i have e question to all ppl
why we need e revalation that agreed with what we indentifie as wisdom it make the religion old and outdates
islam dont and that s e good think
as muslim and belivers we accept all the orders that came from allah and mohamed order us with and all of sharia laws as the the ultimate wisdome
but a lot of ppl dont identifie the teaching of mohamed as unwise and wrong
and i have e question to them
human knowlege and wisdom evolve throw time a lot take uropian society for an exemple even thay have cristianity when islam came in urope ppl debate if wemen are human bieng like man but now thy have all the wemen rights
but thise is the probleme society will continue to advance and evolve but islam is fixed
what i mean that we only existe in e very shorte time
and islam was e greate ource of huamn wisdom throught the history maybee ppl have better chance when the greatness of islam was more appairent to non muslim , the greatness is always appaarent to muslims
maybe you have better chance with islam if we existe at the time of mohamed and we have e contact with him
or existe when muslims have science and knowlege ike when the islamque nation was after mohamed
or time when muslims were united like untill the 17 th centry
but we cant we are here at thise time and we have islam
and we re here only in e short time
darknight - If I understand you correctly, you feel that humans had more understanding of God's truth in the early days. I can agree with you. Today, we have too many distractions from our innate wisdom of the spirit. It is difficult to stay in touch with instinct and sense what is beyond the world of objective reality.
There is more truth in that statement than anyone today can even begin to understand or express.
I have known people that could not stand a moment of quietness or solitude with themselves. They wanted to be disconected from their own inner thoughts.
I think that when we disconect from our own inner thoughts; we can not truly conected with ??? .......??? Well ?? anything out side of ourselves.
Amen, brother. People stay 'busy' because they are like animals in captivity, constantly pacing, anxious, and wary. Animals in the wild may be wary for survival purposes, but they are completely in tune with their environment.
Jerami, excellent point! I have even found myself falling into that trap. That is why the Sabbath is so important -- to let the noise and madness be still so that the true "work" may begin within.
well i didnt mean that but i ment that islamique stat when it we unified was better repretation of islam
Following orders of hatred of others who do not share your beliefs is not wisdom.
Religion must be allowed to evolve, grow, and change just like everything else. If we try to lock it away in stone, we will outgrow it and it will die. This is the biggest problem with the ancient/modern religions, we have outgrown them. We see the flaws in the 'cavemen' mentality of the people who established these very very old and now outdated belief systems.
Not sure what you're talking about there, God is the only one who decides whether or not your religion will evolve, grow or change, not you.
A man was lost at sea and treading water...at some point a fisherman came by and tried to rescue the man. The man responded, "No thanks, I'm waiting on God to save me."
I think you know the rest of the story...
The problem is that the followers of many religions had failed to record the Word revealed on the truthuful messengers prophets of the Creator God. Now Jesus was peaceful messenger prophets of the Creator God; Paul and Church deviated from his peaceful teachings; hence Christianity and its followers inflicted cruelties on many lands and killed many a thousand innocent people in different regions of the world.
These cruelties cannot be ascribed to Jesus.
Religion does not outgrow; it cannot.
@Mikel, your words sound like wisdom, but are they really?
Who is to decide what is to change? What are the lessons of the "cavemen mentality?" And how do you know what is truly wise and what is not?
@Troubled's words sound sweet, though I suspect a pound of deceit.
Your parable of the man lost at sea is a good one, but the lesson may be bigger than even you have appreciated. The lessons of old apply equally to today. They teach of humility which the man lost at sea lacked. He let his arrogance decide what he would accept as an act of rescue.
When a child strikes or curses their parent(s), they are displaying the height of arrogance which is the biggest barrier to them reaching God. This is ego -- the sense of entitlement that @Trouble seems to embrace as his "wisdom."
Logic is good, but don't let it blind you to a higher wisdom. Logic has been used for all manner of good _and_ evil. When someone holds resentment in place because of a perceived undeserved injustice, they are using the continuity of logic to cling to a ball and chain of ego. Forgiveness is the generosity that gives up this possession of hatred. It is the discontinuity which breaks with the chains which bind that person to the source of such resentment. Forgiveness may sound and feel illogical, but it comes from a place far superior to logic. Forgiveness comes from the realm of creation where the foundations of logic are built.
