True to form, religion has once again taken center stage in the world arena.
By now, the general premise of the protests in Libya, Egypt and beyond is well known, and special attention has been given to the death of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens, a UC Berkeley graduate, here on campus. I am not here to recapitulate these events. My interest is in dissecting the role of religion within this situation.
Islam has been dubbed an explanation of the events, but why? In search of this answer, I want to momentarily suspend any political and personal convictions to create a sort of analytical vacuum so that we can look solely at the religious reasons behind this outrage.
What is it exactly about this video that made Muslims so angry? We’re going to go way back to the basics for this.
The Prophet Muhammad is considered to be the founder of Islam and is therefore a sacred figure to adherents of the religion. In addition to Muhammad’s own personal status, there is a basic religious concern that images of the prophet can divert attention from the worship of Allah. Accordingly, in Islamic law, it is forbidden to depict Muhammad in any form.
Variations on aniconism are a familiar and pervasive concept in religions across the board. Take, for example, the drama of the golden calf — a human made idol that violated one of the 10 Commandments and angered God — in the Old Testament. And this tension around symbolic representation is not limited to the religious world. Let’s not forget flag burning or laws against desecrating money — both reflecting nationalist sentiment — that also spark controversy. The anger of Muslims in the face of such an offense is therefore not a specifically Islamic phenomenon, nor should it be pinpointed as an aspect of religious extremism.
One could even argue that these Muslim populations are reacting to something that offends a very basic element of their identity. This is a crucial distinction that is often overlooked. Religious beliefs are impossibly intertwined with the personal and universal identities of these revolting nations. The result of this fusion is that religion and politics are never truly separate. As Americans who have, in theory, a separation of church and state, we struggle with this overlap.
The question of violence in this particular event seemingly supersedes all other efforts to rationalize the response. Hillary Clinton stated in a speech given after the attack on the Libyan embassy that violence was not an acceptable response. Similarly, it is not my intention to condone the violence in response to this affront; on the contrary, I fully condemn it. But it is important to note — extremist interpretations of “jihad” aside — that Islam does not promote violence as an acceptable means of defending the religion. That being said, it is not only misinformed but also slanderous to say that Islam is, by nature, a violent religion. The violence that we see occurring in these countries is the combination of many other factors, sometimes including religious extremism and misplaced religious justification, but is not exclusively based on them.
One of the most prominent Western critiques of the Middle East is the seeming inability of the people to adapt to “true” democracy, freedoms and all. Let’s consider what the implications of this claim really are. What makes American democracy such a beautiful thing is that it, in principle, represents the will of the people. Well, the “people” in question here are Muslims, and it is a part of their identity that is not invalid. We consistently fail to adequately account for the role of religion in their lives simply because we, as a secular nation, cannot comprehend that relationship.
In an effort to further understand this mindset, I spoke with a Muslim student on campus, senior Sumayyah Naguib, who said she feels that the violence and riots cannot be justified by the offense. She made it very clear that the video should essentially fall under the category of legally unprotected hate speech, as it defames an essential element of the Muslim identity.
Ismail Mohamed, a religious scholar who lived in Germany, advanced this position even further in a news article in The New York Times. He told a reporter that “we don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights.” He said the West needs to “understand the ideology of the people.”
In light of this outlook, maybe we should reconsider our condemnation of the anger caused by the video. The situation is complicated — it always is — but is it unfair for us to ask them to build a national identity without one of the most fundamental elements of their society, their religion? What if the will of the people is inspired by the will of Allah? It is certainly a slippery slope, but one thing is sure: Discounting religious sentiment is not going to solve the problem.
Contact Hannah Brady at [email protected]
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
wait, Most of these comments are full of shit or
dont know anything about Islam (sorry for the language, but this just ridiculous.). Yes I myself believe in freedom of speech;
But humiliating a whole race and what they believe in is utter stupidity.
Its like they are asking for a fight.
