What has the insistence on “Unquestionable Muslim Supremacy” if not for 1.6 billion strong, be regarded as mass hysteria of ‘Delusion of Grandeur”. has to do with moving forward?
Look below at how that delusion is making all religions irrelevant.
What has changed — or not — for the people who don’t live in Yangon, who can’t afford smartphones (even bought on installments) and who can’t attend trendy events?
Islam is mired in the delusional doctrine of supremacy that is propagated by the guardisns/interpreters of Islam.
PC or not “Islamophobes” is presently still not acceptable due to fact that this word will condemn all existing 1.6 billion Muslim, without knowing how many are radicalized.
Radicalized = accept and committed supporters of Muslim supremacy at any cost.
Estimation of up to 40% are radicalized, might not be exaggerated.
Then again how many German were radicalized/true Nazi.
Knowing much less than 40% are Nazi yet almost all buy into the ideas allow Hitler and his cohorts to begin WW II.
This fact and the realization that the Islamic supremacy concept is a close uncle of Aryan supremacy with Unquestionable Mohammed and the supposed present guardians of Islam allow no Muslim to question any Islamic theology a permanent threat.
Until the supremacy is link to the performing the 5 pillars ONLY, as it is often portrayed, without any politics, the future look grim.
One of the finest examples of Singaporean fiction I have read in a long while. Of course, Poh is telling the truth; after all, he is a man of the people, a true proletariat, and they never lie, not on Russia, not in China, and certainly not in Singapore. We all know that opposition to the status quo alone imparts objectivity, in Mr Poh’s world.
Pardon me, but if we talked about the history of a religion then we should identify and clarify its claims to authenticity by virtue of divine authority. The point here is that the Quran is literally revelation from God on High and Lord Creator of the universe to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)and this divine scripture has been orally transmitted down the centuries up to this day through numerous chains of human conveyors.
Of course the same cannot be claimed for the Christian bible which has been demonstrated by scholars world-wide to be an official collation of texts by the Roman emperor Constantine of the 4th century AD. wherein the Trinity of Godhead became Christian doctrine. Unitarian followers of Jesus Christ like the Ebionites and Nestorians were anathematized and banished from the holy lands in the following years. Now, all this historical evidence has come to light with the discovery of ancient apostolic writings at Nag Hammadi in Egypt and the Dead Sea scrolls of Qumran.
I would respectfully disagree. I think even just the few examples cited in this article provide enough evidence to disprove the notion that Buddhism is not connected to contemporary political reality. But to add: Myanmar’s 2007 anti-government protests, involvement of monks in recent Letpadaung unrest. Going further back, self-immolation of Vietnamese monks to protest Diem’s policies. Sri Lanka is rife with examples of politicized monks beyond even those he cites (not to mention Tibet), as are the colonial independence movements of nearly every Southeast Asian nation.
Any institution that has as deep a reach into village life as the Sangha does — especially one as selectively permeable — has the potential to contribute or be used by those in power and any person who accrues cultural power inevitable accrues political power, whether they use it or not.
Not to mention the fact that Buddhist identity is deeply interwoven with ethnic/national identity.
Don’t confuse religion, in this case christendom with nationalism and state based colonial policies! Colonialism was not for the sake of christianity, but for profit and world-power.
There was an important development within christianity that did not tke place in Islam. During the renaissance and enlightenment, the dominance of believe over reason was challenged and finally religion had to accept itself as a private affair, what is commonly referred to as secularization. As one result, one might look into history books and notice that attrocities done in the name of Christ are well documented and discussed.
As little as it makes sense to identify Islam with some radical groups that call themselves Muslims, although usually they lag basic knowledge abut the religion, it does not make sense either to identify Christianity with some radicals.
“It is the problem of getting a faith community to acknowledge the equivocal and dubious, as well as the glorious and heroic, components of its own heritage.”
I’m a Christian but I don’t really see how my faith community has acknowledged the equivocal and dubious components of its heritage. Nor for that matter do I see the need for it to do this in order to guarantee peace and order in society. Of course not all religions are the same and each of them have their own issues and legacies, but it surely behooves one to articulate more explicitly why Islam in particular must be singled out. Let me outline a theoretical argument on this note:
*
Christianity after all repudiates all other faiths. The Judeo-Christian Bible is full of tales about the glorious violence that the Almighty’s followers wrought in his name; it in some cases condones if not glorifies the murder and rape of those who have adopted false religions. (One can of course say the God of the Old Testament is not that of the New Testament, but it’s a fine line to walk, and it’s not clear how well modern Jews or Christians for that matter have come to grips with this heritage in the way it seems expected of Muslims to do so.)
More than that, couldn’t one make a very similar argument to the one outlined here for Christianity? It used to be that the Christian faith and the state were closely intertwined. It used to be that Christians could openly proclaim their faith was the one true faith, and all must bow before them. It used to be that Christendom could embark on violent voyages in search of new lands to violently subjugate, colonise, and imperialise for the sake of God, gold, and glory (not necessarily in that order).
Christendom has since been neutered by secularism; even nominally Christian governments can do little more than pay the state church some lip service. Many Christian-majority or -plurality countries have avowedly secular governments that would criminally punish Christians embarking on displays of imperialist Christian violence, seeking to bring the true faith to pagan lands. Christians have been reduced to fighting for things like school prayer and against being forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Christians have never come to terms with this loss of power: a century ago, the sun never set on the British Empire, and most of the world was ruled by overtly Christian governments of overtly Christian nations. Christians have never apologised for this, never apologised for the murders and slavery conducted in their faith’s name. The Crusades, the colonisation of the New World, the cultural and in some cases literal genocide of the natives of North America, Africa, Asia and Australia — all vast wrongs committed in Christ’s name and committed in the confidence that Christendom had been called upon to spread His name to all creation, and to bring the benevolent wisdom of Judeo-Christian rule to the benighted pagans of the world. Has Christianity and Christendom come to reckoning with this heritage?
I submit that Christians, Christianity, and Christendom have done no such thing. More than that, one can even go further to argue that much modern violence continues to be committed in frustration against the neutering of this once-violent-but-proud faith. It may no longer be politically correct to eradicate whole cultures or invade and enslave entire societies in the name of Christ, but it is still certainly politically correct to bomb and mass murder people in the name of ill-defined secular “freedom”.
Some fringe Muslims may embark on murderous jihads even today, but the vast majority of their victims are fellow Muslims. But how many of the victims of the wars embarked on by Christian-populated countries in recent memory have been Christian? Internecine violence exists in Christendom (witness Russia and Ukraine) but it is harder to dismiss the poor Arabs, Afghans, and Pakistanis murdered by the “war on terror” — the vast majority of whom have been Muslim. Who exactly is lashing out against other faith communities here?
It surely behooves Christians to come to grips with their heritage of violence, stretching back at least to the Crusades if not farther. People may allege that this reckoning was committed over the course of European wars of religious tolerance and the Reformation — but this argument seems highly ill-suited to explain why the now-reformed Christendom continued its murderous imperialistic rampage throughout the world for the next few centuries. Until Christianity and Christendom reconcile themselves to the new world we live in, and reconcile themselves with the position of their faith in the secular societies they now dwell in and control, how can we expect peace or security?
*
I wouldn’t subscribe to most of the theoretical argument I’ve just sketched out above. But it is difficult for me to see how anything outlined in this blog post about Rage Against History above would be inconsistent with what I’ve written as a theoretical. If we must be concerned about Muslim rage against history that toppled them from their perch, why not be concerned about Christian rage against the very similar history of their faith?
Indeed, why not go further? Muslimdom has not been the dominant world power or faith for almost a millennium. Christendom was only toppled less than a hundred years ago. There are people old enough to remember a time when Christianity and Christians literally ruled the world, when the sun never set on a Christian empire, if not multiple Christian empires. Why isn’t Christendom the more dangerous threat to peace and safety?
Victor Chong, if you are not good making analogy, please refrain yourself from making one. To Clive, the incident in Ottawa, Canada has nothing to do with Islam. You have fallen into bad reporting and journalism on that story by the Canadian mainstream press, or perhaps you believe in Steven Harper’s wannabe George Bush and Fox news sensationalism.
Detail showing Muhammad, Ali, and the companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, 19th-century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil. Both Muhammad (upper right) and Ali (center) are depicted as columns of flame rather than illustrated directly.
