Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Ahmadiyaa Muslims say “No! He just fainted.”
Founded in 1889, the Ahmadiyaa Movement is predominately Islamic in its beliefs with some variation. The mainstream Islamic community view the Ahmadiyaa as a breakaway sect and do not acknowledge it as a principle denomination such as sunni, shi'a, or sufism (To learn more about Islam please view my post "Islam and Christianity — Estranged siblings or polarized worldviews?").
The Ahmadis agree with the majority of the six articles of faith in Islam however a significant variation comes in the adoption of its founder as a continuity of the prophet line. They directly contradict Islam’s traditional view of Muhammad as the final prophet by stating he was only the final law-giving prophet. The Ahmadis present their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as being a true prophet that several main religious prophecies foretold (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism). Oddly enough Mirza Ghulam Ahmad presents himself as the figurative summation of all major prophets which of course has resulted in negative responses by various Muslim governments around the world and disagreements with other worldviews as to the incorrect interpretation of their texts.
With this preliminary introduction to the Ahmadiyaa movement, I introduce the main focus of this post and that is to address a view commonly shared with main stream Islam that Jesus did not die on the cross. Mainstream Islam principally presents the Substitution Theory (claim: someone other than Jesus died on the cross) based on aya (verse) 4:157 in the Qur'an whereas the Ahmadiyya movement (and some mainstream Muslims) state that Jesus simply swooned (passed out) on the cross. They believe that Jesus recovered in the tomb after having “Jesus ointment” applied to his wounds and that he then walked about appearing to witnesses and potentially moved to Afghanistan to marry and raise a family. Interestingly, Ahmad himself had once stated that Jesus was buried in Galilee and later changed his mind stating he was buried in Syria and then stated he was buried in Kashmir1 (where present day Ahmadis believe Jesus is buried). It is this attack on the authenticity of the message of the Gospel, the deity of Christ, and the denial of the resurrection that strikes at the heart of Christianity. This swoon theory forms the context surrounding a debate that took place to address the core question “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?”. The debate was held between Mukhtar Ahmad Cheema and Rev. Tony Costa.
The importance of the answer to this question cannot be overstated, as the Apostle Paul states: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Please note I will be posting shortly on the evidences of the resurrection that specifically addresses both the Substitution Theory and Swoon Theory amongst other fictitious theories related to the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.
TiS Media:
- Buried in Galilee.
"This is true that Maseeh went to his native place, and died there, but this is not true that the same body which was buried, became alive again..... verse 3 chapter I of Acts is a testimony about the natural death of Jesus that took place in Al-Khaleeli. After this death, Maseeh was visible to his students as KASHF (vision) for 40 days." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.353-354)Buried in Syria.
"This has to be admitted that Hazrat Eisa is also dead, and interestingly enough the grave of Hazrat Eisa is also in Syria and for further clarity, in the footnote, I include the testimony of My brother, My lover in Allah, Molvi Mohammad Al-Saeedi Trablisi. He is a resident of Tripoli, in the Country of Syria and in his area is the Grave of Hazrat Essa AS (Jesus). If you say that Grave is a fake, then you must provide the proof of this fake, and prove that when this fraud took place. And in this event we will not be sure about the graves of any prophet and trust will be lost, and we will have to say that all those burial places are fake." (Atmam E Hujat, Page: 18-19, Roohani Khazain vol.8 p.296-297, dated 1894)Buried in Kashmir.
"It is proved with certianity that Essa AS (Jesus) migrated to Kashmir. After this Allah liberated him with his blessing and he kept on living there for a long time until he died and was included among the deads. And his burial place is still in the city of Srinagar (Tomb of Yus Asif)" (Al-Huda, 12 June 1902, Page 109)"I have been informed about the grave of Eisa (in Kashmir)." (Roohani Khazain vol 18 p.358, 361 [↩]
Sorry, no related posts at this time.
10 Responses 
Leave a Reply 
“They [Ahmadis] directly contradict Islam’s traditional view of Muhammad as the final prophet by stating he was only the final law-giving prophet.”
