Article

2005-02-03 Terror Networks & Islam

Stephen Schwartz on possible Sufi sympathies in the Magic Kingdom

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-02-03 1:34:54 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 In a nutshell Sufis teach that your relationship with God is your personal business - they are the Islamic Reformation that never became institutionalized the way it did in the West. A Sufi SA - now thats a concept to play with.

Posted by phil_b 2005-02-03 1:47:57 AM|| 2005-02-03 1:47:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Phil, not that clear cut. In a general sense, it may be true. Perhaps because Sufism went through several centuries of evolution.

But let's not forget that Hassissins (Assassins) were a sufi outlet. Yes, it was almost 8 centuries ago.

You know why Soddies call OBL deviant? It is not just because they don't like the guy or something and that he is trying to get a rid of them. He managed to incorporate some sufi elements into his Wahhabi core beliefs, specifically some mystical parts that earlier sufis borrowed from Kabala. That is what scares Soddy Royals most, because they presume that he practices black magic and they are a superstitious bunch. The regular AQ members are 'deviants' because they are followers, not that there is the same assumption associated with them. If AQ simply targetted infidels, there would be no problem, that is the core of wahhabi doctrine and its major export article. But they see themselved in AQ crosshair and that makes Soddy Royals jittery. The gull of OBL to see them as kufars!

Sure, nurturing relationship with sufis may be helpful... but in the long run, it's Qu'ran that is at the base of Islamism. Sooner or later, even if the current Islamofascist spike is somewhat contained, it would bubble up again a few a century later, perhaps more virulent.

Islam has to be entirely replaced. How, that is a question many very smart people are pondering at the moment.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-02-03 3:31:25 AM|| 2005-02-03 3:31:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Schwartz is himself a sufi and so his comments have to be understood in that light.

Yes, it is true that the Maliki (founded by Malik ibn Anas) school is more moderate than other Islamic jurisprudence (Hanifa, ,Shafi'i and Hanbal). However, the schools have many more similarities than differences (like I suppose Griffindor, Hufflepuff, etc.).

For example, all schools make a woman's word not count for much and a kufr's word not count for anything in court. All schools require death for apostates. All schools forbid the mandatory charity (zaka) from going to a kufr. Etc.

Posted by mhw 2005-02-03 8:34:32 AM|| 2005-02-03 8:34:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 is there some rule that all posts with discussions of jewish law go to the sinktrap? Or just ones by me? Since were talking about schools of law, etc, I really thought mine was relevant. Look for it in the sink trap.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 10:24:50 AM|| 2005-02-03 10:24:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 While I dont doubt that Steven Schwartz means well, I can't help but be irritated by him. This is a guy who went on some pompous worldwide quest for the truth about religion or some such thing which basically means that he went shopping for a religion that suited him and his preferences.

But what I find the most annoying about him is that he claims that sufism is the so-called "real" islam as opposed to wahhabism and it has become his cause to pin all of islam's problems on the Soddies.

The problem with this is that he can't possibly approach the subject objectively no matter how hard he tries. He has taken all thats is fine about islam and put it on one side, the white or "real" side and he's taken everything that's bad about it and put it on the black or "false" side. How very convenient for him but how very unrealistic.

At some point, Schwartz was a desparate man, desparately seeking to find a religion he could live with. He searched until he found his preferred brand, labelled this real islam regardless of any contradictory evidence and he has never looked back. Like a lot of modern Westerners he has gobs of intelligence and worldly experience and also good intentions, but he has no concept of what it is to truly conform to a religion nor does he seem to have any notion of the what the first step in any quest for truth must be. At no point in his own personal testimony of his conversion did he ever question his own basic assumptions. This seems like the very first step. But it seems like he simply assumed that he already had a good idea of what was right and he went out looking for a match, never questioning whether that beginning hunch or idea was really objectively right or the product of his unhappy subjective experiences.

