Sacrilege was intolerable for the Muslims, as it was not the issue of freedom of expression instead it was the question of violence on earth, Geo News reported.
Addressing the Ishq-e-Rasool Conference here, the prime minister said that freedom of expression didn’t mean that revered personalities be made a target, adding that protest against such despicable acts was our religious duty.
Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said that the world today was threatened by religious extremism and one of the reasons of extremism was disrespect to other religions.
PM said that the miscreants have targeted the greatest personality of the universe whom no power on earth could ever cause any damage.
PM said that the sentiments of the Muslims were not taken care of, while the debate on holocaust was forbidden. Pakistan has the right to protest against the anti-Islam film and added that all the religions, beliefs and the revered personalities must be respected.
He said that Pakistan was the only Islamic country observing protest day officially and this was not all but President Asif Ali Zardari would be taking up this issue in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
He said anti-social elements were using the concept of freedom of speech in an offensive manner, adding that, Islam was a religion of peace and preached respect for all faiths.
PM Ashraf further said that a significant factor leading to increased extremism the world over was lack of mutual respect among followers of different religions.
He said if such actions did not stop, they would create instability worldwide.
Note the obvious contradiction in bold.
They want everyone to respect their faith but the faith has no respect for people.
So, if we don't respect their religion they are going to respond with extremism / terrorism? I don't see the peace in that? if I don't like or want to follow your religion suck it up and get over it!
There should be no special treatment for religious beliefs. They need to nut up or shut up. If we accede to one of their demands, then they will continue to demand more and more and it will never end. Screw them. And that goes for Muslims or Christians who were upset over "Piss Christ." Grow a thick skin. It doesn't shake your faith, and you god is bigger than that, so why should you care? (I don't mean you, specifically. I'm speaking rhetorically)
That is actually funny since the instability worldwide is caused by the Muslims and most are losing respect for their religion because of their behavior. To insist that we curtail our freedoms because many within Islam look for any excuse for violence is ridiculous. But, I sympathize with anyone attempting to maintain order in a country with a large Muslim population and I can certainly imagine what motivated him to make those statements.
Muslims should look to the recent behavior of Kate Middleton and her husband to understand. If you make a big stink about something trivial that hits the news, you can rest assured that the media will keep it alive as long as there are those who will read and listen.
@emile quite right....read saudi's chief priest comments too...he wants criminalization of what he says insult to prophets of monotheistic religions...what about other religions wiccan , hindus , buddhist,jains etc?..secondly what about rights of atheist ,angonist and most importantly what about right of every human being to critically evaluate historical figures like muhammad , jesus ?
I sympathize with those living near people who go off the deep end at perceived insults, as many in the Muslim community appear to do. We want our freedom of speech, but we must accept that exercising our freedoms jeopardizes the safety of innocent people elsewhere. So, although I think it is audacious to ask anyone to limit voicing their opinions, I'm not sure how I feel about people not voluntarily doing so. I think something such as that film is as cowardly an act as the pictures I see of the Muslim men running around, wreaking carnage and havoc with the masks over their faces.
Cowards killing innocents because they are mad at cowards. It reflects poorly on the causes both sides claim to care about.
No one should be compelled to follow the rules of a religion the do not believe in. No one should be able to declared topics illegal in fiction or the creative arts. That is not the kind of society I would want to live in.
You are free to say what you want, but you are not free to say what you want without consequences. They say you should not say crap about their religion. You say they should not blow up embassies and kill people when someone says crap about their religion.
A rattlesnake says, "You should not come over here where I am rattling." You say, "It is my right to go anywhere I want."
There is only one thinking creature in that scenario, so whose fault is it if someone gets bit.
If Islam is a snake rattling to be avoided, it most certainly can only do harm to others who aren't snakes.
Thinking people know how to avoid obvious peril. Taunting a snake is just dumb. There's enough chances for accidental encounter, why artificially pit "free speech" against it and then act surprised when it goes off?
If Islam is considered "obvious peril" then why is mankind allowing it to exist?
Agreed. What should we then do with such a volatile and dangerous aspect of our society?
Some things are only perilous to the incautious or willfully stupid.
To your second part: there's not a lot of options. If you look through history, I think there are five strategies that seem to repeat most often, shown below in no particular order:
1. Learn to live within the world intelligently and peacefully.
2. Teach, train or coerce them to stop being who they are and start being who we are.
3. Learn, succumb to it and become who they are.
4. Kill them all.
5. They kill all of us.
Which one seems not only the most desirable, but the most actually possible to carry off?
