U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2017, 02:58 AM
 
Location: quiet place
271 posts, read 214,272 times
Reputation: 99

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I had refrained from posting in this forum for various reasons .
That is better and wiser continuum. keep refrained if you don't get the tool or the right references for discussing Islamic issues.

I remember once I asked you to stick to the context of a certain verse, then you asked me to stick to the context of another verse! then I stopped posting in your threads (why)?

Coz, when I recall this incident of Context, it is like a cop who says to a man (Hands up)?

the man does not listen, but asks the cop to (hands up ) too

so if you want to discuss Quran, bring an Authentic Explanatory book with you.

thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2017, 04:00 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,848 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
you still accumulating Quran verses Khalif
Resigned, you should be happy that I am quoting verses of the Qur'aan and not from the hadith books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
I can quote Abraham Lincoln's most influential phrases but would that makes my mind a republican?

I can quote lots of legal or constitutional texts but does it mean that I know the soul of those texts? NAY
What has Abraham Lincoln or Constitution got to do with "Sunnah of the Prophet"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
Khlaif, wake up for God's sake
Don't worry about me; I am wide awake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
Khalif, can you ask yourself why Muslim wrote hundreds of books, hundred thousands of papers to explain Quran verses?
They wrote books and you believe those books rather than the Book of Allah:

[16.89] And on the day when We will raise up in every people a witness against them from among themselves, and bring you as a witness against these-- and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit.

You deny that Allah explained clearly everything about Islam in the Qur'aan. Yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
Khalif the pedantic, have you ever thought of this verse " And when there comes to them information about [public] security or fear, they spread it around. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few." Chapter 4, verse 83

Are you Khalif one of those of authority or ability to draw correct conclusions? NAY
Now you are looking for straws to hang on to as you have failed to find "Sunnah of the Prophet" mentioned in the Qur'aan.

The verse 4:83 has nothing to do with the Sunnah of the Prophet but is about rumors of attack on Muslims. Instead of spreading them among the people, they should have informed the Messenger or those in charge at the time to investigate the rumor.

I too can quote a similar but better verse for you:

[4.59] O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

Don't you think that this is a better verse for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
Have you ever quote one of the credited Muslim explanators like ibn katheer or Tabari or Qurtobi? OR you just explain by yourself?
How do we know that those who say they were credited Muslim explanators are credited to credit such explanators?

Why don't you believe Allah rather than these "explanators"?

The Qur'aan itself is explained by Allah (17:12, 17:89, 18:54, 4:26, 16:89, 18:54, 75:19).


Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
Khalif I told you before you are wasting your time and others' as well. nothing personal man you accused my with racism despite I did not answer your curses and revilement in the last posts

Khalif, Is it racist to tell someone to learn the tongue of a nation that he likes to criticize their literature?
Resigned, hadith books with all the rubbish like camel urine and fly in the drink is Arabic literature and it began with Arabic literature. The Qur'aan is fine. Nothing wrong with it but other literature in Arabic is approved neither by Allah nor by the messenger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
Khalif, listen pls. You can discuss whatever you like except Quran especially when pretending to judge the right or wrong explanation.
If you can't discuss the Qur'aan, you can't discuss Islam. Islam is only in the Qur'aan and perfected only through the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
I gave you tow-word phrase in Arabic in the last post, if you give the right translation I give you $20
The subject under discussion is "Sunnah of the Prophet" and not translation of على شحم. So don't divert from the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 04:09 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,848 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
That is better and wiser continuum. keep refrained if you don't get the tool or the right references for discussing Islamic issues.

I remember once I asked you to stick to the context of a certain verse, then you asked me to stick to the context of another verse! then I stopped posting in your threads (why)?

Coz, when I recall this incident of Context, it is like a cop who says to a man (Hands up)?

the man does not listen, but asks the cop to (hands up ) too

so if you want to discuss Quran, bring an Authentic Explanatory book with you.

thanks
Resigned,

The Qur'aan explains itself. You don't need it to be explained by books written by men centuries later.

If you say that not everything is explained in the Qur'aan, you are denying the words of Allah in 16:89 and in other verses.

[16.89] And on the day when We will raise up in every people a witness against them from among themselves, and bring you as a witness against these-- and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
That is better and wiser continuum. keep refrained if you don't get the tool or the right references for discussing Islamic issues.

I remember once I asked you to stick to the context of a certain verse, then you asked me to stick to the context of another verse! then I stopped posting in your threads (why)?

Coz, when I recall this incident of Context, it is like a cop who says to a man (Hands up)?

the man does not listen, but asks the cop to (hands up ) too

so if you want to discuss Quran, bring an Authentic Explanatory book with you.

thanks
The above are merely babblings.
Your views are intellectually lacking and you are giving silly excuses not to discuss the points rationally.
I have provided supporting views from the words of Allah [Quran] but you have provided no credible points to support your views at all.

All you have done is throw in 33:21 and that is very flimsy.

The strongest argument relied upon by Ahadith followers are those verses that stated 'obey the Messenger' and I have argued away that point.

Frankly you have nothing to support your views from the Quran why the Ahadith have divine authority.
If you have any what are they?


According to Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, he accused those who compiled the Ahadith as "Criminals of Islam" as they insulted the Prophet of Islam by including the most ridiculous attributes to the Prophets.
http://www.newageislam.com/books-and...ir-ahmed/d/946

Quote:
There are thousands and thousands of examples from which the author has chosen only a few hundred to share with his Muslim brothers and sisters. These examples of insults will begin with Hadith Bukhari, supposedly the most authentic book of Islam after the Qur’an. Later on, this book will examine quotations from other books of ahadith (traditions of the Holy Prophet), fiqh (jurisprudence written by imams), prominent Mullas (clergy) and master Sufis (mystics).
Here is a sample of insults included in Bukhari's compilations;

Quote:
Let’s explore why he said this…

Mahmood bin Rabe narrates, “I still remember when I was five years old, the Holy Prophet rinsed his mouth and then poured the water into mine” (Kitabul Ilm vol.2, hadith 77).
Could the Exalted Prophet hold any human being at that level of inferiority?

Kitabul Ilm ahadith 91, 92, 93 states: The Prophet’s cheeks turned red, his face became red with anger . . . and so on.
This statement is absolutely at variance with the Prophet’s character, and appears to have been fabricated to defame him. This is only one of the hundreds of such narratives that portray him to be a man of temper. The Holy Prophet, in fact, was a cool-minded person with exceptional self-control.

Prophet Solomon boasted that he would impregnate one hundred women in one night, but only one woman became pregnant and gave birth to a half-formed child (Bukhari, Book of Nikah 3:110).
This tragedy is reported elsewhere to have occurred because Solomon did not say "Insha-Allah” before going to his hundred wives.

The (Exalted) Messenger used to visit all nine of his wives every night (Bukhari, Book of Nikah 3:52).
On the other hand, Bukhari repeatedly narrates that the Holy Prophet used to stand at prayers all night. So much so that his feet used to swell.

The Holy Messenger used to have intercourse with all of his wives in one hour of the day and night (without taking a bath) and these (wives) were eleven.
The narrator tries to preempt an objection by stating that he (the Holy Prophet) had the (sexual) power of 30 men (Bukhari, Book of Bath 1:189).
The Mulla mind has so terribly affected our masses that even derogatory statements such as this become praiseworthy. The Holy Prophet was a perfect guide to humanity. He was not a man of unbridled desire. The women who lived in his household were primarily there for shelter. Only a contemptuous mind can perceive the Mothers of Believers as objects of pleasure for the Prophet.

Bukhari highlights the above hadith by putting a special heading: “to have sex with many women with only one bath.” The Prophet said that the best man amongst his followers is the one who has the greatest number of wives (Bukhari, Book of Nikah 3:52).

The Qur'an (49:13) tells us that the best person is the one who is best in conduct.

The Holy Prophet asked, “Who will buy this slave from me?” Hazrat Naeem bought him for 800 Darham (Bukhari, Kitabul Ikrah p.669).
Did the Prophet sell slaves?!

Aisha said to the Prophet, “Won’t you rather graze your camel onto a tree whose leaves have not yet been grazed?” Arwa bin Zubair said that Aisha meant she was the only virgin the Prophet had married (Bukhari, Book of Nikah 3:55).

The Prophet disapproved of his companion Jabir’s plan to marry a widow and asked, "Why did you not marry a virgin so that you played with her and she played with you?" (reference same).
The Holy Prophet was extremely compassionate to widows and divorced women.

Hazrat Ali stated that he suffered from “jiryan” (drainage of prostate secretions) constantly (Bukhari, Kitabul Ilm p.150).
This fictitious condition is widely believed in the East to take away manhood completely. Someone is trying to dishonor the great mujahid of Islam.

