"The language of the Koran is Arabic ... things are getting out of context, (the Government) is overreacting."

Maybe someone should tell him most of the worlds muslims do not speak arabic. Preach in whatever language that you want but translate it into English so we can all see how peaceful your message really is.

Posted by: Ronin at March 9, 2006 9:47 AM

And just think in Europe our ancestors struggled for several generations to get the Bible and litergy into the vernacular, so we could pray and worship in our own language (although I have a lot of sympathy for Catholic friends who retain fond memories of the Latin Mass).
Then we had nothing to hide, and everything to gain. Islam has everything to hide, and will lose all when it is found out.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 9, 2006 10:20 AM

I reject entirely the notion that the Koran is in Arabic and cannot be translated into other languages because it would lose it’s meaning and be ‘out of context’ –we’ve all heard this before from those clerics and imams who preach peace, peace, peace to us and then turn around and spew bile and hatred about the west to their own people. It’s ridiculous.

Any concept from any culture around the entire globe can be converted into any other language –period. The western language is about as alien from various oriental languages as you get, yet the concepts between the two can be interchangeable, expressed, conveyed, and interpreted. Why is Arabic any different? Could it be that they may be trying to hide truths about Islam that they don’t wish us to know about?

We’re slowly coming around…

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at March 9, 2006 10:48 AM

"Maybe someone should tell him most of the worlds muslims do not speak arabic. Preach in whatever language that you want but translate it into English so we can all see how peaceful your message really is."

Let them preach as they want, but have trustworthy interpretors translate it. If they do it themselves, we will just get a different message in the translation than the original. Use agents or whatever is necesary to follow the prayer meetings and publish the translations when they cross the line.

But that will never happen. Because it requires that either governments or the media decides to do it, and they wont do anything that might actually reveal the true face of islam.

Posted by: ExpatriateDK at March 9, 2006 11:03 AM

Mosques are not the only places where the teachings of Islam are reinforced. Lone wolves, who never attend mosque, or groups consisting of people who never attend mosques, but possessing the portable mosque of Qur'an and Hadith, can wreak damage on Infidels without an imam's prompting, or the hysteria that can sometimes be whipped up at Friday Prayers in Karachi, or Ramallah.

In Turkey, Ataturk insisted that the Ministry entrusted with monitoring religious affairs would write the khutaba, or sermons, delivered in the mosques. The Tunisian government under Bourguiba, and other governments in the Muslim world, do what they can to monitor mosques.

In the Western world, security agencies have every right to monitor mosques. There is enough evidence for the non-religious, geopolitical content of such sermons. Enough fake documents (passports, national I.D., etc.) enough videocassettes and audiocassettes that preach hatred toward Infidels, enough weapons of every kind, in police raids on mosques in London and Milan (the mosque at viale Jenner) and elsewhere, to raise legimate concern throughout the Infidel world. Let that concern be acted on. Let those who would convey the messsage contained in a great many passages in the Qur'an and Hadith worry, and worry constantly, that they are being monitored and recorded, so that they will find it difficult, if not impossible, to spread that message.

This is not the part of Islam that allows it to be called a "religion." This is the other part. And that other part has to be carefully monitored, everywhere. The first duty of the Infidel nation-state is to protect the laws, customs, manners, understandings -- and lives -- of those Infidels, who inherited those countries that were built by Infidels, and could not conceivably have achieved what they achieved under the belief-system we call "Islam."

Posted by: Hugh at March 9, 2006 11:17 AM

Australian Imams should not only be 'compelled'to preach in english,as it is the official language of Australia, but to open the mosque's doors for all ,who want to hear the sermon. (You can see a board in front of all Christian churches-"All are welcome".One more impartant practice by thses Islamists is to be monitered: When ever the Imam starts the 'Byan'(preaching of the message),all the doors of the mosque will be closed,and they will moniter the congregation for any tape recordings,or any strange people sitting who don't seem to look like Muslims..This is prevenlant in all Western country Mosques.. When Preachings in a Christian Chruch,Hindu tample,Sikh Gurudwar,Jewish Synogauge.and Budhist temple is so free for anybody to go there and sit and listen,why this 'secret'Messages of hate and 'order to fight' in the name of Allah's message? Government should moniter,and order the doors of Mosques to be kept opened for any one,who wishes to hear "Allah's words. A Christian Church's Pastor will be doubly pleased ,if a non- believer comes to church to hear his sermons.

Posted by: rafia at March 9, 2006 11:38 AM

I love freedom and hate hate speech laws, holocaust denial laws, and laws against people wearing head scarces, yarmulkes or Steve Martin rabbit ears for that matter.

Free speech is free speech is free speech. If someone wants to give a service worshipping Enkidu the Babylonian God of Fish and conduct it in pig latin - I DON'T CARE.

We urgently need to narrow down prohibited speech to extreme sedition and 'advocating the violent overthrow of the government' - we need to focus on what really counts and surrender a bit of our freedom in this one area - and of course we need to allow profiling as a matter of common sense.

Those who truly love freedom are the ones to oversee these necessary constrictions of our freedom. Another example would be enforced 'integration' of Muslims in Europe, Australia etc. If children are not taught the language of their own countries it is a form of abuse and should be treated so. The abuse of women should be treated as aggressively as with non-Muslims. Those who preach or incite abuse are also jailable.

The strategy is this - free Western society in itself can be a VERY inhospitable place for them and should be - but don't pass silly laws.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 9, 2006 11:59 AM

Why not do it like normal modern civilized people!
And have A clear 7th century Saracen/Arab agenda and its view from underneath the black rock of the sand world and all its over 3000 years of history and philosophy of Islam from incest to family planning,
a clear psychological profile of its leader and idol, Mohammed, for tourist and interested followers.

I'm sure there are many unbiased inspectors with ref. books besides the Quran, of course, unless some secrets Muslims have that uncontrollable urge to rage problem with and require restrainning?

I believe these are just a few ideas that should help some logical Muslims and tourist better understand and consider other choices, if possible, in there own language, why they are what they are, Past, present and future, then, one can rage and jump or learn to get over it, like normal civilized people.

Posted by: SirSeth at March 9, 2006 12:49 PM

poetcomic1:

I think your username says it all.

Giving a sermon for the purpose of inciting hatred and violence in any language is a criminal act and not an exercise in "free speech". Compelling Australian Muslim clerics to deliver sermons in English is a matter of protecting the country's citizens from those who would threaten their safety and security.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 9, 2006 1:40 PM

Waterdragon

An Islamic sermon in Arabic about, say, humility (if you can imagine such a thing) is no threat to anyone's security. By definition to make 'speaking in Arabic to a freely assembled group' a crime in itself is repugnant to me.

I would prefer to make the definition of sedition broader even to the point that preaching that the umma supercedes any citizenship is in itself treasonous. This is stretching the constitution of any free society but it is prefereable to the above.

Again I'll say that we have the means within our laws to make the Sharia observant family untenable in the West. Feminism and child-protection laws and all the 'meddling in the rights of the family' that have for years infuriated Christian fundamentalists, can come in VERY handy in the next few years!

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 9, 2006 2:20 PM

Feminism and child-protection laws ... can come in VERY handy in the next few years.

You think?

Some use, doubtless, but "very handy" I doubt.

Besides, as we see from your earlier post, you see no problem with clothing that is an expression of Muslim women's subjection. As if these were just random garments, as if their all-enveloping quality was an accident and not of the essence, as if the precise nature of the garment were no significance - as if it were no different from wearing "rabbits' ears" - as if dress were always matter of choice and never something enforced on a woman by male members of her family.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 9, 2006 2:45 PM

Once again I placed the words into my new-fangled Muslim-Speak translation engine and this came out:

"Oh NO! If we "preach" in a language you all can understand, then this whole Islam thing we're working on will be exposed for what it is: A concerted effort to infiltrate your lands, and then erode, defame, and destroy your cultural and social underpinnings which impede the spread of our system of beliefs! If you were to understand what every Muslim is up to, the jig would be up for us!"

Posted by: jsla at March 9, 2006 2:57 PM

poetcomic1:

Maybe you're offended by compelling imams to speak in English to ensure they aren't preaching violence. I'll reserve being offended for the victims of terror bombers and opt to err on the side of caution.

Had the Muslim community at large had done its own policing of their clergy, this would not be a concern. I read a decade ago about an Arabic-speaking reporter here in Toronto who wanted to break a story about one of the bad actors he himself had taped preaching hatred and violence in a local mosque, but his editor spiked it and knowing who the newspaper's editor was, I suspect it was a true story.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 9, 2006 3:48 PM

The keyword in the headline is "urged." Then, the whole concept is a nice idea, but, due in part to the constitutional protections described in various comments, that's all it can be.

It underscores the tragic lack-- not just in Australia-- of sufficient speakers of Arabic who are willing and able to assist government and security agencies in finding out what's being said.

There's always the risk of winding up with a warm, fuzzy "public" khutba in English, followed by the real deal, in Arabic.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 9, 2006 4:03 PM

I agree that there should never be laws limiting language in religious services or anywhere else for that matter. After all, if they can require sermons in English, what's to prevent a future government from outlawing Liturgy in Latin or Slavonic or Synagogue services in Hebrew?

The problem is that the "sermons" in the mosques are often political speeches designed to incite violence and those should be monitored very carefully.

Let's make a very clear distinction. We have no objection to Islam as a religion but we cannot tolerate Islam as an ideology. Muslims can pray five times a day, go to mosque on Fridays, eat only halal food, make the haj, and pray to whatever moon god they like. None of these practices threaten us.

HOWEVER... When they wage Jihad, impose Shari'a, object to our forms of worship or non-worship, impose hijab, forbid apostacy, and divide the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, those actions are POLITICAL and cannot be permitted.

If we make this careful distinction between Islam as religion and Islam as ideology, we can avoid the touchy issues of religious freedom and go after the source..

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 9, 2006 5:57 PM

Hey waterdragon - we're on the same side!

But who do you think you are telling women what they can wear because of 'what YOU think it means' - I can perhaps understand the security element of demanding uncovered faces in public but the rest makes me very queasy. As soon as you say 'this piece of clothing means you reject this or that idea so I am going to pass a law so you can't wear it' - i.e. you are treating clothing as 'speech' and then forbidding it.

Lay off this petty stuff and vigorously prosecute the traitorous imams, the Wahabbi mosques, the wife beaters, mistreatment of children etc. Serious Israeli-style profiling NOW. CLOSE OUR BORDERS NOW NOW NOW. But don't wander off into trivia.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 9, 2006 6:46 PM

Part of last post was for Yojimbo.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 9, 2006 6:49 PM

This his is good.

Superintendent McKay, "The Middle Eastern community need to understand if they want to live in this society … the only way the police can operate is with community help. If that doesn't happen the whole place will turn to rubbish."

Thw whole Western world is turning to rubbish because of muslims.

The message though from Australian politicians and the police is consistent.

Here in the UK it is also consistent but the message is totally different.

Posted by: DP111 at March 9, 2006 7:05 PM

poetcomic1 posted; Again I'll say that we have the means within our laws to make the Sharia observant family untenable in the West. Feminism and child-protection laws and all the 'meddling in the rights of the family' that have for years infuriated Christian fundamentalists, can come in VERY handy in the next few years!

Not in Britain. Here we are making exceptions for muslims whenever any of our laws come in conflict with the tenets and practices of islam. As Charles Clarke has openly said "I think that was a serious mistake which you could not imagine happening in other countries ... certainly not in this country. It is a question of respecting others, and that means do not provoke or challenge the deeply-held views of others."

The trouble is that muslims will riot violently and use bombs to indicate the degree of their "hurt feelings". For Mr clarke and his government, that is the only indication that feelings are hurt, and they will do what is necessary to appease muslims.

Posted by: DP111 at March 9, 2006 7:13 PM

poetcomic1

The burqa, in my view is a symbol of the oppression of women. I'm deeply offended that such a symbol is openly flouted in the West.

Now I have nothing against a woman wearing a burqa in the privacy of her home, or in the course of a "rag" event or some such. Why am I so repelled by a "simple" complete covering of the female form? On examination, "oppression" is really putting it mildly; in fact the burqa is a symbol of the enslavement of women, i.e., it is an open symbol of the institution of slavery. And thisI find very offensive.