“Aggression is Forbidden. Fighting is
permitted only in self-defence.”
Ill tell you what it says about war:
” [2:190] You may fight in the cause
of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not
love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against
you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than
murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein.
If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD
freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is
permitted only against the aggressors.”
[ my apologies, I forgot the number for this one] Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not
smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of
forty years
These are only few of the top of my head. There is no place in the Qur’an that states ,” Go start killing non-muslims.” .
So if you actually havent read the Qur’an or anything about Islam. Stop spreading false info.
Hannah, I really appreciate your opinion here, especially in the face of the mean-spirited comments you’ve received for writing it. I am all for free speech, and I also do not condone the violence that has occurred, but I agree that there are things that cross the line (like hate speech). Someone may have the right to say anything he/she wants, but that doesn’t make it right. Many of the commentators have mentioned that we live in a CIVILIZED society where freedom of speech is protected. Yes, we do live in a civilized society, but that also means we should think before we speak. Our goal shouldn’t be to incite people for the sake of inciting. What would this country be like if one could throw around the “N word” or homophobic language without any outrage?
It’s also funny to see so many people commenting that Islam and democracy are completely incompatible. In case you’re not aware, political “theorists” used to throw around these same ideas in the 1960s and 1970s in regards to Catholicism and democracy. I guess history really does repeat itself.
Finally, if you have anything to say in regards to myself or Ms. Brady, I ask that you do it in a civilized manner. We are free to disagree with each other, but there is no need for mean spirited attacks, hatred, or any anger. I think those of us that comment on opinion articles like this forget that an ACTUAL PERSON wrote this article, and we forget our manners as well. Thank you!
You said “Our goal shouldn’t be to incite people for the sake of inciting.” I’m sorry if you think that is what is happening. The reason so many communities around the world are fighting with Muslims is that Muslims are too quick to get incited and resort to violence while defending the reputation of their religion. Did our soldiers intend to incite Muslims when we burned some Qurans that were used to pass secret messages among terrorists? Of course not, but the unreasonable Muslims around the world got angry at us anyways. Did we mean to dishonor Islam by stationing troops in the “holy” land of Arabia during Desert Shield? Of course not, but unreasonable Muslims took offense at that noble gesture anyways. All around the world unreasonable Muslims try to impose their beliefs into non-Muslim communities and get incited when the locals push back. When France outlawed head scarfs to give freedom to female Muslim students, many liberals rushed to defend the Muslim religious rules, as if misogyny were acceptable as long as Muslim say so. Our conflict with Islam far supersedes the highbrow discussion over John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism because Islam is far less tolerant of legitimate criticism.
First of all thank you for the thought out and reasonable response. However, I think there are some mistakes in your thinking.
1. My reference to Catholicism had nothing to do with JFK, but rather to much of Latin America and Spain, which were governed by brutal dictators. It was the situations in these countries that largely farmed the ideas of political scientists in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, many of whom believed these states would never turn into successful democracies because of what they believed was a divide between Catholicism and democracy.
2. I don’t believe the French headscarf law was put into place to grant “freedom” to female Muslim students. I don’t believe that’s even how the law was framed in France. Rather, the French claim it was done to preserve the separation between church and state, which is why the law only applies to public settings. The issue of “freedom” also begs the question, what if a Muslim woman (or any woman for that matter) WANTS to wear a headscarf? What if a Catholic child WANTS to wear a cross in a public school? And what if a Jewish boy WANTS to wear a yamaka? However, you have to hand it to the French. at least they’re somewhat equally against all religions in public spheres.
3. All of “Arabia” (depending on your definition of the geographic location) is not considered “holy” land by Muslims. Only the cities of Mecca and Medina are considered holy cities in which non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. I would also question whether the whole Muslim world took offense at U.S. intervention in 1990. In fact, I will say with certainty the population of Kuwait was generally pleased with the U.S. The same of course could not be said of Iraq.
