God will burn them if they burn His book

[eanassir]

Al-Taqiyya: to show the disbelief in order to avoid being killed​

Al-Taqiyya about which Omicron said; it is like this:

Once a companion of the Prophet (together with some other companions) was captured by the idolaters, so they tortured them and insisted that they should praise their idols and revile Mohammed; some of them refused and the idolaters increased thier torment, until some of them were killed and some of them yielded and reviled.

Then this companion also reviled the Prophet, and the idolaters released him; so he came to the Prophet weeping with sorrow, and told the Prophet: I reviled you. The Prophet smiled and said: "Did you blaspheme within your heart?" the man said: "No, God knows what love for God and for you is in my heart." So the Prophet said: "Then, it is ok."

This is in the Quran 3: 28​

لاَّ يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاء مِن دُوْنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَإِلَى اللّهِ الْمَصِيرُ​

The explanation:
(Let the believers take not unbelievers for [their] friends instead of believers, and whosoever does that will have nothing of God['s friendship] 1; ​

unless [it be] that you [, believers, intend to] guard yourselves from them.2​

God bids you beware of Himself 3; ​

and to God will be the final resort 4.)
……………………………………………………………………………….​

1 God forbade in the Quran that believers took the disbelievers as intimate allies, to whom they expose the secrets of Muslims, and that anyone who takes the disbelievers as allies – apart from believers – then God does not ally with him and does not take care about his affairs.

2 Unless when the power is in the hand of the disbelievers and the believers fear them lest they should kill the believers or torture them, then it is allowed to show their loving with tongue only but not in heart. And it is not allowed to help them and expose the secrets of believers to them.​

3 So don't disobey His commands.​

4 Following your death, and He will punish you according to your befriending with the disbelievers.​

>> Ammar one of the companions of the Prophet: the idolaters killed his parents before his eyes because they were believers, and they tortured him so he was obliged to utter the word of blasphemy.​

And this also is in the Quran 16: 106​

مَن كَفَرَ بِاللّهِ مِن بَعْدِ إيمَانِهِ إِلاَّ مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ وَلَكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ​

The explanation:
(Anyone who disbelieves in God 1 after having believed ​

– excepting one being forced 2 but his heart remaining firm with belief 3 – ​

but anyone whose breast is pleased with unbelief: on such is wrath from God, ​

and theirs will be a mighty chastisement [in the afterlife.])​

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1 And apostatized from the Islam religion; so for him is God's wrath. ​

2 so he blasphemed lest he should be killed ​

3 i.e. he is firm in his faith and believing in it, then no blame on him of uttering the word of blasphemy in case he fears the killing.
The interpretation is according to the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly.​

http://www.quran-ayat.com/​

========================================================

Jesus and the tribute to Cezar​

Jews embarrassed him by asking him in public: Is it lawful to give tribute to Cezar?
So if he says: Yes; they will say: How can you say this, don't you know that Cezar is idolater and it is forbidden to give the tax to the idolater?
And if he says: No; they will tell the soldiers of Cezar that this man refuses to give tribute to Cezar and stirs people not to give any tax to Cezar.

So he avoided their plight in intelligent way: he said: I what currency you give the tribute? They said: With this coin.
He said: Whose picture is this on the coin?
They said: this is the picture of Cezar. So he said: Give to Cezar what is his, and give to God what is His.

 

[ironsides]

After defeating their rivals in Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, Muslim extremists are focusing their attacks on Christians in Gaza City. Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the



international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists.

Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.

Gunmen used the roof of the school during the fighting, and the convent was "desecrated," Mussalem told the AP.

"Nothing happens by mistake these days," he said.

Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
​

 

[DaSleeper]

Off your high horse, mister! First you're on about denying one's faith, then you're on about how the Indians got screwed. Confusion? Think about it.

It's called moving the goal posts:smile:

 

[Blackleaf]

I doubt God would do anything to someone who burns a few story books.

