What's new

Tenth Crusade?

Islamic invaders is wrong phrase here. I would rather say Central Asian invasions.



According to whose reality my friend? was there any inscriptions or written records indicated ever of such a clash, did the natives identify themselves as Dravidian?

According to 2009 research on Indian genes

Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study



Unless you are saying Hinduism is 40,000 years old, :lol: your logic of Dravidians forced to accept Hinduism makes zero sense.



What Dravidian or Hinduism:

The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.

The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world. However, researchers said there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round.

Indian tribes:

Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - Times Of India
 
Ahh!

The serious note! Strange music!

Does that mean that I might now ask you what Damascus steel, or Damascus sword, really means? Are you aware, as an expert on the subject, that it does not refer to Damascus at all?

The Sword was called Kittara, meaning drops of blood better known as katana in japan today, and yes it originated in Damascus.

Sword of Hiro Damascus
sword-of-hiro-damascus.jpg


Damascus Sword

24897-1.jpg


MOORISH%20SWORD.jpg


oversized-roman-gladius-raindrop-damascus-r9900-available-on-order.JPG


Damascus Wakamidori Sword Samurai Sword
421da7a8947ae0e241fc9d7a436d.jpg
 
The Sword was called Kittara, meaning drops of blood better known as katana in japan today, and yes it originated in Damascus.

Sword of Hiro Damascus
sword-of-hiro-damascus.jpg


Damascus Sword

24897-1.jpg


MOORISH%20SWORD.jpg


oversized-roman-gladius-raindrop-damascus-r9900-available-on-order.JPG


Damascus Wakamidori Sword Samurai Sword
421da7a8947ae0e241fc9d7a436d.jpg

So the muslim idea is not that far fetched considering that most modern martial arts came from the middle east. one of the most obious exeptions being capoeira. The major religions today also came from the middle east (biggest exeption scientology). the idea of making drawings for sounds (today its called writting) also came from the middle east they had the first writting system. It seems that at one point in history the middle east was where the most advanced nations existed. ironic considering they are now viewed as savages here.
 
To Vinod

About Jaziya

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye; both derived from Pahlavi and possibly from Aramaic gaziyat[1]) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power[2] (but with specific exemptions).[3][4] From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[5] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8]

Jaziya tax is about 10% of your total income you pay for the protection of any military aggression from invaders, plus you enjoy all the benefits of adminstrations & practice your own religion & you are exempt from the regular zakat tax which muslims have to pay every year.

Assuming you are a Muslim (in a non Muslim country), let me ask you this.

Would you prefer to live like a dhimmi?

Exactly as it was practiced in places under Islamic rule. Some example: Syria, Spain, North Africa etc.
 
That was not an answer to my questions. Please reveal more about your background. What genuine concerns? Hindu's concern about living under Khilafa? The idea itself is a joke, while Hindu Brahminic supremacists think of wiping out Muslims and Islam from the face of the earth, exactly because of this fantastic imaginary notion that Muslims are hell bent on a world conquest. We don't need to give people more ammunition for their fantasy and peddling of Islamophobic propaganda, by the Zionists and their fellow traveler Hindu nationalists.

they can't! just for one reason "a defender is 100 times more dangerous than a attacker" & the hindus are not defending their religion but attacking other religions, i.e chirtianity & islam.

they are shying away with debates regarding to their religion & i am sure if they come to a table with honest debate with explainations people will listen to them.

Facts are to the contrary.

No Hindus attacked any Islamic lands. No one destroyed 10s of thousands of mosques. There are no "masjid shikan par excellence" in India heroes list. We didn't kill 80 million Arabs or Turks. We didn't forcibly convert and kill millions of Muslims in their lands.


The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus. Will Durant argued in his 1935 book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459):

“ The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.

Now, the same converts whose ancestors suffered at the hands of those barbarians are their biggest apologists. That is normal with Islamic converts. Far too many of them lose their identity and become just a fake shell, dummy second class Arabs.

“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his language is Arabic.

His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his.

The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.”

I have seen some Pakistanis taking great pride in the genocide carried out by Timur Lame, though he perpetrated genocide in several Pakistani areas as well. This is the corrosive effect that is possible.

I can see the kids of Rinki Kumari who was forcibly converted recently in Pakistan after being raped carrying on the legacy and creating more Rinkie Kumaris themselves.

This is called the vicious cycle. And after my experiences and reading some experts (especially ex Muslims) I understand this mindset very well now.
 