4. I believe this “film,” “Innocence of Muslims,” really was made to incite the Muslim world, which is evident based on the fact that the creator chose to translate the film into Arabic after not gaining any traction from the English trailer. In the words of respected film critic Roger Ebert, “the trailer hoped to hurt their feelings. Why else, when their (The filmmakers’) original effort failed to attract attention, did they pay to have it translated into Arabic, so it could be understood in nations where the box office appeal of the so-called film would be non-existent? The only purpose must have been to hurt feelings.”
5. Finally, I think it’s also a mistake to refer to Muslims in such general terms, such as in your example of Operation Desert Storm. There is great diversity amongst the 1.7 billion followers of Islam, just as there is diversity amongst Christians.
Thank you for your response. I didn’t know political scientists thought so little of Catholics in Latin America. My recollection was that we feared Marxist agitators promising free land to peasants in return for loyalty to Fidel Castro, so we appealed to Catholics to abandon the Godless Marxists. Their inability to form democracies had more to do with their perceived lack of sophistication rather than their devotion to Catholicism, I thought. Anyways, allow me to briefly address some of your questions:
2 – If a Muslim girl WANTS to wear a head scarf I believe French law only prohibits scarves that hide the face. The French say it’s for security reasons. I support the ban because the scarf’s intent is to enforce male domination over Muslim women, and that must not be allowed in public schools. Even if a Muslim girl wants to wear it as a symbol of her devotion to her faith, she must not be allowed to since it is also a symbol of oppression, just as racist whites are not allowed to wear KKK costumes to school, Sikhs are not allowed to bring religious knives to school, and gangsters are not allowed to wear gang colors to school.
3 – Most Muslims in the West only regard Mecca and Medina as holy, with some claiming Jerusalem is also holy. However, Muslims in the Middle East consider all of Arabia to be reserved for people of faith only. That is why Osama Bin laden was so angry at the U.S. He previously gladly worked with the U.S. to destroy Soviet installations in Afghanistan, but he became angry during Desert Shield and Desert Storm when our troops were stationed in Arabia. He knew for decades we were helping Israel maintain supremacy over its Arab Muslim neighbors and he was OK with that. It was only when we stationed infidel troops in Arabia that he turned his anger towards us. Kuwaitis are generally more sophisticated and knew Islam was being exploited by Osama, so they helped us to convince other Muslims that we had no intention to take over Arabia.
4 – The film “Innocense of Muslims” was made to spread propaganda about Islam, but the targeted audience was Arab-speaking Christians, such as Egypt’s Coptic Christians, who are being tormented by their intolerant Muslim countrymen. I agree its intent was to hurt feelings, but it’s like a Cal Berkeley football story that makes fun of rival teams knowing full well most readers would be Cal students, and like Muslim films which made similar outlandish accusations against Jews, Christians, and infidels. The film was not broadcast on Arab TV networks. Muslims have to seek it out on Youtube. If they go through all that trouble to become inflamed, what hope is there for a pluralistic society where any offense on Youtube’s billion channels is grounds for deadly rioting and religious assassination? In any case the film was not made by the American government or American businesses, so why are we being blamed? Again, it’s because the Muslims want us to throw away our Bill of Rights so that anything they claim insults Islam can be blocked, censored, and buried. Anything that protects the right of Muslims to practice their religion, on the other hand, must be kept.
5 – You have a good point about not referring to Muslims in general terms. Many modern Muslims in Indonesia are heavy drinkers, for example. I wish I could find a way to convey my sense of Muslim complicity in international trouble spots without condemning all Muslims, since I have Muslim neighbors, friends, and co-workers. In my mind I have this picture of law-abiding citizens, socially conservative, bright, and upstanding citizens who want to preserve their culture in new lands. They ask for simple things like a mosque to pray in, a scarf to keep their teenage girls chaste, and halal meat to conform to dietary laws. When Western norms conflict with their simple requests, they politely inform their communities and sometimes things work out for everyone. However, when things don’t work out, the more militant radicals ask in stronger terms, and when that fails violence quickly escalates in predominantly Muslim countries, so the host countries often capitulate to their demands. The quiet immigrants, meanwhile, hint that foreign nations should peacefully change their ways to adapt to Muslim expectations, and that’s when conservatives like myself have to speak up to defend our way of life. It’s this tag team of soft-spoken Muslims and homicidal religious fanatics that work together to slowly erode Western freedoms.
