/* */

PDA

View Full Version : One God



onlyonetruth
08-22-2009, 02:24 PM
Growing up as a Christian, I have always been taught that we worship one God. However, I have heard Muslims refer to Christians as "polytheists" because we believe in the Trinity. I never considered this....

I wanted to know why Muslims consider the Trinity to be a type of polytheistic worship? From a doctrine point of view, I understand that Muslims reject the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, however, why does the Islamic faith consider the worship of the Trinity to be polytheism? The word "Trinity" means 3 in 1....

From a logical perspective, is it ever possible for 3 to equal 1...? Or is that simply false in all circumstances (which would seemingly suggest the notion of the Trinity is not logical, and therefore, cannot be true)?

Thank you.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Rasema
08-22-2009, 02:42 PM
From my conversations with Christians they will tell you that Christian scholars can't explain the Trinity.

So, is it God in 3 or from 3?

If Jesus is divine than that makes him as God. We don't compare God's characteristics to no one or a thing.

As for the Muslims who consider it polytheistic. Somehow all other religions have to partnership with God.

Idolatery is to believe that God resides in an object or a person.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-22-2009, 03:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by onlyonetruth
From a logical perspective, is it ever possible for 3 to equal 1...? Or is that simply false in all circumstances (which would seemingly suggest the notion of the Trinity is not logical, and therefore, cannot be true)?
It is clearly illogical to say 3 Gods = 1 God (as many misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity to teach). But the doctrine of the Trinity is best represented in this form by 3 Persons = 1 God: God is a (unified) community of 3 Persons. So provided one doesn't misidentity a Person with a God, there is certainly no contradiction.
Reply

Somaiyah
08-22-2009, 06:03 PM
Salam,
I never thought it was hard to understand the trinity before when I was a Christian. For me sure it was one God using parts of Him into three parts but it's still the same. So I am a Muslim but I would never ever see Christians as polytheists even though I've heard many Muslims saying this.
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
GreyKode
08-22-2009, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by J Aaliyah
Salam,
I never thought it was hard to understand the trinity before when I was a Christian. For me sure it was one God using parts of Him into three parts but it's still the same. So I am a Muslim but I would never ever see Christians as polytheists even though I've heard many Muslims saying this.
But sister, since Jesus(pbuh) is a man and a separate entity from ALLAH(swt), then isn't their worship of Jesus(pbuh) considered as shirk, i.e. association with ALLAH(swt), be it in his authority of judging people, in calling upon him and making Du'aa to him.
For me sure it was one God using parts of Him into three parts but it's still the same.
Secondly, when you were a chrisitian, how did you consider a son to be part of a father and THEN AGAIN one in the same??
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-22-2009, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by J Aaliyah
Salam,
I never thought it was hard to understand the trinity before when I was a Christian. For me sure it was one God using parts of Him into three parts but it's still the same. So I am a Muslim but I would never ever see Christians as polytheists even though I've heard many Muslims saying this.
:w:

Sis that's not correct. Those who associate partners with Allah are considered mushriks(polytheists) and Allah mentions this in the Qur'aan. We aren't speaking out of our own whims, astaghfirullah since we cannot do that.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-22-2009, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rasema
From my conversations with Christians they will tell you that Christian scholars can't explain the Trinity.

So, is it God in 3 or from 3?

If Jesus is divine than that makes him as God. We don't compare God's characteristics to no one or a thing.

As for the Muslims who consider it polytheistic. Somehow all other religions have to partnership with God.

Idolatery is to believe that God resides in an object or a person.
No Christian scholars can explain the Trinity? Don't you find that somewhat unlikely? I can point you to some if you're interested.

Also, idolatry is more normally defined as the worship of anything other than God.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-23-2009, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Light of Heaven
Those who associate partners with Allah are considered mushriks(polytheists) and Allah mentions this in the Qur'aan.
Would those who say that God is an 'association of partners' (community of persons) be considered polytheists?
Reply

onlyonetruth
08-23-2009, 12:25 AM
Thank you for offering some interesting thoughts....

format_quote Originally Posted by J Aaliyah
Salam,
I never thought it was hard to understand the trinity before when I was a Christian. For me sure it was one God using parts of Him into three parts but it's still the same. So I am a Muslim but I would never ever see Christians as polytheists even though I've heard many Muslims saying this.
I believe that one way to better understand God (the Creator) is to reflect on His creation... by doing this, I can think of 1 logical possibility to make the case that 3 can equal 1.

Think of a single human... we are a living example of the paradox of 3 = 1....

Mind (intellect) + Body (flesh) + Spirit (soul) = Individual

These three distinct components of our being are separate but inseparable... it's a paradox. 3 = 1... I'm not using this as "proof" one way or the other regarding the nature of God - just a thought.

Posted by IsaImpliesHope... No Christian scholars can explain the Trinity? Don't you find that somewhat unlikely? I can point you to some if you're interested.
It's certainly a mystery.... I would suspect that completely understanding God's true nature is beyond human ability... from the Christian perspective, the concept of the Trinity is referred to as a "mystery" of our faith for that very reason. Another example would be the fact that God is outside time (eternal) - that too is beyond our understanding (but we except it as truth).

