Yes, but I haven't seen any rational arguments from you when you make claims regarding the sacred figures of other faiths being prophets of Allah. You often accuse Buddhists of following untrue doctrines because the oldest known Buddhist canon dates to some time after the Buddha's leaves this plane; thus your criticism is that we can't know for certain what he taught. But your own argument is entirely hypocritical because you insert your own claims into this theology of the gap and claim it is indisputably true despite the fact your claim lacks even less evidence for it than those of Buddhists. In other words your own argument relies on the same gap that you decry as fatal to Buddhist claims of authentic tradition. Same goes for Zoroaster; you have no reason to assume he worshipped your god beyond a need for Ahmadi confirmation bias -
Ahura Mazda is nothing like Allah and the two religions differ on several key points to the extent you're saying (assuming for the sake of argument that Ahura Mazda and Allah
are the same God) that Allah likes to change his mind which doesn't make much sense for an all-knowing god.
You're entitled to believe as you wish and to defend your beliefs with rational arguments; I just don't see how that applies to you. Oh, and your right to believe as you wish does not
- entitle you to your own facts.
- Mean people from the faiths you are misrepresenting (Luis used a better word: abusing) cannot challenge you or point out your claims are in fact baseless.
