Among the testimonies which show that Jesus (peace be on him) was saved from the Cross is the one narrated in Matthew, chapter 26, verses 36 to 46, which relate that after getting information, through revelation, of his impending arrest, Jesus prayed to God all night, on his face, and in tears, and such prayer offered with such humility, and for which Jesus had ample time, could not go unaccepted; for the cry of an elect of God, addressed at a time of distress, is never turned down.
How was it then, that the prayer of Jesus which he had addressed all night with a painful heart and in a state of distress was rejected? Jesus had said: The Father who is in heaven listens to me. Therefore, when his prayer addressed in such a state of distress was not heard, how can it be said that God heard his prayers?
The gospels also show that Jesus (peace be on him) was certain at heart that his prayer had been accepted; he had great confidence in that prayer. That is why when he was arrested and put on the Cross, and when he found the circumstances not according to his expectations, he involuntarily cried 'Eli, Eli lama sabachthani', meaning, 'My God, my God why hast Thou forsaken me.', i.e., he did not expect that it would come to this -- that he would die on the Cross.
He believed that his prayer would be heard. So, both these references to the gospel show that Jesus firmly believed that his prayer would be heard and accepted, that his tearful supplications addressed throughout the night would not be wasted, whereas he had himself taught his disciples, on divine authority: When you pray, the prayer will be accepted.
Further, he had also narrated the parable of the judge who feared neither man nor God.
The purpose of this parable was that the disciples should realise that God undoubtedly answered prayers. Although Jesus knew from God that there was a great affliction in store for him, yet, like all righteous persons, he prayed to God, believing that there was nothing impossible for God and that God determined whether any events would happen or not.
Therefore, the rejection of Jesus' own prayer would have shaken the faith of the disciples. Was it possible to place before the disciples an example destructive of their faith? If they had seen with their own eyes that the prayer of a great prophet like Jesus, addressed all night with burning passion, was not accepted, the unfortunate example would have been very trying for their faith. Therefore, the Merciful God could not but have accepted this prayer. It is certain the prayer offered at Gethsemane was accepted.
There is another point in this connection. Just as there was a conspiracy to kill Jesus, and for this propose the chief priests and the scribes assembled together at the palace of the high priest called Caiaphas to devise a plan to kill Jesus, so there was a conspiracy to murder Moses, and, likewise, there was a secret consultation in Mecca at the place called Dar-ul-Nadwa to murder our Holy Prophet (peace and the blessings of God be upon him). But the powerful God saved both these great prophets from evil designs.
The conspiracy against Jesus was, in point of time, in between the other two. Then, why was not Jesus saved when he had prayed more vehemently than either? Why was not Jesus' prayer heard, when God hears the prayers of His beloved servants and frustrates the plans of the wicked? All the righteous know by experience that the prayer of the distressed and the afflicted is accepted; nay, the hour of affliction, for a righteous person, is the hour for a sign.
The point in this is that God Almighty undoubtedly accepts prayers especially when His trustful servants, go to His door oppressed; He attends to their plaints, and helps them in strange ways. Why is it then that the prayer of Jesus uttered in such agony was not accepted?
No, it was accepted. God saved him. God created circumstances on earth and in heaven to rescue him. John, the prophet Yahya, had had no time to pray, for his end had arrived, but Jesus had the whole night to pray, and he spent the whole night in prayer, standing and in prostration before God, for God had willed that he should give expression to his distress and should ask for his release from Him to Whom nothing was impossible. So the Lord, in accordance with His eternal practice, heard his prayer.
The Jews uttered a falsehood when, crucifying Jesus, they made the taunt that he relied upon God: why did not God save him? For God nullified all the designs of the Jews and saved His beloved Messiah from the Cross and the curse involved in it. The Jews had failed.
Among the testimonies of the gospel which have reached us is the verse from Matthew:
'That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation'.
Now, if you think over these verses you will find that Jesus (peace be on him) clearly states that the killing of prophets by the Jews ceased with the prophet Zacharias, and that after that, the Jews would have no power to kill any prophet. This is a great prophecy which clearly points out that Jesus (peace be on him) was not killed as the result of crucifixion; he was rather saved from the Cross, dying ultimately a natural death. For if Jesus (peace be on him) was also to suffer death by murder like Zacharias, at the hands of the Jews, he would have hinted in these verses at his own murder. If it is urged that Jesus (peace be on him) also was killed by the Jews but his being killed was not a sin on the Jews' part, for Jesus' death was of the nature of an atonement, the contention is hardly tenable, for in John, chap. 19, verse 11, Jesus clearly says that the Jews have been guilty of a great sin for having resolved to kill Jesus; and likewise, in many other places there is the clear hint that as a penalty for the crime of which they had been guilty against Jesus, they had deserved punishment in the sight of God.
6-A PROMISE OF JESUS TO JOHN
And among the testimonies of the gospel which have reached us is the verse of Matthew, namely: 'Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' Likewise, the verse in John: 'Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he (i.e., the disciple, John) tarry (i.e., in Jerusalem) till I come.' This means: 'If I will, John will not die till I come again'. These verses show with great clarity that Jesus (peace be on him) had made a promise that some people would continue to live till his return; among these he had named John. So the fulfillment of this promise was inevitable. Accordingly, even Christians have admitted that in order that the prophecy may be taken to have been fulfilled, Jesus' coming at a time when some of the people of that age were still alive was inevitable, so that the prophecy should have been fulfilled according to its promise. This is the basis of the clergyman's declaration that Jesus, in accordance with his promise, had come to Jerusalem at the time of its destruction and that John had seen him, as he was alive at that time. But let it be noted that Christians do not say that Jesus really came down from heaven accompanied by appointed signs; they rather say that he appeared to John as in a vision, that he might fulfill his prophecy contained in verse 28 of chapter 16 of Matthew.
But I say that coming of this kind does not fulfill the prophecy. That is a very weak interpretation which only avoids with difficulty the criticism leveled against this position. This interpretation is patently untenable and wrong, so much so, that there is no need to refute it, for if Jesus had to appear to anyone in a dream or a vision, a prophecy of this kind would be ridiculous. In such manner Jesus had also appeared to Paul long before this. It appears that the prophecy contained in verse 28 of chapter 16 of Matthew has caused a panic among the padres and they have not been able to give it a rational meaning in accordance with their own beliefs, for it was difficult for them to say that Jesus at the time of the sacking of Jerusalem had descended from heaven in glory, and that like the lightning that lights up all heaven and is seen by everybody, all had seen him; and also it was not easy for them to ignore the statement, namely: Some of those who were standing here will not taste death till they have seen the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. Therefore, as a result of a laboured interpretation they believed in the fulfillment of the prophecy in the shape of a vision. But this is not true; righteous servants of God always appear in visions to the elect and for a vision it is not even necessary that they should appear only in a dream; nay, they can be seen even in the waking state.
So, what actually happened was that Jesus knew that he would be saved from the Cross and would migrate to another land, that God would neither let him die nor would take him away from this world, so long as he had not seen the destruction of the Jews with his own eyes, and that he would not die so long as the fruits of the Kingdom, which the spiritually eminent are given by heaven, were not realised. Jesus made this prophecy so that he might give an assurance to the disciples that, presently they would see the signs that those who had raised the sword against him would be killed with the sword during his own life-time and in his very presence. If, therefore, evidence is of any value there is for Christians no evidence greater than this: that Jesus with his own tongue makes the prophecy that some of them would still be alive when he would come again.
7-TRIBES OF THE EARTH WILL MOURN
It should be noticed that the gospels contain two kinds of prophecies about the coming of Jesus:
(1) The promise of his coming in the latter days; his coming is of a spiritual character, and resembles the second coming of the prophet Elijah, in the time of Jesus. God saved His eminent servant from death on the Cross, as the prophecy just now mentioned implies -- Christians are in error in mixing up these two contexts: because of this, they are confused and have to face many difficulties. In short, the verse in chapter 16 of Matthew is a very important piece of evidence in support of Jesus' escape from the Cross.
Among the testimonies of the gospels which have reached us, is the following verse of Matthew: 'And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.' (See Matthew, chapter 24, verse 30). The meaning of this verse is: Jesus (on whom be peace) says that a time will come when, from heaven, viz. as a result of the power of divine intervention, there would come into being knowledge, arguments and evidence which will invalidate the beliefs of Jesus' divinity, his death on the Cross and his going up into heaven and coming again; and that heaven will bear witness against the lies of those who denied his being a true prophet, for example, the Jews; and who, on the other hand, regarded him, because of his crucifixion, as a man accursed, for the fact of his not having suffered death on the Cross and therefore of his not being accursed would be clearly established; that then all the nations of the earth, who had exaggerated or detracted from his true status would become greatly ashamed of their error; that, in the same age, when this fact would be established, people would see Jesus' metaphorical descent to the earth.
The verse -- further explained -- means that God's destiny has made the personality of Jesus and fashioned the events of his life so as to cause some people to exaggerate, and others to minimize his status, i.e., there are people who have taken him out of the category of human beings, so much so that they say that he has not yet died and is sitting alive in heaven. The people who have outrun these are those who say that, having died on the Cross and come to life again, he has gone up to heaven and become invested with all the powers of divinity; nay, he is God Himself.
The other people are the Jews, who say that he was killed on the Cross and therefore (I take refuge with God for saying so) he is accursed for all time; he is doomed to be the object of perpetual wrath; God is displeased with him, and looks upon him as a hated enemy; that he is a liar and an impostor and (I take refuge with God for saying so) a Kafir, a rank unbeliever; that he is not from God.
This exaggeration and detraction were so unjust that it could not but be that God should clear His true prophet of these charges. The verse of the gospel mentioned before points to this fact. The statement that all the tribes of the earth would mourn, suggests that all those tribes to whom the description underlying the word 'nation' applies would mourn on that day; they would beat their breasts and cry, and great would be their mourning.
Here Christians should follow the verse in question with some attention; they should consider that when the verse contains the prophecy that all the nations would beat their breasts, how is it that they should have nothing to do with this mourning? Are they not a nation? When, in accordance with this verse, they are included among those who are the beaters of breasts, why do they not attend to their salvation?
The verse clearly says that when the sign of Jesus would appear in heaven all the nations inhabiting the earth would mourn. So the man who says that his tribe would not mourn denies Jesus.
The people, however, who are yet small in number cannot have been the people hinted at in the prophecy; they are not fit to be described as a 'nation'; and that, people or tribe are we; nay, ours is the only community which is outside the meaning and scope of this prophecy, for this community has yet only a few adherents to whom the word 'nation' or 'tribe' cannot be applied. Jesus, on the authority of divine inspiration, says that when a sign appears in the heavens all the people of the world who, on account of their numbers, would deserve to be described as a 'tribe' or 'nation' would beat their breasts; there would be no exception but a people small in number to whom the word 'nation' would not apply.
Neither Christians, nor Muslims, nor Jews, not yet any other denier, can keep out of this prophecy. The word of a prophet can never fail. When the words contain the clear hint that every nation inhabiting the world would mourn, which of these people can claim to be outside their scope? Jesus admits of no exception in this verse.
This prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in this age, for the truth which has now been discovered regarding Jesus is undoubtedly the cause of the mourning of all these tribes, for it has exposed the errors of all.
The hue and cry of Christians over the divinity of Jesus changes into sighs of grief; the insistence of Muslims -- day and night -- that Jesus has gone up to the skies alive, changes into weeping and wailing; and as for the Jews, they lose everything.
Here it is necessary to mention that in the statement contained in the said verse, namely, that at that time all the nations of the earth would beat their breasts, 'earth' means the Balad-i-Sham [Palestine and Syria] with which these three peoples are connected �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??
Jews, because that is their place of origin and their place of worship; Christians, because Jesus appeared in that place, and the first community of the Christian religion rose from that country; Muslims, because they are to be heirs to this land to the Last Day. If the word 'earth' is taken to embrace all countries, even then there is no difficulty, for when the truth is laid bare, all deniers would be ashamed.
8-SOME FALSE STORIES
In short, such beliefs have a highly injurious and evil effect -- the beliefs, namely, that one should say that these hundreds of thousands of dead persons, or any dead person before that time, had been brought back to life by Jesus; for the restoration to life of those dead did not serve any useful purpose. A person who has visited a far-off country and who comes to his home-town after several years or absence, is naturally keen to tell the people of his strange experiences, and to relate to them the wonderful stories of the land he has visited; he will not keep mum or be tongue-tied when he meets his people after a long period of separation. No, at such a time, others also are keen to hasten to him and to question him about that land; and if, perchance, there comes to these people some poor and lowly person, humble in appearance, and who yet claims to be the king of the country, of which the principal town had been seen by these people and who says that he is superior in his kingly rank even to such and such other king, the people always question such itinerants as to whether such and such a man, going about at that time in their country, is really the king of that land; and then, those travelers, according as they may have observed, make replies to such questions. This being so, the bringing of the dead to life by Jesus was, as I have stated before, worthy of being believed in, in case the evidence on which the dead must have been questioned -- which questioning was natural -- had led to some useful result. But here it is not so. Therefore, along with the supposition that the dead were brought back to life, one is compelled also to suppose that the dead did not give evidence favourable to Jesus, such as could lead one to believe in his truth; they rather gave evidence which added to the confusion. Would that instead of truly human beings brought to life, some animal had been declared to have been restored to life! It would then have solved many difficulties. For example, if it had been said that Jesus had brought back to life several thousand bullocks, it would have been 'reasonable' enough, and, if in this case there had been raised the objection as to what the evidence of these dead animals had led to, one could have immediately answered that they were bullocks -- they had no tongue to give favourable or unfavourable evidence! The dead, however, which Jesus brought back to life were human beings. Suppose some of the Hindus were asked to-day whether, if ten or twenty of their dead ancestors were restored to life and brought back to this world, and if they were to state that such and such a religion was the true religion, they would still have any doubt regarding the truth of that religion. They would never say so. Therefore, take it for certain that there is no man in the whole world who would persist in his unbelief and denial after a disclosure of this kind.
In short, ordinary people, endowed with little intellect, are pleased with such 'miracles' but the wise become the target of other people's criticism and are thus worried over it. They are put to shame before those to whom such silly stories are being related. Now, as I bear the same feelings of love and sincerity towards Jesus as do the Christians; nay, I have a stronger attachment to him, for Christians do not know the man whom they praise, but I know him whom I praise, for I have seen him; therefore, I proceed now to reveal the real nature of reports made in the Gospels -- such as the report that at the time of the Crucifixion all the dead saints had been restored to life and had come to the city.
Therefore, let it be clearly understood that accounts like these are of the nature of Kashf or a vision seen after the Crucifixion by some holy persons -- that the dead saints had been brought back to life and had come to the city where they paid visits to the people. Just as dreams have their interpretation mentioned even in the Holy Book of God -- for example, Joseph's dream had had an interpretation -- this vision also had to have an interpretation of its own; and this interpretation was that Jesus had not died on the Cross; that God had rescued him from death on the Cross. If the question were asked as to wherefrom did I get this interpretation, the answer is that leading authorities on the art of interpretation so state it, and all interpreters have borne witness to it by their experience. I quote here from the interpretation of a leading ancient authority on the art of interpretation, i.e., the author of T'atirul-Anam.
See Kitab T'atirul-Anam fi T'abirul-Manam by Qutbuz-Zaman Shaikh Abdul Ghani Al-Nablisi, page 289, which, translated, is that if anyone sees a dream or a vision of the nature of Kashf, that the dead have come out of the graves and have made for their homes, the interpretation is that a prisoner would be released from his bondage, and that he would be rescued from the hands of his persecutors. The context shows that this prisoner would be a great and a high personage. Now, it would be noticed how this interpretation applies with reason to Jesus. One can readily understand that the dead saints having been brought to life appeared to be making for the city to point out this fact, so that the wise might know that Jesus had been saved from death on the Cross.
9-CONCLUSION
Likewise, many more references in the gospels clearly point out that Jesus did not die on the Cross; he was saved from it, and migrated to another land. But, I think, what I have stated is sufficient for the unprejudiced.
It is possible some may be entertaining in their hearts the objection that the gospels repeatedly say that Jesus died on the Cross, and then having been brought back to life, went up to heaven. This kind of objection I have already briefly answered, but I might say again that Jesus' (peace be on him) meeting the disciples after his Crucifixion; his traveling up to Galilee; eating bread and meat; his display of wounds on his body: staying a night with the disciples at Emmaus; fleeing secretly from Pilate's jurisdiction; emigrating from that place, as was the practice of prophets; and traveling under the shadow of fear -- all these events are conclusive that he did not die on the Cross; that his body retained its mortal character; and that it had undergone no change.
There is no evidence in the gospels that anyone saw Jesus ascend to heaven; and even if there had been such evidence, it would have been unworthy of credence, for making mountains out of mole-hills and magnifying small things into big seems to be a habit with the gospel writers. For example, if one happens to say that Jesus is the Son of God, another sets about making him into a full-fledged God, the third invests him with power over the whole universe, and the fourth bluntly says that he is everything, and that there is no other God besides him. In short, exaggerations carry them very far away. If one considers the vision in which the dead were seen to come out of their graves and to make for the city, one would notice that this vision had been given its outer and apparent interpretation, so far as to say, that the dead had literally risen out of their graves and come to the city of Jerusalem, where they had paid visits to their people. Now, just see, how a 'feather' has been made into a 'crow'; and, then it is no longer one crow, but many million. When things are so exaggerated, we have no means of finding out the truth. It is further worth considering that these gospels, called the Books of God, contain preposterous claims, such as that, if all the works of Jesus had been reduced to writing, these could not have been accommodated in the whole world! Is such exaggeration the way of honesty and truth? If the works of Jesus were so unlimited, and if they could not be circumscribed, how is it that they were confined to a period of three years? Another difficulty about these gospels is that they give wrong references to some of the earlier books; they do not state accurately even the genealogy of Jesus. From the gospels it appears that these persons were dull of understanding, so much that some of them took Jesus for a ghost. These gospels from the earliest times have been open to the charge that they have not preserved the purity of their texts, and there being many other books called gospels, there is no sound reason why all the statements of these other books should be rejected, and why all that is contained in the gospels generally so called should be admitted as true. No one can say that the other gospels contain such unfounded exaggerations as are to be found in these four gospels. It is surprising that while on the one hand they say that Jesus was a righteous person and that his character was without blemish, on the other hand there are brought against him charges unworthy of any righteous person. For example, the Israelite prophets, in accordance with the teaching of the Torah, undoubtedly had hundreds of wives at one time in order that they might thereby multiply a generation of righteous persons, but you will never have heard that any prophet had ever set such an example of freedom that he should allow an impure and an adulterous woman, a noted sinner of the city, to touch his body with her hands, to let her rub oil into his head -- art of her immoral gains -- and to rub her hair on his feet; that he should allow all this to be done by an unchaste young woman, and should not say to her 'Don't'. One is saved from giving way to suspicion which naturally arises on seeing such a thing -- only by trusting the goodness of Jesus. Nevertheless, the example is not good for others. In short, these gospels contain many things which show that they have not preserved their original form, or that their writers were some other persons -- not the disciples. For example, can the statement of the gospel according to Matthew: 'And this is well known among the Jews till to-day', be properly ascribed to Matthew? Does it not show that the writer of the gospel of Matthew was some other person who lived at a time when Matthew had already died? Then, the same gospel of Matthew21 says: And they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept'. It would be noticed how unconvincing and irrational such statements are. If the meaning of this statement is that the Jews wanted to conceal the rising of Jesus from the dead, and that they had bribed the soldiers in order that this great miracle should not become generally known, why was it that Jesus, whose duty it was to proclaim this miracle among the Jews, kept it a secret; nay, he forbade even others to disclose it? If it is urged that he was afraid of being caught, I would say, that when the decree of God had descended upon him, and he had, after suffering death, come to life again, assuming a spiritual and a glorious body, what fear did he now have of the Jews -- surely the Jews now had no power over him; he was now beyond and above mortal existence? One observes with regret that while, on the one hand, it is said that he was made to live again and assume a spiritual body, that he met the disciples and went to Galilee and thence went to heaven, he is nevertheless afraid of the Jews for quite trivial things and, in spite of his glorious body, he fled secretly from the country, lest the Jews discover him; he made a journey of seventy miles to Galilee in order to save his life and time and again asked the people not to mention this to others. Are these the signs and ways of a glorious body?
No, the truth is that it was not a new and a glorious body -- it was the same body, with wounds on it, which had been saved from death; and, as there was still the fear of the Jews, Jesus, making use of all precautions, left the land. All talk of anything contrary to this is absurd -- as the one about the Jews having bribed the soldiers in order to make them say that the disciples had stolen the corpse while they (the soldiers) were asleep. If the soldiers were asleep they could be very well asked how they came to know in their sleep that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen away. From the mere fact of Jesus not being in the tomb, can anybody in reason believe that he had gone up to heaven? May there not be other causes as a result of which tombs might remain empty. At the time of going up to heaven, it was up to Jesus to meet a few hundred Jews, and also Pilate. Whom was he afraid of in his glorious body. He did not care to furnish his opponents with the slightest proof. On the contrary, he took fright and fled to Galilee. That is why we positively believe that though it is true that he left the tomb, a chamber with an opening, and though it is true that he secretly met the disciples, yet it is not true that he was given any new and glorious body; it was the same body, and the same wounds, and there was the same fear in his heart lest the accursed Jews arrest him again. Just read attentively Matthew, chapter 28, verses 7 to 10. These verses clearly say that the women who were told by someone that Jesus was alive and was going to Galilee, and who were also told quietly that they should inform the disciples, were no doubt pleased to hear this, but they went with a terrified heart, -- they were still afraid lest Jesus might still be caught by some wicked Jew. The ninth verse says, that while these women were on their way to inform the disciples, Jesus met and saluted them. The tenth verse says that Jesus asked them not to be afraid, i.e. of his being caught; he asked them to inform his brethren that they should all go to Galilee22; that they would see him there, i.e., he could not stay there for fear of the enemy. In short, if Jesus had really come to life after his death and had assumed a glorious body, it was up to him to furnish proof of such life to the Jews. But we know that he did not do this. It is absurd, therefore, to accuse the Jews of trying to render negatory the proof of Jesus' coming to life again. No, Jesus himself has not given the slightest proof of his restoration to life; rather, by his secret flight, by the fact of his taking food, and sleep, and exhibiting his wounds, he himself proved that he did not die on the Cross.
Footnotes to Chapter I
1. Besides these, more Jews were exiled to eastern countries as a result of Babylonian excesses.
2. Dr. Bernier, Travels, Vol. II (See Appendix).
3. See the lexicons: Lisan-ul-Arab, Sihah Jauhar, Qamus, Muhit,
Taj-ul-Arus, etc.
4. Luke 24:39.
5. Luke 24:42, 43.
6. Mark 15:33.
7. Math. 2:19.
8. Matthew 2:13.
9. Matthew 16:9-14.
10. Luke 24:13-31.
11. Luke 24:1-3.
12. Mark 15:42-44.
13. John 19:31-34.
14. John 19:12.
15. Matthew 23:35-36.
16. Matthew 26:24.
17. Matthew 16:28.
18. John 21:22.
19. I have seen in certain books interpretations of Matthew 16:28 by Maulvies which are more laboured than even the interpretations of Christians; they say that when Jesus declared it to be a sign of his coming that some people of that generation would still be alive and that a disciple would also be alive when the Messiah would appear, it is necessary that that disciple should be living up till now, for the Messiah has not come yet; and they think that that disciple is hiding somewhere on some mountain, awaiting for the Messiah!
20. Matthew 27:52.
21. Matthew 28:12-13.
22. Here, Jesus did not console the women with the words that he had risen with a new and a glorious body, that no one now could lay his hands upon him. In short, he gave no proof of the glorious body; rather, he exhibited his flesh and bones and thus proved it to be an ordinary mortal body.
Note: Not all the views expressed in this Article are necessarily shared by the blogger. _________________ Posted By Friend Of Islam, New Delhi
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