Is a sample of less than 1000 a large enough sample size that it can be considered representative of a set of nearly 30 million. Apart from that, should we not also consider where the respondent lives as people in different parts of Malaysia would likely have different attitudes towards this issue.
Deeply unsatisfying, both intellectually and emotionally.
Thirty years ago the part played by Muslims inflicting evil on others in the world’s total misery was minimal. What share is it now?
Was rage against history also responsible for the evil Serbs, Croats and Kosovars inflicted upon eachother in the Balkans? Or did a few educated individuals use books, flags and history to encourage others to perpetrate evil?
I rarely watch events in Malaysia, though I speak the language. I’ve had an opportunity to observe the evil that individuals in Timor and Indonesia visit upon one another. I’ve watched while friends and family have used one excuse after another, religion, ideology, economics etc etc to justify their own acts of evil over a few decades now, the latest being the despicable events of 2006-7.
Clive, you will be familiar with the terms UANG, GENGSI, KUASA, DENDAM. [Money, Prestige, Power, Revenge.] This, sadly, is what has motivated, and continues to motivate, the individuals I’ve observed. They’re rather clever at using flags and books as excuses, to hide behind, and to divest themselves of any personal responsibility for their actions.
What you have told us in so many words is what we already know. People do evil things to eachother and justify it with books and flags. So what.
What you haven’t even begun to explore is why humans are willing to do these things to eachother. Books and flags? Is that the sum of the human condition? Bollocks. And don’t try and tell me that young blokes are motivated by history. That’s bollocks too.
As we would expect, there are some individuals and groups prepared to use the Charlie Hebdo murders to push their own agendas, Left and Right, away from the civilised Centre. We correctly identify these people as conflict entrepreneurs. Uang, Kuasa, Gengsi, Dendam.
Now there’s a worthwhile project. Why don’t we identify the conflict entrepreneurs in our midst, in the media, politics, academia – the people who either engineer, or seek to benefit from conflict? Typically, they try to heat up, rather than cool down, emotions.
Unfortunately, Timothy Daniels falls into the same mental trap as many others, “All religions are the same”. Islam is different in many ways. Firstly, the doctrine of abrogation. Daniels quoted the early peaceful history of Meccan Muslim as proof that Islam is not “majoritarian”, “political” and “governmentalist”. Unfortunately, as far as Islam, Islamic scared texts and the Muslims are concerned, the peaceful doctrines are abrogated by the Medina and subsequent teaching. Secondly, it matters not whether believers of other religions are violent; and what Clive Kessler says on the believers of these other religions; this has nothing to do with the question whether Islam is peaceful or otherwise. Thirdly, Daniels misses the point – Clive Kessler is not blaming other “moderate” Muslims for the acts of militant Muslims. Rather, Kessler raises an important question – what is the root of violence in militant Islam. This is important because at the end of the day, Islam is not what Kessler says it is; it is not what Daniels, or the like of many “social scientists” such as “Frantz Fanon” and “Anthony Wallace” say it is. Ultimately, Islam is what Muslims understand from the sacred and traditional texts (Quran, hadith and sunnah)to be. And if the militant Muslims’ reading of these texts cannot be internally refuted and repudiated, then the violence we see from 9/11 to Sydney and France is just the beginning.
Interesting thoughts, and very well written. I must congratulate Prof Kessler for his incisiveness and clarity. Just a thought – in a way, China went through the same “rage” in the 17-20th Century, and managed to emerge as a world economic superpower. Of course, there are a lot of differences between the two civilisations; but it would make an interesting comparative case study.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of Student Activism in Malaysia
Meredith Weiss discusses her book. Worth listening.
http://www.bfm.my/ns-student-activism-weiss.html
A rage against history
Correction
‘Look below at how that delusion is making all religions irrelevant.’
Shall be look at #5.1.1
A rage against history
What has the insistence on “Unquestionable Muslim Supremacy” if not for 1.6 billion strong, be regarded as mass hysteria of ‘Delusion of Grandeur”. has to do with moving forward?
Look below at how that delusion is making all religions irrelevant.
What’s left unspoken
What has changed — or not — for the people who don’t live in Yangon, who can’t afford smartphones (even bought on installments) and who can’t attend trendy events?
