I'm not sure if this is threadworthy, but I'd like to ask a question to any Muslims on 2p2 that might happen to read this.

If (according to you) Jesus was sent by Allah to preach Islam, and that he did in fact do this, howcome there are no historical records of Islamic communities existing in the immediate period after Jesus' death, or even for hundreds of years after his death? On the other hand, Christianity was born and began to spread. How could there be such disparity (in actuality total disparity) of Islamic faith spreading vs. Christianity spreading during this time. The belief that Jesus preached Islam seems totally illogical, and if I understand Islam correctly, if he didn't preach Islam then it stands to reason that the entire faith is fabricated.

QFT

I'm not Muslim and I dont believe there are many Muslims on 2+2,

One view that some Muslims may have is that while Muslims believe that Jesus did in fact spread the Gospel, or as they say,the Injill, that the Bibles that Christians read today are corrupted.

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
—Quran, sura 5 (Al-Ma'ida), ayah 46[4]

Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.
—Quran, sura 48 (Al-Fath), ayah 29[5]

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

I was aware of this argument. It's interesting, but it still doesn't explain why Christian communities started to appear and spread while Muslim communities (which at that time would have been monotheistic communities that believe Jesus is the messiah) did not. If what Muslims claim is true, there should have been a significant amount of people who believed what they (Muslims) later believed and claimed to be the truth regarding Jesus.

I'm quite sure that most Muslims of today believe that Jesus preached the Christian religion, as opposed to Islam.

In fact, Muslims to this day believe that early(before the time of Muhammad) Jews and Christians would be allowed into heaven, if they followed their own religions. Some Muslims even argue that Jews or Christians of today can get into heaven, so long as they believe in one God and commit good deeds for the world.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Christians...ven#Surah_2:62

If Ezekiel prophesied Jesus, how come no Christian communities existed in the immediate period after Ezekiel's death? If I understand Christianity correctly, and he didn't preach Christianity, then it stands to reason that the entire faith is fabricated.

Islam means: voluntary submission to God.
If Jesus was voluntary submitted to God than he was a Muslim, because "Muslim" means voluntary submitted to God.

Because Jesus had yet to make the atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins?

Does that make every Christian and Jew that voluntarily submits to their God a Muslim?

Everyone who is voluntary submitted to god is a Muslim.

That's a silly definiton of Muslim that has nothing to do with the real world.

It has everything to do with the real world. It just shows how people don't pay attention to the original meaning of the word or if the word used to describe something is even appropriate to the times we live in anymore. They apply it to what they want it to mean to them based on their own experience. This applies to all people as we get caught up in our own perception of reality, our own ideas of what a word or symbol means to us while forgetting it may not mean the same to everyone else. The real world is nothing more than your perception of reality and what it means to you

What you mean with real world this is the world outward. In the world outward there are tigers and lions, in the world inward they are all predators.

In the world outward there is no one like the other one. In the world inward, there are 3 species:
1) Those who excuse their sins, they fight their remorse, they can be Muslims, Christs or Atheists. Mushrek, Koffar: polytheists or pagans. They are a lot. In their view as soon as something doesn't match their interests, it is bad, because they make them suffer.
2) Those who don't excuse their sins (immoral acts) and repent, they can be Muslims, Christs or Atheists. Taebin, Tavvab, Lost sons, sinners, those who sin and repent, sin and repent till they acknowledge they cannot fight their sins on their own and start crying for help and moaning for forgiveness. They are few. In their view, they are bad, therefore they suffer.
3) Those who are voluntary submitted to god and are god like, they can be Muslims, Christs or Atheists (they are those from group 2 who did never give up repenting, crying and moaning). They are safe from acting immoral. Muslim: God likes, saints. They are rarity. In their view everything is faces of God, Tawhid: unitarianism.

In Qur'an the word Muslim is used for those who belong to ommat (followers of Islam) and it is also used for 2 and 3. As ommat they are not the same as Christs or Atheists, but who is in groups 2 and 3 they are the same as those Christs or Atheists who also belong to groups 2 and 3 .

