Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Guest FireyWitness

Who Said The Bible Is Corrupted?

Recommended Posts

Guest FireyWitness

I am told by Muslims the Bible is corrupted book, I am asked "so how can you trust something in that book if you dont have reference, like we muslims have reference the Quran?"

The Bible tells us why Jesus had to have been born of a virgin. The Quran doesn't tell why it just states He was born of a virgin. The only place and book in all history that information could be found before the Quran was written was in the NT Bible. The Bible has problems but no where near the amount Muslims think! The central message of the gospel is consistent and in tack fully.

Now, I would have a problem with the Bible if there were a Christian version of Uthman (non prophet) who burned all our original manuscripts and recompiled them into a single book, but that never happened. So why shouldn't I continue trusting it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

You shouldn't trust it because you yourself aren't sure if the books were written by eyewitnesses. 

 

"Because I wasn't there. I believe they were inspired by faith, but I don't know if they were direct witnesses or indirect witness. I can only speak of what I know. "

 

The books are claimed to be written by eyewitnesses, at least Matthew and John, yet you really don't know if they were direct witnesses. That's quite a contradiction.

 

Furthermore, I will give you more reason not to believe the NT:

 

13:1    If ever you have among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 13:2    And the sign or the wonder takes place, and he says to you, Let us go after other gods, which are strange to you, and give them worship; 13:3    Then give no attention to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God is testing you, to see if all the love of your heart and soul is given to him. 13:4    But keep on in the ways of the Lord your God, fearing him and keeping his orders and hearing his voice, worshipping him and being true to him. 13:5    And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams is to be put to death; for his words were said with the purpose of turning you away from the Lord your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt and made you free from the prison-house; and of forcing you out of the way in which the Lord your God has given you orders to go. So you are to put away the evil from among you.

 

The fact is Jesus and the Trinity are nowhere mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, he amounts to a strange god. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your information about the Quran is lacking, Quran stated why Jesus pbuh was born miracoulous( it was a sign for mankind)

Who said the bible is corrupted! Many including the bible itself in which Paul says he is expressing his personal opinion which could be wrong and that means the bible contains falible speech and the word of god is infallible as you know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes using that logic, how can you trust the Koran? While its true that it is said yo be guarded that didn't stop a goat from eating pages that are now lost. You'll never know fully what those pages contain? Then, also when it was one man uthman who compiled your faith into the Koran years later. What makes you think he didnt just choose versed favorable to him. While its true othersay have known about it if uthman held political or military authority what makes you think others would speak against him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually what was written on those pages is known. 

 

What makes you think 'Uthman (ra) chose verses favorable to him? There's nothing in the Qur'an that is particularly favorable to 'Uthman (ra). If you think there is a verse that is in particular favorable to him, quote it. Don't just ask questions in order to create doubt. Just speak from the facts. 

 

What you must understand that it wasn't 'Uthman (ra) personally who did the compiling. It was a group effort by the Companions (ra). If you want to read more on the subject, here's an excellent book: http://individual.utoronto.ca/fantastic/The_History_of_the_Quranic_Text_from_Revelation_to_Compilation.pdf

 

You should read it because a lot of Christians and non-Muslims are ignorant of the history of the Qur'an. It's not as simple as "Uthman burned books and standardized the Qur'an!". The compilation happened years before Uthman.

 

Yes, it's true that 'Uthman (ra) held political and military authority. However, the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were his peers. These men had literally defended the religion of Islam from extinction in the times of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? Do you think they would let 'Uthman (ra) change the Qur'an? Another thing you must take into consideration is the fact that 'Uthman got murdered. He was murdered by rebels - so obviously somebody was willing to speak against him, whether for just or unjust reasons. His house got surrounded by rebels for days before they entered his house and murdered him. There are two things to take into consideration. First, they didn't rebel because they claimed that he had changed the Qur'an. Second, men were willing to fight for 'Uthman, however, he ordered them not to fight. Thus, it's not like Uthman was a dictator who wielded supreme political and military authority, and was willing to use it in an unjust manner. 

 

Another thing you must take into consideration is that 'Uthman (ra) did not live forever. However, after his death, nobody disputed the authority of the Qur'an. 

