Islam is the true religion

[salimswati]

:w:
well all religions are sacred for muslims but islam is the best

[Curaezipirid]

alaikumassalam,

that depends entirely upon what definition you use of the word "religion"

as a cult is less than a culture, there are belief systems that manifest akin to Religions that are less than a Relgion

for example there are persons whom profess Buddhism, whom defy belief in any single Creator, or even in the need to follow any individual teacher or discipline, as though "being nice and happy" on its own is enough

surely such persons are those who are counting their own happiness against that of other living beings, since they are failing to recognise any function of a single unifing accountiblity, that exists in Allah

But of course any system of belief, whether manifesting as a Religion, or a culture, so long as it is sustaining to Faith in Allah as the only measure of true individual accountiblity, has merits.

mu'asalam

[duskiness]

for example there are persons whom profess Buddhism, whom defy belief in any single Creator, or even in the need to follow any individual teacher or discipline, as though "being nice and happy" on its own is enough

I'm not a Buddhist but i don't think that this religion's teaching can be sumed up as "being nice and happy on it's own is enough".
n.

[Ghazi]

:w:
well all religions are sacred for muslims but islam is the best

:sl:

This is incorrect only islam which our prophet taught to us is sacred to muslims today, anything else won't be valid.

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]

for example there are persons whom profess Buddhism, whom defy belief in any single Creator, or even in the need to follow any individual teacher or discipline, as though "being nice and happy" on its own is enough

Ahem.. I don't mean to be rude but you obviously don't know the first thing about Buddhism.

surely such persons are those who are counting their own happiness against that of other living beings, since they are failing to recognise any function of a single unifing accountiblity, that exists in Allah

Quite the contrary. Buddhists are far more concerned with the welfare of all other sentient beings than adherents of any other religion I am aware of other bar Jainism. The fundamental vow of the Bodhisattva (look it up) is to accept continued rebirths, that is delaying their own Buddahood, so that they may help all other sentient beings on the Path. I am not aware of anything similar in Islam or Christianity - please correct me if I'm wrong. Do any muslims renounce Paradise on death choosing instead continual life on earth so that all others may reach that Paradise?

[duskiness]

vow of the Bodhisattva (look it up)

I looked it up :) :

I take upon myself... the deeds of all beings, even of those in the hells, in other worlds, in the realms of punishment... I take their suffering upon me,... I bear it, I do not draw back from it, I do not tremble at it ... I have no fear of it,... I do not lose heart... I must bear the burden of all beings, for I have vowed to save all things living, to bring them safe through the forest of birth, age, disease, death and rebirth. I think not of my own salvation, but strive to bestow on all beings the royalty of supreme wisdom. So I take upon myself all the sorrows of all beings. I resolve to bear every torment in every purgatory of the universe. For it is better that I alone suffer than the multitude of living beings. I give myself in exchange. I redeem the universe from the forest of purgatory, from the womb of flesh, from the realm of death. I agree to suffer as a ransom for all beings, for the sake of all beings. Truly I will not abandon them. For I have resolved to gain supreme wisdom for the sake of all that lives, to save the world.

I have to say that for christian it rings a bell..
n.

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam,

I am glad indeed that some thoughtful persons have pointed these facts out. It is that I am not condemning Buddhist teachings, and in fact believe that the texts that modern Buhhism has inherited from antiquity are of immense worth; but I am repudiating that the Buddhist teachings have retained enough teachers of genuine merit in the face of how many folk there are calling themselves Buddhists. The exact passage you describe is of the highest of Honours that most persons can at this time only hope to aspire with. Yet are there actual Buddhists whom have retained the strenght of will to pull all those persons openly professing Buddhism through the hour of judgment?

I actually know a Buddhist whom I regard as a true Saint, but He is one, and Buddhists are six million under the Dalai Lama alone. While in Islam we have some rather larger number of persons whom are genuine Bodhisattvas. That is, a person whom has attained that status of being a Saint and chosen to exist at Earth. So I am defining Religious worth by the quality of the persons sustaining the esoteric centre of the Religion as a fact of greater consequence that the many verifiable texts. But then, it is also that Buddist peasants in Tibet are begining to Dream very old stories, that have only scant record in the existing texts.

