Who is the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18?

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Thus, Islam is not about the prophet, its about Allah and His oneness...

I respectfully don't agree, then why the term "La Ilaha Illallah, Muhammadun Rasul Allah"?? Just remove the second part "Muhammadun Rasul Allah" ...

I see that Muhammad is not a prophet but the APOSTLE in Islam, and the arabic term here doesn't say he was a prophet, but rasool, which is messenger, correct me if Iam wrong but I don't think prophet and messenger are the same. Islam is everything about the Allah and Muhammad, can you imagine an Islam without Muhammad? If you can not, why not? Thanks.

 

[IronEagle]

Certainly not, those words above that are CENSORED by CF boards using asterisks show your credibility ALREADY. You are talking about showing both sides but you are omitting important information, due to bias, not everyone WILL go to that link to find that out that is where you failed to show a good example of showing both sides. If you were honest then you may explain why you omitted the part I pointed out which was following right after the paragraph in question.

You are making a mountain out of a mole hole like my use of a slang language... anyways, I didn’t mean anything bad.
First of all, since she asked for theories supporting the corruption of bible, hence, I quoted passage only related to that. If you notice excluded a lot of material, including:
"Baigent and Leigh allege that several key scrolls were deliberately kept under wraps for decades to prevent alternative theories to the prevailing "consensus" that the scrolls had nothing to do with Christianity from arising.

Because they are frequently described as important to the history of the Bible, the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories: one example is the claim that they were entirely fabricated or planted by extra-terrestrials."

but you see me only excluding the following text due to your bias:
"Eisenman's own theories, themselves not always convincing, merely attempt to relate the career of James the Just and Paul to some of these documents."

not everyone WILL go to that link to find that out

Second, since I specifically said that there is a counter argument and check them out before making an assessment, therefore, I don't see a problem. Anyhow I’ll keep that in mind.

And I do not see you are showing the other side of the coin, unless you know the other side of the coin.

I don't know your definition for "to show the other side of the coin", but I mean there are resources suggesting corruption of the bible... people can check them and judge themselves. For example, they can check the commentaries and theories on Dead Sea scrolls relating to the corruption of Bible, and compare them with the actual Dead Sea scrolls.

Here are some useful links for a start:
Note: Amazon and Barnes&Noble has reviews with each item; usually they will contain arguments for and against related to a given item.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...ate=03-19-2004+01:08:27&isbn=0671797972&itm=1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...ate=03-19-2004+01:09:30&isbn=1569750920&itm=1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...ate=03-19-2004+01:09:31&isbn=0195084500&itm=1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...ate=03-19-2004+01:11:05&isbn=0140278079&itm=1

Certainly that doesn't support your grounds that He didn't go thru all the bad scenarios. But still, HOW EARLY was that Christian artwork? I would like to see basis on this argument not do your own research thing.

....Certainly not, go ahead and post a new thread.

Honestly tell me, if I make this thread, you will see it as an attack or an intellectual discussion? (Other Christians should give their opinion too).

Again depends on the circulation of the type of artwork, catacombs/good scenarios and cross/crucifixion are different things. But certainly the artwork is NOT the basis for faith or what to believe, it is the Scripture, artwork has always been effected by freedoms that given to mankind. So unfortunately, artwork doesn't explain anything.

I agree that artwork is NOT THE BASIS OF/FOR FAITH. However, it is still interesting to know that why the early Christians didn't depict Jesus’ crucifixion, unlike later Christian art, even though it is the most important facet of their faith, while portraying Jesus' and other christian beliefs.

artwork has always been effected by freedoms that given to mankind. So unfortunately, artwork doesn't explain anything.

I beg to differ, except partially with the "freedom" part. Art had always reflected the beliefs, values, and emotions of the artists and their culture. True, art always been affected by freedom given to people, but it was affected in both directions (for and against it), because art is an expression of thought. Certainly, artists also used art to express opposition to oppression through art. It may not explain anything to you, but I see it as frozen picture of it's time and society.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You are making a mountain out of a mole hole like my use of a slang language... anyways, I didn’t mean anything bad.

Why should not I? I haven't exhausted one tiny bit of slang, why is the need for?

but you see me only excluding the following text due to your bias

My friend, do not go throwing accusations who has a bias or not, I could have CALLED you "biased" as well due to your exclusions and showing the only paragrapgh that draws attention to dubiousness of the Bible, why bring an article when there are a lot of issues in question in the first place?

I don't know your definition for "to show the other side of the coin", but I mean there are resources suggesting corruption of the bible...

To show the other side of the coin means to present evidence which is not dubious and which can not also be used for your position, now when I bring the same "other side of the coin" what are you going to think? Anyway, yes, there are resources and theories suggesting corruption of the Bible, as well as Quran. Since when are Dead Sea Scrolls the investigative authority on the Scriptures what we have today?

Honestly tell me, if I make this thread, you will see it as an attack or an intellectual discussion? (Other Christians should give their opinion too).

You need to go to a Christianity History forum. Such as CARM.org History or Bible Study Forums. You will hardly get any response to that here, I don't know why you think I would see it as an "attack"??? Care to explain?

I agree that artwork is NOT THE BASIS OF/FOR FAITH. However, it is still interesting to know that why the early Christians didn't depict Jesus’ crucifixion, unlike later Christian art, even though it is the most important facet of their faith, while portraying Jesus' and other christian beliefs.

Yes it is and it is a valid question, but first you need to come with a solid argument not with what your art teacher told you, dig it a little bit and post the argument as a new discussion. If I can find time I will look in details of the subject but nevertheless it is a rather unimportant part of Christian history for me, it doesn't change anything while I have the Scriptures.

 

[crystalpc]

Ah! I am a deeply fundamentalist Christian, and an artist. I have painted several hundred pictures drawn several hundred more, but if you judge my religion by my art work you would judge that I was a naturalist, or worshiped buildings. This is utter foolishness.
The Catacombs were a burial ground for Christians. Why would they put things such as crucifixion on the graves, they would put something on them that would depict the resurrection not the crucifixion. It is the same with us now, my grandmother was a christian, we put a dove ascending to heaven on her stone. How many tombs do you see with the crucifixion on them?

 

[IronEagle]

Why should not I? I haven't exhausted one tiny bit of slang, why is the need for?

Why should anyone make a mountain out of molehill? What purpose it serves? Slang is normal in conversations these days. The word I used simply means "angry". If you didn't find it appropriate, simply you could have said it is not appropriate to use slang. I couldn't understand what you meant by "PC", I asked you first.

My friend, do not go throwing accusations who has a bias or not, I could have CALLED you "biased" as well due to your exclusions and showing the only paragrapgh that draws attention to dubiousness of the Bible,

I thought you are accusing me of bias. The way you made some comments made feel that way. My apologies!

why bring an article when there are a lot of issues in question in the first place?

To show the other side of the coin means to present evidence which is not dubious and which can not also be used for your position, now when I bring the same "other side of the coin" what are you going to think? Anyway, yes, there are resources and theories suggesting corruption of the Bible, as well as Quran. Since when are Dead Sea Scrolls the investigative authority on the Scriptures what we have today?

Let's look at this way… for example, you made topic on Christian version of Quran (I don't remember the exact name) I didn't mind at all. Another example, some topics made by Azad were also very interesting.

I don't like hasty generalizations or hateful comments, but bringing in information is always welcomed by me, not to mention, I like to evaluate my faith. If it is to put aside controversial information, then I don't think man would have made any progress. The idea is not to make assertions, but to look at the issue from different perspectives, bringing in counter arguments, and keeping an intelligent conversion so the readers can make an informed opinion (which also includes me).

I don't know why you think I would see it as an "attack"??? Care to explain?

1. People see things differently, something not offensive to me, might be offensive to a person with different belief. Moreover, this is a sensitive topic; therefore, people can take it the wrong way. This is the reason I didn't brought up this topic in the first place even though I had these questions in my mind for a long time.

2. I see you focusing on me rather than the information itself. That gives me the impression that are getting somewhat offended with my posts.

Yes it is and it is a valid question, but first you need to come with a solid argument not with what your art teacher told you, dig it a little bit and post the argument as a new discussion. If I can find time I will look in details of the subject but nevertheless it is a rather unimportant part of Christian history for me, it doesn't change anything while I have the Scriptures.

Tell you what, I'll pm you the text before making a public discussion. You can give me the feedback, if you see something inappropriate from a Christian perspective. In think that would be the best way to do it... that is if you like to volunteer.

 

[IronEagle]

but if you judge my religion by my art work you would judge that I was a naturalist, or worshiped buildings. This is utter foolishness.

First, thanks for input. I'm getting second thoughts not starting this discussion at all.

Second, sorry.... but wait until this topic is created in the scientific section.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Why should anyone make a mountain out of molehill?

Well, why should anyone use slang?

What purpose it serves?

So we pay attention where we are wrong and try not to do it again.

Slang is normal in conversations these days.

That is hardly a valid justification. I dismiss it.

The word I used simply means "angry".

I was not angry therefore I thought of the other bad word.

If you didn't find it appropriate, simply you could have said it is not appropriate to use slang. I couldn't understand what you meant by "PC", I asked you first.

I think I did, my way of doing so might be a little bit overdone due to being surprised to see something I didn't expect.

I thought you are accusing me of bias. The way you made some comments made feel that way. My apologies!

NP!

for example, you made topic on Christian version of Quran (I don't remember the exact name)

Yes, The True Furqan. I posted that to see what you people thought about it (in case some seen it before) I didn't pay attention to it myself and didn't read it.

Another example, some topics made by Azad were also very interesting.

Must be the one about shroud...

I don't like hasty generalizations or hateful comments, but bringing in information is always welcomed by me, not to mention, I like to evaluate my faith. If it is to put aside controversial information, then I don't think man would have made any progress. The idea is not to make assertions, but to look at the issue from different perspectives, bringing in counter arguments, and keeping an intelligent conversion so the readers can make an informed opinion (which also includes me).

Good way of thinking, so when something against the info you provide, and is refuted, do you dismiss the source immediately, or you keep on researching more sources until you are sure it is really to be dismissed?

1. People see things differently, something not offensive to me, might be offensive to a person with different belief.

Yes, and they should point that out respectfully, something a muslim sister said upset me the other day and I told her that she upset me. It was respectful and kind.

Moreover, this is a sensitive topic; therefore, people can take it the wrong way.

Agreed, but you know, if one is well-versed and educated, no rumor, no false information, no misconception would make them angry or act inappropriately. For example; the 3 gods misconception against Christianity....

This is the reason I didn't brought up this topic in the first place even though I had these questions in my mind for a long time.

Valid questions BEG to be asked. Don't lose anytime on those, I ask the questions I have (in any matter) right away.

2. I see you focusing on me rather than the information itself. That gives me the impression that are getting somewhat offended with my posts.

No, this is not true.

Tell you what, I'll pm you the text before making a public discussion. You can give me the feedback, if you see something inappropriate from a Christian perspective. In think that would be the best way to do it... that is if you like to volunteer.
[Report Bad Post]

Also PM it to Crystal as we do research together sometimes. If it is really good material, I will also tell you to take it to CARM!

 

[crystalpc]

Well, why should anyone use slang?



So we pay attention where we are wrong and try not to do it again.



That is hardly a valid justification. I dismiss it.



I was not angry therefore I thought of the other bad word.



I think I did, my way of doing so might be a little bit overdone due to being surprised to see something I didn't expect.



NP!



Yes, The True Furqan. I posted that to see what you people thought about it (in case some seen it before) I didn't pay attention to it myself and didn't read it.



Must be the one about shroud...



Good way of thinking, so when something against the info you provide, and is refuted, do you dismiss the source immediately, or you keep on researching more sources until you are sure it is really to be dismissed?



Yes, and they should point that out respectfully, something a muslim sister said upset me the other day and I told her that she upset me. It was respectful and kind.



Agreed, but you know, if one is well-versed and educated, no rumor, no false information, no misconception would make them angry or act inappropriately. For example; the 3 gods misconception against Christianity....



Valid questions BEG to be asked. Don't lose anytime on those, I ask the questions I have (in any matter) right away.



No, this is not true.



Also PM it to Crystal as we do research together sometimes. If it is really good material, I will also tell you to take it to CARM!

I will be very interested in seeing this material. Thank you Bush and Iron Eagle

 

[Christ Aficionado]

re-read the posts...

all miracles are by Gods permission. no human being does it himself, its only through Gods leave and permission....same applies to moses, jesus etc

so yes he was only a messenger, the miracles were due to God, not him. Muhammad did not come to perform massive miracles, he was just a plain warner like all others Prophets

Thus, Islam is not about the prophet, its about Allah and His oneness...

Hello Traveller ,

Re-reading the posts won't do me any good with regard to my question to KniteofIslam. Here is the text from the Quaran again:

"And they say, why are not signs, miracles, send down to him, to Mohammed, from his lord?" Says, "Oh, Mohammed, the signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner."

The people are plainly stating that Mohammed is not doing any miracles. Mohammed doesn't deny what they are saying. Is that how you read it?

Peace.

 

[KniteOfIslam]

My Friend Christ Aficionado

Sorry for the delay..Im having major problems with my internet connection and ISP lately..I hope I can solve it soon..

I hope u and everybody else here are well

"And they say, why are not signs, miracles, send down to him, to Mohammed, from his lord?" Says, "Oh, Mohammed, the signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner."

The people are plainly stating that Mohammed is not doing any miracles. Mohammed doesn't deny what they are saying. Is that how you read it?

I'd like to emphasize one sentence in this Verse "The signs are only with Allah"
All the great scholars who explained the verse stressed on that the meaning is : <It's withn the hands of Allah not mine, if he wants so He will give a miracle>....
They were asking for a physical miracle u know like the stick in Moses' (Pbuh) Hands or Giving life to the Dead like Jesus (Pbuh)

So the main points are:
1) Mohammad is not making miracles on his own, all is by God's permission and if He well...All Prophets are the same
2) That doesn't deny that miracles may happen by God's Permission after this Verse..and that's exactly what happened
3) Actually most miracles happend in Medina after the victory of Islam and almost all Arabia was under Islam banner...(Note that Al-Ankaboot means "The Spider", Sura 29 was Macci Sura, means that it were revealed in Mecca before even the Messenger of Allah immigrated to Medina)
=================================

My Friend BushMaster


Allah also said that Mohammad (Pbuh) is Prophet:
Please read The Noble Quran 7:157 > "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law and the Gospel - for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); he releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him, it is they who will prosper."

So He's Messenger and Prophet in the same time....oh...how is that?
Actually a Messenger is Higher Rank than a Prophet..
A Prophet is who prophecies the fate of a nation and warns that heaven is for who does good deeds, hell is for who does bad deeds, and that there is life after death and Judgement day
A Messenger is actually a Prophet also, he has the same Job, but on all that he also has message from God, Quran..Torah...Injeel....
So Mohammad, Moses, Jesus (Pbut) for instance are not mere Prophets but Also Messengers..

I hope I cleared the matter for u

Take care

May Allah Be Our Way And Goal

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Thanks for the explanation, though I suspected a similar response after I though about it, yes a messenger would normally prophesy too, but looking at your statement, a prophet can not always be a messenger, that is fine too, but hey it doesn't matter to me at all since I don't believe in Muhammad's prophethood. I have yet to see his prophecies IN THE QURAN. However, I was responding to a statement above; Thus, Islam is not about the prophet, its about Allah and His oneness... Therefore I suggested to remove the references to him then! That is NOT possible, but why? Islam is everything about the Allah and Muhammad, can you imagine an Islam without Muhammad?

 

[peaceful soul]

Thanks for the explanation, though I suspected a similar response after I though about it, yes a messenger would normally prophesy too, but looking at your statement, a prophet can not always be a messenger, that is fine too, but hey it doesn't matter to me at all since I don't believe in Muhammad's prophethood. I have yet to see his prophecies IN THE QURAN. However, I was responding to a statement above; Thus, Islam is not about the prophet, its about Allah and His oneness... Therefore I suggested to remove the references to him then! That is NOT possible, but why? Islam is everything about the Allah and Muhammad, can you imagine an Islam without Muhammad?

Islam can not exist without Mohammad, because he is a partner. He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Muslims. His examples are to be emulated. Why would Allah give so much authority to a prophet? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.

 

[KniteOfIslam]

Dear Friend JCBeliever

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish.
If those are in common with Muhammed, Moses, and Jesus, how does this contribute to anything? Some of those similarities are shared with all of the prophets BTW.

