Wednesday, June 21, 2006

"Islamophobia" and Islamic radicalism

I have previously blogged about the question of when the critique of politicized radical Islam turns to anti-Muslim bigotry.

Now, I have two recent articles on the topic: my column in Reason, which covers some of the same ground as the blogposts, and a Boston Globe column on Oriana Falacci, recently profiled in The New Yorker.

Ever since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there has been much debate about the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the West—and about when concern over such extremism turns to anti-Muslim bigotry.

Such labels as "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" are often indiscriminately slapped on all outspoken critics of fanatical Muslim radicalism. But the real thing does exist.

For an example, one can turn to a profile of Italian writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci by Margaret Talbot in a recent issue of The New Yorker. Fallaci, who rose to fame with her fearless reportage from danger zones and her gutsy interviews of famous and infamous public figures, has more recently drawn attention—and, in the eyes of many people, become infamous herself—with two polemics against the Islamic threat, The Rage and the Pride and The Force of Reason.

Fallaci, who is currently facing legal charges of defaming Islam in Italy, has many defenders who describe her as a passionate anti-Jihadist unfairly accused of racism. Yet her recent writings do have an unmistakable whiff of racism, indiscriminately lumping together radical Islamic terrorists and Somali vendors of fake designer bags who urinate on the street corners of Italy's great cities. Journalist Christopher Hitchens, himself a strong polemicist against radical Islamic fundamentalism, has described The Rage and the Pride in The Atlantic magazine as "a sort of primer in how not to write about Islam." He has noted that Fallaci's diatribes have all the marks of other screeds about filthy, disease-ridden, sexually threatening aliens.

The New Yorker profile reinforces this impression. Talbot, whom some conservative bloggers have accused of smearing Fallaci either out of liberal soft-headedness or even out of envy toward Fallaci's passion and moral conviction, actually treats her subject with a lot of respect. She is well aware, for instance, that Fallaci's concern about the deep-seated problems in much of Islamic culture today, including in some immigrant Muslim communities in Europe (the treatment of women, the resistance to modernization, the religious intolerance, and anti-Semitism), is amply justified. But some of Fallaci's own words as quoted by Talbot are quite damning.

About Muslim immigration, she tells Talbot: "The tolerance level was already surpassed fifteen or twenty years ago... when the Left let the Muslims disembark on our coasts by the thousands." She rejects the idea that there can be a moderate Islam or moderate Muslims: "Of course there are exceptions. Also, considering the mathematical calculation of probabilities, some good Muslims must exist. I mean Muslims who appreciate freedom and democracy and secularism. But... good Muslims are few." She claims, in a rather blatant distortion of history, that since its birth Islam has had a unique propensity among all religions to slaughter or enslave "all those who live differently."

The planned building of a new mosque and Islamic center near Siena enrages Fallaci so much that she promises Talbot that, if she is alive at the time of its opening, she will blow it up: "I do not want to see this mosque—it's very near my house in Tuscany. I do not want to see a twenty-four-metre minaret in the landscape of Giotto. When I cannot even wear a cross or carry a Bible in their country!"

These are ugly words, based on the bizarre assumption that the West must respond to religious intolerance in many Muslim countries with religious intolerance of our own.

Despite its manifest problems, Islamic culture today is not monolithic. There are regions, such as Bosnia, where the Muslim populations are modern and moderate; there are progressive and reformist forces within Islam. In the United States, where the social and economic structures are far more flexible and more conducive to the integration of immigrants than in most of Europe, Muslim radicalism has not been a serious problem. (In the United States, all Muslim protests against the publication of the infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons have been nonviolent.)

The problems posed for the West, from within and without, by radical Islamic fundamentalism need to be honestly addressed. But if this response turns to anti-Muslim bigotry—which on some "anti-jihadist" websites turns to defending Slobodan Milosevic's genocide against Bosnian Muslims —it will leave us with little reason for hope. Fallaci's passion ultimately leads to a dead-end.

