Equality in Islam: Dr. Zakir Naik exposed

Thursday, March 22, 2007
Equality in Islam: Dr Zakir Naik Exposed
Does Islam Treat Women as Equals of Men as a Witness?
by Peace Forever
18 Mar, 2007
Dr. Zakir Naik, the renowned Islamic debater on his site www.irf.net, seeks to answer some of the common questions raised against Islam by non muslims. We will try to look into one of his so called answers to a question, relating to women on being par with men as witnesses and show how he hides information and brings in false analogies to support his case in vain.
Dr. Zakir Naik begins by putting forth the question and answering it. I will quote him and proceed to answer him. My comments will be in Black, while Dr. Zakir’s will be in Dark red:
Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims
EQUALITY OF WITNESSES
Question:
Why are two witnesses who are women, equivalent to only one witness who is a man?
Answer:
It is not true that two female witnesses are always considered as equal to only one male witness. It is true only in certain cases. There are about five verses in the Qur’an that mention witnesses, without specifying male or female. There is only one verse in the Qur’an, that says two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. This verse is Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 282. This is the longest verse in the Qur’an and deals with financial transactions. It says:
"Oh! ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligation in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing and get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her." [Al-Qur’an 2:282]
And then he continues to write:
This verse of the Qur’an deals only with financial transactions. In such cases, it is advised to make an agreement in writing between the parties and take two witnesses, preferably both of which should be men only. In case you cannot find two men, then one man and two women would suffice.
For instance, suppose a person wants to undergo an operation for a particular ailment. To confirm the treatment, he would prefer taking references from two qualified surgeons. In case he is unable to find two surgeons, his second option would be one surgeon and two general practitioners who are plain MBBS doctors.
Similarly in financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families. Since financial responsibility is shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Tazil’ which means ‘confused’ or ‘to err’. Many have wrongly translated this word as ‘to forget’. Thus financial transactions constitute the only case in which two female witnesses are equal to one male witness.
Dr. Zakir wants us to believe that acting as a witness is something as complex as making a correct diagnosis regarding an ailment, on the contrary acting as a witness only requires you to remember the conditions prescribed in the contract. Dr. Zakir also puts forward the usual argument of error in translation to support his case. Contrary to his claims most translators translate the word as “to err”. Here are a few popular translations:
Yusuf Ali:
[002:282] ……….. if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her…….
Sher Ali:
[002:282] ……….. if two men be not available, then a man and two women, of such as you approve as witnesses, so that if either of the two women should forget, then one may remind the other……..
Shakir:
[002:282] ……….. if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other……
Pickthall:
[002:282] ……….. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember…
Sale:
[002:282] ………..if there be not two men, let there be a man and two women of those whom ye shall choose for witnesses: If one of those women should mistake, the other of them will cause her to recollect.
Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:
[002:282] ………..if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her……
Palmer:
[002:282] ……….so that if one of the two should err, the second of the two may remind the other…
Arberry:
[002:282]………. if one of the two women errs the other will remind her…
Rodwell:
[002:282]………. if the one of them should mistake, the other may cause her to recollect.
Among these popular translations only Sher Ali puts it as “to forget”, not that he is wrong. The verse reads “if one of them errs, the other can remind her”, which alludes the mistake (to err) here is forgetting. Moreover Zakir transliterates the word as “Tazil”, but it is transliterated as “Tadel”. According to native speakers of Arabic, Dr. Zakir is using annoying dialect that disrespects the Arabic alphabet. A dialect mostly used by illiterate Arabs!!
Dr. Zakir wants to assert that this is only due to the issue being a financial transaction in which women are not acquainted too much and has nothing to do with degrading women. Though Dr. Zakir’s reasoning is already faulty, he hides information regarding what Muhammad had to say on the verse i.e. what the verse was really meant to be:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCY OF A WOMAN’S MIND." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826)
Muhammad doesn’t say a woman’s witness is half of a man because she is not well acquainted with financial transaction rather Muhammad says "THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCY OF A WOMAN’S MIND." Muhammad thought that women should have a lesser say as a witness because they are deficient in mind! Also note that Muhammad says this in general terms and not in terms of being a witness in financial transactions alone!
