└ Tags: ,

Discussion (39)¬

  1. Someone says:

    Ah, so THAT’S what ‘covfefe’ means!

  2. hotrats says:

    Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends – well that’s Jesus out twice, isn’t it?

  3. Michael says:

    You’re just bigoted against bigots.

  4. pink squirrel says:

    Covfefe means whatever user of the term wants it to mean.
    yet again we have Mo extending his speech beyond what it sufficient and necessary
    in this case – “no I think we should reject bigots”
    while in the quran ” There is no god’ sufficed

  5. jveeds says:

    I think the Qur’an does not actually use the word “Christian” (though that may be the group meant). Or am I just being too picky?

  6. jveeds says:

    The actual word is “nasara” or “supporters”…I think.

  7. Laripu says:

    @hotrats, nice to see someone who remembers Frank Zappa. In his words (from Dumb All Over):
    God knows what he’s doin’
    He wrote this book here
    An’ the book says:
    He made us all to be just like Him,
    If we’re dumb…
    Then God is dumb…
    (An’ maybe even a little ugly on the side)

  8. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    The solution was easy to figure
    It involves non muslims murder
    That eliminates those
    Away the inferior goes
    Elimination in islam is always the answer

  9. ….and as for those other sorts of Muslims…..

  10. John Moriarty says:

    I Islamophobe hahahahaha

  11. ac says:

    jveeds, according to this:

    and to this:

    Nasara is a proper noun meaning “the Christians” (from singular Nasrani (Nazarene))

    nasarin is a helper

    ansari are helpers.

    So Quran is actually Christianityphobe.

  12. Vittal says:

    @hotrats – was Jesus a Christian? Seems like it would be hard for him to be a follower of himself. Perhaps only his shadow would count as a Christian?

  13. samhuff says:


    I wondered for Jesus to be a Christian wouldn’t he have to be his own personal savior?

  14. LD50 says:

    Where do these references to ‘covfefe’ and ‘nasara’ come from? They don’t appear in the cartoon. Are they commonly used? I’ve never heard of them 🙁

    Vittal, I’m pretty sure Jesus was a Jew, plain and simple: born to a Jewish mother, in Judea, living according to Jewish laws (For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.)

  15. hotrats says:

    Chrisitanity is predicated on the myths of resurrection and vicarious atonement, about which he never spoke, because he first had to die. The living Jesus would have rejected anything that challenged the Law of Moses, such as personal worship, or a new holy scripture, as the worst kind of idolatry. However, it doesn’t really matter; Christians routinely misrepresent and traduce what the Bible claims he actually said, so his role was mainly to hurry up and get crucified so we could all be saved, and forget how Jewish he was.

  16. jveeds says:

    AC: if i understand the references you supplied correctly, you are supporting my point that the Qur’an does not use the term “Christian” — rather the transliterated terms “nasara,” nasarin,” “ansari” clearly refer to the group later known as Christians, without directly calling them that.

    LD50: I’m afraid you’ve been taken in by a little joke referring to a recent Trump tweet in which he said: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe” — yep, that’s all it said. And no one has any idea what covfefe meant. My guess is that he was using voice recognition feature on his iPhone (which doesn’t have autocorrect) and meant “coverage”…or maybe “conference”…or “coffee.” The tweet went out just after midnite and wasn’t deleted until 6am.

  17. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    jveeds, if I’m following your logic, then a French translation of the NT wouldn’t contain the story of Jesus turning water into wine because it would speak instead of l’eau and vin.

  18. Graham ASH-PORTER says:

    Stop pointing out the hatred in the Quran, or I’ll remind them abou the hatred in the Bible and Torah…

  19. Deimos says:

    Graham: I think that’s why the Old Testament was added to the basic “Ladybird book of Jesus” that can be easily understood and followed. It needed shed loads of added complexity and rules to stop people enjoying themselves.

    The nice non-judgemental, hippie Jesus was no good for punishing people or starting wars. His only recorded temper tantrum was against the money lenders and he quickly stopped the fuss without hurting anyone. Even worse when faced with yer actual devil AND Death he turned the other cheek! Outrageous I’d say.

    In fact if you refine the whole Jesus thingy down to its main imperative, it is “Love !”. Not do or worship or conquer or convert or hate or fear but Love. Even worse it doesn’t specify limits or rules for this Love, you could end up loving anyone and everyone – scandalous !.

  20. Deimos says:

    PS any further thoughts on Love should be addressed to “Thunder”, my huge black leopard cat. He is a multi species, trisexual pawvert who Loves everything. This I believe qualifies him as a most excellent follower of Jesus. Although his way of dealing with money lenders involves lovingly clawing them into better career choices.

    Meow Dudes

  21. Anonymous says:

    @Vittal: In my opinion, Jesus counts as the first Christian: he was the first one who ever believed he was the son of God. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have preached that, right?

