/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Fundamental Principle 2: Intact Message Preserved



Umar001
06-05-2008, 05:00 PM
As Salam Alaykum,

In light of the other thread speaking about a Principle which we are discussing, I thought it would be fair to propose a discussion on another fundamental principle, I think this will be more agreed upon.

Is it important that the Message that one believes may be from God, is without any substantiated doubt, intact? Meaning, that we have no doubt, i.e. we are totally sure, due to a high probability, that the message of God has been kept intact. Which neccesitates that if there is doubt about the message's preservation one would then be justified in not beliving the religion to be from God.

Views?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Idris
06-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Yes this is true, Allah promises that the Qur'an cannot be corrupted and is accurately preserved to this day.


Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it. Q15:9

falsehood shall not come to it, from before it, nor from behind it - a revelation from the wise, the praiseworthy One. Q41:42

Do they not meditate on the Qur'ran? if it were from other than God they would find in it many a discrepancy. Q4:82
Reply

Trumble
06-05-2008, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Views?
I wouldn't disagree that a reasonable assurance that no changes have occurred, as certainly seems to be the case with the Qur'an, is significant. As a 'fundamental principle' though, no, for several reasons.

Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed. Taking Christianity as the obvious example, I see no reason to believe it has. Sure, I've seen many lists of 'errors' in the Bible, but none are of any real importance to the actual messages within it.

Secondly, such criticism seems restricted to the Bible for no particular reason I can see. I don't see anybody suggesting that we should ignore Plato and Aristotle because of a few copying errors somewhere along the line. Looking back to your earlier thread the 'authority' of such people is not diminished in the slightest and yet there is little doubt similar errors would have occurred.

Thirdly, Christians might argue perfectly reasonably from a theist perspective that for God, being omnipotent, ensuring that any changes did not affect anything important would be trivial.

And fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.
Reply

Umar001
06-05-2008, 08:36 PM
I hesitated in making this thread due to the reason that some of the discussion here will depend on the agrement on the previous principle, although that is still under construction.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed. Taking Christianity as the obvious example, I see no reason to believe it has. Sure, I've seen many lists of 'errors' in the Bible, but none are of any real importance to the actual messages within it.
Well, first lets agree or disagree on the principle instead of asking whether a specific religion falls under the principle.

Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed.

I am asking, not whether there is, but if there is, then is one justified in not accepting that religion as being from God?
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Secondly, such criticism seems restricted to the Bible for no particular reason I can see. I don't see anybody suggesting that we should ignore Plato and Aristotle because of a few copying errors somewhere along the line. Looking back to your earlier thread the 'authority' of such people is not diminished in the slightest and yet there is little doubt similar errors would have occurred.
Well we are speaking within the realms of religion, the point rests on, if there is a Just God, can we then expect that he would deal unjustly. With regards to non religious material that is different as the context is different.

You can argue, why is it for example that although we have many more manuscripts for the NT than other work, the NT is still debated whilst the same people do not debate works less attested to the NT. That's a topic for a different thread, as that discusses a specific and not the principle, nor, as far as i can see, aids the discussion on the principle.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Thirdly, Christians might argue perfectly reasonably from a theist perspective that for God, being omnipotent, ensuring that any changes did not affect anything important would be trivial.
Well, the context of the Principles is that they are utilised in finding the right religion, if there is one, or at least to verify the religion. Of course if an individual is going to start with a presumption and never budge then no point in discussion. Anyone can say 'Well I believe the my God who revealed this book has preserved it'. So although I understand your point, this is not really a discussion which would benefit people, rightly or wrongly, with that view point.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
And fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.
Am confused, please re-word that. :)
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Trumble
06-05-2008, 10:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
I am asking, not whether there is, but if there is, then is one justified in not accepting that religion as being from God?
I'm perhaps not the one to ask as I don't believe one to be be 'justified' in accepting any religion comes from God, there being no such entity for it to come from. However, that aside, no, I don't think so. "Reason to suspect" is not "proof", and it can be easily avoided with a good dose of faith. I would consider that the faith required to assume any changes are not significant was totally dwarfed by that required to think anything came from God.

I don't really think you can tackle this as a hypothetical, general point in the way you suggest. If you could be reasonably certain that a work claimed to come from God had, in fact, been altered from the original beyond all recognition then of course you would be unlikely to accept it as coming from God, although that would not disqualify the possibility the original work had. Faith can only go so far, but how far would depend on specifics.

With regards to non religious material that is different as the context is different.
The context may be different in that no divine authorship is claimed, but I don't see how that answers the point I raised.

Anyone can say 'Well I believe the my God who revealed this book has preserved it'.
Yes, they can. So, as I said, an "intact message" cannot be a fundamental principle in determining belief.