Just in response to your point about headscarves:
They have absolutely nothing to do with male oppression. Perhaps in some families that is the case, but within the faith and for devout, practicing Muslims it is not. It is a sign of faith and modesty, and in Islam has nothing to do with making women subservient to men. Men do not have to cover their hair simply because it is not an attribute of male attractiveness. For females it is a major one, and they may choose to cover it as a sign of personal modesty and faith, or they may choose not to. Do men oppressing them come into that at all? No.
wait wait wait. Lets talk about Woman in Hijab. Firstly you cant relate KKK white outfit with the hijab. Wearing a Hijab is a choice made by the women, they do it because they want to. The French, they banned it because of security reasons, in islam it clearly states, ” Once you are in a position where you are in court or for security reason. The women is allowed to show her face to be identified. You being a U.S citizen (if im not mistaken), Dont you believe and support the First Amendment? if you do, then you have no right to make a comment on the way a person wants to dress. In Pakistan now days, Parents dont force their child to wear a Hijab. Its the child’s own choice to wear it . ok, wait forget all this. Did you know half the women who wear the hijab in France are converts who choose to wear it?
The film “Innocense of Muslims”, They showed our prophet killing Kinana of Khayber in front of his 17-year-old wife and then on top of that raping his 17 year old daughter the same night. Then to make things worse they show our prophet lusting over his adopted–sons wife. Your telling me its ok to show a prophet (A man, looked up to by all the muslims in the world) doing all this? If you yes, I honestly dont know what to tell you.
Muslim countries are the most violently homophobic places in the world.
I would rather be killed than submit to Islam. I expect that I probably will
Islam is not compatible with an open, free society and religious “scholar” Ismail Mohamed’s quote proves.
Muslims want to claim the power to run everyone else’s life and control everyone else’s freedoms, under the guise of their feelings being hurt.
We should recognize Islam for what it is, a grave threat to any free society, and confront any Muslims advocating an Islamic agenda, such as the Muslim groups on campus.
I think we should become like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq an Pakistan, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Syria and Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar and all those other freedom-loving Muslim nations; true beacons of light for people like Hannah, I guess.
Hannah is too quick to apologize for Islam. She says “Islam does not promote violence as an acceptable means of defending the
religion. That being said, it is not only misinformed but also
slanderous to say that Islam is, by nature, a violent religion.” Oh really? Can she pull some quotes from the Quran that proves Islam does NOT encourage violence in order to defend the religion? Here is a sample of some passages from the Quran:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible
that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing
which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there
prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if
they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. (8:38-39)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans
wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait
for them in every stratagem (of war);
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of
the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission,
and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)
Here are some quotes from the Haddith, a book second in importance only to the Quran:
“The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.’”
“A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘Shall I Fight or embrace Islam first?’ The Prophet said, ‘Embrace Islam and then fight.’
“Our Prophet ordered us to Fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay
us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us
that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a syahid shall go
to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and
whoever survives shall become your master.’”
