Saturday, June 28, 2008

Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Live at 2:30!

Today at 2:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) viewers can watch Jay Smith debate Shabir Ally on the topic "The Qur'an and the Bible: On the Question of Peace." Jay and Shabir are among Christianity and Islam's greatest debaters, so this should be a powerful exchange of ideas.

Watch It Live!

***UPDATE*** The entire debate can now be viewed here.

34 comments:

Jay said...

I only got to see the Q&As but it was nice to see cordiality and a sense of humour on both sides. In some areas, Shabbir's views seem to have matured over the years.

Jay44 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay44 said...

I had to work today so I missed this. Does anyone know if it got recorded (I'm sure someone did) and where I can see it? Any thoughts on the outcome?

"In some areas, Shabbir's views seem to have matured over the years."

Yes. This is what I was trying to say before. His views still may be quite fantastic but he is far ahead of any other Islamic apologist. It's much easier to respect him than it is for other Muslim apologists like Naik and Deedat and their imitators.

David Wood said...

Yes, I like Shabir very much. I like him especially because he reads the works of actual New Testament scholars, which moves him light-years ahead of other Muslim apologists.

I thought his case for Islam being a religion of peace was quite weak, though. In order to defend his claim, he was forced to throw out all of his earliest historical sources. But how can we know what Muhammad did if not by reading the earliest historical records?

As for a recording, I'll put a post up if I hear anything.

Jay said...

I think Shabbir was honestly wrestling with some of those "difficult" passages in the qur'an - whereas people like Zakir Naik can be quite blase and defensive. I thought that it finally opened up some space for a more sincere dialogue.

Still, I should add the caveat that I use the word "matured" cautiously. Reading Shabbir's latest exchange with James White on Raymond Brown (ok perhaps it is significant that he can quote from R.B.) I think he's missed the forest for the trees again.

Jay said...

FYI, the debate is up on youtube:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZcRd_F56m4

David Wood said...

Yes, even though Shabir deals with New Testament scholars, he suffers from the same problem that other Muslims suffer from when it comes to the Bible. Muslims routinely go to the Bible and cherry-pick passages that they can interpret to fit their view. They then walk away saying, "See, the Bible agrees with us that Jesus never died!" Similarly, Shabir goes to the writings of New Testament scholars looking for passages and quotations that support his view. But he ignores the fact that the vast majority of scholars (whether atheist, agnostic, liberal, etc.) agree with us on certain crucial facts, e.g. Jesus' death by crucifixion, the disciples' belief that Jesus had appeared to them, and so on. The question thus becomes, "If you respect the view of Brown, or Dunn, or Wright, or Ehrman, why do you not respect their unanimous view that Jesus' death by crucifixion is one of the best established facts of ancient history? How come these scholars are so reliable when you can use something they say against your Christian opponent, yet they're completely unreliable whenever their views contradict Muhammad's teachings?"

Jay said...

Well said! And somethign else I'd like them to clarify is "do you really believe the Bible is corrupt?"
If so, how is it corrupt because according to your view it doesn't teach that Jesus is divine or that Jesus was crucified and raised. Or else, it is, in your view, corrupt and teaches the divinity of Christ and Christ's death and resurrection. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

Sunil said...

All that Shabir Ally is trying to do is to use wild/absurd/impossible hypotheses and conspiracy theories to negate the entire islamic history (selectvely) and then use the same wild absurdity to negate the authority of Jesus and Apostlic writings. An extremely weak case. Even then, the moral standards on the use of the sword and political power etc of islam do not measure up!

Jay44 said...

Jay said:

"whereas people like Zakir Naik can be quite blase and defensive."

Zakir Naik in my opinion is totally bluster and no substance. His reputation as a debater is as a skilled orator who likes to impress his audience with how good he is at memorizing verses. It's unfortunate that his great memory is not a substitute for quality arguments. And yet Dr. Zakir Naik is the most popular Muslim apologists today. Which reminds me of another reason why Shabir is so much more respectable than these type of apologists like Naik; that is, Shabir will debate with anyone and has debated with people well known in defending the position that he is debating, unlike Naik. Shabir for example has debated James White, Mike Licona, Peter W. Atkins, Anis Shorrish, Jay Smith, William Lane Craig and many others who are qualified to defend their positions over and against Islam. Zakir Naik mostly debates pastors and people with know training in apologetics. This was the same with Ahmad Deedat. I would love to see Zakir Naik go head to head with someone like William Lane Craig. I doubt that will happen, but I still hope it does. Anyways enough on Naik.

