Jump to content
Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Assad forces behind deadly Sarin attack - UN

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I really wonder even though logically this doesn't make sense, why Assad would do this, but if he did indeed do it, what would it take for us to believe it? If you shun every organization, report, claim, media outlet as fake news except if it says good stuff about Assad, are we really being objective? There's a lot of lies about Syria I admit and this isn't to say support the head chopping, heart eating "rebels", but would you support someone if he indeed used these horrendous tactics? Just a thought. I was confident when this happened, it was a lie that Assad did it, but I did say that if an investigation claimed it as such, I would be ashamed of myself. Now there's no ground investigation, which is a valid claim, but say there was one and it came to the same conclusions, would you then look for another excuse and blame the investigative process because Assad is on our side? These are questions I'm asking myself, so I'm not really blaming anyone or anything, but just something to think about. Ultimately our prayer should be for safety of the Syrian people right? Would you support a leader other than Assad who could bring this? I'm not saying any of the rebels would, but say there was a democratic leader through a future diplomatic process who the Syrians supported and who wasn't a puppet but wasn't allied with Iran either, would you support him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I really wonder even though logically this doesn't make sense, why Assad would do this, but if he did indeed do it, what would it take for us to believe it? If you shun every organization, report, claim, media outlet as fake news except if it says good stuff about Assad, are we really being objective? There's a lot of lies about Syria I admit and this isn't to say support the head chopping, heart eating "rebels", but would you support someone if he indeed used these horrendous tactics? Just a thought. I was confident when this happened, it was a lie that Assad did it, but I did say that if an investigation claimed it as such, I would be ashamed of myself. Now there's no ground investigation, which is a valid claim, but say there was one and it came to the same conclusions, would you then look for another excuse and blame the investigative process because Assad is on our side? These are questions I'm asking myself, so I'm not really blaming anyone or anything, but just something to think about. Ultimately our prayer should be for safety of the Syrian people right? Would you support a leader other than Assad who could bring this? I'm not saying any of the rebels would, but say there was a democratic leader through a future diplomatic process who the Syrians supported and who wasn't a puppet but wasn't allied with Iran either, would you support him? 

There is, see the report. They have numerous first-hand images, satelitte images and all mapped chemical attack sites. The report isn't stating only assad did these but is confirming the ones he did. 

Some people just engage in mental gymnastics in order to defend Assad, we should remember he is a Baathist, like Saddam. The only difference is he is Alawi and Saddam was Sunni but that doesn't mean anything in regards to his actions. I've yet to see one apologist of Assad point out a wrong action he committed. I'm not suggesting he is all bad but neither was Saddam, neither was Hitler, neither was Stalin or Mao all bad but on a macro-level when you add things up; you have to conclude this individual only cares for his own power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

There is, see the report. They have numerous first-hand images, satelitte images and all mapped chemical attack sites. The report isn't stating only assad did these but is confirming the ones he did. 

Some people just engage in mental gymnastics in order to defend Assad, we should remember he is a Baathist, like Saddam. The only difference is he is Alawi and Saddam was Sunni but that doesn't mean anything in regards to his actions. I've yet to see one apologist of Assad point out a wrong action he committed. I'm not suggesting he is all bad but neither was Saddam, neither was Hitler, neither was Stalin or Mao all bad but on a macro-level when you add things up; you have to conclude this individual only cares for his own power. 

The UN report for chemical weapons did state there was no ground investigation though, something about it being too unsafe to go to Idlib, let me see if I can find it in the report, unless your argument is satellite images can be sufficient evidence? I'm not an expert on these issues, but I know Ted Postle at MIT did a pretty comprehensive report debunking the initial claims. Wonder if you've seen that? I can link it here if not.

The only thing is who do you support? The Syrian people being killed on all sides are who we should be praying for, I am against the rebels and ISIS obviously, and Assad has done some horrible things too, but ultimately the end of this war is what's in the best interests of Syrians, and which "victor" will bring about this? (note the quotation marks, because no one really wins in war, it's horrible). 

What about you? Who do you "support"?

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The UN report for chemical weapons did state there was no ground investigation though, something about it being too unsafe to go to Idlib, let me see if I can find it in the report, unless your argument is satellite images can be sufficient evidence? I'm not an expert on these issues, but I know Ted Postle at MIT did a pretty comprehensive report debunking the initial claims. Wonder if you've seen that? I can link it here if not.

