certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (26 Sep 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)


'Make Revolutionary Changes in the Islamic Theology of Consensus to Fight Jihadism': Sultan Shahin Asks Muslim Nations at UNHRC in Geneva



By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam

26 September 2017

 

UNHRC, Item 9, General Debate, September 26, 2017,

Oral Statement by Sultan Shahin

         On behalf of: Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum

---------

Mr. President,

Sixteen years after 9/11, the issue of Jihadi terrorism has become even more complex and widespread.

First, though Jihadism is a violent offshoot of Wahhabism and Salafism, the international community has allowed the fountainhead of Wahhabi/Salafi ideology to continue to spend tens of billions of dollars to Wahhabise the world Muslim community.

Second, we recently saw with horror, but without any protest from the international community, the sight of a UN-designated terrorist, with a ten-million-dollar bounty on his head, launch a political party and nominate another US-designated terrorist to contest democratic elections in Pakistan. Apparently, some countries can ignore UN directives with impunity.

 Third, the Muslim community has failed to grasp that Jihadism spread so rapidly around the world because at its core it is not very different from the theology of consensus that informs the religious beliefs and practices of all Muslim sects. That is why Jihadis are not impressed when we Muslims either proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and pluralism or when we try to wash our hands off Jihadism by claiming that it has nothing to do with Islam. If we Muslims want to live as honourable citizens in the 21st century’s globalised world, we must rethink our consensus theology in all its dimensions and make revolutionary changes to bring it in line with the needs of present times.

Let me elaborate a little on the similarities in the core theologies of Jihadism and mainstream Islam as well as suggest the contours of an alternative theology of peace and pluralism, inclusion and acceptance of diversity, respect for human rights and gender justice. What are the fundamental elements of theologies of all sects including Jihadism that are the same and what can be done about them. Let us discuss a few here briefly.

1.   Infallibility, universality and uncreatedness of Quran, regardless of the context in which some of God's instructions came in Quran to guide the Prophet and his followers on matters that needed to be urgently taken care of then, but are no longer relevant in the vastly different circumstances today.

This belief is common to all sects and sub-sects of Islam today. There is a consensus around it. So Jihadis are not inventing a new theology if they say that those Muslims who do not follow the war-time verses of Quran literally by fighting the kuffar constantly or staying away from all non-Muslims in day-to-day matters are hypocritical, and that a good, honest Muslim is one who is perpetually engaged in offensive Jihad against non-Muslims. After all, this is what is taught in all religious schools or madrasas, regardless of the sect. We are told in our theological books that the only relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that of war, and that it is the religious duty of all Muslims to bring Islam to power in all corners of the world, either by persuasion or force.

A new theology would seek to break this consensus and try to convince Muslims that war-time verses of the Prophet’s time maybe important as a historical account of the near insurmountable difficulties the Prophet had to face to establish Islam but do not apply to us today in the 21st century. We cannot possibly be fighting similar wars. Muslims were fighting existential battles in the early seventh century. Islam was in its infancy and infants do need to be taken special care of. Now the seed that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) planted in the inhospitable terrain of the Arabian desert has grown into a giant tree with branches across the world. There is no need for us to be fighting offensive Jihad “at least once a year” as Imam Ghazali advised in late 11th and early 12th century CE.

2.   There is a consensus among ulema (religious scholars) of all sects that Hadith narrations (the alleged sayings of the Prophet) are akin to revelation, even though these were collected up to 300 years after the demise of the Prophet and contradict many of the core teachings of the Quran, the exhortations of God whose messenger the Prophet was. This theology of consensus implies that the Prophet spent the better part of his prophetic career preaching against the messages revealed to him in the holy Quran.

