It's freedom of speech AND a reckless incitement of violence. I don't approve of his message, since radicals of ANY religion are dangerous, but it's none of my business to say he can't produce it.

but it sure seems like one of those can vs. should situations.

Soon he'll have to go into hiding like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and hopefully he won't be assassinated like Theo Van Gogh.

Anyone, no matter what your view is, who is on the polarized end of any religious debate is taking it too far, in my opinion. It's both freedom of speech and reckless incitement of violence. I can't understand why people can't just be moderates in one direction or the other. Too much hate and violence is caused by such intolerances of one another's existence just because we have different opinions and beliefs.

I just read that LiveLeak has taken this down after receiving threats... its still on YouTube, but if you want to watch it, you better act soon cuz I'm guessing they will probably take it down too...

Terrorism is awfully effective.

Seems as though Wilders' point has been made for him.

I agree Meike....being extreme with anything is dangerous. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if people take it too far then there needs to be limits on freedom of speech. I think there needs to be a limit placed here.

Google video has picked it up now.

Whatever your predisposed opinion may be, I suggest you watch the film before criticizing it. I would say the same of any subject. It's only about 17 minutes, and is composed of quotes from the Koran and news footage, headlines and stills.

I think tolerance is a wonderful thing, but it must be mutual.

He's using the freedom of speech to recklessly incite violence.

While I do think that people should be allowed to express themselves and their ideas, damning a whole religion as dangerous based on what is, basically, a small sect of that religion, is absurd.

That would be like saying that all Christians are hatemongers & bigots because of the likes of Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell.

It is not only ignorant, it is bias, and it basically equates to group slander because it is not based in facts but rather in observations of one small group of people.

This makes me so angry!

While I am all for freedom of speech, I also think we have an obligation to humanity to act sensibly, reasonably, and without hate.

The man making this film knows the type of slander this will cause for many good Muslims, he knows that many people out there will view this as "all Muslims are like this, all of Islam is like this" and that is his reason for making it. This to me goes beyond freedom of speech. This movie serves the objective of inciting violence from a group that has already been alienated and been put on the defensive and helps fuel the hate towards all Muslims that was sparked by 9/11. This isn't freedom of speech, this movie serves the purpose of a hate crime.

Furthermore, the maker of this film says he is making this to show Islam's abuse of homosexuals and women, I would argue WHAT RELIGION doesn't have evidence of that? Ask Christians what they think of homosexuals, ask Orthodox Jews what they feel a woman's role, heck ask regular secular Americans who voted 70% against civil unions what their true feelings towards homosexuality is, or ask Playboy, Maxim, the NY Governor, or the million strip club owners (mostly male btw) what a woman's role is!

Why does this politician, an advanced country's leader, and a progressive, tolerant country's lawmaker feel that he needs to attack one group for these things? He, as well as everyone else know what the point of this film is, and it is not to show one aspect of one religion - it is to smear the name of that religion - he said do himself, he said like we fought the Nazis, we must fight Islam - how is this free speech - this is a threat and encouragement of violence against a huge group of people.

I pray that young, uneducated, and angry Muslims think before giving him the exact reaction he wants from this, but on the other hand how much can a person take? You are damned if you do, but damned if you don't by allowing this smear of such a group and allowing this hate to continue Muslims everywhere will be seen with these views in mind, imagine trying to live your daily, normal life while people are out there devoted to nothing else but making you out to be a monster you aren't. Imagine the life of good, moderate Muslims after this movie is seen by millions in Europe who have no idea what Islam is besides its current connection to terrorism, imagine being a Muslim working in an office with people who know nothing of your religion besides Osama and movies like this!

No one talks about the good Islam has to offer, no one talks about the liberating side to Islam, the humane side to Islam, such as the requirement on any Muslim who isn't livening in poverty to give a tax-like percentage to those orphans and the poor every year, or the rule that a woman does not change her last name after marriage b/c she is not the possession of the man, she retains her identity until death (unlike the old English rule which used to consider women as chattel therefore if someone slept with your wife you got damages for trespass) but I guess that it isn't sexy enough to show the good, but movies like this have advocates everywhere claiming free speech and a mission to fight for tolerance!

