This was an interesting debate. Shadid Lewis is a convert to Islam; Nabeel Qureshi is a convert to Christianity. The purpose of the debate was for them to discuss their reasons for converting. Notice that evidence played virtually no role in Shadid's conversion (he says he left the church for good when his pastor pulled out a saxophone), but that evidence was crucial to Nabeel's conversion. The reason this is important is that Shadid's case is quite typical. I've talked to several converts to Islam, and when I ask them why they converted, it nearly always has to do with social reasons (e.g. "I was sick of guys eyeing me in my miniskirt, so I put on a veil") rather than evidence. Also notice the inconsistency here. Shadid notes several things he didn't like about what Christians do in the world, but would he accept the same reasoning in reverse? "I left Islam when my Imam started preaching violence." Or, "I left Islam when I saw the World Trade Center fall." Or, "I left Islam when Muslims from countries around the world erupted into violence over Danish cartoons." Or, "I left Islam because many men in the Middle East believe it's okay to beat their wives." Obviously, Shadid doesn't think that any of these would be good reasons to leave Islam. Why then apply a standard to Christianity that he would never apply to Islam?
For a fuller discussion of Nabeel's reasons for converting, see "Crossing Over: An Intellectual and Spiritual Journey from Islam to Christianity."
For some video commentary by James White, click here.
43 comments:
Wow. This is a very good and enlightening debate.
The revelation that the early teachers selected by Muhammad disagreed with each other is huge. If the disagreements between these selected Islamic teachers are as great as Nabeel stated (I have never studied this myself, and that is the reason for the qualified statement), that is no small probelm for the Qu'ran.
If there were disagreements of this nature and magnitude between Peter, James, John, and the rest of the 12 following the assension of Christ - any opponents of Christianity would be right to use that against us.
Thanks for this video. Its long, but I have been very blessed by it.
Soli Deo Gloria
To be honest,
I was quite surprised with Shadid Lewis, he has an interesting approach to apologetics, never seen anyone else use those sources before. However his reasons for converting he did acknowledge are 100% subjective.
Shadid strikes me as someone who hates Christianity more than he loves Islam. He didn't give anything that would qualify as evidence for Islam. Even more interesting, on the second day, he talked a bit about pagan parallels with Christianity (the idea that Christianity stole beliefs from the pagans). When James White, after the debates, asked Shadid to give an example of something Christianity stole from the pagans, Shadid said, "The Virgin Birth"!!! Now here's an amazing thing (laying aside the fact that Christians certainly didn't get this from the pagans). If Christians stole the idea of a virgin birth from the pagans, how did this pagan belief end up in Islam? It seems that Shadid is so desperate to refute Christianity, he doesn't care if he refutes Islam in the process!
Hmmmm, well I'd have to have witnessed that myself to comment, Shadid seems sincere to me. However, I can recall moments when I get into debate mode when I even have to question my own sincerity and intentions, doing it for God? or to win an argument? but hey we're all human I guess.
Curious, I had never heard of Shadid before these debates, how did you guys come across him at first.
Sami Zaatari was interested in debating, so we asked him if he could find a partner. He chose Shadid, who, conveniently, lived less than an hour from where we were debating.
Shadid strikes me as someone who hates Christianity
Very true - he's got a chip on his shoulder about something... maybe personal who knows.
I noticed on the last Q and A session (after Sami and Nabeel's Debate) which was recently uploaded on youtube, that a gentleman who sounds exactly the same as Hamza Abdul Malik comes up during the Q and A to ask each a question.
Curious, do you know if Hamza is still involved in Apologetics today or anything about his current happenings?
Yahya,
That was indeed Hamza Abdul Malik. We talked to him several times that weekend, and we like him very much.
Hamza isn't involved much in apologetics these days. His beliefs have changed a bit. He's now a "Qur'an only" Muslim. Ahadith play no role in his views. Think about the implications: Where do the Five Pillars come from?
I'd like to see Hamza debate a well-studied Muslim on whether the Qur'an is the only authority for Muslims.
I take it he no longer works in the Muslim Community for Islamic Propagation Centre International then?
Did he elaborate as to why his position changed? Why he rejects ahadith?
Also was his debate with James White his last one?
Any contact address for him?
Yahya,
Hamza gave me a book to help me understand his move. I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
He gave me his contact info. I have no clue where it's at right now, but if I come across it I'll let you know.
what book was that?
The book is Arab Conspiracies against Islam, by Aidid Safar.
It has been updated with a new title:
http://www.amazon.com/Mental-Bondage-Name-Aidid-Safar/dp/1412065410/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i
Here are some of his websites:
http://www.aididsafar.com/
http://aididsafar.com/wordpress/
I'm always shocked when I hear Muslims rejecting the Five Pillars.
why are you shocked?
When I studied Islam in college, the Five Pillars were presented as something universal. Then I see Muslims rejecting them and saying that the Shahadah is shirk. That leaves Muslims with the Qur'an to agree on, but without the Hadith and commentaries, interpretations are wide open.
Quick question; "Quran Only" is that like "Sola Scriptura" ?
I am sickened, absolutely SICKENED when I hear Muslims giving seperate greating for Muslims and non-Muslims.
The command not to initiate the "Salaam" with non-Muslims should be a source of absolute SHAME for every Muslim.
On the other hand, for the kean observer understanding the cultural context, it is a constant reminder of the HATE and discrimination built into Islamic theology.
Something is wrong with the ending on that.
From 3hr 15 minutes
Momo is pathetic beyond belief. Dude, if you want to quote hadith, QUOTE REAL ONES. None of the ones you quoted have the proper book number, source number, whatever. I tried looking them all up in the hadiths, in Google (google only led back to you), I just couldn't, cause your references are MESSED UP!
Oh no, wait. There IS one of your quotes with proper book numbering, etc.
"Muhammad said- Blacks should be left to die if injured, and should be denied intercession and entrance to heaven (Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 137)"
Where did you get this from? A website? THE HADTIH DOES NOT SAY THAT! It says the same thing, but TO THOSE WHO MAKE MONEY THEIR MASTER! Who are "slaves to dirham (currency of his time)". You might wanna just shut up when it comes to stuff you apparently know nothing about.
I find it interesting that many if you seem to have selective hearing. I clearly gave the evidence of bible corruption, and I kept pointing to the very bible given out by the sponsors of the debate which stated in it, that verses had been removed, or that some passages were doubtful. I said this was proof then that the Quran was correct in saying that the bible had been corrupted.I also spoke about the evidences of jesus not being God as another major reason for leaving christianity. At the start of the discussion, I stated clearly that I had both social and religious reasons why I left christianity.
And David your wrong, I did not say virgin birth was one example of Christians taking from pagans. I mentioned the belief in a God dyeing and then ressurecting as taking from pagans. Thats what I said to James White. So there was no refuting islam while trying to refute christianity. I think you guys need to learn to listen a bit better.
And yes your right, I dont like christianity much, as I stated in the discussion, I see it as an extention of White Supremacy as the majority of christendom promotes images of the God man Jesus as a white man, and the angels are white children, even God himself is depicted as an old White male. If you only knew how many people of color have suffered from inferiority problems because they see The Most High God and His son and the angels as all white people while NO ONE looks them .This has also led to people including white people making themselves that much closer and the people of God, which has led to many of the injustices we have seen based on . So yeah I got a problem with the Western, Anglo American and European version of Christianity that dominates in the world today.
Hey MoMO, like most anti Islamist your fabricated hadith make you look even more ignorant. There is no hadith that says Blacks are pugnosed raisenheads. That reference you gave does'nt exist. It was made up by WHITE racist christians.
These hadith you gave from tabari , ishaq, are actually not hadith, and have been refuted as not even inline with the true teachings of islam because of the clear racism, says The Scholar of hadith Nasrul deen al bani, thus they are fabricated and rejected. They are also ( Tabari & Ishaq) not known as collections of authentic hadith, yet foolish Christians bigots love to quote them.
Last your quotes from Bukhari do not say what you said they say. The hadith which you claim Muhammad said blacks are raisenheads actually says that "If a Black man become your leader OBEY HIM". Does that sound like racism?? Muhammad did not say that a dream about black women means disease is coming. The hadith actually says a man came to Muhammad and had a dream OF A black women who looked scary , and so the interpretation of THAT MANS DREAM ( NOT all dreams of a black women) meant disease was coming to that man town or village. But of course you being a White Christian bigot, read more into it than was really there. And there is no hadith in Bukhari that says Blacks should be left to die and there is no intercession for them. In fact in Bukhari 7. #555 Muhammad said Shall I show you a women of paradise, and he then showed this Black women. In Bukhari 1 #448, and Bukhari 2 #421 He actually Offered the funeral prayer for a Black man/Black women. So please get your facts right.
Just passing by as a casual observer. I don't know if you have there's ongoing arguments between anyone commenting here.
I'm thinking MrIslam is full of anger saying things like "White racist Christians" and "White Christian bigots". I think when he says that phrase outloud it comes out as all one word.
Are all Christian bigots/racists? Are all Christians white? Are all racists Christians? Your word usage suggests they are.
What is with all the race-baiting? From looking around I think this blog is about religious debate not color.
na'amwashtaiy
Shadid, it's far beyond unfortunate that you conduct yourself in a public forum in the way you do.
Firstly, my citations were in error and I am glad that I came back to watch this debate again by chance so I could remove the comment. I have a file on my PC in which I save narrations etc that I have not seen before, with the intent of VERIFYING them. Unfortunately, I copied from it thinking it was another doc that has verified sources.
Secondly, I think it is quite revealing that you IMMEDIATELY come to the conclusion that source of the quotations in questions must obviously be "white racist Christians". Not only do you miraculously know the COLOR of the originator of the material, but you also know his religious affilation!! This is an amazing talent you have here, Shadid.
Nevermind politely pointing out someone's error, or asking them if they are aware the citations are in error. No, you would much prefer to assume the worst and launch into racially charged language and assumptions. Nevermind your inconsistent double standard when it comes to your OWN use of sources! (I will not be taking seriously the criticism of a man that uses, and fails to retract the use of, Micheal Baigent the FICTION WRITER as a source in a 'scholarly' debate).
Ironically, the ONLY ONE exihibiting "bigotry" here would be you. As Quiet Eagle notes, you are equating Christianity/'Whiteness'/Racism/Bigotry, as all synomymous (or at the very least causal) terms.
The exceedingly absurd inconsistencies of Shadid Lewis continue:
Shadid says: "These hadith you gave from tabari , ishaq, are actually not hadith, and have been refuted as not even inline with the true teachings of islam because of the clear racism, says The Scholar of hadith Nasrul deen al bani, thus they are fabricated and rejected."
Yet another Muslim that wants to justify throwing out their best historians. Of course they have been "refuted" if you engage in the CIRCULAR REASONING of first assuming Islamic doctrine cannot be racist or bigoted and THEN throw out everything that suggests otherwise. Nice "begging the question" Shadid.
Shadid says: "And yes your right, I dont like christianity much, as I stated in the discussion, I see it as an extention of White Supremacy..."
Comically, you are not willing to hold your new religion to the same standard as Christianity. It seems you prefer the ARAB SUPREMACY that is built into Islam, the faith that requires you to recite Shahada in Arabic, pray to Allah in Arabic, dress in Arabic fashion, and conform your every behavior to 7th century Arabian customs. Very inconsitent.
Shadid says: "If you only knew how many people of color have suffered from inferiority problems because they see The Most High God and His son and the angels as all white people while NO ONE looks them."
I never had a single problem with my dark skin based on what you are saying. I have seen PLENTY of images of Jesus etc as black, latino....and even the historically accurate Semitic. No one is stopping you or anyone else from depicting God as a black man, or any other color. This "argument" of your's, has obsolutely nothing to do with theology or faith, but is entirely CULTURAL and social. It's based on you fallaciously equating Christianity with European colonialism. Your problem is with the historical domination of America by white Europeans. You have a cultural victimhood complex.
Shadid says: "This has also led to people including white people making themselves that much closer and the people of God, which has led to many of the injustices we have seen based on."
I doubt you will have the integrity to apply that standard to your new religion of Islam, in which is found:
Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger.
Arab supremacy is a historical part of Islamic theology, but for some reason that doesn't bother you, perhaps because you have a-priori rejected ANYTHING in orthodox Islamic works that undermines your predetermined conclusion that Islam has no prejudice or racism. Things like this:
Tabari II:21 “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham's descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem's, the latