Jump to content
Islamic Forum

DawudUK

Member
  • Content count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DawudUK

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Unavailable
  • Religion
    Islam

Profile Information

  • Location
    Leicester
  1. STALLS AVAILABLE FOR HIRE Mulsim Active Women Around Hounslow (MAWAH) presents: "Celebrating Muslim Women in 21st Century" Sisters only event A conference with speakers, artists, workshops, Awards ceremony, Fashion Show and Stalls At: Hounslow Civic Centre - Lampton Road, hounslow, TW3 4DN On: sturday 30th January 2010 time: doors open at 10 am We have LOTS of space for stalls. for further info email: info[at]mawah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)
  2. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_theislamicstandard.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/12/16/10-year-old-boys-charged-with-raping-girl-8/"]LEICESTER IslamIC STANDARD[/url] From the Daily Telegraph Online Two 10-year-old boys have been charged with the rape of an eight-year-old girl The alleged sex attack relates to an incident at a park in Hayes, west London, during the half-term holidays in October. Police launched an investigation after the girl told her mother that she had been raped by the boys while they were left to play in the park unsupervised. The park where the alleged attack took place, which is overlooked by houses, is next to Uxbridge College’s Hayes Community Campus. The girl was interviewed by detectives from the Metropolitan Police’s Sapphire Unit who are specially trained in dealing with sex offences. A Met Police spokesman said the charges were made following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He added that the two boys, who cannot be named for legal reason, would appear before magistrates in Uxbridge on Thursday. The two boys accused of rape are just over the age of criminal responsibility, which is currently set at 10 years.
  3. A woman labelled a “predatory paedophile†by police has been given an indeterminate prison sentence after she admitted sexually abusing children. Carol Clarke, 46, assaulted children she followed into toilets in Grimsby and other places in Lincolnshire including her Church where she arranged events just so she could get close to Children. Grimsby Crown Court heard that Clarke, of Cromwell Road, Grimsby, had admitted abusing children, aged between four and seven, over 30 years. Judge David Tremberg said she would serve a minimum of four years in jail. (Editor’s Note – 4 and a half years for abusing children over 30 years of trust? surely that cant be right?) He told Clarke she would only be released from prison once parole board members were satisfied she no longer posed a risk to young children or the public. “This is a sad and deeply troubling case,†he said. Rare case Det Sgt Stewart Watson of Humberside Police said: “Predatory paedophiles such as Carol Clarke are rare. “Experts agree that women commit only a fraction of child sexual abuse but, as little is known about female offenders, it is difficult to be accurate. “There are still those members of the general public and even some experts who ignore women’s capacity for sexual abuse. Judge Tremberg told her: “From the time you were a very young woman you have had and maintained a very worrying sexual preference, in particular young girls .†Dozens of offences Clarke, who won a place at Cambridge University after being head girl at her school, was “clearly an intelligent woman†and could have endeavoured not to indulge her interest in children, he added. At an earlier hearing Clarke admitted abusing young boys and girls, with some of her offences dating back to before 1992. Her offences ranged from assaulting children in toilets in Grimsby town centre to targeting them at a caravan park in Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire. She is believed to have committed dozens of offences. Mr Stables told the court Clarke had taken a job in an ice-cream van in order to try to get close to children, and had used events organised by her church to come into contact with youngsters. She also worked as a missionary targetting those who wished to learn English. Editor’s Comments: Those that behave in this way, targetting and assulting children dont have the right to live and their lives should be taken in the Shariah. Forget Sarah’s law, what we need in this country is Allah’s law so those who violate the pre pubescent are killed for their crimes.
