Muhammad’s critics and their deaths

Why the West must protect freedom of speech

James M. Arlandson

An authoritarian ruler must get a grip. The first policy that he imposes on his people shuts down free speech that expresses dissent and criticism, especially if the speech questions the leader. He takes any questioning of his opinions and decisions as a personal insult of him, the head of state, and therefore a threat to his society.

Muhammad laid down severe restrictions on such free speech. He assassinated many who insulted him. In the Quran, he promises death and eternal damnation if anyone deviates in words and action from Allah and his messenger. In the hadith (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran), we read that he kills dissenters and insulters. Later legal rulings, rooted in the Quran and hadith, follow his lead and decree that hard-hitting speech must be stifled. Indeed, the dissenters must die, if they cross the line.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2003, legendary American radio host Paul Harvey was asked by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to apologize for saying that Islam encourages killing. Dhimmi Watch provides the context of Harvey’s remarks. His comments have plenty of Quranic verses to back them up, but his free speech must be curtailed.

In 2004, Britain’s Robert Kilroy-Silk, presenter of a daytime TV show, wrote an article that used harsh language against Arabs. The Muslim Council of Britain denounced the rant and said that action should be taken against him. He has since resigned. The Muslim Council welcomed the news.

In 2005, Radical Muslims do not hesitate to riot if the Quran is desecrated. In honor of their holy book, they kill innocent people. This demonstrates how far radicals will go in responding to perceived insults of their religion.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on a vilification law in one of Australia’s states. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence, but the lawyer for the Muslim Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. However, Muslims may read passages from the Quran that call for harsh treatment of Jews and Christians. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed, either. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

[Editor’s and author’s update: The religious hate speech law has finally not succeeded. The bill, which “was aimed at extending the concept of the UK’s race hate laws to cover belief” lost by one vote. “[C]ritics said ministers’ proposals would have made it too wide-reaching.” (Sources: here and here)]

In 2005, Radio host Michael Graham was fired for connecting Islam to terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations called this hate speech. The owner of the station demand that Graham apologized, but he refused. This is the article that started it all.

Why do these Muslims want to restrict unpleasant speech about their religion? Are they hiding anything? Are they embarrassed about something that sits at the core of their religion? These Muslims who would restrict free speech are following their prophet.

Here is how the story of repression of hard-hitting speech unfolds in early Islam. First, some verses in the Quran, analyzed in their literary and historical context, do not promise a happy life for dissenters and insulters. Second, the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) records reliable traditions that spell out doom for dissenters and insulters. Third, later classical legal rulings, which are rooted in the Quran and hadith, do not promise tolerance for hard-hitting speech, to say the least. Next, we contrast the way of Jesus with the way of Muhammad. Needless to say, even though Jesus was often insulted, he did not order executions or lay down excessive rules against unpleasant speech.

Finally, we explore why the West must maintain its free speech, and we apply our findings to the world today.


Islam punishes insulters and blasphemers severely—and even executes them. This stifles free speech, even offensive speech. This repression is unwise in a society, because the truth will stay hidden.

The Quran

The Quran asserts that insulters and mockers may be killed or condemned to hell.

After the Battle of Uhud in March 625, which the Muslims lost, Muhammad was stung. He and his Muslim community suffered a loss of prestige, though the community did not crumble, but quickly recovered and grew, so the loss was not material. In this verse about undergoing insults from the People of the Book (Jews, mostly, in Medina at this time), Muhammad has to take the path of humility.

3:186 You [Muhammad] are sure to be tested through your possessions and persons; you are sure to hear much that is hurtful [aa-dh-aa] from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with God [polytheists]. If you are steadfast and mindful of God, that is the best course. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The word “hurtful” is the same Arabic word (three-letter root is aa-dh-aa) that has been translated, below, as “annoy” and “insult.” It has the semantic range of hurt, suffer, damage, injure, or harm. “The word . . . signifies a slight evil . . . or anything causing a slight harm” (Abdul Mannan Omar, ed., Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, Noor Foundation, 2003, p. 19). Fakhry translates the key word in this verse as “abuse” (An Interpretation of the Qur’an, NYUP, 2000, 2004). Allah tells his prophet that he has to take the insults, not retaliate. Historically, Muhammad was momentarily too weak to retaliate against insults after the Battle of Uhud. But Allah reveals that if he is patient, then he will find a great strength. Indeed, he exiled the Jewish tribe of an-Nadir in August of that year and eliminated the Jewish tribe Qurayza after the Battle of the Trench in AD 627.