In regards to the divinity of Christ, it's often explained in terms of divine & human "nature" .... you are an individual person - distinct from all other humans.., however, you share a "single" nature with all the people on the planet i.e.. your "human nature". Christ was unique in that He had both a human & Divine nature (because His father was God)... so Christ is separate from the Father in one sense, however, He shares His Father's Divine nature....

*I believe Muslims except the virgin birth of Christ (correct me if I'm wrong)... in a way, one could argue that a man without a human father must have had a Divine father?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-23-2009, 12:38 AM
Yeah so, aren't u worshipping a human other than God alone? Well I know you will say no but it's a rhetorical question.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-23-2009, 02:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
No Christian scholars can explain the Trinity? Don't you find that somewhat unlikely? I can point you to some if you're interested.

Also, idolatry is more normally defined as the worship of anything other than God.
Isn't the trinity a "mystery"? Or have you cracked the code?
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-23-2009, 02:53 AM
Thank you for offering some interesting thoughts....



I believe that one way to better understand God (the Creator) is to reflect on His creation... by doing this, I can think of 1 logical possibility to make the case that 3 can equal 1.
Let's see.

Think of a single human... we are a living example of the paradox of 3 = 1....

Mind (intellect) + Body (flesh) + Spirit (soul) = Individual

These three distinct components of our being are separate but inseparable... it's a paradox. 3 = 1... I'm not using this as "proof" one way or the other regarding the nature of God - just a thought.
And it's just as well that you're not using it as a proof since it contradicts the tenets of Christianity anyway. Those three parts are distinct and different entities which are more or less independent of each other. As far as I remember, Christians assert that for example Jesus and the Father are of the same substance which obviously doesn't apply to any of the above. There's more but that's off the top of my head.

Apart from the idea that only these 3 components make up a human which we'd only have to take your word for, the Trinity wants us to believe that each part of those three is the same as each other but distinct, which is totally contradictory to itself and to your equation.


It's certainly a mystery.... I would suspect that completely understanding God's true nature is beyond human ability... from the Christian perspective, the concept of the Trinity is referred to as a "mystery" of our faith for that very reason. Another example would be the fact that God is outside time (eternal) - that too is beyond our understanding (but we except it as truth).
If it is a mystery, why would you try to explain it with your equation up there? From the Islamic perspective, the only reason you call it a "mystery" is because you recognize yourself that it doesn't make sense and is contradictory.

If you say it does make sense... well then it wouldn't be a "mystery" would it?

In regards to the divinity of Christ, it's often explained in terms of divine & human "nature" .... you are an individual person - distinct from all other humans.., however, you share a "single" nature with all the people on the planet i.e.. your "human nature". Christ was unique in that He had both a human & Divine nature (because His father was God)... so Christ is separate from the Father in one sense, however, He shares His Father's Divine nature....
To be honest it sounds exactly like polytheism to me. Christ is made of "god material" but is separate from him. This necessarily means he is a separate entity.
*I believe Muslims except the virgin birth of Christ (correct me if I'm wrong)... in a way, one could argue that a man without a human father must have had a Divine father?
Well obviously a man without a human father is directly created by Allah. But Christ's birth pales in comparison to Adam's who was created from nothing at all. No virgin mother necessary.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-23-2009, 02:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
Would those who say that God is an 'association of partners' (community of persons) be considered polytheists?
Listen to yourself. Of course it's polytheistic. A community of partners? Whatever happened to one indivisible God?!
Reply

Muslim Woman
08-23-2009, 10:42 AM
Salaam/Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by onlyonetruth
..The word "Trinity" means 3 in 1....
Muslims believe God can not be devided in to 3 . God is one without other partner / diety .

We can't say that God can become His own creation . Our Creator is immortal and can not born or die . These are the characteristics of creations - God Almighty is above all these .

Hindus also believe in Trinity . To my knowledge , they believe one diety has power to create , one is the sustainer , other is responsible for death . Like Christitans , they also believe , God can come in to this world as human being etc. These kind of beliefs are considered as shirk / blasphemy in Islam - the most major sin .

Jesus and Muhammed (peace be upon them ) are humble servants and blessed Prophets of God . Gabriel / Jibril (bbuh) is an Angel - no is considered as God or equal to God in Islam .
Reply

onlyonetruth
08-23-2009, 01:24 PM
I did not mean for this to turn into a heated debate or a negative thread :hmm:

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
If it is a mystery, why would you try to explain it with your equation up there? From the Islamic perspective, the only reason you call it a "mystery" is because you recognize yourself that it doesn't make sense and is contradictory.
This is an example of someone not reading what I am saying. My "equation" was not an attempt to explain the the nature of God (I believe I even said that). It was simply a creative "Earthly" example of how we can see evidence in creation of 3 components acting in unity... it was"food for thought" - nothing more.

The Trinity is a mystery, and therefore cannot be fully explained... many people do not like doctrine that cannot be fully explained. "Mystery" is part of religion... accepting the teachings of any religion takes an element of faith.

In short, to reject the Trinity based on the fact that you cannot comprehend it would not be logical... who here can fully comprehend the nature of God? If God says "I am one with my Son," who would we be to say "no, that's not possible because I don't fully understand it?"

