K
Khalid
Guest
If you would like to repeat the question, I will answer it. I believed I had answered all such questions and objections.
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Khalid,
You are truly following Christ…in the Catholic Church…people will not be considered living saintly lives if they have not been accused of many things they are not…
I am keeping you in prayers…May the Blessed Mother protect you!!!
You are truly following Christ…in the Catholic Church…people will not be considered living saintly lives if they have not been accused of many things they are not…
I am keeping you in prayers…May the Blessed Mother protect you!!!
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Peaceofcake…
My issue is it has gotten to the point here in the USA for the past 30 years…that only white people are prejudiced and greedy and on power trips…And you can’t protect yourself against suspicious or uncivil behavior without being called a racist…
When you can’t speak about difficulties you have encountered with some other people of a different class…and they are indeed doing wrong…you have attempted to point out abuse…of another person or of government’s forms of benevolence for those in need.
There is so much misuse of freedom, generosity, benefits, speech…and it is authentic Christianity that is put out on the side…while it is constantly being labelled as an abusive institution.
We have to call a spade a spade…and this is not denigrating or labelling a class of people. But also reveals that ordinary, moderate Muslims need to speak out and solidify with our people. We are more than happy to welcome all who support and believe in our country.
But seeing the ongoing world news…it is making me want to turn the tube off…and get my information from EWTN…
I am praying for a St. Paul to come…we need to pray for laborers…willing and able to lay down their lives for Christ.
I am now wearing my crucifix publicly as the atheists try to remove any semblance to Christ. They protect the porn shops and sex ed to children but they are destroying the innocence of young people’s souls. There have been areas in our country where Muslims have joined with other Americans in fighting pornography…
So we need to better identify and understand which kinds of Muslims are those who are good citizens and those who come with ulterior and abusive behavior to our people.
My issue is it has gotten to the point here in the USA for the past 30 years…that only white people are prejudiced and greedy and on power trips…And you can’t protect yourself against suspicious or uncivil behavior without being called a racist…
When you can’t speak about difficulties you have encountered with some other people of a different class…and they are indeed doing wrong…you have attempted to point out abuse…of another person or of government’s forms of benevolence for those in need.
There is so much misuse of freedom, generosity, benefits, speech…and it is authentic Christianity that is put out on the side…while it is constantly being labelled as an abusive institution.
We have to call a spade a spade…and this is not denigrating or labelling a class of people. But also reveals that ordinary, moderate Muslims need to speak out and solidify with our people. We are more than happy to welcome all who support and believe in our country.
But seeing the ongoing world news…it is making me want to turn the tube off…and get my information from EWTN…
I am praying for a St. Paul to come…we need to pray for laborers…willing and able to lay down their lives for Christ.
I am now wearing my crucifix publicly as the atheists try to remove any semblance to Christ. They protect the porn shops and sex ed to children but they are destroying the innocence of young people’s souls. There have been areas in our country where Muslims have joined with other Americans in fighting pornography…
So we need to better identify and understand which kinds of Muslims are those who are good citizens and those who come with ulterior and abusive behavior to our people.
A
Aramis
Guest
What most people think of as “Moderate Muslims” are the muslim equivalent of “Poinsettias and Palms” christians or “sunday-morning-only christians”… the faithless who go out of habit, the ignorant who go but do not understand, and the secularized who keep their “faith” contained to half a day a week, and live a non-faith-filled life the rest of the time.
The real moderates within devout Islam are not what we generally think of as “moderate” - they believe in honor over truth, sharia instead of civil law, and the inherent inferiority of the infidel. They don’t speak out about violent jihad because to do so would be their equivalent of a mortal sin. Even if they don’t feel called to violent jihad, speaking out against it would be a sinful act, because it would bear ill witness against fellow muslims. Further, it would deny the Qu’ran - it would be a form of apostasy. So even when the feel no personal call to violent jihad, they are religiously bound not to reject it as a valid form of jihad.
Only the Sufi reject violent jihad. And they are often considered to be apostates, for their reliance upon works other than the Qu’ran and Hadith.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Aramis…note your understanding of the tolerance towards non-Muslims…I see that…I can read people pretty well at times…vs the friend of my daughter…a Jordanian Muslim.
