MuslimSpeak

March 9, 2009

Puma Paranoia

Filed under: Muslim Urban Legends — abuaisha @ 9:21 am
Tags: , , , ,

A pair of shoes made by Puma have been alleged to contain the name of Allāh written on them in Arabic causing people to get angry and to demand that the shoes be taken down from store shelves and withdrawn from the market.

Sound familiar? It probably does.. Not so long ago some Muslims in the USA were alleging the same about a pair of Nike shoes. They caused quite a stir in the media and ended up with Nike pulling the shoes and promising Muslims to never make the mistake again.

Puma it seems didn’t take the same lesson that Nike did. They have gone and made some shoes bearing what resembles the name of Allāh written in Arabic on them, or at least that’s what some Muslims are again claiming..
Let’s be honest with ourselves, some Muslims really do have quite the imaginations. Let’s take a look at the ‘offending’ pair of shoes –

Now if you can’t read Arabic, you can take my word for it that the text in red does slightly resemble the Arabic word Allāh written in a stylised script, but what it really looks like to me is the English word ‘cool‘.
Is it really that hard to see or am I just an eagle-eyed fanatic?
Or now that I think about it, it almost resembles the Estrangelo Aramaic word ‘Lashu‘, and it might pass for the Hebrew ‘Vassi’ and if you put it in a mirror it looks like the Amharic ‘Namu‘.
How can I be so certain that what is written is none of the above? It is because every other word written on the shoe is not in Aramaic,  Hebrew or Amharic, but rather in English. Common sense dictates that therefore of all the languages to choose from, English would be the right one.
As can be seen in the image on the word that clearly says ‘you’ just below the blue circle, the letter o has an open top just like in the word cool. The font used on the shoe makes it a little bit less clear than ususal but the word is still as clear as daylight. One needn’t be a language scholar to make out the word cool on the shoe.

The anger of some people about finding a word which resembles the name of Allāh on a shoe is only surpassed by the fascination with finding similar writings on a plethora of obscure objects. Take a look for example at ‘Allāh’ written on –
a Rock, a Leaf, a Tomatoan Eggplanta BeanAurora Borealis

Sometimes its worth admitting the obvious, as fun as it might be to have your 2 minutes of fame as being the one who exposed the ‘secret threat’ of shoe manufacturers’ evil plot to discredit Islamic symbols. Let the shoes be, let’s show people that Muslims are logical, not just overly-emotional.

*Note – There is a large amount of comments coming through for this article, please note that I will not approve any comments not in English or containing abusive or foul language

Advertisements

February 8, 2009

The False Dajjāl

Filed under: Muslim Urban Legends — abuaisha @ 6:58 am
So another e-mail finds its way into my inbox. What could it be this time? Orders to boycott McDonald’s for the 1,000th time? Claims that Barack Obama is a secret alien bent on destryoing the Earth? Or perhaps something more mundane like an assurance that if I pass on this e-mail to another 100 people I will meet the love of my life in 1 week’s time.
 
None of the above. Rather I find a truly absurd e-mail titled ‘Is Dajjal has Born in Israel???(sic)
 
The e-mail states –
Alert Ummah, there is a 90% chance that we will see the Jewish Dajjal in our lifetime !!
One of the prominent events preceding the Day of Judgement is the appearance of Dajjal. We have been apprised of many aspects of Dajjal both in the Qur’an and the Ahadis. In fact, the Muslims have been more informed about the Dajjal by the Holy Prophet than previous nations by their respective prophets.   Dajjal will appear somewhere between Iraq and Syria , after the Battle of Istanbul takes place. The name in the Ahadis is Constantinople, which is the former name of Istanbul . Dajjal will be a Jew. His distinguishing feature is that he will be one-eyed and the word “Kafir” or “unbeliever” will be written on his forehead.  That he is a Jew is confirmed from another hadis, which says that his followers will be mainly of Jewish religion. …
Shock horror! A 90% chance of seeing the Dajjāl in our lifetime?! I wonder how they figured those odds out.. Only a 10% chance remains that we will not see this Jewish Dajjāl in our lives!
 
Ok, time to be serious.
 