    However, he also preached humbleness while saying that he was the truth, the way and the life… quite inconsistent, isn’t it?

  22. Son of Glenner says:

    Deimos: Re Jesus’ temper tantrum, wasn’t there also some story about a fig tree that he cursed?

  23. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    SoG, typical Christian; pigs out on the fruits then blames the tree for the aftermath!

  24. Someone says:

    SoG, that fig tree story is one of the few from the NT I actually remember vividly; the rest seem like a montage of clips run together.

    I love that is basically starts off with “Jesus was hungry” – just those three words I felt were more storytelling than the rest if the NT preaching. Thing is, I always felt it rude that Jesus was cursing a tree before it was in season to bear fruit, allowing it to die, just so he could prove his divinity and the power of prayer.

    In that sense, the curse of the fig tree can easily be seen as a metaphor for all of Christendom; to sum it crassly, “Fuck you, I’m Jesus and if you don’t do what I say, you can die and go to Hell!”

  25. Some Dude says:

    Regardless of what the actual words in the original Arabic were, the Quran makes pretty clear the case that unbelievers are bad people (specially the Jews).

    You can be specific and have a discussion about whether the word used in ayaat 5:51 is “friends” or “allies”, since various translations differ on that. However, that’s just one verse. If you keep reading the damn book, there’s an obscene amount of other verses that suggest the very same idea: the Kaffir is evil.

    Some people try to make the case that bad ideas in Islamic scripture are just mistranslations, but the number of passages that support these ideas is overwhelming. Either those ideas are genuine or there has been a huge plot to mistranslate the books in every single released edition (not likely).

  26. LD50 says:

    The fig tree story shocked my daughter. She’d thought that Jesus was supposed to be good.

    From a theological point of view, how on earth did it make it into the bible?

    And Jesus said, “go forth and you will find a fig tree. And gather the figs from that tree and bring them that we may eat and be glad.”
    But the disciples said, “Lord! It is not the season for figs!”
    And Jesus answered, “have you still not understood? After all the things I have done before you?”
    And so the disciples went forth and they found the fig tree, as Jesus had said they would. But it was bare.”
    Now the disciples were wrought with anguish. For they said “the Lord will surely be mightily pissed!” So they went to the market to try and buy figs. But there were none.

  27. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    ‘Jesus was hungry’.
    What! God incarnate gets hungry? What the fuck was he eating for the eternity between thinking himself into existence and getting around to making stuff? Did he have himself born as man not to save us from himself but just to get something to eat?
    S’fistikayted theology at it’s finest.

  28. LD50 says:

    And so they returned and said, “Lord! We found the tree, as you said. But it was bare. Even though we believed there would be figs. For you said there would be.”
    And Jesus was puzzled. For he was God, and he was infallible and omniscient. “Was it that tree behind that hill over there, next to the road to Jerusalem?” He asked. “It was, Lord!” the disciples cried in amazement. “But there were no figs.”
    “Some bugger must have eaten them!” said Jesus and he was wrath with righteous anger!”
    “Let us go to the tree and cause havoc!”
    And so they went.
    Jesus saw the barren tree and screemed at it, “those were MY figs! Whom did you give the figs to?”
    And the tree said, “My Lord, I am but a tree. I am as YOU made me, without defences. What was I to do? Some hungry children came, and they took the figs.”
    And Jesus said, “if you had had faith you could have grown thorns as long as my arm to ward off the hungry children. You are faithless and cursed!”
    Now the disciples saw Jesus berating a tree. Moreover, a tree that was barren of figs. And they said, “let us not speak of this to anyone. For they shall surely mock us.”

  29. Gordon Willis says:

    “Watch ye, pray ye” and “Be prepared day and night” (I know they’re in the NT somewhere but I’m quoting from a Bach cantata which happens to come to mind).
    Then there are the seven foolish virgins who neglected to bring extra oil for their wedding lamps, just in case the bridegroom should be late (“Take no thought for the morrow”…Sermon on the Mount? — but they were doomed, anyway, though they obviously trusted the bridegroom to turn up on time, and is that or isn’t it simple faith?).
    Consider the fig-tree, which failed to be ready when the Lord should just happen to require a quick snack, although didn’t God Almighty make the seasons? Talk about bloody opportunist “ethics”.
    And, brethren and sistren, let us not forget that the great He notices even the sparrow that falls AND (as Terry Pratchett notes in, I think, “Small Gods”) fails to catch it.
    Ought one to point out how twisted it all is if one is not to be accused of bigotry?

  30. Gordon Willis says:

    The trouble is, LD50, that if your parable was in the Bible they would take it seriously.

  31. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Gordon, bugger bigotry, someone needs to crack open their thick skulls to let a little light in.

  32. Someone says:

    Meanwhile, in Australia, some fucking terrorist asshole decides to shoot up the next suburb over from mine.
    Christ on a stick, can’t these people just die of cardiac arrest – like right now? Or at least before they go on their fucking rampage?