If by that you mean those who follow the perilous are willfully stupid. Unfortunately, one does not have to be incautious or willfully stupid to be caught up in the crossfire of the perilous.
If any of those options actually worked, shouldn't we see the results?
It's obvious that the perilous snake (Islam) will never allow options 1 and 3 and is only interested in option 2 with option 5 being the last alternative.
I think you have missed the main point I have been trying to make here. It is up to us to avoid the snake, since we know it is there, and we are not inclined (and perhaps not even capable) of eradicating all of the snakes in the world. Yes, I'm for free speech, but I'm not for free speech that gets people killed.
Freedom in America is contingent upon the fact that you do not exercise your freedom in a way that jeopardizes mine. You have the right to say whatever you want... BUT, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. You might argue, "Yes, I can!" and you would be correct, in that, you can go into a theater and yell that before anyone can stop you. However, you will be held responsible for the injuries sustained by people who get trampled on during the panicked stampede you caused, which is why there are laws that say your free speech does not extend to speech that includes yelling "Fire."
I see poking Islam as the same sort of thing. We already know there are huge mobs of hungry, frustrated people living in the desert with hardly any electricity or decent provisions (and if you are a woman, I mean, bleh, what a suck life), so all they have is that religion. They also have corrupt evil religious leaders and political leaders who horde oil wealth even more shamelessly that American corporations do. So many of these people have only a corrupted, conscripted version of Islam they are given by their leaders. So, since we see this pretty evidently, we know how easy it is to get people killed if you draw a picture of their prophet with a bomb in his hat. To me, doing that is exactly the same as yelling, "Fire," in that theater.
You should not have the right to do that, because it may impinge on someone else's right to stay alive, thanks to the "crossfire" you mention.
So, back to my point... intelligent people should be capable of recognizing where the snake is and simply avoid it rather than going and taunting it with the toe of their boot... especially if I happen to be walking by when you do it. If you can't do that, then you in a way insist on a Crusade to eliminate all the snakes, which is absolutely no better than a Jihad to eliminate infidels.
I can agree with much of that. But, look at the explanation you gave, the comparison you made and the conclusions drawn.
The explanation being that "mobs of hungry, frustrated people... all they have is that religion... only a corrupted, conscripted version of Islam they are given" which is in stark contrast to the conclusion drawn by misplacing it with the comparison made. It is this comparison which is key to the validity of the conclusions.
From the explanation we understand there are great wrongs being perpetrated against a lot of people; keeping them hungry, frustrated and immersed in religion by their leaders. The conclusion drawn is to "simply avoid it" by using the comparison of yelling "Fire" in a theater to that of taunting those very same hungry, frustrated peoples.
Causing a panic in a theater would endanger lives because of physical laws; forces acting upon each other resulting in physical injuries.
We can't say drawing Muhammad with a bomb in his bonnet is the same thing as the cause and effect of physical laws. Choices can be made to avoid any physical injuries.
You say the choice should be to avoid drawing the picture in the first place. If we do that, we are not only allowing, but are condoning the practice of keeping people hungry, frustrated etc.
So, if a more accurate comparison can be made, we are actually yelling "Fire" in a theater by avoiding the issues.
Perhaps, not so dramatic as that. Through the centuries Christianity was brought under control through laws, they can no longer burn witches or kill non-believers without facing the consequences of a justice system.
We need not go on some medieval fueled crusade to fix the problem, there are other alternatives.
From the explanation you provided, the first thing should be to make as much knowledge and information readily available to those hungry, frustrated people that they can themselves begin to understand their leaders are corrupt, are keeping them hungry and frustrated and they themselves can do something about it.
By the by, if you happen to be walking by when something happens, remember your own words that you wanted to avoid it. Of course, wanting to avoid it still won't stop it from happening when you do walk by.
When you draw a picture of their prophet with a bomb, you aren't trying to save people from oppression. You are willfully kicking the snake. Nobody in this thread has made any argument about what we should do to relieve suffering over there. It's all about some perverse form of "freedom of speech." Freedom to taunt and bait the radicals regardless of what that costs innocents nearby.
Choices could be made about which exit to use leaving the theater, too. Choices could be made to seek out the truth of the claim that there is a fire before running. Choices could be made to sit there and burn rather than try to escape. Same difference. It is the same because both actions "Picture" and crying "Fire" are intentional triggers of chaos. "If I do THIS, these people will do THAT." I see very little difference other than scale.