Assuming you are a Muslim (in a non Muslim country), let me ask you this.

Would you prefer to live like a dhimmi?

Exactly as it was practiced in places under Islamic rule. Some example: Syria, Spain, North Africa etc.

Muslims were paying more taxes than a dhimmi was paying in jizya, did you know this fact? so do athourough research before stating lies out of ignorance.
Indian Muslims would love to live like that, with that kind of protection , rights, preservation, respect and so on, the list is too exhaustive for you to grasp.
 
I don't think that we are seeing a "modern-day Crusade". Please, understand that there was no United States during the time of the Crusades. Much of Europe is currently going to the dogs, so there is nothing to say about them.

Being from Bangladesh, and even given that the US had a hand during the 1971 war, we do have good relations in defense, political and commercial. That doesn't mean we agree with everything they do or that we are a puppet or something.

Much of what is going on in the Middle East has to do with the remnants of the Cold War. The Arabs and Israelis will always be at each other's necks. Looking at the matter, I do not think the Arabs were actually sincere about the matter. Particularly the Palestinians.

Look at it this way: We often accuse of Israel of this and that, but do we really look into ourselves? Last time I checked, Syria has been using artillery and tanks against civilians. There were even reports of children being detained. Why such extreme force? On top of that, refugees flow into Turkey (which by the way is not a weak country and backed by powerful backers). And let me tell you, from my country's experience that this is extremely dangerous maneuvering. I cannot emphasize enough as to just how vulnerable the state of Syria is right now.

Of-course, they have the right to enforce the rule of law - but why such extreme force? Making their own country-men refugees?

I'd also like to add that the Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere are treated more or less like second-class residents. Even the ones born there. Do they not have enough resources to take care of them such that they can sustain their family lines now and the future?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not to do with religion on a holistic basis. It is a lot to do with land ownership. And land ownership in Palestinian territories is really a matter of life and death - sell your land to a Jew, and you'll be marked for death.

As far as Iraq goes, I did support the overthrow of Saddam. In fact, he should have been brought down quickly during the first Gulf War. However, I do not approve the way it was instigated mostly backed up by exaggerated claims and EXTREME fanboyism from 60 year old men.

This issue is related to the stupidity, fanboyism, extremism, and utter hypocrisy on both sides. Be it some of nonsensical Arabs or those War-Mongering Yankees.

Taking up in will and arms against the whole of the United States will lead to failure. I guarantee it....
 
Despite the obvious contempt with which the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis and other Muslims are treated by the "Asharafia", they have no other choice than to continue to fake that there is some sort of Islamic Ummah out there.

They enjoy far more rights as Muslims in "crusader Islamophobe West" than the "Islamic brother Arab countries" where they can never become citizens, can be thrown out at whim, are mistreated, can't marry local girls, are loooked down upon and almost taken as slaves.

But then again, it is not about facts. It is about maintaining the facade.
 
OK, here is the Dhimmi contract. Actual conditions were mostly far worse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Condemning European Slavery Sparing Islam, the Bigger Culprit

Thursday, 23 July 2009 03:17 M. A. Khan

President Obama, visiting a slave-fort in Ghana, condemned slavery, pointing to a chruch that stood next to the slave-dungeons, to obviate the popular paradigm as to how European Christians, with sanctions from the church, engaged in black slavery, probably the only slavery that existed in history and is worth condemning. But Islam—whose role in slavery is much bigger, crueler, and more tragic—remains thoroughly untouched; as if Islam and its followers were/are untouched by the vice of slavery.


It’s a popular wisdom that the only slavery existed in history is the black slavery, whereby European traders captured and transported black Africans to the New World (Americas, West Indies).
Ask a Muslim; he/she will tell you so. An America-born young Muslim wrote to me: “Do you know how the American slave-hunters went to Africa, seized the black people and brought them to America as slaves? America’s economic power owes a great deal to the labor of those slaves.”



Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan terms the trans-Atlantic slave-trade "worst and most cruel slavery" in history, adding that some white Americans do not know that "they are in the privileged position… based on what happened to us (Blacks)" in the past.
An overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that Islamic history is devoid of the abhorrent practice of slavery. Rocky Davis (aka Shahid Malik), an Australian Aboriginal convert to Islam, told the ABC Radio that “Christianity were the founders of slavery. Not Islam.”


Indeed, from my own experience of living as a Muslim for 35 years, this is one of the major reasons of why anti-West hatred is so strong amongst Muslims.