Am confused, please re-word that. :)
Really just an expansion on the above. Many Christians might admit that there is doubt that the Bible has not been significantly changed.. although 'significantly' would have to be within certain boundaries, of course. They are not unduly bothered, hence an "unchanged message" cannot be a "fundamental principle" to them.
Reply

kirk
06-06-2008, 02:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Intact Message Preserved.....

Muslims claim that god gave Mohammad a message and it was later written in the Koran.

Christians do not claim the same about Jesus. Christians have never made such a claim.

So you're comment "The intact message" is already wrong.

If you wish to compare the 2 religions this is not the subject to choose.
k
Reply

Umar001
06-06-2008, 04:04 PM
Howdy people,

format_quote Originally Posted by kirk
Muslims claim that god gave Mohammad a message and it was later written in the Koran.

Christians do not claim the same about Jesus. Christians have never made such a claim.

So you're comment "The intact message" is already wrong.

If you wish to compare the 2 religions this is not the subject to choose.
k
This thread is not neccesarily about Islam or Christianity directly. As for your comment, you are partially right but mainly mistaken, many Christians and Muslims claim that the message of God has been preserved.

Jesus did recieve a Message from God, some call it the Gospel, good news, also known as 'The Kingdom of heaven' and so forth, but the difference is the format, i.e. the way the message was given and preserved, in which you are right, Christians now claim different to Muslims.

For example, if you ask a Christian, has the message of Christianity been preserved they will exclaim 'yes!' Similarly for a Muslim.

We are not discussing how God brought the message forth, i.e. whether through a man and direct word for word inspiration, as you seem to hold Muslims view God in Islam, or through men and indirect inspiration as some may claim for the Christian view of God.

That is a different factor my friend.

This thread is about: Whether or not in an instance: if there is substantial doubt with regards to the retaining of the supposed message of God can the religion be really from God, and can we expect God to punish those who refrained due to that doubt. (Regardless of how the Message was intialy brought forth)

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm perhaps not the one to ask as I don't believe one to be be 'justified' in accepting any religion comes from God, there being no such entity for it to come from. However, that aside, no, I don't think so. "Reason to suspect" is not "proof", and it can be easily avoided with a good dose of faith. I would consider that the faith required to assume any changes are not significant was totally dwarfed by that required to think anything came from God.
It does not really matter if you believe in a God or not to place yourself within the realms of this. I am asking, suppose there is, then what..But anyhow since you replied, let us move forward...

Reason to suspect is not proof, I think I agree if you mean that reason to suspect is not proof that the suspected is what one assume he is, but I think, logical reason to suspect is evidence that it is not from a Just God, at least not one who will punish people who refuse to follow, due to that genuine doubt.

For how can a Just God punish people who had genuine reason to distrust the claims of people that a book/instruction was from Him?


format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I don't really think you can tackle this as a hypothetical, general point in the way you suggest.
Why?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
If you could be reasonably certain that a work claimed to come from God had, in fact, been altered from the original beyond all recognition then of course you would be unlikely to accept it as coming from God, although that would not disqualify the possibility the original work had. Faith can only go so far, but how far would depend on specifics.
I agree, one would then have to assume that God chose not to deliever this message to the later generations, now, it may not disqualify the possibility that the original work had been from God, but it would disqualify that God intended that original work for later generations. If one presumes that God had this Will as a Just God.


format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
The context may be different in that no divine authorship is claimed, but I don't see how that answers the point I raised.
It answers in the sense that this deals with the presumption of a God working with mankind through time, a just God who would ensure His Message was clear in general.

Now, outside the realms of religion I don't think people claim that for or hold that with regards to the works mentioned.

If you want to ask why is it for example that although we have many more manuscripts for the NT than other work, the NT is still debated whilst the same people do not debate works less attested to the NT. Then that is something else, because this is discussing a matter with people who hold a view, a view which I dont think has even come up in this thread. Also there are various reasons why some would doubt the work more, and also various reasons why some would not even care about whether Aristotle's Book was changed yet care about whether a supposed book from God was, if you wish to discuss that then a different thread? As I don't see how it aids us in descovering the correctness of the principle.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Yes, they can. So, as I said, an "intact message" cannot be a fundamental principle in determining belief.
Well it cannot be for those who hold to just beliving for the sake of believing I guess, so yes you are right, it is not for them.


format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Really just an expansion on the above. Many Christians might admit that there is doubt that the Bible has not been significantly changed.. although 'significantly' would have to be within certain boundaries, of course. They are not unduly bothered, hence an "unchanged message" cannot be a "fundamental principle" to them.
Yes, I agree, people differ, some argue that the revision and reconstruction, as close as possible, to the eldest text of the NT is bad, they prefer the KJV no matter how much evidence from other manuscripts are found, this though should not stop those engaged in finding the elder manuscripts and working towards recovering the best NT ever.

