Rahima Posted October 4, 2004 Who are the Muslim Moderates (Neo-Mods) ? Yamin Zakaria Article ID: 1169 | 593 Reads In 1925, shortly after the symbolic destruction of the Ottoman State, Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq, a graduate from the distinguished institution of al-Azhar University of Cairo, issued a controversial religious edict (Fatwa). He claimed that the institution of the Islamic State (Khilafah) is not an integral part of an Islamic society. Many of the readers might be forgiven for assuming that the current infamous Sheikh Tantawi of the same al-Azhar was inspired by the likes of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq for approving the recent French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf (Hijab). Prior to this no genuine Islamic scholar endorsed the abolition of the Islamic State or the ban on the Hijab. It would be superficial and hasty to consider such incidents as merely isolated events in history. The contentious Fatwa of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq represented the apex of the reformist movements, which began campaigning for reformation since the early eighteenth century or earlier, in order to halt and revive the declining Ottoman State. In contrast, during the early period of the Islamic history, the various movements were primarily confined to debating the various interpretations of the Islamic texts. Not a single scholar or a movement of that period ever advocated the need to reform Islam. This contrast can be explained by the observation of the eminent Islamic Historian, Ibn Khaldun. He stated that, it is natural for the conquered subjects to look up to their conquerors for solutions to their problems. The defeated will naturally seek to identify the causes of their defeat and often attribute it to their way of life (ideology). Hence, the result is either reformation or abandonment of their ideology. Either route will lead to a level of emulation of the conquerors ideology. Thus, the reformist movements began to imitate the West by approving the imposed European model of nation states and eventually deserted the concept of an unified Islamic State. In line with historical trend, new reformers best described as the neo-moderates (neo-mods) have arisen, as the Islamic world faces renewed vigorous aggression from the Capitalist-Zionist-Christian axis (neo-colonialists). Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent examples. The neo-mods (reformists) unlike their forerunner are primarily the product of US led initiatives rather than emanating from within the Islamic world with the aspiration to revive the Islamic society. Similarly, the neo-colonialists are also distinct from their predecessors. They are primarily focused in colonising the minds rather then just the rich resources. A nation mentally enslaved has very little willpower, and the capability to resist subjugation. The quest for colonising the minds of the masses has necessitated in pursuing an intellectual battle. The aim is not to eradicate Islam, which failed miserably in the past and proved impossible, but to secularise (marginalise) it in the minds of the Muslim masses. As a consequence eradicate Islam as an ideology for shaping and reunifying the Muslim societies. Simultaneously, the neo-colonialists are advocating “democracy and freedom†as a suitable alternative. Since “democracy and freedom†plays the predominant role in shaping society, which obliges any functioning religion to be secularised, as two people can not occupy the same seat at the same time. Therefore, “democracy and freedom†can easily coexist only with a secularised version of Islam. Secularised Islam is also conveniently termed as ‘moderate’ Islam. The US government has initiated a drive to manufacture ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’ to promote a ‘moderate’ version of Islam, simultaneously recruiting and promoting those existing ‘moderates’ (neo-mods) that are wittingly or unwittingly campaigning for the same. If the policy fails, the US has already issues threats to enforce “democracy and freedomâ€. It is certainly a mystery as to how the Western intelligentsia can talk about enforcing “democracy and freedomâ€, without noticing the inherent contradiction or hypocrisy of “enforcement†with the values of “democracy†and “freedomâ€. Apart from the carriers of ‘moderate’ Islam, everyone else simply falls into the radical camp. They are often scorned by labelling them as fundamentalists, fanatics, and extremists. Where as the neo-mods are given a positive image as ‘liberals’, ‘modern’, and ‘free thinking’, regardless of the strength of their argument. The different types of the neo-mods are briefly examined below: a) Radical Reformists These radical neo-mods vociferously argue that “democracy and freedom†as defined and practiced by the West are totally compatible with Islam. As stated above, this is only possible under a secularised version of Islam, where Islam would only have any relevance in the individual’s personal sphere of activity at his/her discretion. How is it that two ideologies emanating from different sources can have the same