I have to say that on this topic, I find myself saying something I never expected: I agree with James "I Root for Hurricanes" Wolcott, who takes issue with some pro-war bloggers' defense of Fallaci. It gives me no joy to say this. I have always admired Fallaci for her very real bravery and the sheer power of her personality as a magnificent eccentric, an emancipated woman of a mold that predates modern feminism. But many of her comments in the New Yorker article -- which I believe gives Fallaci's achievements and courage their due -- are rather vile,, not just about Muslims but gays and Mexicans; and there is no way of getting around that.

I also happen to agree with Wolcott on this story. A mentally ill man who happens to be of Muslim background and to have a Muslim name shoots a man in a movie theater (then puts down the gun and waits to surrender to the police), and some conservative bloggers jump to the conclusion that it was a terrorist act (or "A Jihad of One"). This despite the lack of the tiniest shred of evidence that the shooting was religiously or politically motivated, or in any way different from other violent acts by other troubled individuals. (The real issue in this particular incident, as a Baltimore Sun report indicates, may be the difficulty of forcing a person into psychiatric treatment unless they have been formally recognized as a threat to themselves or others -- a threshold that may be impossible to met until the person actually does commit a violent act.) This is simply wrong, not to use a stronger word.

By the way, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has replied to my columns and has also challenged me to a debate, in which I have no intention of engaging. I will, however, reply to two points.

On the subject of Fallaci's failure to distinguish between Islamic terroists and " Somali vendors of fake designer bags who urinate on the street corners of Italy's great cities," Spencer has this to say:

There are several problems with this. One is that the Somali vendors and other Muslims in the West have not made any serious attempt to root jihad terrorists out of their ranks. Another is that such people as Young's Somali vendor do exist, and while they are not members of terrorist groups, they are manifesting disrespect for the country and culture to which they have come. Is Fallaci wrong to be indignant about that? Such disrespect, of course, stems from the same sources as jihadism: contempt for the infidel and for jahili society, the non-Islamic society of ignorance and impurity. Thus one feeds into the other.
Point one: If Spencer or Fallaci know of any instances of terrorists in the ranks of Somali street vendors, let's have them.

Point two -- public urination as a mini-jihad -- doesn't really merit an answer, but I'll answer anyway. Apparently, in the world according to Spencer and Fallaci, peeing on street corners and in other public places is a behavior peculiar to Muslim immigrants. (Has either of them ever been to New York?) As it happens, I have travelled in Italy a lot and have seen a lot of the Somali street vendors. On two occasions, I have seen men urinating in the street. Neither of them was a Somali or a Muslim.

Spencer also challenges my assertion that "Christian doctrine for centuries mandated Christian rule by force," and writes:

She should produce such a doctrine, but she can't, because it doesn't exist.
Oh yeah? Well, how about the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which codified the idea of heresy as a high crime? See, also, this article in First Things in which conservative Catholic Michael Novak discusses Thomas Aquinas' view of heresy as a capital crime. (Aquinas recommends toleration for the religious practices of Muslims and Jews, but so does Islam with regard to Jews and Christians.) Novak quotes historian David Abulafia on the religious codes of the time:

Heresy, indeed, is presented as treason. Those who deny the articles of the Catholic faith implicitly deny the claims of rulers to derive their authority from God. They are enemies not merely of God and of the souls of individuals, but of the social fabric. Their questioning of religious truth involves a questioning of the monarch's command over the law; as enemies of the law, they are its legitimate targets, and the position of primacy accorded to legislation against heretics is thus entirely proper.

Sounds a lot like "Christian rule by force" to me.

According to Spencer, I'm a "dhimmi," a term traditionally used to denote Christians and Jews who lived under Islamic rule and enjoyed certain rights but were relgated to second-class status (and nowadays used by certain "anti-jihadists" to denote any non-Muslim they regard as too soft on Islam). Well, considering puts Bernard Lewis, the eminent historian of Islam who warned about the danger of Islamic radicalism all the way back in 1990, in the same category, I think I'm in good company.