The deity of Islam is called Allah and I do not believe that he exists. He's just a fictional creation created by a group of middle easterners around 600 years after Christianity was started. The deity I believe in is God of Christianity. He exists, and I doubt he'd punish anyone for burning a few books no matter what books they are.

 

[earth_as_one]

Can you prove your God is bigger than his God?

 

[ironsides]

Can you prove your God is bigger than his God?

Both Gods the same?


"Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:."

 

[JLM]

Oh boy- this thread has become childish.

 

[Omicron]

It's called moving the goal posts:smile:

It wasn't "moving the goal posts"... it was just a rephrasing, because the original statement had been misinterpreted, so a different combination of words, using a different syntax, was tried in an attempt to get the concept through.

Have you never had a problem where you've said something, the listener gets the wrong idea, so you restate it in a different way so they'll get it?

Both Gods the same?

"Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:."

If you study linguistic and etymology, you'd see as plain as day that Yahweh (which ancient Hebrew would have spelled as Yhwh) is just another way of spelling Jehovah (think about how some languages pronounce 'J' as a 'Y' and how some languages pronounce 'w' as 'v' and visa-versa), both of which are phonetic morphemes of Allah.

Here is another example... the name of good ol' King David.

Using latin script, in Hebrew it's spelled Dawid. In Arabic it's spelled Daud. In Persian it's spelled Dawood, and in some forms of Welsh it's spelled Dewi, whereas in other forms of Welsh it's spelled Daffyd. (There was a Welsh person in Hollywood with a name pronounced David but who insisted on spelling it Daffyd, so he got nicknamed Daffy-Dave, which inspired someone to think of the name Daffy-Duck for a new cartoon character).

Then of course there's the name John, which has at least two alternate spelling's I bet you're all familiar with: Scottish version Ian, and Russian version Ivan.

Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah are all just alternate spellings, with the corresponding phonetic morphologys, of the same name... and who *really* thinks God would care?!? :roll:

 

[JLM]

And Irish version Sean and French version Jean and the bastardized version Jack.

 

[Omicron]

The deity of Islam is called Allah and I do not believe that he exists. He's just a fictional creation created by a group of middle easterners around 600 years after Christianity was started. The deity I believe in is God of Christianity. He exists, and I doubt he'd punish anyone for burning a few books no matter what books they are.

Uhh... you want to explain that to Muslims, who state as plain as they can that they worship the God of Abraham?

Are you trying to be like Irenaeus of Lyons? He was an early Christian theologian who taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament.

Specifically, he taught that because the God of the Old Testament tended to such harshness, whereas the God Jesus spoke of was one of mercy, that they couldn't be the same God. Irenaeus went on to teach that people should therefore not read the Old Testament and should only read New Testament scriptures, and he even went on to suggest that Jesus Himself had overthrown the God of the Old Testament and was now sitting upon the throne of heaven as the new God.

Is that what you're thinking?

 

[eanassir]

It wasn't "moving the goal posts"... it was just a rephrasing, because the original statement had been misinterpreted, so a different combination of words, using a different syntax, was tried in an attempt to get the concept through.

Have you never had a problem where you've said something, the listener gets the wrong idea, so you restate it in a different way so they'll get it?



If you study linguistic and etymology, you'd see as plain as day that Yahweh (which ancient Hebrew would have spelled as Yhwh) is just another way of spelling Jehovah (think about how some languages pronounce 'J' as a 'Y' and how some languages pronounce 'w' as 'v' and visa-versa), both of which are phonetic morphemes of Allah.

Here is another example... the name of good ol' King David.

Using latin script, in Hebrew it's spelled Dawid. In Arabic it's spelled Daud. In Persian it's spelled Dawood, and in some forms of Welsh it's spelled Dewi, whereas in other forms of Welsh it's spelled Daffyd. (There was a Welsh person in Hollywood with a name pronounced David but who insisted on spelling it Daffyd, so he got nicknamed Daffy-Dave, which inspired someone to think of the name Daffy-Duck for a new cartoon character).

