₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,914,331 members, 3,922,041 topics. Date: Monday, 20 November 2017 at 01:25 AM

Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? - Islam for Muslims (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Islam for Muslims / Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? (450 Views)

Misconceptions About Allah (part 1 Of 3): Is Allah God? / Eid: What You Need To Know About Udhiya (slaughtering Animals For Allah) / Allah Will Condemn Men Who Do Not Satisfy Their Women Sexually -imam (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by AlBaqir(m): 7:37pm On Oct 08
tintingz:
Again, pain, love, gravity can be measured and study, they are limited to our universe, I've give you example of a mental unstable person.

# Can you SEE and TOUCH them? The fact that scientists have been able to "measure" gravity, pain, love (in your word) still cannot prove its "SEE AND TOUCH". Measure is only as a result of manifestation. Again, that makes your senses and capacity about those things limited. However, we only use that analogy to explain the UNLIMITED Power and Entity you continue to deny.


tintingz:


The question will still keep popping up, where did God originate from if everything originate from something.

The infinite regression is still a strong debate.

Because our reasoning is limited for now doesn't invalidate the arguments of infinite regression, we don't know if there is an entity outside our reasoning(universe), the more reason I'm agnostic about it, what religious people are good at is feeling the gaps with god(god of gaps).

Religion= 0000000___God___0000000= Sticked

Science= 000000__Go*____000000= Diminishing.

@ underline, since you know you thinking (which can never even be compare to atheist like Richard Hawkins) is LIMITED then why are you bordering yourself to rationalise the UNLIMITED? Knowing the Essence of God is beyond material comprehension otherwise you will just end up unstable upstairs. What is enough at a material scale is His manifestation which is evident everywhere in everything.

# You want to know more about God, you enter into realm more deeper and higher than materialism. Unfortunately, you even deny spiritual realms (for example that man is both matter and spirit).


tintingz:

A perfect designer that design natural disasters? Oh yeah it is perfect.

The Quran talked about Allah having hands, legs, his throne is on a water sitting on it, displaying emotions bla bla bla... Oh yeah that's all figurative. Why not tell us what the throne and water stands for.

# Issues of natural disaster - another topic for another day.

# Quran NEVER mention "leg of God". However, we have simply hands (face etc), established/sitting on a throne etc for you to be figurative expression which denote description at a material level.
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 7:38pm On Oct 08
Empiree:
Reminds me of Hosni Mubarak when he said, "power of Egypt is in my hands". Does that means his physical hand?. Thats question he needs to answer too
We all know Hosni Mubarak has hands, his metaphorical words reconciled with is humanly figure.

if Allah said he's sitting on a throne on water, what exactly does that mean?
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by AlBaqir(m): 7:49pm On Oct 08
tintingz:
We all know Hosni Mubarak has hands, his metaphorical words reconciled with is humanly figure.

if Allah said he's sitting on a throne on water, what exactly does that mean?

# Just like people have been saying, I can now 100% confirm it that you sound real unreasonable. Am sorry to use that word. That irrational comment pressed me.

Am out of this thread. Apologies.

1 Like

Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 7:53pm On Oct 08
AlBaqir:


# Can you SEE and TOUCH them? That makes your senses and capacity about those things limited. However, we only use that analogy to explain the UNLIMITED Power and Entity you continue to deny.
Those things are limited to our universe because we can observe them, can you observe God?
That analogy is ultimately lame.

@ underline, since you know you thinking (which can never even be compare to atheist like Richard Hawkins) is LIMITED then why are you bordering yourself to rationalise the UNLIMITED? Knowing the Essence of God is beyond material comprehension otherwise you will just end up unstable upstairs. What is enough at a material scale is His manifestation which is evident everywhere in everything.
Can you rationalize a talking flying spaghetti? This is a question you're yet to answer.

# You want to know more about God, you enter into realm more deeper and higher than materialism. Unfortunately, you even deny spiritual realms (for example that man is both matter and spirit).
I've been a spiritual person for years, so what are you saying? undecided

Has anyone provide strong evidence for spiritual realms?

Maybe you should explain what spiritual means.


# Issues of natural disaster - another topic for another day.
If you keep saying a perfect designer created everything, I will keep asking the question of natural disasters.


# Quran NEVER mention "leg of God". However, we have simply hands (face etc), established/sitting on a throne etc for you to be figurative expression which denote description at a material level.
So what does throne, sitting means?

And is God reasoning like we humans? @bolded.
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by Empiree: 8:01pm On Oct 08
tintingz:


if Allah said he's sitting on a throne on water, what exactly does that mean?
You have already performed woefully to the video I posted, So,

Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by Rilwayne001: 8:03pm On Oct 08
tintingz:

The question will still keep popping up, where did God originate from if everything originate from something.