The wisdom of the Old Testament is just as valid today as it ever was. The techniques used to implement that wisdom have been modified from stoning to "love" and "turn the other cheek," but the wisdom remains vitally important.
Too many who want to change the teachings of the Bible do not understand them. They think their Homo sapiens bodies are vitally important. They feel their own viewpoint and its sense of entitlement (ego) is vitally important. But these are nothing but dust. In a few million years, they will be all but forgotten, and those who did not heed the wisdom of old will be like a ship without an anchor, floundering on the shoals of action-reaction, caught up in the yin and yang of victim-perpetrator -- wailing and gnashing.
I was reading today the words of Judges and the story of Gideon. He used great wisdom to "judge" whether or not what he heard was indeed the voice of God. Twice he asked for guidance -- once for dew-laden fleece and dry ground, and then dry fleece and dew-laden ground. Each morning, what he found affirmed his belief that what he had heard was indeed the the voice of God. And he used great wisdom to winnow the numbers of his men from thousands to a mere three hundred to face many thousands of the enemy.
Don't be as Abimelech and murder wisdom for your own selfish purposes.
Reveald Religion is not outgrown; only it is misunderstood; needs to be understood correctly.
soory i forget the first part
reread it pls
I just re-read several times, I still can't figure out what exactly your trying to say. Impossible to respond to whatever it is your asking when I can't make heads of tails of your actual post, sorry.
@Cags, nicely put. And Dave, you too.
But perhaps what @Darknight444 meant was that "supposed" wisdom was somehow less than worthy of being called such.
But aren't we all learning? (Or shouldn't we be?) How do we know what is wisdom?
@Cagsil has condemned wisdom, so are his words "stupid?" Misguided? I have no doubt that for him his words make perfect sense. He has his limited experience and can only see the universe from that viewpoint. We all fit into that category.
Mohammed gave us all great wisdom. So did Gautama Siddhartha. Perhaps there has been no greater than Yehoshua in bringing us wisdom for he came directly from God. Siddhartha and Mohammed acquired their wisdom through meditation/prayer (asking).
What greater "proof" do we have that Yehoshua was most divine in his life and mission than the acts of his life -- the miracles of healing, feeding the multitudes, casting out demons into swine, walking water and stopping the storm -- all leading up to the planned demonstration of selflessness (without ego) which would symbolize our own spiritual awakening (salvation)? This is proof, if only we choose to see the wisdom therein.
Wisdom is reason supported by Revelation and science; I agree with you that wisdom is never stupid.
oh cool a muslim scholar! I was hoping to run into one of those.
So, I was reading an article on Mohammed and Sexuality in Islamic cultures, to paraphrase, it stated that the Prophet Mo married a 6 year old and consummated that marriage when the child was 9. apparently this is very common knowledge? and it occurred not to long efore his death.
It also pointed out that apparently its cool with sharia or whatever to "thigh" babies, little girls and men. It didnt say it was a very active practice or anything though.
There are lots of intentionally misleading articles against Islam out there, so I didnt take it at face value ..but the sources from what I could tell seemed pretty legit.
So, is it true.. was Mo a child screwer? Because, thats the type of thing that discredits the message in modern times for modern people.
Pedophile prophets kind of poison the well.
just e clairfication aboute aicha and the wifes of mohamed
1 we know that mohamed have e lots of wifes and he was given that rigth like e lots of profets like abraham just because jesus didnt get married does not mean that marriage is wrong
2 moste of his wifes propose marriage to him by them selvs or by ther father like what happesn to aiysha
3 i lived in urope for e long time and i see what youre tenenage girsl do
9 not old enaught to get married but old enaught to have sex from the back
and to get pregnant and to do all that sexual deviancy
soo pls do not critic what is better than you
aicha was proposed to him by his folower freind her father ,abu bakre ,and her mother to marrie here when she was 6 but he say
untill she became e old enaught to carry chilren and understand here choice
and she was proposed by here and mother , it s not the e wrong and she was e woman
islam fix the age of marrige with pubrety that s it
my grande mother married when she was 12 and i saw here picture when she get married and she was big anaught then a lot bigger of 20 years old wemen of now
no one know how arabe wemen look are at that age it was in the 6 centery
god fix marriage with puberety who are you change it
Yes, a right contrived from a position of misogyny.
