Because the book is very clear that the example of the prophet mohammed must be followed.
There is the ought! Why?
So you pretend the question doesn't exist or try to change it into some English grammar test. Really, who gives a flying fuck about "it", "is" and "ought"
David Hume. The problem of deriving an ought from an it is a classical problem in philosophy. I don't think you can just dismiss it as an "English test", and I don't think it can be solved by simple declaration.
Because their book isn't as vague.
Luke isn't all that vague on hellfire either...
Believing in a burning hell doesn't hurt anyone else, so very very different.
I disagree but that is not very important. Luke does seem to talk about about a hell on the most natural interpretation. Do we have to accept that a "good Christian" must accept hell? I don't see how that follows...
Can you see the difference yet? Of course not, there are none so blind as those who apologize for Islam.
I make no apologies for Islam... why do you keep insisting that I do? I think it is an awful book, as I have written before, and you can derive better moral teachings from the X-men than you can from the Quran. Do I have to write this in every post?