OUTRAGED by the disrespect shown to the “prophet” in Facebook’s “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”, a Pakistani called Yousaf Fayyaz has launched a Mo-lovin’ site called BuddyFlick.
The Facebook clone is a response to an outcry over Facebook members posting material deemed offensive to Islam earlier this year. Pakistani courts temporarily banned Facebook in May and the site’s membership has since reportedly fallen by 300,000.
Fayyaz is quoted in this report as saying:
BuddyFlick.com officially launched in response to Facebook’s shameful act. Being a Muslim, I cannot tolerate such an act, which is against our religion and against our beloved Prophet Hazrat Muhammad.
The site accuses Facebook of:
Clear discrimination for not banning blasphemous Fan Page.
And it adds:
We will never use Facebook again. We love Prophet  Mohammed.
Pakistan also blocked YouTube earlier this year over similar charges of offending Muslims. Though both sites have been reinstated after taking action over the offending material, the Pakistani government says it will monitor sites including Yahoo!, YouTube and Amazon for offending content.
Jesus and Mo's take on 'Everyone Draw Mohammed'. Click on the image to see more brilliant cartoons on the site.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
July 10th, 2010 at 9:45 am
BuddyFlick
Sounds like a gay dating site where Mo’s Minions get to meet lots of “handsome boys” as the Taliban say.
July 10th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Could someone clear a point up for me please? I’m pretty sure that the whole ‘pics of Mo’ thing is a cry of victimisation for publicity’s sake anyway, but isn’t the ban on depicting Mo aimed solely at believers? I always had the impression it was to stop idolatry, not because he was literally to holy to be drawn.
July 10th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
No the anti Mo pics thing covers everyone on this planet and any others that may have possible Mo converts. Mo is to holy to be drawn in the Muslims view. In fact, the injunction ONLY applies to him and not to Allah, his supposed boss. You can draw Allah’s nutters encased in bacon, and that will be bad taste, but not blasphemy according to the book of Mo.
July 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
@Daz. Indeed, and it’s a relatively recent thing. There were plenty of early depictions of Mo, and some survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....f_Muhammad It’s got worse as time’s gone by – now the Saudi’s are concreting over Mecca lest pilgrimages form looking for Mo’s grave.
Plus the fact that many Muslims have very little idea what their religion – still promulgated in a largely foreign language – is really about and, especially if uneducated folk, just listen to their ranting mullahs and riot on demand.
Then imagine the turmoil in the minds of the poor dears when not only are drawings made of their beloved idol, but they’re taking the piss of him!
July 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
What I’d like to know please, is why is it blasphemy to depict Mo, yet acceptable to name your “imperfect” son after him?
July 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Thanks Mike and Brian. I should have thought to try wikipedia myself. It may have the odd questionable fact, but at least they try hard to keep it unbiased.
Looks like it’s kind of like the protestant/catholic thing during the reformation, but with the ‘benefit’ of modern weapons. By that analogy the ones that say no one, rather than just believers, should depict him would be the good old puritans who hornswoggled Cromwell into ‘banning’ christmas and such.
History might repeat itself, but no-one seems to notice the repetition until after the fact.
@Broadsword. That’s probably the next thing to go They’ve already started on the teddy bears. Think I’ll start up the Church Of Winnie-The-Pooh, then sit back and make millions suing…
July 10th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
@Brian Jordan. You got it. Most of these clowns are not only uneducated but so poor and divorced from anything that approaches freethought or rational thinking that they are vulnerable to the superstitious sewage that is poured over them by their mullahs. This mental sewage they regard as the heights of enlightenment and that does save them any study or thinking.
H.L. Mencken – a class act with words – described the phenomenon well in his reporting of the “Monkey Trial” in 1925 in the USA. There the claim was made that anyone who read the bible knew more science than all the scientists in the USA. Even in 1925 the ridicule was such that the entire State was embarrassed. The Mozzies still have some way to go to reach that level.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Let’s think of today’s Islam as the Middle Ages’ Christianity; I can’t speak out of experience, but I’m sure in those days most Europeans were ignorant, poor and scared enough to go for any kind of bull-shit they could lay their hands on. So, in about a 1.000 years some parts of the Muslim world might be where we in the West are right now. With a bit of luck our descendants may have moved on a bit, so that could be interesting.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
I agree with you Har. I’ve often thought the muzzies are 600 years behind us and the progress we’ve made is very recent history. If the world is lucky they may “grow up” faster than xians. Better global communications, the internet and creeping cultural influences I hope with facilitate this.
Are you Dutch, Har? I’m looking forward to the final on Sunday. I’ve no peference for either team but I’m leaning towards Holland as I don’t know any Spaniards.
July 10th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Broadsword, how did you guess? I would have prefered a final against our German neighbours, with that bit of extra tension, even though we don’t mention the war as often as the British do. Anyway, many of them seem to be crossing the border to see us get pounded, or root for us and maybe join the party.
About muslims growing up quickly, I have my doubts, some of them seem to be perfectly happy to combine modern technology and weird, gruesome customs. I know muslims who’re from the really backward countries and they took to life here like a fish in the water, ending up being muslim in name only, like so many of our christians here, so there’s hope for muslims in the West.
July 10th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I have always found the religiot approach to technology quite interesting. In the west at least they consider the scientific worldview to be somewhat atheistic and therefore to be avoided. On the other hand, they must understand, even if a bit vaguely, that technology depends upon the scientific worldview being broadly correct in order to work.
It should also be noted that modern science has easily surpassed the cheap conjuring tricks that their various gods used to impress their primitive followers thousands of years ago.
July 10th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
@ Broadsword,
Your depiction of the muzzies being 600 years behind us is quite scary when they have access to 20th century technology with 14th century outlooks and beliefs.
July 10th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
@tony e
Iran springs to mind.
They seem to happily adopt modern technolgy when it suits them whether it be state-funded nuclear weapons programmes, the lower level dirty bombs, liquid explosives or IEDs detonated by mobile phone.
I’m sure their unholy book can justify turning the infidel’s weapons against them while other parts of their lives are compartmentalised in a 7th century idyll.
Sometimes in my frustration I wonder if genocide is the answer but I’m acquainted with enough muzzies to know that most are innocent.
July 12th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Copyright infringements?
July 13th, 2010 at 1:52 am
I beg to differ those are NOT allah’s balls!!
It is an eternal being with no one to pluck with so allah not only wont have a vagina it wont have balls or dick either cause they are of no value. But then again the buybull says ‘…no other g0ds before ME’ so there must be other g0d to pluck with” Yes I can see allah with the golden calf. They would look natural together. But although the balls look addiquate, the drippy part looks under-developed.