It's the end of the day after London's first experience of al-Qa'ida-style terrorism; the death toll continues to rise (although they do not believe it will reach 100), and the media is full of reports of missing people and the bravery of the emergency services. The fingers are, as expected, being pointed at al-Qa'ida although not much is definitely known about what led up to the incidents other than one man with "olive" skin was seen in an agitated state fidding with something in his bag not long before the Tavistock Square bombing.
It should be clarified that one, rather than two as previously thought, of these attacks directly hit a Muslim district, namely the Edgware Road bomb. The other was travelling on the Circle Line from Aldgate, not Aldgate East, to Liverpool Street, meaning that it had come along the Thames from the West End through the City. The line through the East End, where the Asian Muslims live, is the Hammersmith and City line through Aldgate East. (Then again, it's possible that the culprits did not know the bombs would explode at Aldgate and Edgware Road.)
Various incidents of hostility to Muslims have been reported, including an arson attack on a mosque in Leeds and abusive phonecalls to mosques and Muslim organisations. I mentioned to people I had instant-message conversations with yesterday and today that the proof of the pudding would be jumu'ah today, and there has been, to my knowledge, no trouble. The worst is expected tonight from drunks tonight after the closing of the pubs around 11pm. I don't fear a mob backlash, because for that you need people to whip up the mob, and the sort of people who would do something like that are held in no great esteem in London, and may be looking at imminent jail time for race hate offences. I am more worried about this being used as an excuse to step up "security" by curbing civil liberties.
I must say, I am getting pretty annoyed with the recurrent attempts to establish "7/7" as the name for this event. This convention was used for the 9/11 attacks because there was no other succint way of describing them. This was the first time I heard the Madrid bombings referred to as anything other than "the Madrid bombing" or something like that. This incident was not exactly 9/11 anyway and I don't entirely buy the al-Qa'ida story, for reasons John B spells out here:
The bombs were far too rubbish to be the work of a global terror network with any kind of supply chain: the terrorists didn't even have any Semtex, hardly killed anyone ([less than] 100 people is rubbish if you're aiming to maximise casualties), and didn't cause any property damage. And the amount of collaboration and organisation required was negligible: "blow trains up around 9AM tomorrow. See ya".
This morning the possibility of all the attacks being the work of a single person was even mentioned, although they have now ruled that out. But the last terrorist attacks we had in London - a series of pipe bombings - turned out to be the work of a single attacker, namely David "I'm a nazi and I like killing people" Copeland.
Even if the attacks were the work of more than one person, it doesn't necessarily point to al-Qa'ida, even if those responsible were Muslims. This was the first attack in which it would be obvious to any local Muslim that Muslims would be in the front line (the embassy bombings in east Africa, for example, were done during the morning prayers, when it was imagined that Muslims would be off the streets and in the mosques). The attack was on purely civilian targets, rather than military (eg. the Pentagon, the USS Cole), political (Washington) or economic (the WTC), and the damage caused was relatively minor (a bus and a few train carriages, rather than a bridge or a power station, or any other whole building).
Then again, it might not matter who did this, because whatever evidence does come up is likely to be used as an excuse to blame it on al-Qa'ida, despite the weakness of previous al-Qa'ida links: that suicide note, which appeared to have been written by a non-Muslim without basic Islamic knowledge, which debunks any Israeli link, and what the English-language media has so far not told us about last year's Madrid bombings:
For their part, the conservatives have, since then, devoted all their strenuous efforts to defending their record. They also insist that too many question marks remain about the 2004 attacks - the physical perpetrators were petty Madrid-based criminals; the explosives used were sold by traffickers in northern Spain who are suspected to have supplied Eta too; regional police authorities had known about those dealings since 2001 but had not acted. A local Socialist party official had even been visiting a suspected Islamist terrorist in jail. Ties between the suspected terrorists and the Moroccan secret services have surfaced.
Bear in mind: the worst atrocities of the Algerian civil war were massacres of Muslims carried out by members of the security services pretending to be "Islamic terrorists".
The political comment has included some unsavoury material. As tasteless as George Galloway's assessment that the bombing was a result of British participation in Iraq must have seemed coming just hours after the attacks, I can't think why else terrorists of the al-Qa'ida stripe would hit London. I'm sure some people would have taken it to be a gleeful "I told you so" message, though I'm not so sure; the attacks were in, or fairly near, his constituency, after all.
Worse is the asinine comments by people trying to disprove any link by pointing out that 9/11 happened before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know if everyone has forgotten, but they came after a decade of sanctions against Iraq leading to numerous children dying due to lack of essential medical equipment, after the raid on the medicine factory in Khartoum, the long-term stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, and long-term aid to Israel, among other provocative actions. We see the same refusal to link what happens to us with what our governments do in the countries where the terrorists apparently come from. One can expect the right to act like this - to forcibly discourage anyone from questioning the actions of "their" politicians; one has to wonder why people on the left would jump in with them and display similar selective blindness and defamatory vitriol.
But again, I'd like to voice my continued opposition to any anti-libertarian "security" measures which might be pushed through on the back of these attacks. The last time such things happened, in the 1970s, resulted in a number of people doing years of jail time for bombings in which they were not even remotely involved - and that was when there was a campaign, rather than just one incident! There were the embassy bombings, and then nothing else. There was 9/11, and then nothing else. Madrid, and then nothing else. We can't assume that this is part of a campaign! We can't let fear get the better of us! I honoured what my mother told me, that I shouldn't go to London, but someone was trying to persuade me not to go even to Croydon to get my hair cut. I have heard of two incidents in the past when a bus got the top deck ripped off it, and they were caused by the driver going into a low bridge or a building by mistake! (One of these was in Aberystwyth in October 1996 when I was a student there.) If you get injured or killed on the bus or train, an accident is by far the most likely cause. If we talk about not being cowed by terrorists, and then sign our liberties away, we prove ourselves to be mealy-mouthed cowards.
you'd talk about ANYTHING but the vile murders that did these crimes
go on at least TRY to blame the bombers
Alhamdulillah, a Muslim blog that isn't falling over itself trying to show sympathy for the victims in an overblown way, when deaths like this are a daily occurrence in the Muslim world.
All the claptrap apologisms about condemning all sins, not conflating one conflict with another etc etc. when those people didn't bat an eyelid a few days ago when 17 Afghan civilians were blown to smithereens by US troops. And the remarkable similarity between the right-wing nutjobs in the US demanding all Muslims publicly repudiate the actions of a fringe, and the pathetic, shrill voices in the Muslim community doing just that. Last I checked, I don't personally know any terrorists, so what do I have to apologize for? Who do I have to prove anything to?
It makes me sick, the cravenness and herd mentality I see in the Muslim blogosphere. Alright, I'll quit my rant now...
There is no group called "al-Qa'ida". This was something made up by the US administration, fanned by tabloid journalism, and now eargely used by all individuals, and all groups, who carry out such acts, to further maximise the effect of their actions. I would not be surprised that it was first used, internally, as a term to simply mark all groups the US regards as threats (i.e. simply the human mind desiring to categorise everything) but has spawned into this fantastical organisation with sleeper cells and tentacles from Europe to Australia, and probably even the Moon.
If it was Muslims who did this they need never have seen bin Laden, never have been anywhere near an "al-Qa'ida" training camp, and never be able to point out Afghanistan on a map. To maximise their effect they need only say "we are an outfit of al-Qa'ida".
This sort of sprouting of "groups" overnight happens in Pakistan in the Kashmir conflict and in the sectarian divisions: on closer inspection "The Army of the Prophet and His Righteous Companions" or "The Group for the Defence of The Companions Against Insults", or whatever fanciful titles they dream up, merely happens to be a couple of guys with a kalashnikov, a Honda CD70 and greivances (or simply hatred) against local Shias. This also appears to be the case in Iraq with the variety of "martyrs brigades" that spring up everywhere.
assalamu 'alaykum
I agree with the first comment...
and also the Al Qaeda stuff. I'm glad you said what was on my mind.
Ever notice on CNN how every day some sort of "senior al qaeda agent" is either offed or captured? How many "senior" agents are there?
salam
as-salamu 'alaykum,
First of all, I'd like to say that enjoyed your reflections on all of this and found your thoughts very worthwhile.
As to discounting the possibility that the London bombings were "al-QaâÂÂida-style terrorism", since they weren't on the same scale as 9/11 or Madrid, well attacks on that scale, now that they've happened, are going to be much more difficult to carry out. As security gets tighter due to such attacks, the ability to carry out large-scale attacks is going to become more difficult (although seemingly not impossible). Supposing that al-Qa'ida sympathizers manage to carry out an attack in the U.S. in the future, the mere fact that it ends up being less spectacular than 9/11 doesn't mean that they didn't doing it, since pulling off such a spectacular attack twice in a row is nearly impossible. Likewise, getting sophisticated explosives into the UK or the US is probably much more difficult than getting them into continental Spain, which could explain why less powerful bombs were used.
Also, in response to the assertion that the London attacks were "on purely civilian targets, rather than military (eg. the Pentagon, the USS Cole), political (Washington) or economic (the WTC)", well one could easily disagree and just say "...transportation (London)" since that's one possible way the attackers could have justified in their sick little minds. This wouldn't be far off from the WTC attacks in discounting the civilians in the buildings as collateral damage since they unfortunate occupiers of an key economic target - so just trade "economic" for "transportation" in the case of London.
As far as the alleged "suicide note" of one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately after it was released I remember thinking that no Muslim could have written this as well. However, several months ago I re-read the document, which is an admittedly poor translation, and concluded that it was possible that a Muslim wrote this. One reason for my change of mind was that I had been working on updating my own last will and testament, and had be using some "Islamic Will" templates that I found on the Internet. Some of these documents, especially the "Salafi" ones, are rather atrocious in the way that they re-state the obvious, which is one of the main faults of the alleged 9/11 suicide notes. Some of them seem to be written with a "Muslims are painfully ignorant of their Deen" and "Muslims are innovators" mentality, thus they go to ridiculous lengths to explain things in an attempt to ensure that rituals are done Islamically and that no "innovations" are committed. I bring these out as just points to consider, since I certainly haven't reached a firm conclusion one way or another.
My only conclusions are that we're all at the mercy of the government and the media in regards to the information that we get about these events so we might as well get used to the fact that we're probably never going to know the whole truth. Also, I concur with your belief that al-Qa'ida or some other Muslim group is going to be blamed whether they're actually guilty or not. I'll go as far as to say that even if the official conclusion is that some non-Muslim group carried out the London bombings, in the minds of the mush-brained public that watches FoxNews, Muslims will still be to blames. That's because, believe it nor not, they actually believe that the U.S. and U.K. governments are too nice to Muslims and are scared to say anything negative about Islam in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary. There are people out there who believe that the Oklahoma City bombings were carried out by Muslims, but the government just doesn't want people to know this!!! Yes, the conspiracy-theorists and spin-doctors have a knack for taking things wherever they want them to go, so we better get used to the fact that Muslims are going to be blamed for the London bombings regardless of what the truth really is.
I have to admit that I sympathize with the commenter above who was happy to find "a Muslim blog that isnâÂÂt falling over itself trying to show sympathy for the victims in an overblown way, when deaths like this are a daily occurrence in the Muslim world", since I'm probably one of the bleeding hearts he's talking about. While I agree with the double-standards that he points out and with his conclusion that we, as Muslims, shouldn't apologize when we've done nothing wrong, there is more to it than this. There is such a thing as proper adab after such a tragedy, so if the U.S. military doesn't apologize for, or even recognize, their own crimes, well the kuffar aren't our teachers. And even though we Muslims do have our grossly apologetic "shrill voices", I don't see them as really being similar to the "right-wing nutjobs in the US". While the former maybe limp-wristed, spineless and willing to compromise their Deen, the latter are simply intellectually-challenged bigots who are so blind they can't see their gross double-standards.
Also, I think the above mentioned commentator should be aware that one of the desires, insha'llah, of those of us who offered condolences and made some comments in the wake of the London bombings was making it clear that such bombings are un-Islamic and that there are Muslims out there who firmly believe them to be un-Islamic. For the Muslim community to remain silent after such events would simply play into the hands of our enemies. The commentator's point that we need to be more assertive in pointing out the massacres that get carried out on a daily basis in the Muslim World is a point well taken. However, it's also quite easy to be a critic of Muslim leadership when one is not in that role, so instead of throwing out easy accusations of a "herd mentality", I'd like to know how commentator Saleem would have handled this situation if he was in a leadership position and how his wise decisions would leave the Muslim community in a better position than they are today.
Anyway, keep up the good work...
You seem very very confused, Yusuf.
I'm not sure what point you're making, if any at all.
salam alaikoum
my bad, not the first comment, the second comment from saleem about people falling all over themselves.
and david, i think he made his point quite well
wasalam
Abdur Rahman,
Why do your disdain the purification of ibadah, and manhaj? I consider myself a Salafi, wa Allahualim. Only Allah knows my affair but why do your reject Muslims purging thier manhaj of acts that will destroy them? What is with the anti salafi campaign, we InshaAllah are the good guys or at the very least we know the good way.
Asalaamualaikum wa rahmatullah...
Saleem I am disappointed in you. After the bombings in London, I recieved an email from a sister about what Shaik Ubaid said about what the Muslims should do in regards to such events.
"Sheikh Ubayd al Jaabiree on the London attacks
The sheikh said that if the media begins to blame the Muslims for these attacks then they should free themselves from it. They should perform the friday prayer freeing themselves from these attacks and that it has nothing to do with Islam.
The sheikh also said that they should spread this if they can in the mainstream media so the people know that Islam does not permit such acts.
Sheikh Muhammad al Banna on the London attacks
Sheikh Muhammad al Banna said,
I advise you to clarify that this is not an islamic action and Allaah says in the Quran "Allaah does not prohibit you against those people who have not fought you and have not taken you out of your land that you treat them well and treat them justly." And that these actions are evil...(unclear)
The sheikh asked whether they killed many people?
I said to him about 45 people dead and about 1000 injured. To which he said,"I seek refuge in Allaah from this, may Allaah make it easy."
Rather than offer no productive sentiments at this time, you should both advise other Muslims and other kafirs about what Islam truly permits and forbids, both enlightening other Muslims and soon to be Muslims, inshaALlah..
Remember Saleem everything a Muslim does is a form of dawah. So we can either call to Islam with good or we can call away from Islam with bad.
One question. Please answer. What happens to kafirs? Is it true, as my Muslim friend tells me, that kafirs will go to hell and burn?
If that is true, then I can understand the logic of a Muslim having little regard for non-Muslim life - after all, the destiny of the kafir is to go to hell.
Maybe one problem is that Muslims hold people who do not adhere to Islam in such low regard?
peace.
indcoup,
God says the kafirs will go to hell. But who is the kafir? Is it the person that disbelieves in a god which is impossible to believe in (such as man as god concept), or the person who disbelieves in a god that commands people to commit atrocities. Are you following me:). You see, it is not easy to tell who the kafir is. THE kafir (whoever that is) will go to hell, God says that, no doubt - it is in the Qur'an , Bible, Torah, and all religious scriptures.
"But have you seen his heart"? This is a question the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked to one of his companions.
"Verily Allah does not look at your stature or your wealth, rather he looks at your heart" ...a verse from the Qur'an.
Make no mistake, this is not to deny that a kafir is recognisable, especially if he himself pronounces his kufr, but then again that is not synonymous with going to hell. Firstt, cos it is not over until its over. And second, you need to be kafir to God to go to hell, not to muslims, christians, jews, etc. It is not easy to say "such and such a person will go to hell". You will be playing God. Perhaps you could get away by saying "God say such and such a person with such and such traits will go to hell". However, isn't "God say" different from "Muslim say".
If that is true, then I can understand the logic of a Muslim having little regard for non-Muslim life - after all, the destiny of the kafir is to go to hell.
The term "kafir" in a linguistic sense means the one who disbelieves. As Islamic terminology, it means a non-Muslim; someone who rejects, or does not follow, Islam.
What the destiny of an individual non-Muslim is really has nothing to do with whether Muslims are allowed to kill them at random or not. There are specific circumstances in which Muslims are allowed to kill, and they are the ones you would normally expect (such as for criminal justice purposes and in battle). They do not include killing a load of people on a bus, whatever their religion.
As an non muslim observer who has in the past tried to understand and be sensitive to the concerns of Muslims, I think that this most recent act of random barbarism speaks volumes about the bestiality of the perpetrators,. I recall that during my soujourn in Saudi Arabia I was told by my Muslim cooworkers that they would never invite democracy into the Arab Peninusula but would not refrain from using it and abusing it in the West to achieve their ends. Well as a Westerner, it is time for me to say, if Muslims cannot respect democracy , they should quickly pack their belongings now and return to their beautiful and tolerant societies where they can live in peace and contentment! Both Allah and God will be satisfied!
To bikhair,
I don't disdain "the purification of ibadah, and manhaj" but only the way that the so-called "Salafis" do it. As someone who spent about eight years as a so-called "Salafi", four years of it in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., I can personally attest that this modernist movement (and that's what it is in spite of their claims) is a spiritually unhealthy and arrogant undertaking that's doing untold harm to our Ummah. One clear sign of a sect is that they think that they're right and everyone else is wrong - and this is certainly how the "Salafis" see themselves. Not only that, but their outlook on things implies that the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims -- and Sunni Muslim scholars as well -- were astray. They believe that Imam an-Nawawi, Imam al-Ghazali, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and many others had incorrect 'aqidah -- all based on the simplistic and crude outlook of less-than-qualified men like Bin Baz and al-Albani. To them, these great scholars of Sunni Islam weren't following the Qur'an and Sunnah simply because their (i.e. Bin Baz, al-Albani, etc.) understanding is so crude, distorted and out of touch with Sunni Islam. Such "Salafis" claim that they following the "Qur'an and Sunnah" rather than one of the four madhhabs, which implies that the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims and their scholars were astray and misguided for about 1,300 years. This essentially amounts to backbiting these scholars and is really about the most ridiculous claim a Sunni could make. Thus one scholar has called anti-madhhabism the greatest and most dangerous heresy of our time. As to simplistic claims of being the "good guys", well every group claims that. The simple fact is that the "Salafis" have broken with the overwhelming majority (jumhur) of the Ahl as-Sunnah both in 'aqidah, manhaj and fiqh. I know that it's easy to get duped by the "Salafis", since when many unreligious Muslims decide to start practicing Islam they run into "Salafis" who convince them, in their ingorance, that they're doing the right thing. However, if one does a little reading and a little critical thinking (which is in short supply these days) and doesn't just believe what the "Salafis" try to spoon-feed you, there is hope, insha'llah. Yes, purification is good, but if done under the wise guidance of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, not "Salafis", Wahabis, Shi'a, Isma'ils or any other sect.
Ingrid Hunt,
Please dont pass off your anecdotes as proof positive that Muslims are or think a particular why.
Also Muslims shouldnt leave democractic countries because they dont respect it. That isnt the issue. The issue is however that Muslims have an obligation to migrate or to make hijra to Muslim countries so their needs, both spiritually, socially, etc. can be best met within the structures of thier religion.
Abdur Rahman,
Simply saying that noble scholars like Bin baz and Albani are crude doesnt cut it. You must establish a proof against them and when speaking about the defamation or the rejection of the past works of the scholars you mentioned before, you should keep in mind what Imam Ash- Shaafie had to say about his own works which mirrors the sayings of the likes of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Haneefah, "In every issue where the people of narration find a report from the Messenger of Allah to be saheeh which is contrast to what I have said, then I take back my saying, whether during my life or after my death."
Consider also that because something is out of touch with Sunni Islam isnt grounds for its rejection. We arent supposed to be considered with the stream lining of our religion. There are plenty of hadiths to attest to the fact that the Messenger of Allah said that his sunnah came as something strange, and will leave as something strange, the narration of the sects and how most ahve deviated from the straight path save for one, etc. etc.
Salafis dont claim to be the right path.
BTW you reek of hizbiyah. Keep your critical thinking on the campus. I doubt that your critical thinking will save you on the day of reckoning.
I posted comments similar to the following on BBC, I hope they publish it.
I am really worried about these IDs that are being found at the scene of a bomb blast that left many humans unrecognisable. It's really sad what happened in London. And I hope and pray that they catch the criminals responsible for this atrocity. However, the detective work so far has not been impressive. What is all these ID business that is always found at a bomb blast scene. A scene where people perish beyond recognition, IDs survive intact. We had the same sort of finding following the world trade center bombing. I am afraid I can't go along with this anymore. We need to start finding evidences, not IDs.
Does any feel the same here? This is not America for God sake.
I know this bombing is not directly at fault with the Muslim community as these idiots are claiming to do all this in the name of Islam but obviously anyone with any logic can see this is absolute BS.
However, why is that white people form the anti nazi league and march against the national front and BNP in protest but I have yet to see any Muslim organisation make ONE protest or march against people like Bakri and Abu Hamza? This is the sort of thing that should have been done or should be done in order to show the world that Islam is not about these things. Unforunately right not, (thought I know this is not the case) it seems that people are taking all the condemnations from Muslim organisations and religious leaders with a pinch of salt as they think they are just out to avoid a backlash.
After the last few years of huge surges in Mosques being built and the government bending over backwards to accomodate Islam (banning of xmas in birmingham, someone having to remove their piggy bank from their window sill because a Muslim complained) race relations are in a tricky place but the Muslim community has done nothing to sort this. I just hope it is not too late now.
I hope i have not offended anyone with any comments, I am very eager to hear your perspective of my comments though :)
vin: do the Muslims ask the council about such issues or object to their Christmas celebrations, or is it a misguided attempt by the council to "not offend minorities" which actually have exhibited no offence? I've never noticed in the Muslim press and internet sites objection to other people's festivals. No Muslim has ever objected to them in front of me. As for the piggy-banks on the window-sill, it was not just the piggy-banks but, as I recall, the clearly-visible anti-Muslim slogans next to them.
http://pharmacy.medicinetrail.org/bmihitm/ condemedlockingprotect
Do Muslims object to nativity scenes because they disapprove of visual depictions of any Prophet, including Isa?
http://hydrocodone-effects.pills4order.com betraysmotheringstories
asSalaam 'aleykum wa RahmatuLlah;
Peace be upon those who accept Guidance:
dear brother AbdulRahman and sister bintkhayr:
I love you both, and while I certainly incline towards the "critical of salafi" side, I love Shaykh Hamza, his diplomacy and statement (paraphrased from two weeks ago): "I don't like those who criticize ibn Taymiyya, he was a great scholar. like all scholars, he made mistakes, but he should be shown respect. if only his students, or those who claim to follow his path, would show respect to others or at least not harass them - which they don't - we should treat them as brothers and sisters in this deen".
This is not the time, though there certainly needs to be forceful condemnation of wahabi/ "salafi/ takfiri" extremist theology/rhetoric, and the connections of those above with terrorism/ extremist violence - my blog has entries on that, and I have my own experiences in Saudi to relate to.
None the less, abdurRahmans' point about why we should condemn the attacks as "anti-Islamic" and bintkhayr's (and many, many "Salafis") evident sincerity both argue against slandering each other or getting into heated arguments in comment boxes of blogs, don't we have enough of that already?
as to bintkhayr's comment: "Why do your disdain the purification of ibadah, and manhaj? I consider myself a Salafi, wa Allahualim. Only Allah knows my affair but why do your reject Muslims purging thier manhaj of acts that will destroy them? What is with the anti salafi campaign, we InshaAllah are the good guys or at the very least we know the good way." - I think it's takfir and the extremist rhetoric "lanaat Allah ala Nasara wa Yahud!" that I hear shouted from mosques here (and at me, even though I'm a muslim who happens to be white and from the West, I can't get my salaams answered and have to endure people asking me "are you a muslim?" when I salaam them (sometimes after prayer!), as well as interrogating me with "Where are you from? Baladi, Agenci?")... those attitudes, bought for with Saudi oil money and reinforced by Wahabi/"Salafi purification of the deen & manhaj" theology, as well as ignorance, bigotry, and idiocy are precisely what is destroying us.
as the hadith [Sahih] states: "You have inherited two [ugly, bad habits] things from the time of Jahilliyah: pride in ancestry and mutual enmity."
as well as: 'He who preaches bigotry is not one of us. And not being one of us, he may go ahead and fight in the cause of bigotry. He who dies for such a cause is not one of us either.' HADITH OF ABU DAWUD On the Authority of Jubayr Ibn Mut'im : http://hadeeth.blogspot.com
may Allah bless and guide us all
asSalaam 'aleykum wa RahmatuLlah;
Dawud
http://soma-how.pills4order.com/57778/ lockernevershave