Ask me about Islaam

[Yusha']

Nonsense. You pretty much got caught and now you are trying to spin it around. It is called intellectual honesty, if you are going to argue something of substance, do not use things that you don't believe in your arguments as a foundation.

And what was the reason for you to quote all those ahadeeth, you being a Christian and all?

 

[Chesterton]

Islaam says that when the believers return to worshipping Allaah and obeying His commands and purify themselves, than Allaah will grant the believers all kind of bounties.

You mentioned bounties when I asked about a caliphate. Do you mean bounty could include more political power?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Obviously you have never read the Quraan or you are intentionally misrepresenting what it says.

This thread should not be about personal attacks and criticisms which you don't seem to hesitate from hurling around. Base your accusations on solid grounds not cheap personal attacks. The same accusation can clearly be applied to you in case of your biblical interpretations.

This is nothing but a lie.

Why do you keep calling people "liars"?

No Muslim country forces their civilians to attend the mosque.

Yes but do you know what the community does do to you, do you know what they say behind your back? Community (ummah) is the most important piece of a practicing muslims life, as it stands in the middle of islamic worldview. Ummah is the one who justifies or condemns the guilty person. An evil act is understood in relation to this specific ummah. So don't tell us that it is all about the law of the land, because it is not.

 

[Yusha']

No kidding. A righteous society where there is NO respect for human rights, women are treated like property, they can't even drive, religion is subjected to individuals by government police, righteous victim of a crime is considered guilty based on gender... We don't need your dark ages on this side of the ocean. Thank you...

The irony is that everything you accuse Islaam of promoting is found written in your torah. For example, "killing apostates", you find in the Torah God commands Moses and the Levites to kill the apostates who worshipped the golden calf. "women treated like property" you find in the Torah man has the right to divorce his wife (not the other way around) and many other restrictions on women. Funny how you would consider the ideal society of the Torah to be "dark ages". It shows that Islaam is true to the God of Abraham and Moses, whereas christianity is embarrassed about the God of Abraham and Moses and wants to make a new god that doesn't care if you kneel before statues of a dead woman.

 

[Yusha']

What *I* find the most disturbing is that *you* seem to conceive of God as a human being (minus a body, probably): whenever you talk about God, you always talk about "him" as if he were just a person like you or me.

That's an issue of language. In the Arabic and english languages, Him is used to refer to both that which is masculine as well as that which gender does not apply. However, the pronoun "Her" is exclusively feminine. That why I refer to Allaah as "He" or "Him" or "His", it doesn't mean I believe Allaah is male, He is neither male or female. Gender does not apply to Him.

Granted, many Christians habitually do that as well - but at least they tend to agree that God is ultimately unfathomable, and FAR beyond the limitations of a person (even though that doesn't render "him" apersonal, either.)

We make a distinction between Allaah's Dhaat (Essence) and His Characteristics (Siffaat). So we are not allowed to talk about what does Allaah look like, how tall is He, how much does He weigh, etc. We are forbidden from entering into this kind of talk. However, Allaah has revealed His Characteristics (Siffaat), His qualities such as merciful, powerful, all-knowing, etc.

The Quraan says "there is none like unto Him". Thus we never compare Allaah with any of His creation. Allaah is completely unique. Islaam is completely against Christianity's anthropomorphic understanding of God as a man with a flesh and blood body, wearing white robes, having long hair, a beard, wielding a double edged sword that will come out of his mouth, etc. The doctrine of incarnation is actually the worst form of anthropomorphizing the Divine. We Muslims thus reject such a doctrine.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You claimed that historically there was only one version of Christianity, and I promptly refuted you on this. I see no evidence of hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy was that while knowing that historically Christian orthodoxy never shifted left and right and always guarded the faith against deviations, same actions in the historical context of islam was being ignored. Don't tell me you consider Ahmadis muslims, or alawis for argument's sake. You do not as well as many mainline sunnis, then do not lecture anyone that there were different versions of Christianity. Christianity didn't branch of because of divine revelation, but man's interpretation. Oh wait, was not that the case with Hazrat Ali, being the only family tie to Muhammad, an interpretative error?

Are Angels living or dead? the psalm is merely exhorting everyone, angels including, to praise God alone (not to say "Hail Mary").

Don't shift the topic and misquote me. I said "The Bible directs us to invoke those who are in heaven".

Christian "veneration" of icons is identical to pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian "veneration" of their icons as well. I hope you would agree that Hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrianism, sikhism, etc., all of these are pagan religions. What you need to explain is how is your "veneration" of Virgin Mary any different from a Hindu "veneration" of Saraswati or an ancient Greek's "veneration" of Aphrodite?

It is same as you venerate your prophet in such manners like;

• When speaking or writing, Muhammad's name is preceded by the title "Prophet" and is followed by the phrase, Peace be upon him, or Peace be upon him and his descendants by Shias; in English often abbreviated as "(pbuh)" and "pbuh&hd", or just simply as "p".
• Concerts of Muslim and especially Sufi devotional music include songs praising Muhammad (see Muslim music, Qawwali).
• Some Muslims celebrate the birthday of Muhammad (Mawlid) with elaborate festivities. Others do not, believing that such festivities are modern innovations.
• Criticism of Muhammad is often equated with blasphemy, which is punishable by death in some Muslim states.
• Muhammad is often referenced with titles of praise.
• Muhammad's relics, such as his grave, his sword, his clothing, even strands of his hair, are revered by some.
• Even non-iconic representations of Muhammad are traditionally discouraged. From the 16th century however, Persian and Ottoman art frequently represented Muhammad in miniatures, albeit with his face either veiled, or emanating radiance (see e.g. Siyer-i Nebi).
• Beyond the stories accepted as canonical by Islamic scholars of hadith, or oral traditions, there are many folktales praising Muhammad and recounting miraculous stories of his birth, upbringing and life.

These are forms of venerating your prophet. You are unfortunately hang up on the physical form of this veneration in Christianity, since you prostrate during your ritual prayers daring the day, any bowing motion by a Christian would be interpreted as "worship" Once again, Christian veneration of icons is not worship of icons or icons substituting as God. The difference between other religions is Christ Himself. Christians pray in the presence of Icons (just as Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple), but we do not pray to the image.


The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands: “bow before the footstool of His feet….” We should note first of all that the word for “bow” here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols.And what is the “footstool of His feet”?


In 1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In Psalm 99 [98 in the Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who “dwells between the Cherubim” (99:1), and it ends with a call to “bow to His holy hill”-which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is preceded by the statement “We will go into His tabernacles…” and is followed by the statement “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength.”


Interestingly, this phrase is applied to the Cross in the services of the Church, and the connection is not accidental-because on the Ark, between the Cherubim was the Mercy Seat, upon which the sacrificial blood was sprinkled for the sins of the people (Exodus 25:22, Leviticus 16:15).

You have yet to explain how exactly you "venerate" your icons and how it cannot be considered as worship, and more importantly, how your "veneration" of these icons is unlike the pagan "veneration" of their idols.

Read above. I am done explaining to those who do not listen. Interesting to note, whirling crowds around Kabaa predates Islam, I guess pagan veneration is not only subject to Christian faith.

Is the bronze snake an icon, was it ever venerated? Did people bow down or prostrate before it like how eastern orthodox and roman catholics do to their icons?

Don't shift the topic, you constantly drag the argument to irrelevant rhetoric. The topic was the accessory and sacred objects used in worship of God. This bronze snake was one, it was an object that healed people. Therefore your point that accessory was not allowed in worship of God was refuted.

By accessory I take it again you mean an "accessory for worship", whereas the bronze snake had nothing to do with worship.

You know worship is not prostrating on the floor 5 times a day at certain times of the day. That is the narrow Islamic understanding of it. People worshipped God through the miracle of the bronze snake, that object was a tool facilitating it. It doesn't matter how hard you try to relate that a direct connection to RCC or EO is not there, you fail to see that concept is...

The reason it was a figure of a snake was because the people of Moses were being bitten by poisonous snakes.

Yea, faulty logic again, in that same line of reasoning, those poisonous snakes happened to be bronze too? Why was it have to erected? It was honored and venerated which actually led them to elevate it to the status of a god, therefore it was destroyed.

To conclude from this that the people of Moses venerated snakes is completely absurd to say the least.

That conclusion doesn't even make sense not was it warranted, however it serves as a good example how you manage to shoot yourself in the foor over and over again, to conclude from veneration of Christian icons that Christians worship them is completely absurd.

What a narrow definition of worship.

Like anyone really cares about how you define worship... Although if you didn't notice what you quoted here is not the definition of worship but what is being told in the commandment. Friendly advice, if you asked for a definition, listen to it, if you can't, then have a nice day, don't bother anyone else.

This is nothing new. You really need to study other religions as well. They are all claiming the same thing. We are not worshipping the image of Ram, we are venerating it so we can get closer to Brahman (The Absolute Reality) through it. In essence, the image of Ram or Krishna is just "an accessory of worship" for the Hindus.

Still the same irrelevant rhetoric. Argumentum ad nauseam. We don't worship Krishna.

Interestingly, in the episode of the golden calf, it is said that after Aaron had fashioned the golden calf, he announced in front of its altar that tomorrow there is going to be a festival to the LORD. (Exodus 32:5) By LORD he is referring to the tetragrammaton, which means he is talking about the One God. So it becomes apparent that even the devious Israelites who worshipped the golden calf didn't abandon the One True God, rather, they made an icon which is an "accessory" to the One True God.

That is false exegesis, nothing suggests that calf was a representing accessory, it was a replacement. But veneration doesn't end there, we do find them in the Scriptures—plenty of them! Consider how prevalent they were in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

• On the Ark—Ex. 25:18
• On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1
• On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
• Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23
• On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29
• On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32
• And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36

In short, there were Icons everywhere you turned.

Bottom line: idolatry is idolatry...there's no way to justify it. God is Almighty, He needs no "accessories" in worship.

Noone knows why Muhammad kissed the asteroid. So blindly they repeat after him, like it is of importance to imitate, what is it that being achieved by kissing the black stone which reeks idolatry from the get go? As one can see, arguments are endless both ways. But Christian veneration of Icons is not about what God needs or not. It is about an expression of worship, reverence, veneration.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Yes.

Where is this physical literal throne that Allah sits on like a man?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I see, and you are simply going to go with one of those thousands of logical reasons which doesn't shatter your preconceived ideas. Thus you are interpreting the words of your messiah you claim to follow based on your desires and not based on a sincere motivation to follow him no matter what.

Oh exactly, after all it is the VERY SAME thing you commit. And that marks the double standards you can not let go. But there is a difference. That difference is the complete exegesis of the context in the light of the Gospels. Searching the meaning, words are not cherry picked to define things out of them, but looked upon in general understanding with proper background of biblical characters. The biblical text offers more clues to the context if research properly, such as the young man being SAD after a commandment given to him by Christ. What do you know about sincere motivation?

Obviously.

Oh we are tracking, not bad. Now both rebuking and then loving. What a dilemma, which one is it?

The irony is you claim to have a better understanding of what Jesus actually meant than this fellow who was actually there in his presence. You claim he misunderstood the words of Jesus to be a rebuke. If Jesus really was God I doubt he would want to confuse people with his words, isn't it true God is not the author of confusion.

Dude if you are not going to listen to what I am saying I am going to have to put you on ignore. I don't have time. Seriously, the story is not about the young man, it is not narrated or told by the young man, young man in this story is not the core or subject of the story, I ALREADY SAID "Is Jesus here rebuking the man for calling Him good and thereby denying His deity? No. Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words, to understand the concept of Jesus’ goodness and, most especially, the man’s lack of goodness. The young ruler ‘went away sad’ (Mark 10:22) because he realized that although he had devoted himself to keeping the commandments, he had failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments—love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength (Matthew 22:37-38). The man’s riches were of more worth to him than God, and thus he was not ‘good’ in the eyes of God. Jesus’ fundamental lesson here is that goodness flows not from a man’s deeds, but rather from God Himself. Jesus invites the man to follow Him, the only means of doing good by God’s ultimate standard. Jesus describes to the young ruler what it means to follow Him—to be willing to give up everything, thus putting God first. When one considers that Jesus is drawing a distinction between man’s standard of goodness and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good. The command to follow Christ is the definitive proclamation of Christ’s goodness. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to adopt, Jesus is good. And it necessarily follows that if Jesus is indeed good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His deity.

Every king has a throne, and Allaah is Maalik ul Amlak (King of Kings) and His Throne extends above the heavens and the earth, and Allaah ascended over His throne in a manner that befits His Majesty.

I haven't seen this many self contradicting claims in one thread yet. Allah sits on His physical Throne, like a man does.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Why do you have to take communion (bread and wine) to experience God? Why does the outward intake of these food have any relevance, since according to you God judges the heart. Of course He judges the heart, does that mean if I eat rice instead of bread and drink Coca-cola instead of wine I can still experience God in the communion, because God knows whats in my heart?

Great you can't answer the questions about the nonsensical islamic superstition of dogs, therefore you reach out to Eucharist. First please answer the question, if you can't tell me you can't. Second, communion is not food, it is done in remembrance of Christ as noted in Scriptures. Communion is not consumed like coke or rice, nor its purpose is to provide physical satisfaction ... What kind of nonsense is that from someone who claims to know enough to refute Christian faith?

• We observe Communion because the Lord told us to. We are to obey His commands:
  And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:24 (NIV)
• In observing Communion we are remembering Christ and all that He has done for us in his life, death and resurrection:
  And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:24 (NIV)
• When observing Communion we take time to examine ourselves:
  A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 1 Corinthians 11:28 (NIV)
• In observing Communion we are proclaiming His death until He comes. It is, then, a statement of faith:
  For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26 (NIV)

• When we observe Communion we show our participation in the body of Christ. His life becomes our life and we become members of each other:
  Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (NIV)

Angels are holy beings, they do not desire to be in places of uncleanliness.

Hardly any reason for a MIGHTY supernatural being to be stopped in his tracks. Uncleanliness doesn't come from contact, or intake. It comes from within. So a holy being can not become unholy by simply being in the presence of unclean unholy.

LOL, qirat is not a physical currency, the hadith itself says "qiraat of reward" its a measurement of reward (known as ajr). If you were really a Muslim previously you would definitely know these things.

Too bad you don't get it. It was not suggested that qirat, which is kirat in my language was a physical currency, the point was the conditional reward itself, and the ridiculous statement that measurement of these rewards are reduced by owning a dog, which has nothing to do with spirituality.

Sure, but does that mean you should not wash and make sure your body is clean? You think God likes it if someone does not clean himself, comes to a place of worship without washing himself and making sure he is clean, smells good, etc? What effect you think this person will have on others who are engaged in worshipping God.

You own premise doesn't follow. First, you talk about God liking a person or not by personal hygiene. You assert that this is the way to earn God's liking, which really is not. Then you turn it around and say how that would affect others who are worshipping... Who cares, we are not talking about communal worship, and the importance is the worship not the yoke of the sanitary requirement. Do you think we have time in combat when we go to services? Most of the time we don't, God doesn't need our bodily cleanliness, He cares for the heart of worship.

The difference between Islaam and Christianity is that Islaam is not just a religion, its a way of life, like Jesus said in the gospel of John, the spirit of truth will give total guidance, he won't just be teaching rosy parables. Jesus emphasized on rosy parables, because his audience was already following the outer laws strictly, but their problem was they knew nothing about purification of the heart and intentions. Islaam came through Muhammad whose audience not only lacked spiritual purity within, but also outward righteousness.

Islam is not the spirit of truth if that is what is implied here. Purification of heart doesn't come from washing your hands or performing gusl after a "wet dream" it comes from repentance.

So again, what is the purpose of such laws being found in the Torah? Is the Torah not a book of spirituality?

Irrelevant, why ask me questions that doesn't apply to me, and why do you try to change the subject?

Please clarify what tradition or traditions you are referring to.

Do you know what local tradition is? Hearsay in the mouth of local ummah, do you believe that those can be traced throughout generations?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

And what was the reason for you to quote all those ahadeeth, you being a Christian and all?

Your argument doesn't apply. Are those fake hadith? Did I claim there were tampered with? No. On the contrary, you suggest that New Testament is corrupt, Paul is a crook, and then you turn around and use his words to make your point. That is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The irony is that everything you accuse Islaam of promoting is found written in your torah.

We don't have a torah. If you are interested in finding out about what Jews think in the matter, refer to their interpretation. When are you going to grasp that we are passed that point?

For example, "killing apostates", you find in the Torah God commands Moses and the Levites to kill the apostates who worshipped the golden calf.

Ok who worships the golden calf? Argentinians? Canadians? No it must be Indians...

"women treated like property" you find in the Torah man has the right to divorce his wife (not the other way around) and many other restrictions on women. Funny how you would consider the ideal society of the Torah to be "dark ages".

From the looks of it, since Israel doesn't seem to be representing a dark ages in any manner considering lifestyle nowadays, it is safe to say that the modern application has been adopted.

It shows that Islaam is true to the God of Abraham and Moses, whereas christianity is embarrassed about the God of Abraham and Moses and wants to make a new god that doesn't care if you kneel before statues of a dead woman.

What a disconnected premise. So you base the authenticity of your faith to Torah now?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

That's an issue of language. In the Arabic and english languages, Him is used to refer to both that which is masculine as well as that which gender does not apply. However, the pronoun "Her" is exclusively feminine. That why I refer to Allaah as "He" or "Him" or "His", it doesn't mean I believe Allaah is male, He is neither male or female. Gender does not apply to Him.

That is not what she is arguing, she is saying that you are easily objectifying and personifying God as you feel like it.

Islaam is completely against Christianity's anthropomorphic understanding of God as a man with a flesh and blood body, wearing white robes, having long hair, a beard, wielding a double edged sword that will come out of his mouth, etc.

Is this supposed to be the description of Jesus?

The doctrine of incarnation is actually the worst form of anthropomorphizing the Divine. We Muslims thus reject such a doctrine.

But you muslims sit Allah in a physical throne. Hashaa!

 

[Nooj]

Yes.

And how can God sit on this throne?

 

[Gnostophorrion]

I don't have any questions.

 

[Beckyy25]

Yes we are allowed and in fact encouraged to pray for them (not to them)

And what's the purpose for praying for them?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I never said Mary is part of the trinity.

You claim Christians don't worship Mary, so what exactly are these people doing?

So if those Catholics aren't worshipping Mary, I guess these Hindus aren't really worshipping their idols either.




Never heard of these events, maybe you can explain them to me.

O Yusha....
This is a symbol of Our Lady and how we would venerate her if we could see her. [And seek thru humility the Closest servant of our Lord, His Mother - her help.]
You do respect ppl you are seeking help from -right?
I mean you dont go to a Queen and make demands and insult her - do you?
Lot bowed to angels - so much so should we bow to Our Lady in reverence...we know this is NOT her. Its a tangible way to show her we honor her as Jesus did.
4th Commandment BTW.

But like the Jews and what God ordained - use of icons and such are perfectly acceptable.
God Himself told the Isreali's to place cherubim on the Ark for the Covenant...
God Himself gave them a serpent to kiss to be healed.

Hindu's believe the statute IS their god.
Catholics - use symbols of the REAL person to help them.

HUGE DIFFERENCE...BIG BIG BIG.

Ask, dont tell us.

Mary is NOT part of the Trinity.
Nor do we worship her in any form.
She is venerated and honored as Jesus Himself honored His Mother according to the Ten Commandments of the Law.

She became the New Eve, so says the writers of the beginning of the Church.

That's great you understand that.
See even an athiest knows this.


What do you make of my prayers being answered?
How about the prayers that helped with conversions, or miracles of physical ailments that could have been fatal?

How about the Lourdes Grotto? Or Fatima?
70,000 witnesses who saw and felt the sun drop to the earth within seconds it was back in place...
How about the rain that soaked them, and after this event everyone was dry?
How about 70,000 witnesses??

Have you heard about these events? I am curious.

Yusha Yusha Yusha...so many things you did not discuss from my points.
Don't skip me...k.

Why do Islamics hold onto the false scientists who said babies are a chewed up mess stage??
Science in this millenium said that is wrong.

Did you know that btw?

 

[Yusha']

The hypocrisy was that while knowing that historically Christian orthodoxy never shifted left and right and always guarded the faith against deviations

And Christian orthodoxy is what exactly? the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was excommunicated by the Roman church in 1054? Your assertion that historically Christian orthodoxy never shifted left and right is absolute baloney. Christianity has been constantly evolving and changing, the Roman church keeps updating its dogma every couple of centuries with their vatican councils. A religion that is based on divine revelation can never be amended by bishops and cardinals.

then do not lecture anyone that there were different versions of Christianity. Christianity didn't branch of because of divine revelation, but man's interpretation.

Same with Islaam. But you have yet to define exactly what is "orthodox Christianity". Is it roman catholic or eastern orthodox?

When speaking or writing, Muhammad's name is preceded by the title "Prophet" and is followed by the phrase, Peace be upon him, or Peace be upon him and his descendants by Shias; in English often abbreviated as "(pbuh)" and "pbuh&hd", or just simply as "p".

Christianity has absolutely no concept of worship, no wander it is such a confused and messy faith. Worship is exclusively for God, thus what can only be applied to God in worship cannot be applied to other than Him, and what can exclusively be applied to a creation cannot be applied to God. This is a basic principle of worship. Thus to say "peace be upon Allaah" is nothing but a blasphemy, because Allaah is not in need of peace, He is the Source of Peace. "Peace be upon him" is actually a prayer to Allaah to grant peace to Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

These are forms of venerating your prophet. You are unfortunately hang up on the physical form of this veneration in Christianity, since you prostrate during your ritual prayers daring the day, any bowing motion by a Christian would be interpreted as "worship" Once again, Christian veneration of icons is not worship of icons or icons substituting as God. The difference between other religions is Christ Himself. Christians pray in the presence of Icons (just as Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple), but we do not pray to the image.

That's a lie, see the pictures I posted of Christians directing their prayers to the icon (not merely praying in their presence). The cherubim and decoration of the Israelite temple and ark were exactly that (decoration), the Israelites never made them the focus of their worship.

The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands: “bow before the footstool of His feet….” We should note first of all that the word for “bow” here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols.And what is the “footstool of His feet”?

The Ark is not an image or an icon. You constantly forget the second commandment of your religion:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

God called the Ark as the Footstool of His Feet, because only He is worthy of Worship. He wants you to worship Him at His Feet, He doesn't want you to bow to the sculpted feet of Virgin Mary, get it?

And you have no authority from God to make images or icons of Virgin Mary. Show me one verse in the Bible which says its okay to make images of human beings, forget about bowing and prostrating before such images.

Read above. I am done explaining to those who do not listen. Interesting to note, whirling crowds around Kabaa predates Islam

The fact that the pagans placed idols in the Kaaba and desecrated it for a while doesn't mean it is or ever was a pagan shrine. Remember the temple of Jerusalem was also desecrated by the pagan Greeks under Antiochus, who placed images and idols into it. Doesn't mean the temple of Jerusalem was a pagan shrine.

Don't shift the topic, you constantly drag the argument to irrelevant rhetoric. The topic was the accessory and sacred objects used in worship of God. This bronze snake was one, it was an object that healed people. Therefore your point that accessory was not allowed in worship of God was refuted.

Yes it was an object that healed people, by the authority of God. It had nothing to do with worship, people didn't bow or prostrate before it (they merely looked at it according to the bible).

People worshipped God through the miracle of the bronze snake, that object was a tool facilitating it.

I look forward to you explaining how exactly the bronze snake had anything to do with worship, though I am confident you will just dodge this and make another lame excuse that is completely irrelevant.