Having lots of wives, some of them being only nine years old is better?
LOL! You mean understand the choices that were made for her. And, she's supposed to understand the politics of old misogynists lusting after prepubescent girls at nine years old?
People who take a dim view of old misogynists lusting after prepubescent girls, perhaps?
I think much of what you are saying is misreprentation and more intended to incite hostility than to discuss something.
Over a thousand years ago, society was much different. The "moral standards" the West likes to tout (hypocritically at that) are a recent creation.
Marriage, especially in the case of Abu Bakr's daughter, also served symbolically, cementing an alliance between these two. This was entirely common throughout human history, and I am sure it still happens, though not with people at such a young age.
I do not follow Islam, or any official religion, for in my mind they are all simply creations of humanity, not deity. Imperialism of the soul is something that I stand firmly against... However, when it comes to trying to degrade someone elses faith simply because it props up my own spiritual delusions, I will not participate. Islam is not the "monstrosity" that many in the "West" try to make it out to be...
Too much Bible on the brain....
i just realized you said that 9 was old enough to "have sex from the back?"
Did I read that right?
you said (typed it) so nonchalantly it went right by me the first time.
You goofy religious types will never cease to amaze me. Damn Pedophile prophet lovers
and you want to be all evangelical about it too ... smh
sunforged - it was accepted and even expected at the time for girls to become wives at the age of 9. By 15 they were old maids.
Muhammad married all mature women.
It is a wrong information, friend.
Girls are mature when they're 6 years old, Paar? Are you interested in marrying a 6 year old "mature" girl, Paar?
The consensus seems to be that the marriage was indeed a truth.
Perhaps, its a "swept under the rug" embarrassing fact?
Let me ask you. You believe in creation. Everything we see evolves. From the universe, to life on earth. Why do you think the spiritual world would be any different? I say, if there is a God, stagnant faiths don't know him.
APPLAUSE for the thought of the day!!!! God evolved. Whether God exists or not, God surely evolved. If God is just in our heads, the concept evolved over time, and should God truly exist, he evolved, otherwise he would still be in pre-creational funk, comtemplating the lint in his navel
The Univesrs does not change; its laws are universal if correctly understood. The Creator God remains the same; only His attributes are perceived by us human beings as we our intelligence gets evolved.
I think she wanted to say this thing; if I have understood her correctly, then I agree with her.
If one believes of creation that evolved and still evolves; I would agree with that. As life evolves so the meaning of the Word revealed by the Creator God.
So, the story I read wasnt some anti-moslem propoganda. Wow, that blows my mind.
Following a "moral philosophy" that includes what we now consider to be child abuse or statutory rape just doesnt pass the muster with my personal values and observations of what is "right and wrong" ... whether thats 6th century child molesters or modern day priests buggering communion boys.
Thanks for the clarification.
Im guessing the "thighing" is an accurate practice too?
If I was to wax philosophic for a long period of time ..which I wont .. I would have to point out that most of the organized religions that attempt to limit and control mans sexuality rot from that point forward. I think most of you need to get laid proper and then you will really see God, loosen up ... and stop trying to release your pent up natural desires onto unwilling children.
Its really damn disgusting that an entire religion would consider such a man a "prophet" and capable of dictating morality... here we would beat him to death as a pedophile (although he might have to end up behind bars first) ... funny how times change
I have quite a few male muslim friends, for the most part very good people who try and put their best face forward .. but all of them have very flawed concepts of how to interact with women, have a very foolish and ignorant judgmental streak about "western" women and seem to be stunted in their emotional development as a result.
could be a coincidence ... but .. even in your short diatribe, you reflected the same childish concepts in reference to "european women"
exnay on the childsexnay as they don't like to celebrate it too muchnay in publicnay
Morality changes. When I was in college, we had a foreign student from an Arabic nation, and I don't know what his religion was. He thought that ogling fourteen year old girls was acceptable. He was a product of a culture where fourteen year old girls were prime for pickin. Not so long ago, it was also accepted in this culture. The morality that existed when I was young was based on Victorian values, Then came the "sexual revolution" then, of course, came A.I.D.S. Sometimes a grave health issue can change the moral course. One size fits all morality is possible...just not terribly probable...in our lifetimes. That is, of course, barring some kind of outside intervention. That also is possible...just not probable.