 

Uthman was one of the earliest converts. He was a rich Quraishi. He lost his wealth and status among the Quraish as a Muslim. He immigrated to Madinah as a poor man. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married two of his daughters to him (they weren't married at the same time). He had memorized the whole Qur'an. In Medinah, when he attained wealth once again, he used to spend it in the way of Allah during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). Why would he want to change the Qur'an?

 

Lastly, this thread is about the Bible. Even if the Qur'an was corrupt, it wouldn't help the Bible's case one bit.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus in the NT did not invite the Jews to worship strange gods. He taught and showed them he is the same deity of the Old Testament in the course of salvation history and now he has personally come down to save his people.

 

I don't find a passage in the Hebrew Bible saying: God consists of three different persons who are co-equal, one of them being the Father, the second the Son and the third the Holy Spirit. I don't find anything about one of the persons being called Jesus. The fact is the Jews never knew a triune god nor did they know God as Jesus.Thus, he is a strange God to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the passage forbids other strange gods.

 

The passage speaks of other gods who are strange to the israelites. Did the israelites know Jesus? Did they know a triune god? If not, then he was strange to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes using that logic, how can you trust the Koran? While its true that it is said yo be guarded that didn't stop a goat from eating pages that are now lost. You'll never know fully what those pages contain? Then, also when it was one man uthman who compiled your faith into the Koran years later. What makes you think he didnt just choose versed favorable to him. While its true othersay have known about it if uthman held political or military authority what makes you think others would speak against him?

 

Quran wasn't been preserved through pages or scribes' pencils. it's been preserved through the Muslems' hearts, generation after another from heart to tung, to heart to tung. there were 1000s of Quran memorizers at the time of the prophet PBUH, those memorizers spread out to every where in the new Islamic states, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran,Russia,........etc. helding the Quran Schools and teaching 10,000s and 100,000s of the new memorizers before Othman RA . did you ever heard/red that Othman RA ordered the people to stop transferring what they had in their hearts, or did he killed a memorizer?!!

 

The Quran is too small and harmonic compared to the bible 1/11 of it, and easy to be memorized, you can find now a days 10,000,000s of Quran memorizers many of them are non-arab speaking persons. BTW, If the goats ate all the Quran copies, this very moment, that  won't affect the Muslems, we still have 10,000,000s of alive copies in the Muslems' hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange gods means deities other than Yahweh, not a concept they haven't heard of concerning Yahweh, there's a difference. Yahweh revealed himself to the israelites step by step, then finally fully revealed himself through his son.

 

Go tell this to the Jews and see what they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

    

     You are correct this thread is about the Bible and not the Koran.  Yet, in reality this thread is about belief in the Scriptures. The Koran if your a Muslim or the Bible if your a Christian. It comes down to faith.  You bring up the issue of eye witnesses yet, you yourself have the same problem.  Why, its simple while thousands  have committed the Koran to memory its the core scripture that's at issue here.  Did Mohammed receive this from the Angel Gabriel, or some other source?  Or did he make it up using the knowledge he'd gained of Christianity along his caravan travels? 

 

     Muslims are only following their scripture when they say the bible is corrupted and that is what Christians have to accept.  Don't misunderstand me.  As a Christian I can completely disagree as all Christians should.  Yet, our disagreement won't change the Islamic stance concerning the Gospels.  Does that mean we have to agree that the Muslim stance is the correct one?  No.  For Christians are supposed to follow the Gospels its our Books after all.  Now many Muslim's might say prove it its not corrupted.   That is a brilliant tactic. Yet, a dishonest one.  Why, because the Christians are automatically put on the defensive.  They have to put up or shut up and in essence become biblical scholars to prove what we are taught from childhood and faith is not an acceptable answer for it cannot be proven in a satisfactory manner to them.  Even if the Christian becomes a scholar it won't change the Muslim position. 

