Sharia Law Not Coming to Britain — Yet
The failure of British leaders to condemn Sharia only emboldens the Islamists.
“Why don’t we just give up now, roll over, and become an Islamic state?” asked a despairing Daily Mail reader. Five months ago, the archbishop of Canterbury said Sharia law in Britain is “inevitable.” Could it get any worse? Yes, according to the Daily Mail. In a speech last week at the East London Muslim Centre, our top judge implied it was desirable:
The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of Sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
Not just the Daily Mail, notorious for its doomy tales of banned piggy banks, but the more sober Daily Telegraph had a similar account, albeit with longer words.
Torn between buying a beer while I still could and saving for a burqa, I turned instead to the New English Review website, where my colleague Esmerelda Weatherwax refused to rush to judgment and declared her intention to do what journalists after a quick sound bite failed to do, that is read the full speech:
It is a 10-page speech and he touches on Sharia law briefly on page 8 going into page 9. The rest of his very sensible presentation has been ignored.
The speech was entitled “Equality Under the Law.”
Muslim men and Muslim women are entitled to be treated in exactly the same way as all other men and women in this country. And there is, of course, another side to this coin. Rights carry with them obligations, and those who come to live in this country and to benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here, also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here.
[...]
Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognized, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. So far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognize aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country.
So when Robert Spencer, writing at Human Events, asks, “If a Sharia court finds a man not guilty of adultery, would that judgment be enforced in a British court, perhaps denying his wife a divorce?” the answer is clearly no. An English court cannot deny a woman a divorce if the marriage has irretrievably broken down, this, rather than adultery, being grounds for divorce under English law.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Mary Jackson is a British editor for the New English Review, an Anglo-American online magazine of politics and culture, dedicated to celebrating the good in Western civilization and warning against that which would threaten it. Click here for the latest full-length articles, and here for the Iconoclast, the regularly updated Community Blog.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
35 Comments
1. hyphenated american:Can Sharia law be used in labor disputes, business disputes, discrimination disputes? At what point can a person say “I don’t like Sharia laws anymore and I want English laws and procedures”?
Jul 13, 2008 - 1:09 am 2. Drima:“First, those Muslims who want Sharia — and every true Muslim surely does”
Correction:
… and every *misguided* Muslim surely does.
Even if many do indeed want it, it doesn’t make them “true.” That’s you falling for the Islamists’ argument right there and giving them exactly what they want – approval that they somehow espouse what’s true, and hence other Muslims who don’t aren’t “true” Muslims.
You’re not helping when you don’t make important distinctions dear Mary.
Jul 13, 2008 - 2:20 am 3. Mary Jackson:At what point can a person say “I don’t like Sharia laws anymore and I want English laws and procedures”?
At any point. Read the article. English law has primacy.
every *misguided* Muslim surely does…
Can you be a true Muslim and not believe in the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira, or the interpretation of these by the four schools of Sharia? I don’t think so.
Jul 13, 2008 - 3:26 am 4. Andrew Ian Dodge:Drima read this report from Policy Exchange on the attitudes of Young Muslims in GB and then get back to us. It would help to have a few facts before you criticise Mary for her piece.
Jul 13, 2008 - 4:23 am 5. TomJW:If the english don’t do something to take back their country from the ruling elites soon, they will be stuck with sharia law.
Jul 13, 2008 - 7:51 am 6. Eric:In spite of what some head in the sand people believe Britain is doomed to become an Islamic state or to fragment into multiple countries after some sort of civil war. The Brits have been too cowardly to confront the PC legions who are crippling their country and indeed all of Europe. We in the West have lost the confidence to assert the superiority of Western culture. The non-judgmental cultural relativism practiced by too many is just an opportunity for the more confident Islamists to advance. The West isn’t even able to stop additional immigration for fear of being called racists. How crowded does GB have to become? How much does the quality of life have to degrade? Where are all the environmentalists who constantly whine about how much pollution we create, how much natural resources we consume, how much CO2 we belch into the atmosphere? Why are they not speaking out against immigration if only from a global warming perspective? After all, more people = more CO2. Are they also too cowardly to speak out? I suppose it’s easier and takes no courage to pin the blame on native Brits and British businesses rather than attack the immigration problem. There is NO hope for Europe because of guilt riddled populations who refuse to stand up to those who would decimate their cultures and nations. And the US, Canada, and Australia aren’t far behind.
