Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 34 Next >>
Author Message
semar
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Senior Member

Joined: 11 March 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1323
Quote semar Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2009 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Apollos

There are some who believe that these verses aren’t original. But remember the amazing word patterns I mentioned? They are evident in these verses and some patterns are destroyed by removing them. I take that as an indication that they are authentic. But let’s say they aren’t and lets say at a minimum that one of the versions of Mark is corrupted. This means we have identified the area of concern and there is no reason to say “hey – everything must be corrupted!”. When we find an electrical short in a house we don’t say that. We use tools to identify the problem, fix it and in doing so confirm that the overall system is intact. If this minor “potential corruption” was all Muslims were claiming, I would say: “OK, lets talk about it”. But the type of corruption that is being asserted is massive.

 
It is funny comparing holly book with electricity. We called it "holly",  it should be no doubt, no corruption, no intervention. If there is doubt, corruption and  intervention even just a little,  that's mean it's not holly, it must be replaced with the new one, that 's why God revealed the Quran to remove the doubt of His  'holly book". In the Quran itself, God promised to maintain the Quran  by himself, because He knew he would not reveal another book. That's why  since the beginning of Islam till now, due to the easiness of the Quran to be memorized, in any given moment many-many peoples memorize the Quran. God never mention this kind of guaranty in any of Bible.
 
Just to compare when we can take the "doubt" or we have to get away from it, I used to work in aerospace factory, there was a rule in my department that if any product was dropped from 3 feet or more in high, must be rejected, even if we didn't find anything wrong on it. Because the risk of using products that might had "undetectable problem" can  be very serious. If this is happen in a car factory, it will be OK, because if something happen with the car we can easily correct it, because it is in the ground.
 
So, because this is a "holly book" should be no doubt at all, because if you find one, maybe there is some other problem but we can't detect it or prove it. That's why in the hadith collection, Mr. Bukhory and Mr. Muslim took very careful measure, if one person in the chain of the story, somebody mentioned that this person ever lie, the hadith would be rejected.


Edited by semar - 04 March 2009 at 7:38pm
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"
IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2009 at 2:37pm

 To Apollos

 Topic:Corruption of Bible

 Gospel of Mark 16:9-20

 
There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether 16:9-20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, were actually part of the original Gospel, or if they were added later. The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain these verses and the style differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting that they were a later addition. A few manuscripts even include a different ending after verse 8. By the 5th century, at least 4 different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark. There is much debate about the ending of Mark, and many textual problems—there are nine different endings known—but most of the debate focuses around the so-called ‘longer’ ending (16:9-20).

Possible Scenarios

    * The original ending of Mark was lost, and somebody else at a very early date completed the gospel. C. H. Turner has suggested that the original version of the gospel may have been a codex and the last pages may have been lost. However, it seems unlikely that Christian use of the codex form stretched as far back as the proposed date for the writing of Mark, though there is evidence for its adoption in the second century;

    * The author(s) of Mark intentionally ended the gospel at 16:8, and someone else at an early date completed the gospel;

 

    * More than one edition of Mark’s Gospel was made, so some Christian communities would have possessed the longer ending edition, and others would have possessed the edition that stopped at 16:8. ( SAM- MEANING PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT BIBLES)

    * The original ending was inconvenient to the church, and it was replaced.

Verses 16:8-9 read as follows in the New Revised Standard Version:

(16:8) So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (16:9) Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from who he had cast out seven demons.

Note the way the narrative flow abruptly changes from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose". Also, Mary Magdalene, introduced at the beginning of the chapter (16:1), is re-introduced almost as though she had not already been mentioned.

The final sentence in v.8 is also regarded as strange by many scholars, because in the Greek text it finishes with the conjunction ?a? (gar, 'for'). It is contended by those who see 16:9-20 as originally Markan that ?a? literally means “because”, and this ending to v.8 is therefore not grammatically coherent (literally, it would read “they were afraid because”). However, this objection misunderstands the nature of the Greek language. Since Greek is an inflexive language as opposed to a syntactic language such as English, word order is not as important. (Compare Grammar in Greek language and Grammar in English language.) ?a? is never the first word of a sentence: there is no such rule that states it can never be the last word, though it is very rare for a book to end with ?a?.

Still, ?a? aside, the grammar of v.8 is still odd, as the verb f?ße?µa? (phobeomai, 'I fear') has no object. Gundry also mentions that only 10% of Mark’s ?a? clauses—6 out of 66—conclude pericopes (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9-16). As such, this statistic favours the view that, rather than concluding 16:1-8, v.8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see v.8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written. Either way, the originality of vv.9-20 is denied by Gundry—and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of textual critics.

