Shooting at Muhammad cartoon conference in Dallas

[Neutraligon]

They don't seem to have been particularly competent terrorists. Not even gifted amateurs.

I'm guessing that for suicide terrorists you can only really hope for "gifted amateurs"

They normally are not gifted for long.

[New Skaaneland]

So where are the photos?

[Islamic Republic e Jariri]

The conference was a despicable abuse of free speech - a part if me thinks they were even hoping for a provocation to strengthen their far right cause. These are are ignorant bigots as overly emotional as a bunch of raving babies - yet the law is the law and must be upheld - the shooting was wrong and should not have happened (although I won't pretend not to understand why it happened) and the conference was disgusting and could be equated to hate speech to incite discriminatory behavior but was completely legal at the end of the day - and shoot outs have never solved anything.

[Threlizdun]

First of all, please source were you got that preposterous statistic that a quarter of all Muslims support terrorism. Secondly, yes, Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, and Christian terrorism all certainly exist and are major problems.

Good job ignoring the majority of terrorists present in the world. Stop pointing out some fringe terrorist religious groups and begin to ask what religion ISIS, Hamas and Al-Qaeda follows.

It is undeniable that the religions you noted had only led to minor and fringe cases of terrorism whereas Islam is responsible for virtually all terrorism after the Cold War.

So the Hindu terrorism in India doesn't exist? The Buddhist terrorism in Burma is all lies? The Lord's Resistance Army, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, and IRA don't exist? No, the majority of terrorism in the world hasn't been Islamic. Hell, even most of the terrorism by Islamic terror groups aren't even primarily about Islam. Terrorism is about politics. Terrorism is something that a group of people with radical political ideals engage in when they feel they have no options left. Don't bullshit me about terrorism being a distinctly Islamic phenomenon.

[L Ron Cupboard]

They don't seem to have been particularly competent terrorists. Not even gifted amateurs.

I'm guessing that for suicide terrorists you can only really hope for "gifted amateurs"

There seem to have been a few cases where it is people with learning difficulties who have been manipulated by people they know into becoming suicide bombers. A particularly nauseating tactic.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Good job ignoring the majority of terrorists present in the world. Stop pointing out some fringe terrorist religious groups and begin to ask what religion ISIS, Hamas and Al-Qaeda follows.

It is undeniable that the religions you noted had only led to minor and fringe cases of terrorism whereas Islam is responsible for virtually all terrorism after the Cold War.

So the Hindu terrorism in India doesn't exist? The Buddhist terrorism in Burma is all lies? The Lord's Resistance Army, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, and IRA don't exist? No, the majority of terrorism in the world hasn't been Islamic. Hell, even most of the terrorism by Islamic terror groups aren't even primarily about Islam. Terrorism is about politics. Terrorism is something that a group of people with radical political ideals engage in when they feel they have no options left. Don't bullshit me about terrorism being a distinctly Islamic phenomenon.

I am not denying that terrorism other than Islamic terrorism does not exist. Yes, there are Hindu terrorists, Buddhist terrorists, Christian terrorists and they are all a shame. What is undeniable is that Islam is the religion that had led to most cases of religious violence and terrorism.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

They don't seem to have been particularly competent terrorists. Not even gifted amateurs.

I'm guessing that for suicide terrorists you can only really hope for "gifted amateurs"

I read somewhere in Iraq that a suicide bomber died after accidentally detonating the bomb he strapped on himself while demonstrating to others how to suicide-bomb.....

[Herskerstad]

The conference was a despicable abuse of free speech - a part if me thinks they were even hoping for a provocation to strengthen their far right cause. These are are ignorant bigots as overly emotional as a bunch of raving babies - yet the law is the law and must be upheld - the shooting was wrong and should not have happened (although I won't pretend not to understand why it happened) and the conference was disgusting and could be equated to hate speech to incite discriminatory behavior but was completely legal at the end of the day - and shoot outs have never solved anything.

Fortune is that you are not clairvoyant, and that free speech does include, shock or not, the ability to talk or produce negative images of individuals present or historical. It 'could' be equated with hate speech as much as political critiques could be considered treason.