A rage against history
Islam is mired in the delusional doctrine of supremacy that is propagated by the guardisns/interpreters of Islam.
PC or not “Islamophobes” is presently still not acceptable due to fact that this word will condemn all existing 1.6 billion Muslim, without knowing how many are radicalized.
Radicalized = accept and committed supporters of Muslim supremacy at any cost.
Estimation of up to 40% are radicalized, might not be exaggerated.
Then again how many German were radicalized/true Nazi.
Knowing much less than 40% are Nazi yet almost all buy into the ideas allow Hitler and his cohorts to begin WW II.
This fact and the realization that the Islamic supremacy concept is a close uncle of Aryan supremacy with Unquestionable Mohammed and the supposed present guardians of Islam allow no Muslim to question any Islamic theology a permanent threat.
Until the supremacy is link to the performing the 5 pillars ONLY, as it is often portrayed, without any politics, the future look grim.
Singapore’s “Battle for Merger” revisited – Part II
One of the finest examples of Singaporean fiction I have read in a long while. Of course, Poh is telling the truth; after all, he is a man of the people, a true proletariat, and they never lie, not on Russia, not in China, and certainly not in Singapore. We all know that opposition to the status quo alone imparts objectivity, in Mr Poh’s world.
A rage against history
Pardon me, but if we talked about the history of a religion then we should identify and clarify its claims to authenticity by virtue of divine authority. The point here is that the Quran is literally revelation from God on High and Lord Creator of the universe to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)and this divine scripture has been orally transmitted down the centuries up to this day through numerous chains of human conveyors.
Of course the same cannot be claimed for the Christian bible which has been demonstrated by scholars world-wide to be an official collation of texts by the Roman emperor Constantine of the 4th century AD. wherein the Trinity of Godhead became Christian doctrine. Unitarian followers of Jesus Christ like the Ebionites and Nestorians were anathematized and banished from the holy lands in the following years. Now, all this historical evidence has come to light with the discovery of ancient apostolic writings at Nag Hammadi in Egypt and the Dead Sea scrolls of Qumran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLEkc35LK8
What’s left unspoken
A very interesting piece, thanks Belinda.
Blind spot in Buddhist Studies
I would respectfully disagree. I think even just the few examples cited in this article provide enough evidence to disprove the notion that Buddhism is not connected to contemporary political reality. But to add: Myanmar’s 2007 anti-government protests, involvement of monks in recent Letpadaung unrest. Going further back, self-immolation of Vietnamese monks to protest Diem’s policies. Sri Lanka is rife with examples of politicized monks beyond even those he cites (not to mention Tibet), as are the colonial independence movements of nearly every Southeast Asian nation.
Any institution that has as deep a reach into village life as the Sangha does — especially one as selectively permeable — has the potential to contribute or be used by those in power and any person who accrues cultural power inevitable accrues political power, whether they use it or not.
Not to mention the fact that Buddhist identity is deeply interwoven with ethnic/national identity.
A rage against history
Don’t confuse religion, in this case christendom with nationalism and state based colonial policies! Colonialism was not for the sake of christianity, but for profit and world-power.
There was an important development within christianity that did not tke place in Islam. During the renaissance and enlightenment, the dominance of believe over reason was challenged and finally religion had to accept itself as a private affair, what is commonly referred to as secularization. As one result, one might look into history books and notice that attrocities done in the name of Christ are well documented and discussed.
As little as it makes sense to identify Islam with some radical groups that call themselves Muslims, although usually they lag basic knowledge abut the religion, it does not make sense either to identify Christianity with some radicals.
Bumiputera graduate unemployment and Malaysia’s world class education system – a recipe for disaster
Thank you for your kind words, Cheah!
A rage against history
“It is the problem of getting a faith community to acknowledge the equivocal and dubious, as well as the glorious and heroic, components of its own heritage.”
I’m a Christian but I don’t really see how my faith community has acknowledged the equivocal and dubious components of its heritage. Nor for that matter do I see the need for it to do this in order to guarantee peace and order in society. Of course not all religions are the same and each of them have their own issues and legacies, but it surely behooves one to articulate more explicitly why Islam in particular must be singled out. Let me outline a theoretical argument on this note:
*
Christianity after all repudiates all other faiths. The Judeo-Christian Bible is full of tales about the glorious violence that the Almighty’s followers wrought in his name; it in some cases condones if not glorifies the murder and rape of those who have adopted false religions. (One can of course say the God of the Old Testament is not that of the New Testament, but it’s a fine line to walk, and it’s not clear how well modern Jews or Christians for that matter have come to grips with this heritage in the way it seems expected of Muslims to do so.)