It seems like the same people who were defending the burning of American flags yesterday are not defending this guy's video today... Burning an American flag makes a lot of people angry and could incite violence... It seems to me that if you're going to defend free speech in that instance, then it should be in all instances.

totally agree zeze. Sure this man has the right to say what he wants, but more the fool him, I say. Does he really think that buy condemning Islam as a religion of violence and hatred and danger, he's going the get the moderates to remain that way? It's hardly a surprise then that some young people are tempted towards terrorism - they see it as the only way to defend their beliefs? I'm not condoning their actions but merely suggesting that if we want to eradicate terrorism this is NOT the way to go.

cabaker27, IMHO the difference I think is that burning a flag isn't going to make someone go out and abuse a person from that country, while riling people up with videos and such DOES put people at risk. I speak from experience.

he has the right to produce it - but everyone then has the right to sue him for racism which many people actualy are now
This is how its supposed to play out, he's a stupid ignorant man but his actions are being condemned by other people and his a worldwide joke now BUT he should never be censured since that might make his points more valid and make him a victim of some sort.
SO yes the movie is wrong and discriminating but we must never allow government censur

I understand the freedom of speech but being a Muslim it is definitely upsetting what he is doing. Maybe he is portraying the radicals, but verses of the Quran? That's not right at all. Islam does not represent the radicals or violence, the radicals take things too far and make the religion look bad. Islam isn't about violence and the radicals represent 2% of the whole Muslim population, and they're the ones always in the news. He's not going to make things any better with this video, that's for sure. More violence will ensue..

interesting observation ms. cabaker. I have yet to watch the film, but my husband and I have been pretty up to speed on the goings on behind it. I heard an interview with Wilder and while you may think he's crazy, he actually sounded very intelligent. And I'm sorry but you can be sued for racism?? I wasn't aware of that.

Maybe I wasn't watching closely enough, but I did not see any place in the film where Wilders said that violence is perpetuated by *all* Muslims. I did not see anything that was not a direct, factual news item.

Perhaps the verses he cited are considered obsolete and are overlooked by most practicing Muslims. Christians don't follow Biblical kosher laws, so that's plausible. However, the verses *are* there, and provide motivation for some--even if only a small percentage--of sincere and devout Muslims to commit violent acts. Therefore, it is important for us to be aware of them.

To reframe it, if some Christians took a few verses from the Bible and used them as the basis to organize an underground movement to attack (for example) homosexuals, or abortionists, or "promiscuous" women around the world, from every country and religion, they should also be closely examined. I believe the motives of any Christians who moved to traditionally non-Christian countries would also be questioned.

Oh, and Sofie, at least in the US racism is not a crime. Only behaviors, not thoughts, are ground for prosecution or civil suit.

well all I know is that many Muslim organizations are suing him for discrimination and racisme since this is the only way he can be "punished" since the government can't do anything. This is like the Muhammad drawings, we all have freedom of speach and a free press which means that no one can prevent such a video from being released by a religious group can sue if the complaint is valid

I agree with zeze.
Wilders is brave maybe, and foolish maybe, but he has a price on his head now.

cabaker - I wanted to clarify my position: I do not think, by any means, that he should be censored. He has a right to speak his opinion, just so long as he does not present his opinion as fact. If he wants to condemn Islam, more power to him. However, he should be ready to face the repercussions and accept responsibility for his very irresponsible actions.

While he may not make the claim that all Islamists are terrorists, making blanket statements about it being a violent or dangerous religion is not only rude and ignorant, it's irresponsible.

In the words of my mother, "If you have enough mouth to say it, you better have enough oomph to back it up when push comes to shove."

Cabaker - And on the note of the American Flag burning....I don't see too many Americans tearing down buildings or having the sort of reactions that occurred over the Mohammad Terrorist comic (and very well may occur over this video) over a fellow American burning a flag in protest. They may scream, rant, rave, and attack the person(s) burning the flag, but I don't see them mobbing innocent people over it.

The problem I have with him making this video is that it can have terrible repercussions for not only him but people involved with the video in any way, or even his fellow country(wo)men due to the nature of some Islam extremists.

Whereas if a US citizen burns an American flag, the repercussions will affect them and the people participating in the act, not just some random person who happens to live in the same country or share the same ethnicity.