Spencer wants to debate me, apparently, in order to demonstrate that he knows more about Islamic teachings and history than I do. And he probably does. However, I know bigotry when I see it, and Spencer's argument about public urination as a manifestation of the Muslim peril seals the deal as far as I'm concerned. I notice that issued no invitation to a debate to Bernard Lewis when targeting him for their smear. For Spencer vs. Lewis, I would definitely tune in.

So I won't be debating Spencer on his site, though I have to say I was highly amused by one of his commenters who suggested that my deplorable views on "Islamophobia" are due to the fact that (1) I'm a non-Jew (which would come as a big surprise to my Israeli relatives -- and, by the way, isn't this argument merely a reversal of the idea that Jewish commentators can't be fair when writing about Islam or the Middle East?), and (2) I'm a woman, and a lot of women secretly yearn for male power, and hence I am probably drawn to the male dominance represented by Islam. (Which is so true.)

Meanwhile, for the scary reality of Islamic radicalism and intolerance, see this collection of excerpts from textbooks produced by our friends the Saudis. (Hat tip: Joe Gandelman.)

And here is an interesting article on the History News Network by Michael Furnish, assistant professor of Islamic history at Georgia Perimeter College in Dunwoody, GA. Furnish castigates several politically correct myths about Islam, including the myth that Islam is an essentially and profoundly peaceful religion hijacked by terrorists. He notes that violent radicalism does have roots in Muslim theology; but he does not deny the existence of other, more peaceful strands in Islam. Writes Furnish:

Islam is where Christianity was before the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and then the Enlightenment led the West to divorce religion and state, thereby removing (mostly) the threat of religious-based warfare. As a fellow monotheist with Muslims, I pray that the moderate strands within Islam win out over the more fundamentalist ones, allowing that civilization to follow suit. And for we in the West to help with that, we need to open our eyes to the reality of the harsher aspects of Islam and Islamic history. Anything else is simple—and dangerous—self-deception.
Very true; but honesty about the harsher and darker aspects of Islam and Islamic history is not the same as tarring all of Islam with the same brush and denying that the moderate strands even exist.


Joan said...

Point one: If Spencer or Fallaci know of any instances of terrorists in the ranks of Somali street vendors, let's have them.

Point two -- public urination as a mini-jihad -- doesn't really merit an answer, but I'll answer anyway. Apparently, in the world according to Spencer and Fallaci, peeing on street corners and in other public places is a behavior peculiar to Muslim immigrants. (Has either of them ever been to New York?) As it happens, I have travelled in Italy a lot and have seen a lot of the Somali street vendors. On two occasions, I have seen men urinating in the street. Neither of them was a Somali or a Muslim.

Cathy, if these are the best rebuttals you can come up with, it's a good thing you have declined to debate.

Your first response is off-point, and I'm sure you know it. The point was, whether or not the street vendors themselves are terrorists, the vendors are part of the Muslim community that harbors and in some cases encourages terrorists. They are doing nothing to out existing terrorists and prevent the recruiting of new ones. In this way, they are part of the problem.

Your second response is simply ridiculous -- your anecdotal experiences of public urination in Italy are supposed to carry any weight? I agree with Fallaci that such disrespectful acts are harmful to the fabric of society, anywhere they occur, either in NYC or in Italy. Just because you've never seen a Muslim in Italy peeing on the street doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

...and just because Fallaci has seen it doesn't mean they're the only ones who do it (indeed, she made no such accusation) -- but again, they're part of the problem.

I won't defend Fallaci's comments re blowing up mosques and all the rest of it -- there is no defense possible. That said, you need to sharpen your debating skills if you're going to tackle a subject like this. You're not doing yourself any favors offering such weak replies.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that the average Somali street vendor is trying his or her best to earn a living, stay out of trouble and perhaps raise a family. They may not be doing anything to "out" terrorists, but then again, would we if we were in their place? Interfering with violent people is a good way to end up dead, and no one knows that better than a Somali. They aren't part of any valid argument for or against Islam as a whole - they're simply convenient straw people for Fallaci to rant about.

