OutSyed The Box

OutSyed The Box

Part 1 : What Went Wrong?

Posted: 31 Oct 2012 11:36 PM PDT

This is an article by Bernard Lewis, an astute observer of the Islamic world. I have highlighted some points in blue. My comments follow at the end of his article.




By all standards of the modern world—economic development, literacy, scientific achievement— Muslim civilization, once a mighty enterprise, has fallen low. Many in the Middle East blame a variety of outside forces. 

But underlying much of the Muslim world's travail may be a simple lack of freedom

In the course of the twentieth century it became abundantly clear that things had gone badly wrong in the Middle East — and, indeed, in all the lands of Islam. Compared with Christendom, its rival for more than a millennium, the world of Islam had become poor, weak, and ignorant. 



The primacy and therefore the dominance of the West was clear for all to see, invading every aspect of the Muslim's public and even—more painfully—his private life.

Muslim modernizers—by reform or revolution—concentrated their efforts in three main areas: military, economic, and political. The results achieved were, to say the least, disappointing. The quest for victory by updated armies brought a series of humiliating defeats. 

The quest for prosperity through development brought in some countries impoverished and corrupt economies in recurring need of external aid, in others an unhealthy dependence on a single resource—oil. And even this was discovered, extracted, and put to use by Western ingenuity and industry, and is doomed, sooner or later, to be exhausted, or, more probably, superseded, as the international community grows weary of a fuel that pollutes the land, the sea, and the air wherever it is used or transported, and that puts the world economy at the mercy of a clique of capricious autocrats. 

Worst of all are the political results: the long quest for freedom has left a string of shabby tyrannies, ranging from traditional autocracies to dictatorships that are modern only in their apparatus of repression and indoctrination.

Many remedies were tried—weapons and factories, schools and parliaments—but none achieved the desired result. Here and there they brought some alleviation and, to limited elements of the population, some benefit. But they failed to remedy or even to halt the increasing imbalance between Islam and the Western world.

There was worse to come. It was bad enough for Muslims to feel poor and weak after centuries of being rich and strong, to lose the position of leadership that they had come to regard as their right, and to be reduced to the role of followers of the West. But the twentieth century, particularly the second half, brought further humiliation—the awareness that they were no longer even the first among followers but were falling back in a lengthening line of eager and more successful Westernizers, notably in East Asia. 

The rise of Japan had been an encouragement but also a reproach. The later rise of other Asian economic powers brought only reproach. The proud heirs of ancient civilizations had gotten used to hiring Western firms to carry out tasks of which their own contractors and technicians were apparently incapable. 

Now Middle Eastern rulers and businessmen found themselves inviting contractors and technicians from Korea—only recently emerged from Japanese colonial rule—to perform these tasks. Following is bad enough; limping in the rear is far worse. 

By all the standards that matter in the modern world—economic development and job creation, literacy, educational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights—what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low. 

"Who did this to us?" is of course a common human response when things are going badly, and many in the Middle East, past and present, have asked this question. They have found several different answers. It is usually easier and always more satisfying to blame others for one's misfortunes. 

For a long time the Mongols were the favorite villains. The Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century were blamed for the destruction of both Muslim power and Islamic civilization, and for what was seen as the ensuing weakness and stagnation. 

But after a while historians, Muslims and others, pointed to two flaws in this argument. The first was that some of the greatest cultural achievements of Islam, notably in Iran, came after, not before, the Mongol invasions. The second, more difficult to accept but nevertheless undeniable, was that the Mongols overthrew an empire that was already fatally weakened; indeed, it is hard to see how the once mighty empire of the caliphs would otherwise have succumbed to a horde of nomadic horsemen riding across the steppes from East Asia.

The rise of nationalism—itself an import from Europe—produced new perceptions. Arabs could lay the blame for their troubles on the Turks, who had ruled them for many centuries. 

Turks could lay the blame for the stagnation of their civilization on the dead weight of the Arab past, in which the creative energies of the Turkish people were caught and immobilized. 

Persians could lay the blame for the loss of their ancient glories on Arabs, Turks, and Mongols impartially.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries British and French paramountcy in much of the Arab world produced a new and more plausible scapegoat—Western imperialism. 