Jul 13, 2008 - 8:12 am 7. kabud:We in the West have lost the confidence to assert the superiority of Western culture.
we- did not. if you lost: you will die. I and WE just have it gaining strength.
Lots of fools lost, true that, but THE CORE remains and we must UNITE and think of ways to confront the enemy.
We must think of popular culture methods to clear people’s minds, think of easily understood slogans, ideas, methods to gain our Pride back.
And it is not Islam what is threatening: Islam is just instrumental in the hands of kremlin planners.
So we must attack kremlin in some way, not warn them we must design an attack on their interest and stop their gang existance.
This is the only way
Jul 13, 2008 - 10:02 am 8. Drima:Mary,
you’re making a dangerous mistake when you insist that Islamists are “true” Muslims. And to answer your question, your answer is incorrect. Yes, you can still be a Muslim even if you don’t follow the four Sunni schools of Islamic thought. Plus, they’re not monolithic. Muslims must believe in the Quran. That’s for sure. The degree of acceptance of various types of Hadiths, varies from group to group. However, more importantly, when the Quran and Hadith are interpreted, the interpretations vary and significantly so when it comes to Sharia.
Andrew Ian,
what’s funny is that your link disproves your point and proves mine. The report shows that radicalization in UK is increasing (something which I won’t disagree with since it’s true) but it proves me right by clearly showing in its beginning that most Muslims in UK are NOT Islamists. Mary is implicitly pushing the wrong idea that if you’re not an Islamist then you’re not a true Muslim, which only helps the Islamists. It implies that the majority of Muslims in UK aren’t true Muslims. Again, let me repeat myself. How is it helpful or strategic when you legitimize Islamists as true Muslims? I can confidently tell you that Islamists are loathed in places like Sudan and Iran by the majority of Muslims, but instead of allying with these Muslims or the moderate majority in UK, you go instead and basically tell them, “hey you guys are fake Muslims, but Islamists are the true ones.”
It’s a tragic and disappointing mistake since we should be busy strategizing effectively because we ultimately share a common enemy.
Jul 13, 2008 - 12:46 pm 9. Mary Grabar:This is a great, thought-provoking column and I agree with the conclusions. I see the creep in my neighborhood as I drive among women in full bhurkas (with only slits for the eyes) commandeering Mercedes or vans. Common sense (which we’ve lost) would tell us that such garb interferes with the driver’s ability (I almost had one hit me the other day), as well as present a security risk. I don’t mind all the other flowing ethnic garb, as long as the face is uncovered.
Simply the proposal to use Sharia law in mediation is disturbing in the same way. Here, in the U.S. mediation is often ordered by the courts in divorce cases. But does a priest, minister, or rabbi do the mediating? Not that I’ve heard of. Certainly, parties in private can seek the advice of such clergy, but I have yet to hear a request that disputes adjudicated by religious figures be granted any kind of legal authority. So like the full burkha, the request itself is an expression of aggressiveness, an attempt to impose one’s ways on another culture. I see it as a provocation.
Jul 13, 2008 - 12:56 pm 10. standpoint:Liberals and socialist westerners seem singularly concerned about only feminist causes and homosexuals possibly hit by sharia law.
Jul 13, 2008 - 1:22 pm 11. hyphenated american:Mary, thanks for your reply. It’s not often that the authors take the time to respond to the comments.
HA: At what point can a person say “I don’t like Sharia laws anymore and I want English laws and procedures”?
MJ: At any point. Read the article. English law has primacy.
HA: Your view on the subject is not realistic.
