An American convert's experience of Islam.

[anajmi]

The second issue is what the Quran actually says in those ayats quoted by Anajmi. The word 'jahadu' means to make an effort. It does not mean killing for any cause or making an aggressive war against enemies of Islam. Enemies of Islam are not those who follow other religions but those who made trouble for Islam in its early stages, the munafiqeen and kaafireen. Quran's suggestion against these people is for Muslims to be steadfast in their beliefs and trust God for outcome. And, only as a last resort, take up arms to defend themselves not defend Islam, which is God's business.

The word Jihad, a noun from 'jahadu', means 'Holy War' only if it is so declared by a Muslim Authority, which ceased to exist when Muhammad died and Imams and Khulafa disappeared.

The word for war is 'Harb' and the word for killing is 'qatl'. Those are not 'Jihad'.

I agree with what you've said over here. In fact Allah in an ayah also mentions that if your parents do Jihad against you to believe in someone other than Allah then do not obey them. Here the word Jihad is used for the struggle of the parents against their children. But when someone asks Muslims to eliminate the reference to the word Jihad from their struggle, either he does not understand the meaning of the word or he wants to eliminate the quran and Allah from the struggle. They want Muslims to not seek the help of Allah or quran (not that they believe they will help them) but they want to eliminate the main source of strength for the muslims. Allah says in the quran that he will do what we expect of him. Expect nothing and you will get nothing.

That is what people like the faithless people like the average moron and yourself fail to understand. You believe there is no way the muslims can win this struggle because YOU have no faith.

Of course I will not blame America for any of this though.

[anajmi]

Something that the average morons of this country should think about (not that they think a lot but still) when they blame the muslims and their love for Allah and Islam as the root cause of all evil, the average moron that rules this country said that God told him that Saddam was evil and that he should invade Iraq and free the Iraqis. Of course we know now what a great job he has done.

And the other thing they should think.. about is that Israelis want Palestinian land because they claim that God promised it to them. The little fact that he never delivered does not seem to bother them.

[Humsafar]

anajmi,

I knew you will latch on to my reference to "jihad". I mentioned it only to illustrate the point that how Muslim tar everything they do with a religious brush. (If W. Bush and his Christian fundamentalists too are using religion to colour their world it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.) It's a regressive trend that bodes ill for the world.

Of course, if Muslims stopped using the label 'jihad' it doesn't mean that American and Israeli atrocities will end. But at least Muslim resistance will find a wider international support, acceptance and credibility. Giving up the label "jihad" doesn't mean giving up resistance.

Sure, formal democracy as obtained in the West and elsewhere is no guarantee that peoples' will will prevail, but at least it is better than the brutal oligarchies that plague the Muslim world. And, these dictatorships are corrupt not because they are Islamic per se. They justify their rule in the name of Islam and crush criticism and opposition to their rule in the name of Islam. Remember the days when Pakistan, Libya and others were pursuing the "Islamic bomb" - as if the whole Muslim world were a homogenous group supporting that enterprise. The Christian west did not - do not - call their bomb the "Christian bomb". Point being, build a bomb if you have to, keep Islam out of it.

Yes Iraqis and Palestinians are ill-equipped and poor but the recourse to the Quran etc. doesn't make them better equipped, doesn't make their cause/victimhood more credible. Religion only serves as an emotional crutch and contributes, I feel, to the self-pity - that America is bashing us "because we are Muslims." No, America will take out its own brother, so to speak, if that advanced its agenda.

America is friends with Israel because the Jewish nation serves as America's policeman in the middle east. If Israel was Muslim and the rest of the Middle East Jewish, America would still be bombing Jews (all things remaining equal). American foreign policy is driven by two overriding goals: control of world's important resources and ensuring that no country be allowed to challenge America's military and political might. And it will mow down (and has already done so) anyone that comes in its way. (Look at the U.S. - and West Europe's - role in the second world war. It did not care when Hitler was gassing Jews as long as Hitler was targeting the USSR - its arch enemy. The U.S. was the last country to join the war and that too after it provoked Japan, for its own reasons, to attack Pear Harbour.)

I've no issue with anyone criticising America/Israel - in fact, I would be the last one to speak in their favour. My point simply is that the "sledgehammer" criticism that you employ is simplistic and pointless. We need a more nuanced understanding of forces at play - and act accordingly. Launching jihad at the drop of a hat and quoting the Quran chapter and verse neither helps the cause of Islam nor the cause of freedom, human rights and resistance to American imperialism.

