Ontario will not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of a set of centuries’ old religious rules called Sharia law to settle Muslim family disputes, and will ban all religious arbitrations in the province, Premier Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday.
In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario’s Arbitration Act.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,” he said.
“There will be no Sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”
McGuinty said religious arbitrations “threaten our common ground,” and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation “as soon as possible” to outlaw them in Ontario.
“Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice,” he said. ``But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law.”
Last December, a report from former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd recommended the province allow and regulate Sharia arbitrations much the same way it does Christian and Jewish tribunals, setting off a firestorm of protests.
Homa Arjomand, the women’s rights activist who organized a series of protests across Canada and Europe last Thursday to convince McGuinty to abandon Sharia, was elated when she heard the news late Sunday.
“I think our voice got heard loud and clear, and I thank the government for coming out with no faith-based arbitrations,” said Arjomand. “Oh, I am so happy. That was the best news I have ever heard for the past five years.”
A representative from Ontario’s Jewish community expressed disappointment and shock over McGuinty’s decision.
“We’re stunned,” said Joel Richler, Ontario region chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
“At the very least, we would have thought the government would have consulted with us before taking away what we’ve had for so many years.”
Richler said the current system — in place since 1992 — has worked well and saw no reason for it to be changed for either his or other communities.
“If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I’m not aware of them,” he said.
Despite calling for an end to all religious arbitrations, Ontario’s New Democrats were not happy with the way McGuinty handled the Sharia debate.
“By merely sitting on the issue, and by hiding his head in the sand, McGuinty allowed the debate to in fact fester and grow pretty ugly,” said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos. “That was not helpful to anything in this multicultural community of ours.”
Opposition leader John Tory agreed with the NDP’s position that McGuinty mishandled the Sharia debate.
“One of the tests of leadership in a diverse society is that you not allow issues like this — which are complex — to boil over into angry, polarized debates,” said Tory.
“By letting it go on, and suddenly ending it mysteriously on a Sunday afternoon, is not probably the best kind of leadership that one could show.”
Currently, Ontario’s Arbitration Act allows civil disputes ranging from custody and support to divorce and inheritance to be resolved through an independent arbitrator, if both parties agree.
Catholics, Mennonites, Jews, aboriginals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others, have — until now — used the act to settle family law questions without resorting to the courts.
But those who opposed permitting Sharia family arbitration argued that the reforms would give legitimacy and an unenforceable appearance of oversight to a legal code they say is — at its heart — unfair to women.
McGuinty said the debate around Sharia gave his government time to “step back a little bit” and look at the original decision to allow religious arbitrations in Ontario.
“It became pretty clear that was not in keeping with the desire of Ontarians to build on common ground … of one law for all Ontarians,” he said.
The premier said his wife Terri had not raised the Sharia law issue with him during the lengthy debate, but noted the 17 women in his Liberal caucus urged him to reject the idea.
Just hours before McGuinty’s announcement, a group including author Margaret Atwood, activist Maude Barlow, writer June Callwood and actresses Shirley Douglas and Sonja Smits issued an open letter to the premier on behalf of the No Religious Arbitration Coalition.
During last Thursday’s protests, angry demonstrators outside the Ontario legislature likened McGuinty to Afghanistan’s former extremist Taliban leaders for even considering Sharia.
Speakers in Toronto called McGuinty naive for saying women’s rights would not be trampled if Ontario allowed Sharia, while 100 people braved the rain in Montreal to protest the use of Sharia law in Ontario. Similar rallies were held in Ottawa and Victoria, while smaller protests were held in London, Amsterdam, Paris and Dusseldorf, Germany.
The Muslim Canadian Congress, which supported the regulation of Sharia law under Ontario’s Arbitration Act, was not immediately available to comment Sunday on McGuinty’s surprise announcement.
Catholics, Mennonites, Jews, aboriginals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others, have — until now — used the act to settle family law questions without resorting to the courts.