The only thing is who do you support? The Syrian people being killed on all sides are who we should be praying for, I am against the rebels and ISIS obviously, and Assad has done some horrible things too, but ultimately the end of this war is what's in the best interests of Syrians, and which "victor" will bring about this? (note the quotation marks, because no one really wins in war, it's horrible). 

What about you? Who do you "support"?

1-I have not seen anyone in the report which stated "idlib was too dangerous to go into". Unless I missed it, if it's possible to quote the excerpt from the report please.

2-The report also examined Aleppo and investigated it independently:

Quote

In his letter to the Secretary-General dated 20 March 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic alleged the use of chemical weapons in Khan Al Asal in the Aleppo governorate on 19 March 2013, and requested the SecretaryGeneral to conduct a specialized, impartial and independent investigation of the alleged incident. On 21 March 2013, the Secretary-General established the United Nations Mission based on the authority extended to him by the General Assembly (resolution 42/37 C) and endorsed by the Security Council (resolution 620 (1988)). In a letter received on the same day, the Governments of France and the United Kingdom requested an investigation, using the same mechanism provided for in resolution 42/37 C, into the alleged use of chemical weapons in the two locations of Khan Al Asal in Aleppo and Otaybah in the vicinity of Damascus on 19 March 2013, as well as in Homs on 23 December 2012.

28. On 26 March 2013, the Secretary-General appointed Professor Åke Sellström (Sweden) as the Head of Mission and tasked the United Nations Mission to ascertain the facts related to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, to gather relevant data and to undertake the necessary analyses for this purpose in accordance with the above-mentioned terms of reference and Guidelines. 29. For the purpose of ascertaining the facts related to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, gathering relevant data and undertaking the necessary analyses, upon request of the Secretary-General, OPCW put its resources at his disposal.2 Furthermore, upon the request of the Secretary-General, WHO provided technical support to the United Nations Mission in assessing the public health and the clinical and event-specific health aspects of the allegations that have been brought to his attention.3 30. The members of the United Nations Mission assembled in The Hague on 2 April 2013, in preparation for travel to the Syrian Arab Republic. In anticipation of an early agreement on the modalities of cooperation with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Secretary-General requested the Head of Mission to deploy to Cyprus with an advance team in order to complete the necessary logistical arrangements for expediting their travel to the Syrian Arab Republic to conduct their on-site activities. On 7 April 2013, the advance team deployed to Cyprus and remained there until 12 May 2013.

http://undocs.org/A/68/663

 

3-I support a democratic and federated Syrian that isn't called the "arab republic". It should be a pluralist state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

3-I support a democratic and federated Syrian that isn't called the "arab republic". It should be a pluralist state.

agreed, but how do you achieve this while you have ISIS and rebels groups that work alongside Al Nusra? Obviously these groups cannot be part of a solution, I think even the UNSC resolution states the need to isolate groups considered "terrorists" by the UNSC, that's only ISIS and Al Nusra, but there are groups like Ahrar al Sham and Jaysh al Islam that work with Al Nusra when it suits them, so what do you do about them? Do you include them in a democratic process? Do you include Assad in the election? This is where countries disagree, some say Assad can't run for these elections, some say this should be determined by the Syrian people. Are there decent alternatives to Assad that are not hardline fundamentalists apart from the Kurdish groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts on these "chemical attacks" as it has been discovered the Free Syrian army and other rebel groups and militias would purposely make chemical attacks on Syrian people then take it to the media and blame Assad. There is no evidence that Syrian government did this attack notice that all the sources are US sources and all the news are American news and British news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Yes I do:

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/syria/events/article/chemical-attack-in-syria-national-evaluation-presented-by-jean-marc-ayrault

See the "national evaluation"

And let me quote it:

"This document is based on declassified intelligence from France’s own sources."

 

I dont accept UN as a source of unbaised information and thus I do not accept information that is solely given by them or those who have the same agenda as them, I need to see it from unbiased sources that have nothing to gain nor lose.

I answered your question, now you answer mine:

1. Did Assad NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win the fight? Would it be impossible to win it without the use of chemical weapons?

2. Do you think Assad was not aware of the international critic he would receive if he used chemical weapons? That he was not aware of the interest of multiple countries to get a justification for invading his country?