Fortunately this will only add to the trend and there is nothing that will really harm the image of Muhammad, as the west finally catching up and understanding in detail some of the shit he did.

[Lubland]

I'd just like to point out some shocking facts here,

No, not all muslims are bad.
HOWEVER
Data has been collated estimating that around 25% of the worlds muslim population are extremists.
Lets do some year 6 maths, 1.2 Billion divided by 25% = over 300 MILLION extremists worldwide. Now lets look at something else, a question this time. What did you feel when you saw the recent news of beheaddings?
Shock, anguish, disguist? Congratulations, Islam has inspired fear into your heart. They use this fear both to recruit new followers daily and to keep us scared. As Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbot said not so long ago "The best thing we can do is get on with our daily lives". But no, Islam is leading the greatest worldwide propaganda campaign since Communism and it's working.

Secondly, go look up "jesus cartoon", "jesus meme", "Buddhist cartoon", "hindu cartoon".

Now post how many christian, buddhist and hindu shootings have ocurred due to them. (And by the way, don't say Crusades. Trust me I will destroy your failure to go look up maps of how far into the Middle East they got and why they did it in the first place. Besides it's not a shooting and i'm pretty sure cartoons and memes wern't around then.)

Finally, have any of you bothered to find out what Islam stands for? If anything those cartoons tell a thousand words.

First of all, please source were you got that preposterous statistic that a quarter of all Muslims support terrorism. Secondly, yes, Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, and Christian terrorism all certainly exist and are major problems.

At the present time on my slow internet and tired eyes I can only say the statistic came from aethiest researchers of Islam and western intelligence services, CIA, AZIO, M15/6 etc. as for the terrorists, yes they exist but my question was how many deaths have been at the hands of one of those faiths. Also how many 13 year wars costing trillions and countless lives have been as a result of extremism other than Islamic?

[Imperializt Russia]

So the Hindu terrorism in India doesn't exist? The Buddhist terrorism in Burma is all lies? The Lord's Resistance Army, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, and IRA don't exist? No, the majority of terrorism in the world hasn't been Islamic. Hell, even most of the terrorism by Islamic terror groups aren't even primarily about Islam. Terrorism is about politics. Terrorism is something that a group of people with radical political ideals engage in when they feel they have no options left. Don't bullshit me about terrorism being a distinctly Islamic phenomenon.

I am not denying that terrorism other than Islamic terrorism does not exist. Yes, there are Hindu terrorists, Buddhist terrorists, Christian terrorists and they are all a shame. What is undeniable is that Islam is the religion that had led to most cases of religious violence and terrorism.

Not significantly so. Islamic terrorism is about approximate to all other forms of religious terrorism.
Pre-2001, all forms of religious terrorism were about approximate to all forms of political terrorism, which were in turn approximate to all forms of secessionist terrorism.

[Threlizdun]

So the Hindu terrorism in India doesn't exist? The Buddhist terrorism in Burma is all lies? The Lord's Resistance Army, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, and IRA don't exist? No, the majority of terrorism in the world hasn't been Islamic. Hell, even most of the terrorism by Islamic terror groups aren't even primarily about Islam. Terrorism is about politics. Terrorism is something that a group of people with radical political ideals engage in when they feel they have no options left. Don't bullshit me about terrorism being a distinctly Islamic phenomenon.

I am not denying that terrorism other than Islamic terrorism does not exist. Yes, there are Hindu terrorists, Buddhist terrorists, Christian terrorists and they are all a shame. What is undeniable is that Islam is the religion that had led to most cases of religious violence and terrorism.

In this century? Sure, it is the most common religiously inspired terrorism happening now. Throughout history? Hardly, Islamic terrorism is an exceptionally new occurrence. Hell, Islamic fundamentalism is barely a century old. We can trace the first really notable rise in Islamic fundamentalism to the teachings of Al-Wahab in the mid to late 1700's, and even then it didn't have much of any influence outside the Sa'ud dynasty. We didn't see Islamic fundamentalism as a major political force until its incorporation into anti-imperialist movements in the late 19th and early 20th century. Islamic terrorism as we know it today only arose following foreign suppression of secular nationalist forces in the Middle East and Central Asia and US funding of the Mujahedin to counter the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. So sure, Islamic terrorism has been the most common form of religiously-inspired terrorism for about the last 30-40 years. Is that we're going to base an entire assessment of a religious group upon? Still, Islamic terrorism still falls behind secular politically motivated terrorism even today.

