Thursday, January 15, 2009

Assalamu Aleikum,

I wish to share with you all a little bit of my trouble and worry with the Islamo-phobic Christian apologists of the internet. Please read the following list of e-mails (*note: begin at the bottom, and work your way to the top.)

My final response:

You didn't answer a single question of mine. You responded with negativity rather than in kindness and compassion. You didn't give me any information but relied on insults and the threat of eternal damnation. 

To be honest, I'm disappointed in the manner in which you responded. I expected a little more out of a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), as he did not teach his followers to act in the manner in which you just did.

Furthermore, reading your articles only strengthens my opinion of you (which has grown increasingly negative as I've read more). In your response to me, you have decided to deflect the questions and instead go on a rant about your misguided belief that Muhammad was a "false prophet". To be completely honest, I have no desire to rush your response as I feel it will highly resemble your articles in being flawed in logic, distasteful in approach, and lacking in sound content; which I belief does not deserve my time.

Thank you for giving me the peace and comfort to learn of your character, may Jesus Christ, himself, chastise you on the Day of Judgment for making a mockery out of his teachings.

-Mohamed Ali

P.S. In keeping with the tradition of your website, I'm making this e-mail public. Had you responded in a better manner, I would have kept it private.

On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:10 AM, sam shamoun wrote:
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.


To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com
From: vidaverdad@gmail.com
Subject: A Logical Fallacy in your Article's Conclusion
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:20:00 -0800

May 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. 19:40
Taking these points to their natural conclusion would inevitably mean that Jesus is Allah, the God of Muhammad! Note the following syllogism:

  1. Muhammad is the Comforter
  2. The Comforter was to glorify Jesus
  3. All things belong to Christ
  4. Muhammad glorified Allah
  5. All things belong to Allah
  6. Therefore Jesus is Allah!
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.
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,
Mohamed Ali
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.