 

And now we have a country like the US, the biggest hypocrites of earth, condemning Assad because they claim that he used chemical weapons, meanwhile they had no problem supporting Saddam(la) in his war against Iran even though they had a known chemical weapons program that they used several times against civilians.

Not only did the world police look away but the UN also didnt do anything about it. So please, realize the difference between genuine care and plain politics.

Here, a nice history lesson:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/04/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/?utm_term=.665dad110037

"the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

I refuted that with the report, in which they explicity state Saddam was cooperating and there were no WMDs....

That was when Hans Blix came and there were multiple countries engaged in the team. While before that I do not think that joint Inspector team visited upon whom Saddam blamed as the spies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī I literally admit that UN inspectors' team that constitute single country has no value. Like those reports which every country publish every where lacking participants from other countries which may confirm it is true. The single country report may be acceptable to that country but for other countries, these are allegations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

That was when Hans Blix came and there were multiple countries engaged in the team. While before that I do not think that joint Inspector team visited upon whom Saddam blamed as the spies. 

Yes but the point is you were wrong about the UN inspection team stating there were WMDs. The point is the UN's report didn't lead Iraq into war in 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IbnSina said:

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/syria/events/article/chemical-attack-in-syria-national-evaluation-presented-by-jean-marc-ayrault

See the "national evaluation"

And let me quote it:

"This document is based on declassified intelligence from France’s own sources."

What makes this source credible? 

Quote

I dont accept UN as a source of unbaised information and thus I do not accept information that is solely given by them or those who have the same agenda as them, I need to see it from unbiased sources that have nothing to gain nor lose.

What qualifies as an "unbias source"?

Quote

 Did Assad NEED to use chemical weapons in order to win the fight? Would it be impossible to win it without the use of chemical weapons?

Well in order to win, I do believe he did. The fact of the matter is SAA forces on their own are weak and always lose to the islamists like HTS, Ahrar and JAS. That is the reason why many shia militias come from iraq, hezbollah and russia come. Assad's general were appointed based on party/family loyalty, not experience. 

Quote

Do you think Assad was not aware of the international critic he would receive if he used chemical weapons? That he was not aware of the interest of multiple countries to get a justification for invading his country?

Abit like Saddam using chemical weapons on the Kurds, he didn't care too much about the international community. 

 

11 hours ago, IbnSina said:

Not only did the world police look away but the UN also didnt do anything about it. So please, realize the difference between genuine care and plain politics.

You do realise Assad's friend Russia, at the time called the USSR was a member on the security council back when saddam was gassing kurds; they also didn't do anything too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Yes but the point is you were wrong about the UN inspection team stating there were WMDs. The point is the UN's report didn't lead Iraq into war in 2003.

Lolz, before Hans Blix, there were other inspectors of the UN working team that were inspecting before that Hans Blix team and that is why I am saying you to read the book and that is written by an expert current affairs analyst whose book I suggested you, I think you could not buy it online except if there be an online shop from Pakistan offering you to dispatch book to your country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī Here is one source for what I said about the US espionage:https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/03/iraq.julianborger

Quote

Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for Unscom, said yesterday that Mr Butler had made no official response to the Washington Post allegations. But he questioned whether the alleged eavesdropping would have been possible. "I don't know if it was technically feasible," he said.

"Those repeater stations [used in the Unscom video-monitoring programme] are out in the middle of nowhere. They're there for anyone to go and tinker with. Wouldn't the Iraqis have been able to tell what was going on?" he asked.

The UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, said he "personally had no direct knowledge" of the allegations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

There is, see the report. They have numerous first-hand images, satelitte images and all mapped chemical attack sites. The report isn't stating only assad did these but is confirming the ones he did. 

Ah the 'firsthand' images, and UN reports...

 

Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg

image539486.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 3:49 AM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

We'll see but honestly what makes you think that Assad is a good person?

Oh right. So, Assad has been a most evil person in the world and therefore it warrants a vile greedy nation controlled by zionists to invade the country and bomb its hospitals and train, arm and support ISIS calling them moderate rebels and because Russia rather kills ISIS that being the sole reason they use NATO to surround Russian borders to intimidate them. While Sarin being a US patented WMD which reached Syria through Turkey and was used multiple times by ISIS for far less number of civilians killed as compared to civilian bombings and dronings by Zionist America, but okay. Lets also forget the fact these Zionist led animals gave Mustard gas to Saddam which is used on Iran. Lets concentrate on the "evilness" of Assad alone. Because that will fix something somehow sometime. Just like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq are "fixed".