David Wood said:

"Similarly, Shabir goes to the writings of New Testament scholars looking for passages and quotations that support his view. But he ignores the fact that the vast majority of scholars (whether atheist, agnostic, liberal, etc.) agree with us on certain crucial facts, e.g. Jesus' death by crucifixion"

Yes, Shabir does ignore NT scholars when it's convenient for him but then turns around to use them when they are once again convenient for him to do so. A good example of this is his debate with Mike Licona on the Resurrection. By the way, this debate is now on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3wjPLQLNXY

Speaking of debates, I just watched David Wood's debate with Shadid Lewis (found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMRtWm0zyqE ) over whether Jesus even died. Actually the debate was really over whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, but it was really over Jesus' death. Anyways that debate is a really good example of Muslim apologetics at its worse. So... what is the reason that Jesus didn't die on the cross, according to the Muslim. It's the SIGN OF JONAH. No need to consider all the other NT passages where Jesus says he'll die, or Paul's early information, or Josephus, or Tacitus, or the universal consensus among NT scholars that Jesus died. No, none of that counts. Only the sign of Jonah counts. I'm rather looking forward to when the "Sign of Jonah" proof will be published in peer reviewed Journals to overturn the consensus among historians about Jesus' death. I'm sure they will all be drooling over this amazing proof.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Jay Smith one of Christianity's most respected apologists against Islam?

That is indeed one of the funniest claims I have read recently, I've been speaking to Jay on a weekly basis for two years and his arguments are a joke. He will literally throw strawmans and lie about Islam to prove a point, which shouldn't be done if he feels Islam has no leg to stand on.

Come to Speaker's corner and see how respectable he is, or better yet wait till our video compilation of the Hyde Park Debate series is released and you will question the etiquette and honest of this Missionary. I find it fascinating that he has been working with Muslims for 25 years and yet knows like only a sentence worth of Arabic.

sup said...

@ David

In your comment about sources you said we should got to the earliest sources.

What about the most authentic?

We have lots of reasons to believe that sources like ibn Ishaq are not reliable.

Also Ibn ishaq is not the earliest source. Al muwatta is just as early as ibn Ishaq. Also a good chunk of the muslim population consider it to be the most reliable book after the Quran.

Why?

because it has something you totally disregard when you cite Islamic sources.

It has a reliable chain of narrators.

Imam Bukhari(R) considered the composer of al muwatta to have the most authentic chain of narrations.

Jay said...

I'm rather looking forward to when the "Sign of Jonah" proof will be published in peer reviewed Journals to overturn the consensus among historians about Jesus' death.

Hahahaha well said! I'm sure that this is the final nail in the coffin that Bart Ehrman and Christopher Hitchens are looking for - no pun intended :)

Jay Smith one of Christianity's most respected apologists against Islam?... That is indeed one of the funniest claims I have read recently

So let me start by asking - do you respect ANY Christians who speak/write critically about Islam? All I've ever heard has been invective about everyone from Arthur Jeffrey right down to David Wood. So I'm not surprised at your hostility towards Jay.

Second - Jay Smith published his critical views on the Qur'an years ago and has since then been criticized for them. Jamal Badawi didn't address them, Shabbir Ally tried to but and some Muslims tried to respond online (Lomax, Green, Saifullah). Apart from the objections they raised regarding Smith's reliance on Western scholars critical of the traditional views of Islamic history (Crone, Wansborough, Nevo) I haven't until this date seen any of the major points in his theses adequately responded to.

So yes, I do think quite highly of him, and yes I have seen his work at Speaker's corner.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

Did you get my email? I asked if you would like to do two debates in London. If not, we could stick with our original plan.

David Wood said...

Sup,

Ibn Ishaq was a biographer, so if we're looking for biographical details, this is certainly more valuable than al-Muwatta.

From the historian's perspective, all of the Muslim sources are extremely problematic. The major collections of ahadith were compiled more than two centuries after Muhammad's time, and they had been sifted through the hands of dedicated believers.

