Top Menu

Islamist Party Says Islamic Law Doesn’t Need to be Enshrined in New Tunisian Constitution

rachid_ghannouchi1

Ennahda Party leader Rachid Ghannouchi

I think someone’s head just exploded in the anti-Muslim movement.

They have zero understanding of the differing histories, philosophies or political thought of the various Islamist trends within the Muslim world. To them Islamists are all AlQaeda or some other such offshoot.

Of course, the hatemongers will revert to form and declare that this is all just taqiya, they will be unable to explain why, when Ennahda has a clear majority and is in a position to implement whatever they want, they instead forge a national unity government. They will also be unable to explain why Ennahda says their position are in line with Islamic values and principles.

Islamic Law Won’t Be Basis of New Tunisian Constitution

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) — Islamic law will not be enshrined in Tunisia’s new constitution, preserving the secular basis of the North African nation, Tunisia’s ruling Islamist Ennahda Party said Monday.

The first article of the new constitution would remain the same as in the 1959 version and it will not call for Shariah, Islamic law, to be the source of all legislation, as many conservatives had wanted.

The decision marks a break between the moderate Islamist Ennahda and an increasingly vocal minority of ultraconservative Muslims known as Salafis who have been demanding Islamic law in a country long known for its progressive traditions.

“We do not want Tunisian society to be divided into two ideologically opposed camps, one pro-Shariah and one anti-Shariah,” said Rachid al-Ghannoushi, the founder of the Ennahda Party in a press conference. “We want above all a constitution that is for all Tunisians, whatever their convictions.”

He added that in his opinion, 90 percent of Tunisia’s existing legislation was already in line with the precepts of Islamic law.

Ziad Doulatli, another party leader, told The Associated Press that decision was taken so as to “unite a large majority of the political forces to confront the country’s challenges.”

“The Tunisian experience can serve as a model for other countries going through similar transformations,” he added.

In Egypt, as well as many other Muslim countries, Shariah is enshrined in the constitution as the source of all legislation.

Under more than 50 years of secular dictatorship, Tunisia stood out in the Arab world for its progressive laws, especially regarding the status of women. Many leftists and liberals feared this would be rolled back with the victory of an Islamist party at the polls.

Ennahda, however, has always pledged to maintain the character of the state and formed a coalition government with two secular parties.

The decision, however, is bound to provoke a backlash from the Salafis — some 10,000 of whom demonstrated Sunday in Tunis, the capital, calling for Islamic law.

Despite their numerous demonstrations, the degree of support that the Salafis have from the broader Tunisian society is not clear. Ennahda’s decision to spurn their demands suggests they do not have widespread appeal.

The first article of Tunisia’s constitution states that “Tunisia is a free, sovereign and independent state, whose religion is Islam, language is Arabic and has a republican regime.”

Tunisians overthrew their dictatorship in a popular uprising last year that inspired pro-democracy movements across North African and the Middle East.

In October, they elected a new assembly to govern as well as write the country’s new constitution. Secular and Islamist groups have been holding demonstrations to influence the new document.

According to Fadhel Moussa of the leftist Democratic Modernist Axis, the agreement on the first article settles a long debate in the assembly and opens the way to creating the rest of the new constitution.

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • deccal

    @Khushboo, the very idea of paying a tax based on my religion is repulsive to me.

  • Just Stopping By

    @Géji:

    First, so that there is no confusion, HGG paraphrased me when talking about “modern” states. Here is what I said above:

    “When I look at the history of Muslim states, they generally treated Jews very well relative to what other states did at the time, and I applaud that. But that doesn’t compare to the general equality we see in the US today. I think the Islamic states were a great step forward for their time, just as the US is a step forward from what was before, and hopefully other states or the US will move forward even more in the future.”

    I also agree with you, Géji, that there is a range of practice in “modern, Western” states and in Muslim-majority states, and that was also true in the past. I think that the United States today is the major country where minorities have the most freedom of religion (though I may be missing some country whose rules I don’t know enough about), though as we see with mosque construction, we do not always have full equality in practice and minority groups may still have to fight for their rights when they are viewed as unpopular.