But again, he has a right to free speech. He just needs to be ready to take responsibility for his actions, just as any person who burns the flag should be ready for someone to come up and kick their @$$.

When I've protested in favor of GLBT rights, and I mean peacefully demonstrating by holding a sign and wearing rainbow colors, I was ready at any minute for someone to try to hurt me in some way. Even though I was doing nothing wrong, nor was I making damning statements about anyone, I know that just by proclaiming equality for gays, I would piss people off and they might hurt me. I learned that the hard way in high school.

But I was willing to stand up and take responsibility for my actions. I would reap the consequences, no one else.

That is why I said I believe he is recklessly inciting violence because he is going to piss a lot of people off and they are not going to take their actions out on him, they're going to take it out on whatever Dutch person they can find. And innocents can and will be hurt.

THAT is what bothers me.

He had as much right to make this as the Muslims who made the videos of Danny Pearl etc having their heads cut off.

An unrelated but similar issue came up in a work-related meeting this week. The context is unimportant (it was some union infighting), but the principle applies.

Free and open exchange of legitimate ideas and concerns is always productive. Preferably fact-based. The best way to discount slander is to bring it into the open and discuss it--often, that disproves the accusation. Among regular folks (union membership), unwillingness to welcome open discussion just feeds the suspicions.

If I speak up in that union meeting and say that we should address the concerns, not just try to squash the dissenters, and make corrections where needed, and remove problem people from positions of power for the good of the union and membership, I should not be subject to threats of violence. If I am, then that just proves the point of those make accusations against the organization.

Matdredalia: I appreciate your engagement in this topic. However, it seems to me that most of your comments can be summed up by: "Not all Muslims are violent. However, anyone who criticizes Islam should know that they are subjecting themselves and all their associates to danger of death. Speaking freely logically leads to violence against the speaker."

Were you ever *actually* subjected to violence during your LBGT protests? When my DD was quite small--under 2--we participated in a few pro-choice demonstrations. There was, of course, some heckling. During one of them, a passing car feinted as though he was going to run up over the curb and into the group of us. We scattered a bit, but continued.

"He had as much right to make this as the Muslims who made the videos of Danny Pearl etc having their heads cut off."

He wants to make a movie in response to those people, fine. Don't make Quran the reason for the violence, don't call ur self a fighter of Islam, don't make a movie the shows the religion as evil, make a movie about extremism, make a movie showing how all radicals use verses in any book to justify their evil actions, and don't make a movie that obviously is meant to slander an entire religion based on the acts of a small group.

The irony is that Bin Laden sends out tapes to encourage hate and violence against non-Muslims, while this film is sent out to encourage hate and violence and hate against Muslims (in more subtle terms).

I wonder if he considers himself a mini-Bin Laden.

Sorry, I forgot to add this...

The difference between him and the people making those films is that he considers himself a prominent member of a more progressive and more tolerant society, while those people don't make these claims.

Those people are treated as terrorists and hunted down, maybe he should be treated the same way?

Ok so what I'm getting from this is that free speech is important to defend only when convienant and if no one gets hurt and we should continue to placate terrorists thereby showing them that what they are doing is the best way to accomplish their goals.

Sorry but I think free speech is MORE important to defend in difficult cases and MORE important to defend in situations like this for the exact point of showing terrorists that we will not bow down to them and they will not succeed.

They can have my political cartoon Mohammad when they pry it from my cold, dead hand!

Ok. I watched it. I just don't get it. It's not like it's a film of this man yelling about how much he hates Islam, he presents verses from the Koran next to images of terrorist attacks (which were done in the name of Islam) and then presents clips of imams spouting off radical extremist b.s. Basically it's a montage of images already out there, speeches already said in the past and verses. So because he put that in film format that lasts for 15 minutes he should be "hunted down" as zeze says?? He didn't embellish. He didn't doctor the tapes to make them say things that weren't already said. To be honest, until the last minute, there's no "opinion" whatsoever more of just a montage of recent muslim terrorism. So let's burn things and put a price on his head for that!? You have got to be kidding. And the only people being "incited" are the same ones he features in his film doing just that - being incited by their very own radical bull they claim is in the name of allah.

I agree 100% with cabaker on this one. I'm not bowing down to some pathetic imbeciles by not utilizing my freedoms because they'll jump around in the middle of the street with childrens faces painted in blood with swords in hands... not going to happen.

