Sunday, February 22, 2009
(Originally meant to be posted on 1/09/09 at 3:18 AM)
I wrote the following letter to the Inauguration Committee, upon finding out that I could not donate money:
We have ushered in a new era of leadership. The cynicism and pragmatism that prevailed in past presidential administrations, over those of idealism and hope, have come crashing down around our ankles. We have suffered the injustices of an oncoming oppression and tyranny of the masses that would seek to diverge from the very principles our nation was founded upon, in order to reign in a fear of the foreign and unknown. In ignorance, we thought isolationist tendencies would allow for us to prosper and develop as a unified nation, but it only fostered arrogance and blissful pride at the expense of the lives of young men and women.
Yet, in the midst of our decline, here came a man, not of my generation but of the generation preceding, who argued for the very principles considered naïve by those who would have us call them "wise". He spoke from the very foundations of the heart, reaching not only the emotional centers of citizens worldwide, but also appeasing the mental capabilities of our advanced species. He gave those who had lost hope in the political system, a new sense of wonder at the efficacy of his message, and the eloquence of his speech. We desired in our leaders a certain mien and character that would distinguish them from the despots who would seek to ascertain power, and such a package was delivered in President-elect Obama.
On that cold day of January 20th, in which the entire world will be gazing, I, whether there in person or in my dorm-room watching via the internet, will realize the fulfillment of the American Dream; a dream that has escaped the grasp of many eligible young men and women in these United States; a dream that has been the driving force behind this nation's shifting gears; a dream that has so deeply rooted itself into the very fabrics of our lives. When the appendage of "elect" is dropped from his title, when the West Wing is being decorated in the drapery of his choice, when the hands of thousands of onlookers begin to tremble with a thunderous applause, the dreams of millions (if not billions) of people worldwide will be recognized, and a new day and age will be ushered in, in which all basic human freedoms are recognized; where government rules based on the appreciation of "fact" rather than an adhered ideology of fear, where voting is recognized more as a civic duty rather than a chore, where even the lowly college-student can make a difference in the way our country governs. That is the essence of the profound meaning of Inauguration Day 2009.
May the peace and blessings of God be upon you.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with you as he guides you out of your deception and abandon the false prophet Muhammad. What is astonishing is the ease with which you pervert and twist Jesus' words in John 16:25-29 in order to defend the indefnsible, namely your belief in a false prophet in spite of all the evidence which exposes him for what he is. If I have time I will refute your diatribe here, but please don't rush me to reply anytime soon since I have tons of articles which I am writing, many of which address similar distortions by your fellow Muslim colleagues and "apologists". In the meantime, I suggest you actually go back and read my articles in order to get the point of my arguments since this will prevent me from wasting time refuting bluster.
Subject: A Logical Fallacy in your Article's Conclusion
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:20:00 -0800May God's Peace and Blessings Be Upon You,I have read some of your articles on answering-islam.org. Though I find you to be a person of intelligence, it pains me to realize the point of deception that you so subtly make in your logical argument. I don't wish to delve to deeply as I'm currently already in a debate with another poorly-misguided Christian, however, I want to bring to your attention the logical fallacy you make in the conclusion of your article entitled "Jesus or Muhammad: Who is God's True Seal of Prophethood?"You conclude the entire article with the following:Jesus claims that everything that the Father owns belongs to him. This makes Jesus the Heir of all things. Yet the Quran claims that Allah is the Heir of all things:"And certainly We! We it is Who give life, and cause death, and We are THE HEIRS." S. 15:23"Lo! We, only We, inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned." S. 19:40Taking these points to their natural conclusion would inevitably mean that Jesus is Allah, the God of Muhammad! Note the following syllogism:
Which Muslim would agree to this? The fact that no Muslim would or could accept such reasoning only reinforces the absurdity of trying to make Muhammad the Comforter predicted by Christ.
- Muhammad is the Comforter
- The Comforter was to glorify Jesus
- All things belong to Christ
- Muhammad glorified Allah
- All things belong to Allah
- Therefore Jesus is Allah!
I'm astonished by the manipulation of logic and reasoning that must be rendered for one to move from #2 to #3. You argue from the point of syllogism — deductive reasoning based on a conclusion being drawn from a number of instances — that through a series of given premises, one can naturally conclude that because Muhammad is the Comforter, Jesus is Allah. *I'm skipping a whole bunch of steps which you can read about in the quoted text above, that don't affect my criticism below.
If you're arguing from the perspective of Muslims who claim that Muhammad is the comforter spoken of as periklytos or parakletos, then you must only focus on that claim, for they do not claim that the Bible is completely valid. Had the comforter said that "all things belong to Christ", that transition from #2 to #3 would have been far smoother. However, the Comforter says no such thing, thus you cannot include #3 because it has no relation to the Comforter or Muhammad in the argument. You begin #4 as the next series of premises which you will tie back to the first series, however, because #3 is a fallacy, #6 cannot exist. I hope this is a lot easier for you to understand, as it is so blatantly obvious to me as well as my Christian roommate, and we've both taken heavy-loaded logic courses in the past, as well as studied it for debate purposes.
I would strongly like your response to my statement.
Finally, in the same article, what you forget is that later in John 16, Jesus mentions that he had been speaking in figurative language all along. The ease with which you skip that is astonishing. Thus, there is the possibility that Jesus isn't talking about a Holy Ghost or a physicalized/spiritualized Spirit of Truth but about the power of God (the Father if you wish to call Him so), his breath, divine spirit, and Word. Thus, your statement that "when John 16:7 is read within its immediate and greater context the Comforter can only be referring to God's Holy Spirit" is also a false assumption. I've read John 17, as well as some earlier and later chapters, and nowhere does it refute Jesus' statement that what he spoke of in John 16 was figurative.
As a semi-frequent visitor to your site, I would like to ask if there is the possibility of having open debates between Muslims and Christians in the near future. I find it interesting that you place the debates that members of the site have with poorly misinformed Muslims over those with Muslims who are far more informed about Islam as well as Christianity. If you TRULY do believe in God Almighty, I would strongly urge you to put aside your blind trust in the Bible and read the Qur'an for its own sake. Just read a few chapters. Read the Chapters about Jesus and Mary if you so wish. I do not feel the desire to try to convert you, but I feel the desire to urge you to become more informed about Islam, before you start dissecting verses that you haven't read in context. When I say "context" I mean "full context", for instance: knowing if it's a Surah from the Medinan or Meccan period, knowing during what historical context of the growth of Islam it was delivered, etc. There's so much knowledge to be gained from going to the source of religious texts rather than arguing blindly back and forth. I hope you take that challenge.
May God guide you unto the Straight Path,
P.S. You never actually answer the question your article's title poses. Your quotes never state that Jesus is the "seal of prophethood", but that he gets (as one quote states) God's "seal of approval" and the ability to send prophets and messengers. I would attribute the ability to send prophets and messengers as a by-product of the ascription of the divinity of Christ, because he, himself (Jesus Christ), never says that he can do so in the Bible (from what I've read). Feel free to try to prove me wrong, but remember that I'm harshly critical of arguments, so I would prefer if you used sound arguments and strong quotes, rather than one's open to interpretation.