Faith Freedom International :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Muslim And Sikhs
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> A Muslim in my Life

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Rizzwan

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 2613

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

dee_singh78 wrote:

I am just New to This Site and i am Posting Some Interesting Facts About Sikh-Muslim Relation
1. Muslim Ruler Zahanghir ordered to Kill Fifth Sikh Master Guru Arjun Dev . Here is http://www.thaisikh.org/sikhism/guruarjandevji.php link to see what happened.

2. Muslim Ruler Aourangzeb Killed Tenth Sikh Matser and His Four Sons.

3 Muslim ruler Planned to kill every sikh on Earth during 1700-1800

You can get More facts On Muslim Sikh Realations by searching On Google

http://www.whyichosesikhism.com see this site for more information

Daljit Singh

What did Ranjit Singh do? pretty much the same to Muslims. By the way I am your brother I am a Jatt Cheema Punjabi. I want to ask you what you think of Ackbar?

Sunflower

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 73

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

Rizzwan wrote:

dee_singh78 wrote:

What did Ranjit Singh do? pretty much the same to Muslims. By the way I am your brother I am a Jatt Cheema Punjabi. I want to ask you what you think of Ackbar?

Its called SELF DEFENSE. I don't think you are Punjabi because no Sikh would ever defend a Muslim, especially a Jatt Sikh.
_________________
The path to Nirvana is tricky and steep. If you always walk on a sunny day, you will never reach your destiny.

Rizzwan

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 2613

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

Sunflower wrote:

Rizzwan wrote:

dee_singh78 wrote:

What did Ranjit Singh do? pretty much the same to Muslims. By the way I am your brother I am a Jatt Cheema Punjabi. I want to ask you what you think of Ackbar?

Its called SELF DEFENSE. I don't think you are Punjabi because no Sikh would ever defend a Muslim, especially a Jatt Sikh.

I'm a Punjabi Jatt Muslim. Anyway he did not do that in self defense you don't subjugate the indigenous population for self defense. Also, it was the Jatts themselves who helped the Arab (Muslims) conquer the subcontinent. Many of the Jatts were Buddhist before the advent of Islam and Sikhism. Both these religions on a micro-level had good relations. For example Guru Nanak Ji, eat and prayed with Muslims even many of the Muslims Sufi hyms and incorporated into the Sikh holy book.

The truth of the matter was you now and then had intolerant leaders. I know Ackbar is respected by many, many Sikhs and Hindus. Just like Guru Nanak Ji is my many Muslims.

And anyway you're a Hindu, the Hindus did not treat Jatts well at all they called them Rakshasas (Demons) not having darshan of the Brahmin. They did not follow the Brahminical rituals, because they were the followers of Buddhism and they always drove out the preachers of the Brahminical faith. And this was before Islam.

yeezevee

Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 17109

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:23 am Post subject:

Quote:

Rizzwan :.........Also, it was the Jatts themselves who helped the Arab (Muslims) conquer the subcontinent. Many of the Jatts were Buddhist before the advent of Islam and Sikhism.

And anyway you're a Hindu, the Hindus did not treat Jatts well at all they called them Rakshasas (Demons) not having darshan of the Brahmin. They did not follow the Brahminical rituals, because they were the followers of Buddhism and they always drove out the preachers of the Brahminical faith. And this was before Islam.

dear Rizzwan, do you have any web sites or books that gives the information on Jats being Buddhists do you think Jats became Muslims because Islam is closer to Buddhism?

It is good to learn to read dear Rizzwan , Anwar Shaikh's Books
http://islamreview.org/AnwarShaikh/books.html

Quote:

Islam: The Arab National Movement
Islam: Sex & Violence
Islam and Human Rights
This is Jehad!
Islam: The Arab Imperialism
Eternity
Faith and Deception
Taxation and Liberty

http://www.haryana-online.com/People/jats.htm
http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats
http://www.jatmahasabha.com/
http://voi.org/books/tlmr/ch8.htm
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/siii/ch8.htm

yeezevee

Rizzwan

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 2613

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject:

yeezevee wrote:

Quote:

Islam: The Arab National Movement
Islam: Sex & Violence
Islam and Human Rights
This is Jehad!
Islam: The Arab Imperialism
Eternity
Faith and Deception
Taxation and Liberty

http://www.haryana-online.com/People/jats.htm
http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats
http://www.jatmahasabha.com/
http://voi.org/books/tlmr/ch8.htm
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/siii/ch8.htm

yeezevee

Cheema are a clan/family of the Jatts and where not treated well.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheema&oldid=61601453

The new article is in error so look at the revised version.