Mark 16:9-20 is in most of the undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark. A copy of a manuscript, however, is only as good as the text being copied, so all of the texts with 16:9-20 may simply be copies of the same non-Markan addition. The verses are absent in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, including the vitally important Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which both conclude the gospel at 16:8.

However, Mark 16:9-20 is absent in other early church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen). At any rate, all that can be concluded from this use of the longer ending is that, rightly or wrongly, Mark 16:9-20 had become part of Church tradition and scripture much like other apocryphal writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, neither of which are now considered canonical.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

 Some textual problems, however, still remain, e.g. whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20

the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation." Now this third form may be dismissed at once. Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion. Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form. Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.

We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. In favour of the short ending Eusebius ("Quaest. ad Marin.") is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt. xxviii, 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Christ's Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel. The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing". But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339). St. Jerome also says in one place ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin. Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20,

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm

Other hands have attached additional endings after Mark 16:8; see the note on Mark 16:9-20.

 All this information is enough to cast doubt upon the entire book of Mark. We don’t know for sure on who wrote Mark, we don’t where it was exactly written, we don’t know exactly when it was written. Finally the fact that there is such a controversy on the ending of Mark throws the whole book into   question just on this fact alone. The fact that additions have been made in the last chapter leaves us wondering what else has been added in Mark. 
 

 
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2009 at 4:25pm
Originally posted by Apollos

Originally posted by honeto

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,
 
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
 
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
 
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
 
 
Apollo,
first, a advice, please don't quote me for what you think I think or not rather what I state.
I have been very clear that generally there are three most important elements in anyone's belief (whether be from any belief). And I will repeat again:
1-God (what is )
2-God (what is not)
3-how to achieve salvation
I do not, and let me repeat do not apply my understanding or personal belief when I try to understand any one of them. My only standards are, logic, reasoning and truth, and to abide by them, not knowingly reject them or to decieve myself or anyone.
 
As I have said, the Bible contradicts on all three of them. If you are not understanding what I mean let me be more specific.
Define for me God as a Christian, and I will show you where the Bible contradicts it.
I have shown you the facts before about salvation already, as well as Jesus having a God, according to the Bible.
 
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2009 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by Apollos

Originally posted by honeto

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,
 
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
 
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
 
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
 
 
Apollo,
first, a advice, please don't quote me for what you think I think or not rather what I state.
I have been very clear that generally there are three most important elements in anyone's belief (whether be from any belief). And I will repeat again:
1-God (what is )
2-God (what is not)
3-how to achieve salvation
I do not, and let me repeat do not apply my understanding or personal belief when I try to understand any one of them. My only standards are, logic, reasoning and truth, and to abide by them, not knowingly reject them or to decieve myself or anyone.
 
As I have said, the Bible contradicts on all three of them. If you are not understanding what I mean let me be more specific.
Define for me God as a Christian, and I will show you where the Bible contradicts it.
I have shown you the facts before about salvation already, as well as Jesus having a God, according to the Bible.
 
Hasan
Hasan,
 
Pardon me for equating your personal beliefs and understanding with your reasoning and logic skills. I don't see any difference but apparently you do.
 
So I rephrase my question and ask again: Do you believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your reasoning and logic about what God is and isn't?
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2009 at 10:16pm

Several here have posted comments about questionable verses in the Gospel of Mark. I think it may be more practical to address these objections in one combined post here. If you think I have missed something important in doing this please let me know and I will respond accordingly.

 

When followers of Jesus say we believe in Biblical inerrancy we refer to the inerrancy of the original writings that God has inspired to be written. We do not mean that every translation or copy of that original is inerrant. The related subject of Bible reliability and trustworthiness relates to the copies of the originals that we have and the confidence we have that they communicate what the original Scriptures did. Based on the consistency and agreement of thousands of manuscripts, and quotations from other sources, the accuracy of these copies is 99.7% accurate. This means that there are a handful of verses or words that do not have complete agreement and consistency and these variations cast doubt on .3% of the total content. While it may be technically correct to label these variations “corruptions”, it is misleading to use this label in a wholesale way. Here are some of the reasons why this is so:

 

