Books and Documents

Middle East Press (04 Jul 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Terrorism in the Grand Mosque By Hussein Shobokshi: New Age Islam's Selection, 04 July 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

04 July 2017

Terrorism in the Grand Mosque

By Hussein Shobokshi

The Battle For Mosul Is Almost Over. What Next?

By Ibrahim Al-Marashi

Gulf Demands Fulfilled Even Before Qatar Accepted Them

By Sawsan Al Shaer

Court: Iran to Pay for 9/11 and Terrorism

By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Resumption of Cyprus Talks

By Yasar Yakis

Toxic Debate over Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

By Chris Doyle

Gamal Abdelnasser and the Al-Gama’a Series

By Mashari Althaydi

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


Terrorism in the Grand Mosque

By Hussein Shobokshi

3 July 2017

Every time the world believes that terrorist groups have reached the bottom point of criminality, a new incident comes up to prove that they are capable of falling to unprecedented low levels.

This is exactly what happened when a terrorist suicide attack was thwarted near the Al-Haram Al-Sharif (the Grand Mosque) in Makkah on the eve of the last nights of the holy month of Ramadan. The attack took place at the holiest place and at the holiest time, yet, all this did not deter the terrorists from carrying out their dirty and criminal activity.

To continue to treat such groups as “stray” groups that have lost their way or that these groups have “good intentions” but are “brain-washed,” is an essential part of the problem because the subject is not a single individual case.

The continued acceptance of the armed groups brandishing their weapons and carrying out assaults against others while raising religious slogans in the presence of the state and its institutions is bewildering. In fact these groups must be treated as religious outcast for causing agony to the society and disturbing social peace and tranquillity.

And what applies to the organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, should also apply to the likes of Hezbollah, which brandish their weapons under the eyes of the government they are opposing and the latter is unable to do anything.

The same applies to the organization of the Popular Mobilization Forces and the organization of the Houthis in Iraq and Yemen separately.

Slogan and Application

“Terrorism has no religion” is a beautiful and catchy slogan presented by various media groups in the Arab world, but unfortunately, this slogan has not translated into a real and practical application.

The terrorist groups emerging from the framework of the states revolted and raised false religious slogans from all directions have still been dealt with patience for a long time. This patience is not natural and it is puzzling and then we wonder why the world points its finger to our world and claims that we are lacking in our efforts to carry out our responsibilities.

These monsters must be eliminated. The problem is that the Arab world has not realized that these groups have long been present among us. They do not threaten the West but they threaten the people of the region.

They will continue to recruit young people and obtain financial resources as long as some Fatwas supporting them exist. They are sometimes defended as a part of the heritage, the wretched heritage that kills innocent lives again and again without any deterrent or punishment.

Leniency and hesitation in dealing with these groups is still dominating the situation in various forms. This is one of the main reasons for their wildness and madness, which is strengthening these groups. If the language of confrontation is not changed into real actions, determining the relationship of all these groups with the religion, it will not change anything and will remain the same.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/07/03/Terrorism-in-the-Grand-Mosque.html


The Battle For Mosul Is Almost Over. What Next?

By Ibrahim Al-Marashi

3 July 2017

On June 29, 2014 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, standing on the pulpit of the al-Nuri mosque in Mosul, declared his caliphate.

On the same day three years later, that mosque was captured by Iraqi military forces. Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi used an electronic pulpit, Twitter, to celebrate the victory over the Islamic State of the Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).

While the date of the mosque's capture is redolent with symbolism, the theatrics of the event cannot hide the anxieties and fear of the Iraqis and the international community that Abadi's declaration is premature, as ISIL has not been completely eliminated in Mosul, or worse, might make a coordinated comeback in the city.

The Iraqi government's military victory has now opened up a space for a political solution to reintegrate the city. How the Iraqi state manages this delicate process will ultimately determine ISIL's ability to threaten the nation in the future. 

Securing Urban Centres

After ISIL was expelled from Iraqi towns such as Tikrit, Falluja, and Ramadi over 2015 and 2016, the central government's management of both reconstruction and resettlement of these urban centres has been ad hoc and lethargic, owing to a lack of funds and political will. The same can be said for the districts of Mosul freed from ISIL over the past couple of months. As Mosul reverts back to the central government's control, it must be remembered that it was Baghdad's governance of Mosul that led to the conditions that allowed ISIL to find fertile ground in this city in the first place. Reconstruction and resettlement will be the key factors for the citizens of Mosul in reconciling with the central government.

This issue is paramount as ISIL fighters are still holding out in Mosul districts and are likely to have sleeper cells in liberated areas of the city. Local cooperation will be needed in the face of these looming threats. Nonetheless, a lot has changed since 2014, when Mosul's inhabitants either actively enabled or passively resigned themselves to ISIL's presence.

Not only was ISIL's rule brutal over the past three years, but its destruction of the al-Nuri mosque and its iconic curved minaret, which gave Mosul its nickname "al-Hadba" (the hunchback), symbolically severed any chance of the group reasserting control over the city. With this act, ISIL tried to deprive the Iraqi government of the symbolic victory of capturing the mosque intact.

It also tried to send a message to Mosul residents. ISIL had destroyed Mosul's pre-Islamic heritage in its museum and sites such as Nimrud before, but by destroying that mosque it signalled that Mosul inhabitants were not "true Muslims". As a BBC reporter documented, when ISIL fighters withdrew from one Mosul neighbourhood, they told the local people, "You did not take care of the caliphate, so you do not deserve it".

Mosul's population has endured physical and emotional deprivation under ISIL's rule and there is little chance that they will allow it to re-establish its authority over the city. However, Mosul's traumatic past under ISIL does not translate into de facto support for the government in Baghdad. The question for Iraq's future remains: how to establish its legitimacy among the alienated Arab Sunnis in this city, in addition to the greater Ninawa, Anbar and Salah al-Din provinces. The pace of reconstruction, resettlement, and political inclusion, on the municipal and national level will ultimately determine the peace.

On the national level the Iraqi government has yet to develop a compelling strategic narrative of how a political process can address the underlying conditions which led to the emergence of ISIL in the first place.

What the Iraqi Government Needs To Do

At this juncture in Iraq's post-2003 political development, it may be useful to see what lessons from other conflict zones can be applied to Mosul and other Iraqi areas formerly held by ISIL.

First, the Iraqi state has to articulate a plan that will guarantee the meaningful inclusion of marginalised groups, which include the Arab Sunnis in Mosul and Ninawa province, as well as its minorities, Christians and Yezidis.

Second, the state has to demonstrate beyond mere rhetoric how it will tackle structural inequalities, including corruption and the abuse of power of state security forces and paramilitary actors, in addition to the justice sector institutions. The potential for corruption among these sectors will only increase as reconstruction aid, both Iraqi and international, pours in.

Third, international aid can be made contingent on trust-building measures that foster social cohesion in Mosul and other formerly ISIL-held territories. Such measures include the establishment of grievance mechanisms that create spaces for dialogue between the communities in Mosul and the security sector. Given that it was the behaviour of the Iraqi security forces that alienated many of Mosul's inhabitants before 2014, community policing programmes between locals of Mosul and security forces would foster social cohesion.

Alas, Iraqi national and regional politics are complicated and involve numerous actors, both foreign and domestic, that will only complicate achieving such an agenda. However, true victory in Mosul will not be measured in capturing a destroyed mosque, but long-term, sustainable strategies that might not be captured in a single tweet.

Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/07/battle-mosul-170703072634550.html


Gulf Demands Fulfilled Even Before Qatar Accepted Them

By Sawsan Al Shaer

3 July 2017

What if Qatar does not meet Gulf demands and insists on continuing the Hamad bin Khalifa project that aims to topple Arab countries and divide them?

The current situation shows that the countries, which boycotted Qatar, have had a large chunk of their demands met without Qatar responding to them as Doha before the boycott is not like Doha after the boycott.

The boycotting countries’ shifted media coverage of Qatar for the first time and revealed its links to terrorism. This limited Doha’s activities as they have restrained the tools Qatar used to implement its project.

Qatar has succeeded in keeping its project secret as it has a spotlight, such as Al-Jazeera channel, that obscures vision in its surrounding and sheds light outside it. However, for the first time ever, anyone who even sneezes in Qatar finds himself before a fierce campaign launched by media outlets in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and by the latter’s citizens via social media networks.

This is something that Al Jazeera and its affiliates are not used to as they were the only ones which adopted a populist rhetoric. Al Jazeera and all the television channels, which Qatar spent billions on thus lost their popularity and strong influence without Qatar even shutting them down, and they’ve now shifted to defending themselves after they served as a tool for attacking others.

The International Community

The boycotting countries succeeded in highlighting the situation to the international community and not just to the Gulf community. They revealed how Qatar supports terrorist organizations and figures either inside Qatar or in other countries such as Turkey and Britain. Exposing Qatar’s ties with these organizations fell within the context of combating terrorism.

The boycotting countries have utilized their network of international relations to monitor these organizations’ and figures’ activity and broadcast it to the entire world shall they make a move or issue a statement. This limited their activity and also infiltrated their bank accounts and exposed the ties between them and Qatar. All this will make their work difficult as they will have to make unprecedented efforts to disguise.

The boycotting countries also brought up an issue, which the Qatari people have been kept away from for years. Who hijacked the decision making process from them and who benefits from isolating them from their surrounding and threatening their security and stability while they enjoy security and use their money?

How do Qataris benefit from funding fighting militias in Libya and Tunisia? How do they benefit from fuelling the conflict in Egypt? What do Qataris get from its leaders’ relations with terrorists in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia? Everyone now knows who prevents ending the boycott. It is the same people who prevent the Qatari people from returning to their brothers in the Gulf and prevent opening borders.

They are the decision makers in Qatar, which has been exposed by the recent boycott as it shed light on them for the first time inside Qatar. The boycott has revealed they are enemies of the Qatari people sucking their blood and exploiting their riches, while not one of them is Qatari.

Qatar’s Modesty

More importantly, the boycotting countries succeeded in bringing Qatar back to its normal geographical, historical and political size. It would not have shamed Qatar if it had realized its worth. On the contrary, Qatar’s modesty would have increased its worth but punching above its weight harmed others and it has now backfired on Qatar, which is back to its normal political size. For the first time ever, the Qatari command is going through what it put Arab leaders through in the past 20 years.

It is being mocked and ridiculed while everyone is on the lookout for any mistake. It got a taste of its own medicine in less than a month. It finally realized that silence over its practices was not due to weakness but out of sense of superiority. Qatar has realized that political weight does not improve by insulting others but improves when leaders play honest roles of kindness and love to achieve peace.

Qatar learnt what its real geographic size is and realized it would not have shamed it either as there are smaller countries which, thanks to their relations with their surroundings, provided themselves with a geographic extension that helped them be more efficient and developed.

These were the tools used to execute the Hamad bin Khalifa project but the boycotting countries have negated their effects even before Qatar announced abandoning them. Not ending the boycott and escalating it in case Qatar insists to resume these policies will eliminate these tools once and for all especially after the deception that Qatar resorted to during negotiations have been exposed as it never upheld its commitments.

Qatar must keep in mind that the boycotting countries will not lose with time as time is on their side. If Doha listens to the voice of reason and returns to the Gulf fold, it will do so in dignity but if it refuses, nothing will change for us.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/07/03/Gulf-demands-fulfilled-even-before-Qatar-accepted-them.html


Court: Iran to Pay for 9/11 and Terrorism

By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

3 July 2017

A jury has concluded that federal prosecutors can confiscate a skyscraper in Manhattan to pay the families of victims of terrorism linked to Iran’s government. This includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and the bombing of a US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

The confiscation is estimated to bring nearly $1 billion to the victims’ families. Sixty percent of the skyscraper is owned by the Alavi Foundation and 40 percent by Assa Corp., which is controlled by and operates on behalf of Iran’s Bank Melli, according to the US government.

After going through a “massive amount of evidence,” the judge said she was “firmly convinced” that the Alavi Foundation “takes directives from Iranian government officials, and its day-to-day operators have been appointed by Iranian officials to ensure conformity with the interests of the government of Iran.” The foundation has made donations to various institutions in the US, including Iranian programs and universities such as Columbia.

Joon H. Kim, the acting US attorney in Manhattan, said the jury’s finding “represents the largest civil forfeiture jury verdict and the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in US history.” Iran was previously found to have played a significant role in 9/11. Released documents from a US federal court revealed that Iran and its proxy, the Shiite radical group Hezbollah, had a “firsthand” role in perpetrating 9/11.

US District Judge George Daniels in New York ordered Iran to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

According to the US District Court in the Southern District of New York: “In the Havlish (previous) proceeding, this Court held that ‘Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 terrorists’ specific terrorist travel operation’ and (that) facilitation of Al-Qaeda’s operatives’ travel to training in camps in Afghanistan was ‘essential for the success of the 9/11 operation… The second way in which Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 attacks was that a terrorist agent of Iran and Hezbollah helped coordinate travel by future Saudi hijackers.”

The finding that Iran and Al-Qaeda are interconnected is significant because it cracks the binary and superficial theory that Shiite Iran only aligns itself with radical Shiite groups, not Sunni ones.

Through it partnership with Assa Corp., the Alavi Foundation was helping Tehran via various means, the jury found, such as money-laundering. Financial donations to various programs in the US were more likely aimed at spreading Tehran’s narrative, preserving its interests and empowering its agents in the US to lobby and advocate for it.

As Kim said: “In this trial, 650 Fifth Avenue’s (the skyscraper’s) secret was laid bare for all to see.” He added: “The owners of 650 Fifth Avenue gave the Iranian government a critical foothold in the very heart of Manhattan through which Iran successfully circumvented US economic sanctions.” Iran should be forced to pay victims’ families, and every government must detect and closely monitor domestic organizations and individuals operating on behalf of Tehran.

The US State Department’s latest report found that Iran is a top state sponsor of terrorism. Tehran is engaged in financial, political and military support for militias and designated terrorist groups across the Middle East and in the West, with the aim of exporting its extremist ideals, expanding its influence and achieving its hegemonic ambitions.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1123861


Resumption of Cyprus Talks

By Yasar Yakis

3 July 2017

Talks resumed on June 28 in the Swiss Alpine resort of Crans-Montana to try to solve the Cyprus problem. Attendants include the Turkish- and Greek-Cypriot leaders, and the foreign ministers of three guarantor powers: Turkey, the UK and Greece. There have been countless similar talks for more than 40 years without concrete results.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel confessed after the fifth EU enlargement that it was a mistake to admit the Greek Cypriots to the bloc before the Cyprus question was resolved. The Greek side has little incentive to make concessions now that it has joined the EU.

So will Greek-Cypriot negotiators try to accommodate Turkish Cypriots’ legitimate demands eight months before presidential elections? More importantly, if a deal is agreed; will Greek Cypriots vote in favour of it when it is submitted to a referendum?

There are two outstanding issues in the negotiations: Reducing the Turkish military presence on the island and cancelling the Treaty of Guarantee, signed in 1960 to secure the independence, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus.

The island is divided because the ruling military junta in Greece in 1974 tried to oust then-President of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios and annex it to Greece. Turkey used its rights as a guarantor power and prevented the annexation.

Greek Cypriots now insist on the withdrawal of Turkish troops because they claim they do not pose a threat to Turkish Cypriots. Ankara had hoped at one stage that the idea of annexing the island to Greece was abandoned, but this hope turned out to be unrealistic.

A law adopted on Feb. 10, 2017, by the Greek-Cypriot Parliament provides that festivities should be organized at schools to commemorate the anniversary of a referendum held in 1950 to annex Cyprus to Greece. Greek-Cypriot media tried to trivialize the initiative by claiming it was the work of a small far-right political party, ELAM, but did not explain why the ruling party DISI abstained during the vote rather than oppose the adoption of the law.