Renowned Quranic commentator Ibn kathir has this to say on this verse:
This means, the two women, if one of them forgets the testimony, then ‘the other can remind her’, i.e., she can remind her about the matter concerning which testimony is being given. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, part 1, p. 724)
Another Renowned commentator Ibn Abbas, for whose knowledge (Islamic) Muhammad reportedly had prayed to Allah, has this to say:
(And call to witness) for your rights, (from among your men, two witnesses) from among your free, Muslim men who are of good character. (And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses) from among people who are reliable in their witness, (so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness)) so that if one of the women forgets (the other) who did not forget (will remind her. And the witnesses must not refuse) to give witness (when they are summoned) to court. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs on 2:282)
Tafsir Al-Jalayan also says something similar:
And summon to bear witness, the debt, two witnesses, men, mature Muslim free men; or if the two, witnesses, be not men, then one man and two women, to bear witness, such witnesses as you approve of, on account of their piety and probity; the number of women is because of the fact, so that if one of the two women errs, forgets the testimony, given their lesser astuteness and accuracy; the other, the one remembering, will remind her (read fa-tudhakkira or fa-tudhkira), the one that has forgotten - the 'reminding' clause is the reason [for the choice of two women], that is to say, so that she may be reminded if she errs or strays into error, because this [forgetfulness] is the cause of it (a variant reading [for an, 'that'] has the conditional in, 'if', with [the verb inflected as] tudhakkiru, 'she will remind', making it a new sentence, the response to which [follows]);(Tafsir Al-Jalayan on 2:282)
Dr. Zakir Naik as usual hides this vital information as what Muhammad had in mind regarding this verse and in vain tries to use false analogies to alleviate the ramifications of the verse.
Friend Baal, a member of FFI forums adds that “Zakir mentions that a muslim male's witness equals twice the woman's ONLY in financial transactions. As if financial transactions are a small matter. But isn't financial transactions the most important transactions as far as passing and acquiring Influence in a society? Added the fact that muslim women inherit on average half or less than half their male counterparts and you can guarantee that once Islam takes hold of a society, women will lose wealth and influence with each passing of a generation.”
Baal has got a valid point here, and he is right! Women can’t hold high positions according to Islam, Al-Qurtubi commenting on 4:34 says:
The words "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women" mean that they spend on them and protect them, and also that they (men) are the rulers and governors, and the ones who go on military campaigns, and none of these are the role of women. (Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 5/168)
Ibn Katheer says:
It means the man is in charge of the woman; he is her leader, the ruler over her WHO DISCIPLINES HER if she goes astray.
"because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other" means, because men are superior to woman, and a man IS BETTER THAN A WOMAN. Hence Prophethood was given ONLY TO MEN, as is the role of caliph, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of them."
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/492.
A hadith form the Sahih al-Bukhari collection agrees with the tafsir of Ibn Kathir,
Narrated Abu Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219)
Al-Shawkaani said in Nayl al-Awtaar, 8/305:
This indicates that women ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO RULE, and it is not permissible for people to appoint them as rulers, because they must avoid that which will cause them not to prosper.
Al-Maawirdi said, in the context of his discussion of the position of wazeer:
It is not permissible for a woman to play this role, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "No people will prosper if they delegate their affairs to a woman." And because these positions require wisdom and resolve, WHICH WOMEN MAY BE LACKING IN, and requires appearing in public to handle matters directly, which is haraam for them to do.
An Islamic site quotes certain views of certain Renowned Islamic scholars on this issue:
Imaam al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudaamah said:
"For this reason the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his successors (khulafa') and those who came after them never appointed a woman to be a judge or a governor of a province, as far as we know. If it were permissible, it should have happened."
Imaam al-Ghazaali said:
"The position of leader (imaam) could never be given to a woman even if she possessed all the qualities of perfection and self-reliance. How could a woman take the position of leader when she did not have the right to be a judge or a witness under most of the historical governments?"
Imaam al-Baghawi said:
"The scholars agreed that women are not fit to be leaders or judges, because the leader needs to go out to organize jihaad and take care of the Muslims’ affairs, and the judge needs to go out to judge between people, but women are 'awrah and it is not right for them to go out. Because of their weakness, women are not able to do many things. Women are imperfect, and the positions of leaders and judge are among the most perfect of positions for which only the most perfect of men are qualified." (Ruling on appointing women to positions of high public office)
Dr. Zakir had said “Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families” and latter on in his article says “It is only due to the different natures and roles of men and women in society as envisaged by Islam.”