Of course, we have strayed from my original post: that the Quran (and most religious scriptures) are dangerous books and should not be read by unprepared/uneducated people lest they begin take them literally. But this is exactly what has happened. Now, God alone can save the world.

[Average Bohra]

It is idealistic to expect America or any superpower to act in the interest of others, rather than [or in spite of] its own self-interest. One cannot pass these judgments on US political and foreign policy imperfections and unfairness in a vacuum. For the sake of objectivity, it is necessary to envision an Islamic Superpower with the same power, control, influence and wealth as the US, and the thought of the alternative is horrifying to all, including Muslims.

As I have stated before, this is about cause and effect, and a solution to any problem must deal with the cause. In this case the cause is the inept, ignorant, corrupt, and dictatorial Muslim leadership enforcing archaic Islamic laws, which sacrifice the well-being of its own people, and its subjects too engrossed in literal interpretations of the Quran, jihads, and thinking by rote, to know the difference.

If you consider the nonchalance toward Muslim-on-Muslim violence / atrocities by Muslims, you will join me in blessing America.

[Humsafar]

It is nobody's contention that a superpower, or any other country for that matter, should NOT act in their own self-interest. The problem is that superpowers act AGAINST the self-interest of the others. And if it would give you satisfaction, this is not a peculiar "American problem". This is the nature of the animal called imperialism: aggression, occupation and imposition of one's ideology. The Romans, the Ottomans, the Brisitsh, the French, USSR and other imperialists have done the exact same thing. America does so today. This is not a question of passing judgement, it is a political reality. Even if it were a "judgement", you too are guilty of it - for you too are passing judgement by your apologetics for American imperialism.

My view is that an Islamic superpower would not be any worse than the American superpower. If you think American hegemony has spread liberty, justice and wealth around the world then, I'm sure you also believe that the British imperialism actually "civilised" the world. Even so, you prefer American superpower to Islamic. To me both are equally despicable.

And no, all this has nothing to do with cause and effect. Social and political realities are much more complex. It's do with class system, it's do with the elites - in the west or east - wanting to control people and resources, it's to do with greed and power. As for caring about the well-being of its own people, do you think America really does so? If it did you would not have more than 40 million poor Americans without health care or send its young men from poor families to die for its imperialist wars.

And no, I'm not in the business of blessing America or anyone else. On the contrary, all imperialist powers - big or small - should be resisted. Muslim-against-Muslim violence will not drive me into the arms of America any more than the christian-against-christian violence would drive me into the arms of Saudi Arabia.

[Average Bohra]

You are reading too much into my comments. It is not my contention that America is perfect, simply that I don’t expect perfection from a superpower, country, political system, or human being. We are not living a utopian dream, but a reality where one’s self-interest is sometimes in conflict with another’s. Some of your expectations were addressed by failed socialistic and communist systems.

Greed, power, and control are human traits, except that some harness them to produce democratic superpowers in record time, while others use them to dominate and brutalize their own people. As an American, I expect my government to look after my interests first just as you would expect yours to do. The Muslim countries should be no different.

If you care to further digress from this topic I would be glad to discuss your other criticisms point by point on another thread. ..and yes I prefer an American superpower and I find the thought of an Islamic superpower rather terrifying.

It is all relative……

[Humsafar]

All I'm trying to say is that all imperialist powers act in a predictable manner driven by a dynamic of power and force. Of course, there will always be clashes of self-interests. How you resolve those differences is a measure of democratic maturity and decency. Imperial powers, including America, invariably always resolve their differences by force (when they can get away with it). The old dictum "might is right" is as relevant today as it was in earlier times.

True, greed etc. are human traits but what is problematic is that these traits define imperialism and find particular expression in its policies. For example, why doesn't the Canadian government (given the same human traits) display the same imperialistic characteristics (aggression, occupation etc.) as its neighbour to the south? The point being, generosity, charity, cooperation etc. are also human traits and civilised and peaceful countries/human beings try to live by them.

The phrase "democratic superpower" is a contradiction in terms. A genuine democracy can never be a superpower - and what has "record time" got to do with anything? Your government may be certainly looking after your self-interest - if you belong to the privileged sector of society: the top 10 to 20 per cent of the people. Even so, why should the protection of your self-interest involve the death and destruction of Vietnamese, Filipinos, South Americans, Koreans, Palestinians, Iraqis etc. Do you realise these are the victims sacrificed at the altar of your self-interest or "national security" as government propaganda would put it.