More than that, couldn’t one make a very similar argument to the one outlined here for Christianity? It used to be that the Christian faith and the state were closely intertwined. It used to be that Christians could openly proclaim their faith was the one true faith, and all must bow before them. It used to be that Christendom could embark on violent voyages in search of new lands to violently subjugate, colonise, and imperialise for the sake of God, gold, and glory (not necessarily in that order).
Christendom has since been neutered by secularism; even nominally Christian governments can do little more than pay the state church some lip service. Many Christian-majority or -plurality countries have avowedly secular governments that would criminally punish Christians embarking on displays of imperialist Christian violence, seeking to bring the true faith to pagan lands. Christians have been reduced to fighting for things like school prayer and against being forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Christians have never come to terms with this loss of power: a century ago, the sun never set on the British Empire, and most of the world was ruled by overtly Christian governments of overtly Christian nations. Christians have never apologised for this, never apologised for the murders and slavery conducted in their faith’s name. The Crusades, the colonisation of the New World, the cultural and in some cases literal genocide of the natives of North America, Africa, Asia and Australia — all vast wrongs committed in Christ’s name and committed in the confidence that Christendom had been called upon to spread His name to all creation, and to bring the benevolent wisdom of Judeo-Christian rule to the benighted pagans of the world. Has Christianity and Christendom come to reckoning with this heritage?
I submit that Christians, Christianity, and Christendom have done no such thing. More than that, one can even go further to argue that much modern violence continues to be committed in frustration against the neutering of this once-violent-but-proud faith. It may no longer be politically correct to eradicate whole cultures or invade and enslave entire societies in the name of Christ, but it is still certainly politically correct to bomb and mass murder people in the name of ill-defined secular “freedom”.
Some fringe Muslims may embark on murderous jihads even today, but the vast majority of their victims are fellow Muslims. But how many of the victims of the wars embarked on by Christian-populated countries in recent memory have been Christian? Internecine violence exists in Christendom (witness Russia and Ukraine) but it is harder to dismiss the poor Arabs, Afghans, and Pakistanis murdered by the “war on terror” — the vast majority of whom have been Muslim. Who exactly is lashing out against other faith communities here?
It surely behooves Christians to come to grips with their heritage of violence, stretching back at least to the Crusades if not farther. People may allege that this reckoning was committed over the course of European wars of religious tolerance and the Reformation — but this argument seems highly ill-suited to explain why the now-reformed Christendom continued its murderous imperialistic rampage throughout the world for the next few centuries. Until Christianity and Christendom reconcile themselves to the new world we live in, and reconcile themselves with the position of their faith in the secular societies they now dwell in and control, how can we expect peace or security?
*
I wouldn’t subscribe to most of the theoretical argument I’ve just sketched out above. But it is difficult for me to see how anything outlined in this blog post about Rage Against History above would be inconsistent with what I’ve written as a theoretical. If we must be concerned about Muslim rage against history that toppled them from their perch, why not be concerned about Christian rage against the very similar history of their faith?
Indeed, why not go further? Muslimdom has not been the dominant world power or faith for almost a millennium. Christendom was only toppled less than a hundred years ago. There are people old enough to remember a time when Christianity and Christians literally ruled the world, when the sun never set on a Christian empire, if not multiple Christian empires. Why isn’t Christendom the more dangerous threat to peace and safety?
A rage against history
Victor Chong, if you are not good making analogy, please refrain yourself from making one. To Clive, the incident in Ottawa, Canada has nothing to do with Islam. You have fallen into bad reporting and journalism on that story by the Canadian mainstream press, or perhaps you believe in Steven Harper’s wannabe George Bush and Fox news sensationalism.
