Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Yaramaqui]

לק״י

Shalom ^_^

[Jamzmania]

"You are not one of us so you can't have an opinion on the matter."

As if someone without knowledge would know. (C) Smith Protectorate :^)

prophet
ˈprɒfɪt
noun
1.
a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.
"the Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah"

No. A prophet is not a mere preacher but one who spoke on behalf of God after being ordered to do so by Him.

That´s exactly what these preachers did in the Roman Empire. Don't poke holes at my statements, address the whole argument. I didn't mention the meaning of prophet as a word, I mentioned the prophet in the old testament. Stop using your strawmans here.

My being Muslim or not is irrelevant, and I know what the early Muslim community widely believed and propagated because of the large number of early Muslim sources which have this story in them.

So Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus, to name a few, were just preachers? They didn't hear the words and will of God?

Of course, it is relevant, since we would know our religion better. I'm very familiar with Islamic history, and I'm sure I would have known if that were true. Sadly, it wasn't:

4.) The Satanic Verses story: This story is only found in Al-Tabari and not in Ibn Ishaq. May I suggest Reading what Islamic-awareness.org has to say about this matter here.-- And yes the Satanic Vereses story is false:

"The story that Muhammad could have used the Satanic suggestion is rejected by almost all exegetes, but the fact that the story persists as a subject of exegetes' discussions is testimony to the reality of the temptation both for Muhammad and for later Muslims in their own struggles with such "Babylons" as London, New York, Paris, or Hamburg." [16]

So much for a wide belief. :^)

Maybe you will stop interpreting my words as freely as you do the hadith? If you do, quote them, OK? I never claimed they weren't prophets, nor that they were just preachers. But regarding your question, Muhammad (saw), Noah, Jesus, Moses and Abraham, Salih, Lot, Jethro and Eber were the only messengers (rasul) we know. All others were prophets.

I literally just quoted the story of the Satanic Verses from Ibn Ishaq, so I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point.

Shall I also point out that Quran verses were revealed in response to this incident? I know it follows the Islamic tradition of "if I don't like it, I'll say it didn't happen," but verses of the Quran were revealed about this and it is in several early Muslim sources. You cannot rationally dismiss this story.

[Free Rhenish States]

Why do you just keep going on with a fallacy when it was pointed at? It's the second time you did it.
Should I tell you using the language you will understand? I can: I didn't fucking say the prophets didn't, but what I said was what Moses meant. Stop refuting something I never mentioned.

Once more, where is the fallacy? You said, lemme quote you :

No, a prophet in the old testament and new testament is just a preacher. There were many of those in the Roman Empire, a messenger is something else.

This is false. The word prophet never had the definition of "preacher", but always had the one of "one that reveal the words of God on His behalf".

And you said that in response to Jaz saying :

A prophet in the Old Testament is someone who reveals the words and will of God.

There is no fallacy here, only me calling you on your bullshit so don't try to back-pedal your way out of this shit.

The fallacy here is that you fail to fucking, address the whole argument and instead debate the meaning of the word outside OT and NT, while ignoring the whole argument, like you did the previous time. Sure, Prophets did receive relevations from God and spoke directly to him, but not everyone of them. The messengers did.
As I had previously said:

Maybe you will stop interpreting my words as freely as you do the hadith? If you do, quote them, OK? I never claimed they weren't prophets, nor that they were just preachers. But regarding your question, Muhammad (saw), Noah, Jesus, Moses and Abraham, Salih, Lot, Jethro and Eber were the only messengers (rasul) we know. All others were prophets.

This is an incomplete example of messengers (rasul), and nearly all other prophets (98%) were just prophets (nabi), which means a lower prophet who just delivered the relevation sent by the previous messenger. However, in both new and old Testament, whenever false prophets are being mentioned, it was the false preachers who called themselves prophets. Many of them existed back then.
Make yourself a favor and ask me if you don't understand what I mean instead of starting an argument out of your own interpretation of my words, like a Frenchman would.

[Jamzmania]

Once more, where is the fallacy? You said, lemme quote you :

This is false. The word prophet never had the definition of "preacher", but always had the one of "one that reveal the words of God on His behalf".

And you said that in response to Jaz saying :


There is no fallacy here, only me calling you on your bullshit so don't try to back-pedal your way out of this shit.

The fallacy here is that you fail to fucking, address the whole argument and instead debate the meaning of the word outside OT and NT, while ignoring the whole argument, like you did the previous time. Sure, Prophets did receive relevations from God and spoke directly to him, but not everyone of them. The messengers did.
As I had previously said:

Maybe you will stop interpreting my words as freely as you do the hadith? If you do, quote them, OK? I never claimed they weren't prophets, nor that they were just preachers. But regarding your question, Muhammad (saw), Noah, Jesus, Moses and Abraham, Salih, Lot, Jethro and Eber were the only messengers (rasul) we know. All others were prophets.

This is an incomplete example of messengers (rasul), and nearly all other prophets (98%) were just prophets (nabi), which means a lower prophet who just delivered the relevation sent by the previous messenger. However, in both new and old Testament, whenever false prophets are being mentioned, it was the false preachers who called themselves prophets. Many of them existed back then.
Make yourself a favor and ask me if you don't understand what I mean instead of starting an argument out of your own interpretation of my words, like a Frenchman would.

I've never heard of this idea of there being a lower sort of prophet that doesn't receive revelations from God.

[Free Rhenish States]

As if someone without knowledge would know. (C) Smith Protectorate :^)

That´s exactly what these preachers did in the Roman Empire. Don't poke holes at my statements, address the whole argument. I didn't mention the meaning of prophet as a word, I mentioned the prophet in the old testament. Stop using your strawmans here.

Of course, it is relevant, since we would know our religion better. I'm very familiar with Islamic history, and I'm sure I would have known if that were true. Sadly, it wasn't:

So much for a wide belief. :^)

Maybe you will stop interpreting my words as freely as you do the hadith? If you do, quote them, OK? I never claimed they weren't prophets, nor that they were just preachers. But regarding your question, Muhammad (saw), Noah, Jesus, Moses and Abraham, Salih, Lot, Jethro and Eber were the only messengers (rasul) we know. All others were prophets.

I literally just quoted the story of the Satanic Verses from Ibn Ishaq, so I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point.

Shall I also point out that Quran verses were revealed in response to this incident? I know it follows the Islamic tradition of "if I don't like it, I'll say it didn't happen," but verses of the Quran were revealed about this and it is in several early Muslim sources. You cannot rationally dismiss this story.

I already gave you a link which refuted it.

Sure we can, unlike the religion that is based on dreams, stories of the unknown and fairytales without a chain of narrators and a source, our religion that is free from corrections and errors in religion, the only arguments we accept is what is known to have been authentically conveyed to us, that is - The Quran and the authentic hadiths. The chain of narrators in your story is broken, and this story has been refuted by nearly everyone due to its lack of authenticy.

[Jamzmania]

I literally just quoted the story of the Satanic Verses from Ibn Ishaq, so I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point.

Shall I also point out that Quran verses were revealed in response to this incident? I know it follows the Islamic tradition of "if I don't like it, I'll say it didn't happen," but verses of the Quran were revealed about this and it is in several early Muslim sources. You cannot rationally dismiss this story.

I already gave you a link which refuted it.

Sure we can, unlike the religion that is based on dreams, stories of the unknown and fairytales without a chain of narrators and a source, our religion that is free from corrections and errors in religion, the only arguments we accept is what is known to have been authentically conveyed to us, that is - The Quran and the authentic hadiths. The chain of narrators in your story is broken, and this story has been refuted by nearly everyone due to its lack of authenticy.

You need to start presenting your own arguments instead of throwing links around.

[Free Rhenish States]

The fallacy here is that you fail to fucking, address the whole argument and instead debate the meaning of the word outside OT and NT, while ignoring the whole argument, like you did the previous time. Sure, Prophets did receive relevations from God and spoke directly to him, but not everyone of them. The messengers did.
As I had previously said:

This is an incomplete example of messengers (rasul), and nearly all other prophets (98%) were just prophets (nabi), which means a lower prophet who just delivered the relevation sent by the previous messenger. However, in both new and old Testament, whenever false prophets are being mentioned, it was the false preachers who called themselves prophets. Many of them existed back then.
Make yourself a favor and ask me if you don't understand what I mean instead of starting an argument out of your own interpretation of my words, like a Frenchman would.

I've never heard of this idea of there being a lower sort of prophet that doesn't receive revelations from God.

Ok, let me give you an example. There were more than 120,000 prophets sent to every people and race in the world according to us.
But not everyone of those came up with a new law and new beliefs, only the prophets like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed (saw) and Abraham, everyone else just conveyed the law revealed by the previous messenger.

[Free Rhenish States]

I already gave you a link which refuted it.

Sure we can, unlike the religion that is based on dreams, stories of the unknown and fairytales without a chain of narrators and a source, our religion that is free from corrections and errors in religion, the only arguments we accept is what is known to have been authentically conveyed to us, that is - The Quran and the authentic hadiths. The chain of narrators in your story is broken, and this story has been refuted by nearly everyone due to its lack of authenticy.

You need to start presenting your own arguments instead of throwing links around.

I already did. This story was refuted by nearly everyone, and if you don´t believe me, I already gave you a link to read. What´s your problem with reading links? Why bother to spend the precious time when there's already a source that has in fact stated it more eloquently? I don't need to re-invent something. You asked us what we think about it and we gave you a refution, you refusing to read this may be accepted as just an excuse in your reluctance to accept the truth, no offense.

[Jamzmania]

You need to start presenting your own arguments instead of throwing links around.

I already did. This story was refuted by nearly everyone, and if you don´t believe me, I already gave you a link to read. What´s your problem with reading links? Why bother to spend the precious time when there's already a source that has in fact stated it more eloquently? I don't need to re-invent something. You asked us what we think about it and we gave you a refution, you refusing to read this may be accepted as just an excuse in your reluctance to accept the truth, no offense.

"Everyone who agrees with me says this is wrong, read this link." I'm getting really tired of this. One of the primary purposes of this forum is debate. Instead, you obviously seem to prefer that we just throw links at each other.

If you want, I can just post a link, and you can post a link refuting my link, and then I'll post a link refuting your link?

A good start, by the way, on refuting the Satanic verses, since you say the chain of narrators is bad, would be to show me where the chain was broken? Where it went wrong?

[Free Rhenish States]

I already did. This story was refuted by nearly everyone, and if you don´t believe me, I already gave you a link to read. What´s your problem with reading links? Why bother to spend the precious time when there's already a source that has in fact stated it more eloquently? I don't need to re-invent something. You asked us what we think about it and we gave you a refution, you refusing to read this may be accepted as just an excuse in your reluctance to accept the truth, no offense.

"Everyone who agrees with me says this is wrong, read this link." I'm getting really tired of this. One of the primary purposes of this forum is debate. Instead, you obviously seem to prefer that we just throw links at each other.

If you want, I can just post a link, and you can post a link refuting my link, and then I'll post a link refuting your link?

A good start, by the way, on refuting the Satanic verses, since you say the chain of narrators is bad, would be to show me where the chain was broken? Where it went wrong?

Of course, I value my time. Why should I spend it when I clearly don't need to? For the sole purpose of defeating my opponent in a verbal brawl? Is that it? Argufying is not something I'm into. Sure, when I was debating the Trinity with the Christians, the Christians were the ones giving links, and I did read and watch them. Why don't you? I'm not posting this to debate with you, I'm posting this to refute it for Muslims who never heard of it and might think this is true. At this point, whether you accept this or not is not my concern at all.

Concerning the chain of narrators, this story was delivered using different ithnad, but all of them are mursal (that is, there's a break in the chain of narrators, when someone delivers a hadith from someone he didn´t know, in that case, the hadith is considered weak, given the fact that there are narrators that we know nothing of, e.g their truthfulness, Islam and memory)
The story of your hadith was delivered by 6 different sources, but each one of them was refuted. I have all of the refutions, but they aren´t in English and I don´t have time to translate them at the moment.

Besides, this weak hadith contradicts the Quran verses concerning the compromise between unbelievers and believers:
The hadith from Ibn Abbas says:

They said, ‘If you will worship our gods, Al-Lat and Al-Uzza, for a year, we shall worship your god for a year.” After all, Allah was their god. In fact, Allah was supposed to be the proud (father) of Al-Lat (the female form of Allah) and Al-Uzza.

The answer is in the Quran itself:

Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.

Say, [O Muhammad], "Is it other than Allah that you order me to worship, O ignorant ones?" And it was already revealed to you and to those before you that if you should associate [anything] with Allah , your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be among the losers." Rather, worship [only] Allah and be among the grateful.

To conclude, no Muslim would ever buy this story simply because it's a weak hadith, therefor we just dismiss it as false.

[Hindia Belanda]

The Al gharaniq story has a very weak isnad. That alone is enough for its historicity and authenticity to be doubted. It's also not found in any of the Sunni Sihah collections and virtually nonexistent in Shia sources.

Ik weet het. Onze religie is niet gebaseerd op dromen, vertelligen van onbekenden en sprookjes zonder isnad, in tegenstelling tot christendom.

Helemaal mee eens.

[Hindia Belanda]

As if someone without knowledge would know. (C) Smith Protectorate :^)

That´s exactly what these preachers did in the Roman Empire. Don't poke holes at my statements, address the whole argument. I didn't mention the meaning of prophet as a word, I mentioned the prophet in the old testament. Stop using your strawmans here.

Of course, it is relevant, since we would know our religion better. I'm very familiar with Islamic history, and I'm sure I would have known if that were true. Sadly, it wasn't:

So much for a wide belief. :^)

Maybe you will stop interpreting my words as freely as you do the hadith? If you do, quote them, OK? I never claimed they weren't prophets, nor that they were just preachers. But regarding your question, Muhammad (saw), Noah, Jesus, Moses and Abraham, Salih, Lot, Jethro and Eber were the only messengers (rasul) we know. All others were prophets.

I literally just quoted the story of the Satanic Verses from Ibn Ishaq, so I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point.

Shall I also point out that Quran verses were revealed in response to this incident? I know it follows the Islamic tradition of "if I don't like it, I'll say it didn't happen," but verses of the Quran were revealed about this and it is in several early Muslim sources. You cannot rationally dismiss this story.

There is an established methodology that one must follow when considering whether a hadith is authentic or inauthentic. For a hadith to be considered authentic (sahih), it needs to be corroborated by other reputable narrators with a reliable chain of previous narrators, in addition to other requirements that I have yet to read about (I’m sure others on this thread are far more knowledgeable on this than I am). So to put it simply, the more it is corroborated, the more authentic it becomes.

In the case of al gharaniq, it was narrated by several sources with very weak isnads, therefore the story is considered very weak (daif) or even inauthentic/forged (mawdoo). Ibn Ishaq’s ahadith collection, while generally considered by some Sunni scholars to be good (hasan), has been given a negative distinction (tadlees) by most Sunni scholars because he didn’t name his teacher from whom he supposedly traced his isnads. For this reason, reputable Sunni scholars who compiled the Sihah al Sitta (the Six Books of Sunni ahadith collection) almost never relied on any of his narrations.

I consider the story to be false for the simple reason that it’s nonexistent in Shia sources. But even among Sunni collections, the story isn’t narrated in any of the Sihah al Sitta, so most I believe do not accept the story to be true. And the story itself has been refuted countless of times before.

[Alsheb]

Even if it were true, the satanic verses story doesn't prove anything. Satan whispers something in Muhammad's ear, the Prophet gets confused, God rectifies the mistake and tells Muhammad the actual verse. Big friggin' deal.

[Hindia Belanda]

Even if it were true, the satanic verses story doesn't prove anything. Satan whispers something in Muhammad's ear, the Prophet gets confused, God rectifies the mistake and tells Muhammad the actual verse. Big friggin' deal.

Yeah, I agree. But that would undermine the concept of Muhammad's infallibility and I suppose that’s where it starts to become a problem for some muslims.

[Aelex]

The fallacy here is that you fail to fucking, address the whole argument and instead debate the meaning of the word outside OT and NT, while ignoring the whole argument, like you did the previous time. Sure, Prophets did receive relevations from God and spoke directly to him, but not everyone of them. The messengers did.
As I had previously said:

Maybe you will stop interpreting my words as freely as you do the hadith? If you do, quote them, OK? I never claimed they weren't prophets, nor that they were just preachers. But regarding your question, Muhammad (saw), Noah, Jesus, Moses and Abraham, Salih, Lot, Jethro and Eber were the only messengers (rasul) we know. All others were prophets.

This is an incomplete example of messengers (rasul), and nearly all other prophets (98%) were just prophets (nabi), which means a lower prophet who just delivered the relevation sent by the previous messenger. However, in both new and old Testament, whenever false prophets are being mentioned, it was the false preachers who called themselves prophets. Many of them existed back then.
Make yourself a favor and ask me if you don't understand what I mean instead of starting an argument out of your own interpretation of my words, like a Frenchman would.

Damn did you got triggered!
But no. If there is someone engaging in a fallacy here, it's not me for correcting the incorrect definition of prophet you give but rather you for continuously whining about how everyone is twisting your points when we're literally quoting your own words.
So lemme repeat it once more in the simplest fashion ever so maybe you can at last get it in your head.
The Definition of Prophet in the Old and New Testament is : "A man receiving direct Revelations from God and speaking on His direct behalf."
Your own little definition has nothing to do with either the real definition or the Bible definition and is thus completely irrelevant.
I mean if you want to "classify" the prophets, good for you, but it's still something that has no ground on either the Old nor New Testament so don't try to change the very definition of the word just to fit your own bullshit theory that never existed nor even was acknowledged in the Bible.
So, make yourself a favour, and when people are correcting you on your stupid mistakes, hear them out and correct your errors rather than doubling down on making said mistakes and yelling that they're right because you said so, like a Dutchman would.

[Aelex]

Even if it were true, the satanic verses story doesn't prove anything. Satan whispers something in Muhammad's ear, the Prophet gets confused, God rectifies the mistake and tells Muhammad the actual verse. Big friggin' deal.

The fact that Mahomet was incapable of differencing God from Satan do is quite a big fucking deal, honestly, and put the rest of his "revelations" in a new light.

[Free Rhenish States]

The fallacy here is that you fail to fucking, address the whole argument and instead debate the meaning of the word outside OT and NT, while ignoring the whole argument, like you did the previous time. Sure, Prophets did receive relevations from God and spoke directly to him, but not everyone of them. The messengers did.
As I had previously said:

This is an incomplete example of messengers (rasul), and nearly all other prophets (98%) were just prophets (nabi), which means a lower prophet who just delivered the relevation sent by the previous messenger. However, in both new and old Testament, whenever false prophets are being mentioned, it was the false preachers who called themselves prophets. Many of them existed back then.
Make yourself a favor and ask me if you don't understand what I mean instead of starting an argument out of your own interpretation of my words, like a Frenchman would.

Damn did you got triggered!
But no. If there is someone engaging in a fallacy here, it's not me for correcting the incorrect definition of prophet you give but rather you for continuously whining about how everyone is twisting your points when we're literally quoting your own words.
So lemme repeat it once more in the simplest fashion ever so maybe you can at last get it in your head.
The Definition of Prophet in the Old and New Testament is : "A man receiving direct Revelations from God and speaking on His direct behalf."
Your own little definition has nothing to do with either the real definition or the Bible definition and is thus completely irrelevant.
I mean if you want to "classify" the prophets, good for you, but it's still something that has no ground on either the Old nor New Testament so don't try to change the very definition of the word just to fit your own bullshit theory that never existed nor even was acknowledged in the Bible.
So, make yourself a favour, and when people are correcting you on your stupid mistakes, hear them out and correct your errors rather than doubling down on making said mistakes and yelling that they're right because you said so, like a Dutchman would.

I did? Get triggered?
Ok, let me explain it the way I explain it for kids, Aelex, seeing as you fail to understand it any other way I'm trying.
There was Jesus and Moses, who both came with Old Testament and New Testament, both of whom brought new laws and a new book, they're both messengers, mmkay. Other prophets after Moses, for example, did not do such thing, but simply reminded others of it. That's the core difference between a messenger and a prophet, and many such "prophets" existed in the Roman Empire who preached same said things, however, they were not messengers to link them to Mohammad (saw). That's how even the Bible has it, so at this point, your own definition from a dictionary don't matter, like, at all, you know what I'm saying? That's why it's a strawman, because it's not related to the said context.

Now, here come questions:
1. Me? Continuously whining about fallacies? So you project my two (valid) accusations of fallacy on me with others, or?
2. Yelling? When did I ever yell at your or somebody else? Yelling in the internet is represented by CAPITALIZING SOMETHING YOU FUCKING SAY, see? Something like this.
3. That mistakes part is pretty rich coming from someone who actually misunderstood the context the previous time and kept droning on about something I didn't even claim. Dude, that's something that pertains to you.

[Socialist Czechia]

not giving a f*ck as unreformed pagan is aaawesome.

[Free Rhenish States]

not giving a f*ck as unreformed pagan is aaawesome.

I thought you'd be a godless atheist, given your ideology.

[Aelex]

I did? Get triggered?
Ok, let me explain it the way I explain it for kids, Aelex, seeing as you fail to understand it any other way I'm trying.
There was Jesus and Moses, who both came with Old Testament and New Testament, both of whom brought new laws and a new book, they're both messengers, mmkay. Other prophets after Moses, for example, did not do such thing, but simply reminded others of it. That's the core difference between a messenger and a prophet, and many such "prophets" existed in the Roman Empire who preached same said things, however, they were not messengers to link them to Mohammad (saw). That's how even the Bible has it, so at this point, your own definition from a dictionary don't matter, like, at all, you know what I'm saying? That's why it's a strawman, because it's not related to the said context.

Now, here come questions:
1. Me? Continuously whining about fallacies? So you project my two (valid) accusations of fallacy on me with others, or?
2. Yelling? When did I ever yell at your or somebody else? Yelling in the internet is represented by CAPITALIZING SOMETHING YOU FUCKING SAY, see? Something like this.
3. That mistakes part is pretty rich coming from someone who actually misunderstood the context the previous time and kept droning on about something I didn't even claim. Dude, that's something that pertains to you.

My, my. Even explaining it like I would to a toddler seem to not be enough for you to understand so lemme try even simpler, according to the New and Old Testaments :
Prophet = Man who received Revelations from God and speak on his behalf
"Messenger" = Bullshit term Muslim came up with but that never existed anywhere in the Bible
Preacher = Man who proselytize but isn't necessarily God inspired
"Messenger" =/= Prophet
Moses =/= "messenger" but Moses = Prophet
Jesus =/= "messenger" but Jesus = Son of God

Is it simple enough for you to understand? Your definition of Prophet is not the one of the Bible and your idea of "Messenger" never was put forth or even acknowledged by the Bible making it pure bullshit.
So no you have two option, continuing to put your fingers in your ears and spout your long debunked crap or accept at last the fact that you were wrong and move on.

To respond to your questions in order :
1) Yes you're whining about fallacy. You're accusing people correcting you of strawmen when they're quoting your own words.
2)Your speech is appearing to be increasingly distraught, I was just pointing that out.
3)Once more, accusing the other side of "not having understood the context" when they're correcting you is just making you look like you're unable to come up with any actual response.
And given that I was already explaining you from the start that 1) your definition of Prophet is incorrect and not supported by the Old nor New Testament and 2) that your concept "messenger" is one that never existed in neither of them, you're making yourself look even worse.

[Alsheb]

Even if it were true, the satanic verses story doesn't prove anything. Satan whispers something in Muhammad's ear, the Prophet gets confused, God rectifies the mistake and tells Muhammad the actual verse. Big friggin' deal.

The fact that Mahomet was incapable of differencing God from Satan do is quite a big fucking deal, honestly, and put the rest of his "revelations" in a new light.

Since none of the other verses ever got retracted (assuming thr Satanic verses ever existed, which is highly dubious), it literally makes no difference at all.

Nobody but rabid anti-islamic agitators ever make an issue out of the satanic verses anyway, and it has never had much bearing on the islamic message or the spreading thereof. It is really just a vehicle for anti-islamic bullshit, much like the deliberate misunderstanding of taqiyya is.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

As salamu aleykum How's everyone doing?

TRying to find a Nekshebandi Order somewhere in the Netherlands. Going to dive in Sufism.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

As salamu aleykum How's everyone doing?

Hello, not really a member of the thread, but...

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

As salamu aleykum How's everyone doing?

Hello, not really a member of the thread, but...

Still I greet you warmly

[Free Rhenish States]

I did? Get triggered?
Ok, let me explain it the way I explain it for kids, Aelex, seeing as you fail to understand it any other way I'm trying.
There was Jesus and Moses, who both came with Old Testament and New Testament, both of whom brought new laws and a new book, they're both messengers, mmkay. Other prophets after Moses, for example, did not do such thing, but simply reminded others of it. That's the core difference between a messenger and a prophet, and many such "prophets" existed in the Roman Empire who preached same said things, however, they were not messengers to link them to Mohammad (saw). That's how even the Bible has it, so at this point, your own definition from a dictionary don't matter, like, at all, you know what I'm saying? That's why it's a strawman, because it's not related to the said context.

Now, here come questions:
1. Me? Continuously whining about fallacies? So you project my two (valid) accusations of fallacy on me with others, or?
2. Yelling? When did I ever yell at your or somebody else? Yelling in the internet is represented by CAPITALIZING SOMETHING YOU FUCKING SAY, see? Something like this.
3. That mistakes part is pretty rich coming from someone who actually misunderstood the context the previous time and kept droning on about something I didn't even claim. Dude, that's something that pertains to you.

My, my. Even explaining it like I would to a toddler seem to not be enough for you to understand so lemme try even simpler, according to the New and Old Testaments :
Prophet = Man who received Revelations from God and speak on his behalf
"Messenger" = Bullshit term Muslim came up with but that never existed anywhere in the Bible
Preacher = Man who proselytize but isn't necessarily God inspired
"Messenger" =/= Prophet
Moses =/= "messenger" but Moses = Prophet
Jesus =/= "messenger" but Jesus = Son of God

Is it simple enough for you to understand? Your definition of Prophet is not the one of the Bible and your idea of "Messenger" never was put forth or even acknowledged by the Bible making it pure bullshit.
So no you have two option, continuing to put your fingers in your ears and spout your long debunked crap or accept at last the fact that you were wrong and move on.

To respond to your questions in order :
1) Yes you're whining about fallacy. You're accusing people correcting you of strawmen when they're quoting your own words.
2)Your speech is appearing to be increasingly distraught, I was just pointing that out.
3)Once more, accusing the other side of "not having understood the context" when they're correcting you is just making you look like you're unable to come up with any actual response.
And given that I was already explaining you from the start that 1) your definition of Prophet is incorrect and not supported by the Old nor New Testament and 2) that your concept "messenger" is one that never existed in neither of them, you're making yourself look even worse.

Alright Frenchman, I´m very bored, and even though I strongly disagree, I concede.