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...

Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on June 29, 2008.
The result of the discussion was Keep.

TPCBD's view on Allah

Something Heard before death by explosion in the stan countries e.g Afghanistan, Kazhakstan, Obiedoobiejeckieyeboobaskyomamstan

I like it

You are being very brave, BTW :-P However, Muslim-trashing aside (which it was never about, that much is obvious) I like the way it is clearly biassed in Christian favour, and every negative point agains Islam is also true of Christianity (great example in the last paragraph). For this reason it seeems more of an attack on religion itself, and the oppinions of those made biassed by religions, wallowing in their own self-righteousness, looking down on other faiths when really most are pretty much the same in their oppionions of "spreading the word".

Maybe it is sad, really, that even Uncyclopedia needs to explain every politically-incorrect joke and irony to cover its back. However, as long as the message is getting through, though, and the message is "all religions claim superiority, and all religions are as accurate as all of the others, that is to say not very". Deliberate hypocresy goes a long way in satire.

I am a muslim. Came & see the reality of islam. Then mixed it with the artical. Its really true or other. I sure you will understand.We all are human. We love each other.Think just closed your eyes you see the true Allah. Allah talk with you own. See the original bybal what you find the man collapsed it by over writing.In original bybal you also find ALLAL @ MUHAMMAD.I afraid on ALLAH

This is not funny It's anti

Out of Bounds!

I'm sorry but Religious humour, especially at this time of Society, with all the war over in Iraq and Afganistan.. and now with Irael and Lebanon fighting in the Middle east.. This stuff should be left alone! There isn't anything funny about making fun of Muslim Faith.. or Christianity or ANY religion...

Even Uncyclopedia is laid low by political correctness. Satire is truely dead. 15:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just asking for Trouble! nothing but trouble! I'm surprised that the people who run this website even allow for Religions to be made fun of on here! Must know when to draw the line folks! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs)

Oh yes, we're asking for "trouble," for making fun of the primitive (and frequently sexist and homophobic, by the way) lies and superstitions that are currently ruining the world, as they have been for the last several hundred years.
Yes, we should be quiet and censor ourselves for the sakes of superstitious morons who believe in fairy tales.
Offended? Good.
--Hrodulf 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, ooh, I'll flame both of you!
You are both being IDIOTS. Stop taking your beliefs as if other people disliking them is an attack against YOU. It's better to simply not like religion than it is to complain about a JOKE, but it's really quite stupid to talk about religion as ruining the world. I'd like to see the atheists do better. They don't seem to do much but complain that the evil religious people are screwing things up. -Amarkov 05:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't flame me, I'm made of asbestos and could not care less about your opinion of me if I tried to.
When a masochist begs to be attacked, the true sadist says "no." I think I'll do the same to you now. Have a nice day!
--Hrodulf 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how many lines we should have drawn so far?? Neither do I, but let me tell you, it's a lot! --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|NS|+S 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:MoneySign -- 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather the morons fighting over a few hundred square miles of desert for 2000+ years would do what we were doing, writing silly things on the internet, rather than killing each other for no reason. There are real problems in the world. Uncyclopedia is not one of them. And if you don't think that primitive, sexist religions (including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, and others I forgot/don't know about) deserve to be ridiculed, or should be exempt from being ridiculed, then maybe this isn't the website for you. Last time I checked, there had never been a war motivated by atheism. How many wars have been motivated by religion?
--Hrodulf 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Listen, Mcmlxxviii, this is supposed to be FUNNY. It is all a JOKE. None of this is REAL. Muslims blowing themselves up just to kill a bunch of Israeli schoolchildren on a school bus IS real. If you don't like the humor on this website, tough. Go to another website, or don't view these religious pages. Frankly, I think the B*st*rds in the middle east who think Israelis are the devil are much more offensive then this. For the majority of us that LIKE this humor, I think it should stay. A fellow atheist - --Belugaperson 13:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Right on, brother. --Hrodulf 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, this is one of the better things on this sight. It's not just pointless, endless stupidity... this is actually funny. It's so obvious that this is a joke on religions in general. I can't understand what the big deal is. Why is it that people get so hot and bothered when peope make fun of God/Allah/Brahman/Whatever? God is more than capable of defending himself: we don't need to do it. So, Muslims. Stop being so... sensitive. And have a chuckle at this article. It's excellent. Oh, and just so you know, I too am a Muslim.

Sorry, Islam's a cult, not a religion, so it's fair game, like Scientology or Raelianism or Foot-fetishism. 18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? unfortunately, Genocide is the only answer to Islam. But us good Christian folk wont do it. Oh, Guess what? the UN hasn't decided whether the Darfur Genocide is actually genocide. only because its Muslims doing it. and we are only hearing about it because it is happening to black people. makes you sad at the state of the world, doesn't it?

No fuck that everyone be real racist and pollitically incorrect

Ok pal I will draw the line and then cross it.
I'll take a flying leap over it. --Ozymandiaz 17:29, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

crossing the line

I'm all for satire on religion. But this article sounds like it's coming from someone like Pat Robertson. If you want to be inflammatory, at least BE FUNNY about it. I didn't chuckle a single time while reading this piece of dung. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs)

Without fully reading the article, I can quite confidently say that you're right about the article not being funny. That's the "problem" with being a wiki: anyone can edit (almost) anything. But if you ask me, it's a small price to pay for the plathora of top-quality articles we've had so far.
But I digress... What can be done about this article? You can either rewrite it yourself, or hope someone else will. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|NS|+S 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

thats fine.. but I believe this section should just be erased.. I don't think that Wiki wants to be a website that is publicly harassed in the media for having this on here...

because im sure you know as well as I do that Muslim radicals will use anything as an excuse to accuse us of something bad.