What bothers me is that, we as a society have recognised the institutionalised slavery of women in islam, as legitimate in the West. This is absolutely absurd. Freedom and slavery are mutually incompatible. One can only expand at the expense of the other. It is a tragedy that we have allowed in, into the domain of Freedom, a society that practices slavery, and worse we give it legitimacy under the guise of multiculturalism.

So here we are, in the 21st century, right here in the domain of Freedom, and we have allowed islands of slavery to become established within this domain.

Posted by: DP111 at March 9, 2006 7:24 PM

comicpoet1 posted: Serious Israeli-style profiling NOW. CLOSE OUR BORDERS NOW NOW NOW

YES YES YES.

Posted by: DP111 at March 9, 2006 7:36 PM

DP111-

I was speaking only of USA re. using family law to make sharia difficult. Britain I honestly don't know.

You have no idea how meaningful and special Islamic modesty and dress can be for a woman - to you it is a symbol of degradation and slavery - to her it is a mark of honor for her sacrifices as an Islamic woman. Very conformist, I know, but for women who have nothing it is her very identity.

I get a little tired of those who rage about the brutal oppression of these women and yet show no real compassion for them. None of this is that simple, people!

Its fun to rant and bluster but now is the time to be smart, sober and as intelligent as we can be.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 9, 2006 8:18 PM

Why not learn the language of the land you invade, at least?

It's like memorizing how to say: "Shut up, stupid whore!" in the native languages of your slave trade sex captives.

Basic courtesy.

Why should we have to waste money on monitoring translators?

Let's see the topics on the sermon board outside:

How Many Infidel Dogs Should Die, Worldwide?

Are Women Worth Half-Of-A-Man, or Less?

What do djinns do, and why?

LOYALTY IS NEVER TO ANY NATION OR COUNTRY- ONLY TO ALLAH!

The neighbors would like to know.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 9, 2006 9:49 PM

My father grew up in a bi-lingual community in Saskatchewan where English and German were spoken. During the second world war, it was forbidden to speak German in schools and public places.

Perhaps a law should be passed to prohibit Arabic being spoken in in public places including Mosques.

Posted by: Islamisbad at March 9, 2006 9:54 PM

I would also like to add; national security and the protection of western citizens measures such as profiling Muslims and border crossings, banning Arabic in public places including Mosques, monitoring Mosques including using informers,wire tappings, random computer confications for investigation.Deport Muslims who threaten and endorse terrorism, bar Imams to visit penitenturies, ect. These measures will will make it more difficult for Jihadists for terrorist attacks in western countries.

Posted by: Islamisbad at March 9, 2006 10:55 PM

Hijab, Jilbab and burkha have no place in the west. Apart from a few, if left to make their own choice, nobody would voluntarily wear it. The pressure by the Mohammedan environment, the ghetto's which we allowed to fester and where police doesn't dare to go, forces this idiotic covering up on these poor, wretched fools.

35 years ago, when I travelled extensively in Islamic countries, the hijab was not an issue, at least not in Turkey, not in Indonesia, little if any at all in Malaysia. Even in Egypt, Morocco or Iran (that would be Teheran) you would hardly ever see it. We went to many universities that time and spoke with students who told us that they had to be careful at all times because they would be spat upon, were cursed or in some cases had rocks thrown at them. Islam never went away and came back with a vengeance.

The real change came with the 'Islamic revolution' and the Mullah's in Iran, which encouraged this 'Islamic revival'. Add to this enormous amounts of Arab money for mosques and madrassahs in all Islamic countries and in the Dar al' harb, and you see a horrible, frightening development.

As for free speech in the mosques, please keep in mind that just about all Islamic countries are ruled by despots who keep a tight lid on what they allow the clerics to preach in the mosques. In the west they are free to spew hatred, and we have to protect ourselves against them. However, whatever the imam preaches in a mosque should be in the language of whichever country he is in. We cannot monitor what these guys say in private, but in the mosque they are public speakers and we have a right to know.