So I am tending to identify what kind of Muslim would do such a thing as coming from certain regions…
And the other note…outside of Pakistan and Iran…where observers say it is the poor who demonstrate the worst…that it is more middle class Muslims who have been drawn into ‘pure’ Islam…not unlike the radicals and progressives here and those in Communism who consider themselves siding with the poor through destructive revolution.
So I am tending to identify what kind of Muslim would do such a thing as coming from certain regions…
And the other note…outside of Pakistan and Iran…where observers say it is the poor who demonstrate the worst…that it is more middle class Muslims who have been drawn into ‘pure’ Islam…not unlike the radicals and progressives here and those in Communism who consider themselves siding with the poor through destructive revolution.
K
Khalid
Guest
I am not a saintly person, I am a far cry from it: that’s proof, as either it’s false humility (a sin) or it’s true! I do the best I can but still have major problems and obstacles before I can be accused of living even a slightly holy life or having any attribute (beyond the quest for knowledge and God, and knowledge of God) worthy of emulation.
K
Khalid
Guest
I think the Ahmadiyya reject it too, but they’re considered much further out of the fold of Islam than Sufism. If Islam is the baseball diamond, Sufism is sitting on the wall, and Ahmadiyya is playing cricket.
A
Aramis
Guest
I’d forgotten about them. They are indeed out there… in both senses of the term.
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
I know the feeling, most people think I’m Muslim
You probably have to be the only Egyptian and by extension Arab who is pro Israel. One thing that always struck me about Arabs (Gulf particularly) is that they are so easy going and friendly… until you menton the Israel-Palestine conflict. Its like opposition is part of their DNA - and watching Arab TV no wonder!Little unnerved by disagree with ‘The Church.’ Though I take your point about theology.
That said there is a predominant (many Church Fathers mentioned this and important figures like Newman) view that the Anti-Christ will be of Jewish descent and will appear in Jerusalem when the temple is re-built (Hence why Jesus says his people will reject him, but accept his imposter).
Also since our religion is one of Ethics, I would say that Catholicism would not be compatible with a Nationalist government. A clear divide is made between Palestinian Arab and Israeli in an Apharteid system (Desmond Tutu’s definition), which then is state racism. It doesn’t help that they opress Christians too.
Are you sure you should be so pro Israel? Especially when you made so many points based on the Bill of Human Rights?
Yes there aren’t too many other places perhaps, Syria? It is also the melting pot of modern groups like the MB amongst the traditional. In fact I have described Egypt as having the best and worst of people, before.
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
I think that is true in some cases, but not most. Having met their scholars (and also whilst incognito), those that embody their religion I would definately say that isn’t true. As Khalid mentions many bombers etc are in fact university educated. In the Arab world the ‘elite’ are the ones that have read about socialism and nationalism and 'Islamicised ’ them as a reaction to the current political climate. However these are alien concepts to Islam so I don’t think its ‘normative’ understanding can be blamed. It is also often that these people are not all to practicing either.
What would you understand by jihad? If your familiar with Qutb’s reworking so that jihad replaces irreconcilable conflict between the bourgouise of Marxism then fair enough. Not exactly classical definitions though. There was an excellent book from Harvard on this… I’ll look it up.
Again not sure what you mean by ‘Sufis’ here. ‘Qur’an and Hadith’ is Salafism too, its a bit like blaming Catholicism for the work of Puritans! Anyway, I think its important to tighten our definitions.
M
manualman
Guest
Critical examination of the Israel/Palestine conflict is a bit of a tangent from the original topic, unless it is asserted that the Arab Palestinian culture is a microcosm of what Islamic society looks like. I hope that is not true.
Certain factions within Israel (notably the settlers and their sympathizers) I have little sympathy for. But on the big picture scale of history, what Israel has achieved truly is remarkable.
Think about it. World War II has just ended, Jews are displaced nearly everywhere in Europe either coming out of camps, coming out of hiding or STILL fleeing the new tyranny of the Soviets. They have no home to return to. No friends in high places, even America refuses to accept more than a handful. They have only each other as allies and who can blame them for refusing to disperse again into some sort of pre-war diaspora at the mercy once again of the uncertain sentiments of post-war Europe. En masse, they decide to move to Palestine, return home, finally make true the ancient toast “Next year in Jerusalem!” Nobody helped, everybody tried to stop them! The British occupiers of Palestine patrolled the coasts and put illegal Jewish immigants into, believe it or not, concentration camps on Cyprus! No matter, they came anyways. This was not an invasion, there was no organized fascist Zionist conspiracy outside the minds of Haj Amin al Husseini and his lunatic compatriots. There was no desire, much less chance of throwing out the native inhabitants of Palestine. Mere communal survival was the top of the list at first.