 

      The truth is its not the Christian that has to prove the Gospels.  Its the Muslims that have to prove the Koran and the Islamic faith.  Why, you might ask? Its simple Christianity came first.  Even when the OT is used like it was at the top of this thread it must be understood that Christianity came from Judaism.  Christians can honestly say we're israel just as the Jews of today can.  We still offer sacrifice as the Old Testament Jews did before the destruction of the Temple.  We follow the ten Commandments.  Can Muslim's say the same? Even though there is some disagreement concerning the Gospels at least among the Biblical Scholars that follow the criteria of Textual Criticism.  That actually, is because they just want to show actual Christianity through a dissecting lens and as such they miss the big picture.  They slice and trim the Gospel down to nothing more than fragments that are academically acceptable and in the process some lose their faith during this process. They forget how vast the Christian faith truly is.  Its more than just a collection of books.  They also tend to forget the message of the scripture in the process. As for Matthew and John and eye witness testimony, though tradition may name them Matthew and John and Scholars can't find the actual name of the person, doesn't mean that it wasn't an eye witness account.  It just means the actual witness's name may never be known satisfactorily to science.  Also the age of the Gospels are estimated from 60 to 90 A.D.  That's old.  True, the Islamic Koran may have been compiled sooner, but that doesn't mean the Christian faith wasn't passed down orally.  In fact oral transmission and apostolic succession are must likely the way it was preserved before the New Testament was written and even up to today.  The Divine Liturgy is Older than the new testament after all.  Just my two cents.              

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

    

     You are correct this thread is about the Bible and not the Koran.  Yet, in reality this thread is about belief in the Scriptures. The Koran if your a Muslim or the Bible if your a Christian. It comes down to faith.  You bring up the issue of eye witnesses yet, you yourself have the same problem.  Why, its simple while thousands  have committed the Koran to memory its the core scripture that's at issue here.  Did Mohammed receive this from the Angel Gabriel, or some other source?  Or did he make it up using the knowledge he'd gained of Christianity along his caravan travels? 

 

     Muslims are only following their scripture when they say the bible is corrupted and that is what Christians have to accept.  Don't misunderstand me.  As a Christian I can completely disagree as all Christians should.  Yet, our disagreement won't change the Islamic stance concerning the Gospels.  Does that mean we have to agree that the Muslim stance is the correct one?  No.  For Christians are supposed to follow the Gospels its our Books after all.  Now many Muslim's might say prove it its not corrupted.   That is a brilliant tactic. Yet, a dishonest one.  Why, because the Christians are automatically put on the defensive.  They have to put up or shut up and in essence become biblical scholars to prove what we are taught from childhood and faith is not an acceptable answer for it cannot be proven in a satisfactory manner to them.  Even if the Christian becomes a scholar it won't change the Muslim position. 

 

      The truth is its not the Christian that has to prove the Gospels.  Its the Muslims that have to prove the Koran and the Islamic faith.  Why, you might ask? Its simple Christianity came first.  Even when the OT is used like it was at the top of this thread it must be understood that Christianity came from Judaism.  Christians can honestly say we're israel just as the Jews of today can.  We still offer sacrifice as the Old Testament Jews did before the destruction of the Temple.  We follow the ten Commandments.  Can Muslim's say the same? Even though there is some disagreement concerning the Gospels at least among the Biblical Scholars that follow the criteria of Textual Criticism.  That actually, is because they just want to show actual Christianity through a dissecting lens and as such they miss the big picture.  They slice and trim the Gospel down to nothing more than fragments that are academically acceptable and in the process some lose their faith during this process. They forget how vast the Christian faith truly is.  Its more than just a collection of books.  They also tend to forget the message of the scripture in the process. As for Matthew and John and eye witness testimony, though tradition may name them Matthew and John and Scholars can't find the actual name of the person, doesn't mean that it wasn't an eye witness account.  It just means the actual witness's name may never be known satisfactorily to science.  Also the age of the Gospels are estimated from 60 to 90 A.D.  That's old.  True, the Islamic Koran may have been compiled sooner, but that doesn't mean the Christian faith wasn't passed down orally.  In fact oral transmission and apostolic succession are must likely the way it was preserved before the New Testament was written and even up to today.  The Divine Liturgy is Older than the new testament after all.  Just my two cents.              

I don't have anything to reply to this post, but I just want to say it is beautifully and objectively written and I can appreciate your viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure you’re familiar that the audience of St Matthew’s gospel was primarily for Jewish converts to Christianity. Every Jew is required to confess the Shema “Hear, O israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is ONE”. How on earth did they convert?