Not true. Intentionally pissing people off by pushing their hot button is not even remotely the same as trying to solve human rights issues, just as crying "Fire" in a theater is not the same as writing a letter to the management asking them to lower the price of popcorn.
That's like saying if I don't go over there and poke that snake with this stick, I am supporting the willful injection of venom into babies at the hospital down town.
I agree. Rather than just pissing the radicals off, or condoning the pointless and deadly actions of others who like to run about kicking snakes for fun despite the consequences (that do no good and change nothing, only get people killed), trying to find ways to convince people to change or compromise is a much better solution. And yes, it would suck to get bit by a snake that would have been sleeping when I walked by were it not for some idiot who decided it would be fun to F- with it out of some perverted and ignorant mutation of what it means to be "free."
If the snake is merely the leaders who are causing great harm to their people by feeding them corrupt religion, perhaps we should be kicking it. Avoiding it only allows it to grow and fester until one day you might have no choice but to act upon it.
But, that has always been the cost of freedom, that's why we have freedom of speech in the first place. Taunting and baiting may very well appear perverse, but what they're taunting is symbolic of the corruption those people endure, which are the actual costs to the innocents nearby.
That would be a simplistic conclusion for more complex and somewhat dissimilar factors, basically a generalized cause and effect conclusion.
Again, if that "hot button" is based on corruption, then it should be pushed in order to reveal the corruption.
If by that you mean you're supporting corruption, then yes.
I agree with the latter. However, if there are those who will not compromise, some will most definitely resort to taunting and they have the freedom to do that, and unfortunately, we are left to support that freedom regardless of how much we think it pushes the envelope of perversion and ignorance.
That's a good reason to do something about the snake, so it never can bite someone.
So basically you want to go to war. That's a legitimate position, I suppose. But that's not what we are doing when we taunt them. Making a picture that we know will get bystanders killed is not confronting all this injustice you say you care about. If you really care, then why aren't you calling for conquest, even colonization, the imposition of our proper way of life. Or, if nothing else, based on your last statement, and based on the historical evidence of it being impossible to root out all the bad guys, why are you not calling for the complete and total obliteration of that part of the world. Just melt it all down. Snake dead. The rest of us move on.
It seems like anything short of that, from the position you espouse, is utter emptiness.
I never said that, but most certainly something needs to be done. Sitting by idly and allowing something like that to grow out of control is irresponsible.
I have created no such position, you did.
I see no reason why you would invoke such dramatic and extreme measures when there are plenty of other alternatives. You offer only violence for violence.
No, it is not impossible to 'root out the bad guys' - that is a defeatist attitude, which is the position you appear to favor. I have no problem with that, but it certainly doesn't give you the right to sit back and and tell others what to do if they're looking for solutions.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it to. You can't say you don't want to annihilate them but you do want them gone, without proposing another solution. And don't tell me pissing them off from the safety of your sketch pad or video making equipment is going to turn their culture into ours. I mean, yes, I realize you have no hubs written in 14 months, so you probably just like to argue on the Internet like many do, but at some point, you have to propose a solution rather than just finding ways to slip and wriggle around my points.
How do we make them all play nice? You can't really think mocking and ridiculing them to the point of driving them to riot is going to make them want to be like us. Well, I guess you could think that, but if you really do, then I can stop participating in this conversation as we will have come to the end of what I call reasonable discourse.
I don't want anyone gone, that's not what we're talking about here.
You need not resort to focusing on me personally, I get that enough from believers.
No one is wriggling or slipping around your points and there are all kinds of alternatives and solutions. I never said I had all the answers.
We expose the violence for what it is and show that violence is not going to make people kowtow to religious beliefs. We need to show that respecting someones religion does not mean we respect the violence that goes along with it.
No, I don't, but most certainly there will be an element of mocking and ridiculing. If you don't agree, then you must also be totally against every single comedian who stands on a stage mocking and ridiculing everything under the sun.
If you say so.
You are. You still haven't given any real solution. Just, "Yeah, maybe if we keep pissing them off they'll change." That's absurd.
And how do you plan on exposing that violence without getting other people killed? You seem very cavalier about the sacrifice of other people. I suppose you will perfectly fine if someone incites some violence in this noble cause that gets a few of your loved ones killed? "Oh darn, my family is dead. But, well, hey, at least we exposed that drawing pictures of Muhammed pisses off Muslims."