What has actually happened is that in the 48th year of the demise of the Prophet, his entire family was massacred and reins of power taken over by scions of the inveterate enemies of Islam who had fought battles against the Prophet and joined Islam only after his victory at Mecca, in a clear bid to subvert Islam from within when they failed to destroy it from outside. But they had to rule Muslims for whom Quran was the only holy scripture, which they understood, as well as had mostly memorized and written down. To undermine Quran, and create a distance between Muslims and the Quran, they evolved over the coming decades and centuries two institutions that remain very powerful until today. One was Hadith, that was called akin to revelation, and the other was that of Ulema or clerics who were proclaimed to be of the status of heirs to the Prophet, much better able to explain religion to Muslims than they themselves could.

The new theology will have to bring the focus back to Quran, and seek to dislodge both Hadith and Ulema from their present position of pre-eminence. These institutions evolved in the era of dynastic, despotic rulers, called Khalifas. It was natural for them to look for scriptural justifications for their exploitative, tyrannical, imperialist, expansionist, and supremacist policies. Not able to find justification for their policies in the Quran, which essentially guided Muslims on a spiritual path to salvation, they naturally created another scripture and put that on the same pedestal as Quran. The ulema were also deployed to subvert the meaning of Quran’s verses of war and make contextual verses into universally applicable instructions for permanent war.

3.   Sharia Laws were first codified 120 years after the demise of the Prophet and have been changing since from time to time and place to place. It is only marginally based on Quran, most of it has been borrowed from pre-Islamic Arab practices. But the theology of consensus insists on calling it divine.

The new theology will go strictly by the spirit of Quran and allow Muslims to formulate their laws according to the needs of their time and place. Laws are and should remain dynamic and just.

4.   The theology of consensus propounds a Doctrine of Abrogation, whereby earlier Meccan verses preaching peace and pluralism, patience and perseverance, religious freedom for all, etc., have been abrogated by later Medinan verses of war, asking Muslims to fight, and talking about virtues and rewards of contributing to war efforts in the way of God.  It is said that the so-called sword verse (9: 5) alone has abrogated 114 verses of peace and pluralism revealed in early Islam at Mecca.

The new theology of peace should emphasise that the Meccan verses are the foundational and constitutive verses of Islam. They cannot be abrogated by any later verses of war. The Doctrine of Abrogation will need to be rejected in toto. It is the latter Medinan verses of war that have lost their relevance not the original Islam preaching peace and pluralism as revealed at Mecca.

5.   The concept of Caliphate has no basis in Quran, but our theology considers it almost mandatory. This consensus view needs to be corrected in the new theology.

6.   The theology of consensus is of the view that Muslims should migrate from Land of Conflict (Darul Harb) which is dominated by non-Muslims to Darul Islam (land of Islam). This has no basis in Quran. This is not even practical in contemporary world, though ulema keep using these terms. Even individuals have great difficulty getting visas to visit any country, these days, what to speak of millions of Muslims settling down in, say, Saudi Arabia, the pre-eminent Darul Islam. Saudis did not take even one Syrian refugee despite their horrible situation, though Germany (so-called Darul Harb) took a million Muslim refugees out of compassion for the suffering humanity. The new theology will have to reject such medieval ideas as completely irrelevant and un-Quranic.

Clearly Muslims have much hard work to do. We will need to bring about revolutionary changes in our theology to make it compatible with the holy Quran as well as the needs of modern times.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/sultan-shahin,-founding-editor,-new-age-islam/-make-revolutionary-changes-in-the-islamic-theology-of-consensus-to-fight-jihadism---sultan-shahin-asks-muslim-nations-at-unhrc-in-geneva/d/112668

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   953


  • language of the religious texts is almost as bad as the language used by mr. naseer ahmad in their support.

    exegesis can be only as good or as bad as the source texts.

    if your source texts are bigoted and inflammatory, the exegesis of such texts cannot be otherwise.

    but only allah noes best.

    By hats off! - 3/9/2018 6:20:42 AM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib’s latest comment to Mr. Naseer is worth focusing. 