For me any superpower is terrifying. I don't care what stripe they come in.

And no, it's not all relative. Force and aggression are unacceptable - be it from an average person, a dictator or a superpower.

[Average Bohra]

“A genuine democracy can never be a superpower” ? You lost me on that one… as far as the so-called destruction of Vietnamese, Koreans et al. , I don’t buy that unless you are of the belief that these were peaceful utopias not killing each other, that fell victim to US aggression. I am also not aware of any generous, charitable, and cooperative country that is also not acting aggressively in its self-interest when threatened. Political charity and generosity always comes with strings attached, that’s just the way it is. It is when you have the luxury of saying “no thanks”, that you control your own destiny.

Force and aggression are a necessary evil and also sometimes necessary as History has well documented [Hitler, Kosovo etc.], though admittedly often abused [US-Iraq, Iraq-Iran, Iraq-Kuwait, Pakistan-India-Kashmir, Sudan, Israel-Palestine].

[Humsafar]

Let me rephrase it, a genuine democracy would never want to be a superpower. Why? Because these are inherently contradictory concepts. A genuine or even a decent democracy (over and beyond mere elections) reflects the will of the people - it is concerned with justice, equality, human rights etc. at home and abroad. A superpower, on the other hand, deals in direct power concepts (read George Keenan who helped shape U.S. foreign policy in the 40s) - it's in the business of imposing doctrinal, ideological power at home and abroad.

You must take a chillingly ignorant or heartless (don't know which is worse) view of history to dub the destruction of Vietnamese, Koreans etc. as "so-called". If you have the slightest idea as to what happened there you wouldn't be talking like this. No, Vietnam was not a peaceful utopia (and it's immaterial to the discussion), but if you must know it was not peaceful because the French colonialists were already creating trouble there. And yes, they fell victim to the American aggression - America was in no way threatened by the Vietnamese and it had no business attacking them.

Self-defense is a natural right and is also enshrined in the UN charter. You mean to say that the U.S. attacked and invaded Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama and most recently Iraq (and has been supporting and arming thugs and war criminals in central/south America, Asia, Middle East and Israel) in self-defense, because it was/is threatened. If this is your argument then I don't what to say. (Here's a little side note to stress the point: A Mexican diplomat once explained why Mexico could not support the Kennedy Administration's anti-Cuba policy: "If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing.")

"Force and aggression are necessary evil." Hitler will concur with you - he too justified them as necessary evil. Force and aggression are always "abused" by the rich and powerful - never by the weak and poor. The latter defend themselves with whatever it takes - guerrilla warfare, stones, suicide booming, low-grade indiscriminate terrorism. But this is nothing compared to the most powerful and ruthless killing machine the world has ever know: the US armed forces.

If by a quirk of history Hitler had won the second world war, I can bet that people like you today would be singing his praises and counting the blessings of fascism.

It all boils down to this: you can defend you country if you must. But don't try to justify its actions as a good thing. Maybe it's a good thing for certain classes of people - but certainly not for the majority of Americans and definitely not for the rest of the world.

[Average Bohra]

Maybe it's a good thing for certain classes of people - but certainly not for the majority of Americans and definitely not for the rest of the world.

Problem is that just as you profess to know what is good for the "majority of Americans" and the world, so does the only remaining super power, and as you, they too can be wrong sometimes. Incidentally, the "majority of Americans" voted to keep Bush in office, primarily because of the Iraq war and security.

It is ironic that you only oppose wars that US is a part of, but no other atrocities [some I listed in my previous post]. As popular as it is to be anti-American the world over these days, when it comes to aid, Kosova, AIDS, Sudan, and even Afghanistan [during the Russian aggression], the world expects America to take the lead. The point remains that America does meddle in foreign affairs, because they are allowed to and often invited to be part of conflicts they have no business being in. Once over, it is the favorite whipping boy...

One can't have it both ways.

[Humsafar]

I do not profess to know what's good for the world, the world speaks for itself: Here are the poll results conducted in "friendly" countries (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/ ... 9513.shtml): "Seventy-four percent of Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans, 64 percent of Canadians and 60 percent of Spaniards said they had a worse opinion of America now than two to three years ago."
It's anybody's guess how America's reputation fares in countries where it reaps death and destruction.

