Karl Keating's E-Letter of March 21, 2006

[Karl Keating]

Originally Posted by kmaster

It doesn't make much sense to use the words of the Iranian leader and apply them to all people of Islamic faith. By no means WHATSOEVER is this man considered a source, or leader of any kind of Islamic movement! For Karl to use a world leader for religious information, really says something about his research methods (or lack there of) and his biases. (imagine the world using Bush as a source for Christianity, enough said)
The Iranian leader is someone in which the world has never even heard of, prior to 2 years ago. Yet, now he has been given a spotlight and every stereotypical comment, ANY person w/biases was looking for, now has a source!
Let it be known, one does not receive such a strong public voice, unless people controlling media outlets wants some one to have this exposure. Thus, it is obvious the Iranian leader has been put in his position to advocate an anti-islam movement. Especially, since all he has done is fire up the public's support for anti-islamic sentiments and an eventual (and ill-conceived) attack on Iran, used simply to shift focus from Iraq and Afghanistan! (all NON-winnable conflicts) As well as take attention away from our current governments domestic and foreign policy FIASCO!

p.s. many people have legitimate questions to some of your published works and their integrity. maybe its time to address these concerns instead of fabricating all the counter research you've done to quell the concerns and just simply, PROVE IT!

I cited a column in the "Asia Times," which quoted Iran's Mahmud Ahmadinejad as saying that "We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups, and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

Although he may have said this with a little more bravado than might the average Muslim, what he said seems to be acknowledged by Muslims at large: Islam is not and does not intend to be confined by geographic borders. It does not belong to one ethnic group alone. It is not to be restricted to one nation. Islam's adherents believe that Islam should spread throughout the world and should be adopted by everyone without exception. Do you deny this?

Ahmadinejad is a firebrand, but at least he is forthright about what he believes. He certainly has said things that many Muslims will disagree with, but I think nearly every Muslim will agree at least with the quotation I have given.

That is not surprising. What IS surprising is your claim that Ahmadinejad is in power in Teheran precisely so that he can undermine Islam. You apparently think that he has become president of Iran through American skullduggery. And if that is what you think, then I think that you have disqualified yourself from any serious discussion of Islam's role in the world.

As for "many people" having "legitimate questions" about my books, tell me, please, just which of my books you have read all the way through. Please give the titles from memory; don't run off to Amazon.com to find out which books I've written.

[Kristopher]

Abdul Rahman and Ben Hus exist apart from each other to the extent that not Ben Hus, but Abdul Rahman was a Muslim; though, this major discrepancy between the two lives excludes Abdul Rahman from inclusion in analogies to those historical events, when heretics were burned at the stake--a practice I know some members of my parish would oppose only under guidance of "courtesy bias"; though, I might be faulted in my memory of words spoken by a leader in my parish, and my memory no doubt focused on the emotional content of her point: opposition to heresy.

Abdul Rahman is not a heretic, though, he is a Catholic and the liklihood that he would be recognizable as a heretic were he to re-vert to Islam might be unjustified even excluding the pending "death threat".

Abdul Rahman is more synonymous with The Crucifiction: he has in the eyes of his Muslim "brothers", and I do use the word "brothers" in the sense that they, Muslims, as a matter of propriety regard Jews and Christians as "brothers", because we are sons of Abraham, (Pardon my ignorance with respect to the reason this cannot justify, but must necessitate the execution of Abdul Rahman.), and this in Islam is worthy enough to be respected. Jesus and Abdul Rahman--if we assume that Rahman is executed, then we see two men sentenced against their faith, for the execution of betrayal against their faith: Jesus named himself God, what could be a more violent offense against Judaism than this? Abdul Rahman has left his faith, for another of Abraham and this no doubt is a great threat to Islam. Ben Hus was a Heretic, only for the reason that he was Catholic, and obstinate in doubt, and in denial.

It can only be a statement of ignorance that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are anything else other than monotheistic; though, the meaning of the word "God" according to the Hebrew language of the Old Testament according to not more than a few Christian sources is in the plural and therefore, "we", meaning those of us with enough interest such as myself to reason well about the matter from the contents of Genesis and a few of the first chapters of the New American Bible (NAB), in addition to statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC); might like to do as it would concern the time involved, and the creations present across some period of time, when earth and the heavens were created. This use of "God" in the plural is perhaps a mystery even in the face of The Holy Trinity; though, why refer to three persons of God, in the plural, except as a limitation of the language?

What I am saying, should I be recognized as a heretic if I state that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are in fact anything but monotheistic, or should I simply be recognized as ignorant? Perhaps more than one scholar of theological, or philosophical fields of study might be recognized for their arguements about this matter. There were in fact, gods as the heaven where God lives was created, in addition to the existence of angels, and were any man, or woman to be reasonable enough about their experience across a variety of cultural norms, with respect to the presence of angels in even the lives of henotheistic, and monotheistic religious persons recognized in honest terms we might have the word "god" and the word "angel" recognized in a word "univocal" as defined by usage ascribed to Aristotle in "Organon", or "Logic" and simultaneously synonymous, (Pardon the spelling.): "god" and "angel" have only a difference in spelling, yet, in termination as a matter of definition: they are the same, and would ignorance allow for the two to remain extant even to the extent that an angel would convince such followers, that there is only one God, and this God has been recognized by Hindus; whom we know retain many of the same characteristics of Islam, and of Judaism as they existed in many respects isolated geographically, and racially.

I have to end this now.