Pharyngula

Posted by: TWood | May 20, 2010 11:14 AM

Here's a link to my webcomic entry:

graven images

I tried to make it more of an equal-opportunity offender.

Posted by: jidashdee | May 20, 2010 11:21 AM

O-{-<

Twitter Mohammed.

Posted by: sorceror171 | May 20, 2010 11:25 AM

I drew Mohammed, and put up a video explaining why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRluVh41LI

One mistake, though. I said Myers spiked a copy of the Origin of Species, not The God Delusion. Oh, well.

Posted by: Westcoaster | May 20, 2010 11:31 AM

You have the "moo" and the "ham", but it needs a blackboard or a textbook or something to provide the "ed". I suppose we could count the fact that is transitional as educational, in a Ken Ham crockoduck kind of way.

Posted by: mxh | May 20, 2010 11:32 AM

The fact that Pakistan is censoring the internet means that the campaign worked before it even started.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 20, 2010 11:33 AM

Plus, Muslim creationists will be offended by the "evolutionary" implications of the drawing.

Not that it's evolution as science knows it, rather as morons misportray it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | May 20, 2010 11:36 AM

Unoriginal, but I like it:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14004483213853471.jpg

Posted by: george.wiman | May 20, 2010 11:38 AM

I chickened out, sort of. The idea was that since we don't know what Muhammad looked like, then the violent protesters want to criminalize an act of imagination - truly a thought crime.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | May 20, 2010 11:43 AM

I like it!

Posted by: S.C. Kavassalis | May 20, 2010 11:50 AM

I tweeted my "picture" of Muhammad.

http://twitter.com/sc_k/status/14369373898

Posted by: uppercanuck | May 20, 2010 11:52 AM

That's udderly hilarious! I posted a pic on my blog as well. A co-worker said I was being mean. *facepalm* - http://drunkenhumanist.blogspot.com/2010/05/its-everybody-draw-mohammad-day.html

Posted by: Parasite | May 20, 2010 11:54 AM

Here are my depictions of Muhammad.

http://parasitesneversleep.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Izzy | May 20, 2010 11:57 AM

My humble contribution. I'm not quitting my day job to pursue a career as a cartoonist, no worries:

https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1DLG7zILgjv5yNoKZJqweyFApNOcSRcZqeapeQqsMh3Q&hl=en

Posted by: irenedelse | May 20, 2010 12:02 PM

It's Moo-ham-ed. Get it? OK, you're allowed to groan and close the page.

So, it's a sacred cow-pig? Nice. Way to offend two religions with only one drawing. ;-)

Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)?

Er... Logically, since this is a cow-pig, wouldn't a 9 year old feamle of that species be an adult too? Or do you add interspecies sex to the package? (Now, that would be perfect... *giggle*)

Sharp-eyed observers will also note that Moo-ham-ed is a hermaphrodite, since he also has udders

Udders, shmudders. If you go by the drawing, it's a female, because no penis or balls shown. Cows can have horns too, after all. (Unless farmers saw them off.)

Posted by: daveau | May 20, 2010 12:03 PM

It's Moo-ham-ed. Get it?

There's no such thing as a good pun.

OK, you're allowed to groan and close the page.

I consider that option here several times a day. Somehow I don't, though.

Posted by: Timberwoof | May 20, 2010 12:05 PM

The Guardian article transmits this complaint:

But Zaidi added that western countries with blasphemy laws protecting Christianity or preventing Holocaust denial were guilty of hypocrisy, and said he felt western rightwing extremists were using the controversy to heighten bigoted views.

Well, we have done our part to point out and satirize the hypocrisy of the blasphemy legislation. And Holocaust denial ... that's an edge case. It is historically established fact that the holocaust occurred. We have laws against slander and libel, which discourage presenting harmful lies as fact. Yeah, I can see the argument either way there.

So my advice is, "Grow the hell up. Stop acting like an eight-year-old. Man up* and take it."

"If you say Mohammed is violent, we will kill you!" I don't know whether that's tragic in a funny way or funny in a tragic way, but the behavior of the Islamofascists keeps amplifying that stereotype.

* Yes, yes, I know.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 20, 2010 12:12 PM

I had been excited about "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day" - until I saw it promoted on Ann C**lt*r's site and realized how this would be seen as a wingnut/xenophobe project more than as an exercise in general-purpose blasphemy.

But for some reason The Pseudoblonde Psychopath has let that item drop, so maybe a modest bit of celebration would be in order.

