Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Can you show me any translation of the Bible that says that Judas "jumped" at Acts 1:18?

I'll make you a bet that when he looks the word he finds will be some form of the verb "to fall". (Though Wycliff uses "hanged" in Acts 1:18.)

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Reason requires the infallibility of the Prophets, upon them all be peace, because: As already explained, the Prophets came to convey to people the Message of God. If we liken this Message or the Divine Revelation to light or pure water, as the Qur’an itself does (al-Ra’d, 13. 17; al-Nur, 24.35), it is absolutely necessary and indispensable to the nature of the Revelation that both the Archangel Gabriel who brought the Revelation, and the Prophet himself who conveyed it to people, should be absolutely pure. Otherwise, that Divine light, the Revelation, would have been extinguished or dimmed, or that ‘pure water’ polluted.

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

lol you made that a lot more complicated than needs be,
im sure even in imperfection they were within the will of god, they erred on demand lol
just trying to understand what is within gods power.
also i cant seem to seperate P and Q, to me they may not be seperate variables.

format_quote Originally Posted by мυѕℓιмαн 4 ℓιfє

In conclusion i feel Islaam isnt for you or it isnt for you right now! But we shall try to answer any Qs you have to the best of our knowledge

peace

You are right. Islam is not for me, or perhaps, I'm not for Isalm. I believe there is a verse that refers to how Allah calls to Islam those created for it and the rest of us are as doomed as a doubly ****ed predestinated Calvinist would **** someone. (I hope those words about dam - nation don't get bleeped, I used them in the completely proper and appropriate sense of the word.) But don't think of it as a waste od time. I have learned things about Islam and the realities regarding how some Muslims view others of us outside of the Ummah, that I probably never would have learned any other place.

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

also i cant seem to seperate P and Q, to me they may not be seperate variables.

Go here to learn about logic.

format_quote Originally Posted by мυѕℓιмαн 4 ℓιfє

[FONT="Palatino Linotype"][COLOR="Black"][SIZE="2"]^Thank you as i honestly believe there was no need to swear/curse in the matters of religion!

Nor I, and I didn't. The proper term for someone being condemned to spend eternity in hell is to say that they have been dam*ed. In that usage it is not a form of swearing or cursing at all, any more than it is to say that those that have been so dam*ed are "going to hell".

I have a Q, since i am quite curious to asking you, what is the reason you joined this forum? Was it particularly to learn about Islaam?

No. Originally, it was because I was participating in another forum where the view of many of the posters was that all Muslims, even if they weren't themselves involved in terrorism, were in agreement with the aims of those who did commit it. From personal experience I knew that it wasn't true, and I had hoped to come here and be resources with information and links to published material by which I could refute those allegations against Islam.

And if so, what have you learnt about Islaam and what is that you agree upon and also what is it that you disagree upon regarding Islaam, maybe we can clarrify any Qs you have properly instead of getting in to geeky discussions

Well, I've learned that while not all are into terrorism, there are more who stand on the sidelines cheering on their efforts than I had from my own personal experience imagined.

I learned that many Muslims have no idea the truth with regard to Christianity and rather than actually read for themselves, read anti-Christian tracts for what they care to learn and prefer to use cut-and-paste methods to engage in futile debate rather than actual conversation to pursue fruitful discussion.

I learned that many see the world through one set of lenses and are unable to even try to consider things in any ways different from what they have always be taught, that most will get more entrenched in their position rather than thoughtful when a non-Muslim disagrees with them and doesn't immediately see things the "true" way.

Of course, this type of personality is something I already knew well from conversations with other Christians, but through this board I learned that religion doesn't change the basic tendencies of human personality.

Lastly, I've learned not to judge a faith by what you encounter online, that actually caring for and being involved in one another's life comes out of face-to-face interactions; whereas, internet friendships may not even be as real as the paper they aren't printed on.


Oh, and I almost forgot, I learned that everything that is wrong with the world, from the source of evil to the lostness of our decadent culture from the prlifieration of Apple computers to the music of ZZ Topp, has at its roots either the USA or all things Christian.

format_quote Originally Posted by tango92

in words you can understand maybe: in christianity you blindly believe. in islam We use our brains.

You see, that is just an arrogant statement that shows that after all of this time you have yet to take Christianity seriously or even consider what it says. Not that you should have to. But it just becomes comical when you say "in Christianity you blindly believe" and deny the possibility that anything of the sort could happen within Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Of course, this type of personality is something I already knew well from conversations with other Christians, but through this board I learned that religion doesn't change the basic tendencies of human personality.

this is a very important concept in my eyes and something we could talk about for a very very long time.

format_quote Originally Posted by tango92

in words you can understand maybe: in christianity you blindly believe. in islam We use our brains. if a prophet is a sinner (and in the bible amongst the worst of people) how can he be taken seriously?

If you read the Bible you will find that we are constantly made to think about what it says so belief is anything but blind. I cannot see the same in Islam, I doubt you can even admit that anything in Islam or its history is troublesome. You have decided, that is the right word, that God cannot use anyone but the absolutely righteous so you have put limits on what God can do? Truth is not the sole preserve of the absolutely righteous is it? A simple question, can you critically examine Islam and its history or are you conditions to accept it all without question?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

If you read the Bible you will find that we are constantly made to think about what it says so belief is anything but blind. I cannot see the same in Islam, I doubt you can even admit that anything in Islam or its history is troublesome. You have decided, that is the right word, that God cannot use anyone but the absolutely righteous so you have put limits on what God can do? Truth is not the sole preserve of the absolutely righteous is it? A simple question, can you critically examine Islam and its history or are you conditions to accept it all without question?

god uses everybody, just not in the way we expect most times.
absolutely righteous can be replaced by pious and better serve the purpose and its a more humble term, for humble people.
as for history, well you could turn to any book and gain insight into a moment of time but i doubt any capture the picture as a whole with any reliability. no matter how detailed the explanation of event the fallability of man will mean an incomplete picture.
im not saying history is bogus, im just saying if we all gave an account of the very same day we would all differ.
before you use the last two paragraphs to question the authenticity of the quran, it is not a historical account by anybody other than the prophet muhammed peace and blessings be upon him...and god.