| « July 2008 » | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 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 | ||
Recently by Salim_Chauhan
- Atif, please confirm the rumor
- Parachi gone wild
- It's deja vu all over again
- Single-threaded thinking
- Shah Sahib gone wild
- Kulharee is the ideal spokesman for Qadianis
- India Shining is going the way of neo-cons - inflated and out of fashion
- Why Mushy bent over for Bushy
- Gujju, How you doin', buddy?
- Four simple questions to genuine Qadianis
- Mr. Sattar, the Muslim community does not consider Qadianis as Muslims
- You can leave Islam - quietly and without letting the doorknob poking you in the rear
- Explaining the obvious to Mr. Kulharee
- Mr. Kulharee is a confirmed LIAR
- Why are Qadianis so hated by Muslims and Pakistanis?
- Response to Publius regarding Qadianis
Question for Sattar Sahib - Why call your leader a 'messenger?'
Sattar Sahib,
I have one question that has really perplexed me about your great leader. If he was all that great, why was it important for him to be considered a "Prophet" or a "Messenger?" I mean there are many more important sounding titles in Islamic history - Aalim, Mufti, Ayatollah, Maulana, Ameer, etc..
Why was it necessary to choose the designation of Our Holy Prophet (PBUH)? Before the Hindus get all excited about Mohammed (PBUH) being a Prophet and a Messenger, let me say that "Messenger" means peon, carrier, postman, errand boy, and nothing very important. What made the term "Messenger" was not its meaning, but the love of Muslims for this wonderful man (PBUH).
add to my favorite ilogs
flag objectionable content
Salim_Chauhan
- Interacts: 5005
- iLogs: 2225
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 123156
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Aug 14 2005
- Last signin: Jul 18 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
