James P. Holding of
Tektonics.org, just like Rebecca St. James, proves Islam
Part 1.
*Click
here to see how Tektonics.org, Just like Rebecca St. James proves Islam*
[Intro][part
1] [part 2]
[part 3]
James Patrick Holding (JPH) of Tektonics.org has written a response to the Britney-St.
James article here:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/muslyduh.html
or you can find it here
In his response, he was not able to refute the fact, that Islam indeed
addresses the problems of today’s society. Rather, he resorted to mocking
Islam, and for the most part agreed with me that there are no answers in the
Bible, therefore, he was forced to go looking OUTSIDE of the Bible for answers:
JPH wrote:
First, the Bible does not have to
"state what clothing is considered modest." Surely Mr. Ahmed is not so
pitiably dense as to think that a word used in an ancient text was not without
some contextual understanding by its own readers.
Response:
First off, you and Rev. Matt Slick from the Christian Apologetic Research
Ministry must get your story straight THEN come to me. Rev. Matt, claimed in
our debate on morality, that the Holy Ghost would give you the standard for
modesty. And on that premise, he pronounced that the Holy Ghost inspired his
wife to wear a 1-piece bathing suit, versus a 2 piece! J
Now, here Mr. Holding contradicts Rev. Matt Slick and insinuates that the
all Christians must follow the standard of modesty of the pagan and idolatrous
Hellenistic Roman, Greek, and monotheistic Hebrew culture. Here we see that he
could not meet my challenge to find answers within the Bible, and he was FORCED
to go outside of the Bible for answers, thus proving my point: that the Bible
does NOT have the solutions for today’s problem. But if what JPH states is
true, then this only further proves the case of why Paul is a false
prophet. A true prophet does not borrow from pagans traditions (yes,
I’m aware of those cheap polemics against Islam, which we will crush very
soon,inshallah..).
In addition to that, as I stated in my article, Paul abolished the laws of the OT. Therefore,
it is very possible that in Paul’s head, he had his own standard of modesty,
but he just didn’t write it down in any of his letters. Claiming that Paul was
referring to his cultural norms is definitely a workable theory, but can not be
proven. But the truth is, we will never know what Paul really meant by modest. There
is no evidence that Paul viewed the culture and norms of the society he lived
in as the CORRECT standard of morality. For example, if someone were to ask
me, what my standard of morality is, my answer would be very different than
what the traditional culture I live in dictates, and it will be based on my own
personal standard of what I think is right or wrong. And the same holds true
for many people. Therefore, only Paul, can tell us what HE meant by modest.
It is also important to point out, that there is not a single Christian
on Earth that I know who believes or practices what James P. Holding is
recommending. He is living in his own world, just as a traditional cultist would
do. Rather the correct position, in which virtually all Muslims and Christians
believe is that God’s Word transcends all cultures and practices, and is
interpreted by God’s Words only, not man made traditions. That is why Muslims
don’t go running to pagan Arab culture to learn how to live. We follow Prophet
Muhammed(P) and what God has revealed through him ONLY. Although, I will show
all the readers of this article, that James Patrick Holding does NOT believe in
his own recommendation. Here is my proof; I challenge him to do the following:
I don’t believe for a second, that JPH will meet anyone of these challenges.
I actually don’t have a problem of assuming JPH’s theory, as I have stated in
the following response, my position is simple, "what
you say I accept", because that still won’t solve the problem! But the
problem is that JPH will have to condemn 99.9999999% of all Christians, and
those 99.9999999% of all Christians will turn around and condemn him right
back. What am I supposed to do?
JPH wrote:
Mohammed certainly did not provide a glossary of terms for the Quran
Response:
You obviously didn’t read my article. We don’t need a
"glossary" to solve this dilemma of the Bible. This again, shows how
lost you are due to following the Bible, you can’t even recommend a suitable
solution. Rather, here is Islam’s clear
guidance for daily living on these issues, which the Bible does
not have. Notice, Muslims do not have to go OUTSIDE of their scripture to
find answers, the answers are right there in our holy books. Which brings up a
very good point: How can a false religion’s social science provide clear
guidance BETTER than God’s true religion??? That is absurd! I pity the fool who
believes this.
JPH wrote:
In fact, given that the Quran was developed in the same type of society,
if anything what this tells us is that Mohammed's contemporaries were so badly
depraved that they needed the reminder.
Response:
This is of course foolishness. Just because someone provides detail on
what modesty is does not mean that the recipient is a pervert. JPH is simply
showing his jealousy towards Islam, because his religions FAILS in this test.
JPH wrote:
even in individualist
Response:
JPH contradicts himself. First we were suppose to follow the pagans of
the first century, NOW, we are suppose to follow "community
standards" of today. There is no proof from the Bible for any of this.
This is his own wacky interpretation.