Dr. Zakir commits that fallacy of begging the question by assuming that place for women envisaged by Islam is acceptable to all, on which the crux of his argument is balanced. And then he begs the question by indirectly asking what is wrong in requiring an extra witness in the case of the witness being women based on the system envisaged by Islam?
Then Dr. Zakir Naik proceeds:
However, some scholars are of the opinion that the feminine attitude can also have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can get confused. Therefore, according to some jurists, even in cases of murder, two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness. In all other cases, one female witness is equivalent to one male witness.
If the scholars are right that woman are more traumatized by events such as murder then they are more likely to be a better witness since, latest research has concluded that people tend to remember traumatic experiences more than pleasant experiences!
Research Turns Memory Theory on Its Head
Contrary to conventional thought dating back to Freud, victims of traumatic events do not subconsciously repress the memories but rather recall them with clarity reminiscent of reality.
That startling finding comes from a five-year-study conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University in Halifax. The same study, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) concludes that people have much more difficulty recalling pleasant memories than they do unpleasant.
……. "We can expect that traumatic criminal experiences can be recalled quite reliably over time," says Dr. Porter. "That doesn't mean there won't be some level of distortion. But the central details will be recalled quite well."…. (Newswise, Research Turns Memory Theory on Its Head)
Dr. Zakir then goes on to present verses from the quran to prove his point:
There are about five verses in the Qur’an which speak about witnesses without specifying man or woman.
While making a will of inheritance, two just persons are required as witnesses. In Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 106, the Glorious Qur’an says:
"Oh you who believe!When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourself when making bequests.
two just persons of your own (brotherhood) or other from outside if you are journeying through the earth and the chance of death befalls you." [Al-Qur’an 65:2]
Dr. Zakir’s translation itself puts it as two just person of your own (brotherhood), yet Dr. Zakir would claim it refers to both men and women, another thing that strikes me is the translation seems to be of Yusuf Ali’s or at least resembles his, note that Yusuf is the translator who uses the word “brotherhood” in brackets and a quick comparison of all the translations used in his article with Yusuf Ali’s translations would make it clear that Dr. Zakir is using his translation, but Yusuf Ali himself translated it as “two just men of your own”, Dr. Zakir has changed the word to suite his agenda. Fortunately for him he never quotes the name of the translator so he can always claim that it was his (though all of his translations exactly match with Yusuf Ali’s except for this particular word!). Here is how some famous translations put it.
Yusuf Ali:
[005:106] O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests,- two just men of your own (brotherhood) or others from outside if ye are journeying through the earth, and the chance of death befalls you (thus)………
Sher Ali:
[005:106] O ye who believe ! the right evidence among you, when death comes to one of you, at the time of making a will, is of two just men from among you; or of two others not from among you,…..
Pickthall:
[005:106] O ye who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draweth nigh unto one of you, at the time of bequest - two witnesses, just men from among you, or two others from another tribe…….
The word in question is “AAadlin”, it in most scenarios refer to men and not both men and women though there are exceptions. The word is derived from “Adl” which roughly mean “Justice” as in, wizeer al-'adl which translates to "The Minister of Justice", we have already seen women in Islam women aren’t qualified to hold assume positions such as justice.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn also agrees on this view:
O you who believe, let testimony between you, when death, that is, [one of] its causes, draws near to one of you, at the time of a bequest, be that of two men of justice among you (ithnāni dhawā 'adlin minkum, 'two men of justice among you', is the predicate expressed with the sense of an imperative, in other words, 'let [two men] bear witness …(Tafsir Al-Jalayan on 5:106)
Dr. Zakir then points out S 65:2, but he doesn’t even quote it in his article.
