Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Shahid Sadr: Marxist, Sufi, Or Nasibi-lover?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

ayatollah khomeini used to love ibn arabi man, he was totally pro what ibn arabi taught?

But that's because khomeini really believed ibn arabi was a shi'i under taqiyyah, mutahhari also believed that ibn arabi met Imam al Askari (as), but that's another discussion and can be found here. They could be wrong about it, they could be right about it, nobody in our time will know with certainty, but I think we can all agree that in some way, ibn arabi influenced entire generations after him, for better or worse. Emphasis on worse. But note; you will also find numerous lectures and sayings by khomeini and sadr where they will affirm the ahadeeth by our Imams (as) on that Allah is seperate. So how does that rhyme with pantheism?

I don't think I've got anything to add to this discussion to be honest, I just wanted the opponents of wahdat al wujood to give their opinion on the signs, ''face'', of Allah in creation. Because to my understanding, all the people being talked about in this topic, believed in a different wahdat ul wujood than what you're talking about. They believed in what those verses were talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Word baradar! although i agree that the idea shoud be attacked and not the person, but the arrogant holier than thou attitude of some who pride themselves on quoting the Ahlulbayt on every occasion bu

And..? Have you actually read it? I have, and the vast majority it is exactly that, a critique of dialectical materialism and Marxist philosophy. There's maybe a few pages where he makes mention of

heh, I admire the fresh blood and sense of honour of some members. These absolute inane comments from macisaac really doesn't surprise me anymore though - I've heard them all enough times.. However, I

Posted Images

Of course he is Wrong only IF he have said that "everything is Allah". Imam Hussain (as) is correct of course.

Forget Ibn Arabi, just look at the quote from Khomeini I mentioned above:

"Regardless of the mode and degree of our perception, reality remains what it is. And the reality is this: there is nothing other than God Almighty, whatever is, is He. The manifestation is not only His; it is also He."

That's pretty explicit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Banned

I don't think I've got anything to add to this discussion to be honest, I just wanted the opponents of wahdat al wujood to give their opinion on the signs, ''face'', of Allah in creation. Because to my understanding, all the people being talked about in this topic, believed in a different wahdat ul wujood than what you're talking about. They believed in what those verses were talking about.

my understanding was that Wajh'Allah was one of the laqabs of imam ali (as)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Forget Ibn Arabi, just look at the quote from Khomeini I mentioned above:

"Regardless of the mode and degree of our perception, reality remains what it is. And the reality is this: there is nothing other than God Almighty, whatever is, is He. The manifestation is not only His; it is also He."

That's pretty explicit.

If that is what you believe he believed, then once again, how does that rhyme with what he is saying here;

''The cause of all that occurs in the world is the manifestation of Allah's glory. Everything is from Him and everything returns to Him. No creature has anything of its own. If anybody claims to have anything of his own, he virtually wants to compete with the source of Divine light, while as a matter of fact even his life is not of his own. The eyes you have are not your own. The light of Divine manifestation has brought them into being. The praise of Allah that other people or we express, is a Divine name, or it is because of a Divine name. That is why the Qur'an says: With the name of Allah and praise belongs to Allah. ''

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Banned

Yes. And what is he (as), but a sign of Allah?

indeed, he was an ayat Allah. i assumed that these ayahs were referring to him though, but thats another discussion

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

lets return to the idols again, we agree they are not a part of Allah. but from the people themselves, as per the aya you quoted.

you are saying that if something is good, it is Allah that is good and the good thing is a manifestation of allahs goodness, am i right?

I can take it you'll have quite some difficulty understanding the words of Imam Sajjad [as] then:

Thou art the glorified in every place, the worshipped at every time, the found at every moment, the called by every tongue, the magnified in every heart!

Source: Whispered Prayer of the Rememberer

I could only imagine your cries of heresy if the supplication was prayed by Ay. Khomeini...

Edited by Sadiq M...
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can take it you'll have quite some difficulty understanding the words of Imam Sajjad [as] then:

Source: Whispered Prayer of the Rememberer

I could only imagine your cries of heresy if the supplication was prayed by Ay. Khomeini...

There's a quite a vast difference between what that prayer is saying and what WW is promoting. It is not saying "Thou art every place, every time, every moment, every tongue, every heart"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There's a quite a vast difference between what that prayer is saying and what WW is promoting. It is not saying "Thou art every place, every time, every moment, every tongue, every heart"

What part of "Thou art the glorified in every place" did you fail to understand? Do you not realise the gravity of such an absolute statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Brother do you limit Allah by saying he is not at every place? Imam (as) stated when asked where Allah is "tell me where he is not and i will tell you where he is"

(wasalam)

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Did you just miss the "glorified" part?

What is the Imam talking about when he [as] says about God that "you are the one called by every tongue".

Do atheists call God? What about polytheists? If they are not calling on God, then why does the Imam say so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also noticed how much these `irfani types will rely so heavily on du`as to try to justify their doctrines lifted off of Sufis (doctrines you cannot find at all in our earlier scholars before this trend of taking from the Sufis and philosophers got popular) while avoiding the hadiths wherein the Imams (as) clearly laid out our beliefs such as the one quoted above that explicitly states that the "Allah is devoid (khilw) of His creation and His creation is devoid of Him". Without even getting into the question of authenticity for some of these du`as (remember that such du`as often, if not mostly, do not have full sanads attached to them), but the language of prayer is unique to itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

`Ilal al Sharaa'i`: Muhammad b. `Ali al Saduq, from his father, from Muhammad b. Ma`qil al Qaramisini, from Muhammad b. Zayd al Khazri, from Ibrahim b. Ishaq al Nahawandi, from `Abdullah b. Hammad, from `Umar b. Shimr:

From Jabir, from Ja`far b. Muhammad al Sadiq (as). He said: I said to him: Why was she named 'Fatimah'? So he said:

Because Allah created her from the light of His glory. Then when He spread (it), the heavens and the earth lit up with her light and the eyes of the angels were blinded and the angels fell down in prostration to Allah, and they said: Our God and our Master! What is this light? So Allah revealed to them:

This is a light from My light. I have made it to reside in My heaven and I have created it from My glory. I will cause it to go forth from the loins of that Prophet of Mine from My prophets, who I have granted superiority over the rest of the prophets. And from that light shall come forth the Imams, who will establish My command and guide towards My truth. And I will appoint them My caliphs on my earth after the cessation of My revelation.

(This is a light from My light.) is that not saying that Allah created Fatima (as) f0rom himself? what if all that is created is created form Allah?would we not be able to say there is no other besides Allah? and yet Allah is not limited where as the creation is limited.

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

/\ Sure (ignoring the weakness of the sanad a moment), but that is talking about Fatima (as) and mentioning this as something special about her. According to WW though, _all_ of the creation would be like that, even Mu`awiya and Yazid, pigs and dogs, would be as such.

(salam)

If Allah was not everywhere would this not make him limited? and if there was something other than him yet similar to him in such things as we know are his, wouldn't this mean there is an similar to him? so how could there be mercy in mankind when Allah is the merciful? and how can there be life owned by humans when he is the life?

we do have qu'ranic verses that hint towards the irfani views. cannot say in every case though.

regardless, it is just saying that our existence is Allah's we are from him and him being unlimited and us limited. he is the reality and there is no other than him, therefore he covers us completely, we hold no existence except that it is The existence of Allah dished out in proportion. just as a cup of water from the sea cannot be called the ocean except that it is clearly sea water or water from the sea. even the criminal existing through Allah is not an issue as he has fixed the laws giving freedom of choice in doing good or bad, these are all things he set the way he wanted them. we would not say All things are Allah rather we would say there is no other than Allah. are coming from Allah can be posited by the saying we are suppose to say when someone dies. and Allah being everywhere is confirmed by Qu'ran and hadith.

(wasalam)

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

What exactly is being argued here? Are you saying everything is Allah?

Or that Allah is everywhere?

The reason we say Allah swt is everywhere because we cannot pinpoint Allah’s location. Allah swt is not limited to a dimension.

But not everything is Allah because we make a distinction between the creator and his creation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

What exactly is being argued here? Are you saying everything is Allah?

Or that Allah is everywhere?

The reason we say Allah swt is everywhere because we cannot pinpoint Allah's location. Allah swt is not limited to a dimension.

But not everything is Allah because we make a distinction between the creator and his creation.

(salam)

What i am discussing is my understanding of WW

his everywhere-ness means there is not a place that he is not so how can this be possible if his creation is created separately and not created from him ? there is no other than Allah. it would limit him by saying there is another besides him. and since there is no location to pinpoint as everywhere is a unlimited phrase how can we even seek to know a location when there is no location to find? as if we say he is in a location we would be saying he is confined to a place therefore limiting him.

(wasalam).

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

his everywhere-ness means there is not a place that he is not so how can this be possible if his creation is created separately and not created from him ?

This is not comprehensible.

If Allah is everywhere that doesn't mean everything is Allah because everything has a place and we don't know if everything is located at where Allah is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

we cannot say all things are Allah that is false because then a limited thing can claim to be Allah where as Allah is unlimited rather there is no other than Allah. All limited things are confined to a place, Allah is not confined he is Free, therefore he must cover us completely there cannot even be an atom of us where he is not, therefore we have to be from him. and your statement here shows you limit Allah in your attempt to describe him where as we are saying he is not limited, because if there is a object in a place and Allah is not there he would be confined to the space outside of that object. when the imam (as) said "tell me where Allah is not and i will tell you where Allah is" what do you think he meant?

You said "we don't know if everything is located at where Allah is."

if Allah was not where everything we know is, then he would be limited and confined to the space outside of everything. he must be everywhere as he is not limited to a space, nor a place, nor an object. and Sister you should be very careful with your words, when attempting to say about Allah because in your mind you are limiting the unlimited.

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

he must cover us completely there cannot even be an atom of us where he is not, therefore we have to be from him. and your statement here shows you limit Allah in your attempt to describe him where as we are saying he is not limited, because if there is a object in a place and Allah is not there he would be confined to the space outside of that object. when the imam (as) said "tell me where Allah is not and i will tell you where Allah is" what do you think he meant?

I am not trying to limit Allah. I don't think I buy into Wahdatul wujood. And I don't know why we are spending so much time rationalizing Sufi's doctrine

The Imam said Allah is everywhere but did the Imam say everything is Allah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Sister limited things cannot claim to be Allah. can the cup of sea water claim to be the ocean once it is taken from it? no! Allah has limited us and created us from him. he is complete we are deficient, he is absolute existence absolute life there is no life besides his, there cannot exist something similar to him.

He is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the inward; and He is Knower of all things.

( سورة الحديد , Al-Hadid, Chapter #57, Verse #3)

You killed them not, but Allah killed them. And you threw not when you did throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair trial from Him. Verily, Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

( سورة الأنفال , Al-Anfal, Chapter #8, Verse #17)

(wasalam)

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Okay, but what do you mean when you said the following

his everywhere-ness means there is not a place that he is not so how can this be possible if his creation is created separately and not created from him ?

and I asked in my post #88 what exactly is being argued here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

It means that all things are created from Allah. therefore there is no other than Allah his everywhere-ness is absolute everywhere-ness. but note created things are limited and in proportion where as Allah is not in proportion nor limited. ponder deeply on what is being said here. this is a one way road not two ways limited things cannot claim to be unlimited.

(wasalam)

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It means that all things are created from Allah.

Don't you mean all things are created by Allah?

therefore there is no other than Allah his everywhere-ness is absolute everywhere-ness.

I don't know what everywhere-ness mean.

but note created things are limited and in proportion where as Allah is not in proportion nor limited. ponder deeply on what is being said here. this is a one way road not two ways limited things cannot claim to be unlimited.

I don't disagree here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Don't you mean all things are created by Allah?

I don't know what everywhere-ness mean.

I don't disagree here.

(salam)

I mean we and everything are created from himself, by him, and proportioned out of his own life. thus he has unity with us, and confirms the fact that there is no other than Allah. everything created needs to be created from something this something is existence.

as for everywhere-ness as it is not a word i would define as his being everywhere.

this is my understanding of WW. i have seen classes by an arif, and have thought on this concept.

(wasalam)

Edited by AlMuttaqi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

ya lalajab ayohan-naas!

learn from imam ali (khotbeh 1) - about Allah.

Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

when hazrat-e-emam khomeini (qas) and ayatollah shaheed-e-sadr(qas) and hazrat-e-mohiyoddeen ibn arabi (ra) are speaking of idea of vahdat-ol-vojood, this is all they say. you are the peoples who say you understnad from the hadees and from the sanad and like this, yes this is nice, but you do not know the understnading of the people in asnaad and more worse is you do no have the understand of quran - in the quran Allah say many things that if you understand vahdat ol-vojood (and i and my teachers who read this are sure that none you understnad this idea even 1% - but you want to make takfir and fitneh because of your hateness against hazrat-e-emam khomeini and against the ulema who made a revolution in qarn-e-bistom-e-miladi.

vai bar shomaha ke intor dari ba eiman-e-mardom bazi mikonee - magar az khoda nemitarsi - vaghean zishte.

if you don not understnad the idea - then not good to make the takfir in case you are with the mistake - it is not logical to make the takfir in like this when you are not able to understand what emamaan (as) did the say, and you cannot understand the word of big foqaha and olama like shaheed sadr (qas) and emam khomeini (qas) and other like shaheed motahhari( (ra) shaheed behjat(ra) and many morre like this.

az khoda betars ay mardom-e-takkabor-dar! magar in chist ke dari hay takfir mikonee?

vaghena haaletaan giryeh dareh! khayli giryeh dareh!

bashad, you don't like vahdatol vojood because you understand not proper or maybe you think you do but off course you have maybe 1% shak in your heart that maybe you are wrong (off course you are not ma'soum and are not big olama, if you are ma'zarat mikham, vali majbouram dekhlat mikonam tuye in fitneh ka daree dorost mikonee), bashad so don't speak on this and discuss other good things, okay you don't like the iqatesaadona of shaheed sadr(qas) bashad, no problem, discuss another book from another alem, but learn something nice, not just make tohmat where you don't know anything about subject, vallah az khoda betarseed beradaraan o khaharaan!

vaghean haaletaan khayli giryeh dareh, magar fikr na kardee ke in hameh sohbathaye ahmaqaaneh dareh jigar-e-aghayam imam-e-zamaan ro aatish mizaneh?!

:cry:

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Well don't you all sound like a bunch of 5 year olds.

Don't pretend like this is an argument amongst us.

This is a simple matter: a group of anti-socials rebelling to fulfill their twisted psychological need to rebel, and the other, sane group calling them out for it.

They have now proven that they do not know what wahdatul wujood is -- insisting that it means "Everything is God," when evidence has been brought to refute that -- and yet continue to use it to discredit certain scholars. They ignore the heaps of ayahs that have been posted which legitimate the views espoused by Imam Khomeini in his tafseer of Surah al-Hamd.

Their fraudness has been established once more, and the brothers and sisters who are looking on right now can now see this for themselves.

May those who feign closeness to the ahlul bayt and yet espouse a fraud ideology, be guided inshallah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Banned

They have now proven that they do not know what wahdatul wujood is -- insisting that it means "Everything is God," when evidence has been brought to refute that -- and yet continue to use it to discredit certain scholars. They ignore the heaps of ayahs that have been posted which legitimate the views espoused by Imam Khomeini in his tafseer of Surah al-Hamd.

what planet are you living on badboy?

And if I'm the "buddy" you were referring to, yes, I said I don't know what wahdatul wujood is and therefore refrain from having an opinion about it. You don't know what it is, either, but still you consider it kufr.

Either way, my honest ignorance is irrelevant to Brother MAFHJ's brilliant post, and it does not make your opinionated ignorance any more forgivable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What relation does Wahdat al-Wujood have to Shi'ism? To my knowledge, it was postulated by Ibn `Arabi. Then, when the some of the Sufis realized the kufr of his ideas, they postulated Wahdat ash-Shuhood. Mind you, though, I'm well aware that the way that Mulla Sadra postulates the first most likely doesn't fall under kufr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Mind you, though, I'm well aware that the way that Mulla Sadra postulates the first most likely doesn't fall under kufr.

I wanted to know more about this, from the plethora of topics I've read on ShiaChat there has nothing ever been concluded clear cut. In what way did Mulla Sadra's views on this issue differentiate from Ibn Arabi's? Can someone provide further detail.

Mullà Sadrà formulated his second argument in favor of the “unity of being” at the end of the issue of “cause and effect” in a chapter entitled
fi dhikr namat
[77]
In this argument, he uses the principle of “The Truth in its simplicity contains all things”. The simplified version of this rule is as follows:

1-The Truth Almighty is the Necessary Being;

2- Every necessary being is “the simplest truth” and is existentially infinite;

3- No infinite thing allows any space for other than itself;

4-Thus the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

[77]
Mullà Sadrà, al-Asfàr, vol. 2, p. 368.

I've also attached a reply from info@sistani.org that was posted on this forum a few years ago. From what I recall, the translation of the text states:

This is a philosophical doctrine and has nothing to do with religion.

Wassalam

post-19560-0-81739600-1309218402_thumb.g

Edited by Aal-e-Imran
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sayed Khomeini (ra) took from Ibn Arabi or Mullas Sadra etc. They may have even been Nasibis. But it was the Prince of the Believers, Ali the Son of Abu Talib (as) who said: 'look at what is being said, not who is saying it'.

It's a shame these infiltrators don't open their hearts to Islam.

What to do with these fifth columnists...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I've also noticed how much these `irfani types will rely so heavily on du`as to try to justify their doctrines lifted off of Sufis (doctrines you cannot find at all in our earlier scholars before this trend of taking from the Sufis and philosophers got popular) while avoiding the hadiths wherein the Imams clearly laid out our beliefs such as the one quoted above that explicitly states that the "Allah is devoid (khilw) of His creation and His creation is devoid of Him". Without even getting into the question of authenticity for some of these du`as (remember that such du`as often, if not mostly, do not have full sanads attached to them), but the language of prayer is unique to itself.

Please. These are only the attempts of SC Users (may Allah reward them for their sincere efforts). Do you really think after millenniums of scholarly teachings this is all that the leading authorities have to say? A few allusions in dua's? Or do you only want to reinforce your delusional fantasy to deceive yourself?

I have invited you numerous times to pick up specific books to educate on these issues. The truth is clear for anyone who wants it.

Here is another suggestion I will give you: Go and study Allameh's [QS] ra`sail al-tawhidi (rather, even just the first risalah in it). It spends about 1 page on the rational discussion, then 20 - 30 on discussing sources from the Qur`an and ahadeeth. Did you really think Allameh [QS] et al have not seen or even reject ahadeeth like "Allah is devoid (khilw) of His creation and His creation is devoid of Him"? All these books I recommend to you really do have your name written all over it - if you were truly sincere, rather than looking out for points to reinforce the status quo in your mind. If you want, I can even post you a copy.. any other excuses?

I wanted to know more about this, from the plethora of topics I've read on ShiaChat there has nothing ever been concluded clear cut. In what way did Mulla Sadra's views on this issue differentiate from Ibn Arabi's? Can someone provide further detail.

I am not fully familiar with the writings of the latter (IA), but I can add a few more educated comments on the former (MS). Firstly, some later writers seem to be of the view that there is little difference, the focus being on one narrating mystical realities, and the other explaining/proving the same realities with rationale. This is generally correct for some points, but it is quite unlikely here, as IA's writings seem to be devoid of - or at least difficult to extract from - certain principles that play a pivotal role in MS. From the majority of what I have read, the major difference in this discussion between these two seems to boil down to tashkik al-wujud (gradation of existence), which is exclusive to MS (although Shaykh Al-Ishraq gets the credit for being the founder). That is, in MS, existence (wujud) is a 'single gradational reality'. There are two keywords here: single & gradational. It is 'single' because there is nothing other than existence: If we say that the existence of contingent beings (the creation) is one sense, and when talking about The Necessary (The Creator), we mean existence in 'another sense', then other then existence, is non-existence, so we are actually ascribing non-existence to The Necessary! This was a position actually held by a number of theologians, who imagined they were exalting by saying these things, but ended up doing the opposite. As for existence being gradational, it means that (since there is nothing other than existence), that which differentiates between two existents is that which unites them (level of existence). This is just like the oft-quoted example of light: the difference between a dim light and a bright light, is nothing other than the intensity of light itself. It is not such that the dim light is a compound of bright light and something else. Therefore, existents are _not_ all the same thing, let alone that The Necessary should become incarnated (hulul) into the contingents (na`oudhu`billah).

Hope this helps. Obviously this is a gross over-simplication of a philosophical issue into simple language, by an inept like myself. Thus, if you are interested in reading deeper, I can give you sources to read for any part.

Forget Ibn Arabi, just look at the quote from Khomeini I mentioned above:

"Regardless of the mode and degree of our perception, reality remains what it is. And the reality is this: there is nothing other than God Almighty, whatever is, is He. The manifestation is not only His; it is also He."

That's pretty explicit.

Anybody who is familiar with the entire corpus of the Imam Khomeini's [QS] work would bi la shak not even contemplate such a claim.

Desperately clutching straws at one misquote (for which you haven't even soruced?!) is: a - akin to the non-Muslim & wahhabi-esque method of distorting Qur`anic verses; b - demonstrates your own immaturity and c - is exactly on par, if not worse, than those people who quoted the prayers of the Infallibles [AS]..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...