Tuesday, January 22, 2008

James White Responds to Zakir Naik: Part Two

This video is instructive. James shows a clip from a Q&A session in which Zakir Naik attempts to answer a question about whether God could become a man. Naik's answer contains virtually no substance, yet the Muslim audience is obviously mesmerized by his rhetoric. Typical! (Click here for part one.)

11 comments:

B said...

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__allah_s_omnipotence_and_the_incarnation_

Sunil said...

As James White points out the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are clear about the incarnation. Muhammad himself did not claim to be overwriting the Scriptures - he instead sought to base his legitimacy as continuity of God's revelation (if not, his religion it is reduced to a false religion proclaiming a false god). But todays muslims are forced to claim that Scriptures are overwritten through Muhammad. This is a self-refuation on part of islamic apologists. The more they are forced to talk against Judeo-Christian revelation (to justify/accommodate Muhammads alleged revelations, his actions, warfare in the name of establishing religion etc - all of which violate the teachings of Jesus), the more they are refuting the claim of revelation by Muhammad (self-refutation).

B said...

yeah if we assume that the Prophet was speaking about the scriptures in your possession.

GeneMBridges said...

No, we assume he was speaking about the manuscripts in existence at that time. It's a pity you can't be bothered to represent the argument as it has been articulated. Are simply ignorant of the argument or duplicitous?

There's a science called text criticism. We have a pretty good idea of what those texts looked like at that time. The onus is on you to demonstrate that they were "corrupted" such that, at that time, they were not clear on the Incarnation. Where's the manuscript evidence, and, presuming you can find it, are you willing to apply the same sort of thinking to your own texts?

Let's see the argument, bassam, not the assertions.

B said...

Genem, your the one who is assuming that the Prophet was speaking about the manuscripts during his time.

So let's see the argument, Genem, not the assertions.

The Qur'an makes it clear that the true Torah and Gospel are the ones revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively.

Were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or the letters of Paul revealed to Jesus? Both Christians and Muslims will say no. So why you assuming that the Quran is speaking about these.

Islam clearly teaches that we believe your Bible has corruption in it http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__ , therefore don't distort the Islamic perspective towards your Bible.

So stop acting like your smart by the way you speak and start providing evidence and stop asserting. k, buddy?

Peace

GeneMBridges said...

So stop acting like your smart by the way you speak and start providing evidence and stop asserting. k, buddy?

Hmmm, I've taken classes in text criticism under Maurice Robinson, who is one of the, if not "the," leading authority on the Byzantine texttype of the New Testament. What are your credentials?

Where are you arguments? You're simply begging the question in favor of Islam. That's not an argument.

The Qur'an makes it clear that the true Torah and Gospel are the ones revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively.

What the Qu'ran says is

YUSUFALI: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
PICKTHAL: He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

SHAKIR: He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.

It does not say that the Law was given "to Moses" nor does it say that the Gospel was given "to" Jesus. Rather it refers to the Law and Gospel as Scripture in the same way as the Qu'ran is Scripture.

Indeed, your citations are quite selective:

The Quran affirms the Torah that was available at the time of Muhammad, and the Gospel in usage at that time:

Sura 7:156-157:

"And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel THAT IS WITH THEM.


You're substituting your interpretation of the text for what the text itself actually says. Sura 7:156-157 is quite clear in the reference to the Gospel that is with them. The only Gospel in use at that time is that which is found in the 4 Gospels, which renders your statement about authorship irrelevant.

Were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or the letters of Paul revealed to Jesus?

1. The Gospels were written by 2 of his disciples, Matthew and John, Peter's stenographer, and Luke, an associate of Paul. These would be those who recorded the teachings of Jesus.

2. If you can beg the question for Islam, I can do the same for Christianity. The Bible is Scripture, ergo, it was inspired by God. Ergo, it matters not that Jesus did not write the 4 gospels or the letters of Paul. Indeed, 3 of these writers enjoyed direct apostolic authority, which is identical with, yet derived from the direct authority of Christ with respect to their teaching under inspiration, and the other two enjoyed direct apostolic support. You'll have to do better than say, "Jesus didn't write the Gospels."

Muhammad, false teacher and false prophet, cursed be his name, got some things about Jesus from where? From Christians, who in turn got their information from where? The Gospels.

Your argument, as usual, doesn't touch what is actually argued by us or what I wrote above.

therefore don't distort the Islamic perspective towards your Bible.

Of course, that's another assertion in lieu of an argument. I am well aware of the Islamic perspective, and I'm waiting for you to tell us why you believe something that the Qu'ran contradicts.

An accusation of "corruption" of the magnitude on the order you claim requires you to know what the autographs looked like. Where might I find those autographs, Bassam? We're left with your fideism, not an argument.

When Muhammad (570 - 632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time, the Bible which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. When and where, exactly, with the documentary evidence to back it up, can you show when this corruption took place?

GeneMBridges said...

Notice what happened here:

Genem, your the one who is assuming that the Prophet was speaking about the manuscripts during his time.

But the original assertion you made was :

yeah if we assume that the Prophet was speaking about the scriptures in your possession.

So, you changed your argument. I'll take that as a tacit admission that the first one failed. I write in response to the way my opponents frame their own statements. I wasn't, at that time, making any argument myself, rather I was informing you that you misrepresented your opponents - yet again. This seems to be a common feature in Muslim internet apologetics, and you are no exception.

B said...

There is no need for me to curse the Biblical Jesus just as you cursed my Prophet since the Bible does so on my behalf already. (Galatians 3)

Credentials don't mean anything, if I show you someone who has more credentials than you and he opposes what you say, would you take his arguments for granted? As for my credentials, Plus, I was more questioning your credentials on Islam rather than Chritianity. What Sheikhs did you study under?

Read my articles here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__ because I address all these arguments about the Qur'an confirming the previous scriptures, God's words not changing and so on and I also show the orthodox Muslim position, so I don't have much need for you to educate me on this aspect of my faith, unless you can quote reliable authorities.

I am not going to post my answers here. Go and read them at my site if you are interested.

And no I didn't change my initial argument. In the beginning i said that sunil is right if we assume that the Prophet was speaking about the scriptures which Christians posses. If you understood my statement to mean that I indirectly implied that the Prophet did so with the scriptures during his time then you are false. I don't believe that since I am already aware that corrupted texts existed during that time.

You challenging me to produce Biblical manuscripts just exposes your ignorance of the Islamic perspective regarding the Bible.

It appears that you believe that Muslims believe that there once was an original inspired book of Galatians or Ephesians and then it became corrupted. If that is what you think then you are wrong since Muslims don't even believe that these books were inspired in the first place.

Muslims believe that true revelations were sent to Moses and Jesus (Qur'an doesn't have to mention that in detail since we also have prophetic traditions. We are not sola Quranists).

Now since you Christians believe in something that wasn't revealed to Jesus, but instead written after his death, then that means that Muslims have a different undrestanding of Gospel then you Christians.

The same with Torah, since you guys also believe that parts of it were written by Moses' scribes.


Therefore, when the Quran speaks highly of Gospel and Torah in a positive sense it is speaking about the true revelations sent to the Prophets.

As for the verse regarding the Torah and Gospel being in their possession that is because true parts of it still are.

Your the one who is using selective citation.

If you are sincere then read my articles since I address all this. and then refute my arguments. If your not, then back off and don't speak out of ignorance.

Wisdom, Satisfaction, Wellbeing said...

Without coming off rude, and God forgive me for saying this, but I honestly have no clue what Zakir Naik is saying. Why are these people clapping and cheering? When I do pick up what he is actually saying none of it is coherent or legitimate.

Wisdom, Satisfaction, Wellbeing said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MAS said...

The doctrine of Incarnation or God-man for Jesus as God and the Son of God is reminiscent of the Roman Sun-God Mithra who predated Jesus whose birthday on Dec.25th is STILL falsely adopted as Jesus' birthday known as Christmas.