Generally, historians go for the earliest sources, unless they have a good reason to reject the earliest sources. Saying that Ibn Ishaq doesn't always give a full Isnad is irrelevant to a historian, since no non-Muslim historian on the planet uses this method. When we use the actual methods that real historians use, we find that Ibn Ishaq is far more reliable than Sahih Sittah, even if we can't trust it completely.

I hope that helps.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Jay Said: So let me start by asking - do you respect ANY Christians who speak/write critically about Islam? All I've ever heard has been invective about everyone from Arthur Jeffrey right down to David Wood. So I'm not surprised at your hostility towards Jay.

Second - Jay Smith published his critical views on the Qur'an years ago and has since then been criticized for them. Jamal Badawi didn't address them, Shabbir Ally tried to but and some Muslims tried to respond online (Lomax, Green, Saifullah). Apart from the objections they raised regarding Smith's reliance on Western scholars critical of the traditional views of Islamic history (Crone, Wansborough, Nevo) I haven't until this date seen any of the major points in his theses adequately responded to.

So yes, I do think quite highly of him, and yes I have seen his work at Speaker's corner.


I never asked whether or not you think highly of him, I merely stipulated that those of us who know him better hold him in neither high esteem nor view him as scholarly.

As for Christians who speak critically against Islam, I respect honesty and sincerity and Dr. James White, David Shenk and Anyabile Thawabit (excuse me if I have typed his name wrong) are those whom I applaud for their sincerity.

As for Jay's Academic Discourse against Islam, just speak to some of the lecturers at SOAS University and even Jay Smith's own student from Hyde Park Fellowship, Victor Baungh and they will tell you how selective Jay is.

sup said...

@ david

I believe it is un reasonable that you disregard Islamic sources which have reliable chains of narrations, and you go to sources like ibn ishaq that have unreliable narrators.

Also ibn Ishaq is not a reliable source because he just wrote down everything he heard he didn't do any investigation into his sources.
So it wasn't like he was this master historian as you assert in your debates with muslims

The composers of the hadith collections almost always omitted peopple who were known to be liars.

If you want to go to the early sources at least include al muwatta (which I told you about it's authenticity by citing bukhari).

David Wood said...

Sup,

I don't disregard sources that have reliable chains of transmission. What I object to is the idea that a source that is written 250 A.H. with Muslim-friendly Isnads is necessarily more reliable than a source written 125 A.H. without Muslim-friendly Isnads (when Isnads hadn't even become important by that time).

Also, you're confusing Ibn Ishaq with al-Tabari when you say that he wrote down everything he could find. And this isn't even completely true of al-Tabari, since he often distinguished between reliable and unreliable accounts.

I have no objections to al-Muwatta. I simply pointed out that this is not a biographical account, and is therefore not as reliable when we're looking for biographical material.

Jay said...

Well I'll have to wait until the next time I'm in London to speak with GR Hawting. But in the meanwhile, don't worry about me - I'll be trying to expand my horizons on the early history of Islam with Angelika Neuwirth, Gerd Puin and Günter Lüling. And of course, there are the proceedings of the Corpus Coranicum conference. These are all high powered and mainstream academics, whose challenges to the traditional view of Islamic history make Jay's pale in comparison.

As I said, three Muslims (Lomax, Green and Saifullah) had every opportunity to answer his criticisms and rather than answer them got bogged down in details that have little relevance ot the main point.

For example, on the point that Kufic manuscripts are generaly dated late (and therefore a likely not from the Uthmanic period) we get an earful about how Jay Smith "misrepresents" the facts - all the while missing the larger point (which Jay is trying to make) that it is unlikely that a less known script at the time would have been used to disseminate the most important piece of literature at the time.

I dont' know if this is missing or avoiding the point. In general, nothing I have read from anyone has really demonstrated any weaknesses in the main arguments of Jay's paper on the Qur'an.

Jay said...

Well I'll have to wait until the next time I'm in London to speak with GR Hawting. But in the meanwhile, don't worry about me - I'll be trying to expand my horizons on the early history of Islam with Angelika Neuwirth, Gerd Puin and Günter Lüling. And of course, there are the proceedings of the Corpus Coranicum conference. These are all high powered and mainstream academics, whose challenges to the traditional view of Islamic history make Jay's pale in comparison.