I am not sure where you got this idea from. Please see following references and see for yourself what traditional views of the learned elders of the Muslims have been. Ahmadis have the same view.
1. Deobandi scholar Maulana Qasim Nanutwi (founder of Darulaloom Deoband)‘s views;
youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04 [Urdu]
2. Views of early scholars like Ibn-Arabi;
youtube.com/watch?v=2V1x-6EREeA [Urdu]
3. Mujaddid Alfe Saani, Hazrat Shaikh Ahmad Farooqi Sarhindi, in his Makoobat (vol. 1 Maktoob 301 pg. 432) states: “Following the advent of the Khatmur-Rosul, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be on him), the attainment of prophethood by one of his followers, as a subordinate and in service of the Holy Prophet, will in no way offend or be in conflict with his status as Khaatamur-Rosul. No doubts need be entertained in this regard.”
4. Maulana Rumi in the context of prophet hood; “Exert yourself in the service of faith to such an extent that you be granted prophethood within the Muslim Ummah.” (Masnawi Maulana Rum vol. 5, pg. 42)
5. Al-Tirmizi (died 308 A-H.) writes: “The notion that the term ‘Khatamun-Nabbiyeen’ signifies that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) was the last prophet is erroneous. What glory and majesty is there in being the last? What wisdom underlies this interpretation? It is an interpretation put forth by the imbeciles and the illiterates.” (Khatam- Alauliya pg. 341).
6. Hazrat Shah Waliullah Dehlavi, Mujaddid (reformer) of the 12th Century says in the context of prophet hood: “The end of prophethood with the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) only means that there can now be no prophet for the people who will bring or introduce a new Shariah.” (Tafhimate- ilahiyyah vol. 2 pg. 72-73).
7. Brelvi scholar Maulavi Abu Al Hasnat Abdul Haye of Farangimahal, Lucknow, expounding his view on ‘Khatame- Nabbuwat’ writes: “The advent of a mere prophet after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) or in his lifetime is not an impossibility. To introduce a new law is indeed not permissible.” (Dafiul-Waswas 2nd edition page 16).
“Ulema Ahle-Sunnat also subscribe to the view that following the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) no law-bearing prophet can come. The prophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) is wide in scope. Any prophet who would now come would be from the Ummah and follow his Shariah.” (Majmuah Fatwa Maulvi Abdul Haye vol. 1 pg. 17)
--
Even when word last is used it does not always mean last in final sense but rather in the sense “the last of its stature”. Example;
“The Apostle is the last of the prophets and his mosque is the last of the mosques.” (Muslim, kitab al-hajj, bab fadl as-salat bi masjid Makka wa al-Medina).
Further reading here; http://www.alislam.org/library/finality.html
Hi Hasan,
Thank you for visiting my site and for taking the time to post your comments.
To answer your inquiry about where I got this idea that there is a gap between the traditional Islamic views on the finality of the prophethood and the Ahmadiyaa view I would like to share a few thoughts.
1) Firstly, I do not wish to present a case here for the finality of Muhammad as a prophet as respectfully I do not espouse to be a Muslim and thus this question would not be relevant. I do not believe he was a prophet of God nor believe in Islam as the true religion.
2) Secondly, there is variation even within the Ahmadiyya movement on this issue. The Lahore Ahmadis do indeed believe that no prophet can come after Muhammad (source: “The Issue of Khatam-un-Nabiyyin”, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement)). Whereas the traditional Ahmadis specify that Muhammad was merely the final law-giving prophet - so Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can exist as another type of prophet or messiah. (source: “The Issue of Khatam-un-Nabiyyin”, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement))
3) Thirdly, I would reference the below as sources that seem to counter the view you present that the Ahmadis are unified in their beliefs on the finality of the prophethood with mainstream Islam (of course some variation exists within any group).
- The Promised Messiah and Mehdi – The Question of Finality of Prophethood, by Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry, Islam International Publications Limited.
- The Finality of Prophethood - by S. Abul A’la Maududi (http://alhafeez.org/rashid/finalprophet.htm)
4) Fourthly, below are some passages from the Qur’an, Hadith, and other writings that have been presented by mainstream Muslims to oppose the Ahmadiyya movement’s view of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being a summation of prophets. I do not agree nor disagree with these views rather I present them as merely evidence of a variance in views.
- “O people ! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, He is the Apostle of God and the Last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.” (Surah Al Ahzab 33.40)
- “The Holy Prophet told Hadrat ‘Ali, ‘You are related to me as Aaron was related to Moses. But no Apostle will come after me.’” (Bukhari and Muslim, Kitab Fada’il as-Sahaba)
- “The Holy Prophet said: ‘Allah will send no Apostle after me, but only Mubashshirat. It was said: what is meant by al-Mubashshirat. He said : Good vision or pious vision.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat Abu Tufail, Nasa’i, Abu Dawud)
- “The Prophet of God said: ‘No Prophet will come after me and there will, therefore, be no other community of followers of any new prophet.’” (Baihaqi,Kitab-ul Rouya; Tabarani)
- “The Holy Prophet observed: “I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring the holy Masjid of the Prophet).’” (Muslim, Kitab-ul-Hajj; Bab:Fadl-us-Salat bi Masjidi Mecca wal Medina)
5) Lastly, if you notice even in the quotes you provide, the following statements make mention of this unique characteristic of a prophet line continuing but only if it isn’t a law-bearing prophet - this aligns with my word usage of “final law-giving prophet”.
- “no prophet for the people who will bring or introduce a new Shariah.” (Tafhimate-ilahiyyah vol. 2 pg. 72-73).
- “To introduce a new law is indeed not permissible.” (Dafiul-Waswas 2nd edition page 16).
- “no law-bearing prophet can come.” (Majmuah Fatwa Maulvi Abdul Haye vol. 1 pg. 17)
Once again, I thank you for visiting and also wish to make clear I do not hold to an Islamic or Ahmadi view but merely present the rationale for one of the potential key differences in the world views. I hope you had a chance to listen to the debate and look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.
May be I was not clear. The fact that credible, respected and very prominent scholars subscribe to the possibility of a prophet (albeit non-bearing) seems to go against that statement “They directly contradict Islam’s traditional view of Muhammad as the final prophet”. These prominent scholars certainly have a say in “Islam’s traditional view”. The fact that others may not agree with them still does not negate the fact that these scholars have similar views to Ahmadis. So Ahmadis are not the only one’s to subscribe to this view as you have rather erroneously implied.
The examples you have given in support of finality can be replied to but is not in the scope of this discussion. Briefly even founder of Darulaloom Deoband Qasim Nanutwi (among others) does not agree with it so perhaps check with deobandis about it too.
What Muslims Believe
Muslims believe that:
1. The Holy Quran is literally the Word of Allah(SWT).
2. Quran contains the final revelation for man’s guidance and salvation and no new revelation is now possible to any human being. Therefore, Muslims reject any claim of Divine revelation by anybody. No more Prophets or Messengers will be appointed.
3. Quran has been revealed for all ages and for all humanity. The message is not limited to any period of time, any specific race, or any geographic location.
4. Reading, understanding, teaching, and obeying the Holy Quran are all acts of worship to Allah(SWT).
BACKGROUND
Throughout the history of Islam, Muslim philanthropists have made copies of the Quran available at all public places like mosques, inns, hotels, and even mausoleums. They do so to spread the Word of Allah(SWT) and to make it easier for people to gain guidance from the book at all times.
Quran is actually the title of the book where all letters, words, and verses are edited in a specific and divine order. Its reading, pronunciation, and interpretation cannot be changed. A book in which the letters, words, meanings, or interpretation are tampered with ceases to be called the Holy Quran.
Therefore, it is necessary that the translation and interpretation of the Holy Quran remain the same and be in agreement with Muslim thought traced back to the Prophet(SAW). Muslims are not permitted to read or keep copies of Quran that contain a different meaning or interpretation of its content, regardless of who produced such copies -- be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Qadiani, or others.
WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW
A group of people, namely the Qadianis ( Ahmadiyya / Lahori ) missionaries, are very active in spreading misinterpretation of the Quranic message. The Qadianis do so by proclaiming to be believers in Islam and Quran. However, they believe in Quran under the direction of their misguided and false prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Therefore, they translate and interpret the Holy Quran as told to them by Mirza Ghulam Qadiani and not in accordance to Arabic text and historical records.
Since the rise of this pretender Punjabi prophet, scholars of Islam everywhere have rejected his version of the Holy Quran. In particular, the scholars of Pakistan have fulfilled their duty to make the public aware of this fraudulent new cult that uses a tampered translation of Quran to misguide the humanity. As a result of these scholars’ hard work, the Qadianis are prohibited by law to publish or disseminate misguided versions of the meaning of the Holy Quran in Pakistan and other Muslim nations. Now, they have diverted their efforts to the West and are actively distributing copies of the modified translation of the Holy Quran. We have received complaints that Qadiani translation / interpretation of the Holy Quran are being donated to some schools, libraries, hotels, guest houses, etc.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO
It is our duty to replace such copies with authenticated copies of the Quran. We should request the management of such public places not to accept copies of the Holy Quran unless they are authenticated by 2 or 3 responsible local Islamic organizations.
Additionally, we have noticed that some fraudulent translations have made it into the hands of the unknowing Muslims. Please check the Qurans available in your area of residence, travel, or influence. If they show any of the following names, then press for the sake of Allah(SWT) for the immediate removal of such copies and replace them with authenticated copies that are available from Muslim centers or us. The fraudulent names are as follows:
* Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad
* Malik Ghulam Farid
* The Late Moulvi Sher Ali
* Muhammad Zafarullah Khan
* Moulvi Mohammad Ali Lahori
* Ahmaiyya Movement in Islam
Any of these copies are a deliberate attempt by the above named and misguided followers of a false prophet to distort the Message of Allah(SWT). We would appreciate your help and input.
Hi Hasan,
Once again, thank you for sharing. I think you may be missing the nuance of my statements. I stated “traditional Islamic view” and merely present that there are factions and clearly evidence to suggest some (if not most) mainstream Muslims view the Ahmadiyya movement as heretical and the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet to be in contradiction with the Qur’an. I did not state as you suggest that Ahmadis hold to this view exclusively. As with any group of believers in any faith you can find scholars who are conservative or liberal and thus support different views on interpreting text. What I had presented was the general view of mainstream Islam and I think we can see from Akhter’s post (thank you for visiting) and the specific points I made above that it proves the point that in the least there is variation in the views of the Ahmadi beliefs being in line with Islam.
So to state that you are “not sure where [I] got this idea from” or that I have “erroneously implied” something seems a bit out of line with the facts I have outlined above or Akhter’s post. I clearly have shown a basis for where I get this idea from (not simply imagined or picked out of the air) and secondly I haven’t implied anything but rather clearly stated there are varying views with regards to the acceptance of the Ahmadi beliefs about the prophethood (which has been backed by a real example (Akhter’s post), several web sites, resources, and quotes that I listed above) - hence I do not feel it is valid to say my statements are imagined or erroneous as conjecture. Once again, I remind you that I am not presenting a favour of one view or another. I am clear in my view that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can come to God without receiving His Gospel and being saved by His grace through faith.
Thanks again for visiting and I encourage you to view the debate and perhaps share your thoughts on the main focus of this post - Did Jesus Die on the Cross?
Wow, I guess I’m not the only one who has to deal with the Ahmadiyya movement. I’m a Christian living in Scarborough, and I too have had encounters with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community that is active in my neighborhood.
I too have had to answer their various arguments for the swoon theory (they are especially stubborn when it comes to the Sign of Jonah argument). All I could say is, best of luck in answering the Ahmadiyya. They’re pretty slick, slicker than most Sunnis, I’ll say.
Say, have you ever heard of Nabeel Qureshi by any chance? He’s a former Pakistani Ahmadi who is now a born-again believer in Jesus. He co-runs an apologetics ministry called Acts 17 Apologetics. If you’re interested, you can check out the website here:
http://www.acts17.net/
Hi Fisher,
Thank you for visiting my site. I have not heard of Nabeel Qureshi but I really do thank you for sharing that web site. I look forward to reviewing it in more detail as it seems like an outstanding ministry and one that touches my heart in an even more special way being a former Muslim.
Jesus saying “I and the Father are One.”:
Before we start on John 10:30 Verse, let us examine some of the exaggerating expressions that were said by Jesus himself in the New Testament:
An exaggerating expression in the Bible: The Bible contains many verses in it that contain irrational statements. For instance we read in Matthew 21:21 ” Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.’” I challenge any “faithful” believing Christian to move one brick, not a mountain with his sight or words. Have any Christian from the time of Jesus till now been able to do it?
Another exaggerating expression is in Mark 16:17-18 “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” Again, I challenge any Christian to allow himself to get bit by a poisonous rattle snake or cobra and survive its venom.
Does this mean no “Christian” is a real Christian? Did Jesus say that no one will ever be a believer, since they can’t lift mountains with their eye sights nor survive deadly poisons?
Does the Bible contain exaggerating expressions in it? and if so, then how can you take the “Trinitarian” verses so literal then? They too are nothing but exaggerations (as I proved below in this article) that do not prove that Jesus is the Creator of this Universe.
From Sheikh Ahmed Deedat’s work; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:
Let us look at John 10:30 “I (Jesus) and the Father are One.” This verse is severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:23 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: “…Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”
These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either’s hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God’s equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, ” My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL…,” in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.
Also let us look at verse John 17:20-22 “That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in
them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE”. In this verse, the same word ONE used, the Greek, HEN is used, not only to describe Jesus and the Father but to describe Jesus, the Father and eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus. So here if that implies equality, we have a unique case of 13 Gods.
Of the verse in question, “I and the Father are One” in (John 10:30), we also need to take note of the verses following the 30th verse in the text. In those verses, the Jews accuse Jesus falsely of claiming to be God by these words. He however replies, proving their accusation wrong by their own text: “The Jews answered him saying,‘For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man, makest thyself a God ’” (John 10:33).
Jesus replies to this accusation saying: “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, “I said ye are gods. If He can call them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, “Thou blasphemeth,” because I said I am the son of God?’” (John 10:34-36).
Let us look at Acts 2:22 “O you men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN approved of God among you…” Peter in the Book of Acts testifies about Jesus. Jesus thus even to his disciples, as to early Christians, not poisoned by Pauline doctrine, was a man, not a God.
From http://www.jewsforjudaism.org:
Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one [hen].” Doesn’t this show that they are one in essence?
This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John’s Jesus meant by the word hen (“one”) becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: “That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]” (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: “I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]” (John 8:29).
There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.
Further from Muslim-SA:
1.2.2.7 John 10:30
The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30
“I and my father are one.”
This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:
“And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.”
John 10:23-30
In divinity? In a holy “Trinity”? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus’ hand, so too shall no one pluck them out of God’s hand.
Need more proof? Then read:
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.”
John 17:20-22
Is all of mankind also part of the “Trinity”?
Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,”
1 Corinthians 6:15-17
And also
“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Ephesians 4:6
And
“For as the (human) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
Once we read the above verses and understand what the message was that Paul was trying to get across, then we can begin to understand his words in such places as
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Ephesians 4:4
“St. Paul” was speaking about Christian unity, not about a plurality of gods merged into one body. As we shall soon see, he was completely ignorant of where his teachings would later lead, and how decades later, they would be the foundations which would spawn the “Trinity” doctrin
I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. If you want to hear his conversion story (plus that of former atheist David Wood), you can look at the broadcasts from the Iron Sharpens Iron website where Wood and Qureshi have appeared:
http://sharpens.blogspot.com/search/label/Nabeel%20Qureshi
On that note, since you said that you are a former Muslim, were you raised in the traditional Sunni Islam or some other sect such as the Shi’a or the Ahmadiyya?
Thanks for sharing and contributing to the TiS community.
To answer your question, I was raised a Sunni and grew up in a fairly nominal Muslim family. I hope to have a video up of my testimony in the coming months. Currently, I have a more simplified testimonial in written form online in the about section but it doesn’t go so much into my Muslim background.
Thanks again for visiting.