Then of course there's the name John, which has at least two alternate spelling's I bet you're all familiar with: Scottish version Ian, and Russian version Ivan.

Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah are all just alternate spellings, with the corresponding phonetic morphologys, of the same name... and who *really* thinks God would care?!? :roll:

God, Allah and Yahweh indicate God Almighty: the Creator in English, Arabic and Hebrew.

 

[Omicron]

Can you prove your God is bigger than his God?

I'm probably going to regret posting this, given how I can already imagine the way some people might take it to heart the wrong way, but... I read your post, and thought about it for a sec, and this popped out...

Suppose you were in a situation where the presumption is that there are two Gods, and you were being required to prove that your God is bigger than someone else's God, both of which are supposed to be infinite.

The way I'd do it is... I'd say, "Okay, imagine the set of all natural number, i.e. 1,2,3... to infinity. There's an infinite number of those. Now imagine the set of all even numbers, i.e. 2,4,6,8... to infinity. There's an infinite number of those. They're both infinite, yet the set of all natural numbers is twice as big as the set of all even numbers. Therefore, theoretically it is possible for there to be two infinite Gods, with one being bigger than the other."

I bet if I said it to Taliban, they'd scream "Infidel" and start sawing my head off with those cheep knives they use, whereas if I said it to a Rev. T.Jone tribunal they'd scream apostate and/or sinner and/or Satan-worshiper, and would run me off with shotguns, threatening to beat me up if they ever saw my face again, which makes me feel a little bit safer living here, but geez...

I would have *no* problem saying something like that with modern Jesuits.

I wonder what the Muslim equivalent of Jesuits are?

He should be forced to get stoned and read the book. Maybe he would get enlightened.

So true.

I just had a flash of a sort-of Monty Python type script, where an enlightened authority move in on Rev. T.Jone's church and congregation and and announce that there's been a decision by a "high" court that Rev. TJ is to get stoned and read the book, and so the Marshal looks down to focus on rolling up the sentence-spliff, but he hears a commotion, and looks up to see Rev TJ's congregation throwing rocks at him.

As an aside, if you're ever curious to know what Christianity was like in its early years, in the late fourth century, see the movie Agora... it's really good! Agora (2009). My hat's off to the Spanish director.

It describes an event that many historians describe as one of the seven key moments of western history to define how-and-why things are the way they are today.

It tells the story of a female philosopher name Hypatia of Alexandria who was right on the edge of figuring out something that didn't get totally figured out until the time of Isaac Newton, 1200 years later (theory of gravity and elliptical orbit of planets around a solar-centric planetary system); some historians think she actually *did* figure it out, but that her discoveries got suppressed, such that if her understandings had been picked up and promulgated by the intelligentsia of the day, then the industrial revolution would have happened 1200 years before it did, and we would have been on the moon by the year 769 AD.

(That 1200 year delay is what we call the Dark Ages, and, ironically, it was writings preserved by the Muslim Academy of Baghdad which enabled Europeans to pull themselves out of that long doldrum to get back on track.)

The movie is great for several reasons. It shows how things were happening in the Roman Empire as it made the transition from Greaco-Roman polytheism to Christianity, and it describes a time about sixty years after Constantine had declared Christianity to be the "official religion" of the empire.

When Constantine made that declaration, it wasn't an instant conversion of the whole population. It happened over a period of several hundred years, in halting steps. Initially, Constantine only required employees of the government to be Christian. He did not make it a rule for the entire population to convert.

The movie describes a time about sixty years after the Council of Nicaea, when Christianity had been accepted by Constantine as the faith he would define the empire by, but only government officials had to be Christian; there was still considerable friction happening among the people.

Specifically, the upper-class were still tending to the comfort of their familiar Greaco-Roman gods, whereas the plebeians were tending to Christianity, and because the plebeians also tended to be poor and illiterate - and hungry - they were *not* guaranteed to be the nicest people.

The movie points out several things that a lot of modern Christians, especially evangelicals, don't know.

It shows how late 4rth Century Christians were mostly hungry and poor, still feeling exploited beneath a rich upper-class of Greaco-Roman polytheists, such that they could be quite aggressive and hostile, with attitudes and behaviors like we find today among Muslims feeling downtrodden, i.e. Hammas or Taliban. The hostility was because of economic factors, but they chose to justify and draw the lines of their feelings along religious grounds, just like today.

It also shows how independent the Bishops were back then. There was no Pope in Rome. Each Bishop had his own church and would establish a standard of uniform-attire that was unique for that church. You'll see how the ceremonies worked and how they led directly to the way we see modern Eastern Orthodoxy work, and to the institution of declaring sainthood to exceptional Christians.

And it shows how, at the time, Christians carried around bags of rocks as standard attire, which they used.

It's good history.

The two parts I saw that might not be factual (because we don't really know) were the scenes where they show Hypatia of Alexandria figuring out the the theory of gravity and the elliptical orbit of planets around a solar-centric planetary system - we only know that she was getting very close - and the scene where she is killed in a temple and is mercifully strangled first before being hammered with stones and cut into pieces. Records from the time indicate it's more likely she was stoned on a road while still alive before being chopped up.

Historians mark the death of Hypatia as the official end of the era of Classical Greek enlightenment and the official beginning of the Dark Age of Europe.

Check it out.

 

[eanassir]

The same God sent all the apostles​

God sent many apostles to guide people to worship Him alone (this is The First Commandment and to be just among themselves.

God actually sent a large number of apostles to a large number of nations at various time intervals and periods. God sent the warners to every nation. God sent each apostle to his own people (this is usually) and the apostle spoke the language of his people.

Then God sent Noah. Many apostles (unknown to us) followed Noah.

Then God sent Abraham.

Then He sent Moses and he lead the people chosen by God to worship Him alone and to abandon the idolatry.

After that God sent Jesus to purify them and lead them to know the essence of the Commandments. But Jews refused Jesus.

Then He sent Mohammed to break up all the idols and worship God alone according to the creed of their original grandfather Abraham. But many Jews and Christians refused Mohammed as had many Jews refused Jesus.

So the "sender" is the same, but they insist to deny this [because of their tribal and racial belonging.]

As in the Quran 5: 15-16

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ قَدْ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ كَثِيرًا مِّمَّا كُنتُمْ تُخْفُونَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَعْفُو عَن كَثِيرٍ قَدْ جَاءكُم مِّنَ اللّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ مُّبِينٌ . يَهْدِي بِهِ اللّهُ مَنِ اتَّبَعَ رِضْوَانَهُ سُبُلَ السَّلاَمِ وَيُخْرِجُهُم مِّنِ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ بِإِذْنِهِ وَيَهْدِيهِمْ إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ​

The explanation:
(People of the Bible [:Jews and Christians], now has Our messenger [Mohammed] come expounding to you many things in the Bible that you have been hiding, and many things else he disregards.

There has come to you light from God and a clear ‘Book’[: the Quran.]

Whereby God guides him who seeks His good pleasure to the paths of safety, and brings them out of darkness to light with His leave, and guides them to a standard path [: the devotion to God alone.])

A Call from God to the People of the Bible
[: Jews and Christians]

Both Gods the same?


"Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:."

God is the same One God: No god in the entire universe but only He alone the Almighty and the Creator.

But you insist as do some ignorant Muslims that He is only Yahweh or Allah; it means He is the same God; but you are different peoples and He is Independent of all of you.

 

[Omicron]

The same God sent all the apostles​

God sent many apostles to guide people to worship Him alone (this is The First Commandment and to be just among themselves.

Duh

God actually sent a large number of apostles to a large number of nations at various time intervals and periods. God sent the warners to every nation.

Duh

God sent each apostle to his own people (this is usually) and the apostle spoke the language of his people.

No **** Sherlock. How do you think Thomas Christianity got to India by way of Persia?

Then God sent Noah. Many apostles (unknown to us) followed Noah.

Ugh. Let's not talk about that right now, or I'm going to have to tell you about the Noahedic follower I met.

Then God sent Abraham.

Personally, I think Abraham was there at the construction of the tower of Babel.

If you look at Judeo-Christian scripture, you'll see that it ends at the tower of Babel, and the next chapter is about Abraham leaving the right arm of the green arch, going up and over into the left arm of the green arch.

Now think about it. They are workers being told that they are building a "tower unto heaven" at which the top is supposed to be "God".

What we know is that at the top of those zigaruts they would put a temple with a statue in it. Legalistically, upon completion of the zigarut they'd say, "See, there's your God which this temple has reached unto heaven to present to you."

What do you want to bet that what happened was... Abram was among those who felt that the zigarut builders were full of sh!t. They split from the construction project and said things like, "we started speaking different tongues"... meaning in a way that only middle-easterners could understand, that they felt different beliefs from those being tapped upon to build the zigarut.

Abram was so ticked off that he went into the western arm of the green belt, and found himself in a harder land where only goat and sheep herders could hope to survive... not nearly as nice as the east arm of the green arch where there were two rivers to water so many lands.

There was Abram... looking out over the harsh side of the green arch, and God ala Allah said in his ear and heart, "If you can hold this land, I give it all unto you with more kids than stars."

In the Christian/Jewish Bible it says only that God promised that land to Abraham. Where in the Quran does it say that the western green-arch was given to Abram? If the Quran is true, then somewhere it does.

All we know is that God told Abraham he could have the western green-arch. I think it had something to do with some issue about goat herders versus farmers. Farmers took over the eastern arch (Cain), and goat-herders got kicked into the western arch (Able).

Abram fathered the ancestors of both Arabs and Jews.

Somehow, they were supposed to share that land, but kids can be stupid.

I have a question.

At the end of the second world war, Canada's PM King offered northern Saskatchewan for all disenfranchised Jews to move to as a new homeland.

If they had, they would be rich, because it is full of minerals.

Instead, Jews insisted on moving into Palestine for sentiment and which they were forceful enough to do because all the weak ones had been killed by Hitler.

Leading to my next question.

If there is a Jewish global conspiracy to control all the money, how come they didn't just buy the land from Palestinians?

Now... how would it work if Canada were to do an organized immigration program so severe that only if you live here can you understand what picky dicks we are, but... what if we let in the best Palestinians, willing to settle northern Saskatchewan to develop minerals if they can handle the cold.

We block violent asshole Palestinians.

It is giving Palestinians the same deal offered to Jews back in '45.

Don't worry if you're choking over it. So would most Canadian leaders now. They are not nearly as educated nor visionary as ours used be.

I'm just asking.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I have a question.

At the end of the second world war, Canada's PM King offered northern Saskatchewan for all disenfranchised Jews to move to as a new homeland.

If they had, they would be rich, because it is full of minerals.

Instead, Jews insisted on moving into Palestine for sentiment and which they were forceful enough to do because all the weak ones had been killed by Hitler.

That's an interesting bit of history--if it's true--that I've never heard before--the offer of northern Saskatchewan, I mean--but there's no question in there. And I wouldn't bet they'd be rich. There were people there in 1945, and there are still people there now, mostly the same people and their descendants born since 1945, and they're not rich. That's not where the money goes.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I have a question.

At the end of the second world war, Canada's PM King offered northern Saskatchewan for all disenfranchised Jews to move to as a new homeland.

If they had, they would be rich, because it is full of minerals.

Instead, Jews insisted on moving into Palestine for sentiment and which they were forceful enough to do because all the weak ones had been killed by Hitler.