But Husseini and his council chose not to see it that way. Little different than the Nazis themselves (and allies with them in the war), he incited hatred and fear among the Palestinian people and made far worse the violence (some of which, of course, existed on the parts of the illegal immigrants themselves, terror groups like Irgun and Stern Gang). Worse than that, he lined up support among most neighboring Arab nations for military intervention once the British/UN occupiers left. His unabashed goal was to throw them into the sea (one can argue that that meant expell them, but given his buddy/buddy relationship with Hitler, a more ominous interpretation seems reasonable to suspect).
On the eve of the UN withdrawal, it was the ARAB and Palestinian leadership who exhorted the Palestinians to leave the coming combat zone. The military equations were so lopsided, that the Arab leadership simply wanted to minimize Palestinian civilian causualties in the combat zone. This is the REAL source of the initial displacement of Palestinians and is the delineation line between those Palestinian Arabs later eligible for Israeli citizenship and those not eligible. If you evacuated, you were considered cooperating with the invading Arab armies. If you stayed and weren’t a combatant and your home was inside the borders, you were eligible.
The above policy is what created the generations of Palestinian homeless camps. It’s easy to armchair criticize Israel for this. What’s harder is to propose a sane alternative. It was nearly theoretically impossible for Israel to defeat the forces arrayed against her, but they did it. Having achieved the impossible, critics maintain that Israel should have simply opened up and allowed countless people who mostly supported Husseini and his strategy to re-enter Israel and with them countless numbers of insurgents? Lunacy! Nobody in his right mind would consent to that.
Failing that, people claim Israel should have respected the borders created in 1948 by the UN and given back the land won in combat that they did not seek in the first place. Again, this ignores the basic facts that those borders are militarily indefensible due to terrain. And in the 1960’s, Syria invaded quite effectively using weak terrain and very nearly defeated Israel’s ground forces before Israel’s superior air power turned the tide, but armchair historians say that Israel is “illegally” occupying the Golan Heights ever since (which action significantly blocks Syria from trying again, but from much stronger terrain). Such people rarely compare the ‘legality’ of how Israel gained Golan versus how the USA gained California…
I’m not one to give Israel a blank check. I had a high school friend whose father was crippled in Israel’s cowardly attack on the USS Liberty (no accident). I see the continued building of settlements on Palestinian land as nothing less than warmongering on the part of the settlers and political cowardice at best from the leadership.
But I also notice that the Palestinians are ALIVE. And I have significant doubts as to whether the same would be true of the Israelis had the 1948 war gone the other direction. Is it the principles of Islam that created this culture of hatred that turned an illegal immigration crisis into a multigenerational war of attrition or is it coincidence that the evil leader was also a muslim cleric (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)? That’s really the question of the thread. But as Edwin continues to point out, its awfully hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint the essence of something that fundamentally isn’t TRUE. Maybe there is hope for Islam to be something better than it has been in history so far. But I’m not holding my breath…
Certain factions within Israel (notably the settlers and their sympathizers) I have little sympathy for. But on the big picture scale of history, what Israel has achieved truly is remarkable.
Think about it. World War II has just ended, Jews are displaced nearly everywhere in Europe either coming out of camps, coming out of hiding or STILL fleeing the new tyranny of the Soviets. They have no home to return to. No friends in high places, even America refuses to accept more than a handful. They have only each other as allies and who can blame them for refusing to disperse again into some sort of pre-war diaspora at the mercy once again of the uncertain sentiments of post-war Europe. En masse, they decide to move to Palestine, return home, finally make true the ancient toast “Next year in Jerusalem!” Nobody helped, everybody tried to stop them! The British occupiers of Palestine patrolled the coasts and put illegal Jewish immigants into, believe it or not, concentration camps on Cyprus! No matter, they came anyways. This was not an invasion, there was no organized fascist Zionist conspiracy outside the minds of Haj Amin al Husseini and his lunatic compatriots. There was no desire, much less chance of throwing out the native inhabitants of Palestine. Mere communal survival was the top of the list at first.