In the Middle East there have been good reasons for such blame. Western political domination, economic penetration, and—longest, deepest, and most insidious of all—cultural influence changed the face of the region and transformed the lives of its people, turning them in new directions, arousing new hopes and fears, creating new dangers and new expectations without precedent in their cultural past. 

But the Anglo-French interlude was comparatively brief, and ended half a century ago. Islam's change for the worse began long before and continued unabated afterward. 

Inevitably, the role of the British and the French as villains was taken over by the United States, along with other aspects of Western leadership. The attempt to transfer the guilt to America has won considerable support but, for similar reasons, remains unconvincing. Anglo-French rule and American influence, like the Mongol invasions, were a consequence, not a cause, of the inner weakness of Middle Eastern states and societies. 

Some observers, both inside and outside the region, have pointed to differences in the post-colonial development of former British possessions—for example, between Aden, in the Middle East, and Singapore or Hong Kong; or between the various lands that once made up the British Empire in India.

Another European contribution to this debate is anti-Semitism, and blaming "the Jews" for all that goes wrong. Jews in traditional Islamic societies experienced the normal constraints and occasional hazards of minority status. 

Until the rise and spread of Western tolerance in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they were better off under Muslim than under Christian rule in most significant respects. With rare exceptions, where hostile stereotypes of the Jew existed in the Islamic tradition, Islamic societies tended to be contemptuous and dismissive rather than suspicious and obsessive.

This made the events of 1948—the failure to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel—all the more of a shock. As some writers observed at the time, it was humiliating enough to be defeated by the great imperial powers of the West; to suffer the same fate at the hands of a contemptible gang of Jews was intolerable. Anti-Semitism and its image of the Jew as a scheming, evil monster provided a soothing antidote.

The earliest specifically anti-Semitic statements in the Middle East occurred among Christian minorities, and can usually be traced back to European originals. 

They had limited impact; during the Dreyfus trial in France, for example, when a Jewish officer was unjustly accused and condemned by a hostile court, Muslim comments usually favored the persecuted Jew against his Christian persecutors. But the poison continued to spread, and starting in 1933, Nazi Germany and its various agencies made a concerted and on the whole remarkably successful effort to promote European-style anti-Semitism in the Arab world. 

The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to attribute all evil in the Middle East—and, indeed, in the world—to secret Jewish plots. This interpretation has pervaded much of the public discourse in the region, including that seen in education, the media, and even entertainment.

An argument sometimes adduced is that the cause of the changed relationship between East and West is not a Middle Eastern decline but a Western upsurge—the discoveries and the scientific, technological, industrial, and political revolutions that transformed the West and vastly increased its wealth and power. But this is merely to restate the question: Why did the discoverers of America sail from Spain rather than from a Muslim Atlantic port, out of which such voyages were indeed attempted in earlier times? Why did the great scientific breakthrough occur in Europe and not, as one might reasonably have expected, in the richer, more advanced, and in most respects more enlightened realm of Islam?

A more sophisticated form of the blame game finds its targets inside, rather than outside, Islamic society. One such target is religion—for some, specifically Islam. But to blame Islam as such is usually hazardous and not often attempted. Nor is it very plausible. 

For most of the Middle Ages it was neither the older cultures of the Orient nor the newer cultures of the West that were the major centers of civilization and progress but the world of Islam. There old sciences were recovered and developed and new sciences were created; there new industries were born and manufactures and commerce were expanded to a level without precedent. 

There, too, governments and societies achieved a freedom of thought and expression that led persecuted Jews and even dissident Christians to flee Christendom for refuge in Islam. In comparison with modern ideals, and even with modern practice in the more advanced democracies, the medieval Islamic world offered only limited freedom, but that was vastly more than was offered by any of its predecessors, its contemporaries, or most of its successors.

The point has often been made: If Islam is an obstacle to freedom, to science, to economic development, how is it that Muslim society in the past was a pioneer in all three—and this when Muslims were much closer in time to the sources and inspiration of their faith than they are now? Some have posed the question in a different form—not "What has Islam done to the Muslims?" but "What have the Muslims done to Islam?"—and have answered by laying the blame on specific teachers and doctrines and groups.