After noticing the negative effects of the law on ongoing negotiations, the Greek-Cypriot Parliament tried to revoke it but stopped short of doing so. It referred the question to the Supreme Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Soteris Drakos, a member of the political bureau of the ruling party, was so angry at its initiative to revoke the law that he announced his resignation from the party.

It is difficult to tell what this referral to the Supreme Court means. Is it a palliative to gain time until presidential elections in the Greek part of the island or until the conclusion of negotiations with the Turkish part?

Worse will be if the court decides that the law is constitutional. Then future Greek-Cypriot generations will be educated with the ideology of annexing the island to Greece. Bearing this in mind, the Turkish side does not want give up its rights stemming from the Treaty of Guarantee and withdraw all its soldiers from the island until the Greek-Cypriot side demonstrates persuasively that annexing it to Greece is out of question.

What we see now is the opposite: Greek-Cypriot politicians working relentlessly to maintain the idea of annexation. Despite this, Turkey showed flexibility in Crans-Montana on the number of its troops to be kept on the island.

The first reports from the meeting said Turkey could agree to withdraw a token number of soldiers initially, and leave subsequent stages to a decision by a five-party committee composed of the Turkish and Greek parts of Cyprus and the three guarantor states, which will decide according to the evolution of the reconciliation process between Cypriot Turks and Greeks.

Greek Cypriots insist on the withdrawal of Turkish troops and the cancelation of the Treaty of Guarantee. When this is considered along with passing a law to commemorate the annexation referendum, it will not be easy to persuade Turkish Cypriots to agree to the departure of Turkish troops and the cancelation of the treaty.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1123851


Toxic Debate over Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

By Chris Doyle

3 July 2017

Syria has fomented a multitude of fearsome debates, but none more toxic than on the use of chemical weapons. The 78-page report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) fact-finding mission is likely to further stir up the debate around the April attacks on Khan Sheikhun, but as ever, Syria will burn as others argue incessantly.

Only one debate has been properly resolved. Prior to 2013, many people — typically those on the far left — were in denial that Syria had chemical weapons at all. So far, all declared stocks of Syria’s chemical weapons and precursor chemicals — some 1,300 tons — were removed by 2014 and have now been destroyed, one of the only positives to the entire crisis.

Who has used such weapons and when is another argument that will go on and on. The OPCW report should lay to rest many doubts as to whether sarin was deployed in Khan Sheikhun, killing more than 80 people. The OPCW is the international community’s chemical weapons watchdog, the gold-standard body for such matters.

It certainly upends the unsourced, anonymous and unverified claims made by journalist Seymour Hersh in German newspaper Die Welt on June 25 that there was no sarin — claims that many pro-Syrian regime stalwarts were so desperate to believe.

Hersh’s narrative clashes even with the Russian and Syrian regime’s attempts to explain away events. Moreover, the full OPCW report, to be published on July 5, apparently states that the regime’s own tests proved sarin was used in Khan Sheikhun.

Some critics challenge the mission because it was unable for security reasons to go to the site of the attack. But it did test bodies, interviewed multiple witnesses, and above all tested survivors. The scale of the false-flag conspiracy would have had to be huge, including people voluntarily being exposed to sarin to provide the telling test results. What the report did not do was clear up the issue of responsibility, which is not part of the mission’s mandate.

Another debate focuses on whether the international community over- or under-reacted to the use of chemical weapons. Alleged use of chemical weapons by regime forces in 2013 did what non-conventional mass killings and destruction could not: Open up the real possibility of a US-led intervention in Syria. That threat led to the brokering of the only truly significant US-Russia deal in the last six years of this crisis, to remove all chemical weapons from Syria.

Chemical weapons use was the spur for a non-interventionist US President Donald Trump to lob 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in April, but like his predecessor, he has not been roused into action over non-chemical war crimes.

Around 1,500 people have reportedly been killed by chemical weapons in this conflict. More than 500,000 have died through other forms. The two infamous chemical atrocities were the one in April and the August 2013 attack in Ghouta, eastern Damascus, but many other attacks using sarin, chlorine and mustard gas have been reported.

Many ask why the regime would use such weapons when it hardly needs to. Even if poisonous gases are not the biggest killers, they have perhaps been one of the greatest weapons of fear.