    I agree that critical and objective approach to any scholar of the past is most welcome and that the “use of insulting, contemptuous language for the revered scholars” is not good. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 3/9/2018 4:57:20 AM



  • To Sultan Shahin
    You should prove logically with the freedom you got from your father that how Islam is best.

    Because if have choose Islam on research based  relgion than you have to make comparative analysis of your choosen relgion and others you have not choose.

    Why you have not chosen is very important because if one relgion has been supported superior and trying to establish superiority publicly by useing website than what is pitfall of other relgion in Sultan Shahin point of view has to be explained.

    By Aayina - 3/8/2018 3:42:46 PM



  • Calling those with a different opinion bigoted is a simplistic and egotistic approach that taints Naseer sab's claims to being a "scholar".


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/8/2018 12:35:26 PM



  • Shahin sb,

     How did kafir come to mean disbeliever in the post classical period except through bigotry of the scholars? How did fitna come to mean shirk? How did Shuhuda come to mean martyr? How did fight to end persecution become fight to end shirk? It takes some effort and bigotry to distort the meaning of words and verses.

    You are free to revere the imams and scholars and denigrate the Quran instead. The Book is clear, lucid and poses no problem if taken literally. It is rejecting the literal meaning by the scholars and their fanciful interpretations employing verbal acrobatics which is the problem. However, my clearing up the confusion caused by them appears to you as verbal acrobatics. Strange indeed!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2018 4:58:41 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, you say "However, in this forum, when I criticise such scholarship, it is strongly defended by of all people, Shahin sb and Yunus sb!"
    I am myself the biggest critic of the scholarship of past and present. So is Yunus Saheb. You only have to read our articles. However, what I criticise is not your criticism but your denigration,  use of  insulting, contemptuous  language for these revered scholars. These scholars of the past spent a lifetime in the service of Islam. Most of them spent time in prison, sticking to their ideas. Some like Imam ibn e Taimiya even died in prison. Some like Imam Abu Hanifa, refused high positions with the government of the day, calling them corrupt, which they were. How can I remain silent when they are being called bigots etc on New Age Islam. I criticise them myself and don't agree with many of their views. But why can't we maintain a decorum, while debating issues? Why do we have to badmouth people we don't agree with. Insults hurled at ideological opponents do not add to the strength of our arguments. They only take away from the validity of our arguments. 
    We have had these discussions several times. The first thing that distinguishes a scholar is his humility. The more you know the more you realise your own ignorance. This inevitably makes you humble. But your case is bewildering. I cannot say that you are not knowledgeable about the subject you are discussing. However, you are not prepared to review your position even when you have no answers to questions posed. For instance, I asked you recently some questions pertaining to the inoperability of your  methodology, when verses came piecemeal and primarily addressing illiterate Bedouins of Arabia. 

    See  By Sultan Shahin - 3/7/2018 12:54:08 AM 

    But you have simply ignored the basic premise and taken off at a tangent in another direction. 
    You must understand that even Quran dared not go on its social reform issue beyond a point. Slavery and concubinage were never banned, though Quran gave every indication that these were bad practices. Similarly women's status was never defined as equal to man's in clear, unequivocal terms. Indications were given. The seventh century Arabia was not prepared for this. 
    Clearly we have to go beyond literal instructions in Quran, follow its guidance, and chart our own course in the spirit of peace and pluralism in the foundational verses of Qur'an that were revealed in Mecca before the exigencies of war took over. 
    Also, why should you consider hypocrite/apostate those who want to ignore xenophobic wartime verses and not those who consider abrogated the verses teaching peace and pluralism? Not that I want you to do that. I vehemently oppose use of takfiri language. Your own conclusions seem to go against takfirism, but perhaps not against "apostatisation" and "hypocritisation". 
    Let us agree to make a civilised debate. The issues are critical for the very survival of Muslims as honourable citizens in over a hundred countries. 
    We have to also make certain that minorities in Muslim-majority nations are allowed to live as first class citizens in the same way as non-Muslim majority nations treat Muslims. Take the Indian Constitution. By and large, this should be considered an ideal constitution for all Muslim countries. 