The sun rises between the two antlers of Satan (Bukhari 2:134). Prophet Abraham lied three times (Bukhari, Book of Nikah 3:57).
After insulting the Patriarch of Faith, the narrator goes on to justify the accusation with lame arguments. -

See more at: http://www.newageislam.com/books-and....gmaT66qY.dpuf

Last edited by Continuum; 03-15-2017 at 04:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 03:04 PM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,848 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The strongest argument relied upon by Ahadith followers are those verses that stated 'obey the Messenger' and I have argued away that point.
Actually, if this is the strongest argument of the ahadith followers then they have the weakest argument. It shows their apparent weakness in understanding the Qur'aan.

The term "obey Allah and obey His messenger" is one term and not two terms in one term. It does not mean obey Allah separately from obeying His messenger but obey at the same time.

It simply mean obey whatever is commanded in the Message (of the Qur'aan)

Wherever it is mentioned in the Qur'aan about obeying Allah and the messenger, the context is always the Message from Allah that is delivered by the messenger.

This is why it is never commanded in the Qur'aan to obey Allah and obey Muhammad.

In the Qur'aan we read:

[4.80] Whoever obeys the messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.

Ahadith followers would be committing shirk if they thought that the messenger was Allah according to this verse. The verse simply means obeying the messenger is obeying whatever is commanded in the message that is from Allah.

The tunnel vision of the ahadith followers is diverting them away from the Qur'aan and Islam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 03:46 PM
 
2,412 posts, read 1,321,722 times
Reputation: 5744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post

Sharia Law is Islamic law that is only in the Qur'aan. It cannot be applied to non-Muslims. It applies to Muslims only. Perhaps you are not aware of this fact.

Khalif, my friend ... a small interjection here if I may and then I will again vanish and let you and those others who know a lot more than I do continue your discussion.


First, on the first page of this thread, you noted that muslims are killing non-muslims. I don't know if they are doing that for the reasons you suggest, but you said that muslims should take out those who are killing muslims (i.e. groups like ISIS) and I wanted to tell you .. YES .. I think that is the absolute best way for everyone to be rid of ISIS. So .. thank you for saying that .. and telling us that you think that that is indeed happening/about to happen. Next .. I hope you and your muslim friends will 'fix' those schools in places like Pakistan where ISIS followers are bred.


Second - the above from that same page in a different post. I found this interesting .. it was not something I have ever heard before .. that sharia can only apply to muslims.


If so though, that begs the question .. what if eventually muslims come to constitute a majority of a western population/country but still not all the people in that country are muslim. However since muslims are such a large sector they essentially control elections and then comprise almost (if not all) the government from the 'parliament' to the 'leader' levels so that they are able at that point to call the shots and make real change in the laws of the land.


So then those muslims in power decide they want to replace whatever laws that govern that land with laws that conform to sharia - and perhaps these muslims then in power want to instigate a particularly severe form of Sharia as well (perhaps one which says that killing all those who not muslims is required) - and so they do.


Question 1: What should those who are not muslim but who still live in that country do if that happens ... i.e. there is an extreme form of Sharia in place which threatens non-muslims? If those non-muslims have absolutely no representation in government and no laws of their own in place and muslims are required to obey the law of the land .. which is now this form of Sharia .. if you were a non-muslim what would you do?


Question 2: Even if the form of sharia is relatively palatable to most or many non-muslims, since you have said that sharia should never apply to non-muslims ... are non-muslims still in that country now without laws at all ... or do they now have an obligation to follow the laws of the land (i.e. Sharia laws) regardless of what you said? If they don't have any obligation, how will muslims feel about that? Will they want the laws changed to punish those who are non-muslim for not obeying sharia laws because they are now the laws of the land? Will the form of sharia need to change and grow more extreme in order to 'control' those non-muslims who remain - if for no other reason than perhaps muslims will be upset that they are controlled by laws and the non-muslims are not?


Thank you for your usual careful consideration and whatever answers you may have to these questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 06:49 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 769,127 times
Reputation: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11 View Post
Khalif, my friend ... a small interjection here if I may and then I will again vanish and let you and those others who know a lot more than I do continue your discussion.


First, on the first page of this thread, you noted that muslims are killing non-muslims. I don't know if they are doing that for the reasons you suggest, but you said that muslims should take out those who are killing muslims (i.e. groups like ISIS) and I wanted to tell you .. YES .. I think that is the absolute best way for everyone to be rid of ISIS. So .. thank you for saying that .. and telling us that you think that that is indeed happening/about to happen. Next .. I hope you and your muslim friends will 'fix' those schools in places like Pakistan where ISIS followers are bred.


