Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
finland_84

Why Your Supporting Assad?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Assalaamo aleikom.

I am Sunni Shafei and I am just interested, why Iran and religious Shia are so vigoriously supporting Bashar Al Asad? I myself support all religious parties, who try to follow law of Allah and forbid alcohol, etc. Like Iran, Syrian and Egypt Islamist parties, Hamas, etc.

But Bashar was totally secular. As I understood it, they have all compulsory military service and while that making Salah is forbidden. This along with forbidding of Sunni Dawah movements and Islamic parties. And forbidding the building of large Sunni religious instruments is why religious Sunnies mostly hate him.

I dont think any of Assad family women wear Hijab. See his family pic from wikipedia. I dont understand why you people support non-Islamic, secular ruler, who does not follow Quran? I am sorry, but this kind of approach from Iran and Shia seems for me as hypocritical, as American alliance with Saudi Arabia.

I hate all leaders of Islamic countries like Assad. Including Saudi royal prince, who wants non hijabi girls all over his house. I wish someone kicked them both out. And I think Ataturk is just like the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate all leaders of Islamic countries like Assad. Including Saudi royal prince, who wants non hijabi girls all over his house. I wish someone kicked them both out. And I think Ataturk is just like the two.

Well you have answered your own question really. The fact is that the rebels are heavily supported by Saudi and other despotic regimes. So, after the loss of life from a civil war, you are likely to end with a government which reflects their interests which isn't an improvement at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Saudi crown prince has LITTLE to do with supporting FSA. Other elements not just in Saudi, but all over Sunni Muslim world support that rebellion. Especially any regular religious Sunni, who just goes to Masjid and is religious really hate Assad. What makes me hate him more is that in his military during training period at least doing Salah is forbidden.

But being religious Muslim, supposing you are. How can you love someone, who forbids Muslims from making Salah and whose family women dont cover their faces, or their legs? And who run extremely corrupt justice system totally contrary to Islam. Even if there was Sunni ruler like this, I would not like it. I want always Sharia in all Muslim lands.

And I think for the one poor person. It was pretty low of you to attack Hamas as saying Assad being better, than them. I dont think they ever did anything bad for Shias, or Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if that were true, it would still mean you are supporting evil. A believer should have nothing to do with that.

That sounds nice, but in practicality that is not possible. If all believers suddenly became apathetic about politics because they are all evil, then we would be crushed. We have to take a stand and support the side that isn't going to massacre us. In my opinion. Whom do you support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if that were true, it would still mean you are supporting evil. A believer should have nothing to do with that.

Sometimes not supporting the lesser evil results in supporting the greater evil. When there is no third way, you have to choose one of the two only ways.

On the lesser of two evils:

{2:217} They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds nice, but in practicality that is not possible. If all believers suddenly became apathetic about politics because they are all evil, then we would be crushed. We have to take a stand and support the side that isn't going to massacre us. In my opinion. Whom do you support?

So if the Khawarij were fighting against the Banu Umayya, which side would you have supported?

Sometimes not supporting the lesser evil results in supporting the greater evil. When there is no third way, you have to choose one of the two only ways.

On the lesser of two evils:

{2:217} They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, ....

Please don't tell me you're equating fighting alongside the Messenger of Allah (sawa) with fighting to support a Ba`thi dictator like Assad and his corrupt regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither. Bashar al-Assad is not like either one of those. He is secular but does not slaughter Shias without reason. Both of those groups would have.

He wouldn't slaughter them unless they demand more political freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an Iranian point of view take note of these points:

1-When you say support, it doesn't mean we like all his actions, it merely means we see him better than someone who will replace him.

2-Iranians are known to be grateful to those who help them. Hafiz Assad (Bashar's father) was the only person from amongst the arab world who took Iran's side during the 8 year war. This is a sort of payback (although not the main reason for Iranian support).

3-Most important reason: Syria is the bridge between Hezbollah and Iran. If Assad goes so does this bridge. Then Hezbollah will be completely surrounded by enemies: political foes in the country, Israel to the south, and a wahabbi regime which would replace Assad to the east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the alternative to Bashar is a Wahhabi state.

Also, has anyone of you seen a successiful religious state?

Except, Syria has never really had much of a Salafi presence to begin with. Heck Bashar was denying there were any there when they were coming through his borders to do attacks in Iraq. Now suddenly we're supposed to believe the whole nation is awash with them, that all these former military members who defected and formed the FSA because they didn't much care for the idea of shooting protesters suddenly became Wahhabis, and that given the freedom of choice the Syrians would decide to instance some fundamentalist Salafist regime?

Why would the only alternative to Asad be a Wahhabi state? (And what exactly is a Wahhabi state anyway?) Why couldn't the Syrians decide to have a moderate, democratically elected representative government that represents their own interests? Why not let the Syrians decide that for themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support Bashar because he is the lesser of two evils.

If you are a Muslim, you should not be supporting any evils, whether it's a lesser or a greater. Islam is about speaking out against injustice whether it would benefit you or harm you. Well.. That's what I believe, anyway.

Asalamu alaikum, may Allah increase us in knowledge and understanding and forgive our ignorance and apathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

assad is a just dictator. u break the rules, u will get punished regardless of your religious backgrounds.

all religions and religious sects have freedom in Syria under al-assad.

The backward-Extremist Salafi movement doesnt respect no religions , and not any islamic sects.

How can you love someone, who forbids Muslims from making Salah and whose family women dont cover their faces, or their legs?

you are just another sheep! live in syria than u can talk, not just mere heresay!

like i already mentioned, there is an ABDUNDANT of religious freedom in SYRIA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalaamo aleikom

I want to thank hadaz803 for a good reply. And I want to tell HadrAli.. I swear in the name of Allah that your wrong. Sunnis were never free to practice Islam on Assad era. There are four major Islamic movements in Sunni Islam. Sufi religious orders, Dawah wattableegh, followers of Ibn Taymeyah (what you call Salafi/Wahhabi) and Ikhwan. Shias hate followers of Ibn Taymeyah. I am not their fan myself. But these remaining three are not actively fighting Shia. Ikhwan in Egypt didnt want to make alliance with salafist party. Assad oppressed all of those movements. Not any could open Islamic schools in Syria. If Sunnis under Assad rule wanted to go for Tabligh. That means calling Muslims to leave drinking of alcohol, to make regular Salah, to make zikr of Allah, to be good to other Muslims. Assad and his government forbid that inside Syria and forbid any such center from being opened in there. And he persecuted and tormented people, who he found doing this work. I know, I went with one Syrian for Tabligh on Jordan. He told me, how is the work there. Above not allowing non-salafi Sunnis to open group affliated Islamic schools, he forbid people from making Salah during army. Even here in Finland kafir government does not forbid us from Salah and fasting during Ramadhan. I hope no-one claims, Muslims in Syria were free to practice their religion. Unless if you can prove that Salah is not part of Islam, or ordering for good, or zikr of Allah and calling people to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to say from now on that followers of Ibn Taymeyah (you call them salafi) are less, than 1% of Sunnis in Syria. Many Sunnis who are however joining their army, because we practically all think, it is justified to do Jihad against Bashar.

If they are less, than 1%, how on earth THEY are going to make any future government. Their Islam views are not popular with religious Sunnis on Syria. They dont have weapons and enough manpower, or money to make a dictatorship in Syria. Any future Syrian government will be made of pro- and anti Assad secularists, Ikhwan (they are not salafi, or anti shia, just want to promote Islam), kurdish, religious shia and Christian parties. And they will somehow share power. There will be democratic elections just like in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. In Tunisia and Egypt moderate Sunni Islamists took power, in Libya they have secular government. In none of these revolutions Saudi-Arabia took power. I want to ask you people, how is it possible in country like Syria that Salafists would take the power, when they are under 1% of the population?

I dont think that Hezbollah weapons deliveries will be a lot different. Just now instead of Syrian government Iran must use Alawi and Shia Muslims and smugglers to deliver the weapons. Sunnis are not enemy of Hezbollah and the first time we started to dislike them is because of this conflict. Because their troops fight with Assad and support him. Before I used to love them and Hasan Nasrullah. Now not. I dont think Shias would love some Sunni cleric, who did good for you and fought Israel, if he suddenly called Saddam his friend and fought for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HidrAli. Check Assad family photo in wikipedia. None of his family wear Hijab and they dont cover their legs. What I say about Assad regards to Islam is true. He does not allow Sunni religious movements to work in Syria, or open schools. And their followers are persecuted. I have been in Jordan. There is no markaz for berelwis, or Tabligh in Syria. In Finland we have only 30000 Muslims and we have center for both. Berelwi is Sufi movement working all over the world, Tabligh Dawah movement present all over the world. If practice of religion is free, why doing Dawah and Tasawwuf in movements is forbidden? And it is a fact that during army training in Syria Salah is forbidden. And if I remember correctly, fasting in Ramadhan also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Finland 84. Firstly just because Syria is a secular state does not mean we have to overthrow it. Syria is like Lebanon, it is religiously and ethnically mixed, therefore you can not have one religion forcing its way on everyone. Bashar al Assad is an Alawite, however he is married to a Sunni woman. He attends Sunni prayers and his political position are all pro-Sunni and pro-Palestinian. It is not true to say Sunni Islam is restricted, only extreme forms of Dawah which preach sectarian hatred and violent opposition have been historically crushed. As I am aware there are only 3 Alawite ministers in Syrias cabinet compared to over 20 Sunnis. There is nothing Alawite about Syria except for the President. If Syrias Sunnis were really oppressed then Assad would have been finished by now as most of the Army(500, 000 + reserves) are Sunnis. Many of the fundamentalists fighting Assad only hate him because of his religion and because of his Alliance with Iran and Hezbollah. In Lebanon many people admire Syria, It has free medicine, free education, free healthcare, free movement for any Arab citizen. All the poor people in Lebanon go to Syria for these services ( esp Sunnis from North). Unlike Syria lebanon is ruled by a corrupt mafia state. Most Lebanese wish their country was like Syria. It is a shame what is happening there. Much of what you are hearing is propaganda.

Bashar was a london educated doctor. He was never interested in politics but his older brother Basil was killed in a Car crash in '94. He was forced into the position. Since he came to power in 2000 he has reformed Syria a lot (It didn't even have the internet before 2000). he has constantly spoken about the need to reform. However then came September the 11, then came the American Invasion of neighbouring Iraq and Syria was openly threatened. Then came the assasination of Rafiq Hariri (Lebanese Prime-Minister) and Syria was blamed. It has been on the defensive for the last 10 years and major political reforms have been put on hold. Why shoud Syria be overthrown? No other country has openly confronted the Zionist plan for the Mid East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tabligh movement and berelwis, neither preach hatred, or intolerance. Shias are as well invited. But in these two movements during Dawah/Zikr you can only follow their method. Any kind of politics, or sectarianism in both during speaches/zikr is strictly forbidden and person, who does it can be expelled. Syria should be democratic country, where religious and secular groups both get their share of political influence by elections.

The main problem in Syria is not that is secular. But the problem is that it is secular dictatorship. First people demonstrated to get rid of the dictatorship and make it secular democracy. Instead of meaningful dialogue Assad doldiers shot the delomstrators and arrested and tortured many. And now jets have pounded Sunni cities. Now it is not anymore just about secular democracy. Now the opposition including secularists demand a regime change. And no-one is ready to do compromises on that. Basicly they are ok with secular. But it must also be democratic and all biggest leaders of Bath regime must go in any peace deal with the opposition. To put the arms down and dialogue is not sn option anymore. Assad should have done that in the first three months of conflict. Now there has been way too much damage so that peace could be done without concessions to opposition.