After the Battle of the Trench in 627, Muhammad’s power, though always growing, increases exponentially in Medina, even more so than after the Battle of Badr in 624; therefore Allah sends down Sura (Chapter) 33 in the context of the Trench. In fact, we find in this sura that Muhammad is so powerful that he lays seize to the Jewish strongholds in Medina, captures them, decapitates 600 male Jews of the Qurayzah tribe, enslaves its woman and children, though he keeps a beautiful Jewess for himself, and confiscates all of their property, which is considerable (33:26-27). After this great victory and confiscation, Muhammad is wealthier than ever. In his wealth and power he lays down more rules for his many wives (33:33-40). Thus, it is in the context of Muhammad’s rising power and wealth, atrocity against the Jews, and new laws about marriage and the behavior of women that these verses were received in Sura 33:

33:57 Those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them— 58 and those who undeservedly insult [aa-dh-aa] believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin. (Haleem)

Muslim scholars agree that the word aa-dh-aa includes false reports. So Muhammad was advocating eternal damnation for merely annoying the prophet and his Muslims, the “believing men and women,” and for lying insults.

Then the sura (chapter) continues with commands to Muhammad’s wives to wear veils so that the insults will stop. But he also promises the insulting liars conquest and death (v. 61), which seems to echo the atrocity committed against the Jewish Qurayzah tribe.

33:59 Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted [aa-dh-aa]: God is most forgiving, most merciful. 60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (Haleem)

This passage is stark. Muhammad lays down the law for all the Muslim women so that no false rumors can grow—they must wear veils. The phrase “sick of heart” is understood by Muslim commentators like Maulana Ali and Hilali and Khan as those who have excessive sexual desire, so the women must cover up. Regardless, the class of rumor-mongers, “those who spread lies,” is subjected to the harshest warning. If they do not desist, they will not only be exiled, but also find no rest wherever they go. Then they will be “seized and killed,” as the Qurayza tribe was. These verses, though received in 627, predict nicely what will happen to the satirical poets during the conquest of Mecca in 630, for they spread lies and insult the honor of Muslim women and Muhammad himself.

Finally, in Sura 9, Muhammad’s power is complete, especially in the last two-thirds of the sura, which deals with the expedition to Tabuk (in the far north of Saudi Arabia today) in late 630. The hypocrites in Islam are the lukewarm Muslims who circle just outside of Islam, watching the fortunes of the community, whether they rise and stay prosperous. They do not follow the prophet when he cracks the whip; indeed, they backed away from following him to Tabuk because of the expense, the harvest season, and the heat (Sura 9:81-83). Muhammad could not tolerate such wishy-washy behavior, since he planned to expand northward even after Tabuk. So it is in this context that Muhammad receives these verses about insults and mockery and jokes from hypocrites.

9:61 There are others who insult [aa-dh-aa] the Prophet by saying, “He will listen to anything.” [Muhammad,] Say, “He listens for your own good” . . . An agonizing torment awaits those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God’s Messenger . . . 63 Do they not know that whoever opposes God and His Messenger will go to the Fire of Hell and stay there?” That is the supreme disgrace. (Haleem)

Thus, the hypocrites accuse Muhammad of listening to anything and everything, so he lacks wisdom and inspiration from Allah. But Allah gets the last laugh, for they will be thrown into the fires of hell. According to Sura 9:73 and 123, Muhammad wages a physical and violent war on them.