Second - the above from that same page in a different post. I found this interesting .. it was not something I have ever heard before .. that sharia can only apply to muslims.


If so though, that begs the question .. what if eventually muslims come to constitute a majority of a western population/country but still not all the people in that country are muslim. However since muslims are such a large sector they essentially control elections and then comprise almost (if not all) the government from the 'parliament' to the 'leader' levels so that they are able at that point to call the shots and make real change in the laws of the land.


So then those muslims in power decide they want to replace whatever laws that govern that land with laws that conform to sharia - and perhaps these muslims then in power want to instigate a particularly severe form of Sharia as well (perhaps one which says that killing all those who not muslims is required) - and so they do.


Question 1: What should those who are not muslim but who still live in that country do if that happens ... i.e. there is an extreme form of Sharia in place which threatens non-muslims? If those non-muslims have absolutely no representation in government and no laws of their own in place and muslims are required to obey the law of the land .. which is now this form of Sharia .. if you were a non-muslim what would you do?


Question 2: Even if the form of sharia is relatively palatable to most or many non-muslims, since you have said that sharia should never apply to non-muslims ... are non-muslims still in that country now without laws at all ... or do they now have an obligation to follow the laws of the land (i.e. Sharia laws) regardless of what you said? If they don't have any obligation, how will muslims feel about that? Will they want the laws changed to punish those who are non-muslim for not obeying sharia laws because they are now the laws of the land? Will the form of sharia need to change and grow more extreme in order to 'control' those non-muslims who remain - if for no other reason than perhaps muslims will be upset that they are controlled by laws and the non-muslims are not?


Thank you for your usual careful consideration and whatever answers you may have to these questions.
I know you were asking these questions to Khalid and thank you for being respectful. I'm happy to take a stab here.

To your first question, there really is only one true Shari'a and the vast majority of Muslims agree on this point. On the minor items we do disagree on, none of them relate to murdering non-Muslims for the sake of being non-Muslims. It's clear in several verses in the Quran that there is no compulsion to be had in religion and we are directly instructed to call for allowing differences of religion in the chapter Kafiroon.

Further under no Caliphate did this ever occur from the basis of Shari'a. When discrimination occurred, Caliphs had to find ways *around* the clear Shari'a to do it. ISIS for instance had to release some insanely illogical fatwa that says in essence that Christians and Yazidis were all traitors and all conspiring with their enemies and applied massive collection punishments and murders.

On the other hand we witness the Ottoman Caliphate have a majority Christian state at one point in their history and major minorities.

To your second question... there are secular and religious courts and political leaders appointed by these communities to handle their affairs. For instance the Ottoman's allowed for the Jewish and Christian communities to administer their own laws, courts, moral policing, etc...

And of course there are purely secular laws of daily life which are administered for general social welfare, infrastructure, etc.. such as speed limits, city parking ordinances, housing ordinances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Actually, if this is the strongest argument of the ahadith followers then they have the weakest argument. It shows their apparent weakness in understanding the Qur'aan.

The term "obey Allah and obey His messenger" is one term and not two terms in one term. It does not mean obey Allah separately from obeying His messenger but obey at the same time.

It simply mean obey whatever is commanded in the Message (of the Qur'aan)

Wherever it is mentioned in the Qur'aan about obeying Allah and the messenger, the context is always the Message from Allah that is delivered by the messenger.

This is why it is never commanded in the Qur'aan to obey Allah and obey Muhammad.

In the Qur'aan we read:

[4.80] Whoever obeys the messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.

Ahadith followers would be committing shirk if they thought that the messenger was Allah according to this verse. The verse simply means obeying the messenger is obeying whatever is commanded in the message that is from Allah.

The tunnel vision of the ahadith followers is diverting them away from the Qur'aan and Islam.
In principle [Quranic] the Ahadith followers must rely on Allah's words [Quran] to justify their adoption of the Ahadith.
'obey Allah -Obey Messenger' is the strongest argument I have read so far from the Ahadith followers. From what I have read from the Quran, I don't see any stronger basis for Ahadith than that. I would be interested to know if there are stronger verses to support the Ahadith.