Oh wait, we already knew that.
What comedians are you watching? I never see any comedians getting buildings pulled down, people beaten and tortured, and ambassadors (and innocents) killed. Much less then going and doing it again once they see how it went. That is yet another horrific analogy. There's a huge difference between satire and repetitious behavior that has the proven outcome of inciting violence. If you can't see the difference, well, I mean, what can I say if you can't see the difference. I'd call that attitude at least as big a force for evil in the world as religious sects that seek reasons for violence. Unless you really think that is going to fix the world (which gets us back to war, which you already said you don't want... back to the cake and eat it thing we go).
The only people who willingly incite riots are people who want to start a revolt or revolution. But you don't get to do that from the safety of your own home. If you are trying to get others to revolt for you, you are a coward, and your revolution won't have a heart, because it will be a coward's heart beating with weakness hiding behind a computer or a video production, not facing the agony and death it so glibly foists upon others. You want to change it so bad, go over there and change it. Get them all pissed off with your insulting cartoon on a sign on a stick that you carry around with you. Short of that, it's all hot air, empty ideals, and, again, cowardice. (Or I guess reckless stupidity.) (Or intentional propagation of violence to maintain current world order, a.k.a. being a tool of the establishment.)
Agreed, that is absurd, but those are your words, not mine.
Whether I have an instant solution readily available for you to critique or not is irrelevant. At the very least, you are defeated and unwilling to do anything about it, avoidance is your position. That is entirely irresponsible and only serves to condone the violence.
There is a great deal of things comedians say that would have gotten people beaten and tortured in the past, but that doesn't happen anymore, and it's not because people avoided the situation, either.
Drawing a bomb in Muhammad's bonnet is indeed satire to many. Here's a description of satire right out of wiki...
"In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement."
Well, that's satire for you, "a force for evil". I wonder what other pieces of satire have caused wars.
Wow, that is as melodramatic as it is over-exaggerated.
How convenient for you. You once again wriggle out of having anything to say other than: "Nope, we should keep pissing them off. It helps somehow."
You can't even tell me how it helps other than trying to make the claim that somehow, perhaps magically, they will become enlightened and see it our way if we piss them off often enough. Like, somehow in the fire of the next burning embassy, or in the screams of the next dying child, they will suddenly realize, "Hey, what am I doing defending this religion I have when I could... I could... uhh... maybe a cheeseburger or ... I... uh... I'll get some skinny jeans and an iPod or something and my life will be awesome; my donkey will become a 2013 Camero with the v8 and a canvas top and my electricity will turn on every day. I surrender and convert to Christianity... or just, um, capitalist consumerness or something... I don't know... but you win."
Worse, you accuse me of being "defeated and unwilling to do anything." I think you must be a troll. I have said repeatedly that there must be diplomacy and respect. You insist that we must keep poking them, ridiculing them, inciting the worst of them into violence that kills the innocent. After this many exchanges in this forum, that seems like it can only be the position of a troll because no real, thinking person could possibly come to the conclusion that aggravating and endlessly taunting people works for solving problems. That's the thought process of elementary school playground bullies and trolls. So, while I may be mistaken in thinking you are trolling, I'm sure reasonable people (yourself included should you happen to fall into that category) can see why I have concluded you are trolling given the outrageously absurd dedication to an unsupportable position. (That and the lack of having any hubs which is also an indicator of trolldom).
So if I give you the definition of a "feast" from wikipedia and cite examples of how peace has been made many times throughout history over the course of a meal, then I suppose you will argue that we should go and start jamming food up the a#$es of all the people in the middle east with silver forks and fancy candle sticks.
Your position in nonsensical, yet you are clearly married to it. It relies entirely on the accusation that "I'm a sissy appeaser/defeatist if I don't think taunting them through the fence is a good strategy for solving global political problems that are centuries old." You are dedicated to that idea, the absurd belief that you can bring about complex social and cultural change by simple acts of insult and disrespect. It's clear you are unable to fathom how humanity really works, and you cling to tiny bits of information as if they constitute wisdom. You are doomed to live within the tiny spectrum of the ideas you are able to fathom, and I have no more chance of illuminating the bigger picture to you than I would explaining how they make yogurt to my cat.