America is a joke, a cancer for the human race. No one takes them or their stooge organizations seriously anymore. Not even their allies. Death to America means life to humanity.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

Oh right. So, Assad has been a most evil person in the world and therefore it warrants a vile greedy nation controlled by zionists to invade the country and bomb its hospitals and train, arm and support ISIS calling them moderate rebels and because Russia rather kills ISIS that being the sole reason they use NATO to surround Russian borders to intimidate them. While Sarin being a US patented WMD which reached Syria through Turkey and was used multiple times by ISIS for far less number of civilians killed as compared to civilian bombings and dronings by Zionist America, but okay. Lets also forget the fact these Zionist led animals gave Mustard gas to Saddam which is used on Iran. Lets concentrate on the "evilness" of Assad alone. Because that will fix something somehow sometime. Just like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq are "fixed".

America is a joke, a cancer for the human race. No one takes them or their stooge organizations seriously anymore. Not even their allies. Death to America means life to humanity.

Yeah, as if I am a flag waving patriot, Darth.  Assad may be evil to some, but America's meddling in the Middle East and in particularly Iraq and Afghanistan is particularly odious, bloodthirsty warhawks starting conflicts on the pretext of "ending" terrorisn.

That being said, I still don't like Assad. He is a Baathist like Saddam, can't trust a Baathist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

What makes this source credible?

Its not credible, thats my point.

Thats the report made by the french government in which it uses its own governmental sources as support for whatever its claiming which is very absurd. Its like saying: What I am saying is the truth because I said it.

 

On 10/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

What qualifies as an "unbias source"?

Someone who does not gain nor lose anything on the information given and has no agenda because they have nothing to gain nor lose.

In this conflict that might be hard to find, in a shady situation like this with so many players involved, I choose to rely on what I believe is common sense and in this case it goes against common sense for assad to use CW in a war that he is already winning. Either way, if I am unsure of the how unbiased the source is from two people given, I rather trust the muslim one, because ideally speaking he is less likely to lie.

 

On 10/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Well in order to win, I do believe he did. The fact of the matter is SAA forces on their own are weak and always lose to the islamists like HTS, Ahrar and JAS. That is the reason why many shia militias come from iraq, hezbollah and russia come. Assad's general were appointed based on party/family loyalty, not experience. 

He did not need to use them.

The point of time at which they claim he used them, he was already winning the war, although slowly but steadily. As your stating, many came to support his government so he would not need to use CM, also, rationally thinking, the use of CM is a political suicide and will for sure turn the international society against you which you would not risk doing unless you were on the brink of losing the war. Was the "free syrian army" knocking at assads door in Damascus when the alleged CM was used? No, he did not need to use them.

On 10/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Abit like Saddam using chemical weapons on the Kurds, he didn't care too much about the international community. 

Nor did the international community, such as the UN care much about it either as per the historical sources given and available AND THATS MY POINT. Why? Because it was not in their interest to care, simple as that. Their care is not unbiased nor is their condemnation or reports.

 

On 10/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

You do realise Assad's friend Russia, at the time called the USSR was a member on the security council back when saddam was gassing kurds; they also didn't do anything too. 

At what point did you believe I think Russia are the good guys? They could switch right and left whenever it fits them. Are they following some ideological codex or moral scale on which they decide what is good or not good? No, their enemy is america and thats the only reason they are involved.

Listen brother, I am not saying assad is a saint or the perfect guy. What I am saying is that theres more to this war than meets the eye and it is in the interest of the shias that assad stays at this point of time.

Have you ever liked something that is against the interests of the kurdish people? Because as far as I understand from what I have seen from you, you only like that which is good for the kurdish people and their aim at having their own country and against everything that does not rhyme well with that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@IbnSina

 

Quote

Someone who does not gain nor lose anything on the information given and has no agenda because they have nothing to gain nor lose.

In this conflict that might be hard to find, in a shady situation like this with so many players involved, I choose to rely on what I believe is common sense and in this case it goes against common sense for assad to use CW in a war that he is already winning. Either way, if I am unsure of the how unbiased the source is from two people given, I rather trust the muslim one, because ideally speaking he is less likely to lie.

With all due respect trusting a "muslim source" isn't an objective benchmark to a source being credible or worthy of being respected. You see you need to give me an example in the context of the Syrian conflict about an "unbias source". You claim french intelligence isn't neutral and has a vested interest, fine but then which source is neutral in this instance? What if the information by the french intelligence is actually correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

With all due respect trusting a "muslim source" isn't an objective benchmark to a source being credible or worthy of being respected

Brother I was giving an example of a scenario when several unknown persons give you information regarding the same situation. In such a scenario the shia muslim one speaking would ideally be less likely to lie (since he believes in Allah(SWT)) and his interest and agendas should be more likely aligned with your interest which is, hopefully, the strengthening of shia islam.

 

14 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

You see you need to give me an example in the context of the Syrian conflict about an "unbias source". You claim french intelligence isn't neutral and has a vested interest, fine but then which source is neutral in this instance?

There are no purely unbiased sources in this conflict, everyone has an agenda here. As far as the accusation that assad using CW on his own people goes: in this case, since sources are muddy, I decide to trust my own sense of common sense and rational thinking, in this case it goes against common sense and rational thinking for him to use CW at that point of time as iterated previously in different ways above. 

As far as who to support and who has what agenda, all I care about is what is best for the shias and at this point of time, for geopolitical reasons, it is better that assad stays in power.

 

14 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

What if the information by the french intelligence is actually correct?

Thats a big what if. What if france is governed by satanist out to damn humanity in service of ibliss(la)?

At the end of the day, their accusation of assad does not match with the reality of the situation, there was no need for him to use CW, such a thing would be a last resort and he was far away from last resorts at the time of accusation.

The real question is: Was assad ever in need to use CW in order to win the conflict? I do not think so, especially since it would have been used in a much greater extend systematically if that was the case.

Assad is not the smartest man on earth, but he is smart enough to understand that if he used CW it would turn the world against him.

Edited by IbnSina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IbnSina said:

 

Assad is not the smartest man on earth, but he is smart enough to understand that if he used CW it would turn the world against him.

When self-preservation occurs, anything is possible. That includes the usage of chemical weapons on his own people. In 2013/14 Assad was on the brink of being overthrown. If it wasn't for Russian support, he would of been defeated. Desperation forced him to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

When self-preservation occurs, anything is possible. That includes the usage of chemical weapons on his own people. In 2013/14 Assad was on the brink of being overthrown. If it wasn't for Russian support, he would of been defeated. Desperation forced him to do this.

If it is in the interest of Russia that assad stays, then for sure they would not let the government fall. As far as the state of the syrian government in the years of 2013 and 2014, I believe the Russian intelligence services had a far wider understanding of the survival of its interests than you and me, would they risk their interest coming to the brink of extinction before intervening? Not likely.

Also, the latest of CW used, that the media are making a fuss of, are used after 2013/2014, so what is assads justification for this according to you? Or better formulated: why would he use it after he has the support of Russia and other countries and he is winning the war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

With regards to the U.N organization not being biased and being politically motivated and having their own agenda, please see the beginning of the video below:

 

So history, which is the ultimate truth, dictates that the UN can decide to condemn chemical weapons use in one case and not condemn it in the next. Is it a far stretch to think that they would support these muddy reports on claimed CW use in syria made by countries "own sources" because of political reasons? No its not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ {1} [Shakir 1:1] In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. *****   وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ {107} [Shakir 21:107] And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.
    • Salam, After a long time I'm back to shiachat. Lots of change and I'm still not sure how things go. Went to chat to say hi, but it's not working. Is there something special with the chat or is it genuinely broken?
    • Salam, l read through your reference. Al-Majlisi is described as an "expert" in philosophy but why he uses pagan Greek ideas of harmony to organize his writings is not explained. Three English translators --Ali once, Skakir twice and Picktall thrice-- add this word into the reading. A couple of these verses is using "harmony" for reconciliation of the waw fa qaf  tri-literal root. The remainder are gross insertions of the word. Therefore, as far as l can find, "harmony" is not in Quran. Quran is revealed as "self-explained" so why use a pagan philosophy for delineation of subjects? Now again to the "love" part. Even though al-Majlisi uses it the fundamental problem of meaning still remains. We can define "prefer" as something more valued. We can define "endear" as an appreciation or even 'affection'. But we cannot define "love". Like the word genius, everyone has something to say about the word "love", but nobody can define it. Not sufficiently, at least. Allah-s.w.t. is not a "love god".
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K31Ajbk8UI   video sound is persian(Farsi) with Eng sub  
×