  33. two cents' worth says:

    LD50, when I read, “So they went to the market to try and buy figs. But there were none,” I was reminded of the line from The Importance of Being Earnest: “Not even for ready money?”

  34. Anonymous says:

    jveeds, you misinterpret what I’ve written and all the content behind the links I’ve posted.

    There are two different words in Quranic Arabic: one means “the Christian” another one means “the helper.” The one which means “the Christian” is used in the 5:51, but also in

    2:62 2:111 2:113 2:113 2:120 2:135 2:140 3:67 5:14 5:18 5:69
    5:82 9:30 22:17

    All these locations are cited in the Quranic Arabic Corpus reference I’ve linked to already.

    Those are all locations where the Christians are mentioned by their name which is a plainly different word than the one used for the “helpers.”

    A Christian is “Nasrani”

    A helper is “nasarin”

    Two different words, like god and dog aren’t the same words even if they use the same letters.

    Christianity existed already for 600 years at the moment Mo started his wars, and that was plainly the only name the Christians were referred to there. It is as direct as it can be in the Quran and its Arabic.

    The 5:51 really refers directly to the Christians.

    And Quran on another places also used other words to name them when it mentions them together with the Jews: it also calls them “the People of the Book” or “the People of the Scripture” which are also in the context of Quran as specific as using the exact names.

    But in 5:51 it’s explicitly used the word which exactly means “the Christians.”

  35. pink squirrel says:

    clearly then if you follow the bible – then no good comes from fig trees

  36. ac says:

    Regarding the meaning of the words used in Quran, reading Quran 9:30:

    “The Jews [orig: Yahud] call Esra [orig: ‘Uzair] a son of Allah, and the Christians [orig: Nasara] call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!”

    That it’s Jesus who’s meant by the “Christ” see 4:157 and 4:158 where “Allah” speaks about “Allah” in third person (even if the dogma is that in the Quran are only the words of Allah and that words of Mo aren’t there):

    “That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-”

    “Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-”

    That’s the “beauty” of the “religion of peace”. That’s a “fundamental” problem.

    The only real solution for the current problems is accepting the humanistic view of the religion. At least this Christian pastor was able to accept that the writings of the Bible started from the very primitive beliefs about the “mountain god” and then also “the god of war”

    “the early Hebrews, whose most constant activity, next to sustaining life by labor, was war, needed a “Lord of hosts,” a superhuman leader of armies, and Yahweh met that need.”

    “in retrospect, the road traveled by the idea of God through the Bible as a whole presents a fascinating spectacle.”

    “Beginning with a god who commanded the slaughter of infants and sucklings without mercy, it ends with the God whose will it is that not “one of these little ones should perish.” (Matthew 18:14.)”

    His views won in the U.S. for a while but the fundamentalists reemerged: “By the end of the 1930s proponents of Theological Liberalism had effectively won the debate” “More conservative Christians withdrew to the margins of society,” “This would remain the state of affairs until the 1970s, when conservative Christianity reemerged, resulting in resurgence of traditional Christianity among the Baptist, Presbyterians and others.” ( )

    If in the Christianity in the U.S. the fundamentalists reemerge, what can we expect from the religion established by the actual warlord?

    Observing the politics, note that the French and British during the wars in Turkey which luckily ended with the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 actually supported the Islamists:

    Seems familiar?

  37. jveeds says:

    AC (and anonymous…I’m not sure if you’re the same person given the names): The question I’ve posed is whether a particular Arabic term used in the Qur’an translates as Christian (or Christ) or whether the term is simply used to refer to Christian/Christ. It may be a fine distinction. For example, to refer to a particular historical figure as “The Nazarene” is different from calling him “Christ” or “Messiah” even though the referent is the same. Instead of “Nazarene” I might have called him “The Gallilean” or “The Covfefe,” each time meaning the same person, but each term would be different than “Christ.” As for water and wine in French, those are the actual French terms (“l’eau” etc) that directly translate each one respectively. But since Jesus was not the first “Christian” (the term didn’t arise until later in Antioch), it would make sense to refer to those who follow or support the ideas of Jesus as “followers,” meaning, of course, Christians.

    So that’s all I’m trying to figure out here. Is there a direct translation of “Christian” (possibly related to “messiah”)?

  38. ac says:

    jveeds, The meaning of “Christ” in “Jesus Christ” is the “messiah”.The word used in Quran for Christians means explicitly “the Christians” there, that is, those who have Christian beliefs and believe in “messiah” as in 9:30 in Quran. “l-na??r?” for the believers in “l-mas??u” that is, messiah. Ditto for

    where l-mas??a (messiah) is named as ??s? (Jesus) son of Maryama (Mary) .

    Read the original sources and the cross references of each word. It’s exact.

  39. ac says:

    The software doesn’t accept all the characters, but behind the link are the exact words.


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.