This latest e-mail suggests that just recently, the Dajjāl was born in Israel. The Dajjāl of course is what we would refer to in English as the Antichrist. We have been informed by our Prophet Muhammad that this man would come towards the end of times and cause havoc on Earth and would be a time full of trials and great calamaties.
So is it true? Has the Dajjāl been born recently?
Of course not.. What rubbish. Any learned Muslim will tell you straight out after hearing this that the Dajjāl has already been born and is waiting to be unleashed, as is attested to in many statements of the Prophet and his companions.
So what evidence does this e-mail offer us? Primarily it shows a picture of the supposed Dajjal baby –
 
 
Any observant person will be able to see that this is no ordinary baby, primarily due to the fact that it seems to have one eye planted in the centre of its forehead. This is a birth defect known as cyclopiasynophthalmia or  synophthalmia, whereby the child is born with 1 undivided eye. It is very rare  but is documented and does occur in humans.
 
The assertation is that this 1 eyed baby must be the Dajjāl, based solely upon this fact. I fear for those who claim such things, for if it were true then we sure would have a lot of Dajjāls running around as 6 in 10,000 births are subject to this birth defect! Surely just having one eye is no qualifier to being the Dajjal not just due to its common occurance, but also due to the very clear fact that no Islamic text even claims that the Dajjāl will have 1 eye..!
This stems from a misunderstanding of the description given to us of the Dajjāl –
Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘… as for the false messiah, he will be one-eyed, with a wide forehead and broad upper chest, and he will be hunchbacked…’” (Narrated by Ahmad, no. 7564). 
By itself, this Hadeeth seems to suggest the ‘cyclops’ notion, however many others Hadeeths such as the one below demonstrate the exact understanding of ‘one-eyed’ showing that it refers to blindness in one eye and not cyclopia.
 From ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whilst I was sleeping, I saw myself performing Tawaaf around the Ka’bah, when I saw a dark man with straight hair, standing between two other men, with water dripping from his head. I asked, “Who is this?” They said, “The son of Maryam.” Then I turned and saw a ruddy-complexioned man, well built, with curly hair, blind in his right eye, with his eye looking like a floating grape. I asked, “Who is this?” They said, “This is the Dajjaal.” The person who looks most like him is Ibnu Qatan.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 6508; Ibn Qatan was a man from Banu Mustalaq from Khuzaa’ah).
So the Dajjāl will be blind in one eye, but not single eyed, and surely not a cyclops-like creature!
Further to this, the e-mail incorrectly asserts that the Dajjāl will be Jewish, claiming that the Sunnah has established this. Whilst there are suggestions that it may be so from those who have read into the texts, there is no clear hadeeth ever stating this so we cannot accept this claim to be true without an evidence. If there were such a Hadeeth we would need to read it ourselves, not just be told that one exists.
 
So who then is this baby in the photo?
 
It was a young girl born not in Israel, but rather in Chennai, India. She lived shortly then death came to her and she died as a young girl, as can be seen in this link. Her story was reported widely and it should be easy to uncover that this baby is in fact her due to its prominence in the global media (another link).
So we can rest assured, the Dajjāl is not a baby sitting in a hospital, nor is this little baby girl a malevolent tyrant waiting to strike her terror upon the world. This was a little girl born in Chennai who has since died. End of story.. Until the next unverified, absurd e-mail is concocted by somebody with nothing better to do than waste our times spreading lies and deceit over the internet.
 

January 15, 2009

The meaning and evolution of the word ‘Mosque’

Filed under: Islamic Terms,Muslim Urban Legends — abuaisha @ 1:03 pm

There has been in recent times much confusion regarding the origin of the English word mosque.
The word mosque is a translation of the Arabic word masjid (مَسجِد). The word masjid in Arabic comes from the verb sajada (سَجَدَ) which means ‘to prostrate’, and a masjid is the place in which people prostrate. It can loosely be translated more generally as ‘a place of worship’.