For those known nowadays as Islamists or fundamentalists, the failures and shortcomings of modern Islamic lands afflict those lands because they adopted alien notions and practices. They fell away from authentic Islam and thus lost their former greatness. 

Those known as modernists or reformers take the opposite view, seeing the cause of this loss not in the abandonment but in the retention of old ways, and especially in the inflexibility and ubiquity of the Islamic clergy, who, they say, are responsible for the persistence of beliefs and practices that might have been creative and progressive a thousand years ago but are neither today. 

The modernists' usual tactic is not to denounce religion as such, still less Islam in particular, but to level their criticism against fanaticism. It is to fanaticism—and more particularly to fanatical religious authorities—that they attribute the stifling of the once great Islamic scientific movement and, more generally, of the freedom of thought and expression.

A more common approach to this theme has been to discuss a specific problem: the place of religion and of its professional exponents in the political order. In this view a principal cause of Western progress is the separation of Church and State and the creation of a civil society governed by secular laws. 

Another approach has been to view the main culprit as the relegation of women to an inferior position in Muslim society, which deprives the Islamic world of the talents and energies of half its people and entrusts the other half's crucial early years of upbringing to illiterate and downtrodden mothers. 

The products of such an education, it has been said, are likely to grow up either arrogant or submissive, and unfit for a free, open society. However one evaluates the views of secularists and feminists, their success or failure will be a major factor in shaping the Middle Eastern future.

Some solutions that once commanded passionate support have been discarded. The two dominant movements in the twentieth century were socialism and nationalism. Both have been discredited—the first by its failure, the second by its success and consequent exposure as ineffective. Freedom, interpreted to mean national independence, was seen as the great talisman that would bring all other benefits. The overwhelming majority of Muslims now live in independent states, but this has brought no solutions to their problems. 

National socialism, the bastard offspring of both ideologies, persists in a few states that have preserved the Nazi-Fascist style of dictatorial government and indoctrination through a vast security apparatus and a single all-powerful party. These regimes have failed every test except survival, and have brought none of the promised benefits. If anything, their infrastructures are even more antiquated than those of other Muslim states, their armed forces designed primarily for terror and repression.

At present two answers to the question of what went wrong command widespread support in the Middle East, each with its own diagnosis and corresponding prescription. One attributes all evil to the abandonment of the divine heritage of Islam and advocates return to a real or imagined past. That is the way of the Iranian revolution and of the so-called fundamentalist movements and regimes in various Muslim countries. The other condemns the past and advocates secular democracy, best embodied in the Turkish Republic, proclaimed in 1923 by Kemal Atatürk.

For the oppressive but ineffectual governments that rule much of the Middle East, finding targets to blame serves a useful, indeed an essential, purpose—to explain the poverty that they have failed to alleviate and to justify the tyranny that they have introduced. They seek to deflect the mounting anger of their unhappy subjects toward other, outside targets.

But growing numbers of Middle Easterners are adopting a more self-critical approach. The question "Who did this to us?" has led only to neurotic fantasies and conspiracy theories. And the question "What did we do wrong?" has led naturally to a second question: "How do we put it right?" In that question, and in the various answers that are being found, lie the best hopes for the future. 

During the past few weeks the worldwide exposure given to the views and actions of Osama bin Laden and his hosts the Taliban has provided a new and vivid insight into the eclipse of what was once the greatest, most advanced, and most open civilization in human history.

To a Western observer, schooled in the theory and practice of Western freedom, it is precisely the lack of freedom—freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom of women from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny—that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world. But the road to democracy, as the Western experience amply demonstrates, is long and hard, full of pitfalls and obstacles.

If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination — perhaps from a new Europe reverting to old ways, perhaps from a resurgent Russia, perhaps from some expanding superpower in the East. 

But if they can abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies, and resources in a common creative endeavor, they can once again make the Middle East, in modern times as it was in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, a major center of civilization. For the time being, the choice is theirs.

My comments :  My view is the Muslims are losing it because they are not following the Quran closely. Neither the jihadi fundamentalists, suicide bombers, Muslim liberals, Muslim modernists or Muslim reformers read the Quran closely to understand what the Quran is telling them.  