I agree some individuals may not think of principles or work with them, and that is their choice. I guess this is my reasoning;

If a message was to be sent to any of us containing important instructions we would expect that this message would be taken care of by the one sending it until it reaches us. If a letter came to us which had been changed, or there appeared considerable doubt that it may have been changed thus leaving us unsure, then we would hesitate to follow the instructions fearing that the changes made might cause harm, and if asked why we did not follow the instructions we would be justified in saying that we refrained out of precaution.
Reply

Umar001
06-14-2008, 11:07 AM
Noone Else Has A View Point on This Subject?
Reply

czgibson
06-17-2008, 07:00 PM
Edit: Double Post
Reply

czgibson
06-17-2008, 07:01 PM
Greetings,

Curious wording here:

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Meaning, that we have no doubt, i.e. we are totally sure, due to a high probability, that the message of God has been kept intact.
How can someone be totally sure of something due to a high probability?

I obviously can't really have a view on the main topic, given that I believe there is no god, although I would say that there are religions whose messages are not considered to have come from god [e.g. Buddhism], or through multifarious and sometimes indirect means [e.g. Christianity], so the answer to the original question depends mainly on which religion you believe in.

Peace
Reply

Azy
06-19-2008, 01:04 PM
Surely it is extremely important to know.
If you believe in God, why would you want to risk eternal punishment for believing the wrong thing because someone changed the holy texts?

If there is reason to believe the possibility that the text could have been altered, how could you know to what extent it had been?
Reply

aamirsaab
06-19-2008, 01:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
Surely it is extremely important to know.
If you believe in God, why would you want to risk eternal punishment for believing the wrong thing because someone changed the holy texts?
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

If there is reason to believe the possibility that the text could have been altered, how could you know to what extent it had been?
Historical context is one thing to look at. Also, the fact that there are 2 testaments: the old and the new.....clearly there has been alteration.
Reply

Azy
06-19-2008, 01:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.
As you say with regard to the OT & NT, muslims believe there has been change over history, although there was an original message given to the prophets of their time.
Many people believe they are following the true word of God but by muslim standards they are mistaken. Is there a point when the text is sufficiently different that it no longer truly represents the wishes of God and would result in one being treated as an unbeliever? (might Trinitarians fall into this category?).
Reply

Umar001
06-20-2008, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

Curious wording here:



How can someone be totally sure of something due to a high probability?
Hi,

I do think I didn't pick the best words, what I meant was that due to the evidence we have we feel there is no room for doubt.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I obviously can't really have a view on the main topic, given that I believe there is no god, although I would say that there are religions whose messages are not considered to have come from god [e.g. Buddhism], or through multifarious and sometimes indirect means [e.g. Christianity], so the answer to the original question depends mainly on which religion you believe in.

Peace
Sure you can have an input, if there was a God, see, these topics are starting with various assumptions, I'm sure you can assume the things and then ask yourself the questions.

The task would be, if you assume that there was a God, a Just God, who sent mankind a message, then would you be justified in ruling out any religion which claimed to come from this God because there is substantial doubt as to if the message has been retained?

As for religions that do not claim to come from God, then according to the assumptions laid out they would not be considered true. Also we are not talking about the method through which God chose to convey His message but rather the fact that a Just God would preserve it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
Surely it is extremely important to know.
If you believe in God, why would you want to risk eternal punishment for believing the wrong thing because someone changed the holy texts?

If there is reason to believe the possibility that the text could have been altered, how could you know to what extent it had been?
Well each individual case mat differ, but this is what I mean.
Reply

Follower
11-01-2008, 01:07 AM
Can't any author writing any book include a statement in it saying it is from GOD and GOD protects it?
Reply

جوري
11-01-2008, 01:13 AM
double post..
Reply

جوري
11-01-2008, 01:14 AM
the very short answer to your Q.. from Load-Islam AKA LI

What They Say about the Qur'an

By : Arthur J. Arberry



Humanity has received the Divine guidance only through two channels: firstly the word of Allah; secondly the Prophets who were chosen by Allah to communicate His Will to human beings. These two have always been going together and attempt to know the Will of Allah by neglecting either of these two have always been misleading.

The Hindus neglected their prophets and paid attention to their books that proved only word puzzles which they ultimately lost. Similarly, the Christians in total disregard to the Book of Allah, attached all importance to Jesus Christ and they not only elevated him to Divinity, but also lost the very essence of Monotheism contained in the Bible.

As a matter of fact, the main scriptures revealed before the Qur'an, i.e., the Old Testament and the Gospel, came in book-form long after the days of the Prophets and also the translation. This was because the followers of Moses and Jesus made no considerable efforts to preserve these Revelations during the life of their Prophets . Rather they were written long after their disappearance. Thus, what we now have is in the form of the Bible (i.e., the Old and the New Testament) which is translations of individuals' accounts of the original revelations which contain additions and deletions made by the followers of the said Prophets.

On the contrary, the last revealed Book, the Qur'an is extant in its original form. Allah Himself guaranteed its preservation and that is why the whole of the Qur'an was written during the life time of the Prophet Muhammad though on separate pieces of palm leaves, parchments, bones, etc. Moreover, there were tens of thousands of the companions of the Prophet who memorized the whole Qur'an and the Prophet used to recite it to the Angel Gabriel once a year and twice when he was about to die.

Then the first Caliph Abu Bakr entrusted the collection of the whole Qur'an in one volume to Prophet's scribe, Zaid Ibn Thabit. This volume was with Abu Bakr till his death. Then it was with the second Caliph Umar and after him it came to Hafsa, the Prophet's wife. It was from this original copy that the third Caliph Uthman prepared several other copies and sent them to different Muslim territories.

The Qur'an was so meticulously preserved because it was to be the Book of guidance for humanity for all times to come. That is why it does not address the Arabs alone in whose language it was revealed. It speaks to man as a human being. "O Man! What has made you careless concerning your Lord, the Most Generous." (82:6)

The practicability of the Qur'anic teachings is established by the examples of Muhammad and the good Muslims throughout the ages. The distinctive approach of the Qur'an is that its instructions are aimed at the general welfare of man and are based on the possibilities within his reach. In all its dimensions the Qur'anic wisdom is conclusive. It neither condemns nor tortures the flesh nor does it neglects the soul. It does not humanize God or does it deify man. Everything is carefully placed where it belongs in the total scheme of creation.

Actually, the scholars who allege that Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an claim something which is humanly impossible.

Firstly, could any person of the sixth century C. E. utter such scientific truths contained in the Qur'an? Could such person describe the evolution of the embryo inside the uterus so accurately as we find it in modern science?

Secondly, is it logical to believe that Muhammad who up to the age of forty was marked only for his honesty and integrity, began all of a sudden the authorship of a book matchless in literary merit and the equivalent of which the whole legion of the Arab poets and orators of highest caliber could not produce?

Lastly, is it justified to say that Muhammad who was known as AL- AMEEN (The trustworthy) in his society and who at the same time admired by the non-Muslim scholars for his honesty and integrity, came forth with a false claim and on that falsehood could train thousands of men of character, integrity and honesty, who were able to establish the best human society on the surface of the earth? Surely, any sincere and unbiased searcher of truth will come to believe that the Qur'an is the revealed Book of Allah.

Without necessarily agreeing with all what they said, we furnish here some opinions of important non-Muslim scholars about the Qur'an. Readers can easily see how the modern world is coming closer to reality regarding the Qur'an . We appeal to all open-minded scholars to study the Qur'an in the light of aforementioned points. We are sure that any such attempt will convince the reader that the Qur'an could never be written by any human being.

"However often we turn to it [the Qur'an ] at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds and in the end enforces our reverence.. Its style in accordance with its contents and aim is stem, grand, terrible - ever and anon truly sublime.. Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence." Goethe, quoted in T. P. Hughes, "Dictionary of Islam", p. 526.

"The Koran admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though the youngest of the epoch-making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of Muhammadan world which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the East have to reckon today." G. Margoliouth, Introduction to J M. Rodwell's, The Koran, New York: Everyman's Library, 1977, p. VII.

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Quran and Science, 1978, p. 125.

"Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some pre-conceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen. If he spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact well organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history." Dr. Streingass, quoted in Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p.528.

"In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind... This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony,' as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy'- has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds duff and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original."


http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...ubsection=FAQS
Reply

Follower
11-02-2008, 01:57 PM
On another thread I just pointed out that the Quran confirms the Holy Scripture from before. No other Scripture is mentioned, but the Scripture of the Jews and Christians.:

005.046
YUSUFALI: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
PICKTHAL: And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR: And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

005.047
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
PICKTHAL: Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.
SHAKIR: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

005.048
YUSUFALI: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
PICKTHAL: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
SHAKIR: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;
Reply

جوري
11-02-2008, 06:33 PM
your point being? Jews and Christians are known as 'people of the book' and btw they weren't the only ones mentioned, since the scrolls of Abraham and the psalms of David are also mentioned..

you believe in the scriptures of the Jews, why aren't you Jewish?
Reply

Follower
11-06-2008, 04:29 PM
But no other religions.
Reply

جوري
11-06-2008, 11:59 PM
paganism and atheism are mentioned...what is your point otherwise?
Reply

Sami234
11-10-2008, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I wouldn't disagree that a reasonable assurance that no changes have occurred, as certainly seems to be the case with the Qur'an, is significant. As a 'fundamental principle' though, no, for several reasons.

Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed. Taking Christianity as the obvious example, I see no reason to believe it has. Sure, I've seen many lists of 'errors' in the Bible, but none are of any real importance to the actual messages within it.

Secondly, such criticism seems restricted to the Bible for no particular reason I can see. I don't see anybody suggesting that we should ignore Plato and Aristotle because of a few copying errors somewhere along the line. Looking back to your earlier thread the 'authority' of such people is not diminished in the slightest and yet there is little doubt similar errors would have occurred.

Thirdly, Christians might argue perfectly reasonably from a theist perspective that for God, being omnipotent, ensuring that any changes did not affect anything important would be trivial.

And fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.
Hi.

Sorry, but at the beggining of Christiannity, lots and lots of different theological views were in a total war.

There is dozens and dozens of false gospels defending some various theological views. The Gospels we have in our hands are only the winners of this battle.

Secondly, we can't proove what they say has something to do with the reality of the message of the real Jesus 'aleyhi as-salam.

Also, there is absolutely NO REASONS to believe that we have in our hands as Gospels did not change in the first decades to suit a theological view of things. What I am saying has been said by numbers of biblical historians.
Reply

Follower
12-08-2008, 10:09 PM
None of the other false Gospels were destroyed, each can decide for themselves what to believe. This is not the case with the Quran. Uthmann burned Qurans and we have no idea what was in the other Qurans- just that they needed to be burned.

Skye they are the Gospels that were available to Mohammad and that are spoken of in the Quran. Philippians validates existance of the other earlier New Testament texts.
Reply

جوري
12-09-2008, 12:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
None of the other false Gospels were destroyed, each can decide for themselves what to believe. This is not the case with the Quran. Uthmann burned Qurans and we have no idea what was in the other Qurans- just that they needed to be burned.

Skye they are the Gospels that were available to Mohammad and that are spoken of in the Quran. Philippians validates existance of the other earlier New Testament texts.
you only have false Gospels out.. the actual Injeel as brought by Jesus is lost to you, and that is why you follow Paulian/asthansaius Christianity, In lieu of what Jesus actually taught!

a few excerpts of the corruption of Christianity as per Saul/Paul amazingly enough written by another christian sect ( and they are all so happy about this factions thinking they are correct) as God (SWT) stated in the Noble Quran


فَتَقَطَّعُوا أَمْرَهُم بَيْنَهُمْ زُبُرًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ {53}
[Yusufali 23:53] But people have cut off their affair (of unity), between them, into sects: each party rejoices in that which is with itself.


Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!"


Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?



Jesus: When Yahshua confronts the Adversary, he defeats him by saying, "You shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH, and Him alone will you serve."

Paul: When Paul is mobbed by people who wish to stone him for preaching against the Law of YHWH, he relies on the worldly authorities as a Roman entitled to the protection of the government rulers who save him (Dt. 8:3, Mt.4:4, Acts 22:26, 23:27



Jesus: "DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, HE who is in heaven"
(Matthew 23:9)

The devil 'PAUL' BLASPEMOUSLY BOASTED

"For I BECAME YOUR FATHER"
(1 Corinthians 4:15)

" JESUS came to Galilee PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM "
(Mark 1:14, Matt.4:23).
JESUS said " THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM will be PREACHED, IN MY NAME in all the world
(Matt.24:14).
'PAUL' CAME preaching, by his own admission, ANOTHER GOSPEL PROMOTING LAWLESSNESS and LICENTIOUSNESS

many excerpts taken from disciplesofchrist.com

"I ('PAUL') testify to the gospel of the grace of god...ANOTHER GOSPEL...ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL "
(Acts 20:24. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23).

"PERVERTING THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO LAWLESSNESS EVEN DENYING THE ONLY LORD GOD (THE FATHER) AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST (THE FATHER'S SON)"
(Jude 4. 1 John 2:22)



'PAUL' CURSED JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES
" If we or an angel from heaven preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL to you than what we (Paul and his followers) have preached to you LET HIM BE A CURSE"
(Gal 1:18)
There was a distinction even back then with the disciples of Jesus and Paul and "his" followers. Barnabbas and Mark both followed Paul at one time and then left him and went back to the disciples. Barnabbas was sent by the Apostle Peter to travel with Paul and teach Paul the ways and teachings of Jesus, but Paul wasn't going to play second fiddle to anyone and usurped the authority of Barnabbas and taught what he wanted to teach. How many ever knew that Paul was suppose to be subservient to Barnabbas?


"Indeed I PAUL say to you that IF ANYONE BECOME CIRCUMCISED Christ will profit you nothing " (Gal. 5:2).

too bad Paul! The circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahovah and you're lie was exposed for what it was! Another false "divine revelation!"

YET, despite his assertion that 'Christ will profit you nothing', 'Paul' himself, HYPOCRITICALLY " took TIMOTHY and CIRCUMCISED HIM "
(Acts 16:3).


Now Paul declares it's ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols

" For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS:
That you ABSTAIN FROM MEATS offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication..."
(Acts 15:28:29)
" But I (Jesus) have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a STUMBLING BLOCK before the children of Israel, TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS "
(Revelation 2:14)


" I ( PAUL ) have laid a FOUNDATION...the FOUNDATION OF APOSTLES AND PROPHETS "

( 1 Cor.3:10. Eph 2:20 The words of PSALM 68:18 read "HE (ALMIGHTY GOD) RECEIVED gifts FROM men" (Psalm 68:18)

'Paul' TOOK AWAY FROM the words of Psalm 68:18 and changed them to read "he GAVE gifts TO men" (Ephesians 4:8)

I think any thinking person can see what Christians are worshiping and it is nothing Jesus taught..

As for The Quran.. I'd refrain from topics over your head..

for those interested in the compilation of the Quran
I'd recommend reading

The preservation of the Quran

also excellent are books by M.M Azmi

It is a wonder Christianity survived at all with all its hilarious sects, dark ages and fairy tales!
Reply

alcurad
12-09-2008, 01:57 AM
Follower, the versions that were burned were not very clear or had missing parts, for example one of the sahaba-Ibn Mas'ood- had written the explanation of verses right next to the verse themselves, as to be almost indistinguishable in writing from the verse itself, and so on.
however it was following consensus that the different version were gotten rid of-burned etc- and we do know to a general extent what was contained in them, you have to be well versed in Islamic studies to know it though.
Reply

جوري
12-09-2008, 06:07 AM
the compilation of the Quran was punctilious, requiring two witnesses with each verse-- there is no doubt as to its preservation as Allah swt himself promised to conserve it-- and it was done during the time of the prophet PBUH not centuries later by self-proclaimed apostles
The hilarity of it, is that they take Islamic history and build all these secondary surmises and conjectures around it-- I am not sure for what reason other than to appease their own growing doubt.

:w:
Reply

Follower
12-09-2008, 08:56 PM
alcurad - nothing really can be proved one way or the other because they are gone. I think a great misjustice was done when they were burned. It makes things look very fishy.

Who chose Uthmann to be in charge with destroying the other Qurans?

LOL!! Skye you have missed the point of all that is Jesus.

Jesus' Kingdom, the Kingdom of GOD is not in this world, it is a spiritual world.

Difference of spiritual/world focus.

Islam-If a man can not control his sexual desires, all women must be covered.

Christianity- If a man lusts in his heart, he has already sinned.

What is in a man's heart is what is important not all the rituals, outward appearances, etc.
Reply

Follower
12-09-2008, 08:59 PM
Jesus taught:

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

How simple:

40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Skye - Are you saying that Allah does not give gifts?
Reply

جوري
12-09-2008, 09:02 PM
I notice that if one of you bible thumpers realizes the absurdity of Christianity s/he resorts to the asinine sophomoric observations.. Do you not think we are well read in our books.. or do you bother actually read what is in your own book?
does it not command in your religion a woman to cover up to-- or is that too ok to give up because Jesus ate their sins?

1 Corinthians 11:3-12)

The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

indeed in ISlam 'Al a3mal be'nyat' all is measured on intent indeed not deeds, as well God's grace and mercy.. does the fact that your devil Paul broke many commandments and you all follow him senselessly without thought or intellect to the abyss give you a feeling of comfort that you can sin Carte Blanche because God ate your sins? what a miserable God you follow if he should deny billions of devotees their right to paradise in favor of those whose sin is pre-paid with an imaginary redemption card..

in fact if anyone is having a garish outward appearance it is Christians--
I fast and pray along with billions of Muslims for the pleasure of Allah swt not the pleasure of my pastor or neighbors--by what authority do you measure the deeds of others? .. and that is if the lot of you bother up keeping with any commandment to begin with -- so pls spare me your bull and hypocrisy --it won't take me more than 34 seconds to refute you, that is how pathetic your attempts..

Just go worship a man, spend money you don't have on cheap plastic from China to celebrate a pagan holidays because that is indeed less outwardly showy be happy and and leave us in peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-12-2008, 05:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Jesus did recieve a Message from God, some call it the Gospel, good news, also known as 'The Kingdom of heaven' and so forth, but the difference is the format, i.e. the way the message was given and preserved, in which you are right, Christians now claim different to Muslims.

For example, if you ask a Christian, has the message of Christianity been preserved they will exclaim 'yes!' Similarly for a Muslim.
I see something implicit in the above statement that I, as a Christian, do not agree correctly represents Christianity. Namely the above seems to imply that the message of Christianity is one that Jesus would have received from God to give to humankind. That might be Islam's understanding of the Injeel, but it is not Christianity's understanding of the Gospel.

The Gospel message is NOT a message from God delivered by Jesus. Rather it is a message about God's love and plan for humankind as exemplified in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You can have a verbatim record of everything Jesus said, and if you don't include what he did you don't have the Gospel. Conversely, if you get all of what Jesus said wrong, but you properly record and interpret what he did, then you still have the heart of the Gospel message.



format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Is it important that the Message that one believes may be from God, is without any substantiated doubt, intact? Meaning, that we have no doubt, i.e. we are totally sure, due to a high probability, that the message of God has been kept intact. Which neccesitates that if there is doubt about the message's preservation one would then be justified in not beliving the religion to be from God.
That would be true for some religions, but I do not believe that it holds true for all. Those that purport to primary be a message from God require this sort of assurance. Others may be satisfied in establishing merely that God exists and then searching for his revelation. They would not necessarily feel the same need for God's words as they would simply to point to items that they would assert manifests God's presence. Of course you might counter that such a religion isn't really from God, but directed to God and you would be right about that. But both are equally religions, and other than one's apriori assumptions where contradictions between them might occur, one cannot "prove" one more right or wrong than the other.

I also thought of exactly what Trumble said when I read your fundamental principle:
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
IAnd fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.
Though we know that we don't have the original autographs, we see such consistency within the documents that we do have that we feel confident to their verasity. Further, for a book so large, written over such an extended period of time and with so many different human writers reflecting a number of different cultures to yet have the over-arching themes of redemption and deliverance remain so central and harmonious with each other, it tends to cause one to look past existing divergencies as being insignificant in the light of the whole.
Reply

Umar001
12-18-2008, 10:52 AM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

May God bestow guidance and peace upon those who follow His way.

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Who chose Uthmann to be in charge with destroying the other Qurans?
Hope you are well, and I hope you will follow me into a thread which I hope to open entitled: The Preservation of the Qur'an a Discussion. Wherein you may express your ideas and questios in an orderly fashion.

Until then, submit yourself to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Regards, 'Eesa 'Abdullah.

Hope you and your family are well Grace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I see something implicit in the above statement that I, as a Christian, do not agree correctly represents Christianity. Namely the above seems to imply that the message of Christianity is one that Jesus would have received from God to give to humankind. That might be Islam's understanding of the Injeel, but it is not Christianity's understanding of the Gospel.

The Gospel message is NOT a message from God delivered by Jesus. Rather it is a message about God's love and plan for humankind as exemplified in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You can have a verbatim record of everything Jesus said, and if you don't include what he did you don't have the Gospel. Conversely, if you get all of what Jesus said wrong, but you properly record and interpret what he did, then you still have the heart of the Gospel message.
This is exactly the point, what did Jesus do? The Message may not necesarily be the words of Jesus, but it has something to do with him and how that has been relayed unto later generations. If you claim the Gospel Message then lies in the actions/deeds of Jesus which revealed the message about God's love and plan for man then it is still important to know what Jesus did, said, etc. Otherwise how would one come to know what God wanted/planned, lest he be informed by someone who knew, i.e. his Prophet or Son.

Thus the message should be, without reasonable doubt, be preserved.


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That would be true for some religions, but I do not believe that it holds true for all. Those that purport to primary be a message from God require this sort of assurance. Others may be satisfied in establishing merely that God exists and then searching for his revelation. They would not necessarily feel the same need for God's words as they would simply to point to items that they would assert manifests God's presence. Of course you might counter that such a religion isn't really from God, but directed to God and you would be right about that. But both are equally religions, and other than one's apriori assumptions where contradictions between them might occur, one cannot "prove" one more right or wrong than the other.
Various questions would then arise in the light of such ideas.

Thus even they may agree in the principle, but simply say that the theoretical instance contained in the principle, i.e. that God sent something, has not happened, yet had it happened the principle outlined would stand?


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I also thought of exactly what Trumble said when I read your fundamental principle:Though we know that we don't have the original autographs, we see such consistency within the documents that we do have that we feel confident to their verasity. Further, for a book so large, written over such an extended period of time and with so many different human writers reflecting a number of different cultures to yet have the over-arching themes of redemption and deliverance remain so central and harmonious with each other, it tends to cause one to look past existing divergencies as being insignificant in the light of the whole.
Well this is another part, I don't remember if I had entertained this topic or not, but it should be in another thread. The aim of this thread is mainly to discuss the idea of such a principle. Needless to say though that I think both you and Trumble are missing the point in your statements. I will open a thred entitled something like The Biblical Message Preserved, or something.

Hope to see you there,

Br.'Eesa 'Abdullah.
Reply

Follower
12-18-2008, 07:30 PM
Thank you alcurad - "Follower, the versions that were burned were not very clear" -the ideas or the writing, both?
Reply

Follower
12-18-2008, 07:58 PM
According to the following the verses, Holy Scripture was already available during Pauls life:

1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
Reply

Umar001
12-18-2008, 08:25 PM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
According to the following the verses, Holy Scripture was already available during Pauls life:

1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

I don't know what this has to do with the principle. Just to let you know I am pretty sure Scholars understand Scripture in the above passage as some Old Testament type of writings.

But again, this has, in reality, nothing to do with the validity of the principle.

Br.al-Habeshi
Reply

Follower
12-26-2008, 02:43 PM
Are you saying that - 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Is in the Old Testament?
Reply

Umar001
12-26-2008, 03:14 PM
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Are you saying that - 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Is in the Old Testament?
It says, according to the scriptures, now, which scriptures is that according to? As I said, the author is probably reffering to the Old Testament as scripture. One reason being that most, if not all, New Testament scholars I think would agree that Paul wrote before the Gospels, therefore what other scripture would he be reffering to?

Unless you of course hold to a pre-Markan and Q type of sources and scriptures?

Br.al-Habeshi

Edit: Let us also get back on topic, do you think a Just God would allow his Message to be corrupted and then punish people because they refrained from praticing it out of caution?

Reply

Zamtsa
12-26-2008, 04:13 PM
Narrated by Ibn Katsir that Rasulullah said "Al Qur'an was sent down by Allahu Ta'ala (through Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam) to Baitul 'Izzi in the sky."

So when Christians think that Al Qur'an was sent down gradually and arrange later, they missed this fact.

Because the news indicated that Al Qur'an was arranged and sent down in whole to Baitul 'Izzi, before being sent by Jibril ayat per ayat (verse) by Allah's command. Al Qur'an is according to Mukmin as the words of Allah through sound and letters, this view of Salafush Shalih was written by syaikh Muhammad bin Shalih Al 'Utsaimin in Rasa'il Fil 'Aqidah.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.
Reply

Follower
12-28-2008, 01:54 AM
Al Habeshci- Jesus did not live during the time of the Old Testament, only the New Testament times. Paul is referring to the Gospel as Scripture.

Who is Baitul 'Izzi"

Why would GOD do such a thing?
Edit: Let us also get back on topic, do you think a Just God would allow his Message to be corrupted and then punish people because they refrained from praticing it out of caution?
A loving GOD would not do this - How are people to find Him if the road to Him, His Scripture is not preserved?
Reply

جوري
12-28-2008, 04:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

A loving GOD would not do this - How are people to find Him if the road to Him, His Scripture is not preserved?
Indeed the message is preserved in the last testament-- The Quran!-- and billions have found their way to the path of the righteous, the path of Abraham!

cheers
Reply

Zamtsa
12-30-2008, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Al Habeshci- Jesus did not live during the time of the Old Testament, only the New Testament times. Paul is referring to the Gospel as Scripture.

Who is Baitul 'Izzi"

Why would GOD do such a thing?

A loving GOD would not do this - How are people to find Him if the road to Him, His Scripture is not preserved?

Bismillahi I write

Baitul means house. Izzi come from the word "Izzat," means glorious and supreme. Baitul Izzi is a place in the sky, maybe in the 1st sky.

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Hijr Ruku 1 Surah 15Mecca (54) 99 Ayahs6 Rukus


QS.Al Hijr(15):9 We have without doubt sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Hadid Ruku 4 Surah 57Madina (94) 29 Ayahs4 Rukus



27 Then in their wake We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good pleasure of Allah; but that they did not FOSTER as they should have done. Yet We bestowed on those among them who believed their (due) reward but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

The Christian monks turned to Homosexuals. How could they keep the commandments. They even do not work, how could they rule people? They even charge money from sins done by people, was that based on Injil? No.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (may peace be upon who follow the guidance).
Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
Reply

جوري
12-31-2008, 12:16 AM
Can we maybe get rid of the turd bag? that is if you wish to keep your Muslim members active on an Islamic forum?

I wouldn't want to throw a curve ball his way, say with David taking a concubine on his death bed or Solomon's hundred plus wives, lest it cause him to bowl over on his bed of hypocrisy!

Abishag Was a young virgin from the town of Shunem, North of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-23) She was "beautiful in the extreme" and was chosen by David's servants to become the nurse and companion of the king during his final days.
see 1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and at night she "lay in the king's bosom"
to give him warmth, but "the king himself had no intercourse with her." Nevertheless, the attitude later manifested by Solomon regarding her indicates that Abishag was viewed as being in the position of wife or concubine of David. As such, by a rule in the ancient East, she would become the property of David's heir at the time of his death.
That is if his brain is capable of a thought beyond the man/God/espoused with an alter ego, eating pigs, and dancing like a hooligan as a form of worship while exchanging gift on a pagan winter solstice-- it would really pay if they start with their own biblical nonsense before getting in over their head!
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-10-2011, 01:23 AM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 09:38 PM
  3. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 06:16 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2006, 12:10 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2005, 05:27 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!