The conspiracy surrounding the English translation begins by asserting that the word ‘mosque’ carries with it an islamophobic history with its origins in the Spanish reconquista which saw the end of Islamic Spain.
I am not sure where it first came from, however a book entitled ‘The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam’ (the name says it all doesn’t it?) was the first time I encountered this. The book  claims on page 14:

The English term mosque is derived from the Spanish word for mosquito and came into use during the Christian invasion of Muslim Spain in the fifteenth century. The forces of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella boasted they would swat out Muslim prayer houses like mosquitoes. Understandably, many Muslims prefer not to use this unfortunate name amongst themselves.

It may have been through this book which the rumour began, and it may be likely as the subsequent rumours all bear similar disinformation almost word for word.

To begin with, to say that the word ‘mosque’ comes from the Spanish word for mosquito is a bit of a no-brainer, considering that mosquito itself is a Spanish word. It is the diminuitive form of the word mosca which means ‘fly’ (like the insect, not the verb) and hence means ‘little fly’. From mosquito, the rumour then suggests that the word ‘mezquita’ evolved. Mezquita of course is the Spanish word for mosque. What could not possibly be explained from a linguistic perspective is how mosquito would become mezquita.
Arabic was spoken in the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) for approximately 800 years, and there is a rich amount of Arabic words that live on until today in the language. These Spanish words of Arabic origin were introduced during the reign of the Muslims which came to an end in 1942, the time in which it has been purported that the word mezquita was developed.

The problem however is that the word mezquita was being used long before the reconquista which ended in 1492. Mezquita was the word used for mosques in Spanish for the many hundreds of years that Muslims lived in Spain.
The Arabic word masjid may have entered into Europe by any number of means. It is likely though that the form of the word which later became mosque has its origins in either Spain or Italy (Southern Italy was also inabited and ruled over by Muslims for almost 200 years). The changing of the d to a t is indeed a characteristic of Italian adaptations of Arabic, like how Muhammad when translated into Italian becomes Maometto. As for the j in masjid, the Spanish language has no way to say the sound ‘j’, most Arabic words with a jeem (ج) became either:

ch – eg: enchufe < جوف/jawf
or
j
– (pronounced as – kh/خ)  eg: jarra <  جرة/jarrah

This is important to pay attention to, because many others have claimed that the word ‘mezquita’ must have come from an Egyptian pronunciation of the word (masgid) which is incorrect, as the vast majority of Muslims who were in Europe were not from Egypt and did not speak any Egyptian based dialect, rather they were from the Maghreb and the patterns of Spanish-Arabic words all show that there was never any Egyptian Arabic influence in Spain or Italy. There are no known examples in Andalusi or Sicilian Arabic of the letter Jeem being pronounced as a ‘g’.
This shift would have occured otherwise, we can see by examples of other words.
The word Spanish word jabalí (pronounced ‘khabalee’ (IPA /xabaliː/)) comes from the Arabic word jabalī (جَبَلِي). The Jīm in Arabic (ج) becomes a J in Spanish, pronounced as ‘kh’ or like the khā’ (خ) in Arabic. This shows how to begin with the j in masjid could have been turned into ‘kh’ sound. From there the sound would easily have became a hard k sound (represented by q and c in Spanish), especially as Spanish does not easily accomodate a kh sound after an s. Many Arabic words which had a ‘kh’ became like ‘k’, an example of this is the word nukhā` (نخاع) which becomes nuca in Spanish.
After all of these letter changes, we are easily left with our new word ‘mesquit’ (note that the Arabic ‘a’ in this case corresponds closer to the Spanish ‘e’ than ‘a’ and hence the e would be understandably used here). Then as with all Spanish words it must be turned into a noun, which means either an o or an a will be added to the end of the word. In this case it was an a, and so we now have the word – mesquita. Why did the s later become a z then? In southern Spain until even today, there is no differing between an s and a z. All letter z’s are pronounced just like an s is. It just may be that as the Spanish language began to re-adopt the latin script that the northern areas of Spain adjusted the s sound to that of a th sound, just like with how sifr in Arabic later became pronounced as ‘sero’ in Andalusia but ‘thero’ in the more northern areas. Many other Arabic words also saw a shift whereby the S sound evolved later into a Th sound, so whilst it may seem rather strange as to why certain words retained the S sound and others evolved into a Th sound, the sheer quantity of words seen to have done this show it was rather common.