Instead the Muslms are constantly in dispute over non-Quranic or extra-Quranic teachings which cannot be found in the Quran. The problem for the Muslims is that many of these extra Quranic or non Quranic teachings and beliefs are also very un-Quranic. 

Please differentiate between extra-Quranic and un-Quranic. It is very often that the extra Quranic beliefs are also un-Quranic.  That is why the Muslims are in such deep sh*t all over the world. 

Let me give just one example from Bernard Lewis' article. Lewis says "But underlying much of the Muslim world's travail may be a simple lack of freedom"

I agree with this view 100%.  Here is proof. In Malaysia the Muslims have decided that the Government must issue a 'tauliah' before anyone can speak about "religion". Without a 'tauliah' or authorisation no one can speak about "religion". For example even the former Mufti of Perlis Dr MAZA was arrested and charged in the religious court because they said he did not have a "tauliah".  

The reality is people like Dr MAZA say things that the mainstream religious people may not agree with. So the 'tauliah' issue is a convenient tool to be used to charge him in Court. But when it comes to the thousands of lebai and ostat who talk all sorts of rubbish, no action is taken against them (when they too do not have tauliah) because the mainstream or the orthodoxy does not feel threatened by the lebai and ostat who peddle their rubbish. So the 'tauliah' can be misused to repress  differences of opinions and views.

The biggest nail in the coffin for the religious people are the laws that exist in Malaysia which can fine and/or jail any Muslim who does not follow the mazhab of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah. If you are a Shia or if you reject the beliefs of the Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah then you can be fined and/or jailed.

There is no proviso for such behaviour in the Quran. The Quran says quite the opposite :

Surah 39:18  "They are the ones who examine all speech  (yastamee'una al qawla) then follow the best thereof. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence."

In other words, if you stifle free speech, you become bodoh.  If you do not listen to all the different views, then you are among those people who DO NOT POSSESS INTELLIGENCE. Why? Because you will end up listening only to yourself or listening to people who think like you, look like you and even smell like you. 

You must allow freedom of speech and then follow what is best from what you hear. That is being intelligent.

In brief, the Quran tells Muslims that in order to be intelligent you must listen to all the different views (yastamee'una al qawla).  After listening, then only you follow the best.  This is a Quranic teaching.

If you dont allow free speech then it is also an un-Quranic teaching. And this type of un-Quranic teaching will make you less intelligent. You become bodoh.

In almost all Islamic countries, they do not allow intelligent exchange of views about their religion or Islam. Often they prosecute or persecute people for having different religious views. Sunnis persecute Shias, Shias persecute Sunnis and it goes on.  In Pakistan the Sunnis persecute the Ahmadiyas and so on. This is a common occurence in Islamic countries. Our country is no exception.

p.s. To those of you who wish to comment please avoid comments like Bernard Lewis is Irish, Jewish, Italian, that he deprived your grandmother of her pisang goreng and crap like that.  Lets not waste time. I will delete your comments. Read his article and comment on its merits.

Al Qaeda Websites Hosted In KL Pula !!

Posted: 31 Oct 2012 09:02 PM PDT

Folks, this nightmare seems to be never ending.  Not only is Al Qaeda using Malaysia as a transit point and a recruitment centre but even Al Qaeda websites are being hosted in Kuala Lumpur.  The Star has this EXCLUSIVE story :
  • Local server shuts down al-Qaeda's online library after being alerted
  • PETALING JAYA: Al-Qaeda's "official" website was registered at an address in Kuala Lumpur.
  • Tawhed.net said to be the largest terrorist website in the world was shut down at 4pm yesterday after The Star alerted the local server.  
  • But that won't be the end of the portal: counter terrorism experts say it is al-Qaeda's strategy to have its websites and forums hosted in one country and move to another when detected.
  • Tawhed.net described in a United States Military Academy report as "al-Qaeda's main online library" contained a message from Ayman Al Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's current leader following the death of Osama bin Laden, and featured interviews with detained terrorist suspects.