  4. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_theislamicstandard.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/12/15/kafir-tore-niqab-from-leicester-sisters-face/"]LEICESTER IslamIC STANDARD[/url] A man who tore a Leicester Muslim woman's veil from her face as he passed her in the street has been ordered by a court to pay her £1,000 in compensation. Stephen Ard, 29, of Gypsy Lane, Leicester, also received a jail term of 16 weeks, suspended for a year, and 150 hours of community service. Leicester Magistrates' Court heard victim Rehana Sidat felt "invaded and scared to walk down the street alone". Ard pleaded guilty to religiously aggravated assault. 'Psychological injury' Ms Sidat, who runs a drop-in centre for people with learning difficulties in Leicester, said: "He pulled my veil off and said 'get that off', he was really quite angry, it was shocking. "I felt frightened."[using large font size is not allowed] She added she has chosen to wear the niqab, which covers most of her face, for the past 15 years. The court heard Ard was "ashamed and embarrassed" about his actions. He was drunk at the time of the incident, which happened on Melbourne Road, Highfields, according to defence lawyers. Magistrates told Ard he had caused significant emotional and psychological injury, and he would have been sent straight to jail if he had not entered an early guilty plea. After the court case, Ms Sidat said: "I was born in this country, I love this country and I've lived in Leicester most of my life. "I just want to be treated like everyone else and have the same rights as everyone else. "We should be able to wear what we want and go about our lives." Editor's Comment: Can you imagine what sentance a man would get if he deliberately ripped off the blouse of a kafirah? Well as Muslims this is the same, the man has deliberately exposed this sister. In the past such acts have led to wars, we do not take the violations of the honour of a Muslim sister lightly. The Leicester Islamic Standard hopes and prays this misguided kafir accepts Islam, but if not we hope he suffers a painful dreadful punishment both in this life and the next, ameen. We also feel that the man not being given a prison sentence shows just how little the authorities in this country understand Islam and the Muslims and how lightly they take our concerns.
  5. Radical... favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: Yep, that is me. I am a radical, want to radically change society, wherever i am i want to call people to Islam, change their behaviours, change everything about society that is unislamic.
  6. Looking For New Band Members

    my troll alert is flashing...
  7. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_theislamicstandard.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/12/13/briton-mohammed-ezzouek-was-held-in-somalia-as-an-al-qaida-suspect-his-interrogators-were-british/"]LEICESTER IslamIC STANDARD[/url] Mohammed Ezzouek began to pray. He believed his death was imminent and that it would be bloody and brutal. The 23-year-old from west London could hear men talking in Somali. “They were saying: ‘You lot are al-Qaida’ and laughing,†he recalls. “They were saying, ‘You lot are going to get it’.†Ezzouek had had little idea what was happening to him as he and 15 or so other men had their hands tied behind their backs and were bundled onto a plane that left the Kenyan capital Nairobi in the dead of night. By the time the plane had landed just after sunrise, Ezzouek had managed to work his blindfold free an inch. He saw men with rows of “bullets strapped along their chestsâ€, carrying “big gunsâ€. “I remember seeing through the window some guys lying down on the runway, their eyes blindfolded and their hands tied. It was like a scene in a film where people have already been executed. I thought, ‘Oh my gosh, they’re going to kill us.’ Everyone thought they were going to die so I started praying. There was nothing you could do; there was no point in crying.†Ezzouek wondered whether this country in which they had landed – and in which he thought he was going to die – was Ethiopia or Somalia. He thought of his family back in Britain. He could have been forgiven for wishing he had agreed to the deal the British agents had offered him just days before in Nairobi. On several occasions, they promised him: “Confess to being a terrorist and you can return to the UK.