JPH wrote:
Ahmed wants to know, "is wearing pants modest? Is wearing shorts
modest? Tank tops? Dress covering the entire body? Swimsuit? Therefore, modesty
is left up to the individual to decide." Sure it is.
Response:
Thank you! You finally admitted the truth. This was indeed the moment of
truth. This challenge I posed was a practical application of the Biblical
values, "the Bible in action" we can say, and when it came down to
it, the Bible could not look at this social problem I posed, and provide a
clear workable solution. This is all I have been trying to prove. But this is
the 3rd time JPH contradicted himself in one article. First he said,
follow the pagans of the first century. Second, he said today’s "community
standards", and now he agrees with with me that it is up to the individual
to decide!!! JPH, why are you waisting our time? Do you think, that if you can
not win them, confuse them with tons of writing, signifying nothing? Here is
the bottom line, if the Christians really held this view, they would openly
condemn gap.com, abercrombie.com, J.Crew, BannanaRepublic.com….
etc. But they do NOT. How can they? These companies have not violated any
Biblical teaching! Modesty is based upon the individual according to the Bible.
Therefore on that premise, Christian parents spend millions of dollars every
weekend at these stores, buying tight, cleavage showing, belly button showing
clothing (and everything else) for their daughters at malls all
across the country. Therefore, I don’t think JPH is going to take up
my challenge anytime soon.
JPH wrote:
There follows some rap about how St. James apparently accused Spears of
dressing so as to be treated as a sex object. Ahmed claims that "the very
same objection can be used against [St. James], but even more forcefully,
because she has many traits, which men would consider to be sexy." If he says so. I can
well imagine that for Mr. Ahmed, it might be "sexy" for a woman to
turn up the corner of a burka and flash a little ankle; a cartoon I once
possessed, from the early 1900s in America, depicted a man googling women's
lower calves on a windy street corner.
Response:
Thank you for agreeing with me, although, grudgingly. It should be clear
by now, that the arguments presented in my article
are sound, and irrefutable. As for JPH’s racist caricature of Arabs, the same
was done to Jews in the 1900’s cartoons. But For them, they weren’t portray as
sex perverts as was done to Arabs, but rather, Jews were portrayed as being
greedy money hungry "leeches" and "blood suckers". Both
stereotypes are false and disgusting. You need to judge people for who they
are, not what you are told about them from racist cartoons.
JPH wrote:
"...prove from the Bible that it
is ok for men and woman to kiss and hold hands on a date, but it is wrong or
sinful for them to engage in any other kind of sexual activity except
intercourse according to the Bible." Hmm. Here's a clue for Mr. Ahmed: In
the date and place the Bible was written, there was no such thing as a
"date"; marriages were arranged, and to dally sexually prior to the
covenant was, well, dishonorable.
In other words, the social context (preformulated as it were before pen even
went to scroll) already had the rules in place.
Response:
This is false information. "Love" marriages (people meeting
each other, then deciding to get married) have always existed. The Romans and
Greeks certainly did it this way. Even during the time of the Prophet
Muhammed(P), many couples which met on their own would come to him(P) asking
for advice. But what is indeed scary, is that JPH is now telling us that all
Christians in the world MUST seek arranged
marriages !!! Please also keep in mind, that part of that tradition
was that women (and men) would be married by their parents AGAINST THEIR WILL.
They believed that parents know best. There is nothing in the Bible, which
states that a woman’s consent is needed for marriage. But, Islam clearly states
that a woman’s consent is needed, or else THERE IS NO
MARRIAGE. This is a big difference between Islam and Christianity. Once again,
this shows the superiority of Islam over Christianity, and another reason why Paul is not a true
prophet. Again, I would like to extend the same challenge to JPH:
JPH wrote:
Mr. Ahmed thinks Islam will solve these ills, and that's a remarkable statement
given that Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Iran are leading producers of
the opium poppy and there are more than a few addicts there who will even go looking for their hit in the
midst of disaster. But given Mr. Ahmed's performance, that's about
the simplistic level of social science we would expect.
Response:
First off, Iranians are NOT Muslims, they are Shia. As
for Afghans, they CAN NOT be blamed for drug trade. Prophet Muhammed(P) made it
very clear, that if a person is starving, then he can drink alcohol and eat
pork for survival. Which means, the forbidden become permissible. It is a fact,
especially pre-911, the Afghan nation was on the verge of starvation, the whole
world didn’t give a rat’s ass as to the misery of the Afghan people.
JPH wrote:
There is no condemnation of drug use because there were no drugs to use..
Response:
I agree with you on this point. But the same holds true for the Quran,
there was no drug problem during the advent of Islam. Yet, in spite of that,
Islam was clearly able to address the evils of today’s society and condemn
them. The Bible failed to do so. Therefore, I have to ask the question:
How can a false religion, condemn one of the most evil and luring poisons
of Satan, his pride and joy, all the while God's supposedly-true religion,
Christianity, allows it?
That is the most asinine, lame-brained and monstrous statement anyone can
make! Therefore, the matter is crystal clear according to the evidence, as to
who is the false prophet. That false prophet is none other than Paul. And the true Prophet is Muhammad(P).
Folks, what more proof do you need?
JPH wrote:
To demand that the Bible get more specific is like asking it to tell us
the sky is blue
Response:
In an attempt to defend the Bible’s gross deficit, JPH has committed the
logical fallacy of false analogy. JPH is now appealing to
"common sense". There are many things, which are BAD for you, but are
permitted by God, like butter and eggs, which are high in chloresterol. There
is also a lot of debate about legalizing marijuana and other
drugs. But, we are not talking about what is bad for your health.
Rather, we are looking to the Bible to see what sins are against God, in which
we can establish a lifestyle, which does not contradict Biblical morality.
It has been clearly established that doing drugs is NOT a sin, and does
NOT go against Christ’s mandate. Let me remind you, God is ALL KNOWING and ALL-POWERFUL,
he knows the past, present and future. Therefore, God knew very well the issue
of drugs even more so than people do today. Yet, according to the Bible, God
decided, that it is not a sin to do drugs. Anyone, who claims that they have
violated one of God’s laws by smoking some marijuana, must produce proof from
the Bible, or else, they are liars. Got that JPH? Virtually ALL Christians
uphold this view. This is good news for millions of social cocaine users who
will occasionally snort a few lines at a party, or millions of weekend extacy
users…etc.
JPH wrote:
If you really need to be told this, you are so out of it that an explicit
rule isn't going to change you anyway
Response:
FALSE! This is your own personal interpretation. It is a fact, that if it
were not for Islam’s explicit rules, I would definitely try marijuana.
Hey, Im a very curious person and I like to have fun. Given the opportunity, I
would love to try cocaine, but I would be careful with it. And definitely, I
would like to have a beer with my friends after work.. these things, I have had
the opportunity to do, but the ONLY reason I refused, is because of Islam’s
explicit rules. And because I didn’t do pot or drink, I was not
"fun" to hang out with in amoung my peers, so I spent a lot of time
by myself, as they were very few Muslims in my town. And for this reason, I did
NOT like my religion when I was growing up. I hated being a wierdo, and I
wanted to convert to Christianity, but, I knew that it
is false religion, and that I was being lured by a false prophet, Paul. And there are MILLIONS of Muslims, in
the same boat that I was in.
Thus, James Patrick Holding’s pathetic attempt to defend the Bible has
been thwarted. The problem, is that these types of Christians are ashamed of
the REAL lifestyle which the Bible promotes, and they are ashamed to admit it.
The try to cover the truth with their false interpretations, fooling the
masses.
Therefore, the Britney-St. James article is a ACCURATE encapsulation of
living within the guidelines of Biblical morality. The article, can not be
refuted. Again, here is the lifestyle, which is promoted by Paul's Christianity:
Men and woman walking around in tight fitted, skimpy outfits
exposing much of their parts like that of Britney Spears, her style of dancing
is also completely allowed, each one engaged in flirting and indiscreetly
seducing each other (there is no condemnation in the Bible for any of this),
and not only that, but engaging in several if not all sexual acts except for
sexual intercourse, engaging in "mashing", and all the free cocaine,
heroin and marijuana that they desire. Please keep in mind, all of this
behavior as mentioned above, completely falls WELL within the guidelines of
Biblical moral conduct.
Of course there is quite a world of difference between a Britney who
(apparently) knows what a great many find sexy, and dresses accordingly, and a
St. James who is blissfully unaware of the knucklehead who happens to get his
jollies from That Particular Shade of Lipstick.
Response:
JPH is now stating that you should look at their INTENTIONS behind their
deeds. But this is NOT what the Bible teaches (there might be some fuzzy
verses which might allude to it, but I don’t think it does). Rather, this
is what Prophet Muhammed(P) taught:
Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for."
Alas just as the Christian rock star, Rebecca St. James follows Surah
Al-Isra 17:32 of the Holy Quran as her own "personal philosophy", JPH
also confirms the truthfulness of Islam, and he finds real
answers in the beloved Prophet Muhammed(P). After all, how can these 2 Christians
resist? Islam clearly addresses the problems of today’s society, the truth of
Islam is so clear and precise, that it is irresistible. It is sad, but these
types of bigoted Christians read about Islam, they may pick up the Quran, and
they see that this book is revealing truth that is relevant to them today, and
they know it in their hearts, but because of their bias and their blind faith
in following their false prophet, Paul or silly racist cartoons
from the 1900s depicting Muslims as vile sex perverts, they stubbornly turn
their faces and reject the truth, even though in their hearts they know … it is
truth from their Lord, and Allah knows best.