I'll try to clear my point to u more


1) U asked to give evidence that Mohammad is More Like Moses

2) I gave u many similarities between Moses and Mohammad

3) U said that some PROPHETS or JUDGES or MERE PEOPLE (OTHER THAN JESUS) have the same similarities that Mohammad has with Moses...

4) MY POINT:
I say that MOHAMMAD IS MORE LIKE MOSES THAN ANYBODY ELSE U MENTIONED...WHY???....BECAUSE NO SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS BY HIMSELF MORE THAN THE 12 POINTS I GAVE BETWEEN MOSES AND MOHAMMAD... besides he is a Prophet
Yes...some of them might has same 1 or 2 similarities with Moses...But Not All, NOT As Much As Mohammad has with Moses...NOT JOSHUA...NOT DAVID...NOT ANYBODY ELSE...(STILL OTHER THAN JESUS I MEAN)
HOPE U SEE MY POINT ..

5) WHAT U HAVE TO PROVE NOW: (U don't have to repeat urself or anything)
If you think someone (OTHER THAN JESUS) deserves to be More like Moses than Mohammad ...let it be a Judge, Fisherman, Prophet or a Carpenter....etc....please prove that he has - besides he is a Prophet - 12 similarities or more to be more than Mohammad's similarities
That's ur turn and I'd like to see u make that the next post..
OTHERWISE..I CAN DECLARE THAT NO SINGLE PERSON DESERVES TO BE MORE LIKE MOSES THAN MOHAMMAD..(Still we didn't come to Jesus yet)

I really don't want to keep repeating myself, so I ask you yet again to give answers to this:

Now that I addressed your inquiry, I kindly ask you to do the same with mine:

Jesus as a man was a Jew, okay. Jesus and Moses are brothers. Jesus was a brother to the Israelites of the 12th century BC. Children of Israel are brothers to each other.
Muhammed was a second cousin to Moses and the Israelites.

Since Jesus was the Word incarnate, God put every word into the mouth of Jesus. Jesus alone is a body, it's God the Son in Him that was His soul that gave Him life and put the words in His mouth.
Not every single word Muhammed spoke (if any) was from God.

Is this clear?

How am I wrong here? How can you say Muhammed is a brother opf Moses and the Israelites if he's NOT? He's a second cousin, but Jesus is a brother to Moses and the ISraelites of the 12 century BC.
Also, every word Jesus spoke in His life was the direct word of God, but surely not every word Muhammed spoke was from God.
If you fail to respond to this, I will have to assume immediate victory.

May God watch you and guide you always

Sorry we are still at the first portion of the prophecy "Like Unto Thee"....we have to finish this point first...or r u surrendering it to me!?
Still Waiting for ur next post which must be the person - other than Jesus - u r saying he is more like Moses than Mohammad with 12 or more similarities with Moses

May Allah Be Our Way And Goal

 

[Noor Saffiyah]

Islam can not exist without Mohammad, because he is a partner. He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Muslims. His examples are to be emulated. Why would Allah give so much authority to a prophet? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.

Good eve'--

Missing your point. To rephrase what you wrote:

Christianity can not exist without Christ, because he is a partner. He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Christians. His examples are to be emulated. Why would Allah (G-d) give so much authority to a prophet? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.

What point would there be for Allah (G-D) to give us prophets and messengers at all if we were going to ignore their messages and their authority and not try to follow their examples. I think that is the point in Allah (G-D) sending them to us. That includes any of the prophets (Nabi- a prophet that Allah [G-D] sends to us to reiterate a message already sent) and messengers (Rasul--a prophet sent by Allah [G-D] to bring a new message).

I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.....


Alhumdulillah!! All praises to Allah!!

 

[Letalis]

Good eve'--

Missing your point. To rephrase what you wrote:

Christianity can not exist without Christ, because he is a partner. He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Christians. His examples are to be emulated. Why would Allah (G-d) give so much authority to a prophet? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.

Belief in Muhammad is also required for salvation in Islam. Am I right? Why would Allah give so much authority to a PROPHET could be asked of a Muslim. But not of a Christian.

 

[Noor Saffiyah]

Belief in Muhammad is also required for salvation in Islam. Am I right? Why would Allah give so much authority to a PROPHET could be asked of a Muslim. But not of a Christian.

It depends on your interpretation of the word belief. 'Belief' in Muhammad is NOT required for salvation. Not in the sense that you are using it. One is to have a 'belief' in all of the prophets of Allah (G-D). It (they) have nothing to do with one's salvation however.

You are engaging in mis-interpretation....


Alhumdulillah!! Praise to Allah for all of His blessings, mercy and love....

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Christianity can not exist without Christ, because he is a partner. He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Christians. His examples are to be emulated. Why would Allah (G-d) give so much authority to a prophet? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.

Hey friend, I'd expect you to show some justice to the QUOTE if you are completely going to refer to it in reverse terms (if it is about Christianity only, then we can not mix it with islamic doctrine) so it goes like this;

Christianity can not exist without Christ, (correct) because he is a partner.(to the Triune Godhead, not 3 gods) He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Christians.(all people actually) His examples are to be emulated. Why would God give so much authority to HIS SON? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now

AMEN! He gives authority to HIS SON so that he can SAVE the people from their SINS!

But I understand why you can't use certain terms and it is OK too. I agree with you on most parts of this quote, however, certain things show that he is more than a prophet, that is the extra...

Just my $.02 ...

 

[crystalpc]

It depends on your interpretation of the word belief. 'Belief' in Muhammad is NOT required for salvation. Not in the sense that you are using it. One is to have a 'belief' in all of the prophets of Allah (G-D). It (they) have nothing to do with one's salvation however.

You are engaging in mis-interpretation....


Alhumdulillah!! Praise to Allah for all of His blessings, mercy and love....

Funny I could say the same thing of you..

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Noor Saffiyah

It depends on your interpretation of the word belief. 'Belief' in Muhammad is NOT required for salvation. Not in the sense that you are using it. One is to have a 'belief' in all of the prophets of Allah (G-D). It (they) have nothing to do with one's salvation however.

I can also argue the opposite. Logically, if Allah says that you have to believe that Mohammad is the final prophet and that you are to look to him and his teachings for clarification of Qu'ran; you are in essence following Mohammad, and you do have belief in Him. Otherwise; why do you give him so much praise? Praise should be to Allah only. Don't you agree?

Mohammad is lifted up on a pedestal in my view. Whether you can see it or are willing to admit it, you are putting faith in Mohammad for your salvation. So that shows some favor that other prophets do not have. You may not worship him, but you can not detach him from Allah and Qu'ran and still have the solid foundation of Islam, IMO.

 

[peaceful soul]

Good eve'--

Missing your point. To rephrase what you wrote:

Christianity can not exist without Christ, because he is a partner. He is an influence upon the faith and salvation of Christians. His examples are to be emulated. Why would Allah (G-d) give so much authority to a prophet? I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.

What point would there be for Allah (G-D) to give us prophets and messengers at all if we were going to ignore their messages and their authority and not try to follow their examples. I think that is the point in Allah (G-D) sending them to us. That includes any of the prophets (Nabi- a prophet that Allah [G-D] sends to us to reiterate a message already sent) and messengers (Rasul--a prophet sent by Allah [G-D] to bring a new message).

I could say more, but will leave it at that for now.....


Alhumdulillah!! All praises to Allah!!

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, which makes Him the essence of God; so your analogy is incorrect. If Jesus was just a mere man, I would not be a Christian. I hope you see the light.

I will never follow a man. I will listen, but if what he says does not align with Bible, adios. All men are corrupted in some way or another. I would not follow their example for that reason. If you wish to follow, you can know 100% that you will be lead astray from your doctrine at some point. I see it quite a bit in Christianity; so I know it exists in Islam too.

Man is corrupt by nature. The Qu'ran does not hold this view; so I can see why Mohammad's corrupted nature can be emulated without much of a problem. In Islam, sin only needs to be forgiven. It is treated as a fault. There is no true punishment for it; so all you need to do is ask for forgiveness. Allah forgives you and you move on. You can do the same thing over and over and Allah will forgive you. This shows that there is no true accountability in Islam. Furthermore, this mindset leads to further corruption of a person's spirit.

I know you did not ask for the 3rd paragraph; I threw that in for free.