A rage against history
Detail showing Muhammad, Ali, and the companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, 19th-century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil. Both Muhammad (upper right) and Ali (center) are depicted as columns of flame rather than illustrated directly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Banu_Qurayza.png
Images of Mohammad
http://facesofmohammed.ip0.eu/
Extremism in the name of Islam and Malaysian Muslims
Fodder #4.1.1.1.1
You may want to read this article which addresses your question.
http://www.newmandala.org/2013/10/20/overstating-islamic-extremism-a-response/
Extremism in the name of Islam and Malaysian Muslims
Is a sample of less than 1000 a large enough sample size that it can be considered representative of a set of nearly 30 million. Apart from that, should we not also consider where the respondent lives as people in different parts of Malaysia would likely have different attitudes towards this issue.
A rage against history
Clive. Superficial.
Deeply unsatisfying, both intellectually and emotionally.
Thirty years ago the part played by Muslims inflicting evil on others in the world’s total misery was minimal. What share is it now?
Was rage against history also responsible for the evil Serbs, Croats and Kosovars inflicted upon eachother in the Balkans? Or did a few educated individuals use books, flags and history to encourage others to perpetrate evil?
I rarely watch events in Malaysia, though I speak the language. I’ve had an opportunity to observe the evil that individuals in Timor and Indonesia visit upon one another. I’ve watched while friends and family have used one excuse after another, religion, ideology, economics etc etc to justify their own acts of evil over a few decades now, the latest being the despicable events of 2006-7.
Clive, you will be familiar with the terms UANG, GENGSI, KUASA, DENDAM. [Money, Prestige, Power, Revenge.] This, sadly, is what has motivated, and continues to motivate, the individuals I’ve observed. They’re rather clever at using flags and books as excuses, to hide behind, and to divest themselves of any personal responsibility for their actions.
What you have told us in so many words is what we already know. People do evil things to eachother and justify it with books and flags. So what.
What you haven’t even begun to explore is why humans are willing to do these things to eachother. Books and flags? Is that the sum of the human condition? Bollocks. And don’t try and tell me that young blokes are motivated by history. That’s bollocks too.
As we would expect, there are some individuals and groups prepared to use the Charlie Hebdo murders to push their own agendas, Left and Right, away from the civilised Centre. We correctly identify these people as conflict entrepreneurs. Uang, Kuasa, Gengsi, Dendam.
Now there’s a worthwhile project. Why don’t we identify the conflict entrepreneurs in our midst, in the media, politics, academia – the people who either engineer, or seek to benefit from conflict? Typically, they try to heat up, rather than cool down, emotions.
Islam, a religion of peace
Unfortunately, Timothy Daniels falls into the same mental trap as many others, “All religions are the same”. Islam is different in many ways. Firstly, the doctrine of abrogation. Daniels quoted the early peaceful history of Meccan Muslim as proof that Islam is not “majoritarian”, “political” and “governmentalist”. Unfortunately, as far as Islam, Islamic scared texts and the Muslims are concerned, the peaceful doctrines are abrogated by the Medina and subsequent teaching. Secondly, it matters not whether believers of other religions are violent; and what Clive Kessler says on the believers of these other religions; this has nothing to do with the question whether Islam is peaceful or otherwise. Thirdly, Daniels misses the point – Clive Kessler is not blaming other “moderate” Muslims for the acts of militant Muslims. Rather, Kessler raises an important question – what is the root of violence in militant Islam. This is important because at the end of the day, Islam is not what Kessler says it is; it is not what Daniels, or the like of many “social scientists” such as “Frantz Fanon” and “Anthony Wallace” say it is. Ultimately, Islam is what Muslims understand from the sacred and traditional texts (Quran, hadith and sunnah)to be. And if the militant Muslims’ reading of these texts cannot be internally refuted and repudiated, then the violence we see from 9/11 to Sydney and France is just the beginning.
A rage against history
Interesting thoughts, and very well written. I must congratulate Prof Kessler for his incisiveness and clarity. Just a thought – in a way, China went through the same “rage” in the 17-20th Century, and managed to emerge as a world economic superpower. Of course, there are a lot of differences between the two civilisations; but it would make an interesting comparative case study.
Islam, a religion of peace
A religion of peace? Just don’t rock the boat. Tolerance. seems to be unacceptable in this so-called ‘peaceful’ faith
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/saudi-arabia-blogger-raif-badawi-public-flogging