First of all congratulations to The Star for detecting this website and alerting the server provider - who is a Malaysian company.  But isnt this the job of Hishamuddin at the Ministry of Home Affairs? We really need to be wide awake on this one. Hishamuddin is simply not doing the job.  

Folks, there is too much crap going on in the country and too often it involves foreigners and foreign ideas that are alien to our well being.  

Its like this - there are too many countries around the world where everything is screwed up. Usually these are the Islamic countries (plus some non Islamic countries). So people from those countries come to Malaysia because we are peaceful, harmonious, stable, we have beautiful weather, beautiful towns and cities and we offer these people hope and opportunities. So they have come here by the millions (Indons, Banglas, Nepalis, Pakistanis, Arabs, Iranians, South Americans, Africans, Eastern Europeans, Central Asians etc). 

Unfortunately instead of getting them to adjust themselves to our way of life (which is what made our Malaysia attractive to them in the first place)  we are now letting them run riot and repeat their bad mannerisms which made their countries of origin screwed up in the first place.

A couple of days ago in our neighborhood (which is fairly upmarket) I saw an African guy pissing against the lamp post just outside his rented house. (There were like 10 other Africans there and it was not even a party). There is no need to assume that back in his African home, that is what they do - they piss in the street. Which is why their countries are so screwed up and they end up finding their way to other countries like Malaysia where people do not piss in the street in front of their own houses !!

The same with these Al Qaeda terrorists. Their religion of hatred and more hatred towards other human beings (just because people belong to a different religion) has caused them serious problems. They cannot live peacefully and amicably with anyone at all. As a result they suffer violence and its consequent poverty. They become poor also because of their philosophy of hate. 

So they have no choice but to migrate to other countries (Australia, America, Europe and now Malaysia) to look for a better life. But they come here carrying their same hatreds and violence. And they start abusing the hospitality that we extend to spread their hatred and violence.

This is what is happening. Those Al Qaeda websites hosted in KL are just spewing hatred and violence.  They dont know how to get a job, go to work in the morning or produce something that is useful for them and their families. As a result they depend on others - especially the "kafirs" whom they dislike so much - for their very survival. They know this and so they fall deeper into despair. 

Now here is the punchline folks. This message is for the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM, the Ministers, the politicians and those in authority - it is NOT the job or the responsibility of  Malaysians to provide the hospitality for these very confused people in our country.  We are NOT obliged to them for anything.

They can take their "pissing on the lampost" and their Al Qaeda hate websites somewhere else. Those who cannot behave or dont know how to behave according to our culture should not be allowed to enter the country.  

What does this mean? This means placing quotas for number of entrants from some of these screwed up countries (for example ALL OIC countries except Brunei and Indonesia), all African countries and some South American and Central Asian countries. Or placing stricter visa requirements for all these countries. NO MORE visa upon arrival.

And enforcing strict immigration rules on the tenure of stay here in Malaysia. 

I also think the time has come where private colleges that take in too many dubious foreign students be classified as security threats. Yes the Ministry of Home Affairs must label private colleges which have significant numbers of dubious foreign students as security threats to the nation and act upon them accordingly. 

I also think the BN Government is going to lose a lot of votes because you dont know how to handle this simple matter. It is becoming too irritating to the normal man in the street.

The Cabinet Ministers dont see the picture because they belong to the Billionaire's Club. Their friends and cronies are the same people who have the licenses to operate the private colleges.  Its all about money.

Just a few days ago I was talking to someone (who was and maybe still is close to the Prime Minister) who was saying that we cannot solve the taxi problem in Kuala Lumpur because of the same reason - the Billionaires Club and its cronies are the same people who own or control the taxis through the permit system.  

If the local taxi drivers complain too much, they just allow the Taliban types from Peshawar in Pakistan to drive taxis.  That is why we now have foreigners driving taxis in the country. Ini semua duit punya pasal.  Will the Immigration Department check on these "foreign" taxi drivers? Or will they just 'close one eye'? Maybe Hisham can answer this question. Bro, wake up. I know you know all about this. I also know, that you know that we all know about this. Tapi buat slumber saja bro. 

You have enough money for three generations bro. You punya bank account sudah penuh. Take care of the nation.  Wake up.