In the "Puranas Darada" the Cheema (Clans) sub-tribes have been called Rakshasas (Demons) not having darshan of the Brahmin. They did not follow the Brahminical rituals, because they were the followers of Buddhism and they always drove out the preachers of the Brahminical faith.

Refrances~
Ram Swarup Joon: History of the Jats, Rohtak, India,1967

Chanakya

Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 4005

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

Rizzwan wrote:

dee_singh78 wrote:

What did Ranjit Singh do? pretty much the same to Muslims. By the way I am your brother I am a Jatt Cheema Punjabi. I want to ask you what you think of Ackbar?

I think you got your information from pakistani text books, which invent history to show all non-muslims as barbaric and try to instill hate to children in tender minds of muslim children, so that they grow up hating all non-muslims. What we see now those children fed diet of hate now as adults practice extreme hate for hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians the list goes on..

Here is the information about Maharaja Ranjit Singh from neutral sources.

Quote:

Maharaja Ranjit Singh: The Sikh Ruler, in the eyes of non-Sikhs

Written by: getme

According to the famous historian Carlyle, a worthy sovereign should be judged from a sole factor as to how he employs his sword after being victorious.

********** Le Griffin writes that:

"Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom exactly according to the Sikh way of life and Sikhism considers everyone as friends and talks about the welfare of all irrespective of caste and creed."

**********

The spirit of Gurbani couplet, "The one Lord is the Father of all and we are the children of the one Lord rules supreme in every Sikh heart." Charles Hugal, writes in his book, "Travels in Kashmir and Punjab", that, "probably no person in the world could have established such a large empire with minimum bloodshed as Ranjit Singh has established his kingdom."

**********

Affirming Hugal's views, Prinsep, also writes in his book, "Origin of Sikh Power in Punjab", that, "Ranjit Singh's whole career was free of any blemishes like unnecessary atrocities and cruel bloodshed."

**********

Historian R.S. Kanungo praising all the aspects of the Kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, in his writings says, "his empire was the kingdom for 'Welfare for All', in which all were equal sharing partners. In his kingdom there was no special love for Sikhs and no animosity for non-Sikhs. There were no special taxes on any caste to show it down from the other or to label it inferior."

**********

W.G. Osborne writes that, "Maharaja Ranjit Singh was so compassionate that outside a battle he did not kill anyone, so much so that in generosity he even forgave those who tried to kill him and felt happiness in forgiving."

**********

Charles Hugal in his book, "The Court and Camp of Ranjit Singh", writes that, "Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom according to the Sikh tenets. All the important positions were given to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, entirely based on merit. Even his main advisors were three famous Muslim brothers: Fakir Aziz-ud-Din, his foreign minister; Fakir Nur-ud-Din, his home minister; Fakir Imam-ud-Din, his custodian of the arsenals. Forty-six senior Army officers and two top ranking Generals were Muslims.

One General was French and score of military officers were Europeans. In police and civil services he has about one hundred Muslim officers alone. Hindus too, used to hold many key positions in Sarkar-e-Khalsa. Ranjit Singh was secular through-and-through.

Since he had lost his one eye in childhood, due to small pox, he used to remark jokingly about himself that,

"God Willed that as a true Sikh I should look upon all religions with one eye"."

**********

Sayyed Waheed-ud-Din, the great grandson of Fakir Aziz-ud-Din writes,

"On one occassion, Maharaja and Fakir were out walking on the outskirts of Lahore when they met a bullock cart carrying what looked like a huge book. The Maharaja stopped the cart and asked the driver, what he was carrying.

"Maharaja", replied the driver, "I am a calligraphist and this book is a manuscript of the Holy Quran, which is my entire life's work. I am on my way to Hyderabad to sell it to the Muslim king of that country.

Turning to Fakir Aziz-ud-Din the Maharaja said,

"This man seems to think that there is nobody on this side of Hyderabad who is pious and generous enough to pay him a good price". He then asked the calligraphist, "How much are you expecting my good man?"

The calligraphist mentioned a huge sum of Rs. 10,000. Before the minister could intervene, Ranjit Singh commanded,

"Fakir ji, please see to it that this man is paid ten thousand rupees from the state treasury." He then asked Fakir Aziz-ud-Din to read him a passage from the manuscript. Fakir read Sura 'Yusaf' and then translated it.

"But Fakir ji," remarked the Maharaja, "The Great Granth says the same kind of things. What is the difference?"