I suppose that I wish to highlight that Buddhists may also be in need of the support of the Ummah of Islam. And only so as to sustain that their traditions have any worth in the Human consequence of the teaching. It is all too easy for the worst of persons to present themselves as equitable with the best only by acquiring the correct texts. That is how there come to be modern day virtual neo-nazis manifesting within the auspicies of Buddhism, and within that propagating the concept that there is no need to sustain Faith in One God.

In fact, the passage about the commitment of a Bodhisattva can bear no relevance within any form of belief that allows that their might not be one God. As I have read in a number of Buddhist texts. I shall go home and see if I have one of such at home soon and report back. But there is nothing wrong with taking the texts that are real and of immense value, and the people whom truly believing, whom have manitained those texts, and regarding them as quite distinct from any protrayals of Buddhism as though possible without Allah. It really is a teaching that only validates that the way of becoming a Saint yet exists. But there in is its weakness, since all the false Saints of Catholicism etc might flock towards that very idea. But because Buddhism's teachings are not sustaining to prophesy.

So we need to go back and define a Religion. I vote that Buddist teaching could bear only any valid Religious worth from within Islam.

wasalam

[Trumble]

but I am repudiating that the Buddhist teachings have retained enough teachers of genuine merit in the face of how many folk there are calling themselves Buddhists

You are not repudiating it, you are claiming it. On the basis of no evidence other than your own inherent bias. Where are all these muslim teachers of "genuine merit", then?

I suppose that I wish to highlight that Buddhists may also be in need of the support of the Ummah of Islam. And only so as to sustain that their traditions have any worth in the Human consequence of the teaching.

Those traditions have demonstrated their "worth" for two and a half millennia without the help of the Ummah of Islam. Other than universal goodwill and compassion, which are always good, the teachings of Islam (barring some Sufist elements, possibly) add nothing of spiritual significance to them.

modern day virtual neo-nazis manifesting within the auspicies of Buddhism

I'm sorry ?!! What Buddhist neo-nazis are these, exactly?

In fact, the passage about the commitment of a Bodhisattva can bear no relevance within any form of belief that allows that their might not be one God. As I have read in a number of Buddhist texts.

Please name them; I will be delighted to encounter any Buddhist text that claims the Bodhisattva ideal is dependent on monotheism! It makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

[Jayda]

...i dont understand this thread...

[QuranStudy]

This thread has gone off topic.

[Jayda]

lol i dont have a problem with it.. i just dont understand it... if somebody is a muslim they will say 'yes definitely' if somebody isnt they probably wont post (if theyre smart) and if they do post it will be like 'i dont think so' then there will be an argument...

[InToTheRain]

lol i dont have a problem with it.. i just dont understand it... if somebody is a muslim they will say 'yes definitely' if somebody isnt they probably wont post (if theyre smart) and if they do post it will be like 'i dont think so' then there will be an argument...

Your right Jayda.

Maybe the Sister who started the thread shouldv'e given her reasons as to why it is the best way of life. For example:
Islam is a complete way of life incorporating both spiritual and corporeal dimensions. for Muslims, Islam is not merely a system of belief and worship a compartment of life. It is rather the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal and even constitutional law.No other way of life, religion or system of belief has this.

Peace

[Curaezipirid]

alaikumassalam

it went off topic at the statement by Trumble that the Bodhisatva ideal is not dependent upon monotheism

I will not bear with response since Trumble identifies the hypocracy amply well without me, and really knows that I should not want to name names as it is not in my Religion to do so

However I provide a starting point from which any genuinely intersted person can make their own scientific investigation. Buddhists who believe in reality are always soundly based in another belief structure also.

Mu'asalam

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

It seems this thread is more focused on Buddhist teachings... well I thought I'd make a small contribution.

Do any muslims renounce Paradise on death choosing instead continual life on earth so that all others may reach that Paradise?