However if we need to change little things like our freedom of speech, including the freedom to satire, then they have already won. This goes for the extremists of any group, whether religious, political, or whatever. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
This has nothing to do with Freedom of speech. Satire is one thing and uncyclopedia has many examples of pieces of satire that are funny (see Creationism). I have to agree with the author of this section, that this article is purely inflammatory.-- 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


i laugh so hard when i read those articles you have.... i just wonder how could you judge like that without even kowing what the muslims believe.. Allah means the only One God, it derive from the word Al-ILAH... this God that the muslim worship is the same God that speak to moses, this God is the God Abraham, jacob, izaac, david,solomon, ishmael, jesus and Muhammad(may the mercy of God and blessings be upon them all). so if the God of those prophets did not exist, what God are you worshiping? is it the Statu of Jesus in the Church? my brothers and sisters, i think Allah is exist than the Manmade God in the Church.. why? read the bible you can find lots of contradiction in it. read the 10 commandments 1 of the commandments is "THOU SHALL NOT TAKE ANY GODS BEFORE ME"...thus, if you're going to translate Allah to any Other Language it will means The only Creator from nothing... ofcorse you and i we can create something out clay,out od wood, out of steal, but we are making something out of something aren't we? but who can create something from nothing? something sample.. a drop of water, if the ocean is dried up ryt now who can create water and bring it back? you? no you cant.... why dont you just read and understand what the muslims believe with your open mind and open heart.

this is uncylopedia we should be able to be racist, inoccrect etc, stop being such bitches, besides Islams a pile of shit (mohhamed was a pedophile, and it claims the suns sets in a muddy river)

You religious types want us to respect your beliefs, but you refuse to respect ours. If you have a right to worship god, we have a right to make fun of god. If you're offended by that, be offended; you don't have a right to live your life without ever being offended. And if you can't understand that, than nothing I type here will ever make you understand anything. And to add a cliched, but true, observation, I highly doubt anyone is forcing you to read this article, or uncyclopedia. If you don't like what we do here, there's the door.

--RudolfRadna 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm a Muslim, and I do respect your beliefs. I haven't ever said a wrong thing about atheism... and people have a right to worship, but making fun is something entirely different. Please understand that. 21:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


As an avid Muslim - born and raised, the kind who is on a Muslim Student Association board and has prayed 'all five' for as long as I can remember I am *GLAD* that you wrote this article the way you did. If you had made exceptions for the "Allah" article in your uncyclopedia and explained it properly, then people would say: "hmm, if this is what they say Allah *is*, then this must actually be what he is *NOT*". The same way that the Prophet is quoted to have ignored people's insultive nickname for him ("Mudhammam") by saying to his friends "they aren't even talking about me."

I agree. I'm a Muslim. The article is on UNCYCLOPEDIA, and therefore, everything in this article is not true. (Plus it looks as if Anne Coulter wrote it). I don't appreciate everything said in this article, but I don't have a huge problem over it either. 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely right. As moslem, this page is surely a no problem. Unfunny, lack of "direct satire", just a bunch of bad words. Really. Q.

Take the sermons to another Wiki

We don't need any more of the "Christ is the answer, Islam is evil" crap on this page. That's not what uncyclopedia is for. If you want to write this stuff somewhere where someone actually might want to read it, go to and leave us jokesters alone. --RudolfRadna 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because you don't seem to understand the joke on this page, despite the big header up top directing you to read this talk page, and also directing you to Allah: The Annotated Version, which might be more to your taste. This is a parody of extreme Christian Islamophobia, full of hilariously illogical arguments and ridiculous hypocrisy. It is, in my opinion, a whole lot funnier than the crap about whatsisname you replaced it with. Let's have this discussion on the talk page before you run around blanking things, okay? -Conniption 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't blank the page, someone else did. It was blanked when I found it. This seems more like a joke about christianity than about Islam, but I'll leave it alone and see what other people think. I don't blank pages. --RudolfRadna 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And, ok, maybe the smurf thing wasn't that great. Why wasn't the " Allah's followers are particularly famous for their firm belief in tolerance and non-violence. They don't see it as their place to impose their religious views on others, and never, never, never saw people's heads off while they're still alive, because that would be mean." part funny? --RudolfRadna 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for accusing you of blanking the pages; I didn't notice the blanking and the new material were done by separate people. I've struck through the parts of my comment that make that claim but not deleted them outright so our discussion makes sense. The stuff about Allah's followers being tolerant could be funny in the context of a whole article, but I suppose it doesn't really fit the tone of the article, which would be more likely to claim Allah's followers are incredibly intolerant while in some way betraying the narrator's own intolerance. This is one of the challenges of the Uncyclopedia, of course. Do you put in every joke that you can come up with about a subject, or do you leave some jokes out (even funny ones) because they harm the cohesiveness of the article? I tend to go for the latter approach, I suppose. -Conniption 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying leave it in, I just didn't understand if you were saying it wasn't funny. I really think this article should be about a sarcastic view of religious tolerance, since I don't think it's on the topic of Islam, but rather, people's reactions to Islam, but that's just my opinion. I've decided to leave it alone and let other people work this out. --RudolfRadna 21:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another rewrite

I tried rewriting this crap, as per Mr. T's firm instructions. This version is coming from an ignorant, hypocritical, heavily fundamentalist-Christian point-of-view. It may sound needlessly vitriolic in terms of what it ways about Muslims at first, but if you read the article you'll see that every criticism is either an outrageous lie or something that closely mirrors something that Christians have done in their history. Not that this is admitted in the article of course. I kind of meant it to be a religious version of Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, by making a highly exagerrated statement in favor of an opinion you dohn't hold (i.e. Islam is evil), you are in reality making that viewpoint look ridiculous.

Anyway, just don't take the article too seriously. Take it as what it's meant to be: a heavily caustic mockery of xenophobic, suspicious, and ignorant fundamentalists who irrationally rail against any belief system that's not their own. I know religion is a touchy subject, but mindless fundamentalism I think is something that all rational people can share a good laugh at no matter what they believe in. --Jordanus 00:29, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sad you had to drop this comment in, but it does sound inflamatory enough at first that I think it's necessary. I'll keep an eye on this page, as I can see it having a hard time balancing on your finely crafted point of satire. I helped out a little, and overall I think it reads pretty smoothly. Nice work. --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 22:40, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, man, I appreciate the help and comments. Admin supervision is crucial for touchy subjects like this to survive.
Also, I was wondering what you think would be more effective for this article: to vary the language in order to make the commentary more inflammatory, or to strive for irony and parallelism at the cost of sounding awkward? In the first draft I tried to tweak the sentence structure so the accusations against Islam and the pro-Christian rhetoric would be as grammatically similar as possible, especially towards the end. Your additions break this symmetry, but on the other hand make the writing more outspoken and natural. I'm kinda on a fence about it - which do you think would be best? --Jordanus 23:40, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was noticing that. I dunno what's best - really, I felt that the last bit was leaning a little too heavily towards the "Islam Sucks" side, and wasn't as clearly satire as the rest. While it's clearer now, you are right in that it breaks the tone. So, since I shouldn't even be here with all the work I have to do, make a decision yourself. I'm cool with wherever you want to take this - if I don't like it, I'll muck up it up like I just did. You know, collaborative editing at its finest! My personal tone is generally more neutral and authorative, however, do see the value in how you phrased most of this. My goal is to keep a balance in the offenseness to both sides and prevent morons from ruining the whole thing. Do what you need to do. --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:26, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Nice touch-up job. I think it's now actually a little more painful for all involved. I, for one, will be amazed if we don't get this defaced on a moderately regular basis once it's linked to by enough articles. --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 23:16, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
So, this article may offend even more people than it could have before? I'd call that a resounding success!
Anyway, I guess this article may be a little too delicately balanced for its own good... I mean, Western-Arabic relations are ripe for satire, but any additions here would have to be written in a way that preserves the established ironic tone. I'll watch this page, and alter any additions as needed so the article stays coherent. And if there is any big-time vandalism, I'll know who to call. Thanks. --Jordanus 23:50, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I have real big trouble finding one funny line here. This seem like highly sarcastic argument against islam, and not a funny article. I haven't found it least bit funny, and I am an atheist. I really feels like it's written by some teenager who hates all that's islam. The article should make much less sense. It should not be sending any messages or getting any point across. --MK 22:27, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, then maybe you should read the long, in-depth, thoughtful discussion of this article's meaning and merits, which happened to be the very first thing appearing on this talk page. Please read an article's talk page before making extensive changes.--Jordanus 00:42, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I might have reacted too rashly, nonetheless i fail to find anything funny about this article even if ignore it's insulting tone. It' quite unimaginatitve. Let's take thei sentence 'Allah was first made up by some crazy guy named Mohammed, who lived in the deserts of what is now Saudi Arabia. ' What's meant to be funny here... the bit where he calls him's hillarious. Check out the description about foundation of islam on the Islam page, much funnier and more imaginatative.--MK 10:55, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree that that part could be done better. However, the point of the article is to show that the bias christian viewpoint of Allah is heretical, as a good percentage of both religions' beliefs are the same. And that christians have been as bad or worse than muslims throughout the ages. I can understand that it's hard to get past the blatent anti-islamic tone of the article, but if you can grasp the content, it's pretty much pointing out how similar both religions are.
But is it funny? Laugh-out-loud, piss my pants, funny, roll on the floor funny, no. Not in the least. But from a satire point of view, it's a damn fine article. Don't expect that it will be a barrel of laughs, but appreciate the biting satire. If you can. If not, can I suggest this page? --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 22:37, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite Notice

This article is boring and unfunny. Slapping ethnic slurs randomly all over the place does not equal humour. Now if they were relevant to the topic and used ironically...

I deleted that shite and wrote some different shite. To be honest, anything had to be better than that. --Mope 23:35, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The old version is one of the worst things I've ever read, and I didn't even read much of it. --Rcmurphy KUN 23:38, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The Ramadan page is teh funny. This article is just full of hate. I don't think it's in line with the humour in most other pages in Uncyclopedia.