[Threlizdun]

First of all, please source were you got that preposterous statistic that a quarter of all Muslims support terrorism. Secondly, yes, Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, and Christian terrorism all certainly exist and are major problems.

At the present time on my slow internet and tired eyes I can only say the statistic came from aethiest researchers of Islam and western intelligence services, CIA, AZIO, M15/6 etc. as for the terrorists, yes they exist but my question was how many deaths have been at the hands of one of those faiths. Also how many 13 year wars costing trillions and countless lives have been as a result of extremism other than Islamic?

The equivalent of 13 trillion? Most. Most wars have been the result of spending large sums and losing many lives from causes other than Islamic extremism. Most wars this century have been from sources other than Islamic extremism. Though I would have to say the biggest war I've ever faced was reading the rest of your post after accusing the CIA of lying to promote atheism. So.... yeah. Ignore list is getting large tonight.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I am not denying that terrorism other than Islamic terrorism does not exist. Yes, there are Hindu terrorists, Buddhist terrorists, Christian terrorists and they are all a shame. What is undeniable is that Islam is the religion that had led to most cases of religious violence and terrorism.

In this century? Sure, it is the most common religiously inspired terrorism happening now. Throughout history? Hardly, Islamic terrorism is an exceptionally new occurrence. Hell, Islamic fundamentalism is barely a century old. We can trace the first really notable rise in Islamic fundamentalism to the teachings of Al-Wahab in the mid to late 1700's, and even then it didn't have much of any influence outside the Sa'ud dynasty. We didn't see Islamic fundamentalism as a major political force until its incorporation into anti-imperialist movements in the late 19th and early 20th century. Islamic terrorism as we know it today only arose following foreign suppression of secular nationalist forces in the Middle East and Central Asia and US funding of the Mujahedin to counter the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. So sure, Islamic terrorism has been the most common form of religiously-inspired terrorism for about the last 30-40 years. Is that we're going to base an entire assessment of a religious group upon? Still, Islamic terrorism still falls behind secular politically motivated terrorism even today.

Yes, definitely in this century only, and I'm aware that Islamic fundamentalism has more modern origins contrary to popular belief. But, being the major contributor of terrorism in this century alone is enough of a problem. And, violence is not foreign to Islamic teaching at all throughout the years, Mohammed, for example, started as a military leader routinely raiding merchant caravans and attacking neighboring tribes. Islam was violent in its start, began to become peaceful over the centuries, and during the Modern Era, became violent again. I guess some tapped over their roots.

And, please define "terrorism" and give examples of some of that secular politically motivated terrorism. They're also a scourge to the human race.

[MERIZoC]

Good nobody was hurt. But really, why the fuck do we even let Geert Wilders into this country?

[The Flame Dawn]

I'm not surprised about the violence concerning this. There have been threats of violence towards cartoons that depict Muhammad for a few years. A notible incident is the 200th episode of South Park which terrorists thretened to kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker if they depicted Muhammad. Comedy Central told the duo that they had to censor out Muhammad. The Duo was irratated by this and decided to make a joke out of it in their 201th episode by censoring out anything related to Muhammad. (Info)

[Napkiraly]

Good to see no innocent lives were lost.

[Miletos]

They lied about the language an ethnic group speak to try to serve their argument, they claim all Muslims are the same and that literally not a single one cares about America, they claim that everyone is lying that Catholics had mass in Latin before 1962, and they just said that all Americans who don't live in Texas are separatists from the glory of Texas. They're a troll. If they aren't, then may the gods help them. If we can't call someone like them out on their shit then there just any point to this site anymore.

Are you literally kidding me? Do you think there was some Global Catholic Meeting of a billion people in 1962 that decided all of a sudden to change the mass from Latin to the native language? That before 1962 every single Catholic spoke Latin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vat ... il#Liturgy

[Threlizdun]

In this century? Sure, it is the most common religiously inspired terrorism happening now. Throughout history? Hardly, Islamic terrorism is an exceptionally new occurrence. Hell, Islamic fundamentalism is barely a century old. We can trace the first really notable rise in Islamic fundamentalism to the teachings of Al-Wahab in the mid to late 1700's, and even then it didn't have much of any influence outside the Sa'ud dynasty. We didn't see Islamic fundamentalism as a major political force until its incorporation into anti-imperialist movements in the late 19th and early 20th century. Islamic terrorism as we know it today only arose following foreign suppression of secular nationalist forces in the Middle East and Central Asia and US funding of the Mujahedin to counter the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. So sure, Islamic terrorism has been the most common form of religiously-inspired terrorism for about the last 30-40 years. Is that we're going to base an entire assessment of a religious group upon? Still, Islamic terrorism still falls behind secular politically motivated terrorism even today.

Yes, definitely in this century only, and I'm aware that Islamic fundamentalism has more modern origins contrary to popular belief. But, being the major contributor of terrorism in this century alone is enough of a problem.

We know that Islam has not been responsible for many acts of terrorism until recently. So does that tell us that Islam has just been hiding what it really is for almost all of its existence, or does that show us that the social conditions Muslims find themselves in has changed? The briefest of glances at what the West has done to the Islamic world in the past century should leave little to the imagination as to why Muslims are taking up arms. It's not a problem of Islam; it's a problem of politics.

And, violence is not foreign to Islamic teaching at all throughout the years, Mohammed, for example, started as a military leader routinely raiding merchant caravans and attacking neighboring tribes. Islam was violent in its start, began to become peaceful over the centuries, and during the Modern Era, became violent again. I guess some tapped over their roots.

After having to flee Mecca to begin the development of the Umma (Muslim community) in Yathrib, now known as Medina, Muhammad came to assume the role of Shayk for the Umma. This was something he expressed reluctance to do, but in Beduoin life at the time tribal identities served as the basic foundation upon which society was built, and all tribes needed a Shayk to represent them. Muhammad denied the tribal insistence on family lines and marriage as deciding who may be in a tribe affirming that all with faith in Allah were welcome in his Umma, however in order to operate in Medina and receive recognition and acceptance from Beduoin society he had to conform to this role. This role included continuing some practices of Beduoin tradition for which tribes received honor and income, and that tradition included caravan raiding. Tribes would raid caravans to show the roads were dangerous, after which they would offer the caravans protection for a fee. It was banditry in practice, but it was something that society not only expected, it demanded. Without caravan raiding you have no tribe. Understanding of the situation is important.

Now looking at Muhammad chiefly as a military leader is terribly misguided. His life, the lives of his people, and the survival of Islam all depended on the Umma being able to offer defense against the Meccans. The monotheism and iconoclasticism of Islam threatened the rule of the Quraysh in Mecca and their control of Kaaba as a polytheistic pilgrimage site. Muhammad had to assume a military leadership position or face certain death. Despite this, he offered repeated insistence that peace was always preferable to violence, and that it was only acceptable to kill so long as you are being threatened, and that should the enemy surrender you must spare them. Even if they don't surrender, you are subject to rules over how you may fight them. Mercy must be shown. It is clearly spelled out in the Qur'an that it was a very particular circumstance that made violence permissible, and that even then it still should not be relished. The myth of Islam as the "religion of the sword" is entirely inappropriate.

And, please define "terrorism" and give examples of some of that secular politically motivated terrorism. They're also a scourge to the human race.

I've honestly given up on trying to define terrorism a long time ago, since it seems to just be something people label political enemies. If I have to give a definition, I would say that they are individuals who utilize violence, especially against civilians and noncombatants, meant to inspire terror in order to achieve their ideological goals. Secular terrorist organizations include the Shining Path, Liberation Tigers of Tamill, National Socialist Movement, United Liberation Front of Assam, Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army, American Front, FARC, ELN, Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist, Golden Dawn, Basque Country and Freedom (ETA), Kurdistan Worker's Party, Communist Party of India (Maoist), and the People's Liberation Army of Manipur to name a few.