This question isn't really directly applicable, since Muslims do not believe in the concept of reincarnation but instead believe that every soul shall taste death and none can neither prolong nor hasten their term. In the short time that we all spend on earth, however, we try to teach and spread Islam as much as possible so that as many others can reach paradise. I notice that some religions do not consider converting others to their faith, yet in Islam, for every person Allaah guides through our hands, those people have been saved from the Hellfire, hence one can understand the importance of conveying the message.

41:33 And who could be better of speech than he who calls [his fellow-men] unto God, and does what is just and right, and says, “Verily, I am of those who have surrendered themselves to God”?

[Trumble]

I will not bear with response since Trumble identifies the hypocracy amply well without me, and really knows that I should not want to name names as it is not in my Religion to do so

Oh, come on. I asked you to state which Buddhist texts you believe support your position. There's nothing in Islam that stops you doing that. You seem unable to do so. The only "names" I might have wanted are those of the "Buddhist neo-Nazis" - I very much doubt there's anything in Islam which stops you doing that, either.

However I provide a starting point from which any genuinely intersted person can make their own scientific investigation.

Not if you refuse to detail any sources, they can't.

Buddhists who believe in reality are always soundly based in another belief structure also.

Do you actually have anything to support that nonsense at all? For the first 700 years of so of Buddhism's existence adherents would not have been exposed to any other belief systems than proto-Hinduism and (possibly) Jainism. Not a lot in the way of monotheism there.

"instead believe that every soul shall taste death and none can neither prolong nor hasten their term"

In which case you are quite right, there could be no direct comparison. The point I was making was simply that Buddhists are the last people you could accuse of "counting their own happiness against that of other living beings".

.

[جوري]

trumble.... why Buddhism? why not Jainism or Shintoism or Hinduism or Sikhism or Santal ... I am interested in why you are a Buddhist out of all these? what is it about Buddhism that lacks in these others I won't say ideologies since you believe them all to be full fledged religions... unless you were actually born one? were you? did you study these others before deciding to become a buddhist?
thanks

[Trumble]

trumble.... why Buddhism? why not Jainism or Shintoism or Hinduism or Sikhism or Santal ... I am interested in why you are a Buddhist out of all these? what is it about Buddhism that lacks in these others I won't say ideologies since you believe them all to be full fledged religions... unless you were actually born one? were you? did you study these others before deciding to become a buddhist?
thanks

I was fairly well aquainted with Hinduism and Jainism. I've learned a little about Sikhism since. "Santal", in the sense of a religion, I must confess I've never heard of, and as far as I am aware Shinto is essentially a form of animism?

I could explain why I rejected the first three individually (not to mention the monotheistic religions), but that would probably be unfair to them, and not achieve much. I accepted Buddhism simply because, out of all of them, it was the only one that made sense to me both intellectually and experientially. The Buddhist view of Reality is what I, as far as I can, perceive it to be. The view of the others, to varying degrees (there are significant similarities between all the Indian religions, not to mention Daoism), is not. That's all there is too it, really.

I wasn't "born" anything; both my parents were agnostic/atheist and still are.

[جوري]

I was fairly well aquainted with Hinduism and Jainism. I've learned a little about Sikhism since. "Santal", in the sense of a religion, I must confess I've never heard of, and as far as I am aware Shinto is essentially a form of animism?

I could explain why I rejected the first three individually (not to mention the monotheistic religions), but that would probably be unfair to them, and not achieve much. I accepted Buddhism simply because, out of all of them, it was the only one that made sense to me both intellectually and experientially. The Buddhist view of Reality is what I, as far as I can, perceive it to be. The view of the others, to varying degrees (there are significant similarities between all the Indian religions, not to mention Daoism), is not. That's all there is too it, really.

I wasn't "born" anything; both my parents were agnostic/atheist and still are.

why would it be unfair? it is comparitive religion section... so long as it is done tastefully I can't think of a reason why you shouldn't? in fact now that you mention organized religion as well I think it would only be fair that you teach us your vantage point....

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam,

that is a very good point

There was a documentary on television last night about Afganistan and it showed footage of the very sad demolition by Taliban of the really old Buddha statues that were Huge! The Governer in that Province is remarkable and has accomplished getting girls back into schooling; that is what a part of the documentary had about. Generally about the important role that women are playing in Afganistan as politicians. In the same province farmers have been persuaded not to grow opium.