When Muslims in India talk about the practice of slavery in the subcontinent, they talk about the harrowing tales of how the Portuguese transported slaves from coastal areas of Goa, Kerala and Bengal in terrible conditions, and nothing else.


However, when I investigated, I was shocked to discover that Muslims—armed with divine and prophetic sanctions—practised slavery of a much greater proportion and tragedy, which I have discussed in my recent book, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion Imperialism and Slavery.



It is fortunate that President Obama, visiting a former slave-trading fort in Ghana on July 11, condemn this dark chapter in human history rightly as a “great evil”, adding “As African-Americans, there is a special sense that… this place was a place of profound sadness…”


Obama also pointed to a church, standing next to slave-dungeons, to obviate the paradigm as to how European Christians, with sanctions from the church, engaged in black slavery.
This popular paradigm excludes three major facts about slavery:

Black slavery was not the only slavery in history. The Arabs, Turks, Indians and even millions of Europeans were also reduced to slavery during the same period and before, with added dimensions of sex-slavery and castration. And the perpetrators were Muslims, not Europeans.

Black slaves were not shipped to the New World alone; a greater number were sent to the Islamic world.
Even in trans-Atlantic slave-trade, Muslims were complicit and played the cruelest role.


islamic-slavery-black-slaves-rescued-from-muslims.jpg


Islamic history informs us that Prophet Muhammad himself, armed with affirmed and reaffirmed divine sanctions (Quran 16:76, 30:28, 16:71, 70:29–30, 23:5–6, 33:50 etc.), initiated Islamic slavery by enslaving the women and children of a number of Arabian tribes (Quraiza, Khaybar, Mustaliq and Hawazin etc.). Later, as Islamic power grew in leaps and bounds, slavery witnessed a tremendous burst on the world stage. Everywhere Muslims won victory, the women and children of the vanquished were enslaved in massive numbers: General Musa enslaved 300,000 in his conquest of North Africa in 698 and returned from his conquest of Spain in 715 with the Caliph’s one-fifth share of the booty that included 30,000 white virgins from the Visigothic nobility alone, while Sultan Mahmud returned from his invasion of India in 1001–02 CE with 500,000 enslaved women and children. This is only a tip of the iceberg.

No small victims of Islamic slavery were Europeans themselves, who started falling victims to Islamic assaults in the Mediterranean islands within two decades after Muhammad’s death. And it continued well into the 19th century: the Ottomans, even in their decisive defeat and retreat from the Gates of Vienna in 1683, returned with 80,000 white captives, while Barbary pirates enslaved up to 1.5 million Europeans between the 1530s and 1820s, from European merchant-ships off the North African coast, plus from slave-raiding expeditions to costal villages and islands of Europe.

Even American merchant-ships and their crew suffered horrible Barbary depredations and enslavements. Prior to independence, Britain negotiated the release of captured American ship-crews whenever possible paying heavy ransom. After 1776, America signed treaties with Barbary States for securing safety of her ships by paying hefty tribute. To placate Muslims in Cairo speech, President Obama flaunted this humiliating treaty on America’s part as a respectful past relationship between Islam and America. As demand for higher ransom and depredations of U.S. ships continued, America had to engage in a difficult war to stop horrible enslavement of Americans in North Africa. Putting an end to continued enslavement of Europeans was a major reason behind France’s invasion of Morocco in 1830.


It’s noteworthy that the Europeans, Obama’s exclusive target of condemnation for slavery, were subjected to Islamic enslavement in the cruelest form for some eight centuries, before they themselves embarked on the practice—the widely condemned trans-Atlantic slave-trade.

Moreover, even in the European slave-trade in Africa, it was Muslims—the well-established masters of slave-hunting, -breeding and -trading for many centuries—who supplied over 80% of the slaves to European traders, the latter mainly purchased and transported them. The European slave-trade only offered a stimulus and played a lucrative partner for Muslims to a long-established Islamic vocation in Africa.

What is accurate about Obama’s statement about slavery in Ghana is that European slavery was “where the journey of much of African-American experience began”. The cruel aspect aside, it left a positive end of some kind: the Black Diaspora in the new world, definitely more fortunate today than their left-behind brethren.

Yet, this is only half the truth. There was another African slave-journey—lasting longer and larger in magnitude—that began with the Arab Muslim invasion of Africa in the 7-8th century. And it has left behind no residue whatsoever, an extermination of human species of huge magnitude—thanks to universal castration of black male-slaves destined for Islamic markets.

The inhumanity of Islamic castration of immense number of African men wasn’t the robbing of their most natural identity and endowment, i.e. their manhood, alone, but mortality in castration was about 75 percent. Overall mortality-rate of black slaves headed to the Islamic world, from procurement to reaching the destination, was as high as 90%, but their mortality in transportation by Europeans to the New World was about 10 percent.


Obama’s condemnation of European-Christian slavery, a horror chapter in history, is laudable, but his exclusion of Islam, the crueler partner in the same crime, is not. It does gross injustice to those unfortunate souls that suffered from this tragic Islamic scourge. And those souls also include millions of Christian Europeans, his sole target of condemnation.

European slavery has been thoroughly condemned by all and sundry—Europeans or non-Europeans, Christians or Muslims, scholars or laymen. And despite, Europe’s singular and forceful role in its abolition and from where slavery has been effectively abolished, anti-slavery campaigners have long called today’s Europeans to assume greater responsibility for past slavery and take concrete actions, such as payment of reparations, to combat slavery’s destructive legacy. But Islam—whose role in slavery is much bigger, crueler, and more tragic—remains thoroughly untouched; as if Islam and its followers were/are untouched by the vice of slavery.

In fact, some Islamic countries (Mauritania, Saudi Arabia & Sudan) have continued practising slavery to this days, while Sudan has intensified it in recent decades, thanks to lack of criticism of Muslim engagement in slavery, whether historical or present. Some 600,000 souls in Mauritania remain shackled in continued slavery with no hope for liberation in sight, while tens of thousands of Christians, Animists and even Muslims have been kidnapped and reduced to slavery in Sudan since Islamists came to power in 1985 (Khan, Islamic Jihad, p. 347–49).

Now I know the reactions of most apologists in advance. Will it make them reflect!

You can bet it will do no such thing. They don't have concept of morality, they just know haram and halal.
 
Looks like muslim invaders from west made permanent scar on every native hindu soul! I am going to agree with Kalu Miah about their pathogenic hatred towards muslims!
We never heard of any mass murder by muslim generals in east Bengal, although East bengal became muslim....
 
Some Hindu's cannot get it into their thick heads that many Muslims in South Asia, I would say a good 20-30% carry the invader gene's in varying degree's. Some like the Ashraf Muslims carry it much more than other groups. But if Hindu's like to generalize all Muslims and label them as "converts" they are entitled to their opinion. Like someone pointed out, all Muslims were "converts", the conversion being started by the prophet (SAWS). But it does not change the fact that a large number of Muslims from other regions did migrate to South Asia and contributed to the gene pool of today's Muslims in these lands. So many Muslims in South Asia may have Turkic, Afghan, Arab, Mongol, Brahmin/Aryan, Dravidian and Adivasi (indigenous first nation aboriginal) ancestors.

And it is hard for many to realize that there were fewer population around 1000 to 1400 years ago in all parts of the worlds. In 1000 AD, the total world population was around 400 million and South Asia's share was probably around 50-80 million:
World Population Growth History Chart
Comparing Population Growth: China, India, Africa, Latin America, Western Europe, United States

So during the Muslim rule of the region, the migrations that took place from other Muslim regions did have their off springs intermixed with local populations and they became not insignificant numbers after many generations and at least 16 fold rise in population in India and the rest of the world. Now all Muslims in South Asia cannot be just called "converts" without any ancestral links with other Muslim regions of the world. It is just another fantasy promoted by Big Liars, the Hindu Nationalists, who are working hard to revise history of this region and also Muslim history of the rest of the world, to fit their political scheme, together with Zionists in their shared campaign of Islamophobia.
 
Despite the obvious contempt with which the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis and other Muslims are treated by the "Asharafia", they have no other choice than to continue to fake that there is some sort of Islamic Ummah out there.

They enjoy far more rights as Muslims in "crusader Islamophobe West" than the "Islamic brother Arab countries" where they can never become citizens, can be thrown out at whim, are mistreated, can't marry local girls, are loooked down upon and almost taken as slaves.

But then again, it is not about facts. It is about maintaining the facade.

Note the irritation of Indian Hindu nationalists whenever we Muslims try to utter some word of unity among Muslims. Of course Muslims have no "unity" in the sense that we have a Muslim super state like Khilafa, the whole world including us Muslims know that more than Indian Hindu's, but at least we have OIC, which the Indian nationalists are again nervous about, even though OIC is nothing but a joke.

And please note the high lighting of inter-Muslim problems to fan the fire of division and Fitna.

And also note how the West is pulled in to be included in the team of Islamophobia campaigners. As far as I can see, it is the Zionist shooting themselves at their foot with this campaign of Islamophobia and Hindu Nationalists joining in as they share the hatred and fear of Muslims and Islam. The West actually fought Muslims since the advent of Islam, but I never see this vile campaign of Islamophobia in history, if anything it was a feeling of mutual respect. This particular line of Islamophobia connected with "Islamic terrorism" is a recent phenomenon that coincided with the end of colonial era, as well as the fall of Ottoman, and the rise of Zionism and Hindu nationalism. They would like to pull the West in their team, but I doubt the West will take the bait, as it will bring their ruin and help the rise of pax-sinica.
 
Looks like muslim invaders from west made permanent scar on every native hindu soul! I am going to agree with Kalu Miah about their pathogenic hatred towards muslims!
We never heard of any mass murder by muslim generals in east Bengal, although East bengal became muslim....

In 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by[10] the fanatic Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk;[11] this event is seen by scholars as a late milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism and plant Islam by the sword[12] the burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills."

This is what that barbarian did in a monastery. What happened to common people and how they were converted was no different from everywhere else.
 
Note the irritation of Indian Hindu nationalists whenever we Muslims try to utter some word of unity among Muslims. Of course Muslims have no "unity" in the sense that we have a Muslim super state like Khilafa, the whole world including us Muslims know that more than Indian Hindu's, but at least we have OIC, which the Indian nationalists are again nervous about, even though OIC is nothing but a joke.

That's all you can do. For hundreds of years, that is the reality.

This so called unity is impotent and we know it well. In fact this impotence permeates every aspect of your thought process. Let me limit myself to this for now.

You like to imagine we give a shyt to this Ummah talk. That is the only thing that can give you some satisfaction.

Let me tell you my dear, we don't give a damn even if it really happened. Right now, we know and we see the reality.

You need to obsess with "Indian Hindus" because you are still not secure with your Islamic identity and have to look behind your shoulders very living second.

You are still a nervous convert after all these centuries. ;)

Let me repeat a post about this mental state of yours and see if it fits.

in my opinion a convert is a state of being and doesn't so much depend on how many years or generations have passed before conversion.

The state can be identified by some characteristics. E.g.

Insecurity: Leading to identity crisis and much else we can clearly witness

The need to be more loyal than the king (related to the above)

Denial and rejection of one's past.

And some more can be added to the list.

One is no longer a convert when one is comfortable under the skin, comfortable with the new identity or faith or whatever, doesn't feel the need to disown and denigrate and reject his past, can reconcile the duality without being insecure or ashamed of it, can isolate the "conversion" part and not let it effect the whole of his being etc.

Now, whether our friends demonstrate these characteristics or not is for them and us to see and make our own judgments.

For me, it is as clear as mud.


Now, the reason for this insecurity is not far to seek. It has something to do with the nature of Islam itself.

“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his language is Arabic.

His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his.

The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.”

For example, you won't see a Pakistani or Indian convert to Christianity claiming to have ruled India (or South America or Africa or Arabia), just because some Europeans did.

You won't see them claiming that they are a separate nation, just because they adopted a different way to reach the divine.

You will see many Churches in Kerala even having Aartis! Many Christians keep their Hindu names. They are comfortable with duality of their faith and their traditions.


Coming back to Muslim converts, you see this phenomenon in most places like Egypt, Iran, Syria etc. They all lost their ancient civilizations and belief systems almost completely.

However it gets magnified in the case of the Indian subcontinent and the reason is that the majority here didn't convert but stuck to their faith and identity. This created its own issues that you won't see in Iran etc. The need for keeping the "not so new" identity means you are forced to vehemently hate and reject the previous one and hate the people who didn't reject the identity all the time. Everything has to be seen through this narrow prism.

Just as an example, many Iranians celebrate Navroz (despite opposition from the Ayatollahs) as it is part of their ancient culture and religion. It is also celebrated by some Pakistani Shia even though they were never Zoroastrians. You can't even say they celebrate it for secular reasons as then it would be not limited to some sects who feel more aligned to Iran.

So, yes, I guess as long as the characteristics of being a "convert" are observed, it is fair to call it as it is.

It is not denigration or anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom