It isn’t funny because it’s true.

Discussion (57)¬

  1. Tim says:

    Missing an “at” in the final panel I think author? (Jesus says: “If you can’t laugh the slaughter…”)

  2. Author says:

    Thanks, Tim. Fixed.

  3. Fred+Flintstone says:

    Point made in four panels – excellent as usual

  4. GK says:

    Islamic Human Rights Commission? Now there’s an oxymoron.

  5. jean-françois+gauthier says:

    holding my breath for the whitey award from the nazi african heritage political action committee (formerly the national-socialist association for the advancement of coloured people).

  6. Emma says:

    Oooh! Close to the bone. Love the Grauniad front page too.

  7. PDiddy says:

    Loving the headline on the paper Mo is reading. Nice subtle joke there author, as always, very topical 🙂

  8. Matt says:

    What, it’s real?? Good christ, whatever next? The only silver lining I can see is that Islamists and Islamophobiaphobes make themselves so ludicrous with their posturing that they’ll be laughed off the planet eventually. Glad to see The Metro taking the piss out of Jihadi John this morning. It’s the only appropriate response to him and to IHRC. Two of a kind.

  9. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    The winners of the award were unavailable for comment on account of most of them being dead.

  10. Do I detect mounting anger about the influence that Islam exerts around the Globe and against its apologists? If so, it is about time that we who live in the comfortable West have the guts to stand up and call it like it is: a death cult that seeks to dominate by any means possible.

    David Amies

    David Amies

  11. Nassar+Ben+Houdja says:

    The “Islamic human rights commission”
    Gets a laugh, to the point of pissin
    The only rites they give, with guns
    Are referred to as the “last ones”
    These dudes need a serious “dissin”.

  12. white+squirrel says:

    Are MI5 to blame for the CIA and CSB too?

  13. white+squirrel says:

    I thought it was supposedly the LGB to blame for most things not MI5

  14. white+squirrel says:

    if Mo reads the guardian when J reads the bible which paper does J read when Mo reads the Quran

  15. white+squirrel says:


    It isn’t funny because it’s true.


    the bible and quran are the most hilarious books ever

  16. Macha says:

    The alert email was funny …

    “putting the LAUGH back into sLAUGHter”

    … excellent

  17. Macha says:

    A black humour comment from t’Interweb ..

    “Staff at Charlie Hebdo were unable to accept the award as many of them had been murdered for mocking Mohammed”

  18. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Macha, see my comment up page.
    Still, I suppose it was a pretty obvious pun.

    I propose an ‘Anti-Humanist of the Year’ award. No prizes for guessing the inaugural recipients.

  19. plainsuch says:

    If by Islamophobe they mean ‘a person too afraid of Islamist retaliation to criticize Islam”, then they gave it a good try but they were just outclassed by Charlie Hebdo.

  20. Mary2 says:

    Wow. Not funny at all – not Authors fault, just gobsmackingly poor judgement from the IHRC! Good job Author. Next week: a National Socialist organisation accuses Jews of being anti-Nazi.

  21. chris beckett says:

    I’m an athesist/agnostic. Too many people have suffered hurt and death, because of religion, politics, and money. In my community, there are folks from all over the world – and we all respect each others’ opinions. Which, actually makes for a good community…last night I exchanged some Scottish Haggis with my neighbour, in exchange for a Fijian dish. I guess I was born too late – “Communard” (1870s) by nature. I respect others’ religion, although I have none myself, but as long as it doesn’t lead to violence

  22. IMO, Islamophobe of the year should go to DAESH – they have done more to spread hatred towards Muslims than anyone else by far.

  23. Paddy says:


  24. Paddy says:

    Maybe Boko Haram in the African category too.

  25. Mary2 says:

    Heather H, Hear, hear!

  26. Shaughn says:

    Urban II and the crusaders may have been right, after all.

  27. two cents' worth says:

    Nassar, I love your poem!

  28. two cents' worth says:

    Gary Trudeau apparently hadn’t heard the news about the IHRC’s award when he created last Sunday’s Doonesbury cartoon:

  29. Notann Ayfeyest says:

    I thought you folks might find this funny.


    Why not? Because you can’t not believe in something unreal. There is, after all, no word for “a-santa-ist”.

  30. two cents' worth says:

    Notann, that was infidelicious!

    I heard something on the BBC Newshour today that made me laugh out loud. The presenter reported that the Dalai Lama said that he might not be reincarnated, but that the Chinese government said that they would decide whether or not he would be reincarnated. Atheists are laughing for obvious reasons, and the Buddhists are laughing, too, because earthly powers have no control over whether someone is reincarnated or not.

    For what the Dalai Lama and China actually said, see

  31. two cents' worth says:

    Maybe the BBC presenter did get it right! The Say What? quote for today on : “Decision-making power over the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, and over the end or survival of this lineage, resides in the central government of China.”
    — statement by government officials

  32. two cents' worth says:

    Also off-topic, but timely, is the cartoon at , marking the passing of Terry Pratchett, one of my favorite authors. Let your mouse hover over the picture to see the extra pop-up message.

  33. two cents' worth says:

    I should have typed above. Now you have the link.