Yep, exactly as I thought. All hot air, no conviction. Why don't you take your brave, non-defeatist ideas and put them where your mouth is. Get you a nice bomb-in-the prophet's-hat sign and go march around your local mosque. Go make a difference, use your clever satire tactic to end the centuries of political and religious strife since you are so convinced that simple, mindless acts of disrespect are such great problem solvers.
Funny how you just keep putting your words in my mouth to support your argument. Well done.
Funny how you just keep getting more and more melodramatic with over-exaggerations.
Ah, there it is, call the other a troll when you don't agree.
And yet, there are thinking people who don't agree with you. They must all be trolls, obviously.
Yes, resorting to calling others here trolls really does help your argument.
You appear to not have understood what satire is, so I provided the definition for you.
LOL! Once again, your words in my mouth. Well done.
I think I'm done here, you have no interest in discussing this reasonably and only wish to lash out at others with emotional diatribe. Calling us trolls was most certainly the straw.
A nicely executed escape from ever having to actually make a defensible point. Run away little troll, run away.
"When you draw a picture of their prophet with a bomb, you aren't trying to save people from oppression. You are willfully kicking the snake. Nobody in this thread has made any argument about what we should do to relieve suffering over there. It's all about some perverse form of "freedom of speech." Freedom to taunt and bait the radicals regardless of what that costs innocents nearby."
The only logic I can see is that the more the world sees how whacky they are, the more they will be shamed into behaving like civilized people. It is not morally acceptable to get violent over a difference of opinion. They need to grow a thick skin. Effing crybabies.
Yeah, that's all fine and dandy to say, but, if we are being reasonable, observant, thinking people who read history, we know that's not going to happen. So... back to my point: why just piss them off for the sake of being able to say, "Hey, it's my right to piss them off and send them into a frenzy that kills people I've never met as a side effect. At least I get to do what I want! WOOT, I'm free. Hellz yeah!" I mean, no wonder so many people in the world hate us. We exercise freedom without common sense. I'm fairly sure that's not what the framers had in mind when the wrote it up.
Why do you always articulate what I think so much better than I do? Not to sound like a sycophant, but I really want to be like you when I grow up.
Just keep practicing being a sarcastic piece of crap and you will get there one day. I think your main problem, as I observe it, is that you continue to try to be polite and respectful, and, frequently, even kind. Need to shake some of that off.
She can't shake it off because she is totally polite, respectful and kind.
That's why we're here.
I'll try, but it's in my nature, I think. But, I learn quickly!
Thank you, though. That's a very kind thing to say.
That's not entirely true. History has shown successes as it has failures, but it has also shown that in order to attain freedoms such that we need not have to worry about being bitten by lying snakes, we need to do something about it. Sitting idly by accomplishes nothing and only makes matters worse in the long run.
But it is our right to piss them off if we want. Freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom not to be offended, nor does it guarentee common sense. It is unreasonable to limit the content of one's speech for fear of offending too-sensitive religious types. Remember "Piss Christ?" If you don't, it was a photo of a plastic crucifix immersed (so it was said) in a jar of the artist's urine. The pictue itseldf is really... interesting, but I think the point of it was simply to piss off (pun most definitely intended!) sensitive Christians, despite the artist's statement that it was about "the commercialization of religion."
Anyway, the artist & galleries received death threats, prints were vandalized, etc. No one rioted, but still, the reaction was pretty crazy. Should the artist have not displayed (or even created) his work because it might offend the sensitive? I would argue no. As soon as we cave in to the demands of religious fanatics, they make more demands. Where does it end?
People call Pres. Obama the anti-Christ and make racists jokes and caricatures about him all the time, and I find them offensive. Should the people who do that be forced not to? Why should religion get special treatment?
Then we might as well just build the damn gas chambers and get this over with, eh?
Shades, I can't reply directly to your post, so I have to reply to mine. I get what you're saying about kicking the snake, and for me personally, I wouldn't say/create something simply to piss off a group of people. But Muslims (and Christians, and pretty much all religious groups) get bent out of shape when even reasoned, legitimate criticism is aimed their way. Should we restrict ourselves in that case? In Pakistan, even if you say something like "I'm not so sure blasphemy laws are the best use of our resources" you could go to jail. Is this the type of climate we want in the US? I think not. Nothing - including and especially religious belief - should be immune from criticism, regardless of followers' capacity for freak-out. Common courtesy and decency should guide our actions, but it shouldn't be required, because who is to determine that?