It serves the regime’s purpose that its opponents believe it still possesses sarin and mustard gas as well as chlorine, and that it is prepared to use them. Moreover, the use of gases facilitates the regime’s desire to alter the demographics of Syria by encouraging the mass shifting of its opponents to other areas.

Yet one issue of real substance is rarely raised, at least in the media. Trump, backed by European leaders, was adamant that the regime used sarin in Khan Sheikhun, flying it from Shayrat air base. If so, why is there no huge outcry that the regime has hidden chemical weapons from the international community in violation of the 2013 agreement, and perhaps more importantly, how much more material does it still possess?

I may have missed it, but I have yet to hear Trump demand that such stocks are destroyed, merely that they not be used. The OPCW has verified the destruction of 24 out of 27 chemical weapons facilities in Syria; the last three lie in areas too dangerous to operate.

The OPCW has also driven a horse and carriages through Russia’s version of events, and all the Kremlin’s false posturing after the attack. The Russian military would have known that sarin was used.

Will such weapons be used again? Trump issued an unequivocal warning to the regime on June 26 of a “heavy price” to pay if there was a further attack. The US claims preparations were underway for this but have now been stalled, and the regime had got the message.

Who knows if this true or if it is another piece of Trump grandstanding? In any case, the regime will once again take comfort from the other message he delivered. As long as regime forces kill civilians by other means, the US is not bothered as it focuses solely on the fight against Daesh.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1123846


Gamal Abdelnasser and the Al-Gama’a Series

By Mashari Althaydi

3 July 2017

The second season of the Al-Gama’a series, written by Egyptian scriptwriter and researcher Waheed Hamed, was aired during the holy month of Ramadan. Like the first season, it stirred a lot of controversy.

The first season was aired in 2010 when the Brotherhood had heavy political weight and shortly before they ruled the country. The first season and its writer Hamed angered the Brotherhood. Meanwhile, the second one angered the Nasserites and the Brotherhood continued to have its grudges.

Many Nasserites who view late Egyptian President Gamal Abdelnasser as the first “symbol of right” were angry that the series frankly mentioned that revolutionary “officer” Abdelnasser was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood while he was forming the "Association of Free Officers” and that he worked under the name “Zaghloul” before he exited the Brotherhood’s ranks and other political parties.

Sami Sharaf, who served as minister of state for presidential affairs during Abdelnasser’s term, said the latter was never a Brotherhood member. However, he quoted Abdelnasser as saying that he “passed” or “went” through all political parties at the time, including The Wafd Party, The Young Egypt Party, The Communist Party and of course the Brotherhood, but he did not find himself in any of them.

Hamed who in all fairness clearly made huge efforts doing his research said during the television talk show Kol Youm (Everyday) hosted by Amr Adeeb on ONTV that “many memoirs and books, such as the memoirs of Kamal Eddine Hussein and Wahid Ramadan, and a book by a member of the Association of Free Officers, Gamal Hammad, confirm Abdelnasser belonged to the Brotherhood in 1944.”

About Perspective

In all cases, political historical drama is about “perspective” in some parts and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the writer has done his work researching and gathering information from valid sources.

“Inspiring” figures like Abdelnasser are always controversial. Such figures have their own admirers who somehow glorify them and exalt them beyond any objective perspective.

However, the controversy stirred by the series leads us to a more important question not just in Egypt but in the entire Arab world and it is about the weakness of historical drama productions when analyzing events and characters that formed our awareness and whose practical effects greatly influenced our reality. There are many examples to that.

The only movie about modern Arab history that later became a “classic” is Lawrence of Arabia and it is written and directed from a western perspective.

Events and characters can be analyzed differently and can thus be portrayed in many ways. In the end though, viewers are the ones who benefit as these works either entertain them or empower them with more knowledge.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/07/03/Gamal-Abdelnasser-and-the-Al-Gama-a-series.html


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/terrorism-in-the-grand-mosque-by-hussein-shobokshi--new-age-islam-s-selection,-04-july-2017/d/111763


Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
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.