News  #  1643
[ Click on NEWS for back issues ][ OUR BOOKS ][ Contact ][ Previous Issue ]

19 Jamada al-Awwal 1437 A.H.- February 28, 2016 Issue # 9, Newsletter #1643

Breaking News:


Surprise offensive by ISIL. Reuters and other news services are reporting mujaheddin coming out of Fallujah attacked Abu Ghraib and parts of western Baghdad on February 27 and by February 28 had captured a number of positions. US bombing is continuing, 28 strikes on 2.27, and on February 28 ISIL carried out a huge retaliatory attack on Shiites in Baghdad who were celebrating the US air strikes. The human bombers killed 70 and injured more than 100, the biggest losses this year.

In Syria it is the second day of the cease fire but Russian bombers have continued to drop bombs on Muslim areas. Assad' helicopters continued to drop barrel bombs. The US air force continued bombing IS forces in the north, opening the way for Communist Kurds, YPG, to advance beyond Tal Abyad.

However, Reuters and SOHR report, ISIS launched ferocious attacks and captured Tal Abyad on February 27. However ongoing bombing by the US Air Force killed 70 ISIS mujaheddin and allowed YPG to take back Tal Abyad on
February 28. Fighting continues nearby.
Another offensive by IS captured most of Salamia in Hama province. Also IS has cut the Khanessar highway to Aleppo once again, thwarting Assad's efforts to supply the Alawite enclave in the city. Russian bombers are trying to help Assad advance in Latakia. By and large Russia has failed to help Assad defeat the mujaheddin, Only the 45 FSA groups are supporting the cease fire accepted for two weeks.


The Killing Fields of Muzaffarnagar.
[Detailed: Keep children away.]
Last year's tragedy which was kept hidden from the world. [With thanks to Br. IbnSuleman in India.]

This was done by Hindu mobs to helpless Muslims, unarmed and poor. [Thank Allah we have Pakistan otherwise that would have been our fate too in India.--- Editor]

Hadith of the Week

Huzaifa, r.a., narrates that the messenger of Allah, pbuh, said: By Him in whose Hand is my life, you must continue to speak out for good deeds and to stop evil deeds, otherwise it wont be long before Allah Almighty will send punishment on you; then even if you pray to Him, your prayer will not be accepted. [Hadith in Jami' Tirmidhi.]

Comment by Kaukab Siddique: Speaking for good and against evil is part of the Islamic way of life. This is our lifetime task, so we should prepare for it with self-purification and study of the texts of Islam. This ;positive attitude is what differentiates us from other religions. There is no point in praying and worshipping all the time when we see good and do not support it and we see evil and do not oppose it. Of course it is risky and should be done with care and understanding.

Spotlights from Imam Badi Ali.
[North Carolina]

What is Success?

[Imam Badi Ali leads a large Islamic congregation in North Carolina.]


Questioning the Malala Story.

Malala's school was on the ground floor of her residence. No question of uniform or not being able to get to school.
Note the end of this.

Our America: New York

Chinese-Americans Miffed About Asian Officer's Conviction.
Great Move by Minister Farrakhan to provide Security for Beyoncé.
by Sis. Aisha [Jamaat al-Muslimeen.]

New York City - According to the's Community Cop Show panel, the Fraternal Order of Police held a nationwide demonstration in support of Officer Peter Liang, who was convicted of manslaughter, last week. These officers took issue with Officer Liang being charged with anything at all. Also, thousands of Chinese activists demonstrated in the USA and Canada against the conviction of Officer Peter Liang. Apparently, most of them were miffed at the fact that he was convicted of shooting and killing an unarmed person, as well. However, their real issue was the fact that HE was chosen to be charged while many more White officers shoot and kill unarmed Black citizens and are neither charged nor convicted. I mean, we all saw unarmed, nonthreatening Eric Garner murdered on videotape by 7 or 8 mostly White officers officers and yet, no charges!

There was another Asian civil rights group, Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV), protesting with African-America civil rights groups against police criminality. This group has received death threats from other Asian, who believe that they are unsupportive of Officer Liang's plight. There are other Asian organizations who share their sentiment.