At least, Jesus and Mo seem to think so.

Posted by: Seattle_JC | May 20, 2010 12:15 PM

Here is my feeble attempt …. http://twitpic.com/1pekgs

Posted by: Jonathan Figdor | May 20, 2010 12:16 PM

I want to make clear that these chalk-protests are against the idea of censorship and the idea of "sacred calves," and NOT a protest of Muslims or Islam as a whole. We atheists are equal opportunity offenders. PZ frequently has to take pot shots at crazy Creationists, such as his expose with the Secular Student Alliance (www.secularstudents.org) of the fatuous "creation museum" last year. The point is, Secular Students and the Atheist movement more broadly believes that no religion has the right to declare any person, place, or thing as "off-limits" to criticism, whether that thing be a Bible, or a drawing of Mohammad, such as this illustration of Mohammad doing taichi:

o o o_, ,o , o , o , , o
'-( '|' )-' _`) `)-' `)- `)-'
/

art credit = (http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/cma/tccascii.html)

Posted by: legistech | May 20, 2010 12:20 PM

I like how the picture warns, "Be prepared for a multinational boycott".

Umm, a boycott is a grass-roots movement, not a government deciding on behalf of its citizens that it will cut off their access.

Maybe the government of Pakistan thinks they do support free speech. After all, the government is free to say whatever it wants.

Posted by: SC OM | May 20, 2010 12:23 PM

Pretty sure that's what I want it to look like.

Can't be. That's just too...cute.

Posted by: bernarda | May 20, 2010 12:24 PM

I am not a good drawer myself, but maybe Pat Condell's expression, "carpet-chewing shit for brains" might inspire someone.

Posted by: irenedelse | May 20, 2010 12:31 PM

Oh, and here's my contribution:
http://irenedelse.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/en-dessinant-le-prophete/

Images are not the problem, are they?

Posted by: MoonShark | May 20, 2010 12:39 PM

Here's mine! It's been a few, er, hundred years, so I thought Mo might look a bit different now than in his prime.

http://drop.io/moonshark/asset/mohammed-skeleton-jpg

Posted by: Andrew | May 20, 2010 12:41 PM

Here's mine, at a blog post, Everybody Draw (a Peaceful) Muhammad Day.

Posted by: jidashdee | May 20, 2010 12:43 PM

Suicide bomber Mohammed (credit to Kevin for the restyled head):

|

(\|:{> -

\

Posted by: Ben Goren | May 20, 2010 12:48 PM

Muhammad: *~@>(}

Who knew, after all these years, that he bears a striking semblance to line noise?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4 | May 20, 2010 12:53 PM

If my drawing of Mo bears a striking resemblance to the guy on the halvah logo... it's pure coincidence. :)

Posted by: cag | May 20, 2010 1:00 PM

My dog did a Mohammed again today. I put it in a bag and placed it in his "trophy" bin.

Posted by: puseaus | May 20, 2010 1:04 PM

(Brave &or stupid) Norwegians used to wear a paper clip on their jackets during WWII to annoy the Nazi authorities. The government even prohihibited the use of typical nordic red winter beanies (topplue). It's just a matter of finding and agreeing on an effective symbol.

Posted by: Ginchy Von Slappytrousers | May 20, 2010 1:12 PM

Only because I have no photoshop skills, I couldn't whip up a meeting with Chris Hansen and Mo. This will have to do.

http://i46.tinypic.com/33jh635.jpg

Posted by: Biddy | May 20, 2010 1:14 PM

The Mohamed I drew is proudly perched on the back of the camel. The picture in its self isn’t offensive, but the speech-bubbles that keep materializing around him have a little more bite.

Posted by: stvs | May 20, 2010 1:28 PM

Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)?

'Aisha is an important figure that nearly everyone gets wrong, especially atheists, which is a shame because her history offers so much to atheism, especially Muslim atheists. 'Aisha, when she grew into a woman, was said to be the most beautiful of Mohammad's wives, and certainly she was the most powerful and influential, in fact one of the most influential women in history by any standard.

Focusing, as nearly all modern westerners do, on 'Aisha's prepubescent age when Muhammad married her is a trifling detail and entirely misses the key historic points. I will pass over in silence the futility of judging one individual's 7th century marriage practices using modern norms. Instead, let's get to the meat of why 'Aisha is so important and learn something real about Islam and history.