From our final term Mezquita there would have arisen many of the variations around Europe that exist until today. Mosqueé for example in French, Moschea in Italian etc. It was from the French term mosqueé that the English language adapted the word that we use today – Mosque.

So we may rest assured, a mosquito remains a mosquito and a mosque remains a mosque. Neither Ferdinand or Isabella were ever recorded to have ever stated that they would squash the mosques like mosquitoes, and even if they did, they would have used the word mezquita anyway which was the word already established in Spain for a masjid.
It is unfortunate that I have on many occasions read ‘warning’ chain e-mails informing Muslims to desist in using the English word ‘mosque’ due to its evil origins.. This should serve as a reminder to at least attempt to properly verify such things, and a lesson to not believe everything we read (especially from books which self-describe themselves as being for idiots). Feel free to use the words mosque, mosqueé, mezquita, and ponder over the history of this word and how it carries with it part of our Islamic legacy and is a testament to the great Muslim nation of al-Andalus which for 800 years existed in Western Europe.

October 17, 2008

Manila – Amānillāh (امان الله)

Filed under: Islamic Terms,Muslim Urban Legends — abuaisha @ 2:46 pm

Earlier this year I visited the Philippines. The main port of entry to this country, capital city and most well known destination is as most would know – Manila.
Manila wasn’t a city which I greatly enjoyed, mainly because its suited for Western tourists and hence isn’t the most welcoming place for a Muslim to be in. I did however manage to find a few mosques in the centre of the city as well as a Muslim enclave in Taguig city which was relaxing to be in.

Manila is not a Muslim majority city, its barely populated by Muslims in fact. Almost all of the locals are Christians and other than a few bombings blamed on Muslim rebels in the city, Islam and Muslims are not very ingrained into the city’s identity nowadays.

It was in Zamboanga City however that I was reminded of something that I heard from a few years back – That Manila was once the capital of a vast Muslim Empire in the Northern Philippines, and that even its name has Islamic origins, it is a contraction of ‘Amanillah’ (امان الله) meaning ‘Security of God’.

When I returned to Australia, many Muslims repeated this to me upon hearing that I had been to Manila. Some even talked about the pity that Manila was once a thriving Muslim city and how the Philippines used to be a completely Muslim nation. The key to it all was that name ‘Manila’. It was proof of this secretive Muslim past that seemed to have been covered up by the Spanish conquerors who christianised the Philippines.

The mosque of Karim al-Makhdum today

Is it all true though? Did the Philippines once belong to a Muslim empire which stretched throughout the entire archipelago?
Well, yes and no.. Some parts of the Philippines were under Muslim rule, mostly the southern parts where Islam first entered the country when Karim al-Makhdum established Islam in Tawi-Tawi and in the general Sulu region (Southern Philippines), and there were also sultanates established in the Visayas (Central Philippines) and then there was also the sultanates of Rajah Sulayman and Rajah Matanda which were based in Luzon (Northern Philippines) and actually did cover what is today the city of Manila.
Islam was definitely well established, and Muslims held rule in much of the country until the Spanish conquerors came along. However much of the Philippines was still not under Muslim rule, especially in Luzon and those areas still until today have never really been exposed to Islam or Muslims. Modern day Philippines is of course the only Christian majority country in all of Asia and much of the population knows very little of their Islamic past.
I guess it is the Filipino populace’s ignorance of their history that drives Muslims to find relics of that past to remind people of this Islamic history, and what greater example than of their capital city having an Arabic name? Especially now as the Filipino army is waging a war against Muslims in the south and much of the population are not entirely sure why this is happening. Are the Muslims foreign to the Philippines? Are they a threat to the Filipinos? Or are they in fact the original inhabitants of the islands who were deposed and oppressed by the invading Spanish and Americans?

There is much available to see the history of the country and its Islamic past. The hero of the nation Lapu-Lapu who fought against Magellan and has a city named in his honour was a Muslim chief. The Tagalog language (which is the most widely spoken language in the Philippines) is littered with Arabic words such as Salámat (which means thank you). Muslim cultural practices and are widespread and have been integrated into Filipino society, and one will find many place-names which are drawn from Arabic (such as Curuan, from Qur’an). Add to that the fact that Muslims make up approximately 8% of the population and that the whole nation has a public holiday on Eid ul-Adhā and you will easily see that even on face value, the Muslim history of the Philippines is easily seen.