    I do think that today on average “modern, Western” states provide more freedom of religion than Muslim-majority states. As Hamza Yusuf has said, “I would rather live as a Muslim in the west than in most of the Muslim countries, because I think the way Muslims are allowed to live in the west is closer to the Muslim way. A lot of Muslim immigrants feel the same way, which is why they are here.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_Yusuf. This can of course change over time, but I prefer a system in which the government is supposed to treat all religions equally rather than start with the religious law of one deen (if I may use that term here) and make sure that it accommodates others.

    Géji says, “I wish for Muslims and Jews to rekindle their past relationship, and pick-up where they left-of, though true it wasn’t always perfect, we can safely say it was much-much better than what they have nowadays.” I don’t want to pick up where we left off, but to reestablish a relationship as friends and equals. The current relationship has issues because there are members of both groups that take a certain political dispute and try to turn it into a worldwide religious fight in which all members of the other religion are the enemy. On the other hand, there are many in both religions who are the best of friends and do not go out of their way to poison the relationship by continually dragging it into the areas of dispute when there are more positive topics to discuss. (To be clear, there can be a time to discuss everything. But unnecessary digressions to bring up areas of dispute when they are not the current topic of discussion are generally not helpful to relationship-building.)

    So, let us continue our friendship, dear Géji, and I look forward to your future postings.

  • Géji

    > “No, but it wasn’t either the rainbows and sunshine you’re making it to be”

    Is there any place in the world where there are “rainbows and sunshine” for it’s without-fail indiscriminate justice applied? so that I as Western Muslim can immigrate and finally get a break to practice my faith in full tranquility without bunch bigoted loonatics jumping on my throat to object?

    > “It’s just as JSB said. Islamic states of the past were a step above what came before, just as modern societies are a step above from them and hopefully, we’ll keep moving on. Looking at the past through rose-colored glasses is not the answer.”

    Yes, you’re absolutely right, they were by all standards above and ahead of much of what was going on at that time, but the mistake you making here is that you’re presumptuously assuming that “Islamic states”-(assuming you’re meaning by states govern by the Muslims)- are somehow done with their time, that’s utterly funny because there are about well over 50 of them, so I wouldn’t speak too fast if I were you. Then worse, arrogantly assuming, quote – “just as modern societies are a step above from them and hopefully, we’ll keep moving on” – ~~ First)- which “modern societies” are you comparing them to ? — Second)- There simply noway to speak in general sense, and assuming that somehow all “modern societies” are “a step above” that of traditional Islamic states, that simply would be speaking ignorantly of both past history and present situations. — Third)- It’s simply dishonest to say that some present-day-(or “modern”) Asian or Latin or African states “are step above” that with which existed in some of the best traditional Islamic states. — Fourth)- Again, disingenuous to assume that they’re aren’t some current Islamic states that are far better-of and “step above” compare to some current “modern states”-(whatever that means) — And Fifth)- Yes granted, there are ‘Some’ modern states today you’re right to say are “a step above” traditional Islamic states, but precisely because of economic growth which then naturally generated science/knowledge advancement, but that’s perfectly natural, cause with economic prosperity comes huge benefits, it’s a well known fact. But Muslims as well had those benefits for well over 1000′s years, and it’s not some sort-of “modern” magic discovery, they had it, and now some other societies has it, it’s just the ways things works in real life, and no one can expect one group to hold on to it forever. But what’s striking to me is, what gives you the right to assume that “Islamic states” the more or so 50 of them, will not as well “keep on moving”?? Isn’t that arrogant of you to assume as if you had a warrant on future events, that “Islamic states” wont surpass those so-called “modern societies” you’re idolizing? after all haven’t they done it for well over 1000′s years, only to lose it quite recently?? Thus, what gives you the right to assume they’re “done deal”?