Now in the matter of the demolition of statues of Buddha: it is my comprehension that the statues of Buddha are only various representations of any Buddha; that is any Soul whom has truly attained enlightenment. Within Judaism such attainment could be called becoming a Saint; but it has been from the Judaic tradition that most of the teaching of what that means has been corrupted. Yet it seems that such corruption also is existing among Buddhists if Buddha statues are regarded by worshipers as representing any specific individual. (When will the Pope become Buddhist?)

My comprehension of such statues is that they represent the manifestation of a symbolic representation of a specific Prayer or Meditation posture that can be associated to a specific mantra. (I hope that the statues that were destroyed are not representative of the Kalama sutra since that could cause gambling to result if there is less representation of such: it is inimical with the pillar of Islam that provides us with certain truth that we must manage our worldly affairs within the Empirical evidence of each our own experience)

What Mantras are represented by which Buddha statues? I believe that this is a matter which Muslims should accord belief to.

(and that decries the true Islam of the Taliban)

wasalam

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam:

I meant in that "decries the true Islam of the Taliban" only that as "Taliban" is expressed within the western media. The western media totally ignores the true meaning of Taliban and describes Taliban as organised crime that is causal to the statues having been demolished; and causal to all drug related crimes in Afganistan. (but I thought that the organised group responsible for such acts was Al-Qaeda: but then the western media tend to like us to learn that Al-Qaeda also means 'The Foundations' - - - so I should have put more thought into my own word use in the post I made before I expressed the word 'Taliban', since I was influenced by the report on television last night)

mu'asalam

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam,

Also Trumble, can you tell us about The Great Medicine?

Buddhists have catelogued in vast texts every possible wrongful mental association. What excellence that could cause in healing through exorcism! But if only they could correctly attribute such. What is the Buddhist regard for the New Testament verse that states: no exorcism can be done without Beelzebub! ??

Wasalam

[Curaezipirid]

I was fairly well aquainted with Hinduism and Jainism. I've learned a little about Sikhism since. "Santal", in the sense of a religion, I must confess I've never heard of, and as far as I am aware Shinto is essentially a form of animism?

I could explain why I rejected the first three individually (not to mention the monotheistic religions), but that would probably be unfair to them, and not achieve much. I accepted Buddhism simply because, out of all of them, it was the only one that made sense to me both intellectually and experientially. The Buddhist view of Reality is what I, as far as I can, perceive it to be. The view of the others, to varying degrees (there are significant similarities between all the Indian religions, not to mention Daoism), is not. That's all there is too it, really.

I wasn't "born" anything; both my parents were agnostic/atheist and still are.

my attention was drawn to this post I have quoted only because I have references to Jainism being a shaytans organised grouping, and there fore occult and so anti-Islamic

could anybody please correct me if that is wrong?

Also what struck me about this post is the clear evidence, which repeats itself consistently in English speaking countries, of a social status which is given equitable status to belief in the wrongly formed Christian Churches. If you can prove that you can earn money without a Christian identity, then you are allowed to explore Religions of "the east", within the mainstream occultists driven ideologies of "the west" which support mass consumerism etc. That is, if you reject the falsifications in Christian teaching, you are allowed to explore falsificiations of Hinduism in which it is denied that any Hindi believe in One God, or falisfications of the Buddhist Scriptures, in which the Animist aspect is removed, and in which the real convergences between Buddhism and Christianity are denied in favour of more modern false convergences. For example, it was all the fashion for a while to be Zen, and then the fashion changed. Now Tibetean Buddhists have worked very hard so that their variety of Buddism is that most fashionable variety of non-Christian belief which is enabled in "the west". The Hare Krishna's likewise, yet somewhat less credibly; though they have had considerable success in converting westerners into a bizarre variety of sort of Hindi Krishna worship.

The point I want to make is that I know that occultists are active in promoting specific belief systems as appropriate or not appropriate. They do such by enableing those which they want to exist within a financial income stream which they do not enable for other small Religious organisations.