†But Ezzouek and three other Britons on the plane, who had all fled the Somalian capital of Mogadishu for Kenya in late 2006 as the American-backed Ethiopian forces swept into the country, had repeatedly protested their innocence to their British interrogators. Although he had been held in a pitch-black cell measuring three metres by two and a half – in which conditions were so cramped that some of the 20 inhabitants had to stand for hours on end – every time he had been hauled out he would tell the British agents the same thing: he had gone to Somalia because he wanted to live under sharia law as enforced by the Islamic Courts, the Islamist alliance that back then governed much of the war-torn country, a faction of which has been linked to al-Qaida. Ezzouek told the agents that he had entered Somalia by flying from Heathrow to Dubai and then from Dubai to Mogadishu. He had told his family what he was going to do. It was hardly the furtive journey of an al-Qaida operative. Having fled Somalia, Ezzouek had made his way through the jungle and then to Kenya by boat. “I had no idea a war was going to happen,†he said. “If I was someone who was looking for trouble, I would not have been someone who turned up in Mogadishu several months beforehand, but a couple of weeks before the fighting broke out. The Ethiopians had bombed the airport so the only way to leave was across the border to Kenya. It was fight or run.†It was a dangerous journey, he said. “Helicopters kept flying overhead, dropping bombs and firing rockets across the whole region.†Finally, after almost two weeks of travelling and being holed up in a Kenyan Masjid, the exiled group, which included women and children, were captured by the Kenyan army. Ezzouek and his three fellow Britons were transferred to a cell in a police station in the back streets of Nairobi where they were held for almost three weeks. “It was like a horror movie, no lights, completely black, mosquitoes everywhere. You can’t imagine it,†Ezzouek said. During this time, early 2007, the four were regularly taken from their cell and smuggled through the back entrance of an upmarket hotel in downturn Nairobi. In a luxurious suite they were questioned by two men who identified themselves as agents with the British security service. Ezzouek asked them if he could phone home. “I said to them what about my family? No one knows whether I’m dead or alive. Can I make a call to them?†They said: ‘No you can’t.’ It was then that I realised what these people were about.†He was shown photographs of alleged terrorists and asked if he knew them. “They asked me about the 1998 Kenya-Tanzania bombings. I said I remembered exactly where I was during the bombings – I was in secondary school. They were so desperate to pin anything on anyone.†The Kenyan security services also subjected him to interrogations that started at sunrise and were repeated every couple of hours. One Kenyan agent suggested: “Maybe we’re being too nice to you. Maybe, Mohammed, if we bring other people to you, you will co-operate, people who will make you talk.†As the questioning progressed and Ezzouek became increasingly anxious, unable to eat and fearing for his sanity, a senior British intelligence agent who identified herself as “Frances†arrived from London. The questioning became more threatening. Fran ces told Ezzouek nobody knew where he was and that “anything could have happened to himâ€. “She said how would you like it if the Kenyans were to take you to the Somalia/Ethiopia border, within sight of an Ethiopian checkpoint and then leave you to sort yourself out?†It was a terrifying threat, given that Ezzouek had fled the Ethiopians in the first place. Frances became increasingly angry that Ezzouek was sticking to his story. “She said: ‘Look, Mohammed, I did not come all the way from London to Nairobi to hear you say you went to Somalia for an Islamic education. There are serious people back home who are going to be unhappy with this explanation.’ I said: ‘What do you want me to tell you?’ She said: ‘I want you to tell me you went to Somalia to fight with those terrorists.’†The implicit threat that Britain would wash its hands of one of its citizens was never far away during the interrogations. Ezzouek, who was born in Britain to Moroccan parents, was asked if he was happy spending the rest of his life in his Kenyan police cell. One of the British agents told him: “For your people, there’s no such things as solicitors, lawyers; you’re another breed.†After three weeks of questioning, the British agents seemed to have run out of lines of questioning. It was then that Ezzouek and his three fellow Britons – Reza Afsharzadagen, Hamza Chentouf and Shajahan Janjua – were flown out of Kenya to Somalia. Ezzouek said they had been accompanied by a group of “brothersâ€, fellow exiles from Mogadishu who had come from Jordan and Saudia Arabia and other parts of the Middle East. It was these men whom Ezzouek had seen from beneath his blindfold, tied up on the runway in Somalia the morning he thought he was about to be executed. Some of the “brothers†were not as lucky as the Britons. Ezzouek later discovered from lawyers that they had been rendered to Ethiopia, where they had been beaten and tortured. Ezzouek and his three compatriots were placed in a dank, dark cellar in the city of Baidoa, the then home to Somalia’s transitional government, which was fiercely opposed to the Islamic Courts. Bullet holes in the bolted wooden door provided the only light. The men were forced to urinate in a bottle in one corner of their makeshift prison while Somalian military guards held muttered conversations above them. On one occasion, Ezzouek heard a ####ney accent. He is convinced British security agents were in the area at the