In a statement to, the Boston-based Chinese Progressive Association wrote: "As a 39-year-old civil rights organization, we are the first to agree that Chinese, Latino and black officers face racial discrimination in police forces across the country." Shiu Ming Cheer, of the Chinatown Community for Equitable Development, says, "I think the model minority myth implies that Asians are special or better than other ethnic groups. From our perspective, any officer who's involved in killing another person, especially a black person, should be held accountable. There's larger systemic racial issues at play in the sense of why white cops aren't prosecuted for similar killings, but that doesn't meant that we shouldn't hold this officer accountable for his actions."

As per Community Cop panel member, Michael Greys, if it weren't for Black cops fighting against discriminatory practices within the NYPD, there would be no Asian police officers. He said that one measure that was fought against was the height measure. You had to be a certain height to qualify. Asians are usually shorter than the average American. Now, that the height requirement is no longer in use, Asians have been applying in droves. Once again, it took African-Americans to fight against something that benefited other non-White groups, too.

In the case of the two Louisiana Black marshals, Derrick Stafford and Norris Greenhouse Jr, charged in the killing of a six year old White child, last November, there weren't any calls for the murder charges to be dismissed by the African-American community. The African-American community understood that these marshals should be investigated and charged. However, many African-Americans were ONLY upset over the fact that it is easier and justice is swifter in prosecuting Black officers who do wrong, while White officers are allowed to walk free.

Insha'allah, other communities may start working together with African-American activists, who have always been at the forefront against police criminal behavior. When people work in the best interest of justice they tend to have a one-track mind. Police officers are the gatekeepers to White supremacy in America but, it is not only Blacks and Latinos who are victimized by them. Imagine if all communities ignored the racism smokescreen and worked together to empower people against police and judicial misconduct.
(Courtesy of

Bey Bey Draws the Ire of Policemen Nationwide

The Fraternal Order of Police were very busy, these past few weeks. Beyonce drew the ire of many in law enforcement for saluting Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party during her Super Bowl 50 performance. White supremacy is the rule with these agencies so, it is no surprise that they become angry over a Black person honoring their own Black freedom fighting heroes. Public School has taught us to only honor Europeans and believe in White supremacy.

The Fraternal Order of Police are encouraging officers not to work any overtime to protect or ensure the safety of areas where Beyonce holds her concerts. The Fraternal Order of Police is so arrogant that its members believe that they can choose who they want to protect on the taxpayer's dime! Even Rudolph (Adolf) Giuliani got involved to criticize Beyonce's choice of heroes. However, he was mum on those anti-government protesters at the East Oregon Wildlife Reserve.

Now, Minister Louis Farrakhan and the NOI have stepped in to protect Beyonce and her fans. They have offered to send in the Fruit of Islam to act as security. They would probably do a much more effective job. It is not unheard of, unfortunately, for concert-goers to be gang raped during a performance. It is important for the oppressed to create their own alternatives to whatever the government is supposed to provide for us, especially since the services in Black taxpaying communities are far more inferior to what White taxpayers receive.


Clinton Betrayed Bosnia's Muslims. His wife can't be trusted Either.
By Tarik Borogovac, National Congress of The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, USA


In the 2016 election cycle, as in 2008, we keep hearing about Secretary Clinton getting very low marks in opinion polls on trustworthiness and honesty. The Democratic primary voters who put these qualities as being most important consistently favor Mrs. Clinton's opponents. This is not due to any unfair criticisms nor conspiracies placed by her opponents. In fact, neither President Obama, to whom she lost in 2008, nor Senator Sanders, who is opposing her now, ever brought up any of her multiple run-ins with truth and with rules.

