr Sanitys THE NARCISSISTIC SYNTHESIS and Narcissism and Society series, and Shrinkwrapped's Narcissism, Disintegration, Suicidality & the Fall of the West: Introduction

Also compare this list of narcissistic personality traits with the behavior of Muslims.

X said...

It's also a sign that they don't actually believe in their institutions enough to feel secure poking fun at them.

jj mollo said...

My problem with the poem is that the meter is rendered non-Seussian by the word in question. And I can't even talk about the word anyway, because in my religion it is forbidden to smush the holy letter "a" with the holy letter "e" as they are sibling vowels (pbuv). Such a marriage of siblings is forbidden. That is why the character only appears on infidel keyboards.

Anonymous said...


Don't forget Mark Lepine, the man responsible for the Montreal massacre of 14 University of Montreal women students. His paternal name was Mark Gharbi and his father, Liess Gharbi was an Algerian immigrant, a Muslim who taught his boy how to hate women.

Brian Macker said...

"Go easy on Eteraz. The guy is sincerely trying to reconcile his faith in Allah with the modern world. For his efforts, he has a lot of enemies in Dar al-Islam, and he has found a lot of people in Dar al-Harb who won't even give him a chance."

Look either the fact is that Mohammed at a ripe old age of his mid-fifties married a 6 year old or not. It's not the non-Muslim’s problem to coddle the Muslim like a baby about such facts. There is very compelling evidence that Mohammed was in fact interested in little girls.

Now I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson, but you don't see me running around trying to prove that he was not a slaveholder. He was. Sure he let his slaves free but not immediately. That doesn’t however change the fact that he was a slaveholder. He could have set the slaves free the minute he inherited them and I would say right now that calling him a slaveholder is untruthful and unfair, but he didn’t. There are claims he did this for good reasons but those excuses ring hollow. There are claims he feared they would not be able to function in society due to the norms of the time. Well then perhaps he should have offered them jobs on his estate. He had plenty of assets and could have sold them off if need be to help out.

See, Eteraz, this is how you come to terms with reality. I don’t get offended when one of the founding fathers of my country, is chastised for his actual behavior. I can separate the man from the ideas. I like some of Jefferson’s ideals but those ideals are not dependent on his behavior. Problem is that the ideas of Islam rest upon the behavior of Mohammed, and not the ideas themselves. This is why you have to take offense. Perhaps you need to rethink why you are a Muslim and your project if you can’t separate the man from the ideas.

What do Muslims want of me? I think it is quite clear. They want me to worship Allah. That is, to worship an imaginary being called Allah invented by a vicious pedophilic mass murderer.

Now obviously it is my decision or not whether to do so. I order to make that decision properly I need to be fully informed of the facts.

Since we only have one guys word for it that he was in communication with Allah we need to consider his character in order to decide whether he is lying or not. This is how the ideas rest upon the man. Thus our concern with his behavior is valid.

It's quite clear to me that the fellow in question, Mohammed, does not even begin to live up to the lowest possible standards of ethical behavior even for his own time. After all, it was possible to behave ethically even in the past and many of Mohammed’s contemporaries did so.

So I see no reason to give Mohammed a break on this issue. To do so is to ignore the facts, pertinent facts as to his character. Mohammed is being held up as a shining example of how to live your life in a moral fashion. He obviously fails in this regard.

What Eteraz is trying to do is to square the circle. I know he will fail at his attempt because it is obviously a fool’s errand.

In order to get Islam back on the right path, a path that is headed towards reducing moral error, he is going to have to open his eyes to reality. One cannot search for the truth with ones eyes shut. If he accept valid evidentiary methods to be applied to his religion then the things he would have to admit to himself about the founder of his religion are so disturbing that he would have no choice but to reject Islam altogether.

It's as if he imagines himself a great athlete who wants to become the fastest sprinter in the world, yet trains with the Special Olympics in the wheelchair event. He has deluded himself that sprinting involves rolling around in a wheelchair. Until he understands that sprinters don't use wheelchairs he has no hope of achieving his goal.

He is actually under the delusion that the current champion sprinter in the world got his title by using a wheelchair. He calls the guy Mohammed and believes that the title belongs to him and hasn't been broken for 1400 years.

