| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The Egyptian Jesuit priest Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. here explains the thoughtful, careful, and realistic approach that Pope Benedict XVI has adopted toward the Islamic world. "When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam," from Asia News via Chiesa, with thanks to D.:
Benedict XVI is probably one of the few figures to have profoundly understood the ambiguity in which contemporary Islam is being debated and its struggle to find a place in modern society. At the same time, he is proposing a way for Islam to work toward coexistence globally and with religions, based not on religious dialogue, but on dialogue between cultures and civilizations based on rationality and on a vision of man and human nature which comes before any ideology or religion. This choice to wager on cultural dialogue explains his decision to absorb the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the larger Pontifical Council for Culture.While the pope is asking Islam for dialogue based on culture, human rights, the refusal of violence, he is asking the West, at the same time, to go back to a vision of human nature and rationality in which the religious dimension is not excluded. In this way – and perhaps only in this way – a clash of civilizations can be avoided, transforming it instead into a dialogue between civilizations.
Islamic totalitarianism differs from Christianity
To understand Benedict XVI’s thinking on Islamic religion, we must go over its evolution. A truly essential document is found in his book written in 1996, when he was still cardinal, together with Peter Seewald, entitled “The Salt of the Earth”, in which he makes certain considerations and highlights various differences between Islam and Christian religion and the West.
First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority, no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difficult: when we engage in dialogue, it is not “with Islam”, but with groups.
But the key point that he tackles is that of shari’a. He points out that:
“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”.
This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society.
Thus cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion. This would be very difficult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at February 6, 2007 6:32 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Read this over five times:
“"the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself.'
This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society.
Thus cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion. This would be very difficult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy."
Posted by: Hugh
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 6, 2007 8:05 AM
The cult of Islam must be contained. Given that Muslim, "... alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society."
CAIR has some major damage control to do here!
at February 6, 2007 8:15 AM
I would like to comment (with a quote) regarding Samir’s very important statement: “Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants.”
“Our greatest National strengths can also be our biggest points of vulnerability. I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion.”
See “Our Vulnerable Religious Freedoms” at
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/02/our-vulnerable-religious-freedoms.html
at February 6, 2007 8:28 AM
Would it be perhaps asking too much for our so called leaders to read this, and perhaps more importantly to understand it, and then the ramifications to honest law abiding tax paying people with family that will pay for them ignoring souch profound common sense.
Last night I listened to Sarkozy doing his French Islam bit, perhaps he should be sent this, no matter how you dress it up it is still Islam and this is the truth of Islam laid bare for even the most stupid and wilfully blind to see.
What more can you say, if I am alive in 20 years time, I would just love to sit face to face with Blair and ask him, are you proud of what you allowed to happen with your misplaced attitude to Islam and failure to deal with it when we could have?
Posted by: Daffersd at February 6, 2007 9:03 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
IT’S quite a juxtaposition for the pope. He wants to talk to peoples about christianity....but finds that they are virtually no committed christians.
So his wise old mind working overtime ..."I know...I'll talk about Islam instead.. They are a committed lot and I can have some fun too".
"I'll talk a little about sharia too...even tough I don't understand it much".
He talks to Christians about Islam...why doesn't he talk to them about christianity.
And he (hopelessly)tries to talk about the christian tolerence values to muslims.
But Islam is already a really tolerant religion...look at all the peoples it absorbes, all the cultures that have some of Islam in it.
It says in the Koran that Allah is most merciful and tolerant of his slaves...and that's all we can be ...his slaves...and being Allah's slave is such a special honour...even the peope should consider this.
Sharia must be looked at in this context...i.e. Allah SWT loves us as slaves and there are laws that govern to keep us as slaves...i.e. he is showing us great love and affection for this ....including routes and venues for paradise.
Certain tenents of sharia are not to be denied...indeed they make a lot of sense and keeps order in society. You only need to compare the disgusting Porn society that has been build up in the West ...this lack of morality cannot exist with the purity of sharia.