Firsly, we must clarify something here. The Sharia law cannot be the same as the English Law – as the English Law is understood today. The rulings that the British Courts would render on a particular case must be different than the ones given by the Sharia-following mullahs. Otherwise, the idea of having the Sharia LAW would be completely non-sensical. Why the need to duplicate the existing system? A moslem can simply add a post-it on a court decision, with the words “Sharia law” and be done with this.
Of course, the British Law is changed to state that some legal disputes for some people can be decided based on a new set of legal procedures and rules, a set which may not be the same as it for all other people – but such a change would not mask the underlying difference in real British Law and Sharia Law.
Once we agree on this, we can discuss some details. Say, two people agreed to have the mullahs to decide on their dispute. After the decision is given, one of the parties disagrees with the ruling and demands that their case to be reheard and redecided by the British Courts and thte Sharia decision were to be immediately declared null and void. Would such a move work? Are the litigants guaranteed the immediate access to the British courts without any prejudice based on what the Sharia Court decided?
Jul 13, 2008 - 3:02 pm 12. Eric:Kabud – I personally have plenty of confidence. I drive my Tahoe around town proudly displaying my “Defeat Jihad” bumper sticker from Jihad Watch.
I love when I can maneuver in front of a Muslim driver.
The problem is that most Americans and even Europeans aren’t engaged and don’t see the threat. The Muslims are very patient and are working on the final solution. I doubt very many alive today expect to see the ultimate goal achieved but they believe it will happen. We Westerners have lost all ability to plan for the long term (energy crisis anyone?). Not all of us mind you but as a collective culture. The few Westerners aware of the problem fall into two camps, those actively fighting Islamization via blogs, reporting, documentaries, etc. the other camp is the 5th column of our own politicians, media, NGO’s, et al who loathe Western culture. They are the real problem. If not for them Islam wouldn’t stand a chance. But when our 5th columnists enforce hate speech laws, force multiculturalism and diversity down our throats, advocate for open borders, and seek consolidation of power in supranational organizations (EU, UN) they intentionally break apart cultural cohesion. Guilt is their weapon of choice. They work day in and day out to make us feel guilty for our history, our successes, and our power. I personally am impervious to any feelings of cultural guilt and firmly believe Western culture is superior in every way. So, what to do?
Jul 13, 2008 - 9:44 pm 13. whiskey:You can’t be a little bit pregnant, or have a little bit of Sharia Law. And England already has it, and is doomed.
England surrendered faster than the French in May 1940, Brits are that pathetic.
Sharia already exists — Muslims shut people up on pain of death, a realistic threat. Since they’ve already blown apart Londoners enough. Sharia exists in no-go areas, Christians threatened, Mosques everywhere, Islam dominating.
Sharia exists when police have to grovel for sending out a picture of a puppy. Muslims can and do set public policy on everything. That’s reality. England is a Sharia State already, the shell of the forms of Parliament and the Queen are just a shell, to be discarded when Muslims formally take over from the wet noodle British.
Jul 13, 2008 - 10:25 pm 14. Mary Jackson:To answer hyphenated American, sharia has no legal force at all, except insofar as any individuals can agree to anything that is not illegal under English law. But if it is illegal under English law, they cannot agree to it.
If the Mullahs decide one thing, they can’t take away a person’s rights under English law, which, at the risk of repeating myself has primacy, that is, it overrules Sharia. There is no parallel legal system. Sharia law has the legal status of rules of a tiddlywinks club.
England is a Sharia State already, the shell of the forms of Parliament and the Queen are just a shell, to be discarded when Muslims formally take over from the wet noodle British.
“Whiskey” is someone who obviously knows absolutely nothing about my country and has not read the article. Lord Phillips clearly stated, in black and white, that there are to be no sharia courts and that English law has primacy where there is a conflict.
I should no longer be surprised at the arrogance, ignorance and complacency of some American posters at this site and others. This from a country who is about to elect a very Muslim-friendly president and whose current president banned the word “jihad” from being spoke by government officials. A country where a headmistress who had CAIR in talking to her pupils has been not suspended (as happened with a UK teacher) but promoted to be head of a bigger school:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=173348
A country where footbaths are provided at airports at taxpayers’ expense, but where offices and schools must say “Happy Holidays” rather than Happy Christmas.
Does this prove that America is a “Sharia state”? Of course not – they are isolated incidents, just like similar incidents in the UK. But even if it did, would that be a cause for gloating? No.
We are on the same side here, remember?
Jul 14, 2008 - 2:36 am 15. pch1013:“I drive my Tahoe around town proudly displaying my “Defeat Jihad” bumper sticker from Jihad Watch.”
That has got to be the single funniest sentence I’ve ever read. Eric — have you ever thought of writing for The Onion?
Jul 14, 2008 - 11:39 am 16. Dawn:We have certainly become overly politically correct in the States to the point of absolute nonsense. It is ridiculous to me that we have to tiptoe around muslims for fear of being called an islamophobe or racist. These people are infiltrating our cultures for a reason. They are like a slow saline drip, eventually it will get the job done. We cannot sit back and allow them to call the shots no matter how slight the wording is. We shouldn’t have to even use the word sharia. It should not be an acceptable practice for any reason and so it should be banned in all the Western world. If they want it, stay in their own countries.
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:47 pm 17. Roy M:Eric, How do you know they are Muslim? Do you lean over and ask them, or are they friends of yours that you see around?
“Ban Sharia? Ban agreements between individuals that are based on Sharia? How do we do that?” Is what I wondered?
Then I realised that it could be done. All we need to do is to get Islamic scholars to review all our civil agreements to see if any of them appeard to be based on Islamic texts. Then they could report ones that that looked suspicous to ….oh I don’t, know some kind of ‘Court of Sharia’ for a determination on whether the agreement was compatible with Sharia. People who were found to have made such an agreement could then be punished in some way.
Simple.
Jul 14, 2008 - 2:25 pm 18. Steynian 198 « Free Mark Steyn!:[...] PAJAMAS MEDIA: “Sharia Law Not Coming to Britain — Yet” …. [...]
Jul 14, 2008 - 2:39 pm 19. Mary Jackson:Drima:
you’re making a dangerous mistake when you insist that Islamists are “true” Muslims. And to answer your question, your answer is incorrect. Yes, you can still be a Muslim even if you don’t follow the four Sunni schools of Islamic thought. Plus, they’re not monolithic.
I know that Muslims are not monolithic. Muslims vary from the admirable, amiable and erudite to psychotic fiends like Mullah Omar. But Islam is not the same as Muslims. While there are moderate Muslims, Islam as such has not been reformed; it has only been feebly enforced or liberally observed.
Reformist Muslims deserve our support. Muslims Against Sharia is one such organisation. But they receive death threats all the time. Reformist Christians don’t get death threats. Liberal Jews don’t get death threats – except perhaps from Muslims.
Islam has a long way to go, and it is by no means certain that it wishes to go there. In the meantime, Western society must uphold its own values.
Jul 14, 2008 - 3:11 pm 20. ReCon USMC:Can an sane Women in the Free World ever want to live under the Iron Hand of Sharia law much less a man . That is why many moved to Canada , America , England , France, German and Norway .
Jul 14, 2008 - 3:32 pm 21. Anthony (Los Angeles):One wonders why Feminist have stayed Mute on this Moronic Idea in England ?
As you will recall Feminist in America and our own Media never said a bad word about the Telibane in Afghanistan on how they treated all Women there while we saw them being beaten and be headed on our TV here and in England .Yet they ALL screamed bloody murder over some terrorist be hazed eating diner later .
Far easier than I was “HAZED ” in the USMC …. believe me !
Mary,
A very interesting article, and thanks for correcting my own misapprehension of Lord Phillips’ speech. I’m glad to see he’s not the dunderhead the Archbishop is.
My concern, however, is that any opening given to sharia will just be the leading edge of a drive to create a de facto separate legal status for British Muslims. Islam is in one of its periodic aggressive phases, and the Islamic supremacist imperative requires that sharia, Allah’s law, be the one law. Here in the States, we have on record leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood stating they want to replace the Constitution with sharia. The examples you mention of official concessions to sharia here (to which I’ll add the recent setting aside of women-only time in athletic facilities at a major Eastern US university) are of concern to many of us as just another small step on the road to Islamization and, for those who don’t convert, dhimmitude. So, I ask: given it’s aggressive, exclusivist nature, isn’t even Lord Phillips’ temperate position giving away too much?
Again, thanks for an informative and thought-provoking article. Your observations on the need for moral condemnation of sharia are right on the mark.
Jul 14, 2008 - 3:42 pm 22. Mary Jackson:So, I ask: given it’s aggressive, exclusivist nature, isn’t even Lord Phillips’ temperate position giving away too much?
Yes, exactly so. He is giving away too much for precisely the reasons you gave so clearly.
Giving an inch means that Islam takes a mile. So Sharia must be actively opposed. If Lord Phillips feels he can’t do this – a judge is supposed to be above politics – he should say nothing.
Jul 14, 2008 - 3:49 pm 23. mylai:Mary,
I agree with you on 99% of your opinions but this, I’m just not sure. Even a little means a lot in steps toward injection of Church into State. The UK is not going in the right direction with this. Instead of uniting people these are designed to seperate. And where is the women’s vote in all this? Clearly, the basket in which Sharia sits is rife with gender inequality and faith-based sanctioned dhimmitude. To even have seep bits and pieces of even the most benign law is an acceptance and victory. It’s like that old saying, “one cannot be a little pregnant.”
I’ll be honest, Americans are looking at the UK in regards to this and we’re feeling a bit concerned for you Brits.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:41 am 24. scotgo:Whiskey – “England surrendered faster than the French in May 1940, Brits are that pathetic.”
I was going to ask where the Americans were in May 1940, but that would have been extremely petty of me.
“England is a Sharia State already, the shell of the forms of Parliament and the Queen are just a shell, to be discarded when Muslims formally take over from the wet noodle British.”
I must say it’s never less than hugely entertaining coming to sites like this and being told all about ‘what’s going on in Britain’. The reality always seems so dull in comparison!
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:11 pm 25. Steve:I was going to ask where the Americans were in May 1940, but that would have been extremely petty of me.
I could answer with question of where would the UK be without America after 1940. But as you said that would be petty.
I don’t pretend to say I know what’s going in the UK then someone who lives there. But this is not a problem of just the UK. It afflicts all of the West. This most most recent clash with Islam has only brought to light a problem that is just as bad or worse. The problem is that most of the intellectual elite in the Western World despise it and are trying to dismantle it.
Jul 16, 2008 - 4:02 am 26. scotgo:Steve – “I could answer with question of where would the UK be without America after 1940. But as you said that would be petty.”
Hmmm…on the plus side, we certainly wouldn’t be in Iraq.
Seriously though, while I’m not pretending there is no issue at all here, I would ask everyone to remember that only about 3% of the UK population are Muslim. Islam will have to mount quite some recruitment drive if it’s going to take over the entire country any time soon.
Jul 16, 2008 - 6:59 am 27. Steve:Hmmm…on the plus side, we certainly wouldn’t be in Iraq.
On the negative side you and Europe would be part of the Greater Reich.
3% is not a large number. Combine that with certain elements of that population who demand special status out of portion to their size and elements of a government and media who are more then happy to enable them that is when it becomes dangerous. I’m sure people in France were saying the same a few years ago. The problem only gets worse if you ignore it and let it fester.
Jul 16, 2008 - 7:06 pm 28. kabud:Eric:
you ask what to do, here what i think:
1.Openly admit to every past shady deal with the enemy, from 1917. It will gradually create a public trust of high level towards the Government
2.Openly describe to the public what is known to elites and what they hide from the People, including kremlin’s long term strategy to impose world totalitarian domination by force. Including Beijing plans to exterminate Americans and divide our homeland with kremlenoids. Yes, our elites know this.
3.Immediately stop any trade and cancel diplomatic recognition of kremlin, Beijing and all their allies . Also cancel our debt to them. Including Saudis and alike. Including oil imports from them: no trade, no diplomatic recognition NOW. Create domestic methanol fuel economy: doable in several months period.
4.Publish all details on our rotten financial system, including the real situation with Federal debt, federal reserve etc. May be, as some fellow economists proposed, create a new solid currency instead of fiat dollar
5.Immediately cancel all regulations that create obstacles for any kind of economic development here, including those that have created monopolistic conditions in almost all industries, global warming bullshit, etc. Those are well known to the American public.
6.Massively register all illegals. Profile them. Deport all who are remotely suspicious to be the actors of subversion: 1 month term.
7.Seal all borders in a matter of ONE WEEK. We can easily do it.
8.Offer a refuge to all willing to come here Israelis (Jews). Since it may become very dangerous for 6 million people to remain in Israel. Allow them to resettle in California. They will have Israel back in a few years. Or just withdraw any political restrictions we put on their policies in the past: let them handle it on their own and win the region or come here. Or both.
——–
I can easily prove that this will effectively end communism and threats from it. They may try a war but morally they will have no chance , so they will lose))
They will try a war anyway, so the above measures will save tens of millions of our fellow Americans and if not undertaken beforehand – will be taken later, but: we will have to suffer massive casualties and may be even lose our Republic forever.
Jul 17, 2008 - 3:02 pm 29. scotgo:Steve – “On the negative side you and Europe would be part of the Greater Reich.”
This obviously has the potential to become a very silly argument, but the UK was never conquered by the Nazis, and I’m dubious as to whether it would have been even without America joining the war. As for other parts of Europe, well they also have their own resistance movements, the Soviet Union, the UK, and other Commonwealth countries to thank for their liberation, not just the USA. So let’s keep everything in its correct perspective.
“3% is not a large number. Combine that with certain elements of that population who demand special status out of portion to their size and elements of a government and media who are more then happy to enable them that is when it becomes dangerous”
The notion that the press and government in Britain are in some way “pro-Muslim” at the present time is completely laughable. In reality, the Muslim community has never been more vulnerable and marginalised. The challenge for all believers in liberal democracy is to help Muslims achieve the normal status in society which in many cases they are denied, not to fight off some mythical threat of a ’special status’ or a full-scale Muslim takeover.
Jul 19, 2008 - 7:25 pm 30. deguello:Nice Scotgo,For the record: Churchill jubilantly said “We are Saved”! after Pearl Harbor.The kind of Englishman who took up arms to defend his nation has virtually disappeared in the UK (and is also disappearing in the US) to be replaced by rationalizing cowards like you. I’m keeping your post;it’s a perfect example of the term:”useful idiot”. In this case a big lie told by an useful idiot.Can you tell us some more fantasies like: “Islam is a religion of peace”,or “There was no holocaust.”,Or,” Mao was an agrarian reformer” etc.Pendejo!
Jul 21, 2008 - 2:22 pm 31. scotgo:Deguello – I’m perfectly happy to say Islam is a religion of peace. Quite how that makes me a holocaust denier or a Maoist is beyond me – but of course I’m an ‘idiot’ as well so that would probably explain my confusion. One thing I am sure of, “rationalising coward” I may be, but I am not, never have been and never will be an “Englishman”!
Jul 27, 2008 - 8:42 pm 32. Mary:If the quran is Gods word you must accept all of it including the law, other wise God is liar
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:14 pm 33. Mary:and since English law is based on the bible (are muslims as usual living a double standard by accepting some of the biblical laws whic are 100 percent different than isalmic laws ) they must accept either the quran or the bible not both so you can actaully say their are either hipocrits or they really dont beleive in isalm Muslims make your choice
To be honest If the west know the bible they would truly know how decieved we are by islam
read J VERNON MCGEE THRU THE BIBLE DONT BE DECIVED
SO would muslims
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:17 pm 34. Mary:If islam is so perfect why are muslims here
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:18 pm 35. Mary:Let all muslims answer that
Is\\lam is just palin decieving
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:21 pm