As for the Americans, the majority of them did NOT vote for Bush. Only 30% of eligible voters did. Check the poll analyses. Bush has made America more insecure than ever before - e.g. multicoloured alerts, duct tapes. First it was the Cold War ("Russians are coming") then briefly "war on drug" and now "war on terrorism" ('muslim' terrorists are coming). The gullible citizenry needs to be kept in check by being permanently spooked.

Let's take America's "good wars", as you claim, one by one.

Kosovo: it's intervention against the wishes of Nato allies and the UN lead to greater escalation of violence death (read up on its history). Yet, when the Serbs were butchering Bosnian Muslims it supported arms embargo on them.

AIDS: True, Bush has promised billion of dollars to fight AIDS in Africa. That money (taxpayers money) will go to buy drugs produced by the American pharmaceutical companies (big business). America continues to resist production of cheap generic drugs which South Africa wants to make. (Hint: follow the money.)

Sudan: You mean the bombing of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory???

Afghanistan: Yes, it was "Soviet aggression" and it was tricked by the CIA to invade Afghanistan (but that's irrelevant here). Anyways, America did not intervene to free Afghanistan but to stake its claim and in the process funded and armed the wahabi mujahideens which led to the Taliban and then to Osama. This bedraggled bunch of terrorists are little more than America's CIA-grown chickens now coming home to roost.

<I>The point remains that America does meddle in foreign affairs, because they are allowed to and often invited to be part of conflicts they have no business being in.</I>

This strikes me as the most disingenuous, fatuous and pompous statement typical of patriots who know little about what their governments do in their name - and blindly swallow official rhetoric. Name me one country which "invited" America to invade it.

Dismissing all this as "anti-Americanism" is not an argument, it’s a denunciation. It shows that you still have not got the gist of my whole argument: that imperialism (force, aggression, domination) is bad and must be resisted. America happens to be its chief perpetrator today. My argument will still remain the same if it were Britain, India, Peru or Malawi tomorrow.

My apologies for long responses, but I cannot let your ignorant and often sweeping statements pass without comment - lest they are taken for facts.

[Average Bohra]

You are misrepresenting what I said. Iraq solicited US help to fight Iran, Kuwait solicited US help to kick Saddam out and Saudi Arabia got its panties tied in a knot with Saddam in Kuwait, so they funded the US war to kick Saddam out. Additionally, they turned down its well-funded chicken Osama’s help when he wanted to roost in Saudi Arabia and help drive out Saddam, but instead opted to let the US establish a base there. Pakistan has allowed the US to have its way with them for some cash. Arafat who did not side against Saddam was penalized by having Palestinians expelled from Arab countries and their remittances to their families frozen by your perfectly innocent Arab brethren. I am sure it is not ignorance, simply hatred that blinds you to these facts.

It is disingenuous to single out issues that help you express your anti-American and anti-democratic views while having selective amnesia over what is happening to Palestinians in Jordan, Human rights abuses in Asia, Africa and Middle-East, genocides, child slavery & prostitution, importation of 3 year old Muslim kids to race Camels in Dubai, status of women in Islamic countries etc. [unless you can claim victim status yet again and blame the US].

As for the Americans, the majority of them did NOT vote for Bush. Only 30% of eligible voters did. That may be the most absurd statement I have heard to date and you obviously need a lesson in democracy. 30% was obviously enough of a majority, and unlike 3rd world and Communist countries, we don’t bus in people and have them place thumbprints and claim 99% margin. I am assuming you were impressed by Saddam’s 99% mandate in the last Iraqi “elections”.

This “permanently spooked” and “gullible citizenry” is doing quite alright in my opinion, as the only remaining Superpower with citizens from all over the world lined up at it’s doorstep for a new beginning, freedom and opportunity.

You may have the last work on this topic…

Regards,

-AB

[Average Bohra]

Yuu may have the last word ,that is...

[Humsafar]

The problem is you don't know history. And a bigger problem is that you don't care that you don't know. What's worse, you don't even care to learn. This nonchalant smugness is typical of a culture drunk on its power and success.