@sunforged - Mohammad was offered to marry Aisha when she was 6 years old, which was probably a custom of the Quraysh tribe who dominated Mecca before and in the early years of Islam, therefore the parents offered their daughter continuing the culture, but mohammad refused because she was too young and said to wait until she reaches puberty. if puberty came at the age of 9 in those days then it was the age of 9 ... if it came in the age of 12-13 then it was 12-13.
Calling Mohammad a pedophile would not be right when looking at the whole picture. In this day and age, a 15 year old girl is too young to be married. but until the last generation of the people in the east, girls were married with kids by the ages of 15 and 16.
Thank you for the clarification, that seems quite a bit different then the first explanation.
So the marriage was allowed to be consummated only after the child had reached puberty.
Guess, I just couldnt imagine how 9 could be post pubescent, especially considering the great age discrepancy between bride and groom.
Now it makes complete sense
have you not seen some couples in these days with about 20-30 year age gaps ... it happens today both in the east and the west - not with what we consider minors today though.
9 year olds might be considered young adults in their time ... like 18-19 year olds today.
Actually, that was kind of my point.
I ask whether "consummating a 9 year old' seems a bit young. I get several answers that this was normal and common.
In these times .. we would consider a 9 year old to be mentally immature and not likely to be physically mature.
Marriage and the promise of marriage at a younger age was not uncommon. The civil / religious act doesnt concern me.
But in your story an old man sleeps with a child because its the norm?
So where does the "Prophet" part come in? Where is the visualization/realization of obvious truths that should extend past time and region?
Nowhere, thats where! Just an old grimy man doing as old grimy men did in that day and region.
Doesnt really stand out as a man worthy of memory
From my most perfunctory of research .. i still see that 12-14 was the common age of puberty even in the 6th century ... some interesting (not fact checked) history on "age of consent" and various religions and cultures .. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html
Hey Sun,the age difference wasn't really all that much.I mean she was 9 and Mo was only 53.I believe it'surra?[spellcheck don't work in mohamadees]55 or 59 or there abouts that the marriage took place at 6 then consummated at 9.It's also backed up by the hadith?[freakin spellcheck]
...and while we're at it hows about one of you Mussies explaining abrogation to the fine folks in this thread.You Know,that wonderful guide of later violent writings over ruling the early peaceful writings in the big book of"Q".
Here's just one simple quote from the big book of"Q"that I love cause of it's kind[from a Mussies point of view]and for their own good kinda feel
"Kill the infidels where ever you find them".Yep,gotta love big Mo for his contributions to the good of all[so long as your a mussie male]people.LMFAO.
live up to your name and play cheaptricks.
the quote that you mentioned is around chapter 2 of the Quran ... it is about when the prophet was going to war against non-muslims ... ofcourse it would tell them to kill if you're going to war.
i'm sure the president bush or obama would have said similar when going to war in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, or do you think their orders would be to go kiss hug and make up with the people? after killing over 2 million people in the east i think it's pretty clear what the orders are.
The orders from Bush & Obama didn't specify "infidels". Or, in this case Muslims.
They are after TERRORISTS, most of whom follow the Koran you defend.
You might want to get things in perspective before you make there (irrelevant) comparisons.
If what arksys says is true, and it probably is considering religious books, then killing infidels is no different than killing Caananites, Jebusites, Hedonites, or any of the tribes mentioned for the Israelites of old to kill. Not taking sides here, just pointing out flaws in the argument.
Also, if the new Koran was indeed changed from the old, then Mohamed had nothing to do with it.
the Quran has never been changed ... there is no new and old.
I thought I read that somewhere in this forum. Of course, that doesn't make it true.
at that time the war was about religion ... the infidels drove out the muslims from mecca in the start ... so they were the enemy in the war.
what i meant was when you go to war you order to kill the enemy, and even bush and obama and every other leader who sends his army to war say... kill them.
It does not mean to kill them today, that was only for the war.
Religions shouldn't be about telling their followers to kill anyone, infidels or otherwise.