 

Did everybody convert? Anyway, those who converted, like their ancestors, were idolaters at heart. "These are your gods israel who took you out of Egypt". Two supposed golden calf-incidents are recorded in the Bible. Need I say more? Those Jews simply followed in their ancestors footsteps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So all these Jewish-Christian converts professed there are three gods once they became Christians?

 

Of course they didn't profess that they believed in three gods once they were Christians, but it still does not mean that they weren't idolaters and disbelievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

    

     You are correct this thread is about the Bible and not the Koran.  Yet, in reality this thread is about belief in the Scriptures. The Koran if your a Muslim or the Bible if your a Christian. It comes down to faith.  You bring up the issue of eye witnesses yet, you yourself have the same problem.  Why, its simple while thousands  have committed the Koran to memory its the core scripture that's at issue here.  Did Mohammed receive this from the Angel Gabriel, or some other source?  Or did he make it up using the knowledge he'd gained of Christianity along his caravan travels? 

 

     Muslims are only following their scripture when they say the bible is corrupted and that is what Christians have to accept.  Don't misunderstand me.  As a Christian I can completely disagree as all Christians should.  Yet, our disagreement won't change the Islamic stance concerning the Gospels.  Does that mean we have to agree that the Muslim stance is the correct one?  No.  For Christians are supposed to follow the Gospels its our Books after all.  Now many Muslim's might say prove it its not corrupted.   That is a brilliant tactic. Yet, a dishonest one.  Why, because the Christians are automatically put on the defensive.  They have to put up or shut up and in essence become biblical scholars to prove what we are taught from childhood and faith is not an acceptable answer for it cannot be proven in a satisfactory manner to them.  Even if the Christian becomes a scholar it won't change the Muslim position. 

 

      The truth is its not the Christian that has to prove the Gospels.  Its the Muslims that have to prove the Koran and the Islamic faith.  Why, you might ask? Its simple Christianity came first.  Even when the OT is used like it was at the top of this thread it must be understood that Christianity came from Judaism.  Christians can honestly say we're israel just as the Jews of today can.  We still offer sacrifice as the Old Testament Jews did before the destruction of the Temple.  We follow the ten Commandments.  Can Muslim's say the same? Even though there is some disagreement concerning the Gospels at least among the Biblical Scholars that follow the criteria of Textual Criticism.  That actually, is because they just want to show actual Christianity through a dissecting lens and as such they miss the big picture.  They slice and trim the Gospel down to nothing more than fragments that are academically acceptable and in the process some lose their faith during this process. They forget how vast the Christian faith truly is.  Its more than just a collection of books.  They also tend to forget the message of the scripture in the process. As for Matthew and John and eye witness testimony, though tradition may name them Matthew and John and Scholars can't find the actual name of the person, doesn't mean that it wasn't an eye witness account.  It just means the actual witness's name may never be known satisfactorily to science.  Also the age of the Gospels are estimated from 60 to 90 A.D.  That's old.  True, the Islamic Koran may have been compiled sooner, but that doesn't mean the Christian faith wasn't passed down orally.  In fact oral transmission and apostolic succession are must likely the way it was preserved before the New Testament was written and even up to today.  The Divine Liturgy is Older than the new testament after all.  Just my two cents.              

 

I must say that I find your post as a whole absolutely dishonest. Let me set some context here.

 

You say that Muslims must prove the Koran and Islam but Christians don't have to prove the Gospels. That's absolutely ridiculous and dishonest. I say all religions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity, must prove themselves. This is a fair standard. Judaism and Christianity do not get a free pass because they are older. 

 

You don't follow the Ten Commandments. Stop being dishonest. You don't observe the Sabbath (no Sunday does not pass off for Sabbath). You make images. You definitely don't offer sacrifice as in the Hebrew Bible. 

 

By the way, I would think that the Bible was not properly transmitted even if I was not a Muslim. That's due to the evidence out there or lack thereof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s your belief not theirs.

