You have to see it like the row of natural numbers. Yes you can have infinity, but only in one way, It's impossible to regress infinitly in natural numbers (except through asympotes), one moment, you will hit zero and you can't regress past zero.

please name one such example. bear in mind we are looking for a positive argument for whatever god you claim to hold in existence without pulling any logical fallacies. 

why would you, though? 

I'd say it behaves more like the rationals, no? If you say A causes B, you can (by normal intuition) find an event in between, serving as a link between the two.

Let's say, the strictly positive rationals, for example, to fit the "always something before" part, no? Why would that be any less valid?

Again, the cosmological argument. It's been debated over and over, but a clear refutation hasn't really come to bear.

But you CAN regress infinitly in the rationals. Part of the argument is that contingent beings cannot cause themselves and thus you NEED a necessary being. Making it more akin to a natural numbers row.

Well, that's how I interpreted it.  Feel free to clarify.

why can't there just be an infinite row of events, instead?

As described by the strictly (non-zero) positive rationals, for example.

I just stated the argument from time has been developed in the islamic world.

that argument begins with a false premise and after doing special pleading for some divine entity, is not a positive claim of any specific divinity. unless you have some different version of the argument i'm not aware of