principles and values, unless it is a monumental historical coincidence! Furthermore, how can they remain distinct but yet have identical principles and values! Of course, that is not the case in reality and hence the Islamic laws are ‘reinterpreted’ when there is an overt conflict with the principles of “democracy and freedomâ€. The outcome is that the Islamic laws are replaced with secular laws, whilst keeping up the Islamic pretensions. Therefore, it is no surprise that these neo-mods always evaluate Islam by measuring it up to the yardstick of “freedom and democracyâ€. If the two ideologies are totally compatible, thus identical in their values and principles, then surely there is no need for divine revelation? Since the Greek Philosophers invented Democracy well before the advent of Islam. This process of ‘reinterpreting’ Islamic texts in areas that is well established leads to a level of absurdity. As an example, they view polygamy with disdain even though the Prophet (SAW) fully practiced it along with his companions. Who decided in the first place that polygamy is inherently wrong? These self appointed ‘intellectuals’ (neo-mods) do not for once recognise that those in the West attacking polygamy are the most polygamous people around, with their culture of “freedom†placing very few limitations to the sexual practices. Any form of sexual behaviour is acceptable as long as it is not a second wife! If you are accustomed to Jerry Springer, the pretexts is often, “it is because you are not homeâ€, and so I slept with your stepson or your dad! One obscure neo-mod alleges that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was in reality a monogamous person and polygamy was primarily a mere convenience to acquire tribal allegiance, amongst other reasons. He elaborates on the point: - “If Muslims chose to ignore 25 years of Prophet’s monogamy and chose 12 years of his polygamy as a benchmark for Islamic principles and values, then this is a sad commentary on Muslims and not on the Prophet of Islam. If Muslims chose to forget the 25 years and remember only the last 12 years then yes Muhammad was a polygamist. After all Muhammad is what we remember of him.†What an astonishing analysis and reasoning! No other Islamic scholar in the last 1500 years had the ‘intellect’ to deduce such an amazing conclusion. Why must the Muslims choose the first 25 years of the Prophets (SAW) life over the last 12 years? If anything it is the latter part of a person’s life that has more importance, as he develops and matures through life. In the case of the Prophet (SAW) certain laws revealed changed with the elapse of time. Therefore, the subsequent revelations have greater importance, as it can abrogate the earlier revelations but never the reverse (Read Niskh and Mansukh). Furthermore of the first 25 years, 15 years was prior to him receiving revelation, therefore not acquired the Prophet status? So even by the neo-mod’s reasoning the Prophet (SAW) as a Prophet was monogamous for the first 10 years but polygamous for the next 12 years, hence polygamy should be preferred. In any case, why should anyone advocate such reasoning unless one is ashamed of the Prophets polygamous acts, as he states it is “sadâ€? So, there is already a preconception about Polygamy in the neo-mods ‘scholarly’ mind. I suppose if he were around at the time of the Prophet (SAW), he would have ‘guided’ the Prophet (SAW) and his companions exclusively to monogamy. It is only rational and consistent to examine all of the Prophets (SAW) life not to select only part of it to formulate an opinion. The Prophets (SAW) entire life coupled with the Quranic verses indicate that both monogamy and polygamy are permissible. No evidence to indicate that one is preferred over the other, unless you have already formed an opinion about it and interpret the evidence to justify the preconception! These are not scholarly arguments but an attempt by a defeated mindset to reconcile the irreconcilable. b) Apologists The apologists are either fervently pragmatists or isolationists. The former are politically active and operate with a defensive mindset. The latter are mostly non-political, their focus is primarily confined to individual activity in gaining knowledge, spiritual enlightenment and some confine to theological issues such as the nature of the Creator. The isolationist neo-mods by their own conduct are behaving like the medieval monks living in caves, oblivious to the reality, and by de facto promoting a secular version of Islam. However, a few of these isolationists unexpectedly transformed after 9/11, and suddenly they were advisors to the likes of George Bush, participating fully in the political arena. As the US began a new wave of brutal attacks post 9/11, instead of confronting, the language employed was one of reconciliation and apology. They even resorted to using their Islamic knowledge of the technical terms to justify their (neo-mods) conduct. As an example they claimed that, the Mujahideen led by Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden are not entitled to declare Jihad in the absence of the Islamic State (Khilafah). The