Search
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:28 that Christ will be subject to God forever:
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
In light of this eternal subjection how can any Christian believe that Jesus is God?
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Due to an extremely busy schedule, I forgot to inform our readers that for the second year running, I was privy to be able to host a Ramadan Series known as “Understanding Islam“. The episodes in which I was featured, aired nationally on several major local channels on the island of Trinidad and Tobago.
The episodes aired from Wednesday 10th July to Tuesday 16th July, several time a day. There is a strong possibility that the programs featuring myself will be aired again before this Ramadan comes to a close. The topics I dealt with revolved around the personality and Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Sunnah.
TV Schedule is as follows -:
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Br. Yahya Snow once again reproduced another one of my articles on his blog (thank you to the brother). Fortunately (?), Sam Shamoun is freaking out, him and his cheerleader, Radical Moderate did something I sort of did not expect – write a homosexual fantasy story about me. Now, I imagine that this was to paint me in a bad light – problem though, this is the second time that Sam and his cheerleader have made homosexual advances towards me. The first time they threatened to rape me, and now, it seems as if they’ve had time to build a story around their threats:
Now, if this were a one off incident, it wouldn’t bother me much. However, now I’m a bit troubled by this, unsettled really, what is Sam Shamoun’s and his cheerleader – Radical Moderate’s addiction to placing me in a homosexual light? Once, maybe it’s you know just something to mock me, but twice? It seems as if Sam Shamoun and Radical Moderate are projecting their homosexual repressive tendencies upon me for some peculiar reason.
Moving on….I’d really like to see where I admitted to being homosexual, or said I lived in London? I think I’ve made it quite clear that I’ve never been to London – and that I live in a tiny Caribbean island in the middle of nowhere (1, 2). I’m not sure since when I became sexually abused either, but seeing as both of the authors of this homosexual fantasy are Christian, I can see why I as a younger adult male would fit into their really sick fantasies.
Sam, Radical, if either of you are reading this – while I appreciate that you’re trying to vent your sexual feelings in the form of mockery, I see through your veil of angst, your need for acceptance. If you need someone to talk to about your homosexual tendencies, I can recommend counselling for you, but I’m going to have to let you both down easily – I’m not interested, I happen to like women and…..only women, so I’d appreciate if you’d stop including me in your homosexual fantasies.
wa Allaahu ‘alam.
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Get ready for some major articles to be rolling out over the next few days as we join our Christian brothers and sisters in the season of Easter/ Passover with some hard hitting, doctrine critiquing, doubt inducing questions! Christ’s position as the Passover Sacrifice, is a fundamental belief in Christian Theology (Cf. Soteriology, Christology). His sacrifice is seen as the redeeming act for Christians and their sins. It is essential to research what this sacrifice entails in the Judaic scriptures!
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
The Noble and Blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) narrated the follow authentic ahadith:
“Nothing is weightier on the Scale of Deeds than one’s good manners.” (Al-Bukhari)
“The Prophet of Allah was never obscene or coarse. Rather, he used to tell us that the best among us were those with the best manners.” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim & At-Tirmidhi)
These words have never been more applicable to me, than today after my discussion with Sam Shamoun. To be quite honest I’ve been overwhelmed with the amount of messages that Calling Christians has received since the ‘discussion’ was published. A recurring trend continues to be noticed from among the Muslims and Christians in their numerous messages. As it would seem, despite Sam’s coarse and abusive statements, both Muslims and Christians alike found my behaviour to be admirable in light of what Sam was doing. I didn’t expect to be commended on something as basic as my decorum, but it really did awaken me to the reality of people’s humanity. Lest some say I am boasting of myself, I’d like to quote a message from a Christian brother on Paltalk, his native language is not English so please excuse his spelling:
“<<(01/30/13 3:46 PM EST)>> Hey Ijaz, I saw a videoclip posted by Sam shamoun on the topic of what exactly is the mosque spoken of in surah al isra verse 1. What i found to be very strange is this: He at one point asked you, in order to further strenghten his argument regarding the uncerinatiy of the verses in the quran, how can a reader of the quran know if Surah 17:1 is adressed to Muhammed. This was a very weak argument since when the quran is read in its overall context it becomes very clear that Muhammed is the one who is receiving the verses of the quran. This also makes sense in light of another verse in the quran that says it was revealed pice by pice, meaning more and more information will be disclosed as the revelation progresses”
“<<(01/30/13 4:18 PM EST)>> And one more thing ijaz, i noticed you kept yourself calm, you didn’t shout or became angry, i really admire you for that “
Due to Sam’s petulant and rabid tirade, I unconsciously demonstrated Islamic adab (manners and etiquette) by being patient, relaxed, calm, level headed despite being bullied and verbally assaulted by Sam Shamoun. I most certainly didn’t think that my behaviour would have impacted people to the extent it did, but I’m really elated to see that Christians who admire Sam have had their eyes opened and their hearts exposed to the harsh reality of Sam’s lowly character. Not only was this Christian able to refute Sam’s position, but they even had the self respect to commend me on my decorum. This is most certainly a sincere Christian brother. Therefore, even though Sam believed he was doing a service by insulting me and screaming at me, the reality of the situation is that Christians themselves have been given a prime example of how Islam teaches a Muslim to behave and how Christianity teaches a Christian to behave (after all, Sam claimed his behaviour was Biblically based).
As of this point, I can do nothing but express thanks to Sam Shamoun for opening the eyes of his congregation to the truth of Islam. I really can’t express just how much Sam is doing to further the cause of Islamic da’wah, May Allaah ta ‘ala continue to use Sam Shamoun to guide Christians to Islam, Ameen.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
I can’t necessarily call this a debate, as Sam Shamoun would ask me 5 – 6 questions, give me 10 seconds to answer and then spend 5 minutes at a time calling me names such as punk, idiot, fool, child, deceiver etc. The video length is roughly 30 minutes, in total Sam speaks for about 25 minutes and I speak for maybe 3 minutes. In the 3 minutes I was allowed to speak by Sam, I proved that Masjid al Haram is the Masjid in Makkah. You can see my write out of events here. Unfortunately, Sam did not want me to speak and simply denied everything I said while insulting me for most of the time I spent in the room with him. At the end of the video, in the final 3 minutes, Sam explains that this is a method he employs against Muslims who write against his religion. The truth is, Sam Shamoun is unable to have an intelligent discussion and that when faced with a formidable opponent, he must silence them and forbid them from speaking in response to his claims. Unfortunately for Sam, despite his petulant tactics, his rabid diatribe, his curses, mockery, insults, and abuses, I kept my cool and provided ample evidences to refute his infantile arguments, while not returning any insults to him or cutting him off from speaking as he did to me.
You can read a full read out of my arguments and Sam’s questions located here. You can watch the ‘dialogue’ below, I’ve included video annotations for viewers to take note of Sam’s deception, silly insults and 3 – 4 minute tirades after giving me at the most 20 seconds to answer a question, thereby he then spends 5 minutes insulting me:
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
I returned to “Why Jesus is the only way“, to see if Sam’s recorder was there. Millie Fiori was the recorder’s name. She was kind to me, I enquired about the debate recording and she did have some issues with uploading the recording. However she made it quite clear that she would not be able to upload the unedited version of the discussion. I questioned her about this and she replied that it was up to Sam Shamoun to decide if the raw audio was to be given to me or to be uploaded, but as it is she would only be uploading the edited version.
Apparently our debate lasted 30 minutes, I really thought it lasted 5 minutes so I am interested to see what the recording actually looks like after the Christian side has edited it. You can view the recording on her YouTube page located here. I can’t give an estimated time until Sam’s edited version is uploaded to the person’s page, but I will be checking regularly to see if/ when it’s uploaded at all.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
On the 28/01/2013, I entered into the room “Why Jesus is the only way“, on Paltalk. Sam Shamoun had a friend named Millie who recorded the impromptu debate, I pray that Sam stays true to his word and uploads the entire debate on Youtube as he claimed he would! In the room, I found Sam Shamoun just about to begin speaking on John 17:3 and the objections to it. Praise be to Allaah, jut a few days ago I published an article refuting Sam Shamoun on the very same topic! Unfortunately, Sam immediately dotted me (dotting on Paltalk disables the user from being able to write text or to speak via the microphone to the room), in essence he intentionally stopped me from refuting him by stopping me from being able to respond to him.
After a moment or two, he undots me (thus allowing me to write text and use the room’s microphone) and decides to ask me a question. Before he does this, he insults me as a 20 year old pagan black stone worshipper, and mocks me in various ways. It needs to be noted that not once did I call him any names, I did not verbally abuse or curse him and I did not write any insulting speech towards him, thus Sam Shamoun saw it fit as a practising Christian to mock, insult, curse and abuse a 21 year old kid. He then posted the following verse of the Qur’aan:
Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing. – Qur’aan 17:1.
Now, Sam Shamoun is unfamiliar with me, he does not know how far my knowledge of Islam goes, so he asks quite a silly question, perhaps assuming that I did not know Arabic. He asked, where does the Qur’aan mention Masjid al Haram or Masjid al Aqsa in this verse, he believed it to be an inserted translation, an assumption and that those words, “Masjid al Haram” and “Masjid al Aqsa” were not actually part of the ayah itself. Unfortunately for Sam, I read and write Arabic, so I simply read the Arabic of the verse, which mentions the words specifically:
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَىٰ بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلًا مِّنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
I believed I left out the word ‘Israa’ in an attempt to be brief since he repeatedly dotted me (prevented me from answering him). When he realised I could read the Arabic and that the words actually existed in the Arabic, he changed his question. He said the Qur’aan says that its verses are fully explained and detailed, referring to this ayah:
[Say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters. – Qur’aan 6:114.
His next question was, if the Qur’aan is fully detailed, where does it mention:
To answer the first two, I referenced the following verses:
How can the Mushriks have a treaty with Allah and His Messenger? Except those with whom you made a treaty near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram . Then, as long as they remain straight with you, you too remain straight with them. Surely, Allah loves the God-fearing. – Qur’aan 9:7.
The logic being that the only Pagans to make a Treaty with Muhammad (peace be upon him) at the holy place where fighting is prohibited is known as Masjid al Haram. Also see Qur’aan 2:190-194 for context of this.
Have you taken the serving of water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of Al-Masjid-ul-Haram as equal to (the acts) of one who believes in Allah and in the Last Day, and carries out Jihad in the way of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah. Allah does not lead the wrongdoing people to the right path. – Qur’aan 9:19.
The logic being that the place where fighting is prohibited is at the Holy Sanctuary known as Masjid al Haram in Makkah and this is where the Pagans were located as they respected it as a Noble Sanctuary, refusing to fight there during certain months and at which pilgrims from throughout Makkah came to fulfil their religious rights. Unless there is some other Noble Sanctuary not in Makkah where pilgrims came to perform sacred rights and fighting was impermissible to be done at, Sam Shamoun has more than duly been refuted. Yet, I persisted:
And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, Seeing.
They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from al-Masjid al-Haram while the offering was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice. And if not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know – that you might trample them and there would befall you because of them dishonor without [your] knowledge – [you would have been permitted to enter Makkah]. [This was so] that Allah might admit to His mercy whom He willed. If they had been apart [from them], We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment
Certainly has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened, not fearing [anyone]. He knew what you did not know and has arranged before that a conquest near [athand]. – Qur’aan 48:24, 25, 27.
Here, the verses clearly indicate that Makkah is Masjid al Haram and that the Pagans of the previous verses were those who opposed the Messenger at the Sacred Masjid were the Makkans who prevented them from accessing the site of the holy pilgrimage. Clear as day to any literate person, save for Sam Shamoun. Sam decided to claim that verses 24 and 25 were disjoint and void of their immediate context. In other words, what verse 24 was referring to, is not what verse 25 referred to. As such Sam shot himself in his foot, as this is known as contextual analysis, one verse leads into the other, hence why they are numerically labelled. I’m sorry for Sam, but when he reads two sentences, one right after the other, does he always assume they are disjointed and not related? As a counter question, I asked him, the the Makkans knew that Masjid al Haram was not at Makkah, why, during his tenure as the Prophet or during the early days of Islam, did they not point out his mistake? That Makkah was not the site of a Holy and Inviolable place as the Qur’aan mentioned? Surely, if he made such a major error, atleast one Makkan would have noticed and publicized this about him.
Unfortunately for Sam, he lost his temper, began to insult me and shout ‘al Maseeh al Akbar’, to which retorted, ‘that simply means the Greatest Messiah, and I as a Muslim accept the only Messiah of the Qur’aan to be greater than any other Messiah’. At this point, Sam further lost his temper, began to curse, mock, insult and dot me. Promising he would never allow me to speak in the room again and then went on a rabid tirade and abuses towards me.
I am awaiting Sam to upload the unedited debate and I would love for him to explain why:
Sam Shamoun got served and I pray he uploads the unedited debate, I’d love for him to show just how much a 21 year old Muslim on post-op pain medication, can whoop him.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
Note: This is a review done by Br. Paul Bilal Williams via his website, ‘Blogging Theology‘. Br. Paul is a well established orator and debater from the United Kingdom and has studied Christianity and Islam for several years.
Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards
A Review of the Debate by Paul Williams
Ahmad’s opening statement threw down the gauntlet:
‘If we are to be fair and objective in our study of who the Messiah was, then we can’t work backwards, that is to start with the bias we already have and then look at the previous scriptures to justify our claims and beliefs. This is a form of revisionism.‘
He has in mind here a favourite methodology adopted by Christians: that of reading into Jewish texts their own later beliefs about Jesus. Scholars call this practice ‘eisegesis’.
Though Ahmad did not mention well known Christian apologist Dr Craig in his opening presentation, he could have called him as a witness for his defense as Dr. William Lane Craig would agree with him! Though Craig’s comments focus on Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection, they perfectly demonstrate how Christians read back into the Jewish Bible beliefs that no Jew ever held about their Messiah.
Craig writes:
‘Early Christians were convinced that Jesus’ resurrection, like his crucifixion, was, in the words of the old tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. 3-5, “in accordance with the Scriptures.” In Luke’s story of Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus, the risen Jesus chastises the two travelers: ” ‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24. 26-27).
The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2 ‘ “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” – has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul.
But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In the apostolic sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted in terms of Jesus’ resurrection: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” But if we look at the principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, we find the story of Jonah and the whale. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12.40).
Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.
The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead. To this we may add the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place.
Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’
***
What a stunning admission by Craig! At a stroke all those much vaunted “prophesies” in the OT about Jesus the Messiah turn out to be entirely absent from the Jewish Bible and can only be ‘discovered’ there if you artificially graft Christian beliefs onto the texts, in disregard of the original context and original meaning of the passages. But this is the standard ‘orthodox’ way Christians use the Bible to justify their beliefs.
Ahmad convincingly demonstrates that the Jewish Messiah was never considered to be divine or God at any time but was always expected to be only a man like other mortals.
Therefore the Christian belief in a Divine Messiah is unJewish and alien to the Torah. The final Prophet to mankind Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to correct these blasphemous excesses by Christians. Today 1.6 billion of his followers have learnt this lesson well.
***
A few comments on the opening statement by CL Edwards
Edwards boldly states:
After seriously studying the first century evidences concerning Christ, while being logically consistent, I had to change my position, and I now hold to the hypostatic union i.e the belief Jesus had two natures. There is no historical proof anyone during this time held Jesus to be just a man.
He might need change his position once more as scholars have long realized that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. Read Peter’s sermons in Acts and ask yourself did he consider Jesus to be God (see Acts 2:22 & 2:36 for example)? Read Mark’s gospel: Jesus prays to God; is ignorant about various matters; denies he is ”good”; feels abandoned by God on the cross. Does such a man seem like God in the flesh to you?
Much of Edwards presentation is simply a list of proof texts culled from the Bible. He does not show any critical awareness of how Christology developed in the New Testament, and just how radically different Mark’s gospel is from John’s gospel in its portrayal of Jesus.
As every undergraduate in Bible studies knows, it is clear that there has been a development in the way Jesus is presented in the pages of the New Testament. Look at the earliest gospel to be written, that of Mark.
This shows us a very human figure. Here are 7 examples:
1) Jesus is a man who prays to God (1:35)
2) Jesus is unable to work miracles in his own town (6:5) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 13:57-58.
3) Jesus confesses his ignorance about the date of the End of the world (13:32).
4) Jesus did not know the identity of a woman who touched him and had to ask his disciples for help (Mark 5:30) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 9:20-21.
5) Jesus was so irritated by the absence of figs he cursed a fig tree even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:14) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 21:18-22.
6) Jesus even denies that he is perfectly good (Mark 10) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 19:17.
7) Mark portrays Jesus despairing of God’s help at the crucifixion as he cries: ‘My God my God why have you abandoned me?’ (15:34) – Luke and John both omit this.
So it seems clear that in the earliest gospel Jesus does not exhibit any of the attributes of God that Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly accept: unlike God, Jesus is not all knowing; he is not omnipotent; he is not perfectly good; he is not eternal; he is notimmortal; he is not unchanging. Therefore it seems obvious that he cannot be God.
If we read the last of the four gospels to be written, the gospel of John, we move into a different world. Here Jesus seems to move effortlessly through his ministry, he is clearly portrayed as a divine figure, indeed as “God” himself.
Instead of Jesus saying in Mark’s gospel “Why do you call me good – no-one is good but God alone”, John has Jesus say: ‘Before Abraham was I am’.
In the very first chapter of the gospel according to John, the Prophet John the Baptist proclaims Jesus to be ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ when he first meets him. But in the earlier synoptic gospels, John the Baptist not only does not say this but half way through Jesus’ ministry sends messengers to Jesus asking “Are you the Messiah we’ve been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?” (Matthew 11:2)
So even this brief survey has shown the enormous evolution of the story of Jesus which occurred in less than two generations after Jesus was taken up by God.
Unlike in the earlier gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, in John Jesus speaks with a clear awareness of his divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked: whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended to be historical, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the claims about Jesus in John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It seems hardly likely.
Few scholars today would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is worth noting briefly the reasons why scholars think this:
One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. For example, the cleansing of the temple happens at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John but occurs at the end of Jesus’ ministry in the synoptic gospels. A clear contradiction.
Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking – much more discursive and theological in John, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptic gospels. Jesus’ way of speaking is the same, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of John the Baptist, and indeed very similar to the 1st Letter of John. The conclusion is unavoidable that the style is that of the author of the gospel of John rather than that of Jesus himself.
Probably most important of all, in the synoptic gospels Jesus’ main message is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom of God hardly features and the discourses are largely about Jesus’ own self-consciousness andself proclamation. To put it simply, in the earlier gospels Jesus does not preach about himself but God and his kingdom. In John, Jesus speaks about himself and his Father. Had the striking ‘I am’ claims of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any gospel writer have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics gospels do?
In conclusion, Edwards could benefit from an introductory course in New Testament studies to bring him up to speed with what his own scholars are teaching!
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Post Debate thoughts:
https://callingchristians.com/2013/01/13/post-debate-remarks/
Debate Information:
https://callingchristians.com/2013/01/12/debate-announcement/
Video:
Feel free to leave your thoughts, suggestions and comments! I’d also like to thank CL Edwards for having the video provided so quickly. The video was taken from his website’s posting.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam!
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.