So, please peoples, if you can... write to pope's office and tell him to stick with what he can...tenents of christainity...if he wants to speak about Islam....let him convert first.
at February 6, 2007 9:48 AM
"But Islam is already a really tolerant religion...look at all the peoples it absorbes, all the cultures that have some of Islam in it."
HA! In a parallel universe, maybe, but not in this one.
Once again, Naseem has proven that diarrhea can indeed come out of the mouth.
Posted by: bonncaruso at February 6, 2007 9:56 AM
"For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion."
An excellent point.
It has been said here before, I am sure. But the foolish habit of "counter projection" dominates the interaction between Islam and the West. The West projects Chrisitian ideas of the Golden Rule, "turn the other cheek," "love thy neighbor," "live and let live," etc. falsely onto the motives of the Muslims, who hold no such attitudes toward any infidel. Conversely, the Muslims project their own doctrines of permanent aggression against unbelivers, "dominate and not be dominated," and "destiny to rule the world" onto the motives of Christians and Jews, who hold no such attitudes toward the rest of humanity.
Through counter projection, lunacy rules in the halls of power.
at February 6, 2007 10:25 AM
"First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority, no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difficult: when we engage in dialogue, it is not “with Islam”, but with groups."
How true. This is a major stumbling block to real dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Muslims love to claim that their faith is so simple and doesn't have any hierarchy as the Christians (Roman Catholics) do. But one of Islam's major weaknesses is the fact that it has no central authority.
at February 6, 2007 10:30 AM
He talks to Christians about Islam...why doesn't he talk to them about christianity.
...
write to pope's office and tell him to stick with what he can...tenents of christainity
Which is it, Naseem? does he or doesn't he talk about Christianity?
He does. Check out Deus Caritas Est, which is Latin for "God is Love." If you really want to be an effective Da'i, then it's wise to understand how Christians perceive their faith, and it is not a Master-Slave relationship.
Posted by: Greek Fire at February 6, 2007 11:14 AM
Naseem - you are priceless.
"if he wants to speak about Islam....let him convert first."
Why stop with Islam? If he wants to speak about murderous headchoppers he should convert to Al Queda by your "logic".
Islamic "logic".
Posted by: Alex at February 6, 2007 11:30 AM
SLAVES
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at February 6, 2007 12:55 PM
All the torments in hell couldn't make me a slave to your crazy ass "god".
Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 6, 2007 1:08 PM
Quote from Naseem - "look at all the peoples it absorbes, all the cultures that have some of Islam in it."
Quote from Star Trek - "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE."
Posted by: BlowHammed at February 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Naseem "But Islam is already a really tolerant religion...look at all the peoples it absorbes, all the cultures that have some of Islam in it".
YOU MUST LIVE IN A CAVE TO STATE SUCH NONSENSE.
Islam has not absorbed any cultures, it destroys & annihilates any culture it comes in to contact with like the PLAGUE.
What's happened to the ancient cultures - Jews of Arabia, the Zoroastrians of Iran, the Buddhists of Afghanistan & Pakistan, The Hindus of Bangladesh, the Copts of Egypt,the Christians of Iraq & Syria, The Buddhists and Hindus of Malaysia & Indonesia & many others - Every culture Islam came upon was annihilated and destroyed like the POX. Its the curse set on humanity. Once caught into it there is no escape as fear and death is its reward.
Posted by: faqi at February 6, 2007 2:23 PM
Naseem,
Things you must already know (but since I can't prove you're being disingenuous, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt):
1) Accepting the rights of those who believe the same things as you is, by definition, not tolerance. Tolerance is accepting the rights of those whose beliefs differ from yours. As you know, Islam will grant these rights, and so, it is not tolerant. Please avoid this mistake in the future.
2) You're right that there are not many serious Christians, but you are wrong in thinking that there are a large number of serious Muslims. How do we know this is true?