But Husseini and his council chose not to see it that way. Little different than the Nazis themselves (and allies with them in the war), he incited hatred and fear among the Palestinian people and made far worse the violence (some of which, of course, existed on the parts of the illegal immigrants themselves, terror groups like Irgun and Stern Gang). Worse than that, he lined up support among most neighboring Arab nations for military intervention once the British/UN occupiers left. His unabashed goal was to throw them into the sea (one can argue that that meant expell them, but given his buddy/buddy relationship with Hitler, a more ominous interpretation seems reasonable to suspect).
On the eve of the UN withdrawal, it was the ARAB and Palestinian leadership who exhorted the Palestinians to leave the coming combat zone. The military equations were so lopsided, that the Arab leadership simply wanted to minimize Palestinian civilian causualties in the combat zone. This is the REAL source of the initial displacement of Palestinians and is the delineation line between those Palestinian Arabs later eligible for Israeli citizenship and those not eligible. If you evacuated, you were considered cooperating with the invading Arab armies. If you stayed and weren’t a combatant and your home was inside the borders, you were eligible.
The above policy is what created the generations of Palestinian homeless camps. It’s easy to armchair criticize Israel for this. What’s harder is to propose a sane alternative. It was nearly theoretically impossible for Israel to defeat the forces arrayed against her, but they did it. Having achieved the impossible, critics maintain that Israel should have simply opened up and allowed countless people who mostly supported Husseini and his strategy to re-enter Israel and with them countless numbers of insurgents? Lunacy! Nobody in his right mind would consent to that.
Failing that, people claim Israel should have respected the borders created in 1948 by the UN and given back the land won in combat that they did not seek in the first place. Again, this ignores the basic facts that those borders are militarily indefensible due to terrain. And in the 1960’s, Syria invaded quite effectively using weak terrain and very nearly defeated Israel’s ground forces before Israel’s superior air power turned the tide, but armchair historians say that Israel is “illegally” occupying the Golan Heights ever since (which action significantly blocks Syria from trying again, but from much stronger terrain). Such people rarely compare the ‘legality’ of how Israel gained Golan versus how the USA gained California…
I’m not one to give Israel a blank check. I had a high school friend whose father was crippled in Israel’s cowardly attack on the USS Liberty (no accident). I see the continued building of settlements on Palestinian land as nothing less than warmongering on the part of the settlers and political cowardice at best from the leadership.
But I also notice that the Palestinians are ALIVE. And I have significant doubts as to whether the same would be true of the Israelis had the 1948 war gone the other direction. Is it the principles of Islam that created this culture of hatred that turned an illegal immigration crisis into a multigenerational war of attrition or is it coincidence that the evil leader was also a muslim cleric (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)? That’s really the question of the thread. But as Edwin continues to point out, its awfully hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint the essence of something that fundamentally isn’t TRUE. Maybe there is hope for Islam to be something better than it has been in history so far. But I’m not holding my breath…
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
W
waseem3302
Guest
Hello,
Please i need only $200 urgent. I am not a scammer. I swear that i cam not a scammer as i am a muslim. Please any kind hearted and God fearing person help me please.
I am in a bad situation.
waseemkhan3302@yahoo.com
+923346143815
Please i need only $200 urgent. I am not a scammer. I swear that i cam not a scammer as i am a muslim. Please any kind hearted and God fearing person help me please.
I am in a bad situation.
waseemkhan3302@yahoo.com
+923346143815
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
K
Khalid
Guest
Copt. Copts aren’t Arabs.I know the feeling, most people think I’m Muslim
K
Khalid
Guest
“Qur’an and Hadith only” is Salafism and Wahhabism (they love to call themselves “ahl al hadith”, the people of the hadith, instead of “ahl al sunnah wa jama’ah”, the people of the Sunnah and the Community, of Sunni Islam). Middle roads (between pure Koranic and Hadithic literalism and complete obscurantism/allegory) are the Four Schools. Sufism is Qur’an, Hadith (not always the standard Sunni “sahih” ones either, so, like the Four Books of Shi’i, almost “different hadith”, and almost always interpreted in an extremely creative way), and a bunch of mystical literature (from my experience, Rumi’s poetry is held to be almost canonical).