You ignore the well being of your voters in favour of who? Or what? A few extra Ringgit in your bank account? How stupid can you get?   Tak boleh faham ke - orang dah fed up. Dont say I did not tell you.

Muhyuddin To Hisham : Please Explain How?

Posted: 31 Oct 2012 04:27 AM PDT



Here are some headlines :
  • Muhyiddin demands to know how al-Qaeda-linked suspects were influenced
  • LABUAN: Malaysia wants to know how two of its citizens were influenced to join terrorist-related groups, said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. "We want to know how they were influenced,'' he said..
This is a good question by the DPM. Exactly how were they influenced?


Obviously the DPM's question is directed at the Minister of Home Affairs. Here is a picture of the Minister of Home Affairs when he heard the question :


The Minister did attempt a reply. Here is what he said : 
  • M'sia not used as terrorist recruitment centre, assures Hisham
  • terror groups do not use Malaysia as a recruitment ground 
  • he acknowledged Malaysia may be a transit point for terrorists
  • dismissed fears that Malaysia was a recruitment ground 
  • "I can confirm that this is not the case," he said
  • authorities were aware of locals and foreigners having links to terrorists 
  • sufficient laws to address the threat 

I say Hisham, first of all you are talking through your @$$ bro.  How can you confirm that Malaysia is not a recruitment ground for international terrorists when the two Malaysian boys have already been arrested in Lebanon and charged in court with terrorist activity? That boy who is only 21 years old was not recruited in Timbuktu, Karachi, Kabul or Makkah. He was recruited here in Malaysia - somewhere between Beranang, Kolej Yayasan Felda Trolak, Kampong Ketek in Malacca and Taman Tun Dr Ismail in Kuala Lumpur. 
That was where they must have come into contact with the recruiters. There is also mention of a name Mustapha Mansour - as the Malaysian recruiter.  So please dont be telling us that there is no terrorist recruitment going on inside Malaysia. Please wake up.
Secondly Hisham, the DPM wants to know  "how they were influenced'' ? This is a relevant question.  
Who are the foreign agents who spread the poison among our young Muslims here in Malaysia? And how do they spread this poison? Through the Friday sermons? Through the ceramah subuh? Through the suraus? Through the numerous religious societies, religious parties and religious NGOs? How is the poison spread inside the country? 
And what are we doing to curb these foreign ideas from coming into the country? 
It was also reported that :
  • Several Malaysians are on the police radar
  • preparing to join militants in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Middle East 
  • Their identities are known to the police
Hisham has also said that  there  are "sufficient laws to address the threat".  

OK Hisham, if there are sufficient laws to address the threat, then what are you doing about those Malaysians who are "preparing to join militants in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Middle East" ?  Takkan nak tunggu sampai depa dah mati meletup bom baru nak buat statement dalam media bro?  

What are you doing to prevent these people from blowing something up? Preferably before they blow something up? You say you have sufficient laws to address the threat.

I have said a dozen times now - place curbs on these strange foreigners coming into Malaysia. Do you know why these two boys were not able to enter Syria? Beause the Syrians know that all sorts of terrorists are coming into their country. So they just ban anyone from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Lebanon, etc from entering their country.

Why dont you follow their example. Or here is an easier solution Hisham. You come from Johor. There is a tiny island to the south called Singapore. There is more to Singapore than Takeshimaya ok. Talk to the Singaporeans and ask them how they curb the beardos and the jubah gangs from entering their country. They must have a system. Why not follow their system? How bad can it be? 

Here is another solution bro. The Taliban say that if anyone does not have a full beard (a fist full) then he cannot become a leader of Afghanistan.  Why not we modify this idea a little. 

Any foreigner from the more whacko Islamic countries (Saudi, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Sudan, Mali, Niger, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Gaza, Bangladesh, Indian Muslim etc etc etc) who has a full beard (a fist full) should NOT be allowed into the country.  

I know I am blowing my own horn here but I think this is a fantastic idea bro. Kan saya ni OutSyed The Box. If you do this, I think 99% of our external terrorist influences will be solved. Think about it dude. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jom berjuang bersama rakan bloggers di Facebook!

Tunjukkan sokongan anda! Sila Like.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...