    How do we tweak our theology to allow for that. Not by a literal reading of Quran or even what you call logical derivatives of meanings in a literalist manner. But by applying our common sense. Ijtihad should mean going forward, not going back to seventh century, as Ibn e Taimiya and Mohammad Abdul Wahhab did. It's forward looking, progressive Muslims who will save Islam and Muslims of today and take them to a better future, not Muslims who insist on a literal reading and universality of all verses of Quran without reference to context. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 3/8/2018 2:26:22 AM



  • Shahin sb,

    The proper way to fight the tradionalist/extremist/bigot is not to imitate them which is to fall into a trap. In a war of abrogation and misinterpretation, the tradionalist/extremist/bigot is way ahead and has all the ulema, imams, muftis of the past and present on their side. The way to fight them is to expose their hypocrisy and distortion of the message as I have been doing. However, in this forum, when I criticise such scholarship, it is strongly defended by of all people, Shahin sb and Yunus sb!

    I have shown that the so called “sword verses” by themselves, without considering any context outside of the Quran, or any other verse, gives a message of compassion, reconciliation and accommodation and is consistent with the rest of the Quran. No part of the Quran promotes mindless violence. When no verse of the Quran contradicts another, where is the case for treating any verse as abrogated? The verses that you would like to be ignored have been considered by me in formulating the “Principles of war in Islam”. What part of this do you find irrelevant for the 21st century?

    The Principles of War from the Quran


    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2018 10:38:50 PM



  • I agree fully with Sultan Shahin sahib. In order to determine how best to read the Quran, to reject the theory of abrogation and to identify the verses which form the core of Islam we need the intervention of modern rational man.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2018 11:49:30 AM



  • how sly and oily! truely islamic!

    how smoothly with all the flair of a street corner juggler, mr. naseer ahmed makes devilish use of the forward slash by mischievously writing "hypocrite/apostate"!

    that is the epitome of islamic creed - hatred for the apostate or the kaffir.

    as kaffirs have started revolting, he wants us to believe that kufr is not kufr and a kafir is not a kafir.

    now his latest trick is the "hypocrite/apostate" equality. so any muslim who cannot really bring himself or herself to believe cock and bull stories is an automatic "hypocrite/apostate". being the computer guy he is he should have instead used the backward slash escape character.

    i am starting to wonder if IIT lobotomizes its students.

    By hats off! - 3/7/2018 2:47:13 AM



  • "Those who advocate ignoring any part of the Quran will be ignored as apostates and hypocrites by those who wish to follow the Quran faithfully."
    On the contrary, those who consider all 124 peaceful, pluralistic Makkan verses of Quran having been abrogated by the one so-called sword verse 9:5 alone are the mainstream true Muslims, revered by all. The entire terror industry is based on ignoring these verses, the argument being that they had come to guide Muslims when they were weak and very few in number. 
    I just don't think you can consider wartime verses applicable to Muslims today and fight this war. Remember, the first Muslims, called the Salaf, themselves gave primacy to Madinan verses of war and relegated the Makkan verses of peace and pluralism to the end of Quran. They themselves destroyed the chronology, apparently out of the belief that these verses are like couplets in an Urdu ghazal, complete in their meaning, not dependent on the context. When Quran was being revealed, verse by verse, or a few verses at a time, the whole book was not available for Muslims to logically derive meanings from a reading of other verses that were yet to come. None of the immediate audience of the Prophet was a 21st century mathematician or logician to read meanings of these verses in a logical manner. These were simple folk to whom Quran revealed instructions in simple, uncomplicated language. Of course, some verses were allegorical in nature and they were told not to worry about understanding them right away. But wartime verses of Madina or peacetime verses of Makka are simple, straight forward instructions that contradict each other.
     It seems Muslims through the ages, starting from immediately after the Prophet's time, or probably while he was still alive, have chosen to consider the last instructions of God as more valid, and as having abrogated the first instructions. God had himself told them that he replaces previous instructions with better ones. 
    I think today if we want to live in the present world, we should change this understanding, not by verbal acrobatics, or so-called logical deduction of meanings of clear verses, but by declaring that seventh century wartime verses are not applicable to us today.