I totally agree with a lot of this. If something seems unjust or out of time, it is reasonable and right to seek to communicate, try to resolve what we think is unjust. There is such a huge difference between working to resolve problems and just inciting violence through the most insulting thing we can think of to do. That's just stupid. Which is why I don't think anyone actually thinks that will resolve anything (outside of trolling for attention obviously).
When you say "should we restrict ourselves" to me that creates a false challenge. Do you have a genuine NEED, like, you will die or your spleen will fall out or your children will starve if you don't insult their prophet? Of course not. Do you think it will fix anything if you incite them to riot? Obviously not, it hasn't worked in 1500 years. So, the only thing you are restricting yourself from is the ability to throw some gasoline on the fire. And while you can make an argument that it is your right to throw gasoline on a fire, I have to wonder why you insist on having the right to do something so utterly pointless and yet deadly to others. To me it seems not only stupid, but evil. I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO DO EVIL, STUPID, POINTLESS THINGS THAT GET OTHER PEOPLE KILLED. To me, that violates the basic principle of rights, which is that your rights only extend to where they don't impinge upon the rights of others. So, you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater, and you shouldn't be able to get innocents killed just so you can exercise your right to be condescending to other people. That only seems like common sense to me.
An intelligent, reasonable, thinking governmental body can debate real situations in other parts of the world and determine how much diplomacy or war is required. You are not a coward or an appeaser if you choose not to intentionally inflame angry extremists with a glib, casually tossed out picture or video. You are a thinker and reasonable person who understands how humanity works. It is the angry, cringing little cowards who don't go over there themselves and actually try to solve the problems that are revealed as weak by their need to insult and cause riots from the safety of their homes, proving their worldview is as spineless as it is mindless.
This fear of being weak for not drawing pictures is absurd. Throwing pictures over the Internet wall is the coward's move, not the desire to do the hard work of diplomatically trying to bring disparate cultures together. Fortunately, those sorts of people rarely get far in politics, because the media spotlight eventually reveals the nature of their character and gross want of ideas.
While you do have an opinion, you lose all credibility when you make statements like that to support your opinion, the same as when you call people trolls simply because you don't agree with them. Try to remove the emotional diatribe and name calling from your posts and you may gain some credibility back.
Agree with you 100%.
A bit surprised not to have seen anyone bring forth the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument until now.
Glad you did.
And if they choose to not avoid it, that is their right. I don't think their is any doubt the recent movie was made to provoke--what has happened is no accident. But they were exercising a valid and important freedom.
In order for me to have the freedom to make the stuff I make, idiots have to have the freedom to make the ridiculous products they want to make. That is the price and we have to pay it to be free.
So if you decide to piss them off by making a movie you know will insult them (and won't change anything anyway), as is your right, when other people who have nothing to do with you get killed in the mayhem, it's just like, Oh well, tough luck for those people? At least you got to exercise your right, so F--- everyone else?
I hardly think that's a good exercise of freedom.
That is the answer. If we want to eleminate murderors from society, all that we have to do is murder them.... problem solved ??
Personally I feel there are far more important issues in the world today!
Luckily sport unites people throughout the world... but sheesh, I wish Pakistan hadn't beaten NZ today in the 20/20 match!
Perhaps the kiwis will riot over this sacrilege!
by paarsurrey3 years ago
Hi friendsIt is a wrong notion that Islam spread with sword or bloodshed. Islam never needed it; Islam’s brilliant teachings are sufficient to convince anybody for its natural spread.This can be well observed from...
by paarsurrey15 months ago
Hi friendsIslam spread very peacefully in Europe as can be seen from the following account of the Wikipedia:A major development in the history of Muslim Spain was the dynastic change in 750 in the Arab Caliphate, when...
by gulnazahmad6 years ago
If western media, politicians and other public say that Muslims are terrorists and Islam is a terror spreading religion why don't they look at their own history and present scenario. If killing innocent people is...
by Claire Evans12 months ago
Very rarely do I see a forum thread on Islam. I have not seen an atheist who has started a thread on Islam insulting Mohammed or Allah or just speaking out against them. Christianity and Jesus seem to be the...
by pisean2823115 years ago
what r ur honest and genuine views on islam?
by gulnazahmad5 years ago
Prophet Muhammad was the most peaceful man on the earth ever and he is and he will be. People who say that religion teaches aggression should know that all the prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses who followed their...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.