Easy: if a large percentage of nominal CHristians took their faith seriously, each day would see thousands and even millions of people giving away all they own and dedicating their lives to the service of the poor and to preaching the love and salvation of Jesus Christ; if a large percentage of Muslims were serious about their faith, each day would see thousands and even millions would be detonating themselves in car bombs.
3) Free will was given to us by God--not by America, not by the Enlightenment. Free will is, of course, the greatest of all God's gifts, because it allows for the possibility of virtue, and goodness, and love. When you abolish it, with your sharia and your sacred "order," you destroy the possibility of those greatest parts of God's creation.
America, the Enlightenment, the West: they merely allow what God created to go on unfettered. They allow invididuals to use (or abuse) their freedom. You, however, and your ilk, presume to destroy what God created. Like the devil himself, you prefer domination to friendship, death to disagreement, slavery to love.
Look at the world--the good and the bad--and think: is this slave God of yours at all to be esteemed, at all to be believed, at all real?
4) Finally, as a bit of denouement, is your "free rape" society really any more orderly than our "free love" society? (I suppose it is indeed more orderly for the rapists.)
at February 6, 2007 3:04 PM
Naseem,
Things you must already know (but since I can't prove you're being disingenuous, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt):
1) Accepting the rights of those who believe the same things as you is, by definition, not tolerance. Tolerance is accepting the rights of those whose beliefs differ from yours. As you know, Islam will not grant these rights, and so, it is not tolerant. Please avoid this mistake in the future.
2) You're right that there are not many serious Christians, but you are wrong in thinking that there are a large number of serious Muslims. How do we know this is true?
Easy: if a large percentage of nominal CHristians took their faith seriously, each day would see thousands and even millions of people giving away all they own and dedicating their lives to the service of the poor and to preaching the love and salvation of Jesus Christ; if a large percentage of Muslims were serious about their faith, each day would see thousands and even millions would be detonating themselves in car bombs.
3) Free will was given to us by God--not by America, not by the Enlightenment. Free will is, of course, the greatest of all God's gifts, because it allows for the possibility of virtue, and goodness, and love. When you abolish it, with your sharia and your sacred "order," you destroy the possibility of those greatest parts of God's creation.
America, the Enlightenment, the West: they merely allow what God created to go on unfettered. They allow invididuals to use (or abuse) their freedom. You, however, and your ilk, presume to destroy what God created. Like the devil himself, you prefer domination to friendship, death to disagreement, slavery to love.
Look at the world--the good and the bad--and think: is this slave God of yours at all to be esteemed, at all to be believed, at all real?
4) Finally, as a bit of denouement, is your "free rape" society really any more orderly than our "free love" society? (I suppose it is indeed more orderly for the rapists.)
at February 6, 2007 3:05 PM
I find that nasperm, the half brained slut from fukistan has a passion for threads of pope benedict.
"Sharia must be looked at in this context...i.e. Allah SWT loves us as slaves and there are laws that govern to keep us as slaves..."
for your information little illiterate subhuman, slaves don't need rules, they are beaten with a stick by their owners, much like what it used to be to you by your deceased husband, remember?
And about your porn society... it must suck to know that in fukistan a camel and a goat are more attractive than yourself.
Try to walk on 4 legs, nasperm, maybe you will find another husband.
Posted by: StillFedUp at February 6, 2007 3:50 PM
Naseem
I hope like Nazi Germany, the whole Ummah, including your beloved country has their cot put up if you know what I mean.
For all you non-Hindi/Urdu speakers-The phrase in Hindi/Urdu "putting your cot up" basically means I want you to die.
Posted by: wrathofasma at February 6, 2007 8:47 PM
Could the Pope be setting the Church up for a comeback AFTER the Muslims take Europe? His papal motto 'succia virescit' would fit into this.
Maybe he just wants to get it into writing for future generations how Islam never added anything to the West.