To be fair both the Jewish and Christian holy texts contain militaristic passages, so it may be more accurate to say that the Abrahamic religions defend their faiths through war. However, what makes Islam different is that it weaves religion into the very identity of its believers and exhorts them to vigorously defend that identity. A modern Muslim may ignore insults to his mother or reproductive organ but he won’t allow insults to the prophet Mohammed. Even the most peaceful Muslim believes a drawing of Mohammed is hate speech, as offensive as saying the N word through a bullhorn to an African American. If you burn a Bible though, a Christian will simply shake his head and buy you a new one. Mock a Wiccan’s devotion to the moon and she will politely give you a history lesson. Thus Islam is a violent religion relative to other modern religions because there are far too many sacred cows which cannot be negotiated. Islam is incompatible with a heterogeneous community of different faiths and with freedom of expression. Once we give up our essential liberties to placate Muslims then we lose our own identity.
It’s easy to pick out parts of religious texts you don’t agree with and say ‘Look, what a horrible faith’ or ‘Look at what they allow/condemn’. But that is how things get misconstrued, not only by people looking from the outside at a faith, but by people within the faith itself. Islam doesn’t say to go fight anyone who badmouths you. Military maneuvers are meant as defensive measures, and unfortunately people do take advantage of that and twist things to their own way of thinking. But that doesn’t mean Islam condones violence or opposition to different beliefs. It doesn’t. Do you think Islam spread through forcible conversion? Most of the time this wasn’t the case at all. People overreact, and I’m not condoning the violent responses to the video. But don’t go around saying Islam isn’t compatible when clearly you don’t know enough about it. That may be your opinion about it, but it’s not fact.
Quoting from Ms. Brady’s column: Ismail Mohammed told a reporter that “we don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights.” He said the West needs to “understand the ideology of the people.”
And the pathetically PC Ms. Brady buys into that bullshit. Well, in the civilized world we deem it an offense to violate our freedom of expression, be it via violence or by any other means. So it is nothing short of absurd to ask us to kowtow to this rubbish.
It would be in our best interests to quarantine our political interaction with the Islamofascist-yes that is the right term-world, aside from purchasing their raw materials which they happily sell us. And when it comes to pro-genocidal societies such as that of the Palestinians, there is no reason to either help them economically or give them any other semblance of credibility. They danced when the World Trade Center came down and are now screaming “Death to the US” because of the anti-Mohammed film. They are not our friends and they are anything but neutral. They are both our enemies and the enemies of genuine civilization.
Regarding tolerance, how can the Muslims of the planet expect it from us when they daily print the worst sort of anti-Semitic commentaries and cartoons on the front page of their major newspapers?Hence, we should not be troubled by any denigration of this violent faith emanating from our free media, including crude cinema, or that originating from EU societies such as France.
Re: the French Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Check them out. They really are funny. Vive la France!
Your Islamaphobia is disgusting.
His rhetoric may be over the top, but his basic point is correct. If freedom of expression doesn’t include the right to give offense, it’s not freedom of expression, and it’s worth nothing. The idea that we should allow foreign powers or individuals to determine the limits of our laws and freedoms is abhorrent in the extreme. The idea that we should meekly submit to this kind of blackmail (yes, let’s call it what it is) is absurd.
Hannah:
You seem to be a very nice, but very naive young lady. You start out by saying you want to examine the role of religion in the current mid east violence, and to to so with no bias. Yet it would seem you spent your time defending, rather than examining Islam. However, although you conclude that Islam is not really to blame, you actually proved quite the opposite.
I would like to add a book to the suggested reading by “Arafat”:
“Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
This is the woman who was born Muslim in Somalia, and who eventually became a Dutch citizen and parliament member, whose short movie about Islam was produced by Theo van Gogh. She was forced into hiding after van Gogh was brutally murdered by an offended defender of Islam. Her life may still be forfeit.
Perhaps instead of whitewashing the role of Islam in the violent expression of its faithful followers, you should examine what it is about this religion that has kept 750 million of its followers in abject slavery to the other 750 million, and why its tenets have stifled civilization.
Hannah,
Please read a book or two by some of the following authors before writing on Islam again. Your intentions are good but your knowledge is both incomplete and misinformed.