This film is just one more example that everything in Europe now must be measured against the possibility of Muslim violence. Every art exhibition, newspaper article, film, etc. is now subject to approval by a few fascist radicals who have hijacked a legitimate religion, and the moderate Muslims who instead of using this as an opportunity to condemn extremism and educate the public, join in the call for censorship with their complicit silence.

The fact that Live Leak needed to pull the video only makes his points appear more valid.

And I am perfectly aware that being critical in any way of Islam automatically makes me a racist, fascist, Islamophobic, disgusting imperialist ethnocentric bastard grinding my boot into the faces of the innocent and oppressed.

cabaker: "Ok so what I'm getting from this is that free speech is important to defend only when convienant and if no one gets hurt and we should continue to placate terrorists thereby showing them that what they are doing is the best way to accomplish their goals."

Actually, I think it's more like "only when it doesn't offend anyone at all, anywhere in the world" and we should placate terrorists because then maybe they will want to be our friends and not blow anyone else up anymore. /sarcasm off

syako: "He didn't embellish. He didn't doctor the tapes to make them say things that weren't already said".

My point exactly. I don't see why so many people seem opposed to this film. :rolleyes:

Eh, it's propoganda pure and simple. Maybe, like Anne Counter, he just really wants a fatwa on his head. Personally, I think it's stupid. There are a lot of f'ed up things in the Bible too, but Christians do pick and choose what they follow. And if you look at history, Islam is no more violent than Christianity and it has probably resulted in far few deaths as well. Now, I don't have any figures to back that up so feel free to come after me for that comment. However, from my understand of history I think that's probably true. Killing in the name of seems to be pretty popular recreation among radicals on any side.

m2, can you tell me the f-ed up things in the Bible you are referring to?

"However, from my understand of history I think that's probably true. "

No offense Mandy, but your comment just demonstrated you lack an understanding of history and both religions. It's true that there have been Christians killing in the name of religion (abortion clinic bombings and the Crusades come to mind, although there were also economic reasons for the former), but to say that "Islam is no more violent than Christianity and it has probably resulted in far few deaths as well" is just laughable.

Can you tell me for instance, how many Christian "honor" killings you have heard of? If you think this is uncommon I invite you to Google the incident in London last year. Or where in the Bible it says that spreading Christianity by the sword is acceptable? Where in Judao-Christian culture is it okay to execute homosexuals, or people suspected of witchcraft, again something that happened last year in Saudi Arabia?

Put more simply, is there a Christian equivalent of Sharia law?

sarah_bellum, as far as I know (and being a student of theology I do know quite a bit) Islam doesn't AT ALL condone honor killings either. It's is an unfortunate and unnecessary practice which some people from the Indian sub-continent and Middle East idiotically feel they need to do.

"Where in Judao-Christian culture is it okay to execute homosexuals, or people suspected of witchcraft...?"

Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (King James version)

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 - Let no one be found among you... who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or cast spells. (New International Version)

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

And if you want an example from the New Testament - Romans 1:26.

And if you believe Christianity wasn't at all spread by the sword how would you explain the forced conversion of the Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisition?

"abortion clinic bombings and the Crusades come to mind, although there were also economic reasons for the former" - I don't know this - where abortion clinics bombed really bombed for economic reasons?

I know that it's a common to say things like Islam doesn't condone honor killings (and terrorism in general), but the fact is they are carried out in the name of Islam, by Muslims, and justified by their holy scripture. And yet we're supposed to believe it has nothing to do with Islam? Well, I'm sorry, but just because every Muslim doesn't support it doesn't mean it's not Islamic.

I'm sure you know that because there is no central authority, the Koran (which like any holy text I've ever read is vague) is open to interpretation by imams, many of which (but not all) will interpret it to suit their own cultural prejudices. Islam IS it's followers, and therefore the only way to judge it is by their behavior.

When I said, "Where in Judao-Christian culture is it okay to execute homosexuals, or people suspected of witchcraft...?" I wasn't referring to Biblical verses. Where is there a Christian or Western country in general that executes homosexuals?

I never said that Christianity was not spread by the sword. I'm sure you know better than I do whether or not that is justified by the Bible, but can you find me a priest/pastor/bishop etc. who within the last century has preached to do so? It's a disturbingly common occurrence in the mosques of London, and I'm sure more so in the Middle East.