Muhammad continues his denunciation of the hypocrites with their jokes:

9:64 The hypocrites fear that a sura will be revealed exposing what is in their hearts—say, “Carry on with your jokes: God will bring about what you fear!”— 65 yet if you were to question them, they would be sure to say, “We were just chatting, just amusing ourselves.” Say, “Were you making jokes about God, His Revelation [the Quran], and His Messenger? 66 Do not try to justify yourselves; you have gone from belief to disbelief.” (Haleem)

Muhammad goes on to assert that the hypocrites are misleading a number of people, and in the eyes of the violent radicals today, this could easily be applied to Muslims who go from “belief to disbelief” as they criticize Islam and Muhammad. They have become hypocrites worthy of the fires of hell (v. 68); and taking verse 33:61 (see above) seriously, which promises besiegement and death, the radicals today help the hypocrites reach hell more quickly, by assassinating them rather than waiting for natural causes. The hypocrites of Muhammad’ time and of today cannot hide behind “chatting and amusing themselves” because God, the Quran, and the Messenger cannot be trifled with.

Indeed, the Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1989) in 1980, shortly after he gained power in Iran and issued the first fatwa against Rushdie, said: “There is no room for play in Islam . . . . It is deadly serious about everything.”

To conclude this section, the Quran, allegedly the book of peace, commands violence and promises eternal damnation for insulting Muhammad. He wages war on the hypocrites and other opponents circling just outside or barely within the Islamic community. He predicts that he will seize and kill insulters and mockers. Why should we be surprised if Muhammad’s followers seize and kill insulters and mockers today? Or short of that, why should we be surprised if Muslims in the West today seek to restrict by legal means unpleasant, hard-hitting (but fact-based) speech that criticizes Muhammad, the Quran, or Islam? How can traditional Muslims who know the origins of their religion reform? That would entail giving up many verses in the Quran. The cognitive dissonance or mental shock would be too severe.

For more information on Islamic intolerance, please go to this article.

The Hadith

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. The three most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), and Abu Dawud (d. 875). The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legal rulings. What follows are the stories that tell of the deaths of individuals who insulted Muhammad.

Uqba bin Abu Muayt

Uqba harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him (cf. Sura 83:13). He was captured during the Battle of Badr in AD 624, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.

Source: Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424.These three passages from the hadith depict Muhammad calling on Allah for revenge on this poet. See also Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), p. 308 (Arabic page p. 458). Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a good source of early Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.

Kab bin al-Ashraf

Kab b. al-Ashraf had a mixed ancestry. His father came from a nomadic Arab, but his mother was a Jewess from the powerful al-Nadr tribe in Medina. He lived as a member of his mother’s tribe. He heard about the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, and he was disgusted, for he thought Muhammad the newcomer to Medina was a trouble-maker and divisive. Kab had the gift of poetry, and after the Battle of Badr he traveled down to Mecca, apparently stopping by Badr, since it was near a major trade route to Mecca, witnessing the aftermath. Arriving in Mecca, he wrote a widely circulated poem, a hostile lament, over the dead of Mecca.

Pro-Muslim poets answered Kab’s poem with ones of their own, and that was enough for his hosts in Mecca to turn him out. He returned to Medina, writing some amatory verses about Muslim women, a mistake compounded on a mistake, given the tense climate in Medina and Muhammad’s victory at Badr. Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, “Who would rid me of [Kab]?” Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, “O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to tell lies.” He answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.”

As the murder was underway, Kab mounted a strong defense, so the swords of the five murderers were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbed Kab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached Kab’s genitals, killing him. The five made it back to Muhammad, but only after difficulty, since in the dark they had wounded one of their own. They saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. He spat on their comrade’s wound, and they returned to their families. Their attack on Kab sent shock waves into the Jewish community, so that “there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life,” reports Ibn Ishaq. (For more details on how the five Muslim thugs killed Kab, see this article and scroll down to point no. five. The article also answers Muslims who justify Muhammad’s violence.) The early Muslim historian Tabari reports that the five severed Kab’s head and brought it to Muhammad. How can the terrorists who are also thrilled to sever heads not be inspired by early Islam? It is authentic Islam because it is original Islam—the one that Muhammad taught.

Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436. See also Ibn Ishaq 364-69 / 548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, trans. W. Montgomery Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 94-98 / 1368-73. Reputable historians today consider Tabari to be a good source of data on early Islam, though they may not agree on his chronology or miraculous elements.

Abu Dawud collected and edited the hadith, and his is considered reliable. He cites two cases of death for insulters, and limits the death penalty to insults thrown at Muhammad alone, not at other Muslim leaders like a Caliph or a governor.

A slave-mother

First, Ibn Abbas was Muhammad’s cousin and is considered a highly reliable transmitter of traditions. He recounts that a blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the prophet with her words. The man tried to stop her repeatedly, “but she did not give up the habit.”

One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he [the blind man] took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who was between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

The next morning Muhammad was informed of the murder, so he assembled the people and demanded to know who did it. Finally, the blind man stood up, trembling and explained to Muhammad the insults of his slave mother, his human property. He said he even had two sons by her. He told the prophet that he tried to stop her, but she did not desist. He admitted that he killed her. What was Muhammad’s response? “Oh, be my witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood” (vol. 3, no. 4348). It is remarkable that Muhammad did not imprison or even scold the man for killing the mother of his two children. Who says that early Islam is not violent beyond all reason and all excuses?

A Jewish woman

Second, a Jewish woman used to insult the prophet and disparage him. “A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah . . . declared that no recompense was payable for her blood” (vol. 3, no. 4349). The translator of Abu Dawud notes that this proves that non-Muslims, even People of the Book or Bible (Jews and Christians), can be killed for insulting Muhammad (note 3800). Violence sits at the core of early Islam, authentic Islam.

An anonymous man who insulted Abu Bakr

The case that illustrates that insulting Muhammad alone brings down the death penalty involves Abu Bakr (a companion of Muhammad), who refused to slay a man who uttered hot words against him. The companion became angry with him. Another man who saw everything volunteered to chop off the head of the abuser (even the offer demonstrates how casually early Islam traffics in violence). But Abu Bakr stopped the Muslim volunteer, saying that this punishment is not allowed after Muhammad (vol. 3, no. 4350). This means that if someone insults another Muslim leader besides Muhammad, the insulter is not killed. So limited free speech is allowed, but not enough, if no one today is permitted to criticize Muhammad or even insult him. Apparently, this fine distinction is lost during Islamic rule in its heyday. Tolerance was not always practiced, as Robert Spencer’s new book, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, demonstrates.

Before leaving the hadith, we should note two things. First, here is a prediction of eternal damnation for anyone who insults Muhammad or Allah.

Narrated Ali: The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me, for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter Hell-fire. (Bukhari vol. 4, Book of Knowledge, no. 106)

Muhammad said that Allah feels slighted if anyone says that Allah has a son, precisely what Christians affirm, according to the New Testament (Bukhari, Beginning of Creation, vol. 5, no. 3193).

Second, Muhammad ordered poets of his own to attack with words his opponents and said that the archangel Gabriel would be with them (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, vol. 5, nos. 4123-4124; 4196). Muhammad allowed friendly poets to insult his enemies, but they were unable to kill him or his poets in revenge. One would hope that an Allah-inspired prophet would rise above such dubious customs and practices as insult poetry. So this custom and the revenge for insults go only one way–Muhammad’s way. How is this justice? It is tribalism at its worse.

The conclusion here follows that of the previous section. Muhammad was not tolerant, so should we be surprised if his followers today are intolerant? Muhammad killed critics and insulters, so should we be surprised if his followers do the same to critics and insulters of Muhammad? But if they are not allowed (or do not wish) to kill critics and mockers, why should we be surprised if Muslims in the West today seek to restrict by legal means hard-hitting (but fact-based) speech that exposes Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam? How can traditional Muslims who know the origins of their religion reform on this matter of violence perpetrated on dissenters and critics and mockers? That would entail abandoning passages in the hadith and in the Quran. The cognitive dissonance or mental shock would be too severe.

Classical legal rulings

Sharia is Islamic law embodied in the Quran and the hadith. Fiqh is the science of applying and interpreting sharia, done by qualified judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad’s death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq.

