|
 Enough
dissecting of Muslim hearts! Time to search for the
real roots!
By
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi, PhD
14 February 2006
Not
content with the daggers driven through the hearts of
Muslims in the form of disparaging cartoons, the media
- including the BBC - appears to be making
up for not republishing them by contributing to the
pain with a relentless campaign of dissections of the
Muslim heart to prove that we ought not to be upset.
Our feelings, they seem to suggest, are merely a result
of denial and political manipulation. Little do people
realise that this controversy was designed with the
specific purpose of causing widespread uproar among
Muslims and repulsion for Islam in Europe.
BBC
swallows the "Children's Book" Gloss
Last
week, in place of its Open Country programme,
BBC Radio Four announced a "special programme"
which they advertised with the following words: "Malcolm
Brabant travels to Denmark to investigate the roots
of the controversy". Instead of interviewing Mr
Flemming Rose, the person who commissioned and published
the cartoons, the programme focused almost entirely
on blaming the controversy squarely on the shoulders
of some Danish Muslims who "took the cartoons to
the Arab world", as if to assume that in this age
of satellite television and the internet, the cartoons
would not otherwise have reached those Arab countries.
These also happen to be countries that had extensive
trade links with Denmark and fully staffed embassies
in Copenhagen.
Mr
Brabant relied on the popular spin that a children's
book by Mr Kåre Bluitgen is at the root of the
controversy. As the story goes, he could not find illustrations
for his book, which had been intended "to promote
a better understanding of Islam". Instead of investigating
what potential relevance there could be between a children's
book promoting understanding and a bomb-in-a-turban
cartoon, journalists have by and large contented themselves
with the easy option of swallowing the spoon-fed gloss
offered by the real architects of this controversy.
If the cartoons were commissioned by Mr Rose simply
to help Mr Bluitgen find illustrations for his children's
book, he would have no conceivable reason to select
and publish "adult" content cartoons, i.e.
cartoons of "bombs" and "virgins".
Unfortunately,
the overreaction in various protests of some naïve
young people in the Muslim community is now being used
to justify the wholesale dismissal of the pain felt
by most Muslims. The sentiments of millions are being
dismissed as mere "government exploitation",
whereas the facts speak for themselves: Muslims in forty
countries - including Afghanistan, with its
US-backed government - are protesting and innocent
civilians are being shot dead by riot police.
BBC
in bed with MEMRI
If
journalists at the BBC were doing their job (that our
licence fee funds) adequately, they would have discovered
that there is more to this story than meets the eye.
Sadly, they have continued to rely on selective sound
bites. Mr Tim Whewell and the Newsnight programme
(09.02.06) have relied on Irshad Manji, who is denounced
by all mainstream Muslims, and the US-based, pro-Israel
think tank "MEMRI" to repeat their one-sided
coverage of caricatures in the Middle East. They failed
once again to balance biased reporting with video clips
and cartoons from the Israeli media, which routinely
demonise Muslims and Arabs. Are we really to believe
that the video clips provided by MEMRI, which were clearly
marked in Arabic bath tajribi ("experimental broadcast")
were objective selections?
There
are two sides to this story and the BBC, so far, appears
to be taking the easy option of accepting ready-made
short cuts provided by pro-Israel activists instead
of conducting original and objective research. If this
is the new "balanced" methodology the BBC
wants to adopt, then some might argue that it should
be asked to broadcast clips from promotional videos
of Palestinian activists as well, showing, not fictional
blood libel (as they did in those questionable clips
from MEMRI) but the actual slaughter of Palestinian
children. Perhaps Newsnight and the BBC do not possess
in their archive "clips" of the innocent boy
Muhammad al-Durrah being shot dead in the arms of his
father.