And I was typing too quickly when I referred to the abortion clinics and Crusades so I referenced incorrectly. I meant that the Crusades were mostly but not entirely to do with religion.

I've read translations of the Quran. The main thread throughout is that if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel. Jews, Christians etc should be destroyed. I'm so amazed when I hear people say that Islam is such a peaceful religion. According to the Quran, it's just the opposite.

Actually the Quran looks to all "people of the book" as followers of the same God, so I don't get how it calls them all infidels.

And to who ever said "Islam is it's followers" I say judge the followers of their actions, don't blame the religion. The MAJORITY of the followers don't go out killing and blowing things up, regardless of what your extensive knowledge of the world's second largest religion tells you.

And Trixie, like all things in life, there are many sides, if you wish to look to the verses that speak of punishments and the day of judgement and so on, I am sure you can cherry-pick your way into calling Islam into a violent religion. According to the Quran, everything these terrorists are doing is wrong.

I am amazed at how little people know history, every single act committed in the name of religions has had money, power, politics, and greed at the bottom - we all ignore the politics of these problems and choose to blame it on spirituality which is open to interpretation, ready for evil minds like Bin Laden to use it to con the poor and oppressed into believing whatever he says it means.

I bet if we fixed the many messes we have made in the middle east people would think twice before believing the Quran encourages violence against the US.

End of the day, the problem is not religion, it's politics, and in that case, I don't believe we are as peaceful as we claim. Even if the Middle East was all atheists, the poverty, destruction, and horror (that we have had a share in creating) would lead to the same violence, religion is just an easy justification because it is credible and flexible at the same time, without it, people like Bin Laden, Hamas, AL-Sadr would turn to logic, "facts", and plain old political propaganda.

"And to who ever said "Islam is it's followers" I say judge the followers of their actions, don't blame the religion. The MAJORITY of the followers don't go out killing and blowing things up, regardless of what your extensive knowledge of the world's second largest religion tells you."

Zeze, you weren't reading what I wrote carefully. That is exactly the point I was trying to make, which is why I said in the very next sentence, "and therefore the only way to judge it is by their behavior."

The tacit silence of the MAJORITY when some girl is murdered for bringing dishonor upon her insane family, and the riots in the streets by the MAJORITY over a stupid cartoon or a teacher with the audacity to let her students name a teddy bear Mohammed are incidents which I find ridiculous. If I were a Muslim I would be embarrassed and offended by incidents like these, but I have yet to hear a significant amount (or any) Muslims organizations speak out, and the riots continue every time anyone dare cast a critical eye on Islam. I don't know if this is a result of religion, culture or both, but it leaves me scratching my head and a little fed up with the fiction of 'multiculturalism'.

Julius - although those verses clearly state certain lifestyles that are wrong in the eyes of God never do they dictate to followers to take your sword and kill them (PERHAPS the exodus one, but if you want to get technical when Jesus came he pretty much made the "laws" in the Old Testament obsolete). And all throughout the new testament Jesus or Paul or whoever never tells their followers to take up a sword against nonbelievers. In fact, it's the exact opposite (turn the other cheek)

I was shocked to read those verses in the film that told followers to slit the throats of people who wouldn't convert. That is a HUGE difference between what I read in the Bible.