From Uncyclopedia:Beginner's_Guide_to_Being_an_Uncyclopedian#Purpose:_What_the_Deuce_Is_an_.22Uncyclopedia.22.3F: "Humorous is the operative word here. While we say sarcasm is vaunted, we are not a dumping ground for pure propaganda, opinion, or flames."

I know it's not your obligation to rewrite the article, and I am not pushing for action towards it. I guess I just neeeded to air this concern out. Thanks for listening.

On a lighter note, it's also missing the obligatory Oscar Wilde quote.-- 19:27, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If this isn't amusing, I'd recommend you brush up on your religous history, both Catholic and Muslim. This article is balanced on a fine point, demonstrating that Christan and Muslim nations and belifs are almost identical. While it *sounds* anti-Islam, it is probably more anti-christian than anything. Both sides are burned pretty evenly here and the sarcasm is so well done it's hard to recognize it. Study the history of religion and then read this really carefully, and I hope you'll see how well done this really is. --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 19:54, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You make fun of christians just to please muslims and not make them angry. Honestly, I didn't find your article funny, and the sarcasm is too clearly against Christians (Wars, colonialism, Nazism, etc...) Please, rewrite your article, and try to not offend people of other faiths. Thank you.

The article isn't meant to mock all Christians... just fundamentalists who automatically hate all other religions and try to think of ridiculous arguments to support their prejudice. You know... people like Jerry Falwell, or that GODHATES-insert-non-Christian-group-here.COM. I do agree that the long addition to the "History" section (made by someone else) is a little harsher in some places (Nazis, etc). I'll see if I can edit it down a little and keep the tone consistent. It'll have to wait a week or so, though; I've got exams coming up on Monday. *joy*--Jordanus 01:41, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that would help. For instance:
  • Ambrose Bierce: "The Koran is a book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures." <-- funny
  • The current version of this article. <-- not funny
See what I mean? Fool 21:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Bierce quote matches the spirit of the *original* article perfectly. There have been additions since then, however, that I think contradict the tone. I've been meaning to edit it for awhile now, but, like I said, I'm buried in work until exams are over next week. If anybody else wants to try and fix it before then, feel free. Just please try to keep the tone and the humor consistent with what was originally there. There's a lot of discussion about it on this talk page and the annotated version, and I think the Bierce quote sums up the core of the humor nicely.--Jordanus 21:53, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Bloody jihad

A bloody jihad has descended upon this page. I have preserved some Bierce-like spirit without flogging the joke to death, burning it at the stake, and stomping on the ashes. Fool 22:30, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Jihad was bloody. It bloody sucked. Well, perhaps sucked is too strong of a word. It wasn't all that great, but the article had turned into a cesspool of crap, so there wasn't much to work with. While it may smart a little, Fool, I'm reverting back to a really old version, which was bitter and full of flameyness. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 19:10, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, whatever Allah wills is what happens, and we can only try. Perhaps some day the merciful Allah will permit this page to become funny, but for now you win, O article huffing one, and I shall thank the Exalted One that this version only flogs the joke to death. -Abu-Fool Fool ibn Fool ibn Fool al-Foolish 16:07, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Also, what's with Aïsha anyway. This, I simply don't get. Are we supposed to recognize the picture of "Aisha" or "Bilal"? Fool 19:42, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)


This article is so rubbish, I'll rewrite the whole bally thing!

The rewrite is decent, funny, and coherent, but I think it was unnecessary to just replace the original article. A lot of discussion and work went into that, and plus the Annotated Version page is now irrelevant and strange. After reading this discussion in the Village Dump, I'm trying to think of a way to accommadate both versions (your more traditional Uncyclopedia tone and my satirical Fundy Christian one). Some have suggested putting all the different POVs of an article onto one page, but I don't think that would work for an article this long. I propose making our two versions (or three, if you count the Annotated one) into separate pages, and make the Allah page a disamiguation page that points to them. So there can be a satirical, Christian Fundy Allah article (Allah (satire)), the annotated one (Allah: The Annotated Version), your more generally funny one (Allah (Uncyclopedic)), etc. That way both of our articles can be kept, but don't have to be crammed together into one page or awkwardly mixed together. What do you think? --Jordanus 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: After some discussion in the Village Dump, one of the admins decided to revert this page to my original version for the sake of order and coherency with other articles. But this doesn't mean that your article can't coexist. If you want, you can post your rewrite on another page with a slightly different name, like "Allah: God of Wonders", or "Allah (God)" or whatever you feel describes your version's content best, other than "Allah". If you decide to re-post your alternate version in this way, drop me a note on this talk page after doing so. If you do this, I can either

  • crosslink the two versions in their "See Also" sections, or
  • make "Allah" a disambiguation page that will simply provide links to both of our versions.