subject of Khilafah has been conveniently avoided and now, it has suddenly becomes important! Since, when does anyone need permission to declare or fight a defensive war (Jihad)? When the slaughter of the defenceless Muslims is rampant, even common sense dictates that permission is not required, not even from the Khalif. No matter how much ‘scholarship’, or ‘knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’ one claims to posses, the truth cannot be hidden under such pretexts. The pragmatists on the other hand usually resort to provide a convenient interpretation of the legal texts in certain areas, so that it has an acceptable meaning to the non-Muslims and the Muslim secular elite around them. This has dual purpose in seeking to avoid conflict and attaining certain material benefits. As a consequence, this leads to the constant erosion of the Islamic values with the ongoing apology for Islam and being Muslims. In addition, their lack of perception and analysis of the implications of their actions has often resulted in scoring political own goals. The recent statement issued by the infamous Sheikh Tantawi of al-Azhar is an example of this defensive mindset and lacking the full political awareness of the subject. He used the underpinning ‘principle’ of “obeying the laws of the land†above the divine laws to approve the French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf. Many of the followers of these neo-mod principles are too embarrassed to explain the statement of the Sheikh and hence the silence. Some in the name of seeking to influence, every year eagerly attend the Iftar parties at the embassies, where they dine with those who have just murdered so many innocent and defenceless Muslims and non-Muslims. To the contrary, these neo-mods have become useful showpieces in legitimising the actions of these imperialist governments, to the Muslims at home and abroad. Despite the Iftar parties and the picture shots, were they able to have any influence on the current US policies regarding the captives in Guantanamo Bay, or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq? Only people who are upright, altruistic and principled can engage in political discourse on behalf of their community. Consider the recent example from the poet Benjamin Zephaniah, who refused the knighthood on the basis of British governments current policy in Iraq and her colonial history. How many of these neo-mods would turn down such an opportunity on the basis of their self proclaimed leadership and principle? Conclusion The neo-mods do not have a consistent position and are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable by twisting evidences, along with their illogical ‘principles’. A position that has caused more confusion, and harmed the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Whilst some may have good intentions but others, and in particular the radical neo-mods clearly have malicious intent, evident by their overt cooperation with those seeking to undermine Islam. Some of these radical neo-mods are using pretexts that are so absurd that it is laughable, (see the polygamy section above) and then they parade themselves as Islamic ‘scholars’, with credentials from institutions that are operating to undermine Islam from its basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted October 4, 2004 Interesting article. He makes some very strong arguments about the shortcomings of others. He doesn’t really say what “side†he’s on. His words imply that he’s on the right side but he never spells it out, rendering the whole article pointless and smelling of some real sour grapes. It’s unfortunate really; he started so well too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted October 4, 2004 ^ So which part of it did you disagree with brother? The brother has made as you stated very strong arguments and irrespective of which “side†he is on, they remain as such. I believe he explained the Muslim situation well- we have turned into a group of apologists who have made it a mission to please our enemies. It’s like 9/11; I never understood why Muslims felt the need to be the first group to cry out innocence when there was no proof of guilt or association. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking Posted October 5, 2004 A good read indeed! I remember when Khattami refused to meet Chirac and made it clear that Islam doesn't allow him to sit with people who were drinking alcohol (it was a dinner where their two govts were to hold talks). The French had to abstain from drinking that night. NGONGE, What sour grapes? The author has clearly stated his standpoint and is against the secularist neo-mods who act like phalangs of the neo-cons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Truth Seeker Posted October 5, 2004 Very good read and some very good analysis. What i deduce from this is that we work to re-establish Khilafah according to the Method of the Prophet (saw). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted October 5, 2004 Rahima, As an example they claimed that, the Mujahideen led by Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden are not entitled to declare Jihad in the absence of the Islamic State (Khilafah). The subject of Khilafah has been conveniently avoided and now, it has suddenly becomes important! Since, when does anyone need permission to declare or fight a defensive war (Jihad)? When the slaughter of the defenceless Muslims is rampant, even common sense dictates that permission is not required, not even from the Khalif. No matter how much ‘scholarship’, or ‘knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’ one claims to posses, the truth cannot be hidden under such pretexts. What is he saying exactly? He’s implying that it’s ok but does he give his proofs (other than appealing to our logic and common sense?). Need I remind you that your Salafi Sheikhs disagree with him? One obscure neo-mod alleges that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was in reality a monogamous person and polygamy was primarily a mere convenience to acquire tribal allegiance, amongst other reasons. He declares that this was the opinion of “One obscure neo-mod†yet goes on to dedicate the bulk of his article questioning this point! Like I said, he makes very strong arguments in parts of this article (the apologists, the US appeasing, etc). However, he never states what his position is. He assumes that those reading this will agree that his “way†is right just because he quoted one obscure “scholar†and derided the cronies of the USA. Viking, What sour grapes? The author has clearly stated his standpoint and is against the secularist neo-mods who act like phalangs of the neo-cons. I can see that he did. But he spoiled his argument by using questionable examples and not really saying where HE is coming from. Does he criticise for the sake of criticising? There are a whole lot of scholars who fall into some of the categories he identified. He questions their credentials but never says what his credentials are, saaxib. These are direct attacks on a number of scholars and institutions; the least this guy could have done is to state who or what in his opinion is in the “rightâ€. This is why I think his article is nothing but a severe case of sour grapes. This type of article would work well when criticising political policies or some such. The writer’s objective in such cases would be to score points and undermine the policies and logic of others. When applied to matters of faith however, the writer has to put in a lot more effort and make sure he comes armed with plenty of evidence and proofs that support his (clearly declared) position. Am I being pedantic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted October 5, 2004 What is he saying exactly? He’s implying that it’s ok but does he give his proofs (other than appealing to our logic and common sense?). Need I remind you that your Salafi Sheikhs disagree with him? Brother, whilst I love the scholars of Islam, they are not always correct on every situation. The Salafi scholars are divided on the issue of Usama- not all of them disagree with him on the main issue of his war on the west, often they disagree with him on technical matters such as the methods which he employs (and this all comes back to whether or not you recognize “suicide†bombings as a legitimate form of combat). But the author is correct, when it is a defensive jihad, you do not need the command of a khalif to defend yourself. He isn’t saying anything which objects to the teachings of Islam-any scholar would tell you just that. Also, some scholars (namely the pro-Saudi government scholars, not that I am degrading them wal ciyaadu bilaah, I love them) are against Usama for the reason that he speaks out against the royal family. As for the one obscure neo-mod remark, he once again is correct (in my opinion anyway). In an attempt to explain the status of Polygamy in Islam, often many Muslims take on a defensive mode to the point that some even claim that it is not applicable in today’s world. I believe that he was only making the point that we shouldn’t trample on Islam and become apologetic in an attempt to make Islam seem more appealing to the gaalo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted October 5, 2004 Brother, whilst I love the scholars of Islam, they are not always correct on every situation. The Salafi scholars are divided on the issue of Usama- not all of them disagree with him on the main issue of his war on the west, often they disagree with him on technical matters such as the methods which he employs (and this all comes back to whether or not you recognize “suicide†bombings as a legitimate form of combat). But the author is correct, when it is a defensive jihad, you do not need the command of a khalif to defend yourself. He isn’t saying anything which objects to the teachings of Islam-any scholar would tell you just that. Also, some scholars (namely the pro-Saudi government scholars, not that I am degrading them wal ciyaadu bilaah, I love them) are against Usama for the reason that he speaks out against the royal family. As for the one obscure neo-mod remark, he once again is correct (in my opinion anyway). In an attempt to explain the status of Polygamy in Islam, often many Muslims take on a defensive mode to the point that some even claim that it is not applicable in today’s world. I believe that he was only making the point that we shouldn’t trample on Islam and become apologetic in an attempt to make Islam seem more appealing to the gaalo. I understand the point he was making in regards to America and the West. What I questioned were his specific attacks on these scholars. Rahima, sister, this guy talks about what harms and undermines Islam, his intentions might be good but his delivery is not. He resorted to attacking scholars and institutions without saying who he is and what he represents. He alluded to malicious scholars conspiring with the West but how can we tell if he’s not the malicious one? (doubt it, but it does leave him open to such accusations). You rightly state that the scholars of Islam are not always correct; you didn’t paint them out to be deceivers and seekers of influence and wealth. This Phantom Mullah did. His comments were not directed at the ordinary Muslims (who rightly or wrongly follow “moderate†Islam), his were directed at the scholars. The only one that seems to have escaped his attack is Osama Bin Laden (Is he even recognised as an Islamic scholar?). My position on it being a desperate attack on Muslim scholars stands (despite what my or your logic and desire tells us on their actions). If you’re going to discredit someone you should at least provide proof of your superior knowledge. In the case of it being a “defensive Jihadâ€, well, that too is a controversial argument, which some scholars agree that it indeed is correct, and others arguing that it is not (before we even consider the suicide bombing issue). As I said, he highlighted some good points in the state of Islam today and those reformists, moderates (call them what you like). However, if I were going to agree to such attacks on the Muslim scholars, I’d rather hear it from someone who is at least equal to them or superior to them in his knowledge. Someone who is also not afraid to display that knowledge while in the process of discrediting these scholars! This is akin to someone telling you that the diagnosis of your physician in regards to your illness are all incorrect without showing what gives him the authority to know better (even if he’s right). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality Check Posted October 5, 2004 Originally posted by Rahima: As an example they claimed that, the Mujahideen led by Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden are not entitled to declare Jihad in the absence of the Islamic State (Khilafah). This seems kinda radical to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking Posted October 5, 2004 NGONGE, It doesn't take a genius to see that some of our scholars act like puppets of the neo-cons. Take the example of Kuwait's invasion, Usama offered the Saudi govt protection from an imminent attack from Saddam but they opted for Americans, with the blessings of their 'ulama. They are still paying the bills (in the billions) for the american soldiers and have invited kufar to Islamic lands, where they seem to have decided to settle for a long time. You don't need a degree in theology to see that that was wrong! You seem to be hooked on the author's merits, if you want to know more about the credentials of the author, a search engine might be a good place to start. It also seems that many here think that Usama was behind the Sept 11 attacks, sad indeed. If you follow the life of Usama, you'd realise that he probably has done more for poor Muslims worldwide than the US govt has (keeping in mind that aid ALWAYS comes with strings attached). Usama isn't bad just because Bush and Blair tell you so, one has to realise that the war that is being waged is done through the media and therefore one ought to filter the garbage that comes through it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted October 5, 2004 NGONGE, The only personalized rebukes he made were against Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq and Sheikh Tantawi, both of which I’m sure you will agree are justifiable. I actually prefer that he spoke in general terms rather than going into which scholar said what and working from there- it gives the piece more of an impact and credibility. Also, the article is aimed at Muslims in general, not just scholars. Nothing wrong with highlighting our shortcomings, we need to wake up and realize that we have to stop being so apologetic-this is his basic message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted October 5, 2004 You seem to be hooked on the author's merits, if you want to know more about the credentials of the author, a search engine might be a good place to start. That was the first thing I did, brother. Found lots of articles but no info about this guy. Like I said, he raises some very good points. He questions the Muslim’s habit of kowtowing to America and points out the various “illogical†fatwas! He blames some of it on the manipulation and misinterpretation of the Islamic texts to suit the goals of these “deviant†scholars (a very serious accusation). As an idea, this has crossed my