Yes, Kuwait did ask for assistance after Saddam invaded it. But this plea for help was addressed to the whole world including the US. Seeing a threat to its free "access to oil and the security and stability of key friendly states in the region" America was quick to act and sent troops to Saudi Arabia. Yes Saddam's invasion was an act of aggression and was unacceptable. But US was there not out of alturism. If this were the case, then (to give just one example) it should have acted similarly against Indonesia when it invaded East Timor in 1975. America did not only approve of the invasion but supplied arms to the indonesian army which were used to kill 200,000 East Temorese. (Read your own government's declassified national security documents to understand the real intentions behind its actions. The information you get and the worldview you form from your "free media"- CNN, Fox News, NYT - is designed to keep you dumb and ignorant.)

Ever wondered why the US did not insist on democracy, elections etc. in Kuwait after securing its freedom. As for the Arabs who hounded out Palestinians they are none other than 'friendly states' of America. Again, what kind of moral compass guides you that you can be troubled by these expulsions and not by the genocide of Palestinians by Israel (another US client state). And Pakistan is not a new American lapdog on the block - it has been hanging on to Uncle Sam's coattails for a long time (remember Zia ul Haq) for its own petty reasons.

...your perfectly innocent Arab brethren. That's rich coming from you. They are YOUR friends. And just in case you are thinking the if I'm critical of American policies, I should be in favour of other despots. It doesn't have to be an either/or choice - you seem to have internalised your leader's dicutum: "If you are not with us, you are with the enemy." (If you care pls read my original post on this thread to know what I think of the phoney and corrupt "Islamic" regimes).

It is disingenuous to single out issues that help you express your anti-American and anti-democratic views while having selective amnesia over what is happening to Palestinians in Jordan, Human rights abuses in Asia, Africa and Middle-East, genocides, child slavery & prostitution, importation of 3 year old Muslim kids to race Camels in Dubai, status of women in Islamic countries etc. [unless you can claim victim status yet again and blame the US].

It is not my "selective amnesia" but your abysmal ignorance that makes you think that this litany of ills that plagues the world can somehow exonerate or condone America's imperial depredations. Even so, scratch the surface and you will find America's "meddling" hand in there somewhere. To be fair, not all the ills can be laid at the American door - and it was never my contention - so you don't have to get apoplectic about it.

How does anything that I have said makes me "anti-democratic"? I may need a lesson in "American style democracy" after all where a president is allowed to steal an election the first time and given "legitimacy" the second time by only 30% of popular vote. Holding periodic elections do not translate into democracy. This is a problem with all electoral democracies - which are formal and superficial with rarely any real choices offered. (but that's another discussion.)

That desperate people are lining up to make a better life in America has nothing to do America's imperial ambitions. I'm sure you do not want me to open another can of worms regarding the "free market" regime that American led IMF and WTO are imposing on poor helpless countries resulting in their impoverishment and wholesale rape of their resources!

It's just as well that you've volunteered to end this conversation. Your argument contained little more than popular myths and received opinion. I've had the privilege of crossing swords with better-informed defenders of American imperialism.

A word of advice: don't trust what your government tells you. Governments lie. All governments lie - without exception.

If you care to educate yourself, for starters, I'd highly recommend Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United States."

[Average Bohra]

No need to get hot under the collar , defensive and personal....merely a discussion....

[ado sayed]

How about this? Are we Bohris doing anything to convey the message of Islam to universe other than make Sujood to this Shaitanul Akbar Aqa Mowla?

http://www.islam-online.net/English/New ... le06.shtml

Islam Fosters Tolerance, Peace: Ex-Taliban Hostage


“The whole experience had taught me a very valuable lesson, and that is not to believe propaganda that powerful people in powerful places want us to believe,” said Ridleyf


CAIRO, December 5 (IslamOnline.net) - Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist who made international headlines three years ago after her dramatic capture and release by the ousted Taliban regime in Afghanistan, believes her life completely changed to the better, thanks to Islam.

What started out purely as a research about Islam following her release turned into a soul-searching trip that culminated with the firm conviction that Islam is not about oppression or violence, but rather peace, tolerance and understanding, she recently told Malaysia’s English-language The Star newspaper.

Embracing Islam in August 2003, the Sunday Express journalist admitted that she used to “work hard and play hard” and was a “prolific drinker”, but found herself now healthier, happier, and more content.

“And my girlfriends can see this, and they ask: ‘What is this that has changed your life so much?’ And I say it’s Islam. And they say: ‘No, really, what is it?’”

Ridley was in Malaysia last week to raise funds for the UK-based Islamic social service organization Al-Khaaem.

“The whole experience had taught me a very valuable lesson, and that is not to believe propaganda that powerful people in powerful places want us to believe.”

On Sept 28, 2001, Ridley, then 43, was trying to cross illegally into Afghanistan from Pakistan.

She was held captive by the Taliban. She was eventually released in October and went on to write about her unique experiences in a book entitled “In The Hands of the Taliban.”

In the book, she spoke about how she was treated with great respect and courtesy by Taliban members, who used to call her “guest” and “sister.”

Thank God It Was Taliban

Ridley told the Star that she really thanked God that here captors were the Taliban and not the Americans.

“When I look back at my experience now, and I see the shocking images of Guantanamo Bay , and the horrendous images and stories emerging from the Abu Ghraib prison , I thank Allah I was captured by the most evil and brutal regime in the world and not by the Americans.”

Ridley, as an anti-war activist at the time, recalled how the US intelligence sent a dossier to Taliban alleging that she was a spy to silence her anti-war movement.

“Had I been shot or executed, this would have helped justify the bombing of Afghanistan. It would have further demonized the Taliban. I was told by one intelligence officer: ‘Don’t take this personally. It wasn’t against you,’” she said laughingly.

In an interview with IslamOnline.net before accepting Islam, Ridley said that the wonderful thing about Islam was that “you have a direct link with God. You don’t need a conduit or a middle person. Peace and love to all.”

Ridley has become a fervent anti-war campaigner since her release.

She has supported the Stop the War Coalition and traveled around the world addressing anti-war gatherings.

She is a founding member of Women in Journalism and the patron of British organization Stop Political Terror, which looks into the welfare of Muslims in Britain, especially those being held in the notorious Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons.

Ridley still writes for the Sunday Express and also for Muslims Weekly in New York.

She is currently involved with the Islam Channel, a satellite broadcast that started about a year ago in Britain.

Hijab in Parliament

An active member of the nascent Respect political party in Britain, Ridley hopes to be the first female Muslim politician wearing a hijab in the parliament.

“I stood as a candidate in the European elections and we got a quarter of a million votes nationally,” she told the paper.

She continued: “It didn’t translate into a seat but we are going to be fielding candidates in the general elections which may be held in May next year.

“What is particularly significant is if I am successful, I would become the first female Muslim politician to sit in Westminster and probably the first woman wearing a hijab to sit in the houses of parliament.”

But Ridley knows that there is still a long way to go, though encouraged by the support of many Britons, who believe that Prime Minister Tony Blair has let them down.

“There is a ground swell of support from people who feel as though they no longer have a voice in the party headed by a British prime minister who appears to prefer to take his orders from Washington rather than from the people who elected him.”

[ado sayed]

Do we expect anything from Busharaff?
Do we expect anything from Son of Bush?
It is well known fact America is NO 2 TERRORIST STATE IN THE WORLD (after Israel, ofcourse)
AGAIN WE ARE NOT ELECTING US PRESIDENT ACTUALLY WE ELECTING THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL.

BY THE WAY WHO DID 9/11? IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND SPONSORED BY ISRAEL TO OCCUPY THE MUSLIM LAND. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING IT.WE FOOLS ARE JUST WATCHING TILL IT COME TO OUR OWN DOOR. AT THAT TIME THERE WILL BE NONE TO HELP YOU.

BOSNIA WAS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE REAL MUSLIM TO ATTACK. THOSE BOSNIAN WERE NOT A PRACTICING MUSLIM. THEY INTER MINGLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR SON AND DAUGHTERS WER MARRIED TO SERBS. FINALLY WHAT HAPPEND? ETHNIC CLEANSING. NO MATTER WHAT YOU PRACTICING LEVEL IS JUST THE NAME IS ENOOUGH TO KILL YOU. WE SHOULD KNOW OUR ENEMY. WHAT HAPPEND IN BOSNIA IN SERBANICA 40,000 MUSLIMS WERE MASSACRED BY UN. UNDER THE NAME OF PEACE MISSION.

IN GUJARAT WE CALLED WE ARE NOT MUSLIM WE ARE BOHRIS BUT DID THEY ALLOW US TO GO.

WE NEED TO KNOW THE HISTORY. WE SHOULD KNOW THE REAL ENEMY, WE SHOULD KNOW THE HYPOCRITES OTHER WISE WE ARE LOST.

MR AQA MOWLA WILL NOT TEACH US THIS. HE IS THERE TO MAKE MONEY AT ANY COST.

TAKE CARE!