He really is trying to connect the Church to the broader Western tradition, including the Enlightenment. But, an Enlightenment that understands that violence has no place among communities of "reasonable people", except in self-defense, I think.
Islam does serve as a counterfoil to Christianity and the West, but well deservedly so, since it is to anyone with even a passing acquaintance of it. Ratzinger's being very rational in calling this out, even if while wearing his Pope hat he wants dialogue with Islam. He's playing the Muslims both ways and they are so ignorant they don't even see it. I'm not a Catholic, but I appreciate the genius of his move, because it also benefits folks who are secularists but not multiculturalists or politically correct.
I'd like to see him give a speech with his Enlightenment rationalist hat on about what to actually DO about Muslim infestation, since his speech last fall called out the problem. I can't imagine he'd want to initiate armed conflict with them, but with the lack of political leadership in the West, I'm afraid it's going to come to that.
If that is true, the rational thing is to force our political class to attack Islam first, with all due force available, like four or five times the military might of the current West, applied solely to killing 24/7, to banish Islam from the planet. But, could the Pope say that, even with his Enlightenment rationalist hat on? Is there another answer that conforms to all the requirements of modern reason, especially the requirement that the solution to the problem cost me less than continuing to put up with the problem, i.e. "cost-benefit analysis"?
Posted by: venividivici at February 6, 2007 10:47 PM
From the article:
Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized;
Well, there are a lot of people in the West right now who are in prison or some other type of punishment program because they ran afoul of the law. So the West isn't completely relativized, which I take to mean that each individual decides on what is right and what is wrong. There are some things we've taken out of the realm of law and relativized but it may have been for good reason, i.e. when that activity was part of the realm of law, it lead to tyranny. Freedom of religion is a great example of a positive about relativization.
Big deal, Islam has certainty, but here the Pope forgets his own lesson about the centrality of jihad to Islam. Islam's certainty is only generated by killing dissenters and infidels and generally dominating. What about the calm certainty of Socrates' paradoxical knowledge that he "knew nothing"? Meanwhile, Islam claims to "know everything" and to "prove" it, they will kill you or enslave you.
Face it, Pope Benedict, everything in Islam is tainted, even its "certainty".
Posted by: venividivici at February 6, 2007 11:10 PM
FaultlineUSA you hit the nail on the head! Many others also basically said the same thing here, but in different ways. The problem is that our leaders do not recognize the possibility of there existing a group of people who would be a mortal threat to our countries. This is perplexing, because how they gotten into such a mindset, or how they became leaders with such a mindset, is not clear. For some reason, our leaders are willing to have enmity with the leaders of other countries, but not with the citizens of those countries. Why? Can’t we citizens be hated? Are our leaders the only ones who can be hated? If we, the citizens, can be hated by the citizens of other countries, then don’t we deserve our leaders’ representation? Our leaders’ guidance? Protection? Support?
Why are our leaders blinded to those who hate our way of life? To those who hate that we have? To those who hate how we act? To those who hate how we look? To those who hate us to be better? To those who hate that we are kind? To those who hate what we give? To those who hate that we are strong? To those who hate that we are hard working? To those who hate our entertainment? To those who hate our spirit? To those who hate us?
at February 6, 2007 11:57 PM
The ultimate solution for stopping Islamic Supremecists is to cut off the source of their funds for arms and propaganda by refusing to buy their oil or any other products they produce by mandating no oil imports or other imports from any country who does not meet human rights standards and envoirnmental standards of the Western Democracies.
This can be phase-in over a 4 year period of producing Bio-Diesel & Ethanol powered cars and trucks along with development of hydrogren and rechargeable vehicles with a mandatory 25% the 1st year, 50% the 2nd year, 75% the 3rd year and 100% the 4th year with a tax credit to convert all gasoline and diesel vehicles to Ethanol or Biodiesel and increasing the Federal and State Taxes on Gasoline and Diesel to discourage their usage.