    As for your remark saying – “looking at past through rose-colored eyes is not the answer” – … Well, 1)- it’s good thing that Muslims are proud of their past accomplishments, as anyone else would be, but I agree with you that a little more objectivity is in order if they were to learn from the past mistakes done by some of their old leaders, religious or otherwise. ~ 2)- The very same thing also applies to those Westerners who more often than not, looks at the West accomplishments “through rose-colored glasses”, as indeed one can safely say that the so-called “West” societies are far far away to be “rosy” for their minorities as well. — In Western present states, just like in Past Muslim states, it’s reasonable to say that there are some places that are/were better than others, that’s normal, cause after all states are govern by human beings who while can be fair and just, can also be cruel and unjust. — If we look at history with a bit more objectivity, and not through a blind Western egocentrism, and according to some analysis, where minorities in generally are concern, there were some places in past Islamic states, were minorities fared better than in some Western countries today, were minorities are openly mistreated and deliberately deprived from leadership positions, and despise some Western propaganda stating the contrary, there were some minorities in some traditional Islamic states that held strong leadership positions, and in doing so, then helped improved the relationship between their state and their minorities. So not everything is black or white or clean-cut as we like to assume. — And I think in present term, concerning the Western Muslim minorities, the USA, despite it’s obvious bigotry towards them, at home and abroad alike, and despite it’s aggressive policies towards much of the “Islamic” world, one can safely say that by far America compare to much of Euro countries, it is the fairest places for Western Muslims to live in. And although they’re in much better position in the Western world today, compare to the Western world of yesterday, but also compare to probably in much of the Muslim world today, and more specially in the USA, and especially when it comes to economic and politic, nonetheless, according to many analysis, the Jews of yesterday fared well in the Muslim world of yesterday, and specially in Islamic Spain. And as a Muslim who wants my fellow co-religious to behave well and apply their Islamic principals to the best of their abilities, I want that back, regardless of what some of my other co-religious are going through because of some Jews themselves, and vise-versa, I wish for Muslims and Jews to rekindle their past relationship, and pick-up where they left-of, though true it wasn’t always perfect, we can safely say it was much-much better than what they have nowadays. So again, not everything it’s black or white, and to say otherwise it’s just disingenuously employing the Us vs Them, line of thinking.

    > “Even the supposedly better worded description of “[Muhammad] enunciated the actual norm and practice of how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims” implies different standards of treatment between Muslims and non-Muslims. *Even if those standards were relatively fair* there wasn’t equality between the two groups.”

    My-my-my, HGG, it seem you yourself are dwelling into the lands of suppositions and assumptions without factual knowledge of Islamic history, nor that of it’s Prophet. Again, slipping into arrogant assumptions wont help either, it is best to let people tell their history without “assuming” the worst. — So let’s start, first of all, news-flash! people are different, they have different way of life, different beliefs, traditions, cultures, norms and way of thinking (ect). They do not always agree with each-other, and worse sometimes if said differences are not properly taught and kept in ignorance, can create ignorant hate among them, because there haven’t been thoughtful “enunciations” in place on how to best behave with others who hold different way of life, culture, norm, religion and so on. Uninstructed ignorance about each-other may lead to wars that then destroys people’s lives, all that because we haven’t been taught that it’s okey to be different than others, and it’s okey that others are different than us. I do not believe what you believe, nor do you believe what I believe, so we’re different. Having said all that thus, it is only natural that any leader would instruct the people his leading, on how to best deal and treat with respect to those that do not share their way of life, so that resentment can be prevented. So I find it funny that you would object that Muhammad instructed his followers on how to behave and treat best with those people of other way of life-(i.e., non-Muslims), funny indeed, which society and which leader do not have instructions in place for their societies on how to treat with that that are different??

    Then once again you “assume” that, quote – “there wasn’t equality between the two groups.” – If I’m not mistaking, I’m thinking you’re speaking the other “group” being the Jews, right? and if you’re speaking of “there wasn’t equality ” in term of under Muhammad leadership, then that is, to simply put, false, utterly contrary to what most of his biographers and historians have stated, but most importantly what the Book-(Qur’an) he himself left behind states. There’s simply no verse in the Qur’an that advocates “inequality” treatments of any minority, and specially concerning the people of the Book such Jews and Christians, whom the Qur’an see them and their scriptures, as valid and deserving respect, and explicitly demand their places of worship to be respected, and protected in cases they face oppression due to their belief in the One God, whether said oppression is from Muslims or not. Even with polytheists whom usually the Qur’an is very critical-of, regarding their worship of multiple deities, nonetheless, Muslims are commanded to be respectful of their belief system as well. — In Medina, where the Prophet assumed the statesman leadership position, not only did he gave full equal rights to the different existing Jewish tribes and Christians, as equal citizens with Muslims, but also to Medina Arab polytheists who did not converted to Islam at the time. There is a document called “The Constitution of Medina” or “Charter of Medina”, where all this are much more in detailed and give us a good glimpse of the character of the Prophet of Islam and what did accomplished 1500 years ahead. — Here’s a section of the Charter that deals with the various Jewish tribes, polytheists, and Muslims at the time.