Mangrove trees

So what about Manila?

Well.. It actually comes from the word ‘Maynilad’ which is the original Tagalog name which means ‘place of mangroves’, as they grow abundantly in the Manila Bay.

I’m not sure how this legend spread so vastly without people actually reading up and checking it, but I guess that’s what also happened with the Filipinos who forgot their Islamic past and have not read up on it either.
It is knowledge and education which will let us reclaim our past and establish our future. So let’s remember the first word to have been revealed of the Qur’an and act upon it – اقراء Read!

July 16, 2008

Muslim Urban Legends – The Saudi Bible Ban

Filed under: Muslim Urban Legends — abuaisha @ 5:56 am

There seems to be an idea being spread, especially amongst the misguided Islam-bashers on the internet that along with the many things forbidden in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is supposedly forbidden also to bring a copy of the Bible into the country. No real reasoning is needed of course as its well-known that Saudi Arabia is a puritanical, fundamentalist, extremist society. Isn’t that justification enough?

Well.. I guess for those who don’t mind the truth getting in the way of a story and who wants to have a few easy cracks at the Saudis that its very easy to take this ‘report’ as fact. However for anybody like myself who has been to Saudi Arabia and plans to go there again, it would be a decent thing to do to check up on this. For even us Muslims are likely to be carrying a Bible for whatever reason, I myself on my last trip overseas carried with me not 1, but 2 Bibles, along with about 10 or so other Christian books. So, lets try to ascertain the facts behind this tale:

The Saudi Bible Ban

Before searching through any government or travel websites, I remembered a video I had watched some time ago, it was of Ahmad Deedat giving a public talk in the city of Ta’if, Saudi Arabia. As part of his talk he was holding a copy of the Bible, as can be seen in the following video from YouTube:

So before any real research has been done, we can see that at least at some time in the past that Bibles have been allowed into Saudi Arabia, or at least Ahmad Deedat was allowed to do so.

Of course Ahmad Deedat would surely not have brought the Bible because he was a Christian, so let us then investigate further if just anybody is allowed to bring Bibles into the country.

Upon browsing Smartraveller, which is a website run by the Australian government, I easily found the following on its section regarding Saudi Arabia:

Preaching religions other than Islam may result in imprisonment and corporal punishment. The importation and use of alcohol, pork products, pornography (including images of scantily clad people, particularly women), religious books and materials (other than those reflecting orthodox Islam) is forbidden. Generally, individuals are able to bring one bible for private use.

What of course is not allowed is open proselytising to Muslims, as is widely known.

It seems that the only reports I could find of Bibles being confiscated were not by Saudis, but rather by non-Saudi non-Muslims!

The following report from the UK Telegraph details:

Stewardess ‘banned from taking bible on plane’

An air stewardess is claiming religious discrimination against an airline which she says banned her from taking the Bible to Saudi Arabia.

The stewardess has been told by BMI that it is against the law of the insular Middle Eastern country to bring in religious books other than the Koran.

The woman, who is understood to be a committed Christian, takes her bible everywhere she goes and is now set to take the airline to an industrial tribunal claiming discrimination on religious grounds.

BMI, formerly British Midland Airways, said today it was merely following the Foreign Office advice that no non-Islamic materials or artefacts are allowed into the country.

“A number of items are not allowed to be brought into the kingdom due to religious reasons and local regulations,” declares the Web site of Saudi Arabian Airlines, the country’s national carrier.

After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: “Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others.”

Those who were banning Bibles in the Kingdom in this case claimed to be doing so as per Saudi law, but later in the article it becomes clear that this understanding of Saudi law is only an ‘advice’ from the Foreign Office.

Another article from the Jerusalem Post quotes:

“A number of items are not allowed to be brought into the kingdom due to religious reasons and local regulations,” declares the Web site of Saudi Arabian Airlines, the country’s national carrier.

After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: “Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others.”

This time at least it is Saudis making the claim, but again it is not the Saudi government, but rather Saudi Airlines making the claim.

Perhaps these warnings are based upon the fear that anyone carrying a Bible might possibly be mistaken for a missionary, or maybe the rumour has become so well established that even these airlines are protecting their staff and passengers from its consequences?

Whatever the case may be, the law of Saudi Arabia stands in contrast to what others are saying. Bibles may be brought into the country as long as they are for personal use and not for proselytising (attempting to convert people).

July 13, 2008

The Muzlim Fallacy

Filed under: Islamic Terms,Muslim Urban Legends — abuaisha @ 3:46 am

Some time ago I sat through a Jumu’ah Khutbah which while for the most part was good and beneficial, one thing that I heard from the Khateeb sounded a bit odd. This Masjid (or university musalla rather) was known to on occasion produce some weird khateebs however what this one said struck me as amazingly odd, for it was not true what he had said and was rather irresponsible, or at least that’s how I felt when I heard it. Usually Jumu’ah khutbas are known for ‘playing it safe’, its when the khateeb will address general issues and will not stray away from the generally expected themes of every other Jumu’ah.
On that certain Friday, the Khateeb was talking about dealings with non-Muslims and the need to inform them of our beautiful religion of Islām. All was well until he began to mention that whilst we must be polite with non-Muslims, if they were to offend us, we should not take their offence with simply a smile but rather we should correct them. All good and well, still no problems with what he was saying. Then he said – If a non-Muslim by chance refers to you as a ‘Muzlim’ as most non-Muslims tend to do, rather than a ‘Muslim’ you should immediately correct him, for even though he may not know it, he has actually offended you oh dear brother! I then began to wonder… Is this khateeb as pedantic as I when it comes to proper pronunciation of Arabic words? So much so that he would reprimand a non-native speaker for such a small error as this?! No.. Rather he explained to us, that this way of pronouncing Muslim as Muzlim changes the meaning of the word drastically. As we know a ‘Muslim’ is somebody who follows Islam, which translates approximately as ‘Submission unto God’. A ‘Muzlim’ however is somebody who is an oppressor. For you see he said, the word Muzlim comes from the word ظلم (Dhulm) which is commonly mispronounced as ‘Zulm‘. This word of course is not a not a nice word at all, it roughly translates as ‘Oppression’. Therefore the Khateeb was suggesting that we should not allow a non-Muslim to call refer to us as Muzlims, we should correct them and let them know they have offended us, then get on with the conversation once he has realised his error and fixed his dastardly ways.

What struck me almost immediately was that this person was telling us to correct the way that non-Muslims were pronouncing an Arabic word (ie. Muslim) yet he himself was doing the exact same thing before us! The word ‘Zulm‘ in Arabic doesn’t have any meaning, for the word which he meant to refer to is Dhulm. The verb z-l-m itself does hold certain meanings, most of which are rather positive, and as for مزلم (muzlim) it translates as ‘binding’. So our imaginary non-Muslim friend has actually not referred to us as oppressors, at worst he has called us ‘binding’, and to be honest I’d be confused rather than offended.

As for the word ‘oppressor’, in Arabic we take the word ظلم (oppression) and then make it into ظالم (Dhālim) to mean oppressor. And hey, to be honest, even if somebody not knowingly called me that I wouldn’t chastise him and ask him to apologise for it.

So I guess the first lesson in this is that especially when giving a Jumu’ah Khutbah or a public talk on Islām, we should always check our facts before saying anything lest we are wrong in what we say! How often do we hear something or read in an e-mail some amazing little fact such as this, yet we at times make no attempts to verify it. We should make further effort to perfect our Tajweed and pronunciation of Arabic words and also improve our Arabic language so that we might be able to access the wealth of knowledge lying hidden away in the libraries of the world. We can also learn that in giving Da’wah we must have wisdom. As Allāh says in the Qur’ān –

ادْعُ إِلِى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ
Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom (16:125)

I hope that this might help in contributing to rectifying this Muslim urban legend, and that it will serve to benefit us and others in a good way. May Allāh bless you and and may we be thankful that he has made us of those who submit unto him (Muslims)!

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.