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
A question, Khalid--------
Al-Ghazali, probably the most “influential” Sufi (as far as I know) has been proven to have written things against non-believers which would shock people who think of him as a peaceful Sufi------what about Rumi?
I say this especially since Rumi is held by some to be the most “read” poet in America. Has Coleman Barks (his most famous translator) withheld any “damning” excerpts that would somehow lessen him in the West (and mine) eyes?
Just asking. Curious.
K
Khalid
Guest
Not really. Rumi was a large fan of wine and intoxication of all sorts (all being haraam, although a tiny minority of heterodox 'alim interpret the prohibition of khamr - literally, fermented [grape, drink] - literally, as only prohibiting wine, but not other intoxicants [beer, hashish, opium, etc.]): Abu Hanifa himself (of Hanafi fame) was known to much enjoy a “malt beverage” for strength: an alcoholic one. The prohibition against things that can possibly intoxicate has tightened over the years; originally, it was something like, “intoxicants are not allowed if the sole purpose is intoxication”; now the Hanafi school holds the opinion that if one is dying of thirst and floating in a river of wine, it is a mortal sin to drink the wine, even if it is only option to survive (and, along with a prohibition on O’Douls-like drinks, this leads to a very awkward position of application of the method to derive laws called qiyas [casuistry] leads to the damning of water as haraam, as water can intoxicate in sufficient quantities). I believe it’s wide knowledge how common the use of hashish and opium/morphine/heroin are even in those regions most governed by a full application of the traditional Shariah, even if it is not approved of by the Shariah.
Rumi uses intoxication as metaphor very often, and often laces his poems with allusions (not often veiled, nor often allusions, often very brazen) to other pleasures of the flesh. If homosexual and pederastic imagery are damning (I don’t think one can read five of Rumi’s works in a row without finding him extolling the virtue of the boy, wine, and the boy combined with wine at least once), and not included in translation, yes.
Al-Ghazali was more of a quasi-systematic theologian before systematic theology was developed - I would hesitate to call him a Sufi, or anything else. With Ghazali, it seems that only the apophatic way is sufficient - to describe what he is not: i.e. Ghazali was not a Mutazili.
Rumi uses intoxication as metaphor very often, and often laces his poems with allusions (not often veiled, nor often allusions, often very brazen) to other pleasures of the flesh. If homosexual and pederastic imagery are damning (I don’t think one can read five of Rumi’s works in a row without finding him extolling the virtue of the boy, wine, and the boy combined with wine at least once), and not included in translation, yes.
Al-Ghazali was more of a quasi-systematic theologian before systematic theology was developed - I would hesitate to call him a Sufi, or anything else. With Ghazali, it seems that only the apophatic way is sufficient - to describe what he is not: i.e. Ghazali was not a Mutazili.
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
OrdinaryMelkite and Khalid
I’m not too sure these definitions work
In the Hanafi school only alcohol made from dates and grapes is khamr (due to a hadith). What they mean by that is, is that only khamr (wine from dates or grapes) is najasah or spiritually unclean. There is a hadith that everything that intoxicates is a khamr. So they understand by this is that something like beer is tahir (pure) but if it is strong enough to intoxicate then it is haram (impermissible). I was somewhat confused by this, but then when consulting the commentaries (dating way back) and the ulama it becomes clear what was meant (another example of the difficulty on just having the text). Al Hidaya has recently been translated, where his can be found.
Muhammad apparently used to drink a type of beer, however it is was very weak. This is because it is the safest way to drink water, just like people did here in the UK.
Rumi is known as being the founder of the mevlevi tariqa (spiritual path) is known as a ‘sufi.’ But he was also a Hanafi Mufti (jurist of Shariah Law) and well versed in kalam (theology)… because he is Sunni or ahul sunnah wal jamat (of the Sunnah and the majority) in the true sence. Some of his use of terms used in ‘sufi’ literature does require defining because what he meant isn’t what we would necessarily understand. So he makes both positive and negative things about women, why? Because he refers negatively when one is like a women (aquiescent) to the ego, but he is positive when one is like a women (merciful) to others. The wine is also along these lines, it is used as a metaphor for a valuable comodity of sweet tase (just like the wine mentioned in paradise in the Qur’an) - he certainly wasn’t a drunk in a literal sence (drunkeness is referring to drunk on Divine Love)! William Chittick has some really good accessible books on this.