Mrs. Clinton's poor reputation with voters is her own doing, built up over many years and acts of poor ethics and criminality. There are two such issues in the news right now. One is the Clinton Foundation, which has enriched the Clintons by paying them huge salaries, and is financed by donors (buyers of influence), such as heads of major banks and despotic foreign governments. We googled it for you:
That is overshadowed by Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server to conduct business as Secretary of State. Same as President Nixon's Watergate scandal, Mrs. Clinton's email saga is providing a constant stream of damning revelations during the election year. The rundown: in violation of laws on handling secret information, the Freedom of Information Act, and the basic competence of her position as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton used her private email server to conduct official business. The server administrators had no government clearance even though the server held numerous emails with highly classified content sent by Mrs. Clinton and to her. The substandard security on the server would not effectively defend against even every-day internet attacks, let alone sophisticated attacks by foreign intelligence services and organized groups. If Edward Snowden ever sets foot in this country, he will be arrested and tried for treason for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional spying on our citizens, but it is Mrs. Clinton who has likely provided real, damaging, actionable intelligence to hostile foreign governments and organizations. The successive revelations have exposed Mrs. Clinton's earlier denials, and she has retreated to essentially admitting guilt but oddly using entitlement and incompetence as somehow mitigating factors. Basically she now says she did it but only for convenience, and she did not know all that information she emailed was classified. Except, it has been revealed that (1) Clinton instructed her staff to remove headers with classification markings, and (2) Clinton aides manually typed information from closed systems on high security internal networks not connected to the internet, into emails bound for her non-secure internet server, a two-step conscious process to defeat the most stringent measures put in place to protect US secrets.


As Bosnian Americans, we are very familiar with another Clinton's willingness to cross all moral bounds in the interest of winning elections. Our original homeland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, was sacrificed at the altar of President Bill Clinton's second term. Mr. Clinton fulfilled his promise of bringing peace to Bosnia -- by giving war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic legalization of their project, an entity named The Republic of the Serbs on territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were ethnically cleansed through genocide. Twenty years later, Bosnia is an apartheid state, and the Republic of the Serbs still exists and is still ethnically "clean." It is easy to make peace by giving military dictators and war criminals what they want, but it is not a moral way to win elections.

Some may say that those are Mr. Clinton's and not Mrs. Clinton's sins, but we recall that Mrs. Clinton has used her husband's experience with Bosnia to burnish her foreign policy credentials many times. One instance in the 2008 election is particularly memorable -- when she told the ridiculous story of the plane ride and trip into Tuzla (Bosnia) where she supposedly ducked sniper fire. Just as Brian Williams' helicopter ride offended the men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by making light of their sacrifices, Mrs. Clinton's easily spoken lie deeply offends the memories of the countless Bosnian children, women and men who were cut down by Serbian sniper fire and shelling in Sarajevo and in all of Bosnia.

Mrs. Clinton's history with poor judgment and unethical conduct is long, and each Democratic voter should see that it makes her a very risky candidate for the Democratic Party. She will turn away even a greater proportion of Independents than she has Democrats, her history will be exposed further in a general election when she faces a Republican candidate who is not likely to take it easy on Mrs. Clinton like Mr. Sanders. And Mrs. Clinton will either get indicted in the email investigation, or Mr. Obama will quash it -- which would be worse for her prospects and his legacy.

But more than that, Mrs. Clinton is a terrible choice for president. Parents in this country teach kids about "Honest Abe" and the fable of Washington and the cherry tree: "I cannot tell a lie." They repeat Kennedy's call to "ask not" and put themselves in service to the country and the greater good, even before themselves. And we see that USA is strong because of generations of people who believe in those ideals and are willing to fight for them with conviction and confidence that they will win out. That is necessary for a self-sustaining democracy. American voters, see that Mrs. Clinton, like Bill Clinton, is a person who feels entitled to break any rule, and sacrifice any principle, to gain some petty personal advantage or convenience. When people of that sort are allowed to occupy the Presidency or other institutions such as the State Department they will put those institutions into the service of personal interests and ambitions, and that erodes the confidence of the people in the strength of principles, and brings the country closer to being just another fiefdom of some powerful family -- a Banana Republic.


That brings us to Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist. We do not believe in socialism, having lived under it. But we do believe in democracy, and we also see that Mr. Sanders believes in it. Over the past 20 years, our democracy has been weakened, but Mr. Sanders has consistently defended it. He has had many opportunities to pander or join some team that would get him ahead. Yet he made correct and principled decisions, even when it was unpopular, such as opposing the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, both of which Mrs. Clinton, as part of the ambitious non-principled crowd supported. Therefore, in the Clinton vs. Sanders struggle, we see Mrs. Clinton as being the anti-democratic force, and Mr. Sanders, the socialist, as the best hope for preserving our democracy.

Revisionist Insider

Losing a Wise Friend.
Critics of the Holocaust story are not at all what Zionists say they are.

Bradley Reed Smith, February 18, 1930 to February 18, 2016
By Germar Rudolf [The writer is himself an extraordinary scholar and researcher. More about him in the future.]

Published: 2016-02-20

I met Bradley the first time in September 1999 during David Irving's Real History Conference in Cincinnati, where we both presented papers to Irving's audience. I did not interact much with him during that conference. That changed, however, after I had to leave England in a hurry just two months later due to a veritable manhunt for me initiated by the British media. I came to the U.S. in an attempt to find a safe haven there, but those plans weren't panning out as hoped. I've described my failed attempts at getting some kind of permission to remain in the U.S. elsewhere. What matters here is that I ended up having to leave the U.S., which is how Bradley got involved again. In February and then again in May 2000 I stayed at Bradley's home in Baja California for a number of days each time. I was (understandably) depressed back then, and Bradley tried hard to lift me up. When another three months of tourist visa time was about to expire in August, I decided that this in-and-out of Mexico won't work much longer, so I arranged with Bradley to actually move to his neighborhood. I lived next door to Bradley in a small rented house between late July and mid-October of 2000. During the day I worked for my little revisionist outlet, but when it was dinner time, Bradley's wife Irene insisted that I come over and have dinner with them. After dinner I stayed, and Bradley and I talked. That's when Bradley became a close friend of mine.

We realized that our outlooks on things were rather similar. For instance, neither of us was ever interested in riches, in social status or in gaining power and influence. We both were looking for some way of dedicating our lives to some worthwhile idealistic cause. He tried to find glory and meaning in the army, serving in Korea and reporting from Vietnam during that country's war. He tried being a deputy sheriff, and he even tried bull-fighting, of all things. But the real bull fight, so to speak, the one he fought for the rest of his life, he entered only at the age of 49.

Realizing our similar outlook on life, we started doing revisionist projects together, for instance by interlinking our two websites and indexing all papers (I even announced that in my German journal in an ad, see at the bottom of this article). I left my Mexican abode again in mid-October 2000, returning to the States in order to apply for political asylum.

This, too, was a doomed attempt, but it took five years before the U.S. authorities finally arrested me in November 2005 and deport me back to Germany, where I was duly incarcerated and prosecuted for my offensive scientific (revisionist) views. Again, this is not the place to discuss this in detail. The reader can find out about that elsewhere.

However, I had married a U.S. citizen in the meantime, and in the long run that was my magic bullet to finally get permanent legal residence in the States (legalese for a "green card"). But the U.S. government wasn't willingly granting me that permission. Quite to the contrary. More than a year after my release from the German prison system, and I still had made no headway. Hoping that this might change soon, I decided to wait right across the border - in Rosarito, Mexico, in Bradley's home. So in September of 2010, Bradley and his wife once more received me with open arms and allowed me to stay at their home until my immigration case was finally resolved. But the weeks of waiting turned into months. At the end it took 10 months, until July 2011, to finally obtain that coveted immigrant visa. Seven of these ten months I spent with Bradley and his family. During that time I had little else to do but to assist Bradley in what he was doing, in partaking in the Smith family life, and in talking to Bradley.

Bradley's legacy is monumental. Among revisionists, there are few who have achieved as much as he has. Ernst Zündel comes to mind, whose ingeniously fought trials triggered a landslide of worldwide attention and interest in Holocaust revisionism. Next Robert Faurisson, who was the grand strategist and prime expert advisor on Zündel's defense team. He almost single-handedly made his own nation listen to the revisionist message, in spite of all establishment attempts to silence him. And of course Willis Carto, who between the late 1970s and the early 1990s gave fledgling Holocaust revisionism massive organizational and financial support.

Ever since Bradley got involved in revisionism, his mission was to spread the message to U.S. campuses and the mass media. His initial success was staggering, as he caught the enemies of free speech with their shields down and on their wrong foot. They smartened up to him eventually, but Bradley sought and always somehow found gaps in their system of censorship to break through the wall of silence anyway. And he did so until his very last breath.

How did he do it? A man of little formal education and basically no financial means, how did he manage to stand up against the million-, nah, billion-dollar Holocaust Industry which could easily out-scream and out-censor him?