The
BBC did not even attempt to contextualise the clips
it showed of cartoons and of a drama production from
the Arab world. Video is a very emotive medium and,
in its use in favour of only one side of the story,
it undoubtedly projected an unfair image of the Muslim
and Arab world. (For an insight into the organisation
known as MEMRI please see the article by Guardian journalist,
Brian Whitaker, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html)
Conspiracy-of-silence
accusation
The
BBC's Today Programme (08.02.06) suggested that there
might be a "conspiracy of silence" among Muslims
in denying that pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him) exist. Carolyn Quinn quoted, in a condescending
tone, a verse from the Quran and then followed it with
an ignorant assumption that there is no distinction
between God and the Prophet in Islam. If the BBC wants
to talk about a "conspiracy of silence" then
I suggest we look at why there are no high profile media
investigations into the relationship between Mr Flemming
Rose, the person who commissioned the cartoons, and
Mr Daniel Pipes, the major Neocon pro-Israel activist
who is, incidentally, keen to see Muslims kicked out
of Europe out of fear that a time will come when they
will begin to influence Western foreign policy towards
Israel.
Instead of justifying a comparison of the offensive
cartoons with 13th Century drawings (BBC Today Programme,
08.02.06) in what appeared to be an attempt to make
Muslims look ridiculous, the BBC needs to compare the
rhetoric of Mr Rose with that of Mr Pipes. Only then
would people in both the Muslim and Christian worlds
wake up to the real challenge at hand. So far the controversy
seems to have progressed precisely as intended by its
instigators.
The Real Root of the Controversy
In
1997 when an Israeli woman was criticised for publicising
cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) as a pig standing on the Quran, Daniel Pipes defended
her actions: "The person who put up the posters
engaged in what we in the United States would consider
protected speech. Our government is supposed to endorse
the right peaceably to distribute written materials,
no matter how much it may execrate their contents...
The rules of free speech protect not nursery rhymes
or paeans of goodwill but nasty, sacrilegious, and abhorrent
discourse. For over two centuries, the U.S. government
has consistently forwarded free speech, and did so against
far more fearsome adversaries than fundamentalist Muslims.
It must recover from Mr Burns' very unfortunate rant
and again and always stand up for this principle".
(Pipes, 25.07.97, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/284)
A link to that highly offensive Israeli cartoon still
exists today at danielpipes.com.
To get to grips with the current problem, which has
the potential to escalate into something grave for both
the Muslim and Christian worlds, we need to find its
real roots instead of compounding it with ignorant spin
masquerading as informed journalism. But before I proceed
I must offer a word of caution about "conspiracy
theories". In my observation of people's attitudes
towards conspiracy, they seem to congregate into two
broad groups positioning themselves at one of two extremes.
At one end are those who read conspiracies into everything,
whilst leaving very little room for God and His plans.
I find these people exceedingly frustrating; they are
despondent because they fail to grasp the complexities
of our world, the sophistication of human nature and,
more importantly, God's ever-present and gracious power.
"They plot and plan and God too plans... But the
best of planners is God" (Al-Quran 8:30).
Having said that, I find those at the other extreme
equally frustrating. These are the people who may be
labelled "accident theorists"- people
who would like us to believe that all occurrences in
our world are random, arbitrary and accidental. From
the Big Bang to the Big Crunch and everything in between,
they refuse to accept the existence of any propensity
in human beings to cooperate with one another in secrecy,
and deny the existence of something known popularly
as "strategic planning". These are people
who live in the bliss of ignorance, and revel in showing
condescension to those who refuse to join them in placing
their heads in the sand. For them, the pro-Israel activists
attacking Islam and Muslims around the world are innocent
victims of Muslim paranoia.
Both
of these extreme positions are unhealthy for the mind
and are counter-productive for a vibrant and progressive
community. The mind stagnates with the oversimplifications
made by both groups. As Muslims we need to maintain
a healthy balance between paranoia and naivety, acknowledging
the possibility and probability of strategic planning,
especially when the evidence is overwhelming. We cannot
allow our minds to be kept in straight jackets, fettered
by the fear of being labelled conspiracy theorists.
We must consider what it would mean for the pro-Israel
activists to be given a guarantee that Muslims would
not question their motives, and whenever someone did,
that he or she would be promptly dismissed as a conspiracy
theorist by other Muslims.
A
natural point of departure is to understand the mindset
of the person who set the ball rolling in the first
place: Mr Flemming Rose. Contrary to his claim that
he was ignorant of Muslim sensitivities before commissioning
the cartoons, "the cartoons [were] not a provocation
to insult Muslims" (International Herald Tribune,
01.01.06), he had been studying Islam and Muslims and
promoting the works of Daniel Pipes for several years
before he decided to commission the forty artists to
draw the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Thanks
to an article penned by Rose himself (Jyllands-Posten,
29.10.04) in praise of Pipes, we are not only able to
obtain a reasonable picture of the kind of relationship
the two men enjoyed but we are also able to see the
flow of ideas from Pipes and their impact upon Rose's
mind.