  34. white+squirrel says:

    assuming there is such a thing as reincarnataion [ what happens to the evicted soul?]
    the next reincarnation of the DL might be as the president of China

  35. Shaughn says:

    Given the fact that there are about 1000 cockroaches and several thousand other souls like mites and ants and bedbugs per human, chances are that one of them reincarnates as president rather than this DL.

  36. white+squirrel says:

    Shaughn’s answer brings up the question of the floor limit of reincarnation – what sentinece level supplies a ‘soul’
    down to insects – perhaps but why stop there
    plants? nematodes? protists? bacteria ? viruses ? DNA retaining clay? rocks?
    probably easier to just assume souls and reincarnation are wish fulfilment fantasy

  37. Shaughn says:

    According to good old animism, anything and everything under the sun has a soul. Even the wind.
    Its modern counterpart, physics, states that anything and everything under the sun, even the wind, has energy or is a form of energy if you like. Since energy will be recycled untill entropy’s equilibrium, that recycling may be reincarnations modern scientific counterpart. (Every breath we take is said to contain a few molecules that once were part of Julius Caesar, Napoleon etc. ) Thus, soul = energy.

    So energy we are and to energy we will return in due course – which sounds awfully like ‘dust 2 dust’.

  38. TrueFork says:

    I admit I never understood how Buddhists reconcile belief in re-incarnation with the doctrine that nothing has an essential nature. What is there to re-incarnate if there is no Self to begin with?

  39. white+squirrel says:

    ‘nothing has an essential nature’

    beleivers in ‘god’ categorically affirm this

    Buddhists reconcile belief in re-incarnation with the doctrine that nothing has an essential nature.
    TrueFork expalins that just like Xians and mouse-lims, Buddhists too are comfortable with ‘doublethink’

  40. nothingtodowithscientology says:

    Westerners are funny when they try to comprehend buddhism.

  41. white+squirrel says:

    Buddhists are also funny when they try to comprehend buddhism

  42. Shaughn says:

    Comprehension is not buddha.

  43. nothingtodowithscientology says:

    You don’t even know what it is your criticising. In it’s purest form it’s not even a religion. Buddha was one of the worlds first atheists of any note, meditation has actual benefits, unlike prayer. I’m not even buddhist anymore but the smug atheist circle-jerk on here is quite laughable sometimes. Most of you are just reacting to the fact that the abrahmic faiths are bullshit. As if thats something to be proud of. So what? I don’t do meth.

  44. Shaughn says:

    the smug atheist circle-jerk on here is quite laughable sometimes.

    Yes indeed, aren’t we? Self-mockery is a quality of ours that true religious believers should envy

  45. Acolyte of Sagan says:


    I don’t do meth.

    Apparently you don’t do humour either. You certainly do need something to help you lighten up a little. No point in waiting for your next incarnation to have a giggle.

    ….smug atheist circle-jerk…..

    Cor, that’s original. My bullshit-detector is picking up the whiff of an apologist in the bar.

    Anyhoo, and apropos of nothing;

    I have just heard somebody – an adult, no less – on the television say, in all seriousness, that “I can’t even Google-image that in my mind.”

    Sometimes it’s the little things that depress me the most.

  46. white+squirrel says:

    In it’s purest form [buddhism’s not even a religion.

    does this mean that most Buddhists are impure?

  47. plainsuch says:

    In it’s purest form being Christ-like isn’t Christian.
    In it’s purest form Islam-of-love-and-peace isn’t like Mo-the-conquerer.
    In it’s purist form English is seldom spoken.

  48. Mary2 says:

    Ah, but what is Buddhism’s purist form? That is something we can meditate on for several lifetimes.

    (Unless we all come back as cockroaches. I assume cockroaches are not big on meditation.) Another thought: if cockroaches don’t meditate how can they progress up the reincarnation ladder? What does it mean to live a good life as a cockroach?

  49. Shaughn says:

    Maybe that living a good cockroaches life is cockroaches way of meditation. Ans what if meditationless living and just living is the last step from the nirvana end at the reincarnation ladder?

    We tend to think that top of the food chain is toward the upper end of every chain, but suppose nirvana is at the other end?

  50. plainsuch says:

    Good question. I had assumed that the purest form would be found by scraping away a couple of millennia accumulation of dogma, over-thinking and rationalizing to find the original Buddha. But Fundamentalists tend to believe that the purest form of their religion is one that they think existed in the past, just a little too far back for any living person to actually remember.

  51. plainsuch says:

    I don’t do meth.

    I didn’t laugh at you.

  52. white+squirrel says:

    Another thought: if cockroaches don’t meditate how can they progress up the reincarnation ladder
    this thought brings another
    if reincarnation is somehow ‘progressive’ and or reward/punitive
    then what is the mechanism of soul allocation?
    ‘god’? the transferring soul itself? the collective sub-con of humanity/ all life adjudicating? aliens? something else?

  53. Shaughn says:

    what is the mechanism of soul allocation?


    Just pondering: does an enlightened need a light in the dark?

  54. hotrats says:


    does an enlightened need a light in the dark?

    Many people say that it’s not that kind of light, it’s the opposite-of-heavy kind.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.