Without the oil money from the Western Democracies the Islamic Supremecists Theocracies will collapse economicly and hit bottom forcing their long delayed reformation of their religion and societies internally by their people who will
force the seperation of church and state and universal human rights that the Western Democracies have evolved to over many bloody centuries.
The solution to bring back U.S.A. prosperity and real democratic representation not bought by SPECIAL INTERESTS, BIG OIL & MUSLIM OR COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIPS are 4 Constitutional Amendments:
#1. Balanced Trade: every country who sells in the U.S.A. should buy equal amount of products from the U.S.A. !
#2. Public Financing of All Political Elections: (Federal, State, County, City or Township) with no personal or outside contributions!
#3 National Referendum Votes: (for Federal, State, County, City, & Township)4 times a year where citizens can over ride the
President, Congress, & the Supreme Court and any politician with a 2/3 majority!
#4 Environmental & Worker's Human Rights Amendment-Enforce all worker rights in a worldwide trading partner to unionize, have
health and safety standards, human rights standards, and enforce all world standards for environmental manufacturing and disposal of hazardous materials with loss of trade for non-compliance!
Until then we have Government Of The Rich, By The Rich & For The Rich ruining the U.S.A.
P.S. I BOYCOTT WAL-MART & SAM'S CLUB (A.K.A. SLAVE-MART)& YOU SHOULD TOO BECAUSE THEY ARE MONOPOLISTS, ANTI-ENVIRONMENT, ANTI-UNION, ANTI-WOMEN, ANTI-ENVOIRNMENT,ANTI-FREE SPEECH IN MEDIA, ANTI-FULL TIME WORKERS, ANTI-WORKER BENEFITS,ARE THE WORLD'S LARGEST IMPORTER FROM COMMUNIST CHINA & MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS,& EMPLOY ILLEGAL ALIENS AS SUBCONTACTORS TO BUILD & CLEAN THEIR STORES: see info at http://walmartwatch.com
P.S.S. Wal-Mart's owners the Waltons want you to vote for Hillary Clinton (she was their lawyer at Rose Law Firm with Vince Foster, and Wal-Mart Board Member with Sam Walton). The Waltons of Wal-Mart previously funded the Clinton's political campaigns along with Clinton/Gore & Bush/Cheney!
Posted by: UniversalSoldierOfFreedom at February 7, 2007 2:05 AM
Being a slave of allah, in other words, being a slave of the devil?
Allah=SATAN.
There is nothing pure or noble about sharia.
Pope B16 is a scholar and knows what he is talking about. At least when it comes to how Christanity views relationshp is more of a Father/child relationship.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 7, 2007 7:09 AM
Assalamau Laikum Bigcatgirl,
You say "Christanity views relationshp is more of a Father/child relationship".
So christianity discriminates against mothers eh!...who would have thought it.
Posted by: Naseem at February 7, 2007 8:57 AM
Father Samir writes:
Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized; and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which instead seems to have disappeared in the West. He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization.
There are a few things grievously amiss about Pope Benedict XVI's views revealed in these comments of Father Samir (if we are to believe in their accuracy, and if we are touting Father Samir's essay, we can't start cherrypicking, can we?):
1) Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith...
a) The Pope is wrong in admiring anything about Islam (does one "admire" the sensitivity of a Nazi officer who happens to love Mozart during the hours he takes off from torturing and murdering Jews?);
b) The Pope is wrong in attributing "faith" to the religiousity of Muslims -- at least any "faith" that would be admirable.
2) ...which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized...
a) As venividivici notes above, the West is not completely "relativized";
b) and anyway, relativization is not the demonic evil that the Pope evidently thinks it is: it is part of the wondrous adventure of freedom of the spirit in which Mankind is caught up. It brings flaws in its train, to be sure, and even many ills, which through reason we can try to ameliorate; but it cannot be surgically targeted by vilification and nullified by some kind of treatment: it's part of human nature.