If you don't want to re-post your rewrite, then sit back, relax, and things will stay like they are now. Sound OK?--Jordanus 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I went and edited the entire thing because, given the previous discussions, nobody seemed to find the original article that funny. Neither did I. Yes, OK, I spotted some of the attempts to make the fundy Christian viewpoint look stupid, but I think the article succeeds in insulting both Muslims and Christians in a non-entertaining way. I thought we were supposed to be having fun misinterpreting Allah's greatness and not making fundy Christians look silly on Allah's page. I was going to add another joke about the arabic writing: "The God formerly known as Jehovah has changed his name to a hard-to-read symbol" - but I can't do that now as the whole thing is reverted. *sigh*. Technically speaking though, Allah is an ambiguation of the word "God" in real life, and not particularly related to Islam per se. --Neo-Rio

Just so you know, this talk page is not in chronological order. The first few negative comments in the "Rewrite notice" section were posted back when the article was a rascist inflammatory mess, before I came along and rewrote it in my Fundy tone. Most of the rest were made after an anonymous user added unfunny sections blaming Muslims for the Holocaust and such. For reference, I posted the rewrite on September 24 of '05.

Also, feel free to post your rewrite. I don't want to act like my comedic viewpoint is the only one allowed here. "Misinterpreting Allah's greatness" is just as validly funny as "I will prove Allah sucks by using embarassingly illogical arguments". So again, if you want, just re-post your article on another page with a similar name. Do this, and we can carry out what I described above.--Jordanus 14:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


I was a muslim now i have no religion. I found teh article to be quite humourous. You jsut got to look at it in teh viewpoint of someone who is fed up wiht religion.


Everything in this article is suppossed to be historically incorect, but correct me if I am wrong, isn't it actually true that Jerusalem was in Christian hands before the Muslims took it? Or were Muslims there from the day Allah created it? Here is the text in question.

Belief in Allah brought evil to the world again when he commanded his hordes to unprovokedly attack the Christian city of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages.

Well, the counterpoint to this sentence would be "Belief in God brought evil to the world again when he commanded his hordes to unprovokedly attack the Muslim city of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages". That's historically correct. Now, Muslims didn't always control Jerusalem, seeing as they had only been in existence since AD 600 or so, but I'm fairly sure that before the Crusades the city had only been under the control of Middle Easterners, never Europeans. Except for the Romans, of course. --Jordanus 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Eastern Roman Empire did indeed control the city until it was taken by force (ironically, just as the article describes, they "unprovokedly attack[ed] the Christian city of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages"). The article makes it seem like the Muslims just had the city when the Christians came out of no where demanding what they had never had. Since the annoted version said that everything in the article is incorrect, yet the above passage is correct, I believe that it violates uncyclopedia's fact-free policy.

The part about Jerusalem remains unchanged. Why is this?

In the context of the Crusades (which that sentence is based on) Jerusalem was held by Muslims until the Christian forces of Europe, under the leadership of Pope Urban IX and various European kings, attacked it without provocation. So, in the false Fundy counterview, the "truth" would be that the city was and always had been a Christian city, until the Muslims waged jihad on it and took it without provocation. Now, that may have occured at some point in the past. But, in context of the Crusades, it's the exact opposite of reality. --Jordanus 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Jerusalem, 6000 years ago the Jewish people lived there. Egypt fought them in a war and captured them and made them build pyramids, etc as slaves. Arabs moved in and called it Palestein, and built a city called Jericho and the Jewish people returned from Egypt after Moses freed them and wandered in the desert for a while, and Aaron took it back. Don't forget that the Zororasters and other religions had been in Jerusalem as well. Alexander the Great took it over once, as did the Roman Empire, so the Greek and Roman religions had been in there as well. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not funny

I am not a Muslim, but still I think that this page should be deleted. All over the world there is trouble relating to insults to the Islamic faith (such as the political cartoons in Denmark). You are asking for it. Remove this page or make it less offensive. -- 08:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines terrorism thusly: "[The] Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." You don't support terrorism, do you? So then why would you want to give the terrorists exactly what they want? Why give in to their unreasonable demands? Freedom of speech, even easily-misunderstood religious speech, is a right worth protecting. But if you lack the will to stand firm against terrorism (or the basic reading skills necessary to get this article's joke), then you're perfectly free to leave. --Jordanus 15:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Any Muslims here want to give their arguments? -- 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By "arguments" you mean "OMG U DAMN CHRISTIANS ALLAH WILL SMITE YOU!!!"? -Amarkov 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is NOT funny. it parodys muslims from a christian point-of-view, instead of something totally random, like uncyclopedia should be. And, what are you talking about, "giving into terrorists"??? He doesn't support terrorism. Although I think deleting this article IS a bit rash, it could use a rewrite. is a good example. ":By "arguments" you mean "OMG U DAMN CHRISTIANS ALLAH WILL SMITE YOU!!!"? " actually, christians suck too.

Er, judging by the first few sections, it parodies Christianity and Christian arrogance and sanctimoniousness. It purports to pinpoint "absurdities" in Islam which actually have direct parallels in Christianity, but the supposed "author" of the article is too ignorant to realize this. —rc (t) 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Relly ashamed to all religions

I'm christian feel relly ashamed about what these people posted...what have been written must be removed, this kind of people who make this are against all religions, against the humanity, christians are innocet of this kind of people. we have to fight against this kind of terror, which is the terrorism against all religions. Allah mean god in arabic which is the same god for jews, christians,Muslims. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

Pssstttt, terrorists really do not follow Allah's teachings, and although many claim to be Muslims they really worship Moloch in secret instead. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You just gotta love Moloch. But seriously, i'm a Christian and do not find this article offensive. Sure, some parts of it might be crass and maybe a little distasteful, but I think it can be improved. Yes, it is written from a Fundie viewpoint(why don't the terrorists blow up the RIGHT people?) but I think this is more an anti-Christian article than anything else. Yes, the irony is a nice idea, but not well executed. It needs to be more subtle or to be re-written. -Sayle
What do you people who complain about being offended think Uncyclopedia IS? Happy happy land? Go get eaten by a Grue. -Amarkov 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, I am against all religions. What's your point? --Hrodulf 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
all religions should be banned, starting with the nonsense that is islam. Message to all MUdSLIMeS: ALLAH DOES NOT EXIST! And crying about it won't actually change that. Allah does not exist and Muhammad was a murderer and rapist. and not a prophet.