What about the Muslim/Islamic Conquests in which they invaded other countries and murdered their people?
you are thinking of the perfect world ... which is not what we live in ... i would love this world not to have any war, any poverty, any racism and all the other good stuff so mankind could flourish ... but the reality is that we see war, poverty, racism every single day.
about the muslim conquests ... i agree it occured but i do not know the details of it therefore cannot comment on it.
Name the country; please
Religion does not need any territory; it has nothing to do with the conquests or invasion; religion is in the hearts and minds of the people; they have to be convinced with reason, revelation, knowledge and rationality.
How about the conquests themselves...? Funny how a religion of peace can be involved in so many wars it's followers created.
Byzantine–Arab Wars: 634–750
Conquest of Persia and Iraq: 633–651
Conquest of Transoxiana: 662–709
Conquest of Sindh: 664–712
Conquest of Hispania (711–718) and Septimania (719–720)
Conquest of the Caucasus: 711–750
End of the Umayyad conquests: 718–750
Conquest of Nubia: 700–1606
Incursions into southern Italy: 831–902
Conquest of Anatolia: 1060–1360
Byzantine-Ottoman Wars: 1299–1453
Hear no evil, see no evil...
What has Muhammad to do with these wars? These were done later, after the demise of Muhammad without any express authority from the root teachings mentioned in Quran the first and the foremost source of guidance of Islam, whatever the denomination.
Islam spread peacefully in the whole world, by peaceful means and by the peaceful people.
LOL! Notice that if you claim to have an open mind, you can't refuse to ignore history and the atrocities committed by Muslims when they tried to conquer the world.
But, we already know you're not honest and refuse everything that doesn't agree with your version of Islam.
There was no conquests for the sake of religion; religion does not allow it. Islam spread peacefully in the world.
2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things."
4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…"
5:54 "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."
8:59-60 "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know ..."
You go hither and thither; select any verse from the above and mention five preceding and five following verses for the context, your point of view will dissolve in the air; it is specific for a stituation not a general instruction.
LOL! Yeah Paar, I knew you'd come up with an incredibly lame and pointless excuse to support the hatred of your religion, which states quite clearly I am your enemy and you are commanded to do whatever it takes to protect yourself and your faith from me and anyone else who criticizes or rejects Allah.
And, I know you think we're all just a bunch of slack-jacked hillbillies with the intellects of gnats, but that's just another irrational belief on your part.
Play that banjo, boy! Yeehah!
Please try to understand Quran from the verses in context.
I took a course in comparative religion when I was a young man[before I saw the real agenda of all organised religion]from a professor who had spent her career[she was 76 at the time]immersed in that discipline.
This is what she had to say about Islam in explanation of it's diametrically opposed message and use of peace and violence[I'm paraphrasing a bit cause it was some 40 years ago]
Islam is always presented as a religion of peace while it's a minority.When It becomes a majority and seizes control[At this point she draws her hand across her throat and says]Join us OR!
That is the closest explanation I've heard for"Abrogation"as well.Also,It is perfectly acceptable for mussies to use deceit,lie,and perpetrate violence so long as it advances the institution of Islam.
Lots of hub writers in this thread believe the path is an Individual thing followed by each person,Bravo;No one has the right to Force another into their beliefs and perceptions of the direction they should take.
What about the Muslim who murders his own daughter calling it an "Honor Killing" simply because she embarrassed the family and brought shame by not wearing her Burka in the presence of a man? Doesent sound right to me but the father believes he did the right thing according to His religious beliefs.
Like these, Dave?
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
How many Muslims participate in such acts? If Islam itself is what you represent it to be then these atrocities should be widespread...
I can look at Jim Jones and then characterize Christians as a whole (especially Evangelicals) in his manner? Right? How many doomsday cult Christian groups have existed? (I used to be part of one..and I am sure there are far more out there than one would think) Should I then stereotype and demagogue Christians as a whole?
I don't think so...
Good point, Mike.
Hitler a Christian?
The labels that people wear rarely speak of their own true nature. If Hitler ever called himself a "Christian," when did he ever "turn the other cheek?" When did he ever forgive and love? From his actions we know only of his ego -- his ambition and his sense of self-righteousness -- the sense of German entitlement.
And for those who claim to love logic and reason, how much logic do they show when they abandon it to denounce God and miracles?