Syria is not like Lebanon, it is like Bahrain. Lebanon has 30-30-40 between Sunni, Christian and Shia. In Syria it has around 60-15-15-10 between Sunni Arab, Kurd, Shia and Christian. Or 75-15-10. Between Sunni-Shia and Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just interested. So in Shia Islam it is ok and even encouraged by your biggest leaders, like Khaminei, Sadr, Nasrullah to support those, who happen to benefit Shias the most? Even if they severely oppress Sunnies, torture people to stay in power? And even forbid people from Salah and fast of Ramadhan during the army? And who forbid peaceful Sunni movements from practicing their religion and oppresses them and tortures their members? Even if they are not even remotely religious and dont uphold any laws of Sharia?

I must say that I am amazed. If I change the situation upside down. Sunnis should all support Bahraini king, because he is likely to treat Sunnis better, than Shia authority. And Sunnis should support that there would be secular government in Iraq and Iran.

I personally can not think this way. I rather like Sharia law in Iran even, if it is uptained by Khaminei. And I would rather like Sharia in Bahrain, than secular rule.

There was some Ayas in Quran saying that you dont really believe, unless you want the law of Allah be in all of the world. How Shias explain these Ayahs and that they support Sharia, when it suits them and secularism, when it suits them. And they wont even ask their secular allies to forbid alcohol and pig meat in their countries. And ask that at least leaders wife and mom in their allied Muslim country would wear Hijab?

I must ask. Are there any Shia religious leaders, who oppose Assad? I mean even one big one from Iran, or Iraq, or Libanon? Or all have thinking like that?

I am grateful that some amongst Shias are just and they seem to reject what they see as bad and evil. But most Shias seem to just support that, who benefits them the most. Even if it was Ariel Sharon and the Zionists. And even if it meant killing every last Palestinean man, woman and child. Supporting evil is accepted, if it upholds, benefits and protects Shia Islam. I must say that I am rather dissapointed to find the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

finland_84, stick to FINLAND or Helsinki, your just a parrot repeating your self! ..... u never been or lived in syria, u are disillusioned and is far from reality.

you just swallow what you are fed.

thanks to your zionist-backed brothers, you will never have an opportunity to see syria, unless u want to join them in their so called jihad.

there was no such things as u mentioned, forbidden salah, or forbidden fasting, ... assad built big new sunni mosques in damascus. so much for forbidden salah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean forbidden Salah in general, but during army training. I have not been in Syria, but I lived in Jordan for seven months and practically lived half of that time with a Syrian guy, and with Tabligh, Sufi anf Ikhwan people.

Assad might build mosques just for public opinion. If he was so concerned about religion, he should before building mosques see what are his sister and mother are wearing.

But thanks, I pretty much know what you think now. I however wish, you instead supported someone, who was Shia and wanted to make Sharia in Syria.

But I am telling you, Shias will lose lots of support because of supporting someone clearly evil person. And it will eventually bring blackslash for Syrian Shia. Chriatians in Syria will not be punished by anyone, because they are neutral. Or Kurd, because they are also neutral. But Bathist Shia will get after this war punished just like Bathist Sunnies did in Iraq. They are both the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We hear people support Assad on the grounds that the alternative would be worse. It is claimed that it's a choice between Assad or Salafists. Between bad and worse. Was there no third option? I've been meaning to ask this in recent weeks however, at #18 Macisaac has already touched on it.

In the following video Sheikh Imran Hosein, who's videos are a regular feature on this forum as he is critical of the syrian revolution, points out that Iran was very unwise in it's decisions:

Uploaded on 17 Oct 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPlnN_gabBM

The topic of Syria starts at 02:25.

Comment on Iran at 05:04 :

'Iran has not acted wisely on the subject of syria. The syrian muslims...the sunni muslims of syria are now openly accusing Iran of arming and supporting the regime in Syria to succeed in it's oppression and suppression of the present uprising. As a consequence we can easily anticipate that if these uprisings in Syria were to succeed and the majority sunni muslims were to replace the present regime that is Alawi, there are going to be significant negative repercussions for Iran. The zionists are not unaware of that. Their objective is to isolate Iran and they want to take away a very important strategic partner of Iran namely Syria.

It would've been more sensible of Iran to publicly advise the sectarian shia Syrian regime that you need to share power with the sunni muslims who are our brothers in faith and who have been long oppressed and suppressed. And it would've been very wise and would've been excellent diplomacy on the part of Iran to intervene and to support the cause of justice in Syria. And in so doing the Syrian sunni muslims would not have fallen as they are falling unfortunately into the same NATO trap'

_______________________

Perhaps Iran tried to privately advise the regime and realised, unsurprisingly, Assad wasn't having any of it? I don't know? Associating with the likes of Assad is very risky. Such brutal criminals can bring you down with them.

So was it really only a choice between bad and worse?

Edited by breeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean forbidden Salah in general, but during army training. I have not been in Syria, but I lived in Jordan for seven months and practically lived half of that time with a Syrian guy, and with Tabligh, Sufi anf Ikhwan people.

Assad might build mosques just for public opinion. If he was so concerned about religion, he should before building mosques see what are his sister and mother are wearing.

But thanks, I pretty much know what you think now. I however wish, you instead supported someone, who was Shia and wanted to make Sharia in Syria.

But I am telling you, Shias will lose lots of support because of supporting someone clearly evil person. And it will eventually bring blackslash for Syrian Shia. Chriatians in Syria will not be punished by anyone, because they are neutral. Or Kurd, because they are also neutral. But Bathist Shia will get after this war punished just like Bathist Sunnies did in Iraq. They are both the same.

Are you sure Christians are neutral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally dislike both the Rebels and Assad, there are over 9000 videos of both sides committing cruel atrocities, only cowards deliberately give defenseless captives a slow death. Speaking in terms of my geographical location, It's none of my business what is going on in Syria and I would personally rather not getting involved. My personal stance on Assad or the Rebels carries no political influence and diverts my attention from where I am suppose to focus it for certain reasons, in this country where I am. I believe the Arabs should be left to sort their problems out by them selves, I honestly do not believe there is anything we can do that would make a noticeable impact. We can of course give charity to the refugees though, I'd encourage that, it's not exactly getting involved in the political situation it's just helping refugees.

But one thing is for certain, the last thing a weak and divided Syria needs is a weak and divided government, with all the Islamists that will seek Parliamentary representation I get the feelings that's whats going to happen if the Rebels do seize control, but frankly, I do not care.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zionists are on their toes on this one. There is no telling how this ends up for them. Even zionists are against Iran. And basicly the whole Muslim world is more, or less against them. For them there is not clear, good result for this war. If Syria ended up being free country with weak government and in grown Sunni and Shia militant groups, it would be extremely bad for them. It would be easy for Iran to arm Hezbollah, Sunni Jihadists are even more interested to shoot Scud with chemical weapons to Tel Aviv, than to Assad palace. Groups, like Jabhat al- Nusra just had their first Scud missile a while back. This is totally not what Israel wants.

Robin Hood. Christian leaders all over Syria have been voicing that they are neutral in this conflict. For sure, FSA has one brigade made fully of Christians. And there are also Christian soldiers in SAA. But mainly they arw neutral in military side. They prefer not ro fight.

Unlike Sunni Arabs and Turkmen, who are often ready to fight FSA. And Alewis, who are ready to fight for Assad.

In future government Islamists are likely to get high presentation. Because a lot of those people, who feel grudge for Assad and his government will give either protest votes, or feel in debt to Islamists, who fought for them. All this war is just good PR for them. Because leftist fighters, what could they do? Very little. But Islamist fighters are the ones to take over air bases, win critical battles and stop collapse of frontier, when things get tough. The Sunnis, who support the rebels and many rebels themselves see Islamist fighters as yheir heroes. Even if they partly, or TOTALLY disagree with Salafist aqeedah.

But future Syrian government will not be for Salafists. Who claims that future Syrian government will be run by salafists.. They base their claim on what? Numbers of salafists in Syria? They are less, than 1%. Or their weapons? If they were to occupy future Syria, they have one man for every 1000 Syrians. And very few tanks and no airplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes not supporting the lesser evil results in supporting the greater evil. When there is no third way, you have to choose one of the two only ways.

On the lesser of two evils:

{2:217} They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, ....

A better example:

{30:2} The Romans are vanquished,

{30:3} In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome,

{30:4} Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice,

The believers (along with the messenger ) rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians. You may protest that the Romans were oppressors and non-muslims; however their victory over the Persians was preferable. So this is a clear case of choosing the lesser evil and the most beneficial of the two outcomes.

To be quite honest there is no need to prove this point (on the preference of choosing the lesser evil), because it's common sense and quite resonable. However some people do need proofs. Quoting Alexander Vilenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man".

It takes a proof to convince an unreasonable person, but nothing can convince a biased person.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam my brother,

I will quote some sections from elsewhere where this question has been posed.

Assalaamo aleikom.

I am Sunni Shafei and I am just interested, why Iran and religious Shia are so vigoriously supporting Bashar Al Asad? I myself support all religious parties, who try to follow law of Allah and forbid alcohol, etc. Like Iran, Syrian and Egypt Islamist parties, Hamas, etc.

But Bashar was totally secular. As I understood it, they have all compulsory military service and while that making Salah is forbidden. This along with forbidding of Sunni Dawah movements and Islamic parties. And forbidding the building of large Sunni religious instruments is why religious Sunnies mostly hate him.

I dont think any of Assad family women wear Hijab. See his family pic from wikipedia. I dont understand why you people support non-Islamic, secular ruler, who does not follow Quran? I am sorry, but this kind of approach from Iran and Shia seems for me as hypocritical, as American alliance with Saudi Arabia.

I hate all leaders of Islamic countries like Assad. Including Saudi royal prince, who wants non hijabi girls all over his house. I wish someone kicked them both out. And I think Ataturk is just like the two.

It is a matter of geo-politics my sunni brother. It is purely strategic, a matter of ensuring Iran's weapons flow to Hizbullah (and Hamas before they jumped ship), yes he is a tyrant. Sadly, truth be told Syria is a pawn is much bigger game. A war between Shi'ite Muslims (Represented by Iran and Hizbullah) and Zionist Israel.

Here's a question for you though...

What are your alternatives?

- FSA+Coalition which would be puppets of the west.

- Al-Qaeda which would establish another docile lacky Saudi Arabian-style 'Imaraat.

--OR--

Assad, the devil we know.

I felt the same way about Saddam Hussein, even though he killed more Shi'as and Kurds, atleast at the end of his life he wasn't a lacky, just the devil we know. Look at the countless lives lost in Iraq, the disgrace of having to participate in those fraudulent elections. Now we Shi'as have to live with the shame of having our first "so-called shi'ite" western puppet government in Iraq.

It is the result of lessons learned and I in my personal capacity don't wish the same to happen for Syria, Syrian people themselves WON'T want another puppet regime that answers to the west in the middle east. If there were a more worthy government- I'm sure Hizbullah would rather support them. I hope this answers your question.

As for your statements about forbidding Sunni Dawah etc. I would like to see some proof of this, I have never heard of this and I know of sunni friends of mine personally whom have studied in Syria. One of them told me he had encountered problems with the security services in Jordan and had no issues in Syria.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...