If he were to realize that in fact this is a lie then he would not only abandon his wheelchair, but he would stop advocating the use of wheelchairs in training for the sprint event. He would soon find himself abandoning those who insisted on still training this way.

If I see a guy tooling around in a wheelchair claiming to be training for the Olympic sprinting event then I certainly am not going to coddle his delusions. If his co-training wheelchair enthusiasts claim to be superior to me, and actually start killing people like me who question their delusions well frankly I think the gloves come off. I think it is perfectly reasonable to mock such people. After all, the entire notion training this way is ludicrous.

Muslims don't keep their strange beliefs to themselves. Islam is an evangelizing religion and also uses force to spread its tenets. Islam is in competition with other belief systems but does not want to fight fairly in this competition. Surely for the proper victor to win this battle we will need to be open to the truth even if it hurts the feeling of the participants.

Why should I give Eteraz a chance to intellectually regroup in his Islamic assault against my beliefs when his side plays hardball on the physical playground of force? Where his kind holds sway I am not even allowed to speak without being stoned, hung, or dismembered. I can't even get to the point where my beliefs can be fairly advertised and honestly contemplated. So he can just stop playing the victim here.

The fact of the matter is that Mohammed was a old man when he married his child bride. Regardless of any exact age this act was hardly done with any ethical consideration. The value put highest in this decision was pleasing his own penis with out regard to the consequences. A continual habit of his.

When I see Eteraz start listing the reasons why such a marriage may not be exactly in the interests of the child then I will start taking him seriously as an ethical thinker. Instead what I see him doing is making excuses for such behavior. We know why, he defends the man because the ideals would collapse along side if he didn’t.

Muslim excuses for Mohammed that are just laughable, "Oh, it was the norm of the time to marry at a young age", and "Muhammed was like a father to all so she was like a mother to all, so she shouldn't be allowed to remarry". This is nonsense. Even if you allow arranged marriages of six year olds their is a big difference between two six year olds marrying in this fashion and a six year old marrying a man in his fifties. It sickens me regardless of exact age, who cares if she was 6, 9, or 14 on this issue. Young women should not be forced into marriage with old men who are on the verge of death regardless of the minimum age for marriage. It isn't right.

It’s not right because the child would be too young to properly assess her best interests. That only comes with maturity. It’s not right because she was not even given a choice. Mohammed was a powerful man. In fact the most powerful man in his tribe. Could she honestly reject his lustful desires without any fear of consequences?

If Mohammed were an ethical man and not a self-centered bastard then he would have made such considerations. He would have considered whether he was the best person to make her decisions for her. He should have considered the undue influence his wealth and status would have on the parents. He should have considered the possibility that fear of him would be an influence. He should have considered that his lies about being a mouthpiece for god would carry too much weight in others minds, allowing him to get away with what he shouldn’t. He should have considered his age and the fact that he had decreed that his wives could not remarry. He should have considered that this was a child unable to make informed decisions. He should have considered that he already had many wives and concubines that he would have to pay less attention to. He should have considered that he had already gone past the limits on wives that he had set for others.

He did none of those things, and this was at the very end of his life when he should have been wisest in such matters. That he acted like his penis did his thinking instead of his mind (let alone his moral compass) indicates to me that one need not take him seriously as an ethical leader. Who is he to tell me how to behave the lying, two-faced, child using, mass murdering, ego manic?

Was that easy enough on Eteraz?

jj mollo said...

I do think Eteraz has a point. We should not be inspecting and condemning the particulars of someone else's dogma. It is, by the way, a very good thing when a Muslim looks at the internal logic of its holy writings, applying reason to draw more empirically plausible conclusions. It's also a very good thing when someone responds to ridicule with argument rather than rage.

Anonymous said...

Ali Eteraz: this is a clear violation of your self imposed standard: that you only attack radical islam.

Yes, that makes sense. Hey, wait a minute... seeing as there is no difference between radical Islam and Islam, why should anyone make a distinction between them? Advocating a bit of Islam apologism, are we, Mr Eteraz?

Besides, why should you be offended by something said about Mohammad (it's not like you're him, or anything)? And, more importantly, why should we care if you are?