We must question, why are some Religions sects of "the east" being enabled and others not being enabled. But most especially Why is it that those belief sects being enabled are those which conspire to sustain out dated God-head modes of worship, and those beliefs which are not being enabled are those which sustain clear belief in One God Allah.

The might of Islam is the only avenue by which the occultists actions can be overcome.

There is no reason, apart from occultist fiddling with the economy, why folk in "the west" whom are seeking answers, and want to know how the bigger picture of life and living all fits together, should not be going on a Hippy quest into Muslim countries as they now travel to India etc. There is no reason for full Hijab to be unfashionable, while the style of a Sari often enough is in vogue, except that the occultists seek to prevent Hijab, and Islam, and our belief in the eventual retribution in Allah of all such action.

wasalam

[Nuseyba bintkab]

islam is everything a way of life

[syilla]

:sl:

This is incorrect only islam which our prophet taught to us is sacred to muslims today, anything else won't be valid.

:sl:

can someone please explain more on this?

i would like to know...so even it is a true christian or true jews....as a muslim we should not consider them valid?

can anyone please explain this to me?

:w:

[Inshallah]

The only thing that is true and valid is the word of god the quran.

[syilla]

:sl:

can someone please explain more on this?

i would like to know...so even it is a true christian or true jews....as a muslim we should not consider them valid?

can anyone please explain this to me?

:w:

Believers, Jews, Christians and Sabaeans—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do what is right—shall be rewarded by their Lord; they shall have nothing to fear or to regret.

what about this verse? :?

can anyone please explain to me.....

[- Qatada -]

:sl:

can someone please explain more on this?

i would like to know...so even it is a true christian or true jews....as a muslim we should not consider them valid?

can anyone please explain this to me?

:w:

:wasalamex


I think he mean's that the jews and christians were known as muslims in the past because they believed in the original scripture which was revealed to the prophets at their time [including Prophet Musa, Eesa and the rest (peace be upon them.)] and they worshipped Allaah.

But after the message was given to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) - it became everyones duty to obey him as the messenger of Allaah because the past books (like the torah, gospel etc.) became corrupted, so the Qur'an [speech of Allah] and Authentic Sunnah [prophetic way] are the only source of authentic guidance we have today. Even the christians believe that the bible isn't found in its original language today, so what they see is just a translation or maybe parts of it - however, the original scripture is lost.



Anyone who lives after the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is part of his ummah and one of the questions the angels in the grave will ask is, who is your prophet? The person will have to answer that it is Muhammad (peace be upon him) [if the person was alive in the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him.)] They can't say Jesus/Eesa, or Musa, or Nuh (peace be upon them) etc. because these prophets only came for their nation, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) came for all of mankind as the final messenger.



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Is that what you meant sister?




:salamext:

[syilla]

yeah i meant that...

so...that mean...only the past christians and jews (before prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) that islam consider valid.

other than that...is not valid? am i right?

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


yeah i think so, this is what bro kadafi said:

You have to grasp that this verse does not refer those [mentioned in the verse] after the advent of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) but it refers to the Jews [before the advent of the Prophet] who held fast to the Torah and the Sunnah of Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) until Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) was sent. When Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam came, those who still adhered to the Torah and the Sunnah of Prophet Moses and did not follow Isa Ibn Maryam were destroyed. The Christians mentioned are the Christians who held fast to the Injeel (Gospel) and the laws of Isa Ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), they were the ones who believed him and there are deemed as believers. This continued until the arrival Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Anyone who had been following the previous laws ordained should drop it and follow the last Messenger sent to mankind.

The verse was canceled with the next ayaat [verse] as reported by ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him):

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

I read verse 2.62 as referring to contemporaries of Muhammad (pbuh); there doesn't seem to be anything in the text to indicate it refers to people of past nations.

It does, the verb aamanoo means believed, it is used in the past tense. It's a perfect tense.

http://www.islamicboard.com/71452-post7.html

[syilla]

jazakallah khayr brother...

can you please tell me which verse is this?

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

[- Qatada -]

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.

(Quran, Surah aal Imraan [3:85])


:salamext:

[syilla]

thank you...

[Trumble]

my attention was drawn to this post I have quoted only because I have references to Jainism being a shaytans organised grouping, and there fore occult and so anti-Islamic

could anybody please correct me if that is wrong?