time he was held. The four might have stayed in Somalia indefinitely. No one, apart from British intelligence, knew they were there and the agents had apparently washed their hands of them. But back in Britain, questions were being asked at the Foreign Office. Shortly before the men had been flown out of Kenya, Janjua had bribed a guard and contacted his family by mobile phone, telling them where he and the others were being held. The four families were put in touch with the charity Reprieve, which campaigns to free those held in Guantánamo Bay. Reprieve contacted the UK government. That night police raided the family homes of the four, battering down the doors and removing computers and papers. Looking back, Ezzouek says he now realises the British agents stopped quizzing the four of them only when they realised Janjua had managed to contact his family in Britain. From that moment, the four were no longer invisible. “That’s when they stopped interrogating us,†he said. “I didn’t know that was why at the time. If Sha [Janjua] hadn’t made the phone call, we would have ended up in Ethiopia or somewhere else. The agents were so angry with him when they found out he had made the call. They said ‘You’ve ruined everything, you don’t know what you’ve done.’†After three days in Baidoa, a British Foreign Office official arrived and took the four back to Britain where they were released without charge. Ezzouek has never spoken about his ordeal before and is still wary about speaking out two years afterwards. Now 25, his conversation peppered with street slang and wearing trainers and a parka coat, he seems little different from other twentysomethings. Only his long beard and his frequent thanks to Allah hint at his profound religious beliefs and his desire to live in a sharia state. But his story threatens to haunt the government. It shines fresh light on the lengths the security services were allegedly prepared to go to by allowing British nationals to be held in dehumanising conditions, without legal representation, out of sight of the law and where the threat of torture was ever-present. Such treatment contradicts the government’s insistence that it “works hard with international partners to stop the practice of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatmentâ€. However, the government has refused to provide clarification on what guidance and policies it has given to British agents to prevent their collusion in the torture and mistreatment of detainees abroad. What is known is that the guidelines were altered between 2002 and now. Written instructions given to MI5 and MI6 officers in 2002 stipulated they were under no obligation to intervene to prevent detainees from being mistreated. “Given that they are not within our control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this,†the 2002 policy stated. It was amended in 2004, according to the government, which will not explain why or how. Now, in a landmark move, Reprieve is to launch legal proceedings, seeking a judicial review into the policies governing the actions of British intelligence agents when interviewing detainees abroad. The litigation is designed to elicit what the 2004 policy is and whether it is still in use. Reprieve’s lawyers have requested the government provide them with a copy. In a letter to Treasury Solicitors, which provides legal services to government, which has been obtained by the Observer, Reprieve claims: “All of the available evidence which we have outlined… suggests that the 2004 policy is unlawful because it fails to instruct service personnel that they must not obtain evidence in circumstances giving rise to complicity in torture.†As part of the legal challenge, Reprieve and its lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, have submitted numerous examples of what they allege are the security services’ complicity in the ill treatment, rendition and torture of British and foreign nationals up to 2008, suggesting the policy changes introduced by the government had little effect. The case of Ezzouek, and the three other Britons known collectively as the “Nairobi Fourâ€, will form part of the legal challenge, as will well-known cases such as that of Binyam Mohamed, who was allegedly tortured in Morocco, during which he answered questions sent to his interrogators by British intelligence. Other, lesser-known examples cited in the legal challenge, include that of Salim Awadh, a Kenyan detained in Ethiopia who, according to Reprieve, was beaten for several months, after which he was questioned by British agents, and Khaled al Maqtari, who was violently beaten in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, where he was interrogated by British Special Forces. The examples are troubling, according to Reprieve’s director, Clive Stafford Smith, because they suggest British intelligence agents were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to keep Britons out of the reach of British protection, even if it meant, as in Ezzouek’s case, they were rendered to hostile regimes. Stafford Smith says such a tactic must have been deliberate. “We know from the 2002 policy that high-up people in government approved a policy of turning a blind eye to torture,†he said. “We know that a 2004 policy amended the 2002 policy. We know the government desperately wanted to cover that up. But when we look back on the last seven or eight years, the thing we’re going to find more pernicious than the torture is the effort to cover up the torture. The only question is how long before all this comes out?