Yes, public urination in cities is disgusting and shouldn't be condoned, but as I suspect you know, that wasn't Fallaci's point at all. She was using limited personal observations to make sweeping, specious generalizations about practictioners of a major religion. Cathy's response is exactly as pertinent as Fallaci's original comments, simply by showing that this entire line of "reasoning" is profoundly stupid, no matter which side you take.

Anonymous said...

There is a germ of truth in the claim that "since its birth Islam has had a unique propensity among all religions to slaughter or enslave 'all those who live differently.'"

Historically, religious intolerance within a polity is the norm, not the exception; Socrates, after all, was tried for heresy. However, conquest of neighbors to impose a religion by force (as opposed to an imvasion for other reasons merely blessed by the gods) is the exception; the innovator who came up with the concept first was Muhammad.

The idea, of course, did then spread to followers of other religions -- but only after significant contact with Islam. Half of Christendom had been conquered by jihad long before the first-ever Crusade; the conquistadores who spread Christianity by force in the Americas were from a Spain that didn't finish throwing off Muslim rule until 1492.

The result is that jihad would logically be harder to eradicate from its native Islam than from religions like Christianity, where it is a borrowed concept at odds with the basic doctrines of its scriptures.

Revenant said...

She claims, in a rather blatant distortion of history, that since its birth Islam has had a unique propensity among all religions to slaughter or enslave "all those who live differently."

Well, calling it a unique propensity is certainly false. Claiming that Islam as historically been much more inclined to slaughter and enslave those who think differently, on the other hand, is arguably true. And claiming that the teachings of Muhammed favor slaughter and enslavement more than those of any other major world religion is certainly true.

It is also worth considering that when someone refers to "Islam", the are not necessarily referring to all the religion practiced by people who call themselves Muslims. In many cases they are referring only to those people who practice the religion revealed to Muhammed. For example, Indonesia ostensibly has something like 170 million Muslims, but most of them practice forms of Islam that Muhammed would have condemned and beheaded them for. Saying "Muslims believe in conquering their neighbors and converting them to Islam" is much like saying "Jews don't work on Saturdays" -- while perhaps false for most of the ostensible practitioners of the religion, it is true for most of the ones who follow the revealed will of their God.

My assumption is that the smear angers them and increases their hostility to the West and their willingness to accept or tolerate Islamism

I would suggest that if mere harsh language is enough to encourage a person to accept and tolerate Islamist murderers, that person cannot have honestly thought the murder of innocents by Islamists was wrong in the first place. In other words, the only Muslims Fallaci might drive to terrorism are those for whom her remarks were correct in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Yes, lets all support Muslims and Islam and to hell with the poor non-Muslims who live in Islamic dominated countries who suffer things we will never know in the west (let's hope our great-grandchildren don't as well), terrible things!
How about putting a miniscule amount of the energy you spend defending Muslims on that topic Ms. Young!
Here's some info about non-Muslims plight for the last 10-20 years in Indonesia to get you started: (Warning: Graphic photos)

And remember, Indonesia is one of the places in the Islamic world that non-Muslims have it better!
The truth is that Islam as a political and social ideology is sick and flawed, look wherever Islam takes over, it turns into a sort of hell on earth...especially for those who do not accept Islam, whether they be moderate Muslims or non-Muslims. The truth is that Muhammed was a 7th century warlord, pedophile, theif and caravan raider...this the truth, whether it offends Muslims or not is beside the point. And if you, Ms. Young, wish to silence my criticism of Islam and Muhammed and those who see to be like Muhammed, then try, but the truth is the truth and people know in their heart what Islam is and what is does to Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Reading this main post is like being taught how the square peg will fit the round hole, its makes no sense

standardised denial of historic and continued jihad through the muslim world i'm afraid

and i would sincerly beg the author to read up a little bit more about islam before entering the fray against those that have that knowledge

Anonymous said...

Very true; but honesty about the harsher and darker aspects of Islam and Islamic history is not the same as tarring all of Islam with the same brush and denying that the moderate strands even exist.

Moderate "Muslims" there are for sure as they choose to ignore as you call the harsher or darker aspects. Moderate "Islam" is no such animal as it cannot ignore dismiss or even reform. Ask a Muslim please.

Synova said...

-- I'm not too enthusiastic about "moderate" Islam, if "conservative" means "wants to kill me". What I want is liberal, reform, namby-pamby Islam --

Yeah, what he said. :-)

Revenant said...

Does Islam (the Quran and other authoritative scriptures and writings and pronouncements) sanction the killing of the innocent

By western standards, yes. From an Islamic perspective, no. What Islam does redefine the concept of "innocent" to, for example, not include non-Christian/Jewish people who refuse to convert to Islam. Hence, as an atheist, I am subject to death under Islamic law.

and the use of state power to conquer non-Muslim countries

Islam supports the use of Islamic power against non-Muslims. Governments can either support this, avoid interfering in it, or oppose it; in the latter case the government is considered an enemy of Islam.

and to discriminate against non-Muslim residents?

Yes, non-Muslims are considered second-class citizens, required to pay tribute to the Islamic authority, and forbidden from attempting to spread their faith among Muslims.

Many Muslims say it doesn't.

One should never underestimate the ability of religious people to find in their holy books only those ideas which they want to obey. Civilized society frowns on many of the ideas in the ancient holy books of the various world religions, hence followers of those religions frequently ignore the contents of those books when it suits them. Note, for example, how many Christians have somehow convinced themselves that the god who taught that homosexuals were to be murdered on sight now has no problem with gay people at all.

Really, though, if you have any doubts on the subject, shouldn't the fact that Muhammed is (a) almost universally considered the perfect Muslim and (b) on record as having led conquering armies to impose Islam through military force, enough in the way of empirical evidence?

And majorities in every country surveyed answer "rarely" or "never."

Do you have a link to those polls? Because, for example, I can think of at least a few polls I've seen suggesting that majorities of several Arab Muslim nations support the Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. For that matter, how is it reassuring to hear that most Muslims think the murder of innocent civilians in the name of their religion is "rarely" justified? Civilized modern people fall strictly into the "never" category, thank you very much.

Assertions by westerners that any true Muslim just must favor killing us or that Islam is an essentially evil religion are inaccurate

I don't see how that follows from any of your assertions. Just because most of the world's Muslims don't follow the religion's teachings very well doesn't mean those teachings don't exist. Few Christians turn the other cheek when attacked -- but Jesus nonetheless told them to.

John Sobieski said...


Why don't you read "The Legacy of Jihad" by Andrew Bostom? Have you read that or anything by Trifklovic?

Have you read the Traveler?

If you don't have 'time' to read the Quran, read the Cliff's notes -

I know it is hard for a liberal leftist to overcome denial. It takes time to flush all the lies out of the brain.

Hey look at what Servier said about Muslims in the early 1900s before PC/MC bound and gagged rational thought about Islam =

Revenant said...

It seems that even seventeenth-century Muslims failed to read the Quran correctly

I'm not sure why you're equating "got their ass kicked by Europe" with "peaceful", but whatever.

But yes, you are correct that the Muslim minority in Crete, which would have been crushed by the Christian majority had it caused trouble, mysteriously forgot about that whole "Islamic superiority" thing. :)

Anonymous said...

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:
The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).1 This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology. Scientists now can observe new stars forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke'.

The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that ‘smoke’ material. God has said in the Quran:

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)

Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.”2 Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”3

Dr Victorino de la Vega said...

You may recall the story of Jose Padilla also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, the hapless Puerto-Rican immigrant jailed without trial for 4 years and accused of being an “illegal enemy combatant” while he doesn’t even know how to use a boy scout’s pocket knife…

Well, you’ve seen nothing yet!

What happens when 6 disenfranchised Haitian-American Catholic kids from Miami do karate and jumping jacks in a rusty warehouse, and toy with the idea of converting to Islam?

Well, they may rapidly find themselves behind bars pending trial for “terrorist activities”: Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez calls them a “dangerous Islamic army rising in our midst” no less!

In this, Gonzalez, the architect of Abu Ghraib, is true to the major tenets of the “Bush doctrine”: persecute innocent bogeymen while sucking up to the Saudi paymasters of Islamic terror and their numerous friends for sale inside the GOP and the Pentagon.

In essence, Bush and Gonzalez are re-importing inside the American homeland the practices they’ve experimented in Iraq, a formerly secular Arab country where they made a point of arresting and torturing Westernized Christian and Sunni Baath party bureaucrats while they deliberately brought to power pro-Iranian Islamic terrorists!

Once again I wonder if the Bush administration is doing everything it can to best ensure OBL’s victory…

Revenant said...

6 disenfranchised Haitian-American Catholic kids

Kids? They're in their 20s and 30s. Referring to adult black men as if they were children went out of style a while ago -- didn't you get the memo?

Also, will people who don't know what big words mean please stop using them? "Disenfranchised" means "deprived of the rights of citizenship", not "arrested by the Bush Administration". Jose Padilla has been disenfranchised. The Sears Tower suspects have not been.

Revenant said...

Kab bin Ashraf,

That was a great summary! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, many Muslims will not agree with the impressions we have of them. Islam is a religion that calls for peace. Yet it's sad to see how many Muslims break the public's trust of them by their actions which aren't approved by Islam at all.

Unknown said...

Were one to replace "islamist" with "secularist" or "atheist", a person would undoubtedly come up with a similar or larger number of people killed or forced into a belief system. The only difference being that both secularism and the worship of money are officially sanctioned ideologies which have "regular" armies and governments to enforce them.

Also, how on earth would one hope to make advertiser revenue by publishing non-sensationalist stories of muslims who'd just as soon have nothing to do with fanaticism? Accounts of beheadings, honour killings and suicide bombings are what drive readership / viewership. Fear of the unknown is a powerful instinct, and has the power to bond people in a benign"us" against a malicious "other" sort of way.

Fallaci knows what she's doing. Appealing to fear and nationalism sells copies and gets bookings for speeches. If tomorrow's spawn-o-satan were decreed to be vegetarians we'd see just as many books and articles come out in praise of eating meat, and people with vegetarian-sounding pen names selectively quoting medical studies to show that vegetables cause cancer, obesity and pubic lice.

Anonymous said...

Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the athletic shoes.
cheap puma shoes
cheap sport shoes
discount puma shoes
It has the advantages of durable, skipproof, flexible, elastic, extensive, stable and proper hardness.
But the rubber is weighty and easy to be frosting, nonrecoverable.
nike shox torch
nike tn dollar
cheap nike shox
PU. PU is a kind of macromolecule polyurethane materials
cheap nike shox shoes
nike shox r4
puma mens shoes
Sometimes, it is also used in the outsole of casual shoes.
PU is durable, strong hardness, upstanding flexbility and more important,
cheap nike max
discount nike shox
cheap puma ferrari shoes
The disadvantage is also outstanding. Strong hydroscopic property, go yellow easily,
EVA. Ethylene –Vinyl Acetate Copolymer
nike mens shoes
nike shox nz
discount nike running shoes
which is usually used in the midsole of the running shoes and casual shoes.
EVA is quite lightweight, elastic, flexible and suitable to a variety of climates.
discount nike shoes
nike shox shoes
cheap nike shoes
Just as the rubber, it is also nonrecoverable and go dirty easily.
PHYLON. Phylon is the product of the EVA after the second processing.
nike sports shoes
puma running shoes
puma sneakers
The midsole of running shoes, tennis shoes and basketball shoes in the world is made of the PHYLON.
nike air max tn
puma cat
puma shoes
The upstanding hardness, density, traction and extension make it favorite by the manufacture.
Besides, the lightweight and good flexibility could prolong the life of the shoes.
nike running shoes
wholesale nike shoes
nike shoes
Just as a coin has two sides, Phylon is nonrecoverable and easily shrink under high temperature.
nike shoes kids
nike women shoes

Unknown said...

nice share thanks a lot :)

download free pc games
affiliate review