I think a big part in the picture is his personality. He was a gentle and kind person, always respectful and willing to help; he gave everyone the benefit of the doubt; he did not judge, but he gently, and often with lots of humor, gave friendly advice. If you met or spoke to him personally, you couldn't possibly be mad at him or hold any grudges, no matter how much his opinions might differ from yours. He was, in his own way, disarmingly charming. Whenever he appeared in public or was confronted face-to-face by his opponents, this personality shone through and made it difficult to call him names. He simply didn't fit the prejudice which the mainstream media like to spread about us revisionists.

Was he in it for the money? Actually, the opposite is probably true. He sacrificed his comfortable life in southern California and had to move to Mexico because he couldn't afford living in the U.S. anymore, and during all his years of revisionist engagement, he struggled to make ends meet. As we revisionists know, there is no money in revisionism, only hardship and ostracism.

Was he faking his fight for censorship just to force his view upon others? Well, already in the 1960s he went to jail for his struggle for free speech when selling Henry Miller's then-banned Tropic of Cancer in his bookstore. So he has the history to prove that he has always been in it for the mere ideal.

Was he in it for hating the Jews (e.g., Henry Miller)? Bradley's first wife was Jewish, and in those years living among and socializing with Jews was his daily bread. Later on, that made the more anti-Semitically inclined among his potential supporters suspicious, but the enemies of free speech could not justifiably call him an anti-Semite - although they still tried.

Was he in it for white supremacism? Bradley married an indigenous Mexican, which the more racially inclined among his potential supporters disliked, but his detractors had a hard time calling him a racist.

And so the list goes on. Bradley didn't fit the mainstream's clichés, and that's another reason why he was so successful. People outside the revisionist community, the ones Bradley was most interested in talking to, were willing to listen because of him. They were willing to help because of him. They were willing to change their minds because of him.

Another aspect of his success was his creative chaos. I have always tried to properly organize my work and also my workplace, and having been in Brad's office for seven months, I eventually couldn't take it anymore and tried getting things a little bit organized there as well. It didn't work. Bradley was willing to try, but he would always resort to the way he was used to doing things. To his credit, I must say that it seems like this creative chaos never really impeded the effectiveness of his work. I have never heard people on the outside complaining about resources getting squandered because of a lack of organization. Maybe the truth is that he needed this chaos. His creativity to try new things at an instance's notice made his operation function and succeed to the degree it could. He didn't waste time organizing things through. He just did them. Had his operation grown considerably beyond the one or two office helpers he had on occasion, his way of doing things might have faltered, but truth is, things never got out of control. He spent his time not with organizing things through, but always with trying to find new ways of circumventing the walls of silence surrounding revisionism and the struggle for free speech.

Another contributing factor to Bradley's success, I might even say to his getting involved in revisionism in the first place, was his profound skepticism that there is something like "the truth" or "reality" which we can ever be certain of. I remember sitting in Brad's office one of those long, agonizing days of waiting for news from the U.S. immigration services. For the first time I started reading and watching the material which the 9/11 Truth Movement had been putting out over the previous years during which I had been incarcerated. I ran into a scientific paper by a chemist on the massive amounts of nano-thermite found in the dust of the collapsed WTC Twin Towers. Up to that point I never fully bought into the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, but being myself a chemist, that analytical result swayed me.

It was a déjà-vu experience, because in 1989 I had had the very same experience when reading about Leuchter's analytical findings on cyanide residues in the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz. I got really excited about all this 9/11 stuff and was willing to once more throw myself into the battle. When I told this to Bradley, it took him only a few sentences to prick my balloon of illusions and let out all the hot air. How could I be sure of their findings? How could I be sure that there aren't other explanations? How could I be sure I could contribute anything to the 9/11 Truth Movement's struggle which they would value, or vice versa, which revisionists would cherish? Well, having a prominent Holocaust Denier in their midst would probably backfire for the 9/11 Truth Movement big time, I figured, so I changed my mind. We had many discussions where he made me see that I hadn't considered this or that perspective. He never tried hard to change my mind, because that's not how Bradley worked. He merely threw in his caveats, his humble opinion, inviting it to be considered. And this was so effective. I can at times be quite opinionated, but Bradley had the means to soften me and open up my mind. He worked like a mind relaxative on people.

Even when it comes to revisionist findings, Bradley had a very skeptical attitude. He was fairly sure that we revisionists were right in general, but when it came to the details, he wasn't sure. He wasn't even interested in finding out. The territory was too shifty, too unsteady. New findings would constantly move the goal posts in that game of trying to "hit the truth," and he wasn't interested in playing that game. He was interested, ironically, in opposing the institutionalization and enforcement of "Truths" such as the Holocaust in its authorized edition.