As I said, three Muslims (Lomax, Green and Saifullah) had every opportunity to answer his criticisms and rather than answer them got bogged down in details that have little relevance ot the main point.

For example, on the point that Kufic manuscripts are generaly dated late (and therefore a likely not from the Uthmanic period) we get an earful about how Jay Smith "misrepresents" the facts - all the while missing the larger point (which Jay is trying to make) that it is unlikely that a less known script at the time would have been used to disseminate the most important piece of literature at the time.

I dont' know if this is missing or avoiding the point. In general, nothing I have read from anyone has really demonstrated any weaknesses in the main arguments of Jay's paper on the Qur'an.

Sunil said...

>> we get an earful about how Jay Smith "misrepresents" the facts

I once stumbled upon a youtube video with the title suggesting that the video exposes the lies of Jay Smith. While I am aware how often islamic "apologists" use Ad hominem on people who say things they do not like, I wanted to see what the video is. It showed a clip where Jay Smith said that NT is reliable. And another clip where he said that there are some textual variants in the manuscripts and textual criticism is used. The video then goes on to claim that the two are contradictory and it proves that Jay Smith is liar! I want to see what examples Yahya has when he claims that Jay Smith is a deliberate liar.

Jay said...

I want to see what examples Yahya has when he claims that Jay Smith is a deliberate liar.

Yes, since you make these accusations Yahya I would like you to back them up with evidence. I learned from Ahmed Deedat that at times like this one should appeal to the qur'an which says, "produce your evidence".

ben malik said...

I am rather impressed by some of the bloggers, especially Jay. Jay, do you have a website or articles you have written since it is obvious that you are really knowledgeable about Islam.

David Wood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

you are really knowledgeable about Islam

Hahaha, I don't think I deserve that. Let's just say that in my opinion I know a little more about Islam than Zakir Naik knows about Christianity :)

Jay44 said...

Jay said:
I'll be trying to expand my horizons on the early history of Islam with Angelika Neuwirth, Gerd Puin and Günter Lüling.

You must be knowledgeable about Islam if you know about them.

David Wood said...

Jay said:

Let's just say that in my opinion I know a little more about Islam than Zakir Naik knows about Christianity :)

I'd say you know roughly eleven trillion times as much about Islam as Zakir Naik knows about Christianity.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

I would argue that Jay's cited scholarship list indicates a more thorough knowledge of critiques against Islam's divine origins and claims as opposed to an actual knowledge of Islam.

As for evidence that Jay has lied, well I shall admit it is subjective to my experience and therefore you should just take it or leave it, however I shall be producing evidence in a youtube video or google video showing Jay's rampant lies.

David Wood said...

Yahya said:

I would argue that Jay's cited scholarship list indicates a more thorough knowledge of critiques against Islam's divine origins and claims as opposed to an actual knowledge of Islam.

Isn't he working on a PhD in Islamic Studies? Surely he must know quite a bit about Islam.

David Wood said...

Wait, which Jay are you talking about?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

lol David, I was referring to the Jay who posts here frequently.

As for Jay Smith, his Ph.D is at London School of Theology and he was turned away from SOAS for being too unobjective, so doing a Ph.D in Islamic Studies at a Christian Seminary (Formerly known as London Bible College) doesn't impress me too much.

I'm sure you'd view a degree in Comparative Religion from Saudi's Medina University in a similar way.

Jay44 said...

What exactly is Jay Smith's Ph.D in? Does he have it now? I remember hearing a lecture by Jay Smith in 2001 in which he said he was on board for doctoral studies at the London School of Theology. I suspect he either has it or is very close to having it by now.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

His Ph.D is in "The Sources of Islam" and he should be recieving his Doctorate within the next year apparently.

Sunil said...

>> so doing a Ph.D in Islamic Studies at a Christian Seminary (Formerly known as London Bible College) doesn't impress me too much.

>> I'm sure you'd view a degree in Comparative Religion from Saudi's Medina University in a similar way

If the Doctorates given by Saudi Medina University are of high scholarly quality and well respected by muslims and non-muslims alike, then there is no need to be "unimpresed". The same applies any Christian Seminary.