On the other hand, if you don't except the Trinity because you don't believe scripture supports it, that is a different issue... and in my opinion, a much more reasonable objection.
Reply

Somaiyah
08-23-2009, 04:42 PM
Salam,
I am not discussing this subject because everytime I do my Muslim brothers and sisters seem to misunderstand me. I am a Muslim, but when I was a Christian it wasn't hard for me to understand the trinity, the trinity wasn't the reason I converted which I know many other converts have had as one reason. So I can't understand when Muslims say it doesn't make sense, because God can do everything. But for now, I simply don't believe in it. If He wants to divide himself in three then we shouldn't argue about how it is done, but now in Islam and in my way of faith He isn't divided. As simple as that.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-23-2009, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Isn't the trinity a "mystery"? Or have you cracked the code?
What do you mean by the Trinity being a mystery? Do you mean that the Trinity (God Himself) is incomprensible, or the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible?

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Listen to yourself. Of course it's polytheistic. A community of partners? Whatever happened to one indivisible God?!
I don't recall God ever claiming to be indivisible...certainly not within the documents Christians claim to be authoritative. Unless you are limiting the definition of God?
Reply

جوري
08-23-2009, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by onlyonetruth
Growing up as a Christian, I have always been taught that we worship one God. However, I have heard Muslims refer to Christians as "polytheists" because we believe in the Trinity. I never considered this....

I wanted to know why Muslims consider the Trinity to be a type of polytheistic worship? From a doctrine point of view, I understand that Muslims reject the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, however, why does the Islamic faith consider the worship of the Trinity to be polytheism? The word "Trinity" means 3 in 1....

From a logical perspective, is it ever possible for 3 to equal 1...? Or is that simply false in all circumstances (which would seemingly suggest the notion of the Trinity is not logical, and therefore, cannot be true)?

Thank you.

Greetings,

polytheism = Belief in multiple Gods

If God is a God, the holy spirit is also a God, Jesus is also a God, each one of them a different entity, then that equals to polytheism.
trinity is illogical that is true, but it isn't the only reason one rejects Christianity.. It is counter intuitive on multiple levels... I don't care to go into any more details of why Christianity doesn't fit the concept of 'one God' during the holy month of Ramadan.



all the best
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-23-2009, 11:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Apart from the idea that only these 3 components make up a human which we'd only have to take your word for, the Trinity wants us to believe that each part of those three is the same as each other but distinct*, which is totally contradictory to itself and to your equation.

...

To be honest it sounds exactly like polytheism to me. Christ is made of "god material" but is separate from him**. This necessarily means he is a separate entity.
*This is not the what the doctrine teaches - the three Persons are distinct.

**Again, a misrepresentation of the doctrine - you are confusing the terms "distinct" and "separate". The three Persons are distinct, but not separate (separate, in Christian theology, means "divided").
Reply

جوري
08-23-2009, 11:32 PM
God is indivisible according to ISlam...

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ {1}
[Pickthal 112:1] Say: He is Allah, the One!
اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ {2}
[Pickthal 112:2] Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ {3}
[Pickthal 112:3] He begetteth not nor was begotten.
وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ {4}
[Pickthal 112:4] And there is none comparable unto Him.

*****

the term Ahad as opposed to wahid is used in the first verse.. wahid means one, ahad means indivisible through the translation says one I suspect Marmaduke just didn't see how significant the difference is between wahid and ahad... anything outside of that falls outside the confines of strict monotheism!

all the best
Reply

Muslim Woman
08-24-2009, 03:21 AM
:wa:

format_quote Originally Posted by J Aaliyah
Salam,

..God can do everything..
No , no sis , it's a misconception . God can not lie , can not cheat , can not die , can not turned in to His own creation , can not be murdered by mortal human being .

God only does what is suitable for Him. Running out of fear from His own slaves , do u really believe it's possible ? :heated:
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-24-2009, 01:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by J Aaliyah
Salam,
I am not discussing this subject because everytime I do my Muslim brothers and sisters seem to misunderstand me. I am a Muslim, but when I was a Christian it wasn't hard for me to understand the trinity, the trinity wasn't the reason I converted which I know many other converts have had as one reason. So I can't understand when Muslims say it doesn't make sense, because God can do everything. But for now, I simply don't believe in it. If He wants to divide himself in three then we shouldn't argue about how it is done, but now in Islam and in my way of faith He isn't divided. As simple as that.
:sl:

Allah(swt) only does what is befitting of Him. I'm afraid to say He could as I don't want to blaspheme. Allah(swt) needs not do that. He is sufficient for Himself. Somewhere in your mind you have the same thinking as do the Christians. Trinity makes no sense. In the Qur'aan, Allah(swt) rebukes those who refer to Him in the form of Trinity.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
08-24-2009, 06:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by onlyonetruth
Growing up as a Christian, I have always been taught that we worship one God. However, I have heard Muslims refer to Christians as "polytheists" because we believe in the Trinity. I never considered this....

I wanted to know why Muslims consider the Trinity to be a type of polytheistic worship? From a doctrine point of view, I understand that Muslims reject the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, however, why does the Islamic faith consider the worship of the Trinity to be polytheism? The word "Trinity" means 3 in 1....

From a logical perspective, is it ever possible for 3 to equal 1...? Or is that simply false in all circumstances (which would seemingly suggest the notion of the Trinity is not logical, and therefore, cannot be true)?