†Allegations of British complicity in torture Allegations of British complicity in torture and the mistreatment of British nationals held abroad on suspicion of being involved in terrorism date back years and are fiercely rejected by the government. In 2006, the Pakistan-based lawyer who was acting for a British man, Zeeshan Siddique, told the Observer her client was routinely questioned by MI6 officers after being abused by the country’s notorious intelligence agency, the ISI. The case of Siddique, who was returned to the UK with damage to his eye and later absconded after being placed on a control order, was one of the first to trigger concern among human rights groups. But it has emerged that those in British intelligence have also raised concerns. Parliament’s 2005 Intelligence and Security Committee report referred to concerns raised by a British agent about the treatment of a suspect interviewed abroad. According to the ISC report, the agent wrote to his superiors asking for clarification of his obligations to the suspect, suggesting that at the very least the guidelines were far from clear. Several other cases of British agents interviewing suspects abroad who were allegedly at risk of torture have subsequently come to light. In July, the Joint Committee on Human Rights called for the government to publish all the legal opinions provided to ministers concerning the relevant legal standards on torture and complicity in torture. It followed an announcement in March by the prime minister, Gordon Brown, of a review of the current policy on interrogation. Brown promised to publish the current policy “once it has been reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committeeâ€, but since then the government has declined to provide more information. Tomorrow, the government will be back in the high court as it attempts to prevent the disclosure of any documents that may reveal the extent of UK government complicity in the mistreatment and torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed, who was interrogated in Pakistan and Morocco. Given the government’s extensive use of the courts to block legal attempts to shine light on the actions of British agents abroad, and its apparent reluctance to publish its interrogation guidelines, campaigners may have to wait until after the next election for a breakthrough.
  8. Introducing Myself

    assalaamu alaykum ali, welcome to the forum and may your stay be a beneficient one for us and you.
  9. and i in turn feel the west brain washes the youth here, turning them into mind numbed consumer drones and perverting them away from their true purpose in life (obviously i understand if we disagree on that purpose but the brainwashing is clear here). any muslim shariah based state would heavily control use of the internet because of all the filth that is on it. when my own children get older i will also heavily control their internet use, but the internet is not itself unislamic - just the contents.
  10. hi m4a1, first of all Islam teaches self defence, if a nation attacks muslims then it is necessary, indeed obligatory for the muslims of that place to defend themselves and the rest of the muslims to support them, even if only in suplicating to God. i suplicate to God frequently, often several times a day and yes i pray for success and victory for the various mujahideen around the world, but this is all Islam allows me to do as i live in the UK and cannot attack or physically support the attack on non-muslim agressors as i am under a covenant of security, whilstever i live in a non-muslim land. I also pray for the guidance of the mujahideen and all the muslims, and ask Allah to forgive them where they might make mistakes and keep them to the correct way of doing jihad but these are people on the front line, they know their situation better than me and i dont believe everything that is said about them by the secular media. now this thread may get shut down, as such issues are not allowed to be discussed but i dont believe this thread should be as we are talking in generalities, not specific wars around the world.
  11. Western = Christian?

    for my 2 pennies worth... I believe many muslims are still heavily influenced in dawah (islamic propogation) by the likes of Ahmed Deedat, and so are using arguments that were good for the west 20 years ago. today we require different arguments to use against the majority of the people, who as others have already pointed out are secularists, not christians.
  12. Western = Christian?

    Zionist: your an anti-semite! Daw'ud: dont be silly, many of my friends are arabs!