Robert Spencer
Ibn Warraq
Raymond Ibrahim
Andrew Bostom
Bridgette Gabriel
Freedom of speech and opinion are a beautiful thing, whether you agree with it or not, Arafat. It’s offensive of you to try to dissuade another from open expression. Your comments sound like the tired rhetoric of a closed, uninformed mindset.
Elaine, my comments appear to escape you. I am all for freedom of speech. I am for the right of this film maker to publicly show his work. I’m OK with the depiction of a person pissing on a cross. It’s all Ok.
What I am not Ok with is Islam. It is Islam that despises free speech. It is Muslims who put Fatwas on Salman Rushdie’s head when he publishes a bood critical of Islam. It is Muslims who go ape-shit when cartoons are published. It is Muslims who killed Theo Van Gogh because he was publicly critical of Islam. It is Muslims who protest and claim victim status whenever anyone dares question their religion OR their pophet.
Elains, why don’t you and I engage in an open, honest discussion about Islam. Not about me, but about Islam. Is this something you are capable of doing or are you more interested in attacking my character because I have the temerity to speak openly and honestly about Islam?
Arafat,
not to be rude but are you retarded. If your ok with a person pissing on a
cross, Your own religion. Something is serious wrong with you.
and about Islam, The
Qur’an states clearly that freedom of religion is a God-given right (18:29),
(10:99). Everyone’s God-given human dignity must be respected, regardless
of their religion, race, ethnic origin, gender, or social status (17:70).
I fail to see how Arafat tried to dissuade another from open expression, and your dismissal of Arafat’s statements as coming from a “closed, uninformed mindset” remind of Romneyspeak – describing something as the exact opposite of what it is. It appeared to me that Arafat was calling out Hannah”s article as an incomplete and misinformed opinion piece, with suggestions that she read the more complete, better informed analyses by other authors.
Hannah,
Within three hundred years of Mohammed’s birth, Muslims had violently conquered almost all of the Middle East and northern Africa, huge sections of Asia, Sicily, Spain, southern France….
And you have the temerity to tell us that Islam does not condone violence. Have you ever studied how many millions of Hindus were killed in the Islamic conquest of southern Asia?
Exactly. I challenge you to name one country in the world where Muslims and non-Muslims live together peacefully.
The fact is that wherever Muslims encounter non-believers, they invariably provoke violence and oppress and abuse their non-Muslim neighbors.
Until about 20 years ago, one obvious answer was “Yugoslavia”, particularly Bosnia. Unfortunately, the right-wing politicians decided they’d get more power by starting a civil war against their neighbors.
Morocco doesn’t do too badly (except for the territorial conflict with the South Sahara Polisario area, but that’s not a religious conflict.) Jordan does pretty well.
And then there’s the US, England, and Germany, where there are some right-wingers who want people to hate Muslims, and a few Muslims who want to hate their neighbors, but generally people get along well. And Windsor Ontario (just across the river from Detroit, in case you’ve never driven south into Canada :-) is a heavily Middle Eastern city, good place to find falafel for dinner.
Hannah writes, “But it is important to note — extremist interpretations of “jihad” aside — that Islam does not promote violence as an acceptable means of defending the religion.”
Oh, really…
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm
We may reconsider our condemnation of the anger caused by the video, but we shouldn’t reconsider our condemnation of the violence. You say that Islam does not promote violence as an acceptable means of defending the religion. Then this isn’t about religion at all. It is all about the culture. Actual Muslims wouldn’t kill people over a video. So we just have a bunch of savages living among Muslims who we should condemn? While the US may be a secular nation, it was created by people who believed in their deities. Yet, those deities allowed a nation to develop that would not do the things we see in the Arab world. In the Americas and Europe we see constant attacks against sacred figures to our people, but while those actions are condemned, you don’t see flag burners or mockers of Jesus or other deities killed with any regularity.
Hannah, you need to dig deeper into Muslim culture, and show us what else is going on, if you want to make the statement that this is a peaceful religion.