I normally stay away from politics on this website, since I risk running afoul of the IRS for our 501(c)(3) exemption. But his speech yesterday at the White House, in honor of Ramadan, cannot go unchallenged. I have written about this topic before, as have others. I am reposting here the comments by Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch about Obama's gross mischaracterization of the "first Iftar dinner" hosted by Thomas Jefferson. No such dinner ever took place in honor of Ramadan. The article below courtesy of Jihad Watch:  

"The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan --- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago." -- Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the "Annual Iftar Dinner" at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a "first known iftar at the White House" given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the "first Muslim ambassador to the United States"? That's what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at the 2010 "Annual Iftar Dinner," knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all to see.

Continuing my dialog with a Muslim man in the UK. See part 1 here and part 2 here.

5) Why do you believe in a book that has been changed many many times and has so many contradictions,absurdities, and scientific errors.

Changed? Contradictions? Absurdities? Scientific errors? You must be talking about the Qur'an. But before I go there, I will address your question.

Changed many times? Again you did not define what you mean, so I must make an assumption of what you mean. I assume you mean the standard line given by most Muslims, that we have many "versions" of the Bible. After all, you are want to quote Ahmed Deedat and this was his line of argumentation. So I assume it to be yours as well. "Christians have the King James Version, the American Standard Version, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version," ad nauseum....

These are not 'changes' to the Bible but simply new translations to bring the understanding of the text into modern usage. The common meaning and definition of words changes over time in any language - Arabic as well, which is why many of the brightest Islamic scholars do not understand the meaning of literally hundreds of words in the Qur'an because the classical Arabic of the Qur'an is a lost language. But I digress. For example, 80 years ago in American colloquialism, the word 'faggot' meant the butt end of a cigarette. Today the word is a pejorative term for a homosexual. Nobody today speaks the "Kings English" of the time of King James, using words like 'thee' and 'thou' and 'thine.'

Continuation of my dialog with a Muslim man in the UK. For part one see here.

You said:

6 Trinity
How on earth can 3 Gods be 1.Not even in your mind can you put these the different personalities into 1. It would have made some sense if you had said that you believe in 3 Gods.

Another Deedat-ism, I see. The idea that Christians worship three Gods suggests another defect in the Qur'an, for no Christian has ever held to the belief in three Gods, so how did the author of the Qur'an make such a blatant error again?

It would be illogical if Christians said we worship three gods as one god. It would likewise be illogical if we said we worship three persons as one person. A god or a person cannot be both three and one at the same time and in the same sense. Such a notion would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

But neither example defines the concept of the trinity. The trinity is defined as three PERSONS in one GOD. No contradiction, no violation of the law of non-contradiction. To say such a notion is illogical would be akin to saying it is illogical to think of humans as composed of body, soul, and spirit. Are you three persons in one person as body, soul, and spirit? If this does not rise to the level of a contradiction, then neither does the Christian definition of the trinity.

Recently I was engaged in a lengthy discussion via email with a Muslim man from the UK. He began the exchange by posting a comment to a video I had uploaded to YouTube. I won’t bore you with the initial conversation, but he was basically challenging me regarding the context of several violent verses in the Qur’an. He had no idea of my knowledge in this area, but when he realized I had some knowledge of Islam and the Qur’an and could back up what I said, his demeanor suddenly took a turn toward respect, rather than belittling me like he attempted in the beginning.

What I found interesting are the arguments he used to attempt to discredit Christianity. One of his first responses back to me was a whole laundry list of supposed errors or contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible. It is these I want to focus on in this article. Since these are the same recycled arguments that have been around since the heydays of Ahmed Deedat, and Muslims still use these today, I hope you will find my answers to these helpful in fostering ongoing dialog with Muslims.

JESUS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD

He began the dialog with the following statement:

If you want the truth, then pray to be guided to it. It is time to follow Jesus Christ peace be upon him and not the religion of Paul. Jesus told us to worship God not him.  Jesus never claimed to be God. Follow the religion of Adam Abraham, Noah, Jesus and Muhammed peace be upon them all. This religion is Islam.

I responded with the following:

Here is yet another example where Muslims attempt to use a bible verse to disprove the deity of Jesus. They quote John 10:34-36, which reads: "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, You are gods?' If he called them gods to whom the word of God came -- and scripture cannot be broken -- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming' because I said 'I am the Son of God?'"

Here is the Muslim argument. Jesus claimed to be god, but so what? Other people in the past have also been called gods. Jesus making the claim is nothing new.

Here is the problem. These three verses quoted by Muslims to disprove the deity of Jesus are sandwiched between two other passages, immediately before and after verses 34-36 that prove just the opposite.

In verse 30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." Immediately the Jews pick up stones to stone him for claiming to be God. 

Jesus then makes the statemement above in verses 34-36, which Muslims say disprove Jesus' deity, after he had just told the Pharisees that He and God were one and the same, and for which they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

Then, in verses 37-38, Jesus says "If I am not doing the works of mu Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you don't believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

If Jesus says the Father is in him, and he is in the Father, how can that be anything other than claiming the He and the Father are one and the same: God alone!

Here is the problem Muslims have. They do not understand what Jesus was saying when they quote veses 34-36. Jesus was not denying his deity; he was affirming it! Essentially he said (paraphrasing), "Others have come who were called gods, so why do you call me a blasphemer when I say I am God? If they were called gods, it is much more appropriate for me to call myself God because  the Father consecrated me and sent me!" Essentially, Jesus was saying "I deserve the title, because that's who I am!"

If only Muslims would read the entire context of verses they quote, they would save themselves many embarassing moments.