I'm utterly sick of all these socalled religions particularly islam claiming that we should not be allowed to mock them. But mock them we will because who on earth would believe such utter nonsense as some allah existing? -- 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'll mock you, because you're just as stupid, if not stupider.
"WE MUST BAN RELIGION BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT. WAAAAAAAH!!! YOU FUCKING RELIGIONOUS PEOPLE ARE INSANE! I DON'T CARE THAT I HAVE NO GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG, SO I'LL JUST CALL YOU STUPID!!! And did I mention that I am the sole arbiter of truth, on account of my holy venerable GREAT powers of logic? I don't see you religious people flaming arguments simply because you disagree to dismiss them.
-Amarkov 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

u fuckin assholes mother fuckers


Thank you for your eloquent and serious concerns about the impact of this article on modern society. We will address your concerns as soon as we figure out exactly what you were saying.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg thee sir, might I use thy dialogue in my upcoming play The Tightening of the Screw? (For the "Before" part, naturally). --User:The Bard/sig 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol just becuase muslim women are sluts and whore who like dick doesnt mean all are


Do we have to parody Christianity in every single religious article on here? Why can't we parody Islam here? Like, "There is no chicken but Allah, and Muhammed is his egg" or something like that. No, instead it has to be a parody "pro-Christian" article, like every other one is. Beezwax 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the articles that satire Muslims crashing planes into buildings because of people not converting to Islam or setting off car bombs? Hmm? Instead, we have to go blasting Christians for their "xenophobia" (totally ignoring the more aggressive xenophobia that muslims have). Why can't we have an article that is from an obviously biased Muslim point of view, so as to satire them too? Or are you afraid of being beheaded? I guess that's a legitimate concern, but those extremists don't scare me. PTHBTHBTHBTHBTBH! Beezwax 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because fear and suspicion of Muslims by Christians is rather more common than Muslims strapped to suicide bombs? Besides, there are plenty of articles that mock Islam, and deservingly so. *cough* *cough* --Jordanus 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Because all religions are equally flawed. Actually, Christians are more Xenophobic than the Xenophobic munslims its thier Xenophobia that makes them think all other religions are more Xenophobic than thier Xenophobic religion so just drop it you idiotic Xenophobe.

Allah = God, but,

Yeah, Allah, God, and the jew guy are all the same ass-kickering entity.

But still, the article was hilarious, though the warning might be better up top.

Credit to the Author

I am a muslim and was of course naturally uniclined to read this article, simply to prevent me getting annoyed. Then I read the annotated version and thought 'surely an intelligent person doesnt need these annotations?' And I was right.

This whole article is actually quite ingenius how it highlights the stupidity of what some uneducated fools who call themselves Christians come up with to argue against Islam, and how it just turns the whole thing on its head. It even gives such Christians, in my opinion, reason to stop being so idiotic and start arguing with Muslims on a more loving level of wanting the other to convert to their own religion or at least make peace with them. This is especially true in the section that talks about a very scary cruel sounding Allah then a fathering God of the Cristians. That was truly ingenius for as we know Allah/God is both characteristically.

I dont think Cristians should be offended by it either for it highlights the stupidty of the fools amongst their own people, which allows them then to laugh at their fools as us Muslims laugh at the fools among us, and then help them.

Leave this up, thoug it will still displease even the most temperant Muslim. Its very clever smart humour.

Much credit to the Author.

OK Peoples...

All you shut up, look these idiots wrote a lot of stupid stuff, and have offened my religon (Christianity, and it isn't sexist!) But, as the 'funny" evoultionists act, they won't stop. Come on, KKK? Mafia? Satan? You shouldn't be messing around with this stuff. It's wrong. My opinion is that no religion is real besides Christianity, but I don't go spamming Uncyclopedia with fake crap about religion, repubicans, democrats(that seal of Democractic Party was "lol" though), or people's beliefs or opinions. I know it's a joke n' all, but you can get sued or get your article a... DELETED!(Just like Strong Bad). And Hrodulf, you shut your big bigoted yap! I'm sorry I said that, but are just like: FUCK ALL RELIGIONS, I HATE YOU, FU, ALLAH'S DUMB, GO TO HELL IF LIKE GOD, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! Have a bigoted life. *Waves. edit: 2. -Nonbasher 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)NonbasherNonbasher 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful opinion on the content of this site. If you would like to make the article funnier, press 1. If you would like to make an ass of yourself, press 2. --General Insineratehymn 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why the last penultimate part of the article is NOT funny though we are supposed to be in a Humor encyclopedia?