I told you the other day that God is eternal.. He is the unmoved mover. Uncreated creator.


The infinite regression is still a strong debate.Because our reasoning is limited for now doesn't invalidate the arguments of infinite regression, we don't know if there is an entity outside our reasoning(universe), the more reason I'm agnostic about it, but what religious people are good at is filling the gaps with god(god of gaps).


I already told you HERE that there are two possibilities on this. That: (1) going back either we eventually reach the first event, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going. This first cause, the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end. (2)or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity, which you are supposing up here. I told you the other day that this (2) is not possible because If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false. This is because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series.

This idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’. [1]

Now apply Occam's Razor to the two and see which is simpler and logical.

[1]
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 8:03pm On Oct 08
AlBaqir:


# Just like people have been saying, I can now 100% confirm it that you sound real unreasonable. Am sorry to use that word. That irrational comment pressed me.

Am out of this thread. Apologies.
That argument is xenophane, you need to start reading more of philosophical arguments.

But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
-Xenophanes

You're yet to tell me what Allah sitting on a throne stance for? A throne on water stance for?

Don't go yet bro. smiley
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 9:54pm On Oct 08
Rilwayne001:


I told you the other day that God is eternal.. He is the unmoved mover. Uncreated creator.
Tah, If God is unmoved mover then it is a problematic to the premise that everything has a mover, so with the same argument I will ask who move the "unmoved mover" "when, where does the unmoved mover started moving"?

Motion is a property of at least two “things”, the observer and the object. There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference.



I already told you HERE that there are two possibilities on this. That: (1) going back either we eventually reach the first event, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going. This first cause, the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end. (2)or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity, which you are supposing up here. I told you the other day that this (2) is not possible because If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false. This is because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series.

This idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’. [1]

Now apply Occam's Razor to the two and see which is simpler and logical.

[1]
This is false, we don't certainly know yet if the universe has a beginning or infinite, we don't know yet if there are multiple universe or not, like I said the quantum vaccum contain zero energy which is nothingness. The gravitation singularity(infinite density) is another theory there is an infinit regress before the big bang.

I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician, but I know some of them hold to the theory that zero is equal to infinity since zero doesn't contain any properties.

Is time infinite? Is there time before the big bang? What caused the big bang? Is God outside time and space?, how is God intervening if he's outside time and space? These are all questions that's still a debate.

So with this, anything that has a beginning must surely have a end, the universe will end one day, What will God be doing then?

I don't know why this God necessary need to be the mover before the universe can come into existence, is God dependent on universe? why call it God? What if it is a phenomenon that's yet to be known?
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by Rilwayne001: 10:55pm On Oct 08
tintingz:
Tah, If God is unmoved mover then it is a problematic to the premise that everything has a mover, so with the same argument who move the "unmoved mover" "when, where does the unmoved mover started moving"?

Motion is a property of at least two “things”, the observer and the object. There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference.


You still don't get it, do you

To avoid going on in circles, I will advise that you ponder on this Leibniz's cosmological argument:


1) Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation. (Principle of sufficient reason)

2) It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.

3) The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation. (1,2)

4) The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.

5) The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. (3,4)

What's your take on this^?


This is false,


How?

we don't certainly know yet if the universe has a beginning

Are you now going to be denying the big bang theory? shocked shocked
Don't come and tell me that the universe had been in existence before the big bang.

or infinite,we don't know yet if there are multiple universe or not,


Is there or you are just assuming this in your head?

like I said the quantum vaccum contain zero energy which is nothingness.


On this: Firstly, the view that some events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at all is impossible to prove conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause. Take note.

Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous sub-atomic events. For instance in the 1950s David Bohm showed there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. Commenting on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,
“In Bohm’s theory there are particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as Sir Isaac Newton himself might have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of the particles in just such a way as to induce the experimentally observed probabilistic effects.”

What this means is that the apparent indeterminism present at the quantum level can be explained deterministically by this hidden wave that produces observed indeterministic or probabilistic effects. However, since these two interpretations of quantum theory are empirically equivalent the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical objection to this contention.

Thirdly, from a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the innate concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. [i]

The gravitation singularity(infinite density) is another theory there is an infinit regress before the big bang. I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician, but I know some of them hold to the theory that zero is equal to infinity since zero doesn't contain any properties. Is there any evidence time start from zero?

[quote] So with this, anything that has a beginning must surely have a end, the universe will end one day, What will God be doing then?
I don't know why this God necessary need to exist before the universe can come into existence, is God dependent on universe? why call it God? What if it is a phenomenon that's yet to be known?
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 11:53pm On Oct 08
Empiree:
You have already performed woefully to the video I posted, So,
Lol, Why does Hosni Mubarak had to say "power of Egypt is in my hand" why not his anus? undecided
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by Empiree: 12:12am On Oct 09
tintingz:
Lol, Why does Hosni Mubarak had to say "power of Egypt is in my hand" why not his anus? undecided

1 Like

Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 12:46am On Oct 09
Rilwayne001:


You still don't get it, do you

To avoid going on in circles, I will advise that you ponder on this Leibniz's cosmological argument:


1) Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation. (Principle of sufficient reason)

2) It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.

3) The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation. (1,2)

4) The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.

5) The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. (3,4)

What's your take on this^?
Contingent = Accident.

If something caused an accident, then where does the something comes from and why does it caused the accident or is it by mistake or reasoning?

My take here is, if something caused something, it is either the something did it with reasoning or by mistake.


How?
You're trying to use hypothesis as your fact.


Are you now going to be denying the big bang theory? shocked shocked
Don't come and tell me that the universe had been in existence before the big bang.
Lol, the universe is said to be infinitely dense at the big bang.


Is there or you are just assuming this in your head?
Nope, Multiverse(multiple universe) is part of theory.



On this: Firstly, the view that some events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at all is impossible to prove conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause. Take note.

Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous sub-atomic events. For instance in the 1950s David Bohm showed there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. Commenting on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,
“In Bohm’s theory there are particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as Sir Isaac Newton himself might have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of the particles in just such a way as to induce the experimentally observed probabilistic effects.”

What this means is that the apparent indeterminism present at the quantum level can be explained deterministically by this hidden wave that produces observed indeterministic or probabilistic effects. However, since these two interpretations of quantum theory are empirically equivalent the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical objection to this contention.

Thirdly, from a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the innate concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. [i]

All these are just still speculations, hypothesis, we don't certainly know the origin of the universe yet, even theist don't have the right and certain answers to this, the more reason I'm agnostic, I'm not ashame to say I don't know yet.

All I can certainly say is the proof for existence of a personal god is nowhere to be found, your argument here as not yet proven your personal god, the proof of an impersonal god is weak.
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 12:49am On Oct 09
Empiree:
.
If humans hands is the anus in another universe, I'm sure Hosni Mubarak won't use hand as a metaphor, figurative. grin grin grin
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by Rilwayne001: 6:31am On Oct 09
tintingz:
Contingent = Accident.

If something caused an accident, then where does the something comes from and why does it caused the accident or is it by mistake or reasoning?

contingent
adjective

1) subject to chance.
2) occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
3) true by virtue of the way things in fact are and not by logical necessity.

Now If something is contingent, that means that it could have failed to exist. So every individual thing in the collection of contingent things could have failed to exist. So, the whole collection of contingent things could have failed to exist, in which case there would have been no contingent things at all. Hence the existence of contingent things is itself contingent. Agreed?

Now the fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. This argument is so simple to understand if you are going to be honest with yourself.

My take here is, if something caused something, it is either the something did it with reasoning or by mistake.


Of course, the more reason why any contingent fact must have an explanation.

You're trying to use hypothesis as your fact.

The infinite regression is utterly dealt with HERE, you can read and raise your objection(s) by telling us how it's just a mere hypothesis. And I suppose you implied earlier on that one can apply Occam's Razor on any hypothesis, didn't you?

Lol, the universe is said to be infinitely dense at the big bang.
Nope, Multiverse(multiple universe) is part of theory.


Theory with nothing to show for it?


All these are just still speculations, hypothesis, we don't certainly know the origin of the universe yet, even theist don't have the right and certain answers to this, the more reason I'm agnostic, I'm not ashame to say I don't know yet.


Oga, you quantum vacuum argument has been destroyed.

All I can certainly say is the proof for existence of a personal god is nowhere to be found, your argument here as not yet proven your personal god, the proof of an impersonal god is weak.

This is what you want to believe, isn't it?
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 10:25am On Oct 09
Rilwayne001:


contingent
adjective

1) subject to chance.
2) occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
3) true by virtue of the way things in fact are and not by logical necessity.

Now If something is contingent, that means that it could have failed to exist. So every individual thing in the collection of contingent things could have failed to exist. So, the whole collection of contingent things could have failed to exist, in which case there would have been no contingent things at all. Hence the existence of contingent things is itself contingent. Agreed?

Now the fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. This argument is so simple to understand if you are going to be honest with yourself.
Your statements here is still problematic to the premises that "everything must have a cause" you can't just focus any argument you feel like it suit you, you must follow the premises, the same premises argument still stands, what could cause the contingent? Is it by neccesity reasoning or by mistake, capricious?

If it is by reasoning then where does the reasoning comes from, what is the source? If it is by mistake you agree god made a mistake?

Your argument here only tries to proof a first cause but it is problematic to the premises and the nature of your God.


Of course, the more reason why any contingent fact must have an explanation.
The universe itself is a series of infinite contigent, you need to give reason the non-contigent acted on neccesity reasoning. I saw a ball in my backyard, does the ball appear there by neccesity?



The infinite regression is utterly dealt with HERE, you can read and raise your objection(s) by telling us how it's just a mere hypothesis. And I suppose you implied earlier on that one can apply Occam's Razor on any hypothesis, didn't you?
This speculation in the link is only limited to logic and not accpeted in phycsics and mathematics, many physicists still hold on to existence and possibility of infinite regress. If infinite regress has been dealt with, it won't be a topic or debate but we still will find it in many debates, someone like Hawking has dealt with the flaws of "infinite regress is impossible" that was first started by Aristotle.


“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise.” “If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end.”
- Stephen Hawking

Find this more interesting:


We can observe that the two statements — everything must have a cause, and that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes — are in apparent conflict with one another. There is one possible resolution: a cycle of causes, where A ⇒ B ⇒ C ⇒ A, and the like, including potentially complicated networks of mutual-causation. If you find this just as dissatisfying as an infinite regress of causes or an uncaused event, then you may which to assume that such cycles cannot exist: but then you should remain aware that this is an assumption on your part.

There is absolutely no proposition A that we know of, which "causes" another proposition B to hold — that is, where A ⇒ B — which prevents us from considering yet another proposition Z such that Z ⇒ A, and where we may regard A as true because Z is true. So every proposition can be concieved of as being caused by another. But there is nothing which forces us to formulate such a proposition Z, either. We must move beyond mere sentential logic if we wish to plumb this idea further.
S

What causes the big bang is not certainty known yet, we can only get speculations on what caused it to happen, is by necessity or by chance? But saying infinite regress is impossible is like assuming the cycles cannot exist and will be conflicting with the premises that said everything must have a cause.

And lastly, I didn't said we should apply "Occam's razor" you misquoted me, I was responding to Albaqir's Occam's razor statement.


Theory with nothing to show for it?

# Gravitation singularity(infinite density) > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

# Multiple universe(multiverse) > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse



Oga, you quantum vacuum argument has been destroyed.
Who destroyed it? Sango?



This is what you want to believe, isn't it?
Yes, until I see the proof of your personal god. smiley
Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by Empiree: 2:29pm On Oct 09
tintingz:
Yes, until I see the proof of your personal god. smiley
Your case is like disbelievers of old who insisted on seeing God for them to believe.

Qur'an answers you (10:96-97)


"Truly, those against whom the Word of your Lord has been justified, will not believe. Even if every Sign should come to them, until they see painful torment"


In another sura (6:111)


"And even if We had sent down Angels unto them, and the dead had spoken to them, and We had gathered all things before their very eyes, they would not believe. ..."


Also sura Baqara 55-56 reads,


"And (recall) when you said; "O Moses, we will not believe until we see Allah outright"; so thunderbolt took you while you are looking on. Then We revived you after your death that perhaps you would be grateful "


So, Mr. Tin, do you want to see God face to face until you believe him?. Is that your proof?. Do you want Him to make example out of you before you believe His existence?.

1 Like

Re: Is Allah Everywhere, Sees Everything? by tintingz(m): 2:45pm On Oct 09
Empiree:
Your case is like disbelievers of old who insisted on seeing God for them to believe.

Qur'an answers you (10:96-97)


"Truly, those against whom the Word of your Lord has been justified, will not believe. Even if every Sign should come to them, until they see painful torment"


In another sura (6:111)


"And even if We had sent down Angels unto them, and the dead had spoken to them, and We had gathered all things before their very eyes, they would not believe. ..."


Also sura Baqara 55-56 reads,


"And (recall) when you said; "O Moses, we will not believe until we see Allah outright"; so thunderbolt took you while you are looking on. Then We revived you after your death that perhaps you would be grateful "


So, Mr. Tin, do you want to see God face to face until you believe him?. I'd that your proof?. Do you want Him to make example out of you before you believe His existence?.
This is what a Jew, christian will also say, a christian a bishop has threaten me(I don't know if to call it threat) on Facebook that within 14 days I will see sign of God and it will be painful, oga 14 days has passed since last month (that was during eid or so) I didn't see any imaginary sign of the god, and I strike a deal with him if he fail he's going to abandon his religion, I've message him, he hasn't reply since last two weeks. grin

If you don't believe I can screenshot the posts for you, the video is about two lesbians proposing marriage, because I didn't speak against them, see insults and threat, I was like so many religious people claiming love can be so intolerance!

There are over thousand gods out there, you just have to proof yours is real and the right one. Shikena.

(0) (1) (2) (Reply)

Ramadan Is Here / The First Muslims / Steps To Accept Mohammed

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2017 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 291
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.