Thank you.
The Trinity Doctrine/Dogma Exposed

This article is from a born again Christian:

I've always had difficulty with the "trinity" doctrine and concept. Even after twenty years of being a born again Christian, I couldn't seem to grasp the concept. Other Christians claimed they had an understanding of it but they admitted it was very difficult to articulate.

Robert Ingersoll makes the following comments in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:

Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.

Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ." (Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ." (Isaiah 43:3). According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.

Trinity advocates use:

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);

". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1);

". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"

". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." (John 14:9)

". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." (John 17:11)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 3:8,9.)

The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:

"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17)

". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ." (John 14:28)

"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)

" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (Peter 3:22)

There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.

Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a "mystery" and we "just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding "No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence?

The origins of the Trinity doctrine are appalling. Like most historic issues pertaining to Christianity, there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before 'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted.

As many Christians know, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't because it is a doctrine which evolved in early Christianity. It was a manipulated, bloody and deadly process before it finally arrived as an 'accepted' doctrine of the church.

CONSTANTINE - THE TRINITY PROCESS BEGINS

Flavius Valerius Constantius (c. 285-337 AD), Constantine the Great, was the son of Emperor Constantius I. When his father died in 306 AD, Constantine became emperor of Britain, Gaul (now France), and Spain. Gradually he gained control of the entire Roman empire.

Theological differences regarding Jesus Christ began to manifest in Constantine's empire when two major opponents surfaced and debated whether Christ was a created being (Arius doctrine) or not created but rather coequal and coeternal to God his father (Athanasius doctrine).

The theological warfare between the Arius and Athanasius doctrinal camps became intense. Constantine realized that the his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences before the results became disastrous to his empire. Finally the emperor called a council at Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the dispute.

Only a fraction of existing bishops, 318, attended. This equated to about 18% of all the bishops in the empire. Of the 318, approximately 10 were from the Western part of Constantine's empire, making the voting lopsided at best. The emperor manipulated, coerced and threatened the council to be sure it voted for what he believed rather than an actual consensus of the bishops.
The present day Christian church touts Constantine as the first Christian emperor, however, his 'Christianity' was politically motivated. Whether he personally accepted Christian doctrine is highly doubtful. He had one of his sons murdered in addition to a nephew, his brother in law and possibly one of his wives. He continued to retain his title of high priest in a pagan religion until his death. He was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.

THE FIRST TWO THIRDS OF THE TRINITY - THE NICAEAN CREED

The majority of bishops voted under pressure from Constantine for the Athanasius doctrine. A creed was adopted which favored Athanasius's theology. Arius was condemned and exiled. Several of the Bishops left before the voting to avoid the controversy. Jesus Christ was approved to be "one substance" with God the Father. It is interesting that even now, the Eastern and Western Orthodox churches disagree with each other regarding this doctrine, the Western churches having had no influence in the 'voting'.

Two of the bishops who voted pro-Arius were also exiled and Arius's writings were destroyed. Constantine decreed that anyone caught with Arius documents would be subject to the death penalty.

The Nicaean Creed read as follows:

I believe in one God: the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made. . .

Even with the adoption of the Nicaean Creed, problems continued and in a few years, the Arian faction began to regain control. They became so powerful that Constantine restored them and denounced the Athanasius group.

Arius's exile was ended along with the bishops who sided with him. It was now Athanasius who would be banished.

When Constantine died (after being baptized by an Arian Bishop), his son reinstated the Arian philosophy and bishops and condemned the Athanasius group.

In the following years the political foes continue to struggle and finally the Arians misused their power and were overthrown. The religious/political controversy caused widespread bloodshed and killing. In 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius (a Trinitarian) convened a council in Constantinople. Only Trinitarian bishops were invited to attend. 150 bishops attended and voted to alter the Nicene creed to include the Holy Spirit as a part of the Godhead. The Trinity doctrine was now official for both the church and the state.
Dissident bishops were expelled from the church, and excommunicated.

THE ATHANASIUS CREED COMPLETES THE TRIUNE GODHEAD

The Athanasius (Trinitarian) Creed was finally established in (probably) the 5th century. It was not written by Athanasius but adopted his name. It stated in part:

"We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

By the 9th century the creed was established in Spain, France and Germany. It had taken centuries from the time of Christ for the trinity doctrine to catch on. Government and church politics were the reasons the trinity came into existence and became church orthodoxy.

As you have seen, the Trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed.

THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY - ONE MORE IN THE PARADE OF TRINITIES

Why the original clamor to elevate Jesus and the holy spirit to positions equal to the Christian/Judaeo God? Simply, the pagan world was quite used to having "three gods" or "trinities" as their deities. The trinity satisfied the majority of Christians who had come from pagan backgrounds. Christianity didn't get rid of the pagan trinities, it adopted them as it did so many other pagan traditions.

OTHER TRINITIES

Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.
The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that its "difficult" to explain?
Is there one Christian God or Three In One? The majority of Christian churches hold to the Trinity doctrine but there are still Christian church holdouts who reject the teaching. We now enjoy the freedom to believe either doctrine but at risk of ridicule if we choose non-Trinitarian beliefs.
Just like at Burger King, "you can have it your way".