Leading to my next question.

If there is a Jewish global conspiracy to control all the money, how come they didn't just buy the land from Palestinians?

Now... how would it work if Canada were to do an organized immigration program so severe that only if you live here can you understand what picky dicks we are, but... what if we let in the best Palestinians, willing to settle northern Saskatchewan to develop minerals if they can handle the cold.

We block violent asshole Palestinians.

It is giving Palestinians the same deal offered to Jews back in '45.

Don't worry if you're choking over it. So would most Canadian leaders now. They are not nearly as educated nor visionary as ours used be.

I'm just asking.

I have a question. Do you have a LINK to anything regarding the above claim? I've looked
(being in Saskatchewan), and I can't find anything about this. The closest I could find points
in a very different direction: History of the Jews in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or: Myths & Facts Online - Canada-Israel Relations

 

[DaSleeper]

Question: Can a bible thumping fundamentalist Christian give an opinion without quoting the Bible???......or.......

Can a Muslim give an opinion without quoting the Quran???

Both of them blaming their respective transgressions on infidels;-):smile:

 

[eanassir]

Duh
Duh
I have a question.

At the end of the second world war, Canada's PM King offered northern Saskatchewan for all disenfranchised Jews to move to as a new homeland.

If they had, they would be rich, because it is full of minerals.

Instead, Jews insisted on moving into Palestine for sentiment and which they were forceful enough to do because all the weak ones had been killed by Hitler.

Leading to my next question.

If there is a Jewish global conspiracy to control all the money, how come they didn't just buy the land from Palestinians?

Now... how would it work if Canada were to do an organized immigration program so severe that only if you live here can you understand what picky dicks we are, but... what if we let in the best Palestinians, willing to settle northern Saskatchewan to develop minerals if they can handle the cold.

We block violent asshole Palestinians.

It is giving Palestinians the same deal offered to Jews back in '45.

Don't worry if you're choking over it. So would most Canadian leaders now. They are not nearly as educated nor visionary as ours used be.

I'm just asking.

What a genius solution!

So Jews came from everywhere to Palestine, and they refused that cold regions in the north of Canada.

Then Palestinians drived out of their homeland and go to everywhere and then better settle in the cold region of north Canada, to exploit the minerals.

Jews --> go from everywhere to Palestine: the homeland of Palestinians.​

Palestinians --> go to where Jews were in every land (then preferably to Saskatchewan to exploit the minerals.)​

Very nice indeed; thank you for your generosity and you are fair indeed.

Balfour’s Declaration—November, 2, 1917

 

[Omicron]

I have a question. Do you have a LINK to anything regarding the above claim? I've looked
(being in Saskatchewan), and I can't find anything about this.

Hmm... well... I did a search and I can't find anything either, which is making me wonder, but here's how it happened:

I started dating a girl in university, and it got to the point where her dad had to fly out from Ottawa to check me out.

Turned out he was some Ottawa mandarin super-high-up in Trudeau's government (in charge of their largest grant agency, or something like that... he was the one who told me that if you want government funding, don't as for a million dollars... ask for *ten* million) and while we were having dinner, the subject drifted to the issue of Palestine.

He had a cynical view. The way he put it, a problem is something that has a solution; there is no solution to the problem with Israel-Palestine; therefore there is no problem (made me wonder if all top-level government mandarins thought that way).

Anyway, someone at the table mentioned that the British had offered Uganda to the Jews as a new homeland, and the girlfriend's old-man piped in with, "Yes, that's right, just like how King offered northern Saskatchewan, but like Uganda, it wasn't the 'Land That God Gave Them'". Then he snickered while shaking his head, and conversation moved on to grilling me about my investment philosophy.

That's all I know.

 

[ironsides]

Muslim Culture Meets German Engineering



YouTube - Muslim Culture Meets German Engineering



It is only a book, like the Bible. One can print as many as they want. Someone has to be a real sicko to kill over it.