    —————–

    The Madina Constitution (Charter), 622 C.E.

    In the name of God most Compassionate, most Merciful.

    - This is a document from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, messenger of God, governing the relations between Yathrib (Muslims, Jews, Polytheists)

    - They are one community-(Ummah)

    - The peace of all parties is one.

    - To the Jews belong justice and equality (Social, legal and economic equality is promise to all citizens of this State).

    - No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

    - The enemies of the Jews will not be helped. All parties must help each other.

    - The Jews of the Banu ‘Auf – Banu al-Najjar – Banu al-Harith – Banu Sai ida – Banu Jusham – Banu al-Aus – Banu Tha’laba – and their subdivisions al- Jafna and al-Shutayba, and all like them, their friends, freemen, clients, – To them belong equal right and protection. They are one community with the believers-(i.e., Muslims), all have the same standing, except those who behave unjustly and in treachery, for the end those only hurt but themselves and their families. Loyalty is a protection against injustice and treachery.

    - Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same right as the Jews

    - The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have their religion.

    - The Jews will contribute towards the struggle-(with Quraysh) when fighting alongside the Muslims.

    - The Jews must bear their effort (in War) and the Muslims must bear their effort.

    - All parties must seek mutual advice and consultation. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness.

    - Loyalty gives protection against treachery and injustice. Those who avoid mutual relation do so because of lack of sincerity.

    - If anyone attacks anyone then the other must come to his help. Anyone who is wronged must be helped.

    - Quraysh and their allies will not be helped.

    - All parties are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.

    Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own deeds (good or bad)

    - This document is not to protect one who is unjust or commits a crime against other parties.

    - Yathrib shall be a free sanctuary for the people of this document.

    God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

    ————-

  • Mohammed Al-Arabi

    I should add interestingly enough, that jaziyya is not exactly a ‘fixed’ principle of dealing with non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are in principle, part of an ummah (the Medina constitution comes to mind) and during the early conquests, Arab Christian tribes participated with the Muslims in active warfare. They didnt pay jizya (since it was waived given their military performance) and moreover, took a part of the bounty. There is nothing in principle from the standpoint of the Shariah for A’dala or Justice to be metted out differently between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Prophet afterall was willing to arbitrate Jewish disputes as much as Muslim ones.

  • Isa
  • Isa

    @Dan15

    “Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the TTP) (Urdu: تحریک طالبان پاکستان; Student Movement of Pakistan), alternatively referred to as the Pakistani Taliban, is an umbrella organization of various Islamist militant groups based in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Pakistan. Most, but not all, Pakistani Taliban groups coalesce under the TTP.[2] In December 2007 about 13 groups united under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud to form the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.[1][3] Among the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s stated objectives are resistance against the Pakistani state, enforcement of their interpretation of sharia and a plan to unite against NATO-led forces in Afghanistan.[1][3][4]

    The TTP is not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban movement led by Mullah Omar, with both groups differing greatly in their histories, strategic goals and interests.[4] The Afghan Taliban, with the alleged support of Pakistan, operate against international coalition and Afghan security forces in Afghanistan but are strictly opposed to targeting the Pakistani state.[5] The TTP in contrast has almost exclusively targeted elements of the Pakistani state although it took credit for the 2009 Camp Chapman attack and the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt.[6][7]”

    They are not the same organization, regardless if they have some common traits. The Nazi Party was not the same organization as Italy’s Fascist party under Benito Moussoulini, despite having some/many common ideas.

  • HGG

    “Why should I sacrifice my religious principles for sake of your principles?”

    Good thing I never said you should.