It was honored and venerated which actually led them to elevate it to the status of a god, therefore it was destroyed.

LOL, thanks for making my point. The bronze snake was never meant to be "honored" or "venerated". Moses عليه السلام never told people to start bowing or prostrating to it (like how Christians do to statues of Mary). It has nothing to do with worship, no matter how much nonsense you write trying to claim it was some kind of venerated icon, you can never change the facts.

to conclude from veneration of Christian icons that Christians worship them is completely absurd.

I am at a loss at to why you are so afraid to explain what exactly "veneration" is in your definition, how it is different from worship, and what is the difference between you venerating icons of Mary and Hindus and Buddhists "venerating" idols.

Like anyone really cares about how you define worship

Interesting how so many references to worship in the bible are in conjunction with bowing down to God. Ask most people what they imagine worship to be, they will say things like "praying, bowing, prostrating, fasting, etc." These are acts of worship, and they are all to be dedicated to God. Christians, however, not only pray to Virgin Mary, prostrate to images of her, they also constantly recite her name on the rosary, reciting such prayers as these:

"Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"

We don't worship Krishna.

No, but you worship Mary (exactly the same way Hindus worship Krishna), yet you claim Mary is not God, whereas at least Hindus are smart enough to realize their "veneration" of Krishna is nothing but worship, so for them Krishna is god. You however are only lying to yourself when you try to pretend that Mary is not god and you are not worshipping her.

That is false exegesis, nothing suggests that calf was a representing accessory, it was a replacement.

you saying it is false exegesis doesn't make it so. You need to answer why Aaron said at the altar of the golden calf that tomorrow we are going to have a festival to YHWH. Until you can answer this you have no right to say "false exegesis".

But veneration doesn't end there, we do find them in the Scriptures—plenty of them! Consider how prevalent they were in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

• On the Ark—Ex. 25:18
• On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1
• On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
• Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23
• On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29
• On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32
• And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36

In short, there were Icons everywhere you turned.

The cherubim were not venerated, not in the way you venerate statues of Mary. They were just decoration. The Israelites didn't bow to them or pray to them.

Noone knows why Muhammad kissed the asteroid. So blindly they repeat after him, like it is of importance to imitate, what is it that being achieved by kissing the black stone which reeks idolatry from the get go?

Still think kissing is an act of worship? You are totally ignorant of what constitutes worship.

But Christian veneration of Icons is not about what God needs or not. It is about an expression of worship, reverence, veneration.

It is definitely an expression of worship...worship of the icons that are being "venerated".

 

[Yusha']

Where is this physical literal throne that Allah sits on like a man?

I never said Allaah تعالى is sitting on the Throne like a man. That is your imagination running wild.

 

[Yusha']

The biblical text offers more clues to the context if research properly, such as the young man being SAD after a commandment given to him by Christ. What do you know about sincere motivation?
Oh we are tracking, not bad. Now both rebuking and then loving. What a dilemma, which one is it?

The dilemma is only for you. After being rebuked, the fellow corrects himself by referring to Jesus as merely "teacher". And according to you Jesus loves everyone, supposedly even those he rebukes.

Most reasonable people won't believe for a second that if Jesus is divine he would want to confuse anyone about his true identity.

Allah sits on His physical Throne, like a man does.

Like I said before, that is your imagination running wild. No Muslim believes Allaah is sitting on the Throne like a man. Our creed is crystal clear, Allaah is above the Throne in a manner befitting His Majesty.

The principle is the same for all the attributes of Allaah. Our Allaah is living, human beings also live, but Allaah is alive in a manner that befits His Majesty, He sees and hears everything, humans have the ability to hear and see, but not like Allaah, because all of Allaah's qualities and attributes are unique, and they have no similitude. Very unfortunate for you that you can't understand such a simple concept.

 

[Chesterton]

Our Allaah is living, human beings also live, but Allaah is alive in a manner that befits His Majesty, He sees and hears everything, humans have the ability to hear and see, but not like Allaah, because all of Allaah's qualities and attributes are unique, and they have no similitude.

You just gave a good reasoning for why the truth of the Trinity should not be hard to accept.