3) ...and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which instead seems to have disappeared in the West.
a) Again, if there is a "sense of the scared" in Islam, it is not to be admired, since its inextricable context is evil and dangerous;
b) and again, the "sense of the sacred" has not "disappeared" in the West, even if its traditional forms have attenuated: it has rather for the most part undergone permutations, as part of the wonderful adventure of Mankind in its journey of freedom of the mind and heart which are gifts of God, God damn it, which will continue to wend their way into the imperfect mystery of the future no matter how many religious leaders try to freeze change.
4) He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society.
a) Read that 5 times, Hugh and Robert.
5) Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization.
a) Sound familiar? *COUGH*Dinesh!*COUGH*
at February 7, 2007 12:39 PM
Yes, Naseem - Islam is so very pure. So pure in fact that Muslims are the most sex obsessed culture in the world. If you need to confirm this go to www.google.com/trends to find out which regions search for sex terms the most. Just type in a word and google will tell you where in the world people are searching for those terms the most. If you look below that Islamic countries dominate sexual perversion searches - for pedophilia, homosexuality, rape and other less than "straight" behavior. Below are the ranking results, by geography and language used for some perverse sex terms (those who are easily, or even not so easily, offended, please skip):
sex with children
1. Pakistan
2. India
3. Iran
4. Egypt
languages
1. Arabic
children fucking
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. Egypt
4. India
5. Saudi Arabia
languages
1. Arabic
5. Turkish
girl rape
1. Pakistan
2. India
3. Malaysia
4. Iran
5. Indonesia
7. Saudi Arabia
languages
1. Indonesian
2. Arabic
6. Turkish
boy rape
1. Pakistan
2. India
4. Malaysia
5. Saudi Arabia
languages
1. Arabic
child sex pictures
1. Pakistan
2. India
4. Iran
6. Turkey
languages
1. Turkish
3. Arabic
gay sex pictures
1. Pakistan
5. India
7. Malaysia
languages
4. Arabic
5. Turkish
gay sex photos
1. Algeria
2. Morocco
4. India
5. Saudi Arabia
languages
2. Arabic
6. Turkish
rape pictures
1. Pakistan
2. India
4. Malaysia
languages
2. Arabic
6. Turkish
girl fuck
1. Iran
2. Pakistan
3. Egypt
4. Saudi Arabia
5. Malaysia
6. India
7. Indonesia
languages
1. Persian
2. Arabic
5. Turkish
little girl fuck
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. Indonesia
4. India
5. Turkey
languages
1. Arabic
2. Turkish
boy fuck
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. Egypt
4. Kuwait
5. Saudi Arabia
7. Malaysia
8. India
9. Indonesia
languages
1. Arabic
2. Persian
sex boys
1. Pakistan
2. Saudi Arabia
3. India
4. Iran
languages
1. Arabic
6. Turkish
child fuck
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. Egypt
4. Philippines
6. India
7. Saudi Arabia
8. Indonesia
9. Turkey
10. Malaysia
languages
1. Persian
2. Arabic
4. Turkish
children fuck
1. Egypt
2. Iran
3. Pakistan
5. Saudi Arabia
8. India
10. Turkey
languages
1. Persian
2. Arabic
7. Turkish
baby sex
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. Egypt
4. India
5. Saudi Arabia
languages
1. Persian
2. Arabic
5. Turkish
baby fuck
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. Egypt
4. Saudi Arabia
5. India
languages
1. Persian
2. Arabic
5. Turkish
fucking baby
1. Pakistan
2. Iran
languages
1. Arabic
2. English
3. Turkish
sex with baby
1. Pakistan
2. India
3. Iran
languages
1. Arabic
at February 8, 2007 3:15 AM
Wow Ansar, pakistan was number 1 in all but 3 of those. You should copy and paste this to as many sites as possible. I am :)
Posted by: BlowHammed at February 8, 2007 10:32 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)