mind before. I too questioned such things. I however did not act as an authority on such issues and write up articles attacking the scholars. Again, who is he and what qualifies him to make such declarations? Viking, if you think you don’t need to be a theologian to make such attacks on the scholars of Islam then you’re a better a man than I, friend. I go for proof, saaxib. I don’t take the words of every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to attack the scholars using sweet words and trying to appeal to my logic and emotions. I actually prefer that he spoke in general terms rather than going into which scholar said what and working from there- it gives the piece more of an impact and credibility. That’s the worrying thing sister. He’s tarring them all with the same brush but because some of the points he is making are true and some make sense his whole article looks very credible. It’s not though, not at all. As far as I can see (and until I know more about this individual) this article is nothing but a rant masquerading as genuine analysis. Don’t fall for every person who decides to besmirch the scholars (even if he seemed to be right) if you don’t know anything about him. What was the Al Azahar Sheikh’s fatwa? Any of you read it in full? Why didn’t this guy include it in his article and decimate it piece by piece? How about the ones in Kuwait & Saudi Arabia (as Viking and Rahima say)? Why didn’t he pass on their words fully and then question them individually? Like I said in my earlier post, this is not a political discussion. It’s not and should not be treated in the same way you would treat an article defaming the character of a president or King. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 6, 2004 When did the notorious Osama bin Laden become a "Sheik?" America and its allies have used his name as an excuse to conquer and bring shame to entire Muslim societies, and somehow, he's a "sheik?" The Arabs are cowards and naturally their only brave soul must inherent the coveted title of "sheik!" My sentiments exactly! My Allah guide us upon one heart! Warning about the evils of Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Qutbism in general, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, a professor at the Islamic University of Madina said: "Those who set off the explosions in the Kingdom admitted with their own mouths, that they were affected by the Jamaa'atut-Takfir (one of the Egyptian Qutbist groups) and that they were from the group of Osama Bin Laden and al-Masari, and they were spreading their literature. Osama Bin Laden - who taught this man? Who educated him about the Shariah (Islamic laws)? He is a businessman, this is his field of specialization… they admitted, as we said, with their own mouths, we saw it and read it in the newspapers, and I have it here with me recorded with their own voices, that they were affected by some of the people of takfir (from the Qutbist groups) of Afghanistan. The majority of our youth that returned from the jihad in Afghanistan to our country were affected, either by the ideology of the Ikhwan (the group al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) in general, or by the revolutionary, takfiri ideology. So they left us believing that we were Muslims, and they returned to us believing that we were disbelievers. So with that, they saw us as being disbelievers, the rulers, and the scholars, not to mention the common folk. They labeled the (Saudi) state apostate, and they rendered the major scholars apostate. They admitted this with their own mouths. They declared the scholars to be disbelievers, and mentioned specifically the two Shaykhs, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz and Shaykh Muhammad Bin al-Uthaymin, may Allah preserve them. They mentioned their connection with al-Masari and Osama Bin Laden. Did they get this from the scholars of Salafism? No! Rather they got it from the people of takfir." Ngonge u might enjoy this piece BIN Baaz labels Bin Laden A Khawarij; a man who everyone should flee from from, (Arabic only) http://www.sahab.org/books/files/aqeeda/ladn.doc ENGLISH Readers! The Advice of Imaam Ibn Baaz to Usaamah Bin Ladin al-Khaarijee The advice given by Imaam Ibn Baaz to the dissenting renegades, Bin Ladin's takfir of the scholars, and his adoption of the path of the Khawaarij. Also includes the advice of Wahb Ibn Munabbih to a Kharijite figurehead of old. it was before 9/11 !!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.spubs.com/sps/bbz/bbz.cfm Akhil-Karim you want to know who the author is, all you have to do is read this and you shall see that his argument springs from the ideology of the Qutubies! under the cloack of Salafiyah! who and what is a Qutubi? BY Shaikh Ahmad bin Yahyaa An-Najmee(kibar Ulama) source: Al-Fataawaa al-Jaliyyah ‘anil-Manaahij Ad-Da’wiyyah (pg. 51-55) compiled by Hasan Ibn Mahmood Ibn Mansoor ad-Daghreeri PRODUCED BY: Al-Ibaanah.com http://www.al-ibaanah.com/articles.php?ArtID=77 reading advanced Qutubi www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/downloads/pdf/GRV070010.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