  • fox news

    @HGG

    Your missing the point. Islamic laws were good by the standards of that time. And that gives good reason on why good standards can be achieved through Islam in today’s time too rather calling for a rejection of islam and replacement with a atheist government. And your argument “I don’t want a prophet to allow….” applys both ways. Why should I be forced to NOT live by the laws of my prophet? Why should I be forced to live by laws of some 19th century American or European individual ? Why should I be forced to live under social ethics based on libertine or communist principles? Why should I sacrifice my religious principles for sake of your principles?

  • HGG

    “I’m not offering anything. LOL I’m simply stating that living under Islam is not as bad as people make it out to be.”

    No, but it wasn’t either the rainbows and sunshine you’re making it to be. Even the supposedly better worded description of “[Muhammad] enunciated the actual norm and practice of how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims” implies different standards of treatment between Muslims and non-Muslims. *Even if those standards were relatively fair* there wasn’t equality between the two groups.

    It’s just as JSB said. Islamic states of the past were a step above what came before, just as modern societies are a step above from them and hopefully, we’ll keep moving on. Looking at the past through rose-colored glasses is not the answer.

  • khushboo

    I dont think the Prophet ‘allowed’ but rather, enunciated the actual norm and practice of how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims”

    YOu’re right. I should’ve worded it better.

  • khushboo

    So deccal, you’d rather pay much more higher taxes than jizya? you also don’t mind paying ridiculous interest rates on your home, credit cards, cars, other loans, etc.? Come on now! Jizya’s nothing compared to the ridiculous taxes we pay now, part of it is going to paying interest rates to the FED, paying for so-called “wars” killing our troops and thousands of innocent civilians that we did not even consent to, paying for social services that some of us don’t care for, paying taxes on overassessed houses, paying for too many politicians that don’t do a damn thing, etc. etc. It’s alot more than jizya.

  • khushboo

    @HGG

    I’m not offering anything. LOL I’m simply stating that living under Islam is not as bad as people make it out to be. Ofcourse I’m okay with living under secular govt. or I wouldn’t be here in the US. As JSB pointed out, I’m not very happy with our poor gov’t. due to high debt but we certainly wouldn’t have a debt problem under Islamic rule since paying interest rates is considered haraaam. However, we all have problems with corrupt gov’t. whether Muslims, Christians, or Jews.

    Also, I would go by the democratic way and go with the majority. If the majority is against sharia, then I’m perfectly fine with that. I just wanted to clarify that sharia is not what AlQaeda and Talibanis define it as. It’s just too bad we don’t have noble people like Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as leaders. JMHO

  • deccal

    Why do muslims still seek the establishment of islamic states in this day and age, it’s the equivalent of catholic reactionaries demanding a state governed by canon law. Note Khushboo and his statements on ‘jizya’, as if minorities should pay money in order for the state to “protect” them. Such a measure, in the past, may have been considered tolerant, but today it is neigh ridiculous. Even the Ottoman Empire in its later days abolished such foolishness, and only retaining a law which permitted non muslims to pay a fee (badal al askari) in order to be exempt from military service. However, by 1908, non muslims became subject to military draft as well. Point being, people trying to impose a religious form of government and jizya would be considered outlandish and bigoted even in the 19th century.

  • Mohammed Al-Arabi

    @ HGG: I dont think the Prophet ‘allowed’ but rather, enunciated the actual norm and practice of how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims. I think for instance of how the Prophet gave the Christian delegation use of the mosque to pray in as an example of this. This is how people ‘should’ interact in the most intimate sense, as opposed to it being just an empty promulgation of protection.

  • HGG

    “Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) allowed non-Muslims much more freedom than what the minorities are given nowadays.”

    I believe you have hit it right in the head. I have no interest in living in a society where my freedoms are “allowed” by a prophet I don’t believe in of a religion I’m no part of. That’s not freedom.

    Again, nice offer, but no thanks.

  • fox news

    Although ennada has grown wiser than those empty slogan salafists, yet this should not be taken the wrong way as though the party is back tracking from Islam. Its just that theres no need to add more empty salafi slogans onto the constituiton. The salafists notion of Islamic government is more about using the constitution to control people as much as possible.