    By Sultan Shahin - 3/7/2018 12:54:08 AM



  • Shahin sb,

     The failure is of Islamic theology that while it gave us the five pillars and the six articles of faith, it has failed to codify the Islamic principles of war and the principles for maintaining inter-faith relations and gender related issues. The remedy lies in filling this gap and not in ignoring any of the verses.  Those who advocate ignoring any part of the Quran will be ignored as apostates and hypocrites by those who wish to follow the Quran faithfully.

     2:85 Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.

    (47:24) Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Qur´an, or are their hearts locked up by them?(25) Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them,- the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes.(26) This, because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter"; but Allah knows their (inner) secrets.

     There can be no dispute that the principles underlying every verse are of eternal relevance. The solution lies in extracting those principles and living by them. I have covered these in my articles:

     The Principles of War from the Quran

     Islam's Relationship With The Rest Of The Word - The Current Problem Of Extremism In A False Ideology And The Antidote From An Authentic Understanding Of The Truly Humanistic Message Of The Quran

     The problem with the bigoted and sub-standard Islamic scholarship is that they have corrupted the meaning of the Quran by corrupting the meaning of the words which is what prevents the clear principles from emerging which is what must be set right. Islamic scholars will have to answer to the following;

     How and when did kafir come to mean disbeliever?

    How did Shuhuda become martyr?

    How did fitna come to mean shirk itself?

    How did the permission to fight the persecutors become permission to fight to end disbelief?

    ….and many more questions.

     For the young (full of idealism and eagerness to follow Islam), if the only choice that they have, is to follow the path of the tradionalist/extremist/bigot or the path of the apostate/hypocrite, many will choose the former as they have done till now. The path of the hypocrite/apostate was always open to them from the times of the Prophet (pbuh) and many were/are hypocrites/apostates. That is nothing new. To wean the idealistic youth away from the path of the tradionalist/extremist/bigot, the alternative must be a demonstrably authentic version of Islam that makes the tradionalist/extremist/bigot look like the misguided people that they are. Fortunately, Islam is fundamentally and literally a religion of peace believing in peaceful co-existence with the rest of the people and the task is therefore easy and straight forward if the people are honest and straight forward.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/6/2018 11:27:31 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, I agree with you fully on all points in both these comments. But the issue is how do we convince Muslims who are joining these groups in droves. Obviously, they have their own narrative which is powerful enough to convince many people. As long as we keep saying that all verses of war are applicable to us today, I don't see any way of stopping this mischief, as you put it. Inapplicability of war instructions after the war is over may possibly sound commonsensical enough to convince people. This happens in every war. Instructions are no longer valid once the war is over. Please rethink the issue of applicability and universality of all verses including the contextual. 
    By Sultan Shahin - 3/6/2018 4:38:58 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    War can be waged only by a ruler of a country and not by non-state actors.

    The verses on qital did not even apply to the Muslims who had stayed behind in Mecca and applied only to those Muslims who were with the Prophet in Medina.

    No prophet was allowed to wage war unless he was also a ruler with a people and territory under his rule.

    War by non-state actors is mischief and nothing else.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/5/2018 11:26:46 PM



  • Shahin sb,

    India is a secular country and the Muslims have no problem practicing their religion and living a peaceful life. Where is the oppression?

     There is a political dispute in Kashmir which can be settled only through a political solution. It cannot be settled through war/civil war, acts of terrorism. India is not an invader/occupier. Pakistan is both an invader and occupier of a part of Kashmir.

     Jesus Christ was a prophet in a land occupied and ruled by the Romans. There was no command to fight the ruler and overthrow the Romans.

     Does verse 4:75 " And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"", describe the people of Kashmir? Not even by a long shot! The people of Kashmir enjoy several immunities not available to any other people in the rest of the country. They are a privileged lot compared to the rest of the country. The GOI is open to a peaceful settlement of the dispute without giving up its sovereignty over the territory. How is sovereignty over the land an issue in Islam? How does a just sovereign become an oppressor? The state is a victim of the mischief mongering by the organizations you mentioned in your comment.

     The division of the country based on religion, was the biggest injustice. How was it legitimate for the country to be ruled by the Muslims when they were a minority and why couldn't the Muslims live under the rule of the majority in a democracy? Why are the Muslims blind to their own oppressive injustices?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/5/2018 11:19:46 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, Thanks for the lengthy explanation. One more question that has been bothering me is your view of the universal applicability of the Holy Quran’s verses of war, even dissociation from and killing of Mushrikin as ordered in Surah Taubah (chapter 9 of the Holy Quran), etc, and rush to the rescue of those they consider oppressed. 

    I am writing in the context of the following comments you made in this thread (given below). 

    The question in my  mind emanates from the fact that the same analysis, the same interpretation, or the same understanding of the universality of these verses are peddled ad nauseam by Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba and other Pakistani terrorist organisations while fund-raising in Pakistan for their Qital in Kashmir. Hafiz Saeed and others like him say precisely the same things and quote precisely the same verses repeatedly in their speeches. 

    Obviously a large number of Muslims believe in their analysis and give them funds or physically participate in Qital in Kashmir on the basis of this analysis.

    So if these verses have universal applicability, how can we call them wrong; after all, whether or not oppression prevails in a place is a subjective judgement. If we allow universal applicability of war-time verses in Surah Tauba, Surah Anfal, etc., are we not encouraging terrorism and qital in the world today? Just as Pakistani terrorist organisations use these verses in the context of qital in Kashmir, ISIS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda, etc. use them in a global context. 

    There was a war in Arabia in he Prophet’s time, and there was God in direct communication with the Prophet to give instructions on the basis of His judgement whether there was oppression or not. Every Muslim accepted God’s judgement. Now how do we find a universally accepted mode of judging whether there is oppression in some part of the world, necessitating Muslims from around the world to rush to the rescue of the oppressed in that part of the world? Were those 30,000 Muslims who rushed to join ISIS in its Qital in Iraq and Syria and Europe in just one year correct in their reading of these verses and their import? Why should they accept the judgement of people like you and me who may not think that the situation in Kashmir or Middle East or Africa or Europe does not necessitate qital?


    Excerpts from your comments that inspired these questions:


    “Isn’t qital (warfare) when appropriate a good deed? And isn’t avoiding qital when it becomes necessary as was the case when the Prophet was fighting battles a sign of kufr? … A momin does what is appropriate in each circumstance.  … A momin is a person of faith who does whatever is likely to please Allah the most and avoid that which displeases Allah.”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/7/2018 1:53:59 AM

    ——-


    “Show me any verse that qualifies in any manner, the literal meaning of Q. 4:76 and say precisely how the verse would be modified by a different context:

    (Q. 4:76) The Amanu fight in the cause of Allah, and the kafaru Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

    If you cannot show that, then the verse is independent of its context. This verse could have appeared in the context of any war, whether of the Prophet’s times or earlier times and is relevant even today and for all time to come. …

    (4:75) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

    The Quran uses Kafaru for the believers engaged in acts of Kufr and therefore I have no hesitation in calling the oppressors kafir irrespective of the faith they profess. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/14/2018 11:36:27 PM

    —-



    By Sultan Shahin - 3/5/2018 2:47:35 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content