  13. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_theislamicstandard.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/12/12/authorities-deny-cover-up-in-british-complicity-in-torture/"]Leicester Islamic Standard[using large font size is not allowed][/url] Hearings in private at terrorism trial of Rangzieb Ahmed were not intended to conceal evidence of official wrongdoing, says CPS The Crown Prosecution Service has defended its role in a series of secret court hearings during which evidence of British involvement in the torture of a terrorism suspect in Pakistan was heard behind closed doors, with the public and media excluded. In an operation later denounced in the Commons as an "obvious case of the outsourcing of torture", MI5 and MI6 officers and detectives from Greater Manchester police all played a part in the events that led to Rangzieb Ahmed being unlawfully detained in Pakistan, where three of his fingernails were ripped out. But their involvement was largely concealed from the public as a result of the CPS's successful application for the use of in camera procedure, covering much of the legal argument that preceded Ahmed's trial on terrorism charges at Manchester crown court. The CPS has denied that its use of such procedure was intended to conceal evidence of official wrongdoing, saying it was "legally permissible" and was always "proper and correct". In emails to the Guardian, the CPS also denied that its conduct during the case would have any bearing upon its work in the Binyam Mohamed case, in which it is being consulted by Scotland Yard detectives investigating MI5's role in his alleged torture in Pakistan and Morocco. However, the CPS failed to explain why it had applied for in camera hearings in the Ahmed case, other than to say that they had been authorised and controlled by an experienced high court judge. It also declined to comment on subsequent reports by a United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and parliament's human rights committee, which both concluded that conduct of the sort that was disclosed during the Ahmed case amounted to official complicity in torture. Last month Human Rights Watch reported that there was clear UK complicity in the torture of Ahmed and several other British citizens detained in Pakistan. In a report entitled Cruel Britannia: British Complicity in the Torture and Ill-treatment of Terror Suspects in Pakistan, the New York-based group condemned the British government for actions that it said were cruel, counterproductive and in clear breach of international law, and concluded that its conduct in the Ahmed case, and others, had put it in a "legally, morally and politically invidious position". Ahmed, 34, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, was jailed for life at the end of his trial after being convicted of being a member of al-Qaida and directing a terrorist organisation. He also admitted membership of a banned Kashmiri militant organisation. Much of the evidence on which he was prosecuted was gathered while police and MI5 kept him under surveillance in Manchester and Dubai during 2005. In January 2006, when Ahmed made plans to fly to Pakistan, police decided not to arrest him. Nor did they ask the CPS whether they had gathered sufficient evidence to charge him. Instead, as the Commons later heard, MI6 contacted the Pakistani intelligence agency the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), whose use of torture has been widely documented. MI6 warned the ISI that Ahmed was a dangerous terrorist and suggested it might wish to detain him. MI5 officers and Manchester detectives drew up a list of questions for the ISI to put to Ahmed. By the time he was deported to the UK in September 2007 three fingernails were missing from his left hand. Ahmed said he was also severely beaten, whipped, threatened and deprived of sleep for long periods. The fact that MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up questions that were handed to the ISI emerged in open court. When the Guardian reported this, a CPS lawyer threatened to have the journalist responsible arrested. Asked why one of its lawyers would threaten the arrest of a journalist for reporting what was said in open court, the CPS said the lawyer could not recall. Reporting on the other details of the operation, which were heard in secret, would have been an offence under the Contempt of Court Act, however, until David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, made use of parliamentary privilege to disclose them in the Commons. The trial judge ruled that the UK authorities had not outsourced Ahmed's torture, although the version of his ruling that is open to the public does not dismiss a degree of complicity in torture. His full ruling is being kept secret at the request of the CPS, the UK intelligence services and Manchester police. Davis told MPs: "The authorities know full well that this story is an evidential showcase for the policy of complicity in torture." Referring to the Mohamed case he added: "We are awaiting a police investigation that will presumably end in the prosecution of the frontline officers involved. At the same time, the government are fighting tooth and nail to use state secrecy to cover up crimes and political embarrassments to protect those who are probably the real villains in the piece ‑ those who approved these policies in the first place."
  14. The following is from Michael Hart's book and lists Prophet Muhammad as the most influential man in History. A Citadel Press Book, published by Carol Publishing Group Ranking of the twenty from the list of 100: 1. Prophet Muhammad 2. Isaac Newton 3. Jesus Christ 4. Buddha 5. Confucius 6. St. Paul 7. Ts'ai Lun 8. Johann Gutenberg 9. Christopher Columbus 10. Albert Einstein 11. Karl Marx 12. Louis Pasteur 13. Galileo Galilei 14. Aristotle 15. Lenin 16. Moses 17. Charles Darwin 18. Shih Huang Ti 19. Augustus Caesar 20. Mao Tse-tung Find out why this non muslim chose Muhammad (saws) as the most influential leader in history (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetamaana(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ismailim.html"]HERE[/url]
  15. muhammad (saws), because he increased taqwa (fear and consciousness of God) and good deeds. the fruits of the noble society he helped make was not measured in gold or other material pocessions (although a lot that came the muslims way also) but in the total transformation of a society from one even worse than that today to the most noble and just society ever since.
×