    Also, the idea of secular has two meanings. The meaning of eliminating religion from having any role in the direction the country moves and laws it makes, is the atheistic version and will be rejected by Muslims. The other idea of secularism is about various religious groups or racial groups having equal rights and equal say. The second one is more so compatible with Islam. But I don’t think there could ever be a state that pleases all communities if the western system of governance is followed. The western system makes one group I.e “Christian” or “liberal” forcing their laws upon the rest. While Islam allows each community to live by their own laws.

  • Just Stopping By

    @khushboo and Aspie-and-Atheist:

    In the US, I don’t feel as if I am treated as a second-class citizen because I am Jewish. Sure there are some anti-Semites around, but for the most part, that is not an issue. As for high taxes and debt, that’s the fault of poor government, and all kinds of government, whether religious or secular, often create problems for people.

    Religious minorities in the US have more freedom than in probably any religiously led government in the past. They can hold elective office, something that was not officially true in Islamic-ruled regimes, and be in positions of authority over others. They can build and repair houses of worship, though as we see with some mosques, there can be public opposition that has to be overcome.

    When I look at the history of Muslim states, they generally treated Jews very well relative to what other states did at the time, and I applaud that. But that doesn’t compare to the general equality we see in the US today. I think the Islamic states were a great step forward for their time, just as the US is a step forward from what was before, and hopefully other states or the US will move forward even more in the future.

  • Benjamin Taghiov

    Critical,

    Ali Shariati, one of Sartre’s students and an islamic scholar within the field of Sociology, seconds that. He argued that democracy should be the ruling system while al-Mahdi isn’t present.

  • Aspie and Atheist

    @HGG

    Sometimes it was both. When Muslims for example first gained control of Spain, they applied true Islamic law and as a result Jews and other minorities were very happy. When more intolerant Muslim kingdoms came later, minorities were treated as second class citizens, although it had no basis in Shariah.

  • Aspie and Atheist

    @khushboo

    Yes, I agree. I think a lot of the times people get confused over what Shariah really is and automatically start thinking that under Shariah, beheadings, etc. are mandated.

    Muslims I feel really need to start getting out there more to inform people about Shariah so as to clear up misconceptions, though…

  • khushboo

    So HGG and JSB, are you happy paying ridiculously high taxes and being in debt and still being treated as second rate citizens since you’re Jewish? Are you happy with the gov’t. taking your money and doing whatever they want without your consent and only helping the special interest groups?

    Perhaps you’re getting sharia confused by those who interpret sharia as more cultural than religious such as stonings, beheadings, forced hijabs, taking away your (non-Muslims) right to drink alcohol or eat pork or have premarital sex, or worship whatever god you choose.

    Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) allowed non-Muslims much more freedom than what the minorities are given nowadays. Perhaps I exaggerated by saying “very happy”. I’ll just say “happy” instead.

  • HGG

    “Ahh, I was wondering how long it might take someone to point out that the claim that “all religions were very happy living under Islamic law” is a sanitized view of history. Yes, Muslim countries were generally not particularly violent against religious minorities, but the idea that the minorities “were very happy” is amusing.”

    And it’s contradicted by essays in this very site, too. Jewish minorities were second class citizens in Muslim lands, something that, admittedly, was better than being no citizens at all like in Christians lands. But it was not rainbows and sunshine, either.

  • Mohamed S.

    @Black Infidel:

    The different Emirates each have their own laws. I know a few of them like Ajman have full Shariah law. Dubai has what you might call something based on Islamic law but not following it to the letter.

  • dan15

    @Isa: “An example of this duality is the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban. They are two separate organizations, but when either of them are mentioned in the Western media, they are both simply referred to as, “the Taliban”, which implies that it’s the same organization working in two countries. This is the message that many people receive when they watch the news.”

    There is no difference between the two. Both are anti-Shia, anti-Western, anti-Muslim, funded by Saudi Wahabis and want to enforce their draconian view of Islam on the masses and prefer to ban all forms of cultural expression. They are nothing but fasaadis who should be wiped out from the face of the Earth. And those who complain about oppression by Israel but support oppression as long as Islamic law is established are nothing but hypocrites.

  • Black Infidel

    @The Cake Is A Lie: Isn’t Dubai less Shariah then the rest of the UAE?

Powered by Loon Watchers