If you are not needy, why you suffer, why you end up in conflicts with yourself and with others. If you are needy, where is your cry for help.

You realise that this makes absolutely no sense and is complete gibberish right?

You should at least agree that groups one and two exist. An example are Vincent Vega (John Travolta, group 1) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson, beginning to enter group 2).

I give another example for group 2: http://www.alternet.org/personal-hea...-rates-so-high

I quote: “The pleasure faded. And in its wake I fought pounding waves of regret and guilt. I felt a million miles from good, a billion light years from God.”

This is the sign of humanity being alive in an individual, when he starts to cry for help and starts moaning than the humanity in him will grow. If he starts to fight his feeling of guilt, he will kill his humanity.

Here is an example for Muslims in group 1 or an introduction to ISIS fighters:

They watch porn movies and now they fight their feeling of guilt. They start to look for someone who is guilty. Of course the modern countries are to blame. They produce these movies. They are for freedom of women. They allow women walking around half naked.
With some contact to people who spread hatred towards the modern world, every time they watch a porn movie, they hate the modern countries more.
And because they don't repent their sins and excuse their animally, humanity starts to die. And this combined with the support of a group and the ability to exercise power leads to the violence that we see.
I am not saying without porn movies there were no ISIS. But without excusing immoral acts, there wouldn't be any ISIS. Every time they fight the feeling of guilt and excuse their own behavior they become a bigger beast.

In contrast to the group above, the one's in group 2, they develop an understanding for others weaknesses. This leads to less hate and to more love. Crying is the only weapon humans have against egoism.

This is my last post on 2+2, I wish you all guys all the best and hope for forgiveness.

I think your argument could be more convincing if you didn't resort to fictional characters.

What are you talking about if Jesus preached Christianity he would be guilty of Shirk associating himself with God the greatest moral crime in Islam.
Why would Muslims believe that the second most important prophet in Islam was a terrible sinner?
The Bible is a man made book that has been corrupted. Where it's in agreement with the Koran it's correct where it differs it's corrupt. That's mainstream Islam doctrine.

Actually, that pretty much IS the definition of a Muslim. It is what the word means; "one who submits to God". When a person who understands the Quran (in its actual language) hears this word, that is what he/she hears.

It is also (of course) denotes an adherent of Islam, but the meaning of the term is still important. It is not just "follower" or "believer"; submission is more than following or mere belief.

It would be a mistake to believe "Muslim" merely connotates religious affiliation, that is more of an imperfect translation of the term.

Where do you get that at all?

Jesus is considered a prophet by Muslims, as was Moses, Abraham, etc., but calling him a Muslim sounds eccentric and non-mainstream, wherever you got it. Muslims do not consider him the messiah or divine.

Muhammad brought the monotheism of Abraham to the Arabs. Previous prophets including Christ brought part of God's message, but it was not complete until Muhammad. To talk about Islam before Muhammad does not make sense. It's like asking Christians why King David did not create Christian communities.

Muslim are not aloud to gamble hehe so not many true one's heir

He is referred to in the Quran as the Messiah. In fact, according to Islam he is supposed to return a second time to slay the Antichrist and bring world peace.

I understand what you're saying. I'll reword my question. If Jesus preached monotheism (or in other words, a faith where He (Jesus) is not the Son of God) howcome Christian communities that believed Jesus is the Son of God began to form and spread after Jesus' death? Wouldn't it make sense that if Jesus were preaching a pre-Islamic form of monotheism that the faith that survived Him would have been more representative of that view?

Reza Aslan's book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is relevant here. Aslan argues that Jesus began as a doctrinaire Jewish messiah who was supposed to inaugurate heaven on earth. But that didn't happen, and like previous messiahs who did not deliver, he would be expected to fade from memory. But his followers, after his death and failure of a new world, introduced a truly radical concept: he was a divine son who died to expiate peoples' sins. The reformulation allowed a failed ministry to live on.

Quite possibly a learned Muslim would argue that there was misinterpretation of Jesus' nature after his death, particularly the Trinity, and that's why Christianity was less Islamic than you are suggesting it should have been.

I can't really take that book's premise seriously when considering Paul's conversion and testimony.