Shakir:
[065:002] So when they have reached their prescribed time, then retain them with kindness or separate them with kindness, and call to witness two men of justice from among you, and give upright testimony for Allah…
Again the word used is “AAadlin”, which mostly refers to men and not both men and women. The tafsirs also reflect the view that the verse refers to men in particular, Tafsir al-Jalalayn writes on the verse:
Then, when they have reached their term, [when] they are near the end of their prescribed period, retain them, by taking them back, honourably, without coercion, or separate from them honourably, leave them to conclude their waiting period and do not compel them to go back [to you]. And call to witness two just men from among yourselves, [to witness] the retraction or the separation, and bear witness for the sake of God, and not [merely] for the sake of what is being witnessed or for the sake of the man. By this is exhorted whoever believes in God and the Last Day. And whoever fears God, He will make a way out for him, from the distress of this world and the Hereafter; (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on 65:2)
And another Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs hs this to say on the verse:
(Then, when they have reached their term) when the waiting period is over, before having major ritual ablution, after the end of the third period of menstruation, (take them back in kindness) before they have major ritual ablution after the third period of menstruation, and then they should be treated with kindness (or part from them in kindness) do not prolong their waiting period, and give them all their rights, (and call to witness) both for divorcing them and taking them back (two just men among you) two free, upright, Muslim men, (and keep your testimony upright for Allah) and give your testimony before the judges for Allah's sake. (Whoso believeth in Allah and the Last) resurrection after death (is exhorted) believes (to act thus) i.e. regarding the expenditure, lodgement and delivering testimony. It is said that from the beginning of the surah up to here was revealed about the Prophet (pbuh) when he divorced Hafsah, and also about six prophetic Companions, among whom was Ibn 'Umar, who divorced their wives when they were in their periods, and so Allah forbade them from doing so, because it does not comply with the prophetic practice of divorce, and taught them about the latter. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) upon committing a transgression and remain steadfast, (Allah will appoint a way out for him) from hardship; it is also said that this means: He will appoint a way out for him from transgression to acts of obedience; it is also said this means: from the Fire into Paradise, (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs on 65:2)
Dr. Zakir wants us to believe that the word would mean something other than what it would under normal circumstances and would give no reason as to why it should be that way.
At the least these verses fail to prove anything objective as they are ambiguous in the sense that they don’t state who the “person” should be in case “AAdlin” is taken to mean both men and women. Since the quran fails to mention this we will have to refer to the hadiths which are the secondary source for the sharia after the quran. I already quoted the hadith where Muhammad says “Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” this is being said in general terms and not in reference to any particular case as Dr. Zakir wants us to believe.
Then Dr. Zakir provides a verse which he claims equates a woman’s witness to a man’s and claims all the scholars who are of the opinion that the witness of two female is equal to one are wrong because of this:
There are some scholars who are of the opinion that the rule of two female witnesses equal to one male witness should be applied to all the cases. This cannot be agreed upon because one particular verse of the Qur’an from Surah Noor chapter 24, verse 6 clearly equates one female witness and one male witness:
"And those who launch a chargeagainst their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence can be received." [Al-Qur’an 24:6]
Now I would call Dr. Zakir is acting in desperation by quoting this verse. This verse is directed at muslim men who accuse their wives of committing adultery but have no proof to substantiate their claim other than themselves, the verse is transliterated as follows:
[024:006] Waallatheena yarmoona azwajahum walam yakun lahum shuhadao illa anfusuhum fashahadatu ahadihim arbaAAu shahadatin biAllahi innahu lamina alssadiqeena (Transliteration of S. 24:6)
The word "Azwajahum" means the partners of male. If the verse had said "Azwajahun" it would have meant the partners of females. Though in some context "Azwajahum" could refer to both male and females (again Dr. Zakir fails to show why it should mean something other than what it normally means), the problem for Dr. Zakir is the quran is talking about those who launch a charge against their partners. In Islam only males can have more than one partner at a given time.
Another problem Dr. Zakir faces is the next two verses which say this:
Shakir:
[024:007] And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars.
[024:008] And it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely one of the liars;
Since S. 24:7 in continuation of the previous verse is talking about what happens if the man accuses his wife falsely the fifth time, and S. 24:8 in continuation of the previous verse is about how the wife can counter the false accusation, and no instructions in this regard is found for a man being accused, it logically follows that S. 24:6 is concerned with witness in the case of women who commit adultery. Clearly the word used is “wives” and can’t refer to both husband and wife as Yusuf Ali has translated (which Dr. Zakir has used).