But in the end it will all come to a head and we will have to intern and deport them, no other way. There is no place in the world where Mohammedans can co-exist with unbelievers, and the infiltration and Islamization of Europe is no option, it must be reversed.

Australia is especially volatile: without rigorous enforcement of our laws and values, if we don't make it very unpleasant, if not impossible, for the Islamics to make Da'awa and to establish their cult, they will outbreed us within 50 years.

We can't have that.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 10, 2006 1:22 AM

You have no idea how meaningful and special Islamic modesty and dress can be for a woman - to you it is a symbol of degradation and slavery - to her it is a mark of honor for her sacrifices as an Islamic woman.

Sacrificed to the men.

And, of course, where this dress is allowed - and no wonder the Dutch are thinking of stopping it - it sets up an immediate contrast between the "veiled woman" and the "unveiled woman".

The latter then becomes a target for Muslim gang-rape (increasingly common in Europe and Australia) owing to the peculiar psycho-sexual pathology of Islamic "culture".

The horror, the horror.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 10, 2006 1:26 AM

Why not learn the language of the land you invade, at least?

Sheikh Yermani, the horrors. Next you will be asking them to embrace the religion of the land they invade.

One trend that has happened - in every country that has been annexed by Islam, their language has been forced to accept the Arabic script as their script. This had happened to Farsi, Turkish (before Ataturk adapted the Roman script), Urdu, Pashto, Dari, and the Turkic languages (which under the Russians became Cyrillic, and which after the Soviets became Roman). I don't know about Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, but Bengali is the only language I know of that didn't go Arabic.

Given how brazenly they have been operating, their response to this demand would be that English be written in the Arabic script, instead of the Roman script. Do you think that the media might snap at that point?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 10, 2006 3:37 AM

"The language of the Koran is Arabic ... " Wrong. The language of the Quran is hate.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 10, 2006 6:27 AM

poetcomic1 posted: I get a little tired of those who rage about the brutal oppression of these women and yet show no real compassion for them. None of this is that simple, people!

I have made abundantly it clear that it is not muslim women who adorn the burqa that is offensive - it is what it symbolises ie the institution of slavery that is offensive. Its acceptance as the norm in the West of all places, is an acknowledgement that we accept slavery.

The fact that some muslim women see it as a security blanket, reminds me of caged animals who are afraid to come out of the cage even if the door is opened, as the cage is the only security they know. This just reinforces my view that islam has robbed muslim women of all identity but a body bag, and thus it needs to be opposed.

I have consistently written over the last 4 years that muslims are the first victims of islam, and women more so then men. If we in the West cannot fight for their freedom, then what are we about.

Posted by: DP111 at March 10, 2006 6:53 AM

sheik yer'mam posted: Australia is especially volatile: without rigorous enforcement of our laws and values, if we don't make it very unpleasant, if not impossible, for the Islamics to make Da'awa and to establish their cult, they will outbreed us within 50 years.

I believe the situation in NZ is even more critical.

Posted by: DP111 at March 10, 2006 6:56 AM

Poetcomic:

I have no idea what side you think you are on. I think you are on the side of the incredulous.

I don't recall raising the issue of burqas. I said that had the Muslim community acted as good citizens and turned seditious imams over to the authorities, the Australian government wouldn't be contemplating such measures as legislating that religious services be delivered in English.

As for the wearing of burqas in Holland, given what's going on there, it's also a matter of public safety at the heart of it. You can't enter a bank wearing a balaklava or a stocking over your head anymore. If Muslim women really do want to wear burqas -- and aren't coerced by the religious policemen, or by their "custodial" male relatives, let them stay where wearing the damned things are mandatory.

In Canada, we have the remnant of the notorious Khadr family, including the mother and daughter who repeatedly "lost" their Canadian passports while travelling back and forth from Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you want to guess what those "lost passports" were worth to terrorists, because dollars to doughnuts the passport photos had only their eyes visible as that's how the two of them appeared in court when the daughter had her laptop computer seized by the Mounties when she re-entered Canada.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 10, 2006 8:33 AM

Trying to force english into the muslim "church" is probally a hard sell.

How about a law, requiring a recording to be made in a "church" that is using a language other than the country's native own?