Where did his skepticism that "the truth" is knowable come from? He had not studied philosophy in general or epistemology in particular to have familiarized himself with the theories of humanity's best thinkers as to why we can never be absolutely certain about "the ultimate truth" of anything. I think his approach was rather different, and very personal.

In a recent article he described briefly his humorous exchange he had with a psychiatrist about some of the odd experiences he had throughout his life, some of which he had described in his book A Personal History of Moral Decay. While I stayed with him, he told me several more of these episodes. A favorite story was when one of these days he saw a mouse floating in midair through his office. He knew it couldn't be true, but he was quite fascinated by the sight. "There's phenomena, but no symptom," as his psychiatrist put it. Now, I could put a label on it, but I won't because I'm not an expert, and I think any label primarily triggers prejudices rather than understanding.

Our brains are miraculous organs. During sleep they create an illusionary world full of at times quite realistic sights, smells, sounds and feelings, called dreams, while during wakefulness they confine themselves to receiving information through our senses and interpreting them as best as they can (which is frequently quite bad, by the way). At least that's the way it should be. For some of us, that strict separation between sleep's active illusions and wakefulness's passive perception of reality doesn't hold. The brain can create illusions at any time, not merely during sleep. For most of us this rarely ever happens, and if it does, it is so minor that we might not even notice it, or dismiss it as a quirk.

Bradley was different. Throughout his adult life, Bradley's brain was on rare occasion playing peculiar tricks on him. They never were intrusive or frequent in such a way as to impede his life, but they made him always skeptical about whether his perceptions were real or not. He never trusted his own brain. This showed even in the way he often talked about his own brain doing peculiar things, making him think and do this and that. Bradley didn't need to study philosophy to know that our brains are incapable of reliable perceiving reality. He knew it because he lived it. And so, when he hit the proverbial brick wall of Holocaustian dogmas claiming to be the incontrovertible and undeniable truth, the inevitable happened.

"How can we be sure?"

We cannot. He could not. And so he set out to tell everyone that it's wrong to insist that we most certainly know the truth about "the Holocaust," and that it is wrong to force people to believe in the one and only "truth" about this event. The Holocaust orthodoxy's dogmatic attitude, backed by powerful lobby groups, by the Industry's big money, and by almost all governments of the world, the U.N. included, was the extreme opposite of everything his brain told him. So he just couldn't help it. He had to say it, he had to try to make the world understand that it's just not right to pretend certainty when there can be no such thing.

Knowing one's limits, also and especially one's limit to be able to "know," is one of the hallmarks of wisdom. Bradley was a wise man. And he was my best friend.

Outreach # 1:

Jamaat al-Muslimeen Activity in North Eastern Maryland.
Their Mosque was Damaged by the snow storms and they were praying in a big barn.

On February 26. Jamaat al-Muslimeen literature was given to 100 Muslims after Juma'. Most of them were Arab Americans, Africans, African Americans and a few Pakistanis.

This is masjid Nur but the continuing bad weather had done so much harm to their main building that it had been declared unsafe. So the prayers were held in a big barn behind the mosque.

Are the angels telling us something? Why do we spend so much on fancy building when we could pray in any big space.
Didn't the prophet, pbuh, teach that he has made the whole world a masjid for us.

Also people in our communities are not taking care of their health. There was a long line of people sitting on chairs behind the congregation, mostly in their fifties and sixties approximately.

Our literature had these items:
  1. Support for the Dr. Aafia rally coming in Washington DC on March 19. [Nadrat Siddique for Jamaat.]

  2. Web sites for political prisoners Ahmed Abdel Sattar, Ziyad Yaghi and Masoud Khan [from Br. Rich]

    Political Prisoners :

  3. Syria: Massacres of Muslims by Russian, Alawite and American Jet bombers. Slaughter of Alawite supporters of Assad by Islamic State {ISIS] truck bombers.

  4. Br. Kaukab Siddique's khutba on the inclusivity of Islam for strong and weak Muslims and the exemptions given to women. Why are mujaheddin, especially IS, presented as brutal by US media: Specific answers.

    2016-02-28 Sun 20:11:53 ct