Sorry, have only just spotted this. Of course it's wrong. Why on earth would Shaytan (even if there were such a being) organise a group which has such respect for all life that it makes the average Buddhist look bloodthirsty? And a thousand years before Islam, at that.

That is, if you reject the falsifications in Christian teaching, you are allowed to explore falsificiations of Hinduism in which it is denied that any Hindi believe in One God, or falisfications of the Buddhist Scriptures, in which the Animist aspect is removed, and in which the real convergences between Buddhism and Christianity are denied in favour of more modern false convergences. For example, it was all the fashion for a while to be Zen, and then the fashion changed. Now Tibetean Buddhists have worked very hard so that their variety of Buddism is that most fashionable variety of non-Christian belief which is enabled in "the west".

Do you actually have any evidence for any of this (i.e a source that can actually back it up with facts?)

Sticking with Buddhism (you are hopelessly wrong on Hinduism, too), what falsifications? Nobody has 'falsified' anything. And what, in terms of Buddhist and Christian comparative theology has been 'denied'? There has always been an element of animism in Tibetan Buddhism (although it is unwise to generalise, it is far from predominant in the largest school), which every Buddhist scholar and student is aware of. Tibetan Buddhists haven't worked "very hard" at anything (apart from there studies and practice, anyway), as you say the emphasis in the West has moved that way from Zen to some extent but that's because trends change, not because of some publicity campaign (unless you count the Dalai Lama's books). What is actually taught, as opposed to what appears in popular literature, is far closer to each other than you might think. Both are Buddhism.

The point I want to make is that I know that occultists are active in promoting specific belief systems as appropriate or not appropriate.

Again, how do you support that? It only makes sense if you classify all adherents of any Eastern tradition as one homogeneous group (of 'occultists' :rollseyes ) somehow picking between what traditions they teach - which is utter nonsense. Tibetan Buddhists teach Tibetan Buddhism, Zen masters teach Zen and no doubt Hare Krishna types teach their tradition of Hinduism. The first two, at least, have been doing so for a very long time. None of them switch from one to the other for convenience, although no doubt a few beginning students may in trying to find teh path that is right for them.

As a matter of interest, has it occured to you that one reason for the 'rise' of Tibetan Buddhism in the West might just be that so many Tibetan leaders (which, in terms of Tibet means religious), are now in exile from their country? Or was the Chinese invasion all part of the evil 'occultist' masterplan as well?

We must question, why are some Religions sects of "the east" being enabled and others not being enabled.

No, there is no need to ask that question. Again, your comments about 'enabling' are simply rubbish. Most of the traditions you refer to have been around for hundreds when not thousands of years. They have co-existed throughout that time, due to variations in belief, geography and cultural tradition. They still do.

But most especially Why is it that those belief sects being enabled are those which conspire to sustain out dated God-head modes of worship, and those beliefs which are not being enabled are those which sustain clear belief in One God Allah.

Sorry, but this is just paranoia on overdrive. I should maybe comment on "out-dated God-head modes of worship", as in my opinion the monotheistic tradition is just a simplication and anthromorphization of such traditions and in no way whatsoever an advance on them, but that's straying rather off topic. No Buddhist teachings, including the traditional and (probably) eldest ones, 'sustain clear belief in one God' as Creator - in Buddhist terms the actual concept is complete nonsense.

The might of Islam is the only avenue by which the occultists actions can be overcome.

You don't really believe this stuff, do you? :?

There is no reason, apart from occultist fiddling with the economy..

Maybe you thinking of the Bilderbergs? Or the Illuminati?! ;D

[New_Muslim]

Islam is perfect in every way.

[Skillganon]

Islam is perfect in every way.

Assalamu alaikum

I concur. :)

[Pygoscelis]

Isn't it redundant for a Muslim to say that Islam is perfect?

:)

[syilla]

it would be nice if someone could change this topic to...

ISLAM AD DEEN....


:)

[Malaikah]

:w:
well all religions are sacred for muslims

:sl:

Are they? Please explain what you mean by sacred and provide your proof. :)