This can be played back for ANY person to hear, and the translation can be done by many so as to assure it is right.

Perhaps somthing along these lines..

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at March 10, 2006 10:14 AM

Islamisbad sensibly said:

"My father grew up in a bi-lingual community in Saskatchewan where English and German were spoken. During the second world war, it was forbidden to speak German in schools and public places.

Perhaps a law should be passed to prohibit Arabic being spoken in in public places including Mosques."

This makes sense since we (and Australia) are after all, at war with Arabic (and related) speakers!

Another thought: Do it ourselves. Maybe it's time to put aside the Book Club or whatever and re-organize for Mosque nights. Bring your reading or knitting (and your cell phones which can be used to tape) -- Don't wait for an invitation -- show up.

If the custom of the land is free association in religious institutions we can simply practice our customs.

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 10, 2006 12:05 PM

illustr8rg8r

"Could it be that they may be trying to hide truths about Islam that they don’t wish us to know about?"

Great point. And could it also be that they have always tried to hide the core beliefs abut Islam from Muslims themselves? We are not the only ones "not allowed" to understand the koran ... billions of Muslims don't have a clue either. Frightening.

poetcomic1, You say," Again I'll say that we have the means within our laws to make the Sharia observant family untenable in the West. Feminism and child-protection laws and all the 'meddling in the rights of the family' that have for years infuriated Christian fundamentalists, can come in VERY handy in the next few years!"

And I say that meddlesome laws (designed to fund nanny states -not to protect people) are ineffective. Bad laws do not suddenly become situationally good when circumstances change. Bad laws are bad laws and you don't have to be a Christian fundamentalist to understand that; all you have to be is a conservative.

Personally, I don't want to foster a society where is just fine for nudists or people confined to dog leashes or burkahed females or the KKK gowned or Brown Shirts etc roam freely and willy nilly about our shared public spaces. Laws can be applied where apropos and other sorts of social sanctions where apropos.

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 10, 2006 12:23 PM

Don't forget that the enemy is Islam, not language groups. There are millions of Christians, Copts, Orthodox, Melkites, Maronites, etc. who also speak Arabic.

Then there are all the fanatical Muslims who speak Urdu, Farsi, Malay, Turkish, and others. Serb or Croat Christians usually speak the same language as Bosnian Muslims. Spoken Urdu is mostly mutually intelligible with Hindi. These groups write in different scripts but the sermons would be spoken in almost identical vocabulary.

Let's monitor carefully the content and not get too distracted by the delivery.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 10, 2006 3:06 PM

check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060309/wl_asia_afp/australiaattacksjustice_060309065326

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said that while "re-programming isn't the phrase I would use", the idea would be considered as it had been implemented successfully in Europe, the Middle East and Indonesia.

Posted by: meredith at March 11, 2006 12:45 AM

Provoslavni
"Don't forget that the enemy is Islam, not language groups. There are millions of Christians, Copts, Orthodox, Melkites, Maronites, etc. who also speak Arabic."

That's an excellent point. Do you know if those varied groups are speaking Arabic in their respective religious institutions here in the USA?

I'm under the impression, perhaps false, that imams are the ones relying upon Arabic to cover hateful rants ... similar to, say, Arafat's ploy.

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 11, 2006 12:52 PM

Daisytoo asked "Do you know if those varied groups are speaking Arabic in their respective religious institutions here in the USA?"

That depends on the particular parish. Second and third generations tend to be more confortable with English while the older people and new arrivals prefer Arabic. Interestingly, in many parishes that use mostly English, it is the young people (even teenagers) who want the older liturgical languages restored. Many have a strong feeling of loss that they don't have fluency in their grandparent's language.

Actually, I think that teens and young adults rejecting modern secularism and embracing tradition is a global phenomenon. While this youth revolt against secularism is destructive in Islam (how many elderly suicide bombers have you seen?), it is generally a positive thing for Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, who want to preserve the art, culture, and morality that these young people feel is being lost.

On a more practical note, these Arabic-speaking Christians would be ideal to monitor the content of the Imam's sermons. We surely can't trust Muslims to do it.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 12, 2006 1:03 AM