"None, your Highness", replied the Fakir, "The goal is the same, only the paths are different." The Maharaja awarded Aziz-ud-Din, for this apt reply, by gifting him the manuscript.

**********

Maharaja Ranjit Singh did not know about prejudice and sectarianism, that is why a Muslim poet like Shah Mohammed was not tired of praising him and lamented by recounting the virtues of Ranjit Singh on his death.

**********

Another unparalled quality of Ranjit Singh was that any king or landlord who was defeated by him, Ranjit Singh instead of showing him down, used to show generosity and allot him landed property worth hundreds of thousands of rupees so as to pass life with dignity.

Defeated Afghan Governor Muhammad Khan, Nawab of Kasur Kutub-o-din, defeated son of Governor of Multan are apparent examples of Ranjit Singh's benevolence.

**********

According to N.K. Sinha,

"Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to give robe of honour to Qazis, Sayyeds, Ulmas and hermits so that they could keep on working for welfare and building the nation with full devotion and enthusiasm."

**********

Henry Lawrence in his book, "Adventures of an Officer in Punjab", writes that:

"Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to give large properties to the defeated kings and keep them in a position to live a comfortable life, while others would enjoy to let their enemies suffer to the limit of defeat."

**********

Murray writes,

"Ranjit Singh was full of humanity. He ruled by following the etiquettes of Sikhism and therefore he was generous, benevolent and a sympathiser."

"He has been likened to Mehmet Ali and to Napoleon. There are some points in which he resembles both; but estimating his character with reference to his circumstances and positions, he is perhaps a more remarkable man than either. There was no ferocity in his disposition and he never punished a criminal with death even under the circumstances of aggravated offence. Humanity indeed, or rather tenderness for life was a trait in the character of Ranjit Singh. There is absolutely no instance of his having wantonly imbued his hands in blood."

**********

Maharaja was truely secular and democratic in ruling his kingdom and welfare of his subjects kept paramount importance in his performance agenda. There were 4000 schools in his Kingdom, which were all same for the children of all brotherhoods. Even English and French were taught so that students could communicate with the literature and culture of the outside world. The Maharaja gave a practical shape to the Sikh mentality. His empire, in the real meaning, was the kingdom of the people in which there was justice, happiness, dynamic power and universal partnership.

**********

Waheed-ud-Din, quotes, two of Ranjit Singh's orders which highlight his sense of justice and equality for his people. In one order he says, that even if His Highness himself issues an inappropriate order against any resident, it should be clearly brought to the notice of His Highness so that it may be amended......justice should be dispensed in accordance with legitimate right and without the slightest oppression and prejudice and orders should be passed in accordance with the Shatras or the Quran as pertinent to the faith of the party.

In his second decree, he frankly states that Sri Sat Guru ji forbid if His Highness or his beloved sons should commit any inappropriate act. It should be brought to the notice of His Highness.

Waheed-ud-Din considers these orders very unique in the sense that they do not even exclude the Emperor from the clutches of the law. History stands testimony that, Maharaja received lashes on his back in open view of the Sangat when the punishment was awarded to him by the Akal Takhat.

**********

Vincent Smith, observes:

"The Punjab state under Ranjit Singh was neither a traditional Indian territorial state and monarchy, nor merely a dictatorship".

**********

For the Sikhs his rule was a "Haleemi Raj" i.e. a Kingdom ruled with utmost humility, kindliness and a sense of service to humanity.

********************************************************************************

Chanakya

Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 4005

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

Quote:

I'm a Punjabi Jatt Muslim. Anyway he did not do that in self defense you don't subjugate the indigenous population for self defense.

You are handful of muslim who consider themself Punjabi Jatt, most of the pakistani muslim I have met on the forums try their utmost to convince themselves and others that they are descendents of Mughal, Persian, Arab, Turks, they just happen to live on Indian sub-continents all their families were rulers, they never converted..they are true blood descendents, Indians are way below them, they have brain washed, they are lost people with no past and therefore no future...

Here read what english historians has to say about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and compare this with Aurangzeb treatment of non-muslims.

Quote:

Murray writes,

"Ranjit Singh was full of humanity. He ruled by following the etiquettes of Sikhism and therefore he was generous, benevolent and a sympathiser."

"He has been likened to Mehmet Ali and to Napoleon. There are some points in which he resembles both; but estimating his character with reference to his circumstances and positions, he is perhaps a more remarkable man than either. There was no ferocity in his disposition and he never punished a criminal with death even under the circumstances of aggravated offence. Humanity indeed, or rather tenderness for life was a trait in the character of Ranjit Singh. There is absolutely no instance of his having wantonly imbued his hands in blood."

Rizzwan

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 2613

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

Chanakya wrote:

Quote:

I'm a Punjabi Jatt Muslim. Anyway he did not do that in self defense you don't subjugate the indigenous population for self defense.

Here read what english historians has to say about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and compare this with Aurangzeb treatment of non-muslims.

Quote:

You've never met a Punjabi Jatt Muslim. The Jatt Muslims also don't like these Mujirs from Karachi. You've probably been talking to some marasee kids.

yeezevee

Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 17109

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:31 am Post subject:

Quote:

..The Jatt Muslims also don't like these Mujirs from Karachi. You've probably been talking to some marasee kids.

that is not a good thing to say dear Rizzwan.. here is one more Video fro you to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW5yJ-wv9lM&search=mullah

with best yeezevee

John Galt

Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 109
Location: Galt's Gulch.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject:

samkhya wrote:

Note that after Persia, Afganistan, Sindh, Baluchistan etc were conquered, the Islamic invaders had to face the formidable Sikhs and Rajputs who put up a good fight.

I have no doubt that had it not been for the Sikh and Rajputs we hindus would all be marrying our cousins in honour of Mohammed. The Marathas on their own would not be able to repel the Islamic barbarians.

This is the main reason why Hindusim is still alive today, not because of Islamic tolerance (I would hate to be tolerated anyway).

Hindus can never repay the debt they owe to the Sikhs

Samkhya

All:

India was invaded from the north by the muslims. The hindus were converted to islam by force. Those who refused were massacred and their women raped and taken.

The first Sikh Guru, Guru Nanak, witnessed one of these assaults by one of the early muslim invaders named Babur. In one of the verses in his Baani, he says (my crude translation from Punjabi):

"He (Babur) came from Kabul with a marriage party of Sin;
He took Brides by Force;
Religion, Peity and shame have been banished;
Falsehood is in charge now;
Kaazis and Brahmins are not performing the wedding rituals now;
The Satan is the one performing the weddings....."

Guru Nanak preached equality of everyone before God (irrespective of religion), equality of men and women, equality of rich and poor, and preached against ignorance and rituals (both hindu and muslim kind). He preached that all mankind is one.

There were ten Sikh Gurus. The tenth, Guru Gobind Singh, raised the Sikh army, called Khalsa, to protect the Hindus against forced conversions by the Muslim rulers.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in sikh scriptures. People may convert to Sikhism or leave it. Conversion by force is a big No, No.

As opposed to Hinduism, Sikhs believe in One God and do not worship idols. It is closer to Christianity in some regards, including the fact that it follows a book - Guru Granth Sahib - that has the teachings of the Gurus and others. A Khalsa is not supposed to cut his hair. There are many sikhs that do cut their hair - but they stay sikhs.

Sikhs are not supposed to be ritualistic, but many are becoming so under the influlence of hinduism. The religion treats women as equal to men - no better, no worse. Sikh women are in every field in India and in the west, inlcuding scientists, doctors, engineers, politicians and priests.

In 1947, when India was partitioned, Sikhs lost a big part of their native state, Punjab, to Pakistan. All sikhs on the west side of Punjab (now in Pakistan) had to flee to the Indian side, over a matter of days, leaving their money, properties and possessions behind. On the way, they were looted, massacred and raped by the muslims. Women were taken away and forcybly married to muslims, never to be seen again by their families.

Sikhs constitue about 3% of India's population, but are represented very highly in India. The current Prime Minister of India is a Sikh, and so is the current Army chief.

Sikhs are very patriotic about India. Most families have at least one son in the armed forces. Many sikhs have immigrated to the west and are very patriotic about their adopted homelands.

Is this a perfect relision? As a religion it is very good - probably one of the best. But then again, it is a religion and by definition a religion has belief in God, which may not be for an atheist like me. But I have not found anything in the Book to be racist, hateful or preaching ignorance.

Some modern followers, especially the political and preist class have, for their own benefit, tried to create mischief between sikhs and hindus, demanding a separate country (khalistan), but most sikhs do not believe in that - they believe in India.

Although sikhs get along with muslims on indvidual basis, no one needs to tell them about how opressive and barbaric islam is. They have experienced it first hand - time and again.

Thank you,
JG
_________________
Why?

Volvic

Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 63

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: Muslim And Sikhs

Rizzwan wrote:

Sunflower wrote:

Rizzwan wrote:

dee_singh78 wrote:

What did Ranjit Singh do? pretty much the same to Muslims. By the way I am your brother I am a Jatt Cheema Punjabi. I want to ask you what you think of Ackbar?

Its called SELF DEFENSE. I don't think you are Punjabi because no Sikh would ever defend a Muslim, especially a Jatt Sikh.

I don't know where you got your information from but that is the biggest load of sh!t I have seen spouted on these forums. Instead of quoting something because you read it and thinking it must be true do some research around the topic from multiple non-biased sources. I

John Galt

Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 109
Location: Galt's Gulch.

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject:

I see a lot of discussion comparing muslims with sikhs. While some may distort historical facts and logic to equate some aspects of sikhism with islam (probably because of beard and turban), to me here is the BIGGEST difference between the two: Sikhism was created, believes in and preaches Freedom of Religion. The Khalsa was organized to fight the Muslims who were forcibly converting Hindus (not sikhs). Do you see the difference? Islam was organized to forcibly convert people of other religions. Sikhism was organized to protect the freedom of religion of the followers of other religions. In other words, a 500 year old FFI.... JG _________________ Why?

IandonlyI

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: religions

John wrote:

Quote:

I see a lot of discussion comparing muslims with sikhs. While some may distort historical facts and logic to equate some aspects of sikhism with islam (probably because of beard and turban), to me here is the BIGGEST difference between the two:

Sikhism was created, believes in and preaches Freedom of Religion. The Khalsa was organized to fight the Muslims who were forcibly converting Hindus (not sikhs).

Do you see the difference?

Islam was organized to forcibly convert people of other religions.

Sikhism was organized to protect the freedom of religion of the followers of other religions. In other words, a 500 year old FFI....

JG

A very very good one John. Thank you. Please read above you stupid Muslims.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all?

freedom84

Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 2671

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject:

patriot wrote:

diotima64 wrote:

Taqqiya Tactician wrote:

I must confess, I know very little about Sikkism. We dont see Sikhs burning embarries, raping women or marrying 6 year olds or beheading, torturing or maiming non-sikhs, so Im assuming it must be a peaceful religion.

But I still think they are too darn stupid to not trim or shave bodily hair. I would not be a part of that religion just for that reason. if I were born Sikh, I would be an apostate now. I hate it when religions dictate how you live. Especially when they tell you what to do and what not to do with your own body!! That's so sick. Just like in Islam and Judaism.
Thats opression and I have zero tolerance for opressors and do not respond to commands. The language of love moves me easily, but Im very irreceptive to the force, intimidation and coersion. Maybe thats why I hate Muahmamd(but love Ali Sina) with a passion.

Eh... actually, many Sikhs DO shave etc. It is a special ceremony (amrit), that someone CHOSES to take, where he/she takes certain vows. Actually, as far as I know, Sikhs are very anti-ritual, at least in theory.

that's the problem dio, they are ritualistically antiritualistic.
They spread terrorism in India because Indian army attacked the golden temple of sikhs to evacuate a fanatic sikh leader.

The original sikh scriptures are simply superb in many sense but they are ofcourse racist text to some extent.
Things started to change with the 10th guru who militarised the entire religion and converted themselves into a martial race.

racist text?! take out a fanatical leader?!

This is coming from the same person who believes India is a democracy, and India isn't bound to religion! The same fanatical leader you are referring to spoke of the same human rights abuses the Indian govt. inflicted on the Sikhs as Amnesty international did. Now you have heard of Amnesty haven't you? Or...oh sorry I forget they were BANNED from India/Punjab for so many years so you may not of.
_________________
"LONG LIVE REVOLUTION!"
- Shaheed Bhagat Singh

freedom84

Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 2671

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject:

Taqqiya Tactician wrote:

Quote:

One of my best friends is a sikh, although he cut his hair though.
Although it does appear that many sikh's i've seen simply do not care much for their faith and appear to be very westernized.

Then he is not a Sikh anymore, if he has cut his hair. I've heard that Sikhism was born out of Islam and hinduism. What parts of Islam have they incorporated into their religion.

I think sikhism is a joke. How can any sane person take two different religions with diametrically opposite views and merge the two and accept it as the true path to salvation!?! You eaither accept evil Mo or Hindu philosophy. Why the appeasement. You cant meet mid way to and call it the truth. Why cant the sikh decide who was right and who is not?

As you said my friend, you don't know much about Sikhism. Seems you've made an assumption on something 'you've heard'! I'm sure you're intelligent enough to do some research on the religion before you go speaking about it on a forum such as faith freedom.
_________________
"LONG LIVE REVOLUTION!"
- Shaheed Bhagat Singh

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> A Muslim in my Life	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 4 of 7

Jump to:

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