[GreatLitva]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32579396

Just breaking. Two suspects shot and killed, one officer injured, this is all I know so far.

As for discussion: do you think conferences like this should be allowed to proceed, does the possibility of violence change your view?

how can you ban it?

[Gauthier]

Good job ignoring the majority of terrorists present in the world. Stop pointing out some fringe terrorist religious groups and begin to ask what religion ISIS, Hamas and Al-Qaeda follows.

It is undeniable that the religions you noted had only led to minor and fringe cases of terrorism whereas Islam is responsible for virtually all terrorism after the Cold War.

So the Hindu terrorism in India doesn't exist? The Buddhist terrorism in Burma is all lies? The Lord's Resistance Army, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, and IRA don't exist? No, the majority of terrorism in the world hasn't been Islamic. Hell, even most of the terrorism by Islamic terror groups aren't even primarily about Islam. Terrorism is about politics. Terrorism is something that a group of people with radical political ideals engage in when they feel they have no options left. Don't bullshit me about terrorism being a distinctly Islamic phenomenon.

The Reign of Terror was really about Muslim peasants putting French nobility to the guillotine. *nod nod*

[Benuty]

Good nobody was hurt. But really, why the fuck do we even let Geert Wilders into this country?

To ring the dinner bell of-course.

Geert Wilders has a tendency of having bodies follow them everywhere. Like Jessica Fletcher from Murder She Wrote.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I've honestly given up on trying to define terrorism a long time ago, since it seems to just be something people label political enemies. If I have to give a definition, I would say that they are individuals who utilize violence, especially against civilians and noncombatants, meant to inspire terror in order to achieve their ideological goals.

I thank you for properly defining "terrorism" as you define it. It definitely fits Islam in the earliest days of its conception, individuals such as Mohammed and the earliest Muslims utilizing violence, especially against civilians and noncombatants to inspire terror in order to achieve their ideological goals.

We know that Islam has not been responsible for many acts of terrorism until recently. So does that tell us that Islam has just been hiding what it really is for almost all of its existence, or does that show us that the social conditions Muslims find themselves in has changed? The briefest of glances at what the West has done to the Islamic world in the past century should leave little to the imagination as to why Muslims are taking up arms. It's not a problem of Islam; it's a problem of politics.

In contrast, in accord with your definition of "terrorism", we know that Islam has been responsible for many "acts of terrorism" even in its earliest days of its concepton. The jihads waged by Mohammed in his days are an example of "terrorism". Waging war and violence is at the core of Islam, and Muslims throughout history have just become more peaceful because, partly they did not made efforts to follow 100% the Quran, and partly as reasons of practicality and adjustment over the Medieval social conditions and times.

After having to flee Mecca to begin the development of the Umma (Muslim community) in Yathrib, now known as Medina, Muhammad came to assume the role of Shayk for the Umma. This was something he expressed reluctance to do, but in Beduoin life at the time tribal identities served as the basic foundation upon which society was built, and all tribes needed a Shayk to represent them. Muhammad denied the tribal insistence on family lines and marriage as deciding who may be in a tribe affirming that all with faith in Allah were welcome in his Umma, however in order to operate in Medina and receive recognition and acceptance from Beduoin society he had to conform to this role. This role included continuing some practices of Beduoin tradition for which tribes received honor and income, and that tradition included caravan raiding. Tribes would raid caravans to show the roads were dangerous, after which they would offer the caravans protection for a fee. It was banditry in practice, but it was something that society not only expected, it demanded. Without caravan raiding you have no tribe. Understanding of the situation is important.

Your explanation is very reasonable, only if you pretend that defending the tribe and promoting tribal solidarity is just what Mohammed had in mind. Mohammed's tricks of violence extended to the Jewish as well, Mohammed executed 600 men and enslaved Jewish women and children, hardly a continuation of long-inherited Bedouin tribal traditions. Mohammed also launched a crusade against a Byzantine army, recruiting 30,000 men. Harassing the Jews or attacking the Byzantines (even though the attack against the Byzantines failed to materialize because the rumoured Byzantine army never showed up) destroys the picture of a man only interested in holding tribal solidarity and upholding the role of a traditional Shayk.