  1. No other ancient writing including the Quran has a greater consistency and agreement in the existing written copies. If one wants to contend that 100% accuracy and consistency is the only acceptable standard for copies of a non-corrupted writing, then all Scriptures are invalidated as no such writing exists on the face of the earth. 
  2. The variations in some of the versions do not effect any essential doctrines. This is because the Bible is designed in such a way that no one section or book contains all of the information on a given topic and almost everything is repeated from slightly different perspectives. For example, there is no one book on Salvation, or Heaven or God’s nature. (Isaiah 28:13  - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.) It appears that God foresaw the possibility of intentional corrupting and ensured this could not happen by using different authors, different eras, different languages, etc. – all saying the same thing.
  3. To say that variations like these are the same as wholesale Bible corruption is naïve and misleading. For example, the Quran has variations in some of its copies. (If you don’t agree with this statement, let me know and I will substantiate). Even if it didn’t have variant versions already, someone could create a variant version today. They could re-create everything except one letter or one word or a hundred words and call this a version of the Quran. Would the mere existence of this corrupted version invalidate the correct copies? Of course not. Because there are so many copies of the correct Quran that you would know when the corrupted version popped up. The only way that such a corrupted copy would matter is if it was accepted as the correct copy and lead people astray from what the correct copies taught. The same goes for the Bible and this is not happening. The fact that Bible commentators publish caveats next to these passages demonstrates that there is no deception or confusion going on.
  4. The reason we notice variations in certain versions of the Bible is because we have all the variations in hand. This means that one of them is undoubtedly the correct version. Even if humans couldn’t ascertain which version is the correct one, we have to admit that nothing has evaporated. We just have less confidence in a very few areas of the overall collection.
  5. By way of the intricate and supernatural word and letter patterns, we are able to detect if a passage has been changed.
  6. The small amount of variations we can find do not represent the tip of an iceberg that is lurking below the surface. They are the full extent of the problems. Far from supporting the theory that a massive corruption of the Bible has occurred, these minor variations argue for an incredibly reliable and consistent evidence of manuscripts and the original they derive from.
  7. The type of Bible corruption Muslims claim has to be a massive one that has deceived people from what the original Bible taught. These minor variations do nothing of the sort.

Apollos

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 05 March 2009 at 3:42pm
Apollo,
Minor mistakes or human errors are understandable, but opposites on very important issues like the one I have mentioned above are unforgiveable.
I am sorry if I am not yet understood by you Apollo. In all simplicity what I am saying is that if I read my car loan application saying interest rate is fixed at 10%,  while signing I see the last paragrah saying it will be 13%. what I have just discoverd is a discripency. I would not, neither you will sign such a document until its corrected, until then it has discripency.
 
Similarly if the book says Jesus is God, and later on shows that Jesus in fact has a God, and refer to someone else as God and Lord for me that's a discripency. God does not has a God.
 
Similarly if the book says that with Jesus' blood sacrifice everyone's sins have been paid for!  Yet in the same book not too far I read that each one will be judged acording to their deeds, furhter I read that each one will give account on the day of Judgement. To me that is in contrast to "paying for sins of the whole world with a blood sacrifice."
Its as simple as it reads.
 
Hasan


Edited by honeto - 05 March 2009 at 3:47pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 05 March 2009 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by honeto

Apollo,
Minor mistakes or human errors are understandable, but opposites on very important issues like the one I have mentioned above are unforgiveable.
I am sorry if I am not yet understood by you Apollo. In all simplicity what I am saying is that if I read my car loan application saying interest rate is fixed at 10%,  while signing I see the last paragrah saying it will be 13%. what I have just discoverd is a discripency. I would not, neither you will sign such a document until its corrected, until then it has discripency.
 
Similarly if the book says Jesus is God, and later on shows that Jesus in fact has a God, and refer to someone else as God and Lord for me that's a discripency. God does not has a God.
 
Similarly if the book says that with Jesus' blood sacrifice everyone's sins have been paid for!  Yet in the same book not too far I read that each one will be judged acording to their deeds, furhter I read that each one will give account on the day of Judgement. To me that is in contrast to "paying for sins of the whole world with a blood sacrifice."
Its as simple as it reads.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,

I agree with you that a writing – especially God’s Word – should not have contradictions in it. Where we disagree is – you look at an apparent contradiction and conclude it is an actual one. I think if you gave the Bible the same benefit of the doubt that you give the Quran, you would consider how there might be a reconciliation between things that look like opposites but are in fact, not.

 

I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don’t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don’t think the example you present is a real contradiction – is it?

 

Apollos

IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 06 March 2009 at 11:35am

"I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don’t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don’t think the example you present is a real contradiction – is it?"

 
I suppose if you can make one God into three then it is an easy to accept that actual contradictions and inconsistencies within the Bible are really not contradictions or inconsistencies at all. Why not. If one can be three and three can be one then three different versions of a Biblical event can all actually be the same version. Just close your eyes really tight and make it so.
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 34 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com