 

Mate I think you’re clutching at straws here, you quoted “These are your gods israel who took you out of Egypt” which had nothing to do with the concept of the holy Trinity and everything to do with worshipping the Egyptian god Apis. Now you’re trying to impose your belief on the text and on other people. It doesn’t work that way. Anyway I think I’ve made my point clear. You’re free to accept or reject.

 

Peace in Christ.

 

You know that the golden calf was a single calf, right? The Jews worshiped the calf because they needed  an idol to represent God. They were worshiping one god. They thought they were worshiping God who took them out of Egypt, the God of Moses, but they weren't. That god was a false one. It's the same thing with Christianity. The Jews who worshiped Jesus are like those people who worshiped the golden calf. Both are idolaters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younges,

You are natural feel stronger about your opinion, as I do about mine. In this our respective faiths we are the same.

 

I still stand by what I've written. You see even though your view has some merit, Christians shouldn't just accept it. One, its not being honest. And two, Christians are called to judge the fruits of those who say their gospel is better. So, even though Muslims say their faith is the faith of Abraham Christians must judge Islam by its fruit. So yes Islam would have to prove itself.

I'm sorry my friend, there is no other way for Christians. Even your own faith says there is no compulsion in religion. So, accept my choice as I accept yours.

 

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do, that’s why I pointed out to you the name of this single calf is “Apis”. Why do you think Moses requested Pharaoh a 3 days journey out into the wilderness? Because they couldn’t sacrifice in the land of Egypt what the Egyptians worshipped and that included Apis, it would have been “abominable to the Egyptians”. The book of Leviticus is filled with instructions to sacrifice bulls and other animals the Egyptians worshipped in order for the israelites to break free from their 400 years attachment to this cult. On the day of atonement the high priest was required every year to sacrifice a bull on behalf of himself in order to repudiate the attachment their forefather Aaron had to Apis the god of fertility, power and wealth.

 

You're still missing the point. The point is that the israelites created the golden calf to represent their God who had taken them up out of Egypt. Yes, they got influenced by other idolaters such as the Egyptians. In the same way, the Jews who worshiped Jesus also got influenced by idolaters such as the Romans and were idolaters at heart. You asked me how on earth Jews converted to Jesus worship even if they believed in the Shema. I explained to you that they converted in the same way that their ancestors did. Both believed that God is One. The Jews took up the calf to represent God. The Jewish Christians took up Jesus. Both are wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gmcbroom,

 

I think your approach is absolutely dishonest. I already told you that Islam must prove itself. However, I don't think your standard is quite fair. My standard applies to every religion. It's a fair standard. All religions should prove themselves. Do you think that is wrong? Do you even understand it?

 

What are you going to say to an Atheist who wants you to prove his religion, or to a Jew? Christianity came before Atheism, therefore, Atheism has to prove itself? Christianity is older than Judaism, therefore, Jews have to prove Judaism? How's about Buddhists? What will you tell them? Will you try to explain to them that they have to prove their religion and you don't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

     Actually, you make a good point.  However, what is the one thing central to every religion?  The answer is faith. When one demands proof or facts to verify a religion they often discount the faith of the individual presenting the religion in question.  They've instead placed the burden of belief on tangible evidence something they can verify with their senses.  But the truth is, faith goes much deeper than that.  That's why some religions persist even today because of the faith of the individuals that hold that religion sacred.  It answers that internal question raging inside every person.  However, faith varies with every individual. 

 

     So, I apologize. I did you a disservice by saying what I said earlier.  I'm not incorrect, but tact was lacking in my post.  For you, proof seems necessary and I was callous to that, rude even.    

 

     Now, as for proof while I can offer the scriptures it wouldn't be accepted as per the reasons I stated above.  The Islamic stance that the Gospels and Torah are corrupted. Does that end the case for Christianity?  Nope, not even close.  Why because there's more to Christianity than just the Sacred Scriptures.  There's tradition, and even more.  But, often, even among Christians, Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture isn't enough.  Does that expose Christianity today as corrupt and even false?  Nope.  Often Christianity is best spread by living example.  In short those that actually practice what they preach often bring many to the Catholic faith without uttering a word.

 

I have to go now but I'll elaborate more in my next post.  Patience my friend.  The answers are coming.

 

Peace be with you.              

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace be with you.              

 

And upon you

 

I actually agree with your last post. Faith is a major component in religion - the major component. So I agree with your post, but if we are to have an intellectual discussion, we can't just say, "We have faith in this, prove us wrong". An intellectual discussion needs to be based on evidence. To quote the Gospel of John, it says something to the effect, "Believe in the works even if you do not believe in me". It's obvious neither side believes the other. Thus, what we need to see is works, i.e. evidence (from both sides). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

 

     Your right of course.  The next would have to be the level and type of evidence or works that would be accepted by the party asking the question.  That is where things very individual.  After all both Muslims and Christians could point to the great architectural, philosophical, and mathematical achievements of the past 1600 to 2000 years and say see what we've produced.  No, the actual evidence is more subtle and more individual.  The best evidence would be the fruits or works of the people be they Christian or Muslim.  How we all behave.  Do we live and practice our respective faiths in accordance with our religious tenets and scriptures.  That's why its so annoying when something bad happens say perpetrated by a group that says their Christians.  Yet, that's where the rubber meets the road.  Because lets say they committed murder?  Are they really acting like Christians?  Typically no.  Yet, it depends on the vocation of the Christian.  If your a religious, or under the Holy Orders of Deacon, Priest, or Bishop then yes they'd accept martyrdom.  But, if your a father of five, and bandits are breaking in your home you'd be duty bound to defend your family and stay behind while they fled.  But, martyrdom would also be an option.  However, that said a bunch of Christians massacring others isn't condoned for any reason.  Christians don't follow an eye for an eye. 

 

Peace be with you.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muhammad never to my knowledge said I am a prophet of God / Allah listen to and believe me. 

 

Well, this honestly goes on to show how little you know of Islam. The fact that Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is a Prophet of Allah is stated in explicit terms in the Qur'an, by the Prophet Muhammad himself, and by his followers. 

 

I like how you make a casual comparison between God in human form and a police officer - terrible comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

      Actually, his comparison is quite accurate.  If you approach it from his point of view.  From a Christian point of view it makes sense.  After all,to Christians Jesus is the Son of God.  However,his way of proclaiming it was humble, subtle, and very effective. He didn't just say it he proved it on many occasions.  For in the Christian Gospels only God can forgive sins and Jesus not only forgave sins he healed others as well.  I.e. in his own way he's proclaiming who he is and demonstrating it. 

 

Not  don't misunderstand me.  Your also correct in saying its a terrible comparison if you approach it from an Islamic stand point as well.  For in your sacred scripture God would never do that.

 

Both views have merit.  But, they are not the same.  I will not insult you by saying one is right and one is wrong.  This is where our differences manifest concerning Christians and Muslims.  However, that doesn't mean we can't work or live together in peace.  However, I got off topic.  Who said the Gospel was corrupted?  As far as I know they all agree that Jesus died and was resurrected.  This is unlike any other religion from before or since. 

Peace be with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By SadiqIbnUmar
      Al-salamu alaikom wa rahmatu Allah wa barakatuh,
      Myself: I am a simple man just enjoying the gifts of Allah (SWT). Alhamdulillah, I spent so many years in darkness and I now am able to live in the light and truth of Allah (SWT). I am on a journey to strengthen my deen. 
      Fi aman Allah
      Sadiq
    • By dot
      If he's good enough for you, he's good enough for me.. he scores another few, I'll be Muslim too..
      If he's good enough for you, he's good enough for me.. he's sitting in the mosque, that's where I wanna be.
       
    • By sanajamal
      Just thinking about Umrah energizes the devotee, but performing Umrah is a very strenuous task. Most of the people wonder ‘What is the perfect age to perform Umrah’, the age at which an individual can make the most out of these religious journeys.
       
      Many Muslims believes that it is good to be done Hajj and Umrah at a young age. Youth? Running between overburdened with studies, responsibilities, carefree about finances, religious affairs so not ‘their thing’. So how could young age be the better age to perform Umrah? Well, the following discussion covers all answers of these questions:
       
      Read More Info: http://www.ilinktours.com/blog/the-right-age-to-perform-umrah/
×