Even though the humor in Uncyclopedia may be low, and not really humourous (and the "talented" writers keep it from being that), you can't call the last part of the article a joke. The Muslim reader looks at this and says to himself, "fuck Uncyclopedia! They ain't even funny, and now it's just gotten worse." Then goes to talk about it in the talk page, knowing deep inside that his comment won't be throughly read. The Christian reader, or shall I say, Anti-Muslim/White-Supremacist/Xenophobe reader looks at this and says, "Totally right!" of course, with seemingly no caring for other people's opinions. The rest of the readers, considering they have good souls (and only people with good souls will go to heaven), read this and say "Man, this is straight out Bullsh!t! So annoying!" and then go and talk about it in the talk page, just like the Muslim reader, however without POV on the subject. Personally, I am not a Muslim or an Arab, but not Anti-Muslims/Arabs. And as a person whose country has also suffered from Terrorist attacks based on Religion, I still don't hate them. I don't think that this religion, although slandered like any other religion here at Uncy, deserves this talk about their god. I am going to delete a LOT of it right now; Sue me if you want. This article doesn't border on Xenophobia, it's already 200 miles behind the border, getting ready to attack the Capitol. Want an example? take this part, from Today: "His religion of Islamism is the sole reason for all of the suffering in the world today. All disease, all war, all tax fraud stems directly from his corrupt commandments." or, from Conclusion: "In recent years the outrageous anti-Christian jihad has only grown in intensity. The aggressiveness of this "holy war" is characteristic of the religion that spawned it. The ultimate aim of the jihad is to invade every land in the world, destroy all traces of Christianity, make these places into bastions of Islamism and Allah-worship, and then to spread their lies even farther. There is no room for tolerance or coexistance in the religion of Islamism.

Genocide is the only way for them to seed the world with their evil. Their warlike and intolerant god commands it."

Want more? There's plenty...currently. Peace to all mankind

Oh, Dear, let me tell you one thing that, as a moderate Muslim (at least I can deduce this from you coming to this site) you probably have heard over and over. Count how many entries in this wiki do satire of Jesus. If that is not enough an answer I will tell you that you have absolutely no right to demand us not mocking from your religion as we do with any other. If your religion is in its stereotype - and humor does deal with stereotypes - related to rebellion, war and intolerance, it surely won't help you playing the offended Muslim pacifist demanding special privileges - read censorship - that contradicts the principle of equality before the law present in all real democracies. In other words, either you jump on our bandwagon of unlimited mockery or you will just reinforce our view that Islam is, if not all about terrorism, pedophilia and martyrdom, at least fully incompatible with what we call freedom. -- herr doktor needsAV2 Rocket [scream!] 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest rewriting it, to make it funny? Peace to you. RabbiTechno 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To HerrDoktor: sorry to disappoint you, but as I said in what I have just written, I am not Muslim. You may say that I am Muslim but denying it, and to that I say, believe what you believe.

Far worse then. -- herr doktor needsAV2 Rocket [scream!] 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To RabbiTechno: sorry, but I myself am not such a funny person; I come to Uncyclopedia to laugh, and in the end always go around commenting on something that takes away some of my time, which could get better use, frankly. Good thing I write really, really fast (I can write with my eyes close- of course, you have no way to see it).

Why not remove all religion related stuff in uncyclopedia? It's not funny anymore!

Allah's 99 Names

Did you know that Allah has 99 names? Just letting you all know... and yeah you all will burn in hell :) -- 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC) One of those names is David Beckham. And yes, all Muslims WILL burn in Hell, a nice section is reserved for genocidal suicide bombers who force their women to go out in sheets. 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a muslim

And am not offended by this ^_^ --Metal Moe 11:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. --Game over 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with me. This page is surely unfunny and totally different with Islam that I know, so it absolutely can't counter it. To see how Islam is carely seen, although in a bad way, It makes me proud as a Moslem. Q.

You are just as bad as those terrorists yo talk of in this stupid article full of hate and misconception

I threaten you know. Close these bad articles of hate or have this entire encyclopedia banned by governments and ISPs.

Ha ha at you IP. Don't you know that your governments are being controlled by the The Zionist Entity? ~Jewriken.GIF 09:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


You know what? I seriously love this site. It's hilarious, but there's a difference from 'hilarious' and 'offensive'. This is making fun of something. This maybe a parody, but it's OFFENSIVE. Making fun of religions and things people really care about is simply disgusting. I know I'm being a sucker for your fun, but why can't we ALL, including Muslims, look upon this and laugh? Because right now I'm not laughing. 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Fucken aye, man. This is absolutely not funny. And I'm an atheist. :P Allah's dick, Allah's vegina? Hahahahaha? What the hell? Get Uncyclopedic, man, not Idiotpedic. Funny 22:29, 30 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You're an athiest, really? Your IP is in Pakistan. If you dont find the article funny, edit as you like. --Allahgator 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the annotated version

i liked the annotated (and older) version better please consider reverting

I'm not sure what you mean, do you want to revert this article so that it matches the annotated (old) version? --Allahgator 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

deodorant and islam

I think we need some explanation as to why Islam has banned its sheeple from using toothpaste and deodorant. Stinky bastards. Your whole gas station smells like a goats dick ~~ Mr Matt Scheaffer

Good idea. --Allahgator 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I thought you aren't supposed to be a dick? This article is very dickish! Very Offensive!