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-24-2009, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If God is a God, the holy spirit is also a God, Jesus is also a God, each one of them a different entity, then that equals to polytheism.
I agree. But that's not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
Reply

Somaiyah
08-24-2009, 08:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
:wa:



No , no sis , it's a misconception . God can not lie , can not cheat , can not die , can not turned in to His own creation , can not be murdered by mortal human being .

God only does what is suitable for Him. Running out of fear from His own slaves , do u really believe it's possible ? :heated:
Seriously, you really believe that I would think that way? That I believe He would do bad things like us humen? I'm leaving this discussion right now.
Reply

جوري
08-24-2009, 10:15 PM
trinity is three people considered as a unit.. I don't consider the afore mentioned beings to be one in the same.. thus rendering it a brand of polytheism!

all the best
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-25-2009, 01:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.
Another strange misrepresentation. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons - The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-25-2009, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
trinity is three people considered as a unit.. I don't consider the afore mentioned beings to be one in the same.. thus rendering it a brand of polytheism!

all the best
What do you mean by "one in the same"?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-25-2009, 02:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by J Aaliyah
Seriously, you really believe that I would think that way? That I believe He would do bad things like us humen? I'm leaving this discussion right now.
She gave you example sis. You're taking it the wrong way.

There is no need to leave the discussion. She hasn't said you think this way..
Reply

malayloveislam
08-25-2009, 02:43 PM
The argument about Trinity doctrine is tiresome because at certain time I find that Jesus is G-d, and after that Father is G-d, and sometimes Holy Spirit is G-d but later some people said all three are G-d.

I made my personal analyzing that Trinity came from a branch of Greek philosophy where Paul is accustomed with before he became Jesus (pbuh) disciple and preaching in Greek land. There are also many others of philosophy branches of Greeks.

Let's share something about a Greek philosopher who has an opinion about G-d, this is just a philosophy, not religious teaching or creed because Xenophanes only talks what he thinks. Islam doesn't need philosophy, because we have Tawheed and scripture.

Xenophanes (580-470 BC)

He has to flee from his homeland when his land was seized by Persian and moved to Elea. He is an obedient to his religion and living with Holy Spirit. He opposed all of the nonsense believed by people around him. He said that, people think God is divided according to every acts. Some believe that G-d is the Chief of the Thieves, some belief G-d is the Chief of the Fearsome, and many others. From that various imaginations and portrayal of G-d exist. He always in disagreement with other poets like Homeros and Hosiodos who always mentioning G-d in the paintings and idols as gods.

Xenophanes said that God is only One. He's different from human and doesn't think like human thinks. He's above all gods and human and the Highest. He's not created but creating. He's not moving and not changing. He filled the whole spaces.

Concerning the belief of public around him, he said, the earthly creatures think that G-d is born with cloth, with voice, and with body that look like them. But if bovine, horse, and lion possess hands and also able to imagine like human, they too will imagine that G-d looks like a bovine, or a horse, or a lion.

He further said that: "Not from the beginning G-d shows everything to immortal creatures. In line with the time development, they will gain goodness, as long as they work to get it."

Xenophanes believes that the One is the highest in hierarchy, who is the G-d that embrace the Universe.
Reply

جوري
08-25-2009, 06:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
What do you mean by "one in the same"?
The expression is rather self-explanatory... You can't be the forsaking God and the God being forsaken while some third hovering spiritGod watches the whole débâcle unravel.. Not that I have a desire to further elaborate but not only is it illogical, this particular god is entirely different from the one spoken of by all the previous messengers and counter intuitive if not down right convoluted.. Anyone, should be able to sit down like Abraham (P) did and arrive through observation of the natural world that there is a creator.. No one would sit down and think of a man/god who self-immolated and abrogated his commandments through his nemesis ..
That is what I mean by an abstract that should be understood by both the simplest mind and the most complex mind!

all the best
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-26-2009, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The expression is rather self-explanatory... You can't be the forsaking God and the God being forsaken while some third hovering spiritGod watches the whole débâcle unravel.. Not that I have a desire to further elaborate but not only is it illogical, this particular god is entirely different from the one spoken of by all the previous messengers and counter intuitive if not down right convoluted.. Anyone, should be able to sit down like Abraham (P) did and arrive through observation of the natural world that there is a creator.. No one would sit down and think of a man/god who self-immolated and abrogated his commandments through his nemesis ..
That is what I mean by an abstract that should be understood by both the simplest mind and the most complex mind!

all the best
So by 'one in the same' you mean that the Persons are all the same Person? This is what I understand you to mean when you say that a being can't simultaneously be the "forsaking God" (the Father?) and the "forsaken God" (the Son?) and the Spirit...but this is just the same misrepresentation as we had before. The Persons are distinct beings.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-27-2009, 06:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
What do you mean by the Trinity being a mystery? Do you mean that the Trinity (God Himself) is incomprensible, or the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible?



I don't recall God ever claiming to be indivisible...certainly not within the documents Christians claim to be authoritative. Unless you are limiting the definition of God?
Limiting the definition of God? I am saying eactly what God said, what the Jews believed before you and what the Muslims believed after you.

It's interesting that you classify that as "limiting" God. Am I limiting when I say polytheism is wrong? That there is only one God?



Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]


You and your "distinct being" concept are more in line with the pagans the Bible condemns than anything else.

Babylon had: [1] Anu [2] Bel and [3] Ena;

India had: [1] Brahma [2] Vishnu and [3] Shiva;

Roman [1] Jupiter [2] Juno and [3] Minerva;

Greece [1] Zeus] [2] Apollo and [3} Hermes

PS I'd say God is being limited by becoming an embryo, being born, eating, going to the bathroom, and passing gas like a regular human.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-27-2009, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
So by 'one in the same' you mean that the Persons are all the same Person? This is what I understand you to mean when you say that a being can't simultaneously be the "forsaking God" (the Father?) and the "forsaken God" (the Son?) and the Spirit...but this is just the same misrepresentation as we had before. The Persons are distinct beings.
If they are distinct beings then your God is not one but three. And you are polytheistic.



Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]


I love that quote. :statisfie
Reply

جوري
08-27-2009, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
So by 'one in the same' you mean that the Persons are all the same Person? This is what I understand you to mean when you say that a being can't simultaneously be the "forsaking God" (the Father?) and the "forsaken God" (the Son?) and the Spirit...but this is just the same misrepresentation as we had before. The Persons are distinct beings.

I love semantics as much as the next guy 'The Persons are distinct beings' would in such a case make them three not one.. hence NOT monotheism!
It doesn't matter how you slice it really, or what verbal manipulation they teach you in seminary school.. it just doesn't cut it.

There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept-- Ansel Adams!

all the best
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-27-2009, 10:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I love semantics as much as the next guy 'The Persons are distinct beings' would in such a case make them three not one.. hence NOT monotheism!
It doesn't matter how you slice it really, or what verbal manipulation they teach you in seminary school.. it just doesn't cut it.

There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept-- Ansel Adams!

all the best
Three beings...not three Gods. God is three Persons in relationship (community), and none of these persons are Gods. It's not "semantics", but simply stating clearly what the doctrine teaches.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-27-2009, 11:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Limiting the definition of God? I am saying eactly what God said, what the Jews believed before you and what the Muslims believed after you.

It's interesting that you classify that as "limiting" God. Am I limiting when I say polytheism is wrong? That there is only one God?

Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]

You and your "distinct being" concept are more in line with the pagans the Bible condemns than anything else.

Babylon had: [1] Anu [2] Bel and [3] Ena;

India had: [1] Brahma [2] Vishnu and [3] Shiva;

Roman [1] Jupiter [2] Juno and [3] Minerva;

Greece [1] Zeus] [2] Apollo and [3} Hermes

PS I'd say God is being limited by becoming an embryo, being born, eating, going to the bathroom, and passing gas like a regular human.
What I am saying is that you are limiting the definition of God to a single indivisible entity. Could you explain to me how Deut 6:4 shows that Yahweh is indivisible? You may find a word study on the use of "echad" (meaning "one") in the OT very much opens up the possibility of divisibility within Yahweh (eg Gen 2:24).

In the pagan examples you cited, the three beings are each individual Gods, contrary to Trinitarian belief.

And with regard to your statement about incarnation, you are using "limit" in a different sense to the way I used it. I said that you shouldn't limit the definition of God - and you are actually doing this by limiting what God can or cannot do (i.e. denying His omnipotence). You are limiting the definition of God by saying that a Person within God cannot "limit" himself.
Reply

جوري
08-28-2009, 12:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
Three beings...not three Gods. God is three Persons in relationship (community), and none of these persons are Gods. It's not "semantics", but simply stating clearly what the doctrine teaches.
Your doctrine and what logic and Merriam webster dictate seem to be at odds then.. three doesn't equal to one, least of which when they are not of the same substance. i.e each has its distinct identity..

otherwise God has many children who don't happen to be him at the same time..
Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

listen I have no quarrels with you .. and I am happy you found your niche.. I have explained to you, why Muslims don't view the christian doctrine to be monotheistic.. what matters at the end of the day is what you yourself believe.. not what I think or view your beliefs!

all the best
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-28-2009, 04:59 PM
What I am saying is that you are limiting the definition of God to a single indivisible entity.
And we are all limiting God by saying polytheists are wrong? Right? :heated:

Could you explain to me how Deut 6:4 shows that Yahweh is indivisible? You may find a word study on the use of "echad" (meaning "one") in the OT very much opens up the possibility of divisibility within Yahweh (eg Gen 2:24).

You said separate entities. It clearly

In the pagan examples you cited, the three beings are each individual Gods, contrary to Trinitarian belief.
"The Persons are distinct beings." Your own words seem to be contradicting you.

And with regard to your statement about incarnation, you are using "limit" in a different sense to the way I used it. I said that you shouldn't limit the definition of God - and you are actually doing this by limiting what God can or cannot do (i.e. denying His omnipotence). You are limiting the definition of God by saying that a Person within God cannot "limit" himself.
God has told us what he isn't and what he is.

"No man has ever seen God"

"God is not a man"

And yet after the Bible's criticism against polytheism you still assert that God was incarnated, is made of distinct beings, and had to have himself tortured and killed to save mankind from His own wrath! :heated:
Reply

moringdew
08-28-2009, 05:03 PM
Allah is The One and Only,

I don't think it's reasonable to say 1 God = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
I've asked most my christian friends about Trinity, none of them know exactly what Trinity means (the reason why 1=3)
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-28-2009, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
Three beings...not three Gods. God is three Persons in relationship (community), and none of these persons are Gods. It's not "semantics", but simply stating clearly what the doctrine teaches.
That is the very definationof semantics. Three beings but not Gods? What is that even supposed to mean? And according to your definition, wouldn't it be more plausible to say God is a "state" and not a "being" seeing as how you define him to be the result of a relationship?
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-29-2009, 02:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Your doctrine and what logic and Merriam webster dictate seem to be at odds then.. three doesn't equal to one, least of which when they are not of the same substance. i.e each has its distinct identity..

otherwise God has many children who don't happen to be him at the same time..
Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

listen I have no quarrels with you .. and I am happy you found your niche.. I have explained to you, why Muslims don't view the christian doctrine to be monotheistic.. what matters at the end of the day is what you yourself believe.. not what I think or view your beliefs!

all the best
Salaam Gossamer skye,
I'm not here to quarrel either :) But I think it is important that we represent people's beliefs accurately so that we avoid misrepresenting one another.

I don't believe that three equals one (and nor do any other Trinitarians that I'm aware of). But I do believe that the One God is Three Persons, that none of these Persons are Gods, and they are all distinct beings. To my mind this is no more illogical than saying that an egg is made of three parts: white, yolk and shell - none of these parts are themselves eggs, and they are distinct parts. Now there are many ways in which the egg analogy is inadequate for describing the Trinity, but in showing that the fundamental statements of the Trinity are not contradictory I find it useful (and I hope you will as well).

Peace.

[P.S. Whether the Bible supports the Trinity is perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, but I will briefly clarify an important point about "sons" as you mentioned it in passing: all God's people are considered to be sons and daughters of God; to say that Jesus is the son of God (not a son of God) is to say something more - it is a (divine) title.]
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-29-2009, 03:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
And we are all limiting God by saying polytheists are wrong? Right? :heated:
You don't do anything to the definition of God if you say someone's description is wrong...I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this?

[/QUOTE]
"The Persons are distinct beings." Your own words seem to be contradicting you.
[/QUOTE]
I cannot see the contradiction myself...The Persons are not Gods.

God has told us what he isn't and what he is.

"No man has ever seen God"

"God is not a man"

And yet after the Bible's criticism against polytheism you still assert that God was incarnated, is made of distinct beings, and had to have himself tortured and killed to save mankind from His own wrath! :heated:
As I said in my previous post, whether the Bible supports unitarian or trinitarian monotheism is not the point of this thread. But I would encourage you to look at those two verses in context.

I would also encourage you to investigate as to whether your statement in bold is a fair representation of the gospel message found in the New Testament (again, another thread I'm sure).

That is the very definationof semantics.
So when I was accused of using semantics (aka verbal manipulation) I was actually being accused of making clear statements?
Reply

جوري
08-29-2009, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaImpliesHope
Salaam Gossamer skye,
and peace to you!


I'm not here to quarrel either :) But I think it is important that we represent people's beliefs accurately so that we avoid misrepresenting one another.
This is what I understand from what is represented by you, the rest of what you take on faith, I don't have to take on faith given that it is illogical. I am not misrepresenting your faith, but this is how I understand it.. and as stated, there is no ill will hatred or quarrels, I am happy you find peace.

I don't believe that three equals one (and nor do any other Trinitarians that I'm aware of). But I do believe that the One God is Three Persons, that none of these Persons are Gods, and they are all distinct beings. To my mind this is no more illogical than saying that an egg is made of three parts: white, yolk and shell - none of these parts are themselves eggs, and they are distinct parts. Now there are many ways in which the egg analogy is inadequate for describing the Trinity, but in showing that the fundamental statements of the Trinity are not contradictory I find it useful (and I hope you will as well).
You don't believe that three equals one, yet a God of three beings each of them distinct is at odds with that statement. It is your belief, it isn't something that can be held as true from the lowest common denominator or a simple mathematical view point it is a belief that is lacking in accurate logical relation. Also making God akin to his creation already at odds with the definition of God (which I shan't go into) an egg of whites and yellows and shell aren't present in three separate places at the same time, each of its will the yolk begging to be helped from frying, while the white parts thinks it is for the best for something as strange as eating man kind' sins.
rendering your analogy absurd!

[P.S. Whether the Bible supports the Trinity is perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, but I will briefly clarify an important point about "sons" as you mentioned it in passing: all God's people are considered to be sons and daughters of God; to say that Jesus is the son of God (not a son of God) is to say something more - it is a (divine) title.]
Considered so only according to your misunderstanding of a religion that came to you from the middle east. Your 'god' didn't speak the language that you now attribute to him.. terms of respect and endearment that you take to denote something literal are in fact a figure of speech..

Rabb hazha albyet could be taken to mean God or the lord of the manor.. but it certainly doesn't translate to us being the literal children of God.. or that God can be both a child born to a woman and a god in the heavens and a god hovering in spirit to announce to a woman that he is to impregnate her with his being.. and that all three beings are really one being in the end who seem at odds with each other in their will.. one wants to not be forsaken while the other forsakes, one wants to uphold the commandments of the OT, while the other abrogates it through a non-chosen apostle .. ...

there is no need for you to clarify your faith to me. I have spent my youth in catholic schools and quite familiar with your doctrine.. I think it fails at the very crux it stands on... yet, I can still respect that you think it is your true path and I wish you the best of luck with that.. I'd personally at this stage would like to enjoy the rest of the holy month and to reap its benefits, and not debate on the age old question of the nature of the christian god! ..


peace
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-30-2009, 08:01 AM
I received a comment saying "..but if you separate the egg into shell, white and yolk, it is not an egg anymore and you can never put them together again to where they will be an egg - remember Humpty Dumpty? The same way an entity can never pray to himself or sit beside himself". Herein lies one of the many inadequacies of the egg analogy I mentioned previously. God cannot be "pulled apart" - the Persons, though distinct, are inseparable. So we must imagine an uncrackable egg (which is not so hard to do).

Also to point out, the commenter makes the mistake of identifying the Persons with the entirety of God - there is communication ("prayer") within God between the Persons.
Reply

IsaImpliesHope
08-30-2009, 11:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
This is what I understand from what is represented by you, the rest of what you take on faith, I don't have to take on faith given that it is illogical. I am not misrepresenting your faith, but this is how I understand it.. and as stated, there is no ill will hatred or quarrels, I am happy you find peace.

You don't believe that three equals one, yet a God of three beings each of them distinct is at odds with that statement. It is your belief, it isn't something that can be held as true from the lowest common denominator or a simple mathematical view point it is a belief that is lacking in accurate logical relation. Also making God akin to his creation already at odds with the definition of God (which I shan't go into) an egg of whites and yellows and shell aren't present in three separate places at the same time, each of its will the yolk begging to be helped from frying, while the white parts thinks it is for the best for something as strange as eating man kind' sins.
rendering your analogy absurd!

Considered so only according to your misunderstanding of a religion that came to you from the middle east. Your 'god' didn't speak the language that you now attribute to him.. terms of respect and endearment that you take to denote something literal are in fact a figure of speech..

Rabb hazha albyet could be taken to mean God or the lord of the manor.. but it certainly doesn't translate to us being the literal children of God.. or that God can be both a child born to a woman and a god in the heavens and a god hovering in spirit to announce to a woman that he is to impregnate her with his being.. and that all three beings are really one being in the end who seem at odds with each other in their will.. one wants to not be forsaken while the other forsakes, one wants to uphold the commandments of the OT, while the other abrogates it through a non-chosen apostle .. ...

there is no need for you to clarify your faith to me. I have spent my youth in catholic schools and quite familiar with your doctrine.. I think it fails at the very crux it stands on... yet, I can still respect that you think it is your true path and I wish you the best of luck with that.. I'd personally at this stage would like to enjoy the rest of the holy month and to reap its benefits, and not debate on the age old question of the nature of the christian god! ..
Peace Gossamer skye, and thank you for your many gracious comments. I very much admire your passion and conviction which you have readily shown here. May you continue to enjoy this holy month of reflection and worship, which I don't wish to spoil by continuing our discussion on these matters (for the time being at least).

Wishing you all the best,
IsaImpliesHope

P.S. If anyone else would like to continue, I will be more than happy to engage with them as best I can (though I would suggest to the moderators that this thread should be moved to the Comparative Religion section).
Reply

Sojourn
10-03-2009, 09:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by moringdew
I don't think it's reasonable to say 1 God = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
I agree it's unreasonable since God is simple, i.e. has no parts. But Christians don't believe God is divided into three parts.

I've asked most my christian friends about Trinity, none of them know exactly what Trinity means (the reason why 1=3)
We don't believe 1 = 3. We believe there is 1 *Divine Nature* in three *Persons*.

Muslims believe there is 1 Divine Nature in 1 Person.

That is where we differ.
Reply

InToTheRain
10-03-2009, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
We don't believe 1 = 3. We believe there is 1 *Divine Nature* in three *Persons*.
Peace Sojourn,

Can you clarify what happened to each role,

As I understand it, there was first God (the Father), so what happened to him when The son (Jesus) came about? Did the Father become the Son or the did he split up into individuals beings thereby halving his powers?
Reply

Sojourn
10-03-2009, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
Peace Sojourn
Peace Z.

As I understand it, there was first God (the Father), so what happened to him when The son (Jesus) came about?
That is actually an incorrect understanding, but it stems from something quite natural. In humans time must elapse before a male can become a father, and therefore it is impossible for a father to be as old as his son. We have to remember however, that God is beyond time. There was never a period of time where God have to develop before the Son could be generated. Thus the Son eternally proceeds from the Father. There was never a time when the Son did not proceed from the Father, and never a time when the Holy Spirit did not proceed from both of them. As we say in the ancient doxology:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.


Did the Father become the Son or the did he split up into individuals beings thereby halving his powers?
No, the Three Persons are distinct. Thus the Holy Trinity was not crucified, but only the Second Person of the Trinity who took on human form.
Reply

Girl of makkah
10-04-2009, 12:02 AM
I never heard Trinity religion ever I just know the Christianity >> please can you tell me about this religion >> because iwant to know it >> and because ididn"t meet anyone unmuslim >> please tell me
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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!