But those who opposed permitting Sharia family arbitration argued that the reforms would give legitimacy and an unenforceable appearance of oversight to a legal code they say is — at its heart — unfair to women.
*.....Sigh...* ^ No comment on that part....
Not surprised about the rest- when they finally ask for the implementation of Sharia, suddenly, "All Ontarians" should have the same law? Reminds me of the French for some reason :confused:
If they did implement shariah there probably would have been some abuse, but radical militant feminazis hijacked this whole issue and exaggerrated it. Stupid Lesbians.
Why not? If anything, I think Muslim sisters need to be speaking out to shatter this lie against islam once and for all. We cannot continue in this silence while other hurl lies against our religion.
Muslim sisters need to become more active and express their views about how Islam views them.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
Salam
Well There are two points why the shari3a law will not work in Ontario now.
First how can part of people go by one law and another people by another law.
Also there will be people who start to make things up. The munafiqoon will take advantage of this. And how can there be a shari3a law if there is not a rightous ruler.
im not suprised one bit, canada is a kufar land along with every nation on the face of this earth. No nation in our present time follows Allah's perfect system. if so tell me of one!
undefined
In the heavens and the earth there are certainly signs for the believers. And in your creation and all the creatures He has scattered about there are signs for people with certainty.
(Surat al-Jathiyah: 3-4)
First Published 2005-09-09, Last Updated 2005-09-09 14:31:54
Religious tribunals of arbitration undermine the democratic foundations
Sharia law controversy in Canada
Passions and protests ignite as critics say move to use Sharia unconstitutional.
By Jacques Lemieux - MONTREAL
The possibility of the Canadian province of Ontario using Islamic Sharia law to settle family disputes provoked angry protests Thursday, with critics saying the move would be unconstitutional.
An official report in December by former Ontario attorney general Marion Boyd said that Muslims should have recourse to arbitration tribunals using religious law, such as those that already exist for Christians and Jews.
If the tribunals go ahead, Ontario would become the first place in the West to use Sharia law -- something opponents say threatens the country's secular legal tradition and risks curtailing women's rights.
The province is due to rule in the near future on the possibility of such hearings, provincial prime minister Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.
He insisted that any such tribunals would have to conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- the cornerstone of the country's 1982 constitution, which he said enshrined women's rights.
Critics say they have organised rallies in major Canadian cities including Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa to protest any such move, as well as in Paris, London and Vienna.
In Montreal around 100 people gathered Thursday to protest the tribunals.
One of those demonstrating, Elahe Chokrai from the Montreal Association of Iranian Women, said the plan went against the letter of the Canadian constitution.
"From A to Z, the contents of these Islamic laws are against the charter of rights," she said.
In Ottawa more than 100 others, mostly women, protested in the rain in front of the parliament building.
"The marriage of children as young as nine, polygamy, the unjust division of inheritance: all of these are part of Islamic law and we don't accept them as being part of Canadian law," Chokrai said.
Opponents of the system fear that Muslim women may be forced to waive their rights under Canadian law that critics argue are not equally protected in Islamic law.
Amnesty International's Beatrice Vaugrante said the human rights watchdog had "very strong concerns as to the ability of these tribunals to ensure the application of international norms of human rights signed and ratified by Canada."
But a Montreal imam, Said Jaziri, defended sharia on Radio Canada and said it was not inherently anti-women. He said it would be unfair to deprive people who wanted to bring disputes to an Islamic hearing of the recourse to which they were entitled.
And Boyd, the author of the report that stirred the controversy, said Thursday that from a constitutional point of view Ontario could not refuse to create Islamic legal hearings, unless it also banned such tribunals for the Christian and Jewish communities.
Michele Asselin, head of the Quebec Women's Federation, said any such tribunals were inconsistent with the country's democratic tradition.
"Religious tribunals of arbitration, regardless of the religion they refer to, undermine the democratic foundations of our society which must be based on secular and egalitarian principles," she said at Montreal's protest.
Quebec's parliament in May unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the implementation of Islamic tribunals either in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, in an attempt to distance itself from the Ontario report.