In
this revealing article, originally published in Danish
and now available on Pipes' website (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3362),
we learn that Rose visited Pipes in 2004. The location
of Pipes' Middle East Forum think tank is a closely
guarded secret. Journalists cannot attend unless they
receive a special invitation. It is housed on the tenth
floor of an anonymous Pennsylvania skyscraper, with
no signs advertising its presence. Rose, being one of
those special invitees, wrote about his visit to the
Middle East Forum and his conversations with Pipes.
In his introduction he plunges straight in with a scare
tactic popular among pro-Israel activists:
"Mr
Pipes spoke and wrote about the threat of Islamists
long before September 11. Already in 1995 he observed
that they had initiated an undeclared war
on the U.S. and Europe." [Emphasised]
(Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten, 29.10.04.)
This
is followed by a description of Pipes' voice as "soft
as velvet". Evidently Rose, at the time of writing,
was fully aware of the negative impact that Pipes' activities
were having on Muslims. He reminds his readers:
"[Pipes]
has caused an uproar in academic,
left-wing and certain Muslim circles. When Pipes talks
about militant Islam at universities, his critics
threaten with uproar and boycott. His appointment
last year by President Bush to the board of the government's
think tank, US Institute of Peace, triggered
great clamor, and it is not coincidental that there
is no name sign on the front door of the think tank's
office." [Emphasised] (Flemming Rose,
Jyllands-Posten, 29.10.04.)
Anyone who visits Pipes' website, let alone his office,
and has conversations with him would undoubtedly be
aware of the controversy he routinely causes. I am amazed
that journalists at the BBC have not had the nerve to
question Mr Rose's sincerity when he pretends that he
had no idea his cartoons would cause such an uproar.
In the Newsnight programme (02.02.06) Rose said that
only "some of the cartoonists" he commissioned
"made satirical cartoons". What he failed
to explain is: why did he choose precisely those cartoons
to publish as opposed to all the others, when he had
prior knowledge of Muslim sensitivities and of previous
uproars?
Europe
should be alarmed about Islam
Claims
that Europe is being swamped by immigration and that
"the continent should be majority Muslim within
decades" (Pipes, 23.11.04) would be dismissed as
crack-pot racist theories by any objective journalist
who knew the actual statistics. They would not be worthy
of comment or, at the very least, would be brushed aside.
However, our Danish cultural editor, Mr Rose, took a
different approach. For him, this is serious intellectual
thought so deep that it should be translated into Danish
and published in his newspapers. He writes:
"Pipes
thinks. He is amazed that Europe is not more
alarmed about the challenge that Islam poses,
considering plummeting birth rates and a weakened
perception of its own history and culture. This
is one of the biggest stories of our time.
The reactions in Europe are bafflingly relaxed.
There is much denial at work. It is paradoxical that
Muslims, coming from countries that are weaker in
economic and political terms, within rich and strong
Europe show more cultural ambition than the Europeans
themselves. That baffles me as an American. Europe
has been the driving force of history throughout the
past 500 years, but now it looks as though
that era has come to a close." [Emphasised]
(Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten, 29.10.04.)
Creating
Repulsion for Islam
As
for strategy, the most revealing paragraph of the article
deals with the need to create repulsion for Islam in
the minds of people. Included is strategic advice from
Pipes on how to challenge Islam. In this article Rose
has not only confirmed his interest in interfering in
Muslim affairs but he is also expressing, through his
choice of words, tacit approval for the suggested strategies
and methods. Quoting Pipes, he writes:
"Daniel
Pipes concludes.... We have millions of Muslims
on our side. If you look deeply into this matter,
the current conflict is one that must be fought out
and won within the Muslim world." According
to Daniel Pipes, it is now important to find alternative
leaders and ideas that can take up
the fight against militant Islam. "In
the confrontations with fascism and communism, we
were victorious because we managed to marginalize
the enemy's ideology, making it look repulsive
in the eyes of the majority." [Emphasised]
(Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten, 29.10.04.)
Given
these excerpts and the events of the last two weeks,
should we continue to give Mr Rose and the pro-Israel
activists the benefit of the doubt? Is it still unreasonable
to question whether Rose's cartoons were part of a strategic
ploy to create repulsion in the minds of Europeans for
Islam and Muslims? Is it unthinkable that this stunt
might be part of the ongoing campaign to force a reformation
on Islam by discrediting those with genuine attachment
to the faith and replacing them with pro-Israel "Muslim"
activists such as the gay campaigner Irshad Manji (Newsnight,
09.02.06), Benador's sidekick Amir Taheri (Sunday Times,
12.02.06) and others more subtle in their approach but
equally dangerous? (See my articles pertaining to the
two above individuals at http://www.occri.org.uk/articles/Taheri280705.htm
and http://www.occri.org.uk/Articles/QuestionsforBBCProducers.htm)
This
is a mission not an error of judgment
If
Rose were objective and had made a genuine editorial
error of judgment, like most modern European gentlemen
he would quickly have retracted the cartoons and apologised
upon realising the pain he had caused. But as we have
seen, he instead embarked on a zealous mission to exploit
his actions by drawing attention to the divisions between
Muslims and Europeans. Instead of apologising, he began
to speak about immigration. In the Newsnight programme
(02.02.06) he argued, unchallenged, that:
"These
cartoons have given impulse to a very important debate
about immigration in Denmark and now we are
starting to debate, by this example, on the one hand
how much the receiving community should compromise
on their own values and standards when they receive
people of foreign countries, immigrants, refugees,
and on the other hand how much must the immigrants
have to give up of their own cultures.. It's
problematic if some Muslims require of me that I,
in the public space, in the public domain, submit
myself to their taboos. In that case I don't
think they are asking for my respect, I think they
are asking for my submission."
In
Rose's claim that the cartoons have "given impulse to
a very important debate about immigration" is there
not a strong resonance with Pipes' amazement that Europe
is "not more alarmed about the challenge that Islam
poses"?
Sadly
for Rose, "the millions of Muslims" on his side promised
by Pipes failed to materialise. They did manage to bring
together a small group of confused Muslims to demonstrate
in favour of the publications in Denmark but the millions
did not rally to Rose's rescue.
The
Clever Retreat
Eventually,
some commentators did begin to ask Rose some uncomfortable
questions, such as querying his relationship with Daniel
Pipes. In response to another question, this time from
a reporter of the International Herald Tribune,
Dan Bilefsky, he said that "he would not publish a cartoon
of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby"
(IHT, 01.01.06) despite claiming that there should be
no limits on free speech.
When
placed under this harsh spotlight, Rose's reaction was
suddenly to declare that he was now willing to publish
Iranian cartoons about the Holocaust. He was then conveniently
discharged from his position as editor of the newspaper.
People around the world are now expected to believe
that had he remained editor, he would have published
the Iranian Holocaust cartoons. I think not! One cannot
"fool all of the people all of the time". The truth
has a stubborn habit of surfacing when you least expect
it.
Where
do we go from here?
So far, it appears that almost everything has gone to
plan: the "alarm" was raised in the form of a cartoon
that pierced the hearts of Muslims all around the world;
the reaction has created "repulsion" in the minds of
many native Europeans; and strange Muslim "reformers"
have raised their heads and are trying again to step
into the shoes of traditional, mainstream, Islamic scholars.
Commenting on the cartoon crisis, Pipes wrote: "It certainly
feels like a clash of civilizations. But it is not...
Moderate, enlightened, free-thinking Muslims do exist...
they look to the West for succor and support...
they eventually will have a crucial role in modernizing
the Muslim world" (Daniel Pipes, "Making sense of the
cartoon jihad", National Review Online, 07.02.06).
It is noteworthy that anyone who disagrees with Pipes'
version of Islam is promptly labelled a "militant Muslim"
or "Islamist" irrespective of their methodology. In
2001, he described Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, universally
respected by all Muslims, as an "important Indian Islamist"
while citing the Shaykh's advice to Muslims in the West
that a life of taqwah [piety] will attract people towards
Islam (Daniel Pipes, The Danger Within, Commentary,
November 2001).
If the "seed of repulsion" is allowed to grow, whilst
naïve Muslims continue to react precisely as the
architects of these provocations intended, and idiotic
"reformers" continue their onslaught on mainstream Islam,
the prospects for multi-cultural cohesion in Europe
will certainly be bleak. The global village will become
a very unpleasant place in which to live. To avoid this,
Muslims, as well as native Europeans, need to wake up
to the challenge of the psychological warfare that is
being waged against them by a small number of well-placed
institutions dedicated to the service of Israel.
To the Peoples of Europe
To the peoples of Europe, I say that Muslims still love
and respect their Prophet (upon whom be peace) with
a genuine love that is hard to express in words. Indeed,
it is difficult to find comparisons in today's world
to convey the intensity of this sentiment. Perhaps the
public emotion in Britain for Princes Diana upon her
death, coupled with the respect for the Queen mother,
can begin to help elucidate the point. These were people
who had relatively little impact on the daily lives
of those who adored them and yet I doubt that there
would be any newspaper in Britain today that would publish
a derogatory cartoon of either of these women. But to
grasp a glimpse of the attachment Muslims have to their
Prophet, one would need to combine the feelings of respect
and love for these two women in the British consciousness
and multiply it a hundred times over. The Prophet's
words and deeds impact the lives of Muslims around the
world every day in countless ways, from the way they
greet each other in the morning to the last words they
pray at night. He is for them the perfect example of
guidance and compassion, and is dearer to a Muslim than
himself and his own family.
While I cannot speak for that tiny group of Muslims
who have given up hope in your ability to listen to
them, and have chosen instead the path of bombs, I am
pleading here the case for the vast majority of sincere
Muslims. These are mainstream Muslims who have come
to these lands in peace. Many of us are here seeking
refuge from oppression and hardship and if, as a token
of our gratitude, we wish for your hearts to explore
our faith, it is grossly unfair to interpret this gesture
as "wanting to destroy you". Indeed it is counterintuitive
to seek the destruction of a people and the amity of
their hearts simultaneously.
In recent times, the likes of Daniel Pipes, sadly, have
remained successful in convincing many among you firstly,
of our supposed plans to destroy you and secondly, of
another, equally absurd, logic i.e. that Muslims are
on the brink of taking over Europe and turning it into
a prison. All this, when the truth is that Muslims are
fleeing to Europe from persecution and hardship all
over the world. Muslims constitute more than 70 per
cent of the world's refugees. The irony is that whilst
Muslim villages are wiped off the face of the earth,
towns bombed to smithereens, lands usurped, countries
colonised and millions displaced, the propaganda machinery
of those responsible is telling the world that Muslims
are about to invade and conquer whole continents, with
Europe being first on the list.
The time has come for peace-loving and sound minded
people to step forward and say: enough is enough! For
how much longer should we allow our governments to be
manipulated with fabricated evidence into making unwise
decisions (e.g. illegal wars)? And for how much longer
should we remain silent while our media broadcasts coverage
so biased that it undermines decades of hard-earned
credibility in minutes (e.g. the BBC's reliance on MEMRI)?
At a time when Parliament is debating bills on "glorification"
and "incitement", should we continue to ignore acts
such Pipes' glorification of the depiction of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a pig in 1997, and his
inciting words to Rose in 2004? According to Pipes,
Europe needs to be "alarmed" about the Muslim presence,
the way to raise that alarm being to create "repulsion"
in the minds of people. The ID cards that the British
Parliament yesterday voted in favour of would not help
Europe identify those "clever" institutions that are
bent on sparking a clash of civilisations.
To the Muslims of the World
To Muslims, I say that the time for a sharp learning
curve has come. Time and time again we have been manipulated
into behaving like pawns on a chess board. The enemies
of Islam study our history. They know that this precise
technique - of insulting the Prophet (peace be
upon him) - has been employed in the past to successfully
undermine us. In Muslim Spain, there was a coordinated
campaign of sending people to stand outside mosques
after Juma (Friday prayers) to curse the Prophet (on
whom be peace). The aim was to provoke an excessive
reaction and create friction between Christians and
Muslims. Sadly, it worked. This campaign was the beginning
of a long process that eventually culminated in the
forced removal of Muslims from Spain altogether.