"End of the day, the problem is not religion, it's politics, and in that case, I don't believe we are as peaceful as we claim. Even if the Middle East was all atheists, the poverty, destruction, and horror (that we have had a share in creating) would lead to the same violence, religion is just an easy justification because it is credible and flexible at the same time, without it, people like Bin Laden, Hamas, AL-Sadr would turn to logic, "facts", and plain old political propaganda."
thank you, that was ne of the most reasonable things I read in here. I don't understand why people always think terrorism is about religion. It's all political.and then you talk about how christianity is so much tolerant than islamism.Ok.I used to go to a catholic school that allowed people from other religions. One day we were all going to the mess (i' m not english so i'm sorry if i making mistakes)and one of people that took care of us obliged one muslim girl to kneel in the church.She screamed called her names and eventually she forced her to kneel...Ok you are going to tell this was one person and it is true, but during my time there I heard things towards gay people and women that chose to do an abortion that i thought only people from the XV century said....and ok they don't represent all christians but neither the terrorists represent all muslims....and the worst is that these people that i met were all very educated, some of them were teachers, and had all this hate for people that chose differently..and yes christianity killed a lot of people...and the most stupid thing of all this is the so called civilized world that goes to countries that chose different cultures and try to teach them about democracy with a gun on their hands...seriously and then america wonders why they hate them...I think to understand them is only necessary to put ourselfes in their place...think about it, all you see is misery, horror, death....and cused by whom?look i'm not anti american, i realize that america is one of the countries that most helped others during history, but i can also understand why some people might not agrre with you. i'm european (portuguese) and i can tell you that onde of the things tahat i most embaressed about my country is tahat we receveid bush and its allies during the preparation to the war in iraq.
i mean i think in this batle against terrorism its wrong to fight them with terrorism, because that is what we, the civiled world, are doing....it's only my opinion...i've never been to america, but watching the news made formulate this opinion..ok that s all...bye

It's both an insight to violence and free speech. The reason it is an insight to violence is because rather than choosing a neutral method to get his point across he chose the most inflammatory path. Certainly his right to do, but as the law dictates for every action there is a reaction.

My friends Muslims and Christians are not together in the after life. They are in two totally different dimensions. What separates these two peoples is simply this; Muslim do believe Jesus was a prophet, some even a great prophet. However they do not believe him to be the Son of the living God; Christ. And in denying Jesus as being the very Christ, they choose to stay in a shadowy way, having their conjunction with God (Their God in this shadowy way is: Allah) develop by their own self-intelligence, by which things of carnality and sensuality are working the delights unto their souls. This is why Muslims are permitted those proclivities of practicing the virility of the sex in the having of many wives. Also this was allowed Muslims because of the region where they lived, being many of those in Asian, such as those in the orient, practiced such ways. And for those not knowing, the Karon, the Muslim’s Holy book, is a compilation of Asian, Jewish, and Christian writings. However, the one thing that Muslims do hold too, by which an after life with their fathers is provided, is this; there is but one God. And is by strict observance to this principle that they’ve been able to combat against idol worship more so then any other nation. It is for this reason Mohammad was raised up by God as a prophet unto this area and its generation.

Now my friends, Christians are developed differently then Muslims. They through the humbleness and meekness of heart are receiving Jesus as more then a prophet. He’s the very only begotten Son of the Living God, Christ. It is this Jesus being the Christ, that Muslims do have a hard time accepting and/or allowing for, some even vehemently denying it is so. This is why when in discussion with Muslims they’ll say Jesus’ name, added with peace be upon Him, then totally discredit and detest everything of the Apostles, especially Peter and Paul. For it is in the Apostles acts and testimonies that the Power of Christ is manifested in Jesus our Lord and God. And for them to accept this would make them no more Mohammad like but Christ Like. So instead of choosing the more correct path unto a more fulfilling after life, they choose to supplant Christ with Mohammad and thereby lower themselves into their cupidities. Where by when they say Jesus, peace be upon him, they by their denying and perverting unto themselves, receive sin upon them and their families. This is the darkness of the Muslim, and eventually will be done away with. For the Christian is developed from within, by which those things of their carnal and sensuous man, that make the natural, are put off. While those gifts of the Holy Spirit in Christ are put upon whereby regenerating and transforming their will and understanding into awakened Spiritual beings in human form, made ready for their day of translation, into the after life of the Heavens. It is in this mind of Christ by which conjunction with God the Father is working in them by grace and truth, that Holy Spirit, the charitable works manifested in the world, the true fruits unto Salvation and Everlasting Life. It is said of Christians, and is right, you'll know them by their love and/or fruit. Also the Christian men and women when they marry, it is a bond made in agreement with the Kingdom of God, which is in the body of Christ. This is interiorly different from the Muslims who are practiced in the virility of the sex, for Christians, true Christians, are in Chasity of the sex, and therefore are having but one wife or no wife, this is in agreement with Christ and the Church, which are one.

Now my friends, with all this said one can understand how it is that Muslims and Christians are not together in the after life. For the Muslim delights are differing from the Christian delights. And in the after life the love within who we are will be our places without where we are. Thank you Lord Selah

sljc