Boyd's report included 46 recommendations, several designed to ensure that women could not be forced to enter religious arbitration, for instance in the case of a divorce.
She said mediators should screen each partner before arbitration to ensure the process was not the product of domestic violence or intimidation.
According to the latest census in 2001, some 600,000 Muslims live in Canada, just over 100,000 of them in Quebec.
Inshaa'Allah, I'll provide some accurate articles that analyse this issue.
Labour and Human-rights lawyer, Sister Mihad Fahmy, writes the following:
Imagery is everything. Especially when coupled with the power of fear. To illustrate, Let's play a game of word association.
Quick: Shariah...exactly.
So it is quite understandable that you may have asked yourself how shariah - the laws of mullahs and burqas - could possible be applied here. You may also have bought into the argument that Canadian-Muslim women will somehow be coerced into the proposed faith-based arbitration process. This, even though the same concern is not expressed with respect to Jewish and Christian women, some of whom already choose to settle family law and inheritance disputes according to the laws of their respective faiths.
It is frustrating that such biases and stereotypes about Islam, and Muslim women in particular, have been driving the debate regarding religious-based arbitration. What is even more troubling is that the discussion is an immensely important one for all faith communities.
Yet knee-jerk reactions to the idea that the words Islamic, law and Canada can all fit in the same sentence have blurred the real issues that warrant a constructive discussion.
Former Ontario attorney general Marion Boyd has been trying to have such a discussion over the past few months, as she reviews this province's Arbitration Act.
Under this act, parties may agree to use their religion's principles to settle certain matters, including divorce and inheritance. The now infamous plan to allow Muslims to choose their own faith as the basis for resolving such disputes is not novel or even very revolutionary - such faith-based arbitrations are already being carried out by Christian and Jewish communities.
This points to one aspect of the debate that risks getting lost in the generalizations and alarmist rhetoric. If we take the act as it stands now, how can we possibly justify denying Muslims what is available to adherents of other faiths?
Those, such as Peter Worthington, who claim that Islamic law inherently "is slanted against women and discriminates in a way that violates the rights and freedoms that the Canadian Constitution is pledged to uphold," surely must also recognize that to exclude Muslims from the provision of the act risks violating the Constitution's s equality rights.
Realistically, there are only two options. We can scrap the act's provisions altogether because or our fears regarding one particular faith group, or we can begin a mature discussion befitting a multicultural society.
The former option is the easy way out. But such a decision compromises our multiculturalism policy, since it would be driven by a fear of difference. People seem to forget that multiculturalism values are firmly enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The latter option is more arduous because it involves posing tough questions and considering a number of answers. The fundamental question is how to balance the desire of faith communities to resolve certain private disputes according to religious principles with the need to protect vulnerable parities and uphold the charter.
Perhaps we should start with those arbitrating the disputes. Let's look at ways of ensuring that they are adequately trained in arbitration and mediation, and also ask ourselves how their decisions can be monitored and reviewed. We also need to draw the line between decisions that simply reflect a different picture of equity and those that clearly contravene principles enshrined in the charter.
Turning to the parties that use faith-based arbitration, how can we ensure they are made fully aware of their rights? Similarly, what kinds of education and outreach initiatives are necessary to reach vulnerable women?
And, perhaps most importantly, does the province have the political will to act on the answers to such questions?
People have written hysterically about the unCanadianness of shariah law here. What would be truly unCanadian is if we fail to pose the tough questions and have the necessary discussion in a transparent fashion. Let's hope Boyd doesn't take the easy way out. (Source)
Similarly, Dr. Sheema Khan, Chair of CAIR-CAN, writes the following:
Sharia is an Arabic word that literally means "a path to water," the source of life. For Muslims, it is a comprehensive framework of justice based on the Koran and the example of Prophet Mohammed. Sharia's aim is five-fold: protection of life, faith, wealth, intellect and progeny. Sharia has spanned 14 centuries, numerous cultures and has given rise to at least five recognized schools of jurisprudence. It covers such disparate fields as economics, criminal justice, international relations and family matters. The study of sharia is so important that in the 1990s, Harvard law school launched an Islamic legal studies program.
Yet, many Canadians have opted for a more facile description: sharia, bad. Globe columnist Lysiane Gagnon equated it with incest. Anti-sharia activist Homa Arjomand has called for the imprisonment of sharia advocates. And Quebec MNA Fatima Houda-Pepin -- ripping a page from what might be called The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca -- continues to warn about the international conspiracy of Islamists to compliant Quebec media outlets. It's the same mantra she used a decade ago, dismissing those of us who campaigned for the right to wear the hijab as unwitting pawns of those same Islamists. Great fodder for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show -- except no one is laughing.
Undoubtedly, sharia-phobia has skewed the debate over Ontario faith-based arbitration to such a frenzied level that lies were perpetuated as facts, paranoia as patriotism. Just as the neo-conservative lobby peddled the bogus threat of Iraqi WMD, our own neo-secularists (including several Muslims) brazenly peddled Muslim family law as an existential threat to Western liberal democracy. As in the case with Iraq, the audience was a fearful public ready to accept its own biases coupled with sensational media accounts.
And it worked. Like the French decision to ban "conspicuous" religious symbols in public schools, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's decision to ban all faith-based arbitration was aimed primarily at Muslims. Other religions were included to provide a veneer of fairness. At least the Quebec Legislature had the candour to express its animosity toward sharia alone, remaining silent on all other faiths.
Not so, you protest, there are legitimate issues of debate. Yes, but consider the following: During the 14 years of operation of Jewish, Aboriginal and Ismaili arbitration tribunals, the issues of "one law for all Ontarians," of "parallel justice systems" and the "ghettoization of minority groups" were never raised by the public. Why all the hue and cry when Muslims wish to avail themselves of the same rights as their fellow Ontarians?
And for those who view this as a victory for the protection of women -- think again. There are too many unqualified, ignorant imams making back-alley pronouncements on the lives of women, men and children. The practice will continue, without any regulation, oversight or accountability. Muslim women (and men) will still seek religious divorces and settlement of inheritance matters in accordance with their faith. And not just the ubiquitous downtrodden immigrant Muslim woman who speaks little English. Our overburdened courts will still need to rely on experts in Muslim family law to deal with pre-nuptial contracts. Nothing has really changed -- except the fact that we have missed a golden opportunity to shine light on abuses masquerading as faith, and to ensure that rulings don't contradict the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Despite the acrimony surrounding the debate, there have been a few silver linings. First has been the tremendous debate engendered within the Muslim community about the practicality (or lack thereof) of establishing such tribunals. Unlike rabbis and priests, there is no college of imams in Canada to provide accreditation. There are no institutes to train jurists in Muslim family law. Many Muslim women are ignorant about their own rights within Islam, schooled instead in cultural misogyny. And certain provisions -- such as inheritance shares between sons and daughters -- raise concerns of contradicting the Charter. There would have been no shame for community leaders to say: "While we acknowledge our right to arbitration, we admit that we are not ready. We need to first educate our community so its members can make informed choices." But even those who had doubts about Muslim tribunals have been stung by the shrill language of opponents and the abrupt ban by Mr. McGuinty.
Beneath the fear-mongering, however, lie fundamental issues that speak to our identity and values as Canadians. While we treasure the diversity of our population as a strength, an August Globe/CTV poll indicates that 69 per cent of Canadians believe that immigrants should be encouraged to integrate and become part of the broader society rather than maintain their ethnic identity and culture. Interestingly, an August poll by the Pew Charitable Trust shows that 60 per cent of Canadians believe that Muslims want to remain distinct from the broader society. This is not a healthy situation, and requires tough, honest discourse -- not the hyperbole we have just witnessed.
The other divide has to do with the place of faith in our society. Neo-secularists have their sights set on religious schools, faith-based lending institutions and "conspicuous" religious symbols. The majority of Canadians, like their European counterparts, do not ascribe an important role to faith in God. Yet in last year's landmark case of Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem, the Supreme Court of Canada stated "the ability to freely express one's faith and one's connection with a religious community are as essential to human dignity as are food or shelter."
Will the banning of all faith-based tribunals violate this principle? Consider that Orthodox Jews must abide by the Beit Din (rabbinical courts). We must continue to find ways to accommodate the sacred and the secular that respect the basic human impulse of faith.
Perhaps the McGuinty decision reflects the prevailing attitude of the majority. However, the way in which it was pronounced was shameful. A principled, detailed statement would have been far more satisfactory than the terse comments issued late Sunday on the fourth anniversary of 9/11.
Yes, criticism would have still ensued. But at least the Premier would not have left the impression that Islamophobia can play a prominent role in setting public policy. (Source)
And Riad Saloojee, the executive director of CAIR-CAN, writes the following:
The debate on an Islamic arbitration initiative has reached fever pitch ("Canada's law must be secular," Sept. 3), with some people concerned that many Canadian Muslims want to use Islamic law to resolve personal and family disputes.
Part of this concern is natural, given the undeniable and inequitable application of the shariah in many countries. Part of the problem, as well, concerns a general ignorance of Islamic law -- its history, principles and nuances -- that permits intellectual chauvinism to pass for fair comment.
The shariah is not, as some think, "immutable." The spirit of Islamic law -- its universals such as justice, equity and mercy -- is unchangeable. The letter of the law, however, varies depending on whether its application would promote or violate the letter's spirit. There is a rich body of principles that govern the application of law to ensure that law is equitable, gradual, moderate and sensitive to individual and communal context. It is precisely for this reason that many Canadian Muslims support Islamic-based arbitration.
Given current faith-based arbitration initiatives by the Jewish and Christian communities, why would the Muslim community not be entitled to do the same? Permitting members of religious minority groups to have the option of resolving civil disputes according to their own religious doctrine within a framework that is respectful of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is consistent with the Charter's own guarantee of freedom of religion.
In Muslim communities, the line between mediation and arbitration is porous. The reality on the ground is that many Canadian Muslims resolve their disputes by referring them to local community leaders.
Opponents of Islamic-based arbitration, far from protecting vulnerable parties, are ensuring that such ongoing processes are not standardized or scrutinized and do not operate openly and with accountability. Pure pragmatism indicates that a significant group of people want to, and will, resolve their personal disputes quickly, quietly and in keeping with deeply held religious convictions. By denying this, opponents are keeping their eyes shut.
A number of critical concerns, however, are justified. The consultations of Marion Boyd, former attorney general of Ontario, about the use of private arbitration to resolve family issues under Ontario's Arbitration Act are timely.
Currently, the act does not protect those who invoke it. As it stands, Ontario's Arbitration Act has been used primarily by sophisticated commercial actors and their lawyers. Although family issues were initially contemplated as within the purview of the act, they are latecomers to the current process. And the act reflects this. There are no safeguards to ensure all parties are acting voluntarily, especially the vulnerable; there are no mechanisms to ensure that parties are fully apprised of their rights under the act; and the act does not specify any standards for arbitrators.
Remedying these deficiencies for all types of faith-based arbitration is possible through appropriate legislative amendments.
First, the voluntary nature of the process can be assured by insisting that both parties receive independent legal advice and be informed of their right to appeal the arbitration decision once rendered, and of their right to challenge the arbitrator's ruling under section 13 of the act.
Second, immigrant and minority women need to be educated through a proactive education campaign using culturally and linguistically accessible literature about their rights and options in the case of family-law disputes.
Third, significant efforts must also be made by the provincial government, in partnership with minority communities, to craft a regulatory scheme for the selection, education and training of qualified arbitrators.
Finally, to ensure that participants and their representatives are able to make informed decisions about the arbitrator in their dispute, the provincial government should create a registry that would make available a "sanitized" copy of the decisions of all arbitrators.
