I am a Muslim, of course. What do you guys think?
I would err on the side of caution with this dude and avoid it.
Can you point to a historical group, any written evidence or even spoken legend, of people who believed the in the time of Jesus the words and ideas of your religion (islam)?
I am confused at your confusion. You are thinking that Muslims say that the deen of Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) in terms of the practice of the Muslims, in relation to the exact forms of worship and law, was what we believe was practised by Jesus (alayhis salaam).
We believe that Jesus (alayhis salaam) was a Muslim, in that he submitted to the will of God. We do not believe that he practised in the same way as, say, the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).
The central thing that he shared with modern Muslims was tawhid, the belief in One God. The discussions about the truth of that are occurring all around you.
1. Are you a muslim and do you consider the quran the words and ideas of god?
If yes...
The Qur'an is the uncreated, pre-eternal, Word of God.
2. Do you believe that god sends a prophet after a 'period of decay' ?
God sends Prophets (alayhis salaam) as the highpoints in the histories of communities, following the leaving of said Prophets (alayhis salaam) those communities steadily lose touch with the teachings of those who came unto them.
3. Do you believe that with Jesus, pre muhammad islam was given to man?
Islam, in the sense of submission to God, is the 'fitrah' (primordial state) of all humans, indeed all things in reality.
4. Do you believe that somewhere in the transition things got corrupted by man?
In terms of Jesus (alayhis salaam) his community were not told to worship him as a God. They deified him after he left them.
5. Do you claim there were people who practiced the uncorrupted version?
Yes.
6. What evidence do you have this?
There is a long history of debate within the Christian church as to whether or not Jesus (alayhis salaam) was a God. Indeed the 'mystery of the trinity' has been a major point of disagreement and theological anguish amongst the Christian community since it became a formal doctrine, many years after the time of Jesus (alayhis salaam).
Not at all. This entire debate (argument) I've been giving you the benefit of assuming your god exists.That's the foundation of me making assertions about how your god doesn't make sense in the context of your own religion. I say absence not using the to say "oh look he was physically gone! proof he don't exist" but merely to point out periods where the world was not supposedly following his religion and he sat idol.
Yet this assertion has already been addressed. However you keep asserting the same thing.
Where did I assume lack of prophet = lack of god?
You have asserted throughout that an 'absence of God' is something that coincides with a lack of Prophets within the community. You refer to God's 'actions' specifically as being confined to the sending of Prophets. Yet Muslims believe that all things, at all times, are permanently in a state of willed existence, contingent upon God.
As I said, there is a distinction between what something is and what something is like. For example, I compared the 3 as books filled with ideas supposedly from god. I think in your last response to me you admitted that it was an agreeable definition, but was too vague or something? As I compared, I understand that one can also contrast the 3 books. You were splitting hairs over contrasting and attempted to argue something there was no need to even argue.
That is not an accurate characterisation of my argument. This is going nowhere.
As you admitted, that was indeed an aspect
You did not say an aspect, you said that the only reason the discussion came up was because of the point mentioned. This was false.
As I mentioned, I used the word in parentheses. But here's the idea, muhammad knew of OT + NT and wrote his own version over the course of many years passing them off as revelations as opposed to citing them as verses and ideas taken from the bible and torah alone. He claimed god as the author but himself as the revolator thus tying him into the frame. Plagiarism is passing ones work off for yourself. In the confines of this situation, muhammad was passing off the work and revelations of jesus, moses, etc. as his own revelations.
That is a narrative put forward by some. However I think it unlikely. The Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was, for starters, illiterate, so he didn't write anything.
The Qur'an is not 'his own version of the OT+NT' it is a clarification and a confirmation of parts of both, as well as being other things. It never says otherwise. It doesn't claim that any part of the Qur'an is the work of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) just as it does not view any of the revelations revealed to Jesus or Ibrahim or anyone else (alayhis salaam) as being their work either.
All are the work of God. Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) does not own that which was revealed to him.
As you make little effort to address there is a major difference between being contacted by god and being forced to follow on faith alone.
Like I said, there is a major difference, which is why there is a major difference in the way each are judged.
From my understanding, not so favorably. And given the situation (as I have described previously) the situation for judging messengers of god and those who must follow on faith is unequal, yet still all are judge in an equal manner. Those who you claim are kafir, if only god would talk to them like he did the supposed prophets...
I am not in the habit of calling anyone a kafir, for starters. I may refer more generally to the khuffar, but this is always in a legal, rather than literal sense. I do not claim to know their hearts.
You say 'not so favourably' yet, as I have elaborated, the judgement is as I understand it, situational. Your arguments seem based entirely in a misunderstanding of this point.
If I ask you a question, I'm asking for your position. That's all you got?
God is clearly 'powerful enough'.