Shouldn't you also have a disclaimer saying that Allah isn't really like this?--Obaidz96 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Allah is really a dick head, are you surprised? --Allahgator 04:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not islamophobic and I am against that, but this is supposed to be insulting. Anyway there is way more things to make fun of Islam, than Jews or Catholics, or whatever. Did you forget about 9/11, did you forget that it is a national holiday in muslim countries? Catholics have never done that, Jews have never done that, Buddhists, Protestants, none other religions have done that. Trrri333 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really commenting no the issue at hand, just a thought - did you hear about WWII? What was that...oh! Protenstants mainly wasn't it? Err...Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? Witch Burning? ~Jewriken.GIF 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Err...Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? Witch Burning" really? Kind of makes the point when you have to go back 100's of years to find stuff like that for other religions but for Islam you can just look in yesterday's paper for some atrocity in the name of god ~~Matt Scheaffer

Better get back to your history books and check when was WWII. ~Jewriken.GIF 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Tri? Why aren't you islamophobic? It terrifies me more than Stephen King could ever could. It's the the reason women get punished after being raped. The reason mothers celebrate their childs suicide. And of course we've all seen the pictures of those two teenage boys being hung. Islam is disgusting. Judaism, ritulistically mutilates 8 day old boys, and in it's orthadox circles is highly sexist. Buddism is an improvement a thousand fold but - believe it or not - has it's fundamentals too and that's what the fighting in the east has been about between buddists and hindus. And Christianity - in all it's lewd forms - is only slightly less insane than Islam proven by the fact it has the cheek to be two-faced about it's laws. Love by throwing rocks. It's vaguely dickish in my honest opinion.
Oh and sory to be cunty Mordillo but wasn't the Hollocaust more down to catholcism, I heard that was the dominant religion in germany at the time. doesn't matter though they're essentially the same. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 11:16 23 August 2008
The holocaust was supported and later ignored by Catholicism and first ignored and finally condemned by Protestantism. Organized religion inherently has pockets of fundamentalism and beliefs that seem bizarre to those outside. Sexism runs in all forms of religion, as having such "exclusivity" will always lead to some form of discrimination. But taken at their purest form religion is a pretty decent sounding thing - most accepted teachings preach peace, it is only the few that conscrew these for their own purpose of getting power, money or some kind of gratification. Sadly these teachings are unworkable in the real world because of this. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent Icons-flag-au Noobaward Wotm Unbooks mousepad GUN 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually a lot of that is quite off, but I just love people with lots of opinions on things... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're all missing my point here, what I meant is - all religions have a nasty side to it, especially the monoteistic ones. All had their period of violence, all have their extremists who commit attrocities in the name of their deity. All religions should be mocked equally, if at all. No one should have a presidence over the other. I stand corrected about the WWII thing, even though I believe that the majority then was Protestante (doesn't mean a thing, since it wasn't about religion). And Orion, you have quite a lot to learn about both Islam and Judaism. ~Jewriken.GIF 12:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
My name's Orian. And I guess, though I have studied Judaism. Being fair on it, it seems like the lesser evil, it , at least, takes time to look at itself and does have some good philosophies. However I still think it's based on the fundamental fallacy of God's eistance. As for Islam, you're right, I know very little but I know enough and can see exactly how evil it is. As for religion sounding decent, parts of it do superficially, if you take a closer look at some of the new testiment passages they too have little relevance for modern civilised society. Take Islam (it seems aproprite for this page) people will argue that it's the religion of peace and direct you towards some of the more placid passages of the Quaran, this is fine but then you have to ask yourself: "what is a religion of peace doing systimatically murdering the citizens of countries that are mostly islamic? Why is Iran pushing so hard for nuclear weaponry that a peaceful country (and religion, it rules the politics in the middle east) would have no need for?" then of course there is that fact that all of these scriptures are mutually contradictory and can be used to prove whatever the hell takes your fancy that particular Friday. My main point is why bother with religion when you can be good without it? Following a religion only confuses matters. Anyway I'll leave it at that, when I talk about religion I only ever seem to get on the wrong side of people, and I don't want that. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 14:10 23 August 2008
Religion gives humans 2 things - 1. A sense of place in a group, 2. Security. These things are pretty hard to come by for some people. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent Icons-flag-au Noobaward Wotm Unbooks mousepad GUN 14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add the Arabic interwiki, it's hell funny

I thought hell was meant to be sort not funny... :S ~Orian57~ Icons-flag-gb ~Talk~ Gay sign 17:11 28 February 2009

I was thinking ...

(That's a first) Yeah, anyway, I was thinking of adding the following three quotes to the article but I thought I better bring them here first and see what you think. So here they are:

“Leave Allah ALONE! He's a human buh-hee-innng!”
~ Chris Crocker on Allah

{{Q|No He's not.|[[Captain Obvious}}

“Well I think we can all agree He's a spoilt brat!”
~ Oscar Wilde

Comments? --Ozymandiaz 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As no complaints are forthcoming, insert the quotes in question into the article. Much love. --Ozymandiaz 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


O.K. I can understand that this article can and is offending people but who exactly? The only people it is offending are a bunch of manical terrorists wearing bomb straps running around blowing up buildings, so there is definitly no reason to get rid of this sweet article. Love it! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

Not funny

In fact this article seems too serious. Make it funnier please. I'm not offended by it or anything lol --O0oSorousho0O 22:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. —Pelozurian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)