What about a number of differential rights under Islamic law? One example usually cited is that men typically inherit more because they are responsible under Islamic law for the financial support, maintenance and care of their families. Using analogies under Canadian law, these differential rules need not necessarily preclude the initiative. It is common, for example, for parties to give up some rights to attain other goals. For example, many beneficiaries do not contest wills for the greater priority of family unity, while parties might agree to a marriage contract regarding an unequal separation of marriage assets.
The barbarians are not at the gates and liberalism is not under siege. But it is time to have a very Canadian, civilized dialogue. (SOURCE)
While many that posted on this thread seem to be under the impression that it was solely about sharia law arbitration, I wonder if anyone noticed that the law also banned christian and jewish arbitration?
Why do you need Sharia law? Isn't the laws of the country good enough?
Keep in mind in Canada the Sharia law would only apply toMuslim and would not exempt Muslims from Canadian law. In non-Islamic countries that allow sharia law it is only for civil matters among Muslims.Muslims would want it to assure compliance with our beliefs about adoptions, inheritance, divorce etc.
Keep in mind in Canada the Sharia law would only apply toMuslim and would not exempt Muslims from Canadian law. In non-Islamic countries that allow sharia law it is only for civil matters among Muslims.Muslims would want it to assure compliance with our beliefs about adoptions, inheritance, divorce etc.
Well it must be more complex than that because Canadian Muslims have that right already. There is nothing to stop any Canadian Muslim following Sharia as long as it is not in defiance of Canadian law. If two Canadian Muslims have a dispute in any civil matter, they are actively encouraged to settle it among themselves without going to Court - even if that means asking a Qadi for his decision. They can do this, they always have been allowed to do this, there is no sign that anyone is going to stop any time soon. Canadian law will even, in some circumstances, enforce Sharia over Canadian law. Polygamy for instance as long as the marriages were contracted overseas. I admit I know nothing about this, but I can't see what the demand was if not for a Court that would do more than what you claim. So what was the demand for the Sharia court for?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
HeiGou this is what I read in the OP: I changed the type to red in the parts Ithink upset most people. In part this ends all religious arbitration in Canada, not Just for Muslims but for Jews and Christians also.
McGuinty said religious arbitrations “threaten our common ground,” and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation “as soon as possible” to outlaw them in Ontario.
“Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice,” he said. ``But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law.”
Last December, a report from former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd recommended the province allow and regulate Sharia arbitrations much the same way it does Christian and Jewish tribunals, setting off a firestorm of protests.
Homa Arjomand, the women’s rights activist who organized a series of protests across Canada and Europe last Thursday to convince McGuinty to abandon Sharia, was elated when she heard the news late Sunday.
“I think our voice got heard loud and clear, and I thank the government for coming out with no faith-based arbitrations,” said Arjomand. “Oh, I am so happy. That was the best news I have ever heard for the past five years.”
A representative from Ontario’s Jewish community expressed disappointment and shock over McGuinty’s decision.
“We’re stunned,” said Joel Richler, Ontario region chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
“At the very least, we would have thought the government would have consulted with us before taking away what we’ve had for so many years.”
Richler said the current system — in place since 1992 — has worked well and saw no reason for it to be changed for either his or other communities.
“If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I’m not aware of them,” he said.
Despite calling for an end to all religious arbitrations, Ontario’s New Democrats were not happy with the way McGuinty handled the Sharia debate.
Despite calling for an end to all religious arbitrations, Ontario’s New Democrats were not happy with the way McGuinty handled the Sharia debate.
So all that the Canadians are doing is preventing Muslims from agreeing to binding legal arbitration beforehand in matters of personal law? Muslims can still go to Islamic courts if they want, but Muslims cannot be forced to go to one any more. Either way Canadian courts will not enforce their decisions.
Is that about the size of it?
Seems reasonable to me.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
No Sharia law in Ontario, Canada
Why not? If anything, I think Muslim sisters need to be speaking out to shatter this lie against islam once and for all. We cannot continue in this silence while other hurl lies against our religion.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks