By The River of Babylon. when we remember Zion

[union]

Silly boy, religious beliefs are different from objective truths. However in the discussion we were having this is irrelevant. Whether you believe man originated religion or that God revealed it to man, in both cases Jews were the first to be in possession of many beliefs held by Muslims and Christians. End of discussion.

[SultanOrder]

Silly boy, religious beliefs are different from objective truths. However in the discussion we were having this is irrelevant. Whether you believe man originated religion or that God revealed it to man, in both cases Jews were the first to be in possession of many beliefs held by Muslims and Christians. End of discussion.

My son, the whole point of religions is to direct people to the objective truths, only when these have been muddled by the hands of man do they stop becoming objective truths. Union you should know better that by definition all revealed religions and all prophets were Muslim and Islam. That they only differed in the sacred laws at the time, you have the laws of Moses, then of David or Solomon, then Jesus, and finally the that of Muhammad peace and blessings be upon them all. Your distinction of Judaism and Islam is not something I by, by right of doctrine. My doctrine holds me to the belief that the Prophets of Israel were muslims, and their religion was Islam, and that Prophet Muhammad scw came with the completion that superseded what the Prophets of old brought, and that in terms of Theology they all were on the truth. You, however, are trying to make unnecessary distinctions between peoples: Arabs, Hellenistic Christians, and Jews, and pitting religious achievements against one another. I don't by that false analogy.

[union]

Silly boy, religious beliefs are different from objective truths. However in the discussion we were having this is irrelevant. Whether you believe man originated religion or that God revealed it to man, in both cases Jews were the first to be in possession of many beliefs held by Muslims and Christians. End of discussion.

My son, the whole point of religions is to direct people to the objective truths, only when these have been muddled by the hands of man do they stop becoming objective truths. Union you should know better that by definition all revealed religions and all prophets were Muslim and Islam. That they only differed in the sacred laws at the time, you have the laws of Moses, then of David or Solomon, then Jesus, and finally the that of Muhammad peace and blessings be upon them all. Your distinction of Judaism and Islam is not something I by, by right of doctrine. My doctrine holds me to the belief that the Prophets of Israel were muslims, and their religion was Islam, and that Prophet Muhammad scw came with the completion that superseded what the Prophets of old brought, and that in terms of Theology they all were on the truth. You, however, are trying to make unnecessary distinctions between peoples: Arabs, Hellenistic Christians, and Jews, and pitting religious achievements against one another. I don't by that false analogy.

Different religions have differing ideas as to what the truth is. What you view as the "muddle[ing] of truth" , such as the divinity of Jesus , is something another person views as a fundamental and meaningful aspect of their faith. With that said, no person of faith would ever tolerate the labeling of his/her religious belief as being "subjective" ; indeed all people of faith believe theirs is one based on objective universal truth. Thus religion is considered neither objective nor subjective, but a category unto itself just as books of religion dominate their own section of library shelves outside both the fiction and non fiction categories. Moving onto your second point, the abrahamic figures you listed and their followers can only be considered Muslim if you restrict the definition of a Muslim as being 'one who submits to the will of God'. However, if you view Islam as the body of teachings, laws, and traditions established by the Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] after divine revelation in the year 1400, then no those abrahmic figures would not be considered Muslims (followers of Islam) because merely submitting to the will of God does not make someone a Muslim, one must also adhere to and honor the teachings, laws, and traditions of the Nabi Muhammad-- and when you admit that they had "different sacred laws" you acknowledge that this wasn't the case. As for your bogus accusation that I am "pitting religious achievements against one another" and implying that I am somehow out to undermine religion, this is nonsense. Indeed it is you and people like you who are pitting the faiths against one another and undermining religion by usurping the histories of other faiths and focusing on the differences between faiths instead of recognizing and celebrating the similarities and commonalities which could have served as bridges to peace and brotherhood.