Now looking at Muhammad chiefly as a military leader is terribly misguided. His life, the lives of his people, and the survival of Islam all depended on the Umma being able to offer defense against the Meccans. The monotheism and iconoclasticism of Islam threatened the rule of the Quraysh in Mecca and their control of Kaaba as a polytheistic pilgrimage site. Muhammad had to assume a military leadership position or face certain death. Despite this, he offered repeated insistence that peace was always preferable to violence, and that it was only acceptable to kill so long as you are being threatened, and that should the enemy surrender you must spare them. Even if they don't surrender, you are subject to rules over how you may fight them. Mercy must be shown. It is clearly spelled out in the Qur'an that it was a very particular circumstance that made violence permissible, and that even then it still should not be relished. The myth of Islam as the "religion of the sword" is entirely inappropriate.

Ditto above, Mohammed launched a "crusade" against the Byzantines, being able to recruit 30,000 males, hardly a non-military leader? A so-called defensive posture against the Meccans does not accurately fit the picture. If anything, it was the Muslims doing the offensive against the Meccans. The Battle of Badr where Mohammed sent out men to attack caravans deliberately provoked Mecca is a proof. Mohammed also ordered to cleanse out 3 Jewish tribes from Medina because they rejected claims of his prophethood, hardly a defensive one.

The image of a peaceful and merciful Mohammed you states is also inaccurate. Not one account from the Hadith and Sira mentions any attempt of Mohammed peacemaking. A more accurate phrase will be "convert, pay or die" as seen in a Hadith Sahih Muslim (I'm not much knowledgeable about the numbering of Hadiths):

"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them."

And, there was of course, rules how Muslims should fight them, but different from "rules" you pictured. Loot taken from enemies can be acquired. Also, you can marry war captives and rape them, as Mohammed did for Safiyah and Juwairiyah. And upon conquering mecca, Mohammed ordered those who sang "satirical songs" against him killed or those who insulted his ministry in Mecca. Mohammed also beheaded Jewish men and took their children and women as slaves, hardly "acts of mercy".

And, Mohammed's definitely a military leader - http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm. Mohammed did almost 100 expeditions, 27 of them are wars and conflicts, some started mainly to invade land, to convert others to Islam, to capture booty, and even Wikipedia testifies it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad.

I've honestly given up on trying to define terrorism a long time ago, since it seems to just be something people label political enemies. If I have to give a definition, I would say that they are individuals who utilize violence, especially against civilians and noncombatants, meant to inspire terror in order to achieve their ideological goals. Secular terrorist organizations include the Shining Path, Liberation Tigers of Tamill, National Socialist Movement, United Liberation Front of Assam, Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army, American Front, FARC, ELN, Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist, Golden Dawn, Basque Country and Freedom (ETA), Kurdistan Worker's Party, Communist Party of India (Maoist), and the People's Liberation Army of Manipur to name a few.

Secular terrorism also exists, and I'm not one to discredit their existence. You do realize most of them are left-wing peoples, though. A bit unrelated to the topic.

And, pardon me for using the spelling of Mohammed rather than the traditional "Muhammad", I'm used with it.

[West Aurelia]

One of the suspects has been identified.

[Seraven]

Good nobody was hurt. But really, why the fuck do we even let Geert Wilders into this country?

It's America, man!

They let everybody in as long as they exercise free speech.

[Saracenia]

It's America, man!

They let everybody in as long as they exercise free speech.

Indeed.

Compare to, say, Indonesia, who allows imams and habibs to preach hatred against the ahli-kitab and ahmadiyya in the mosque's mimbars and people to thoughtlessly engaging in holocaust-denial, while jailing an atheist for his blasphemy against the Prophet pbuh.

I repeat (this is Azurand btw), as the part of the Faith for a long time, I know that most Muslims are nice, normal people. It's just that... a lot of them really need to stop engaging in ridiculous persecution complex.