There are many verses that state 'obey Allah & obey the Messenger' and 4:80 [you quoted above] one of the stronger ones. Another is 3:31,
3:31. Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love [HBB: tuḥibbūna] Allah, follow [TB3: tuḥibbūna] me [Muhammad]; Allah will love [HBB: yuhabibkumu] you and forgive you [as Muslim] your sins [DhNB: dhunūbakum]. Allah is Forgiving [ghafūrun], Merciful.
To the simple minded the 'obey Allah & obey the Messenger' verses would indicate 'obey the Messenger' mean obey whatever Muhammad did and said during the period 610-632AD. [subjected to certain verification procedures] This is because the Quran stated Muhammad is an exemplar 33:21 [so is Abraham ??] and that is interpreted too narrowly.

Some scholars of old had warned of this but they are ignored.
If I [Muhammad] command you to do something in my own
name, I am but a mortal; but if I bring you something from God, keep it; for I could not lie on God's account.'Muslim, Shahih, 'Kitab al-Fada'il', Bab 37.
Point is they are so blinded, the Ahadith followers blatantly ignore the MANY glaring verses that restricted and conditioned Muhammad's divine duty as ONLY to convey the message, reminder, warning his folks, brought good tidings, and not to guide on a divine basis.

Now that 1.5 billion [99%] of Muslims are adopting the Ahadith as having divine authority which is an error, it is extremely difficult to talk sense to them despite Allah exhorting Muslims to use their brain wisely.
6:151. … ... This He hath commanded you [Muslims], in order that ye may discern [&QL; taʿqilūna: use reason, think, reflect].
Logically, if Muslims are to be truer Muslims they must abandon the belief that the Ahadith has any divine authority on a wholesale basis. At most what they can do is to pick those hadith that are verifiable and complied within the ambit of the Quran.

Last edited by Continuum; 03-15-2017 at 09:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 11:34 PM
 
2,050 posts, read 660,944 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
I know you were asking these questions to Khalid and thank you for being respectful. I'm happy to take a stab here.

To your first question, there really is only one true Shari'a and the vast majority of Muslims agree on this point. On the minor items we do disagree on, none of them relate to murdering non-Muslims for the sake of being non-Muslims. It's clear in several verses in the Quran that there is no compulsion to be had in religion and we are directly instructed to call for allowing differences of religion in the chapter Kafiroon.

Further under no Caliphate did this ever occur from the basis of Shari'a. When discrimination occurred, Caliphs had to find ways *around* the clear Shari'a to do it. ISIS for instance had to release some insanely illogical fatwa that says in essence that Christians and Yazidis were all traitors and all conspiring with their enemies and applied massive collection punishments and murders.

On the other hand we witness the Ottoman Caliphate have a majority Christian state at one point in their history and major minorities.

To your second question... there are secular and religious courts and political leaders appointed by these communities to handle their affairs. For instance the Ottoman's allowed for the Jewish and Christian communities to administer their own laws, courts, moral policing, etc...

And of course there are purely secular laws of daily life which are administered for general social welfare, infrastructure, etc.. such as speed limits, city parking ordinances, housing ordinances.
Christians in Muslim countries were paying Aldzeah
To the Ottomans ended
The Aldzeah directly and indirectly
But after the fall of the Ottoman Empire
And the emergence of modern states were canceled Aldzeah

Islamic jurisprudence
Explaining to the concept of Damma
For this reason, Islamic law
Not just in this area
Eastern Christians suffered from the injustice of this law
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 11:38 PM
 
2,050 posts, read 660,944 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
hahaha, why I DON not read your posts? why should I do that! I mean why should someone bothers itself discussing details if the counterpart doesn't have the basics like you

despite the hall nasty language you used against Arab, that doesn't discredit them. you should blame Allah for choosing Arab to be the most worthy nation of the Islamic message.

finally, you mentioned something in your Argument " why did not I use Sunnah to refute " " your pitiful posts? Well, you smarty, look to me! since you did not consider something/approach/methodology is truthful, why should I resort to it or use it to answer your outdated questions? this gives those who read this posts an idea that you lack the littlest argumentative skills as well as manners.

I used the source you approved it as an acceptable one which is Quraan but mercifully you are not competent to understand one Arabic phrase like ( على شحم )

So, Khalif that very long posts do not change the fact that you are tackling another ancient text in a foreign language while you are efficiency is quadratic ZERO.
I think that we have a new jurist named Khalifa
Because it denies Jihad Alllb
And deny all the words of the Muslim commentators
I think that eliminates the duty of Muslims ordinances
And it is also undeniable sayings of Muhammad
I think he is a Muslim from a rare model
----
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top