A polling website (yougov.com) praised by Daniel Pipes
as "reputable" for suggesting that there are 16,000
active Muslim terrorists in Britain (frontpagemagazine.com,
25.07.05), has recently been asking people some interesting
questions about the cartoon controversy: "Did the sight
of the protestors make you angry?" 58 per cent said
yes. "Can Muslims in Britain coexist peacefully with
other religions?" 63% said no (Sunday Times, 12.02.06).
Whilst I cannot confirm that there is coordination between
Daniel Pipes and the YouGov poll, I can certainly see
that this line of questioning would be very useful for
someone who has a settled ambition to create repulsion
for Islam and Muslims in the hearts and minds of individuals
in European society. He would be keen to know the extent
of his success. In addition, polls surveying opinion
can often play a significant roll in influencing opinion
and that in itself, I am sure, would be of great interest
to Pipes.
Based on what I have presented here, much of the Muslim
response to this provocation has served the wishes,
and perhaps plans, of Pipes and his supporters. While
some actions taken were necessary and wise, we have
had demonstrations with naïve placards, embassies
burnt, companies that had nothing to do with the cartoons
boycotted and websites of innocent people in Denmark
attacked. The irony in this is that while we focus our
anger and attacks on Europeans, Israel continues to
enjoy ever-friendlier relations with Muslims countries
and its companies boom with business in our markets.
With our actions so far we have watered Pipes' "seed
of repulsion" in the hearts of a few individuals
and it has now grown into a towering monster trampling
on the heart of Europe. Of course, it is hard to find
time to think and space to act responsibly when daggers
pierce our hearts and cut its strongest string: our
love for RasulAllah (sallahu alaihi wasallam). But that
first impulse to crush the dagger should soon be tempered
by the call of wisdom that looks for the hand holding
the dagger, the body to which that hand is attached
and most important of all, the mind that controls that
body. To defeat that mind we need to understand how
it works and what its ambitions are. We need then to
respond in ways that the wicked mind could never have
predicted. In the received wisdom from the Prophet (peace
be upon him) is his warning that: "A believer should
not be stung from the same hole twice" (Bukhari).
This time we are conscious of what happened in Spain
and, God willing, we will not allow history to be repeated.
We must decide that instead of focusing all our energies
on attacking the dagger, and thereby creating "repulsion",
we will now show the world why our pain is so great.
With wise words and beautiful example we will explain
why "The Prophet is preferable for the believers even
to their own selves..." (Al-Quran 33:6).
This will not be achieved by shouting at them in the
streets, but by inviting and speaking softly to people
in our homes, in our offices, in our mosques and in
our conference halls. Let the world see the beauty of
character in the life of Muhammad (s). We will take
lessons from the Prophet's example when he visited Ta'if.
In addition to ridicule, the people there pursued him
in a mob and pelted him with stones so much so that
he began to bleed. Thereupon, he turned to God and prayed:
"O Allah! I make my complaint only unto You
regarding the feebleness of my strength, the insignificance
of my devices, and my humiliation in the sight of
people. O You, the Most Merciful One! You are the
Lord of the oppressed, You are my Lord. To whom would
You entrust my affairs? To a stranger who would scowl
at me? Or to an enemy who would control me? If you
are not displeased with me, then I do not care (about
any hardship), but an ease bestowed by You will be
more accommodating to me. I seek refuge in the light
of Your countenance (by which all darkness is dispersed
and all affairs of this world and the hereafter are
kept straight), from the descent of Your anger or
the coming of Your wrath. I seek your pardon in order
that you may be pleased with me. There is no power
nor strength except in You."
A powerful angel came swiftly offering the option of
destroying the town with the surrounding hills. The
Prophet's (s) reply was: "No, do not crush them. Even
if they do not accept me, perhaps from their progeny
some may one day worship God." Muslims of the Subcontinent
are direct beneficiaries of that merciful decision taken
by the Prophet (s) in the sandy outskirts of Ta'if.
Muhammad bin Qasim, who took Islam to the Indo-Pak Subcontinent,
was a descendent of those people inhabiting the hills
of Ta'if.
"We have not sent you (O Prophet) but as mercy
to all the worlds"
(al-Quran 21:107)
|
