Charging your accusers with whatever it is you're being accused of, rather than (in place of) refuting (or conceding) the truth of the accusation made against you is a deflection, and is thus considered a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accusers are likewise guilty of an offense (or of that which they're accusing you of) has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation. I can and am free to point that out, and you are free to ignore it and continue with your deflection attempts all while be exposed in this regard. So far I am not obliging you to anything, however we can only hope we won't be seeing you bending the knee next to Iblis and the rest of the damned in prostration to Jesus this time around on Judgement Day (rather than doing it freely in truth and honest worship amongst the righteous and the rest of creation). I won't give way to your fallacy and distract others from the actual point at hand, but a quick and passing word from me should suffice to entice them honest readers to go and look it out for themselves and ascertain it with basic internet searches. With only a cursory look into the Gospel we find several instances where Jesus is being accused by the Pharisees of violating the Sabbath and in each and every instance the accusation was refuted by Jesus Himself on the spot silencing his accusers and leaving them searching for other things to hold Him accountable for under the law. Whenever Jesus was accused of violating the law, He shows it is His accusers' (mis)understanding of the law that is being violated rather than the law itself, and indeed so when Jesus is actually the Lord and original author of the law.Sorry but you cant tell me what topic I can raise and which I cant. You can only refuse to address the points I raise and evade. Especially that the two are related. And you dont tell me I "ought" to address anything. I'm not under any duress or obligation. If I dont accept to indulge your childish posts or I dont want to entertain your points or posts, your entire forum worth is the ignore button and I block you. Ha22ak kabset zer. Dont flatter yourself.
Your lord violated the Sabbath and was expressly accused of that. It's either the Jews got it wrong or he did.
Yes, your honor. The above is correct.
The above is partly correct, your honor.
But when or in the case Allah commands you to bow to a person, as was the case with the angels and Adam, that bowing is not called worship. God honoured Adam and demonstrated man's superiority to all creatures including the angels. Following the command of Allah and obeying Him becomes the "worship".
No. It does more mean that. For example, God does not break His promises. The most absolute principle in this case is "I am Allah and beside me there is no other". But you cant draw comparisons and say Allah does not honour His word. I brought the example of the obedience to Allah as the greatest form of worship because you kept using the word "violate" in reference to God and command to defend oneself even in the sacred months. That is fundamentally wrong because Allah cannot violate His own laws or words, since He is above every law and creation. The laws are for you and me to be under. It is impossible for Him to violate His laws since He makes, creates and disposes. I am actually proving the opposite of what you claim. He is the lawmaker and lawgiver. He can cancel a rule or suspend it based on our necessity. Cant He? Even when God says only fight in the sacred months for defense "when attacked in the holy months" and not for previous aggressions and similarly, when Allah asked the angels to bow to Adam, there is no violation of any law and no violation of Tawheed. We dont dictate to God. He dictates to us. Except if you want to become arrogant and rebellious like Iblis and retort and tell God you will not bow to Adam because you feel you are better than Adam and instead you think Adam should bow to you. Understood?
Now off again to the point at hand, and just to untangle the attempted twisting in your response; what you are basically saying is this: 'bowing in prostration to Allah and none other than Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. And in like manner, 'bowing in prostration to Allah and to someone else other than or with Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. Tawheed and shirk are therefore based solely on supposed Allah's will or command which in that case is unrestricted or unconditioned by anything (i.e. Allah's will does not follow reason not even the principle of non-contradiction), that is, what is this or that is absolutely arbitrary; Allah can just command you to practice what you now define absolutely as shirk and ultimate sin, and you would then consider it tawheed and ultimate virtue. In which case, tawheed or shirk in itself wouldn't have any meaning anymore, as one can be the other and vice versa.
From that logically follows what is essentially echoed in all my previous posts in this thread, namely that Allah has no basic and absolute principles and is not bound even by his own word and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.
Even a lawgiver who isn't being under or bound by his own laws that he creates or gives, suspends and disposes, is still necessarily bound or subject to the (law of) (his) lawgiving which can then be violated (by said lawgiver, such as by him failing the principle of non-contradiction), an act necessitating an appropriate consequence (such as at least said violator-lawgiver being exposed and ditched off as the false 'ultimate lawgiver' that he is) .. except that in Islam apparently such a violation ceases to be a violation in the first place and thus doesn't necessitate such a consequence, and this is by virtue of simply and solely 'said violation being commanded by him (Allah, or it could be Satan posing as Allah for all we know, this is when truth or reason is sacrificed)'.