All renowned exegesis of Quran also concurs with this view, Tafsir al-Jalalayn comments on this verse:
And those who accuse their wives, of fornication, but have no witnesses, to [substantiate] this, except themselves - which happened with some Companions - then the testimony of one of them (fa-shahādatu ahadihim, the subject) shall be to testify [swearing] by God four times (araba'a shahādātin, is in the accusative as a verbal noun) that he is indeed being truthful, in accusing his wife of committing fornication, (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on 24:6)
Tafsir Ibn Abbas has this to say on this verse:
(As for those who accuse their wives) of committing adultery (but have no witnesses) for their accusation (except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah) other than Whom there is no god (that he is of those who speak the Truth) about his accusation of his wife; (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs on S. 24:6)
Renowned tafsir Ibn Kathir has this to say:
Details of Al-Li`an
This Ayah offers a way out for husbands. If a husband has accused his wife but cannot come up with proof, he can swear the Li`an (the oath of condemnation) as Allah commanded. This means that he brings her before the Imam and states what he is accusing her of. The ruler then asks him to swear four times by Allah in front of four witnesses
[إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّـدِقِينَ]
(that he is one of those who speak the truth) in his accusation of her adultery.
(tafsir Ibn Kathir on S. 24:6)
Dr. Zakir Naik who more than often accuses of incorrect translation uses one when it serves his case. In a severe act of desperation Dr. Zakir has presented a verse that is directed at men to have an almost free hand in accusing his wife of adultery just by swearing in the name of Allah that it is true! Rather than providing proof that a women’s witness is equal to that of a man’s witness Dr. Zakir Naik has further exposed that Quran is misogynistic.
Then Dr. Zakir makes a claim:
Hazrat Ayesha (RA) hadith narrated of one witness
Really! Where is the source Doctor? If Dr. Zakir is able to present such a source then it would contradict Muhammad’s own words recorded in Sahih hadiths!
Many jurists agree that even one witness of a woman is sufficient for the sighting of the crescent of the moon. Imagine one woman witness is sufficient for one of the pillars of Islam, i.e. fasting and the whole Muslim community of men and women agree and accept her witness! Some jurists say that one witness is required at the beginning of Ramadaan and two witnesses at the end of Ramadaan. It makes no difference whether the witnesses are men or women.
This needs no refutation as such because Dr. Zakir talks about opinion of certain jurists but doesn’t give any source or for that matter doesn’t even name them. Dr. Zakir talks in a surprising tone and exclaims at us to imagine a women’s witness being accepted by the entire islamic community, but is this so surprising Dr. Zakir? Seems like such a privilege to muslim women is surprising to Dr. Zakir!
Dr. Zakir talks about a women’s witness being sufficient for one of the pillars of Islam, for which he hasn’t given any proof. But he forgets to inform his readers that women can’t perform salat & fasting during her menses, which are among the pillars of Islam for which they are considered to be deficient in their religion!
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that THE MAJORITY of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion THAN YOU. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WOMEN EQUAL TO THE WITNESS OF ONE MAN?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301; see also Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541)
Note that Muhammad also accuses women of being deficient in intelligence and tells them they are the majority among the dwellers of hell fire.
Then Dr. Zakir gets even desperate:
Some incidents require only female witness and that of a male cannot be accepted. For instance, in dealing with the problems of women, while giving the burial bath i.e. ‘ghusl’ to a woman, the witness has to be a woman.
It is common that happenings related to the privacy of woman have to be attended by another woman, what has this got to do with the equality of women and men in Islam?
Dr. Zakir concludes by stating:
The seeming inequality of male and female witnesses in financial transactions is not due to any inequality of the sexes in Islam. It is only due to the different natures and roles of men and women in society as envisaged by Islam.
On the contrary, we have seen that inequality of male and women witness is not restricted to financial transactions and is due to Muhammad’s misogynistic view that women are less intelligent to men. All efforts from Dr. Zakir to prove the contrary are futile. Dr. Zakir had to hide information, misinterpret verses to come to the conclusion that he has arrived.
Yet again Dr. Zakir fails to convincingly answer in favor of Islam to one of the most commonly asked questions regarding Islam by non-muslims.
I would be failing in my duty if I don’t thank FFI forum members Baal and All_brains who are native speakers of Arabic for their help, without which this article wouldn’t have been possible.
All translations of the Quranic verses of are taken from www.quransearch.com, unless otherwise mentioned.
This article originally belongs to:
http://www.islam-watch.org/Peace4ever/Islam-Treat-Women-Equals-rebuttal-zakir-naik.htm
10:45:58 PM
Posted By Infidel M Comments (0) Musings