The most thorough discussion of insults and excessively limited free speech is found in the medieval manual compiled by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368): Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994). It summarizes rulings in the Shafi School of fiqh.

We focus on this manual, but for the other schools of fiqh, we rely on a Muslim scholar to summarize their views. This section covers the insults committed by Muslims and non-Muslims.

According to Reliance of the Traveler, for Muslims, acts that entail leaving Islam—known as apostasy or ridda—are “the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst” (p. 595, o8.0). “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed” (p. 595, o8.1). Repentance is accepted so that he is not killed, but if he refuses to repent, then the Caliph or his representative may execute him, without indemnity or expiation for killing him.

For our purposes, these eight acts (among many more) mean that a Muslim has apostatized (pp. 597-98, o8.7):

(1) To speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is one of three” or “I am Allah.” A mitigating circumstance on such blasphemy is if a man’s tongue “runs away with” him or is intoxicated.

(2) Reviling Allah or his Messenger.

(3) Being sarcastic about “Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat.”

(4) Denying any verse of the Quran or “anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it.”

(5) Holding that “any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent.”

(6) Reviling the religion of Islam.

(7) Being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.

(8) Denying that Allah intended “the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.”

These rules are broad and ambiguous; therefore, they can shut down any criticism of Muhammad, Islam, or the Quran. It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam and the violence and immorality in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head. The Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800) that covered the West and that produced critical scholarship and advanced technology has bypassed the Islamic world, and this is tragic and the cause of many troubles between the West and Islam.

The non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)-(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;

(2) Conceal spies of hostile forces;

(3) Lead a Muslim away from Islam;

(4) Mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

The first rule, leaving out adultery, which Judaism and Christianity also prohibit, shows the patriarchy of Islam. A Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish woman, but a Christian or Jewish man may not marry a Muslim woman. This means that a Muslim man must exercise control in the marriage. The second rule is reasonable. But the third and fourth rules stifle and restrict free speech and freedom of religion.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

For the other schools of law besides Shafi, the translator of Abu Dawud’s hadith collection, Ahmad Hasan, informs us:

It is unanimously agreed that if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet . . . he should be killed. There is a difference of opinion of killing a non-Muslim. According to al-Shafi, he should be killed. Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that he should not be killed . . . Malik maintains that he should be killed except that he embraces Islam. (vol. 3, note 3799)

But Hasan records his opinion on a hadith that shows a Jewish woman being killed (see Hadith no. 4349 in Abu Dawud, above). “This [strangulation of the Jewish woman] shows that even if a Jew or any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet . . . he will be killed.” This includes Christians, as well. Hasan then lists some jurists who hold this opinion (note 3800). Death for insults is excessive, and excess is never just.

To conclude this section, these legal rulings carry on the policies in the Quran and the traditions. Insulting Islam or Muhammad brings death for Muslims, and death, enslavement, release, or ransoming for non-Muslims. But the hadith shows that Muhammad chose death, and this last cited paragraph in sharia indicates death, as well. Sharia must never be allowed to gain even a small toe-hold in the West. It degrades and restricts people excessively, just as medieval law in the West used to degrade and restrict people excessively. The West has progressed, but Islam has stagnated.

Before moving to the Christian view of free speech, we should take stock of the implications of the last three sections.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran and sharia itself testifies to its position of weakness since the Islamic legal system threatens and carries out the threats against those who dare to differ.

How confident is Muhammad in his message that he has to rely on violence and force, besides reason and persuasive argument? How confident are today’s Muslims in their religion when they still insist on threatening critics and dissenters with severe punishment? Do today’s Muslims fear that Islam will fall apart were it to allow freedom of speech in their community?


10 thoughts on “Muhammad’s critics and their deaths”

  1. Do you know that the statue of liberty has already debunked the Bible all these years?
    Come undo the secret at

    Or log on here to know why God doesn’t exist.

    Fight terrorism with logic instead of bullets. Wake up the idiots from the delusion of God.


Comments are closed.