Flawed Logic

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Aug 23, 2006 at 03:23

A nice lesson. However, your logic rests on the premise that Mohammad was a Spirit. How can Mohammad be described as a spirit given that he was a mortal man born of a man and and woman and did not begin his mission until he was 40? Unless, of course, you believe that he was 'possessed' by this 'spirit' (as he was by various demons - something not true of any Christian prophet I have heard of) - in which case, as a vessel for this spirit he is deserving of no praise whatsoever. All praise goes to the spirit that possessed him. Obviously the 'spirit' that spoke through Mohammad can't be Gabriel given that Gabriel isn't a Spirit and I think we can agree that Mohammad wasn't a spirit so who can it refer to?

However, given that 600 years passed before this 'Paraclete' possessed Mohammad according to this theory (why the long wait?) it seems just as plausible that based on your logic if the Comforter is not a reference to the Holy Spirit alone it is more likely that it refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ during Armageddon. After all, 600 years or 2000 years, what's a few centuries between friends?

Or more logically it could be a metaphor for the Christian Church, the principle of which, could be considered a physical manifestation of the 'Spirit' on Earth. Who knows? The one thing that the many denominations of Christianity can agree on is that the Christian God is incomprehensible to man. However, most of us can agree that the Islam emerged as a world force around 666 years after the birth of Christ (notably the armies of Islam began to attack the Christian Eastern Roman Empire in 633AD). The Bible is very specific about the significance of this number.

The New Testament of the Christian Bible does not purport to be the direct 'word of God' - the Gospels are disparate human accounts of the same events. Therefore inconsistencies are to be expected. Interpretatons vary hence the plethora of denominations that exist.

The Koran, however, does purport to contain the direct Word of God as revealed to Mohammad. The validity of this 'Word' can be easily disproved given the number of errors contained therein. All the religions can agree that their respective 'god' is infallible. The Muslim god, however, appears to believe that the Christian Trinity consisted of 'God, Jesus and Mary'. This is not, nor has it ever been the case in mainstream Christianity. This suggests that this belief came from a fallible deity or a messenger who was not a conduit for a divine messagw. This therefore proves that if the Koran does come directly from Allah he is not infallible. If he is not infallible he is not a God. If Allah is not not a God then Islam is merely a cult. If Allah is divine then one can only conclude that the Messenger was false. Again, as well as 'comforters', Christians are warned against False Prophets. If the Koran is incorrect then it clearly originates from such a source and Mohammad is clearly somebody whom the Bible would warn against rather than anticipate with anything other than dread.

Q.E.D.

P.S. Words and actions are generally the source of inspiration. They are not mutually exclusive. The only other common source of inspiration is delusion.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".