Many with whom I've discussed certain miracles I've witnessed throw logic out the window and betray their own prejudice and belief that such things are impossible. Some of them say, because there is no videotape, it didn't happen, and show no curiosity for the possibility that such a thing actually did occur.
Tightly Held Misconceptions of Some Atheists
Some claim that religion is only good for starting wars and engage in no discussion of anything that contradicts their shallow assertion. And when one such atheist thought that all believers were shallow and ignorant of real-world things, he would not discuss the sciences because he could not. He had "no use for such things."
And another atheist who holds high regard for evolution could not believe that a Christian could believe in evolution, too. Instead, he called that Christian a liar. Such arrogance throws logic out the window. Not all atheists are like this, but they are all too rare in my experience.
Perhaps the biggest barrier for many atheists is that science does not follow its own credo -- scientific method. This warns against bias, which is very much wisdom, but then scientists use "skepticism" as their chief operating basis, and yet skepticism is full of bias. Go figure! And we all thought they were supposed to be smart.
The greatest scientists used restraint and humility instead of skepticism when they made great strides forward. Why is skepticism such a barrier? Not only does it contain a bias -- that of doubt -- but some forms of skepticism are entirely subjective and destructive rather than constructive or neutral. These we find too often in the forums -- unsupported dismissiveness and self-indulgent ridicule. Ahh, but it feels good to the ego, doesn't it? And that should tell us all something very important about such behavior.
Wisdom of Humility
Many Christians do not know what "humility" means. They think they have it all figured out and rub other people's noses in it. Without humility, they're betraying Christianity and rubbing their own ego in other people's faces. But ego is an equal-opportunity destroyer. Every group is susceptible to its "charms."
One can have "faith" (confidence in God) and still be humble. And no, it's not an oxymoron like "stupid wisdom."
what i ment in thise poste
is simply that the right and wrong by all western society in other parts it conferme islam
like the concept of charity ,the sadaqua , taking care of family and e lot and e lots of teachings
e lots of ppl dont know thise but sharia was e huuge source of the international laws
and contradict with islam in some parts like wemen rights and decency
which means that is still e new religion and it s not outdated
islamique faith is based that islamique teashing is for all the times ( and good to all humanity
but we existe only for e short time we cant wait for huamnity to advance to verify evry concept
we must trust allah
There is no such teaching in Quran to kill sons and daughters.
The Christians could do it morally perhaps as their God-the-father did kill his, as they state, "only begotten son" called Jesus .
Honour killers are just illiterate and ignorant people; no sane person would do it.
my friend do not repond to them stupid lossers
thy are just soo stupid
1 thy are confusing islamique societys with asian non muslim and latin societys
2 thy are confusing an islamique laws with is basically self defence in ther laws with e practice done by non muslims
3 have debate one in another forum aboute honor killing and after e long long time and i explaint to him he say that kniow all a long that thise honor killing is deffused in brasil and india not in islamique countrys
o nearlly heat my head in the wall if he know why he accuse not muslim but islam it self with such e crimes
dont debate them lossers
by darknight4445 years ago
i saw e post that the teaching of mohamed are againste the teachting of jesus soo i poste thise to clairifie to you aboute the religion of jesus and islamislam came to clairify the first revalationislam came to assert...
by pisean2823115 years ago
guys christianity is slowly and gradually on decline...Islam is growing religion but at same time no of agnostics , atheist are increasing...so what do you think would replace christianity?...islam or...
by errum fattah7 years ago
once rasulullah came over mushriks of mecca and invited them to accept islam, abu jahl rebuked him, saying; "If u r doing this so that we will testify before God in the other world that you performed ur mission of...
by usmanali817 years ago
This is the story of a martyred Sister Sherbeni, who embraced Shahadat while trying to uphold the ruling of Hijab in Islam. We are proud of our Sister who didnt sell her dignity, honor and respect for cheap. Rather, she...
by Son Of Hamza6 years ago
This question is very important as it touches a very sensitive issue that has always been the favorite misconception, through which Orientalists propagate against Islam. They deal with this issue of the Prophets' nine...
by gulnazahmad6 years ago
Prophet Muhammad was the most peaceful man on the earth ever and he is and he will be. People who say that religion teaches aggression should know that all the prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses who followed their...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.