Ghazali was a Shafi’i Mufti and known for his theological work as a student of the erudite Juwayni. He was also known as a Sufi since he harmonised the theological with the mysticasl sciences. Theology tends to focus on what God is not (transcendence), mysticism tends to focus on what God is (immanence).
Consulting the foremost works in each school then it becomes clear that if anyone believes that someone can be saved by anything other than islam is a disbeliever even if they profess Islam and observe its practices. It doesn’t mean all non-Muslims are in hell - from their perspective - just that other religions aren’t valid. Its a bit like us saying people are only redemeemed through Christ.
There are people who call themselves Sufi or those who misunderstand sufi literature who think it means all religions are valid. This is why ‘sufis’ are called heteredox of infidel, however these are obscure sects anyway not normative sufism. So no, both Rumi and Ghazali both thought disbelief as the very worst thing.
I think Sufi needs redefining because it is used too loosley, as are others. Most people call ibn Taymiyyah an anti Sufi or Salafi, yet he was on the Qadri tariqa and a Hanbali Jurist. He had some heteredox theological positions (which salafis or wahabis use) and some ‘strange’ juristic positions, so we could call him Sufi, Sunni or Salafi or neither!?!
I’m not too sure these definitions work
In the Hanafi school only alcohol made from dates and grapes is khamr (due to a hadith). What they mean by that is, is that only khamr (wine from dates or grapes) is najasah or spiritually unclean. There is a hadith that everything that intoxicates is a khamr. So they understand by this is that something like beer is tahir (pure) but if it is strong enough to intoxicate then it is haram (impermissible). I was somewhat confused by this, but then when consulting the commentaries (dating way back) and the ulama it becomes clear what was meant (another example of the difficulty on just having the text). Al Hidaya has recently been translated, where his can be found.
Muhammad apparently used to drink a type of beer, however it is was very weak. This is because it is the safest way to drink water, just like people did here in the UK.
Rumi is known as being the founder of the mevlevi tariqa (spiritual path) is known as a ‘sufi.’ But he was also a Hanafi Mufti (jurist of Shariah Law) and well versed in kalam (theology)… because he is Sunni or ahul sunnah wal jamat (of the Sunnah and the majority) in the true sence. Some of his use of terms used in ‘sufi’ literature does require defining because what he meant isn’t what we would necessarily understand. So he makes both positive and negative things about women, why? Because he refers negatively when one is like a women (aquiescent) to the ego, but he is positive when one is like a women (merciful) to others. The wine is also along these lines, it is used as a metaphor for a valuable comodity of sweet tase (just like the wine mentioned in paradise in the Qur’an) - he certainly wasn’t a drunk in a literal sence (drunkeness is referring to drunk on Divine Love)! William Chittick has some really good accessible books on this.
Ghazali was a Shafi’i Mufti and known for his theological work as a student of the erudite Juwayni. He was also known as a Sufi since he harmonised the theological with the mysticasl sciences. Theology tends to focus on what God is not (transcendence), mysticism tends to focus on what God is (immanence).
Consulting the foremost works in each school then it becomes clear that if anyone believes that someone can be saved by anything other than islam is a disbeliever even if they profess Islam and observe its practices. It doesn’t mean all non-Muslims are in hell - from their perspective - just that other religions aren’t valid. Its a bit like us saying people are only redemeemed through Christ.
There are people who call themselves Sufi or those who misunderstand sufi literature who think it means all religions are valid. This is why ‘sufis’ are called heteredox of infidel, however these are obscure sects anyway not normative sufism. So no, both Rumi and Ghazali both thought disbelief as the very worst thing.
I think Sufi needs redefining because it is used too loosley, as are others. Most people call ibn Taymiyyah an anti Sufi or Salafi, yet he was on the Qadri tariqa and a Hanbali Jurist. He had some heteredox theological positions (which salafis or wahabis use) and some ‘strange’ juristic positions, so we could call him Sufi, Sunni or Salafi or neither!?!
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=1
Aaaaaaand cue POC speculating about my race/ethnicity in 3…2…1…
- Status