The violent Sunni-Shiite schism was essentially caused by a sequence of events beginning with Muhammad's decision to take 'Aisha's as a young bride. Marrying a girl much younger than yourself is a decision fraught with risks, whether it occurs today or in the 7th century, whether you're a Prophet of God or not. This is the story of the "The Affair of the Lie," which had a huge historical influence that affects everyone today, but also influenced the Qu'ran itself—God's message to mankind revealed to Muhammad.

Here's the story: 'Aisha's wedding gift, a prized necklace, had a defective clasp, and she is said to have lost it in the wilderness during one of the Prophet's campaigns. Without telling anyone, she went back to find it, successfully, but when she returned to the campsite the caravan had left without knowledge of her absence. 'Aisha was abandoned and lost in the desert. A dashing and very handsome young soldier named Safwan rescued her and they returned together to the caravan. This led to charges and gossip about 'Aisha's infidelity, and the Prophet ultimately had to depend upon God's revelation via the archangel Gabriel to defend his wife's honor, which is enshrined in the Qu'ran in the Sura An-Noor (Book of Light), verses 11–18:

Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves …
Why did not the believers—men and women—when ye heard of the affair,—
put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This (charge) is an obvious lie"?

This incident also led to the Qur'anic injunction to flog people who make unprovable allegation against "chaste women" with eighty lashes (Sura 24:4):

And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),—
flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors

Muhammad's cousin, brother-in-law, and standard bearer 'Ali refused to accept 'Aisha's flimsy explanation for her alleged dalliance in the desert with the handsome young soldier Safwan, and counseled the Prophet to denounce and divorce 'Aisha, advice he obviously rejected.

When 'Ali was later elected leader of the believers and successor to Muhammad after the Prophet's death, 'Aisha, who had to defend her marital honor against 'Ali, rejected 'Ali's leadership and led a civil war against 'Ali in the Battle of the Camel in Basra in 656. The ill will between 'Ali's faction of believers and 'Aisha's led directly to the Sunni-Shiite schism of Islam: the followers of 'Aisha became the Sunnis and the followers of 'Ali became the Shia', meaning literally the "followers of 'Ali". All for the want of clasp. And a younger husband.

A good place to read about this episode is Chapter 3 of Bruce Lawrence's The Qur'an: A Biography. Reza Aslan also discusses 'Aisha sympathetically on the recent and worthwhile PRI broadcast "Reclaiming Islam", reading from his book. Aslan also discusses the baseless and rather stupid "Muhammad is a pedophile because he married a 7-year-old" charges.

So please remember and refer to 'Aisha when discussing Islam, but not for the age when she was married.

Posted by: NoYourGod | May 20, 2010 1:43 PM

@:-|>

Posted by: bigdavesb | May 20, 2010 1:47 PM

Here's my little effort: http://bit.ly/bGOrax

Posted by: irenedelse | May 20, 2010 1:57 PM

@ stvs:

Focusing, as nearly all modern westerners do, on 'Aisha's prepubescent age when Muhammad married her is a trifling detail and entirely misses the key historic points. I will pass over in silence the futility of judging one individual's 7th century marriage practices using modern norms.

Sorry, you got that wrong. It would be futile only if religious authorities, in countries Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Nigeria, didn't use the example of that particular 7th century bride to justify the marriage of underage girls to adult men, today, and deny them basic human rights.

Posted by: jaf | May 20, 2010 2:03 PM

My effort -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anarch/mo.htm

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 20, 2010 2:06 PM

The picture what I drew last night is about Aisha!

http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/everybody-draw-mohammed-day/

(((:~{> Mohammed approves this message

Posted by: scaryreasoner | May 20, 2010 2:11 PM

Mine:
http://scaryreasoner.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/muhammad.jpg?w=491&h=290

Posted by: Draken | May 20, 2010 2:16 PM

What we can learn from stvs's recap is, that muslim men are among the pettiest and vilest of critters dwelling the desert. If your beloved wife gets lost in the desert and, when returned by a brave young soldier, you need "divine revelation" to keep you from killing her, you're one piece of fucked up misogynist.

(I presume here that stoning already then was the prescribed way of dealing with adulterers)

Posted by: James F | May 20, 2010 2:39 PM

Hey, the drawing reminds me of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince! "Draw me a sheep!"

Posted by: DangerousTalk.net | May 20, 2010 2:47 PM

Just remember that if anyone tries to criticize you for Drawing Mohammad, they are not allowed: Immoral to criticize Draw Mohammad Day - http://bit.ly/8YeuNG
-Staks

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlzGeedrYNB6d9D4u_bnWtv0ehWMCRMhQQ | May 20, 2010 3:14 PM

Here's my depiction of the prophet: http://img185.imageshack.us/i/20052010378f.jpg/

What can I say? I was so influenced by the extreme cuteness of AndromedasWake's offering that I couldn't bear to draw anything truly offensive...

...I even made sure the sausage rolls contained a low percentage of pork!

~CaS

Posted by: thomas.c.galvin | May 20, 2010 3:32 PM

My little contribution:
http://www.thomas-galvin.com/blog/?p=1348

Sadly, I've only gotten one nutty Muslim and one sane Muslim responding so far.

Posted by: rick.price84 | May 20, 2010 3:34 PM

Here's mine: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/photo.php?pid=1190718&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=121369914543425&aid=-1&id=1458450441

Posted by: wockrassa | May 20, 2010 3:51 PM

I did mine! Jihad ahoy!

http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2010/05/20/i-drew-mohammed/

Posted by: masksoferis | May 20, 2010 4:10 PM

Hybrid cow-pig? That's not enough. How about Mohammed as a bad Lemmy Kilmister impersonator? (Wonderful how many things become Mohammeds with the simple addition of a caption --- if only there was a pack of stickers, each reading "THIS IS MOHAMMED".)

(Or maybe "this is madness! THIS IS MOHAMMED!")

http://masksoferis.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/what-hey-everybody-draw-mohammed-day/

Posted by: Hannah | May 20, 2010 4:28 PM

My contribution for the day:

Draw Mohammed Day at my blog

I look forward to doing it again next year XD

Posted by: la tricoteuse | May 20, 2010 4:43 PM

Here's my one: http://tinyurl.com/37nmwnq

I am making some sort of feminist statement. Innit.

Posted by: geoffmovies | May 20, 2010 4:47 PM

Here's mine:

Drawing is tough enough with a graphics tablet. Drawing with a mouse is worse.

Posted by: MrFire | May 20, 2010 4:57 PM

Owlmirror's 'I CAN HAZ PICTURE?' opus to follow?

Posted by: emujoe | May 20, 2010 5:00 PM

I have no idea what the false prophet Mohammed looked like. I don't see him hanging around on a cross like that Caucasian Middle Eastern man the Christians displayed everywhere.

I imagine he's just another swarthy, unshaven Arab with a silly hat, but I'm a shit artist, so I won't even bother.

Posted by: arkestrate | May 20, 2010 5:04 PM

I assume you mean the Pakistani government, not Pakistanis. Not everyone in this country supports the FB/Youtube/Wiki/etc ban, so don't paint everyone with the same brush. That's all.

Posted by: tdcourtney | May 20, 2010 5:44 PM

A fun poll to pharyngulate.,
My Mohammad, delivering his trademark back-handed pimp-spike. We showed Jesus and Vishnu whose boss.

Posted by: Pyre | May 20, 2010 5:58 PM

For ease of ongoing reference by way of tinyurl.com:

PZ's cow-pig: http://tinyurl.com/moo-ham-ed (or /moohamed)

The cartoon that caused so much fuss: http://tinyurl.com/mahound

Posted by: davidius | May 20, 2010 6:25 PM

My contribution is here. It's quite good, if I say so myself!

Posted by: xenthral | May 20, 2010 6:37 PM

http://twitter.com/XenThraL/status/14389180627

My contribution :)

Posted by: Sastra | May 20, 2010 7:04 PM

Here's mine:

0

It looks like I copied Parse at #88, but no, it's my own work. I am a professional artist.

stvs #66 wrote:

'Aisha is an important figure that nearly everyone gets wrong, especially atheists, which is a shame because her history offers so much to atheism, especially Muslim atheists.

Offers so much to atheism? You mean, as fodder?

Sheesh. After reading the description of Aisha's role in the development of Islam, I actually admire the story of Islam even less than before -- an impressive feat. An entire theological split and centuries of violence all predicated by a narrow, bigoted, and creepy fixation on the incredible, earth-shattering significance of a woman's purity? Did you really think we would find anything admirable in that depressingly backwards display of paternalistic tribalism? Aisha becomes more "sympathetic" to us because she was beautiful and faithful and if she wasn't the latter she should have been executed?

And, of course, we secular humanists ought to be ever so pleased that those who accuse a woman of not being chaste on insufficient evidence will be whipped 80 times into bloody pulps. Oh, good: I see feminism has its origin in Islam. Also, human rights. Whoda thunk.

I think this is a case where the defense just makes it worse. stvs, the common background moral assumptions you think we all share, we do not all share. Even without the charge of pedophilia, this tale is gruesome.

It's too late to quit while you're ahead. Stop digging.

Posted by: jidashdee | May 20, 2010 7:19 PM

@stvs

"...Islam is a religion founded by living human beings."

We were not labouring under any contrary opinion, but your wording of the following leaves us with the impression that you may be:

"Any Muslim apologist will tell you, and they have a good point here, that the revelation given to Mohammad markedly improved the lot of women in the 7th century."

I realise that you're assuming the voice of a muslim apologist in that sentence, but you'd better clarify your own view of this "revelation" before others here start ripping you a few more new ones.

Posted by: DLC | May 20, 2010 7:21 PM

There is no god and Mohamed was not his prophet.

Posted by: irenedelse | May 20, 2010 7:37 PM

@ stvs #115:

What Sastra (#116) said. Plus a few other things.

The immorality and undesirability of child brides in not in dispute. But applying modern standards to historical persons is a fool's errand

But you still don't address my point: that the historical 'Aisha is used today, by Muslim authorities, in several countries, to justify child marriages. And it's definitely not foolish to be concerned about that.

Any Muslim apologist will tell you, and they have a good point here, that the revelation given to Mohammad markedly improved the lot of women in the 7th century.

Oh, hum. Say "somewhat improved", you'll be closer to reality. I have to say that for Muhammad, he was a Realpolitik kind of guy. But, limiting the number of wives instead of banning polygamy; or admitting female genital mutilation if only a part of the clitoris is cut and not all of it; or giving a daughter half of what her brother inherits (instead of nothing at all): these are not instances of "marked improvements". Just giving women a little more humane treatment inside a heavily patriarchal social system is not the same as treating them as equal human beings.

Just compare the Old Testament to the Qu'ran on this point.

If you really think that, did you read Sunday's post on the "Daughters of Eve"? No? Go ahead, you will find it enlightening, I'm sure.

Under Jewish and Christian revelations, there are no such hindrances to the number of wives a many may have.

Erm... Do you know anything at all about Judaism and Christianity? Because there was no "Thou shalt have only one wife" commandment in the Bible doesn't mean that a guy could just marry as many women as he wanted and be OK with the local church or synagogue authorities, y'know... There's a reason why Joseph Smith had to create his own religion.

As repugnant as we all find it today, child marriage was commonplace until relatively recently in history.

True, though we there's nothing wrong not to be cool about it. And there's still the problem of today's child brides. Think about that?

'Aisha is important to the history of Islam, especially to atheists, not because of her age when she was married, but because her noteworthy story underlines that Islam is a religion founded by living human beings.

That 'Aisha was important to the history of Islam, sure. And she must have been a very interesting person. But, important to atheists? Aside as one more example of how religion ruins everything, I wonder.

Posted by: echidna | May 20, 2010 7:46 PM

stvs@115 said:

Is Mohammad's marriage to the child 'Aisha really what is objectionable about Islam?

Of course it is objectionable because it is still being used to justify child-marriage.

Saudi-Arabia:
Many of the country's hard-line Wahhabi imams claim child marriage is justified by the Koran, since the Prophet Muhammad wed his third wife, Aisha, when she was only 9 years old. "It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's top cleric, said in January, according to the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong, and they are being unfair to her."

And Afghanistan is worse.

Posted by: jidashdee | May 20, 2010 8:15 PM

@echidna

Case in point (from earlier this week):

Nigerian Senator Douchebag Defends Child Marriage.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2010 8:34 PM

I think you're right.

so... everyone flood this facebook page instead:

Against "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Posted by: Bill | May 20, 2010 8:47 PM

Does it count if you draw yourself as Mohammad or is that a different kind of blasphemy?

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2010 8:58 PM

any comment on your friend Thunderf00t's recent psychopathic rantings calling for the annihilation of 1.3 billion people?

I looked at couldn't find him doing this anywhere on his site.

link?

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2010 9:05 PM

The radicals would like nothing better than the Pakistani government to withdraw forces from the border and in other areas to protect vital areas in the cities.

how does drawing pictures on a facebook page relate to that, exactly?

evidence?

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2010 9:12 PM

In the end what did you achieve?

well, we got Pakistan to ban a website.

frankly, I agree with Thunderfoot's assessment of the practical nature of this exercise.

Posted by: mike.r.bermudez | May 20, 2010 9:30 PM

Here's mine!

http://twitpic.com/1pj76o

Bonus points if you get the reference!

!

Posted by: cehbeach | May 20, 2010 9:59 PM

"How is life as a coward?

You've got a lot of serious thinking to do and I suggest you get to it.

Oh, and kiss my blasphemous ass. Fuck islam and fuck you.

Retard."

Oh look a Thundersh33p. I'm not the wetting my pants weenie because one guy posted one post about South Park and then freak out and believe the hype about 'Boogie Muslims' are taking our freeeeeeeedooooom!!! You're the coward, you're also a hater, which is not the same as being a rational thinking Atheist

Check his YouTube channel and look for the video about the Sleeping Giant

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | May 20, 2010 10:12 PM

Mine.

Posted by: jidashdee | May 20, 2010 10:17 PM

@cehbeach

So, not only can you not tell clear thought from bullshit, but you can't tell hype from a clear and present threat to your own freedom of speech.

Don't worry, the rest of us will take care of it while you do your cypherin'.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | May 20, 2010 10:40 PM

I don't even have the coordination to effectively draw a stick figure.

In paint.

;____________________________;

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2010 10:50 PM

Nuke Denmark? I never thought I'd ever read those words together in a sentence, not in my life.

ditto.

and yet...

check out the vid starting at 1:50

Posted by: scarina | May 20, 2010 11:27 PM

I'm a long-time lurker, but I thought I'd delurk for this. Here's my humble offering. AstroMohammed! with grizzled, angry Jebus, and Big Boy Buddha.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/EEHyaQRzjZhERjWpIm2n_cHbWHvQVxpM#2f97f | May 20, 2010 11:42 PM

I'm not a cartoonist, but here's my cartoon of Mohammed doing yard work.

Posted by: stvs | May 20, 2010 11:49 PM

I got it when you did your bit with the cracker - it was in response to a ridiculous assault on a kid.

This is in response to actual assaults on real people for drawing pictures. The Cinqo de Mayo thing was just kids celebrating their culture, being needlessly provoked.

PZ's position is entirely consistent.

Posted by: A. Noyd | May 21, 2010 12:47 AM

Here's my contribution:
******NSFW****** Mohammed's new mustache. ******NSFW******

Posted by: Timberwoof | May 21, 2010 1:22 AM

http://web.timberwoof.com/images/Mohammed.JPG

Mohammed is, of course, a lovable cuddly wuddly nice person, and if you disagree and say that he founded a religion that inspires violence, they'll kill you.

Posted by: firemote | May 21, 2010 2:43 AM

I am somewhat disappointed that this "expression" is being bought into.

Sure, we all have every right to do so, but the fervor in which it's being presented with is inseparable from the neocons mocking Islam.

I'd be more impressed if the originators decided to draw all the spiritual leaders fucking each other in some sort of death-orgy instead of singling out one particular religion.

The South Park conservatives seem particularly gleeful about this choice of diety, and while again, perfectly free speech, it is a dull one that does nothing for advancing rational thought and a more secular society.

Posted by: justinaquino | May 21, 2010 4:34 AM

The only faces muslims should be outraged about should be this: http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html

Posted by: Alan B | May 21, 2010 7:03 AM

Contribution to the theme from The Grumpy Old Twat:

I guess it should be classified as NSFW ...

http://grumpyoldtwat.blogspot.com/2010/05/everyone-draw-mohammed.html

Posted by: A Facebook User | May 21, 2010 9:41 AM

this is a remix of the wonderful Carnegie embryology poster. If jesus is great for teaching kids, there must be people who respond to all things Muhammad

http://www.holyfiction.org/images/TheProphetEmbryo.jpg

Posted by: EpicJoe | May 21, 2010 11:56 AM

I drew Mo yesterday, but didn't get a chance to scan in until today. So, here's the belated "Buddy Mohammed"

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 5:27 PM

"Your existence is dependent on our good graces"?

did you miss the rest of that while you quote out of context?

TF was clearly talking about the sleeping giant analogy to WWII.

so fuck off with your quotemining idiocy, eh?

Posted by: conwaythecontaminationist | May 25, 2010 10:07 PM

Check this out for laughs:

http://pigallah.blogspot.com