I dont buy his line at all. Sorry. islam is built on flawed concepts. This doesn't mean that it is without merit, but what it does mean is that is has no place pretending to be the equal or superior of Christianity or Judaism.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 11:41:30 AM|| 2005-02-03 11:41:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I remember many moons ago, LH, I was trying to engage you in conversation about aforesaid subject, and both our comments ended up in the sinktrap. Maybe its some anti-Boris thing -- use the English transliteration of yehuda too many times in a post and it gets flushed.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-03 12:03:30 PM|| 2005-02-03 12:03:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 i think youre right 11a5s. I'll try "hebraic", 'mosaic', etc.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 12:08:08 PM|| 2005-02-03 12:08:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 BTW, is such a routine or function does in fact exist, then it'd be fairly easy to bypass. That's what 133t was invented for.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-03 12:08:21 PM|| 2005-02-03 12:08:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 At some point, Schwartz was a desparate man, desparately seeking to find a religion he could live with. He searched until he found his preferred brand, labelled this real islam regardless of any contradictory evidence and he has never looked back.

kinda reminds me of some people, ya know ;)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 12:10:33 PM|| 2005-02-03 12:10:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 OMG, 11A5S is PWND!!111!

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 12:11:39 PM|| 2005-02-03 12:11:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I think concentrating on the theology alone is a mistake.

I think one thing being missed is the fact that there used to be interpretations of sharia that allowed urban civilization rather than fragmented tribalism, but somewhere around the thirteenth century (remarkably coincidental with some of the Mongol, Morgul, and Turkish incursions) the prevailing interpretation of sharia switched to sommething that caused a much more fragmented society to prevail.

And I think that's what needs to be fixed.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-02-03 12:52:05 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-02-03 12:52:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Another thing I've found striking is the way Arabs simultaneously idealize their nomadic bedouin background and treat the actual bedouins still extant as eighth-class citizens. Kinda like a politician in D.C. who idealizes "American Rugged Individualism" in speeches but looks down on actual cowboys working in the cattle industry and living in trailer parks in rural New Mexico.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-02-03 12:54:53 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-02-03 12:54:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 As usual, Liberalhawk bypasses any substantive comment he could make in reply and focuses instead on personal attacks.

I thought the important thing that I said was about how and in what manner is a proper search for truth begun? I stated that it properly requires that all of ones basic assumptions should be called into question and subjected to scrutiny and challenge.

Why do I say that? Because I am a convert to Christianity who studied a lot of other religions BUT i began with the idea that everything I knew or assumed could be wrong. I played out every possible idea to its furthest conclusion including considering long and hard islam's world view and entertaining long and hard whether it could be true.

My point is that no quest for truth begins with a shopping list. Its not a search for a match that suits us. We must questions ourselves before we begin and search out how our experiences have biased us and affected us.

This is what I did, not because I am better or smarter than anyone else, but through the grace of God I was led to first question myself and every notion that I had about what religion should be like. That one of the reasons I am confident in my "choice" although I dont consider my decision to be entirely my choice since I consider myself rescued from error with a sudden profound experience of insight. That insight was the end of a process begun by questioning myself most of all and doubting everything. Since then, I've come to realize how applicable this method could be for anyone seeking some objective truth as best as we are able. It is the best method and most people simply skip this vital first step.

I just thought that i would point out that Schwartz never questioned his gut or his initial reasoning. He never seems to have accounted for his upbringing in a religiously divided and confused household or for how that upbringing might have skewed his vision. My position therefore is that is conversion and his opinion of islam is therfore also necessarily skewed and decidely unobjective.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 12:58:19 PM|| 2005-02-03 12:58:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Point the third: does anyone really think that OBL, or Mullah Omar, if they were really in charge (or back in charge), would be all that devoutly religious themselves, or would they be more like everyone thinks the royals today are?

Being religious isn't all that hard when it consists of redefining it at will so you're always right... and before he dropped off the radar screen (and likely died) OBL was writing his pronouncements in verse. As if he were the second coming of the prophet. (Not just the Madhi).

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-02-03 12:58:53 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-02-03 12:58:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 And that's all I have to say for now; I have to go eat and get back to work, and I'll be back sometime this _evening_. Try to keep this from turning into a Monster Raving Loonie thread, OK? :-)

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-02-03 1:01:22 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-02-03 1:01:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 "Try to keep this from turning into a Monster Raving Loonie thread, OK? :-)"

I'll do my best ;-) Anytime someone starts talking msytical experiences, like me for instance, its going to sound flaky to other people even if it certainly does not to me. So I think I'm going to pull back a bit and try to stuff my personal admissions back in the can as best I can. Thanks for the reminder.

Back on track. I still say that Sufism isnt the answer because by itself its insufficient. It has an oppostional sort of existence. Its opposed to mainsteam islam but dependent on it. Without mainstream islam it becomes the islamic version of liberal protestantism having triumphed over more literal forms of Christianity. It will wither and die away, too limp to keep on living. It seems a noble option for now to those inclined to it but its triumph would spell the end of islam as liberalism has spelled the end of many mainline protestant bodies particularly in Europe. All religions exchange vitality and vigor when the most liberal form is adopted.

Phil,

I think that islam was urban and sophisticated until it killed off its host cultures, the refined Persians, Byzantines and the Jews of the Diaspora. Once these populations dwindled to the point where they no longer had much influence on culture, islam also began to degrade. It began to degrade because it was dependent on itself and its own resources and it slowly strangled initiative, innovation, and creativity out of islamic civilization. The trouble was with islam becoming too dominant in that region and with its wiping out the competition to it to the point of irrelevancy. I know that when any civilization ios attacked by barbaric hordes that this does quite a bit of damage, but I have to disagree with you about the Turks being part of the blame. To the contrary, they are often credited with a revival of civilization among muslims and with uniting disparate fueding tribes into a nation.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 2:14:19 PM|| 2005-02-03 2:14:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 1. I dont necessarily agree that there is one best way to approach a PERSONAL spiritual search. In any case, whatever the philisophical merits of one approach or the other, theyre not really on topic here, and certainly not relevant to the political points Schwartz is making.

2. There was, AFAIK, no decline in the number of Jews in the Islamic world at the time Islamic civ dried up. And the Persian and Byzantine influences had dried up much earlier.

3. The turks certainly unified a large part of islam politically, but ive never heard that they revived it culturally. Oh, BTW, there were Turks invading and gaining political dominance long before the Ottomans created unity.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 2:48:45 PM|| 2005-02-03 2:48:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 LH,

ASFAIK, (I like that) civilizations don't start and stop on a dime. The original inspiration could fuel a civ for many years. There is no denying the influence of Persian and Byzantine knowledge and civ on islamic culture. muslims got quite a bit of mileage out of it but in the end islam lacked the internal to keep it going.

Also, while the two empires mentioned ceased to be fairly early, for a very long time there existed sizable populations of Christians and Zoroastrians who were still culturally Byzantine and Persian. You will note that islamic decline hastened in porportion as these populations along with the Jews, went into serious decline. The less of these cultures there has been in the ME, the worse the ME has become. Right now these populations are near neglible in numbers.

And where do they now thrive? In the West. It seems for all the talk about some enlighten islamic attitude to other religions particularly the Jews, the proof is in the pudding. Practically wiped out in the ME. Thriving and free in the West.

I tend to put more stock in how things actually turn out even if it takes thousands of years to turn out that way, then I do by high-minded talk and an initial period of where the ideal is practiced to a great extent. If someone talks a good game but can't stay in it, I think less of them than those who had a rough start but eventually finishes strong.

While Christianity has a worse historical record of persecuting Jews for instance, there was nonetheless mettle and teaching sufficient to overcome our failings. Islam started out seeming to be better towards the Jews but lacked the mettle and teaching sufficient to prevent the utter decay in that relationship to the point where almost no Jews live now in muslim dominated lands.

Please don't get mad at me. I'm not taunting you. Just think about this for a second. i'm not asking you to suddenly start loving Christians or something. Just give it some serious thought. I'm talking look at the whole picture and not some highminded talk. Who turned out better at tolerance although we began in the worse position and who overcame their failings? I wonder if this could count for something in your view?

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 5:11:02 PM|| 2005-02-03 5:11:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 It seems for all the talk about some enlighten islamic attitude to other religions particularly the Jews, the proof is in the pudding. Practically wiped out in the ME. Thriving and free in the West.

That would prove that Anglicanism is is more enlightened than Lutheranism, since Jews are thriving and free in the UK, Canada, Australia and US, while wiped out in Germany. Russian Orthodoxy somewhere in between.

BTW, did you know the blood libel was first spread in the mideast by Syrian CHRISTIANS?

turned out better at tolerance although we began in the worse position and who overcame their failings

Ah, but the game isnt over yet - we dont KNOW how Islam will turn out. And we have policy decisions to make RIGHT now that will have an impact on how Islam turns out.

Pardon, I dont think Christianity "turned out right" because of the mettle of its teachings, but because of its historical circumstances, which were different from Islam's. If you want details, read Bernard Lewis.

Im not asking you to suddenly start loving muslims. Im just asking you to look at history more broadly, and not to judge evolving religious civilizations based on their original texts.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 5:19:08 PM|| 2005-02-03 5:19:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 LH,

what you dont seem to understand is that religious civilizations evolving or not base themselves on their original texts! Those original texts and the examples of their founders are the foundations of those civilizations. If the foundation is faulty then what do these civilizations derive from them when they return to them as they will again and again.

To say as you do that the original texts dont matter and should be disconnected from the ensuing religion is just nonsense. I have to wonder what is your concept of a religion if it does not find its source and renewal in its original texts and examples?

I honestly dont see why you tell me about who started the blood libel. Do I have to list every failing and every crime committed by Christians in order for you to stop acting as though I am unaware of them? Is this supposed to surprise me? Silence me? What the? How do I have to put it. Do I have to say that Christianity is entirely bankrupt and false and horrible, a religion which no good person could possibly believe because of its crimes in history? Would that finally satisfy you? well you'll be waiting a long time.

And what were these historical cirsumstances? where did they come from? They arose in a culture saturated and entirely dominated by Christianity. Did these circumstance come out of thin air? That, i'm afraid is a completely flawed way to look at history and takes no account of religious influence on any opposition that arose to Christianity nor does it take into account or give any merit to the faith's eventual response no matter how long in coming. I'm sorry but I am not impressed with Bernard Lewis. He is not infallible and many smart people take issue with his interpretation of history. And that is his interpretation. History is not a science even if it might begin with hard data. It takes that hard data and attempts to interpret it. Frankly Lewis seems to be seriously lacking in accounting for the power of religion on a society if he thinks that Christianity was basically tied up and forced to capitulate without it having the least efect on the outcome of current Western history. Its preposterous. It makes no sense whatever. If we are going to say that then we have to subtract all religious influence whether positive or negative out of the equation of history entirely.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 5:47:40 PM|| 2005-02-03 5:47:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 HONEY, I'M HOME!

Anyway, Peggy, one thing you might want to look into... I can't seem to find the link anymore, but I once read a fascinating article on the different developmental paths Christianity took in both the Eastern and Western halfs of the Roman Empire, even going back to the time of St. Paul. The article suggested that St. Paul was writing different things to different people regarding things like gender roles in the Church, in order to fit in more with the cultural differences between the Eastern Mediterranean region and the Western one.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-02-03 6:48:09 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-02-03 6:48:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 LH,

I've been thinking about your last post while I was working out and I think I can summarize Lewis' argument and yours via Lewis.

Lewis' argument goes something like this. All religions are history makers except for Christianity. Christianity is nothing but history's victim and its irrelevant to Western history except for all the bad stuff.

On this you base your argument which is as follows. Nothing matters about Christianity especially anything that might show it has some redeeming value. Any positives about it are pure accident and irrelavant to any discussion. It doesn't matter how it started (It was pacifist like its founder). Its texts dont matter unless we are talking about the so called Jew hating stuff and how it turned out doesnt matter. All pure accident. Christianity just layed there and stuff happened to it. Nothing positve about it has anything to do with its theology. Lots of things matter about islam on the other hand. A brief golden period makes all the difference. A couple of verses which seem very religiously tolerant makes all the difference with islam. How islam might possiblly maybe turn out also matters. How it is in the present and how it got there is nothing at all to worry about. Your faith that this period is just and abberation is complete. Further, you can state with perfect confidence that in spite of the two religions being very different in how they began and where they are now, not the least of the differences being the standards applied to them, nonetheless you can predict that the outcomes will be exactly the same.

Thats, er, impressive, man.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 7:33:13 PM|| 2005-02-03 7:33:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 phil,

I am always interested in differing opinions about even my religion. I would read it if you could find it. I'm not sure how new the idea is though. I think I've heard similar theories before although not this exact idea that he was writing different things to different regions. Paul was a pragmatic man, I'll agree. He had a very definite idea of what mattered about the Gospel and to an extent he might well have taken a loose attitude to prevailing customs if these didnt contradict with the fundamentals.

The prevailing idea in the Church is that Paul was writing to specific situations in specific cities. Corinthians, from which came the most infamous of Paul's recommendations about gender, was addressed to the church in Corinth which was apparently particularly wayward. I have heard better arguments than this that satisfy me about his attitudes and why he wrote different recommendations to different places. By and large the letters that the whole church came to use lean decidedly in favor of strong and active roles for Christian woman in that community and evidence seems to bear that out. Christian women had an honored and respected place in early Christian life.

One last thing. There were some things Paul was adamant about and some things that he made clear were recommendations. He would explain his reasoning in these cases and the early church respected his authority so these recommendations carried more weight than mere opinion. Typically, a conservative church like mine tries to respect the specific recommendations rather than tossing them out as inconveniences. But the whole of Pauls output is also taken into consideration. The result is a good and sensible balance IMO.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 7:47:51 PM|| 2005-02-03 7:47:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Actually Peggy, that looked a little like a personal attack.

If you'll stick around a while, you might find that LH is quite accomplished as a Talmudic scholar. Which applies directly to your point about evolution of religion, and the "original text" under discussion.
The practice of Talmudic law has made Judaism quite a different thing, for the most part, from that described in the Torah. This was, in fact, largely due to the social and historical environs of the evolving religion, and a lively debate between the various schools of Judaic jurisprudence.
LH is quite right that we don't know quite what Islam is going to turn out. But the continuing adherence to a literal interpretation of the orignial original texts, and the ascendancy of particularly traditional schools of Shari'a interpretation, does not bode well.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-02-03 7:51:41 PM|| 2005-02-03 7:51:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Asedwich,

I think that I pretty fairly summed up LH's argument. If I say that Christianity's positives are due to theology, he returns by saying that the positives are accidents. Re-read his comments and I think you will see what I am talking about.

I don't doubt that he knows quite a bit about Judaism and I have learned from him and I respect his knowledge on the subject. His opinions about my faith are another matter entirely.

I also know something about Judaism because I have tried to study it from Jews. Writers mostly since I haven't figured out a good way to approach rabbis in person yet. There really aren't a lot of good options here in Dallas. I am currently reading "The Prophets" by Abraham Heschel and I am quite impressed with it. I am coming to love and appreciate the Hebrew prophets more than ever because of him. Its a wonderful book. A bit heavy and in depth but its also warm and emotional and full of love for God and his Word. If thats your kind of thing, I recommend it.

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 8:04:38 PM|| 2005-02-03 8:04:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I didn't see LH use the words "accident," I saw him allude to Bernard Lewis for potential further reading, and then I saw you put a lot of words in his mouth.
You probably don't want to get into my "kind of thing," but I'd advise caution if you're interested in speaking with a Rabbi. Your background and interests might, ah, interject a bit of a bias into a personal discussion that could turn it into a debate.
My mentor was a wishy-washy, secular Jew with strong Socialist leanings. He took issue with Heschel on the basis of defining a successful prophet in terms of the correctness of the message and its rendition---rather than the reception and legacy of the message. There are lots of failed prophets with great messages and oratory skills. Sabbatai Zvei was one such until he capitulated to the Turks and renounced his message.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-02-03 8:34:56 PM|| 2005-02-03 8:34:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Always enjoyable to hear folks argue religion. Reminds me of the times when I was about 12 and my buddies and I would argue who would win in a *real fight* - Sgt Slaughter or the Iron Sheik?Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant? Batman or Siderman? Bo or Luke Duke? A shark versus a crocodile? Bwhahahaha.......

Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-03 9:42:41 PM|| 2005-02-03 9:42:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Peggy: I can't definitively speak for LH, but what I suspect he was trying to say, and which is what I believe, is that Christianity was never really monolithic to begin with, and as it spread to different parts of Europe at different times the result was a plethora of different "Christianities." Even before the major schisms.

The paper I wish I could find about Paul said that he wrote what he did to Corinth because Corinth was in the Hellenistic sphere of influence rather than the Latin sphere of influence, and in the Hellenistic sphere, more or less, women had less rights or public influence than in the Latin half of the empire. (I think it also mentioned the Jews as being an exception to this general rule; LH can correct me on that if he's still reading).

The article also listed a large number of semi-Islamic customs that were common in the Hellenistic area but not in the Latin area, which seemed to hint that Islam reinforced more-or-less lousy cultural trends that were already present in the area in which it came to prevail.

BTW, I take it you're in Dallas? Do you ever go elsewhere in Texas?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-02-03 9:45:51 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-02-03 9:45:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Hell, er Hey! I used to be religious and write fatwas. But ya know what happened? They all started coming out like municipal resolutions or ordinances. It is kinda like talking like Donald Duck. Do that for a while and it takes over your head. Must.not.write.fatwas.any.more.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-02-03 9:52:51 PM|| 2005-02-03 9:52:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Lol, AP!

Posted by .com 2005-02-03 9:53:59 PM|| 2005-02-03 9:53:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 It is kinda like talking like Donald Duck. Do that for a while and it takes over your head.

-so that's what George Jones' problem was.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-03 10:12:12 PM|| 2005-02-03 10:12:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Nice, AP! I work with a guy that talks like Scooby Doo... and laughs like him, and walks like him... matter of fact, it's kind of creepy when he's coming at me on a forklift.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-02-03 10:24:07 PM|| 2005-02-03 10:24:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 9:30:23 AM|| 2005-02-03 9:30:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-03 9:30:23 AM|| 2005-02-03 9:30:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 11:18:49 AM|| 2005-02-03 11:18:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 11:18:49 AM|| 2005-02-03 11:18:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 11:19:33 AM|| 2005-02-03 11:19:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by peggy 2005-02-03 11:19:33 AM|| 2005-02-03 11:19:33 AM|| Front Page Top

11:19 peggy
11:19 peggy
11:18 peggy
11:18 peggy
09:30 Liberalhawk
09:30 Liberalhawk
00:51 Gluper Angaiting8683
00:00 Zenster
23:59 .com
23:59 lex
23:57 lex
23:54 .com
23:54 lex
23:53 .com
23:53 Zenster
23:52 .com
23:51 Pappy
23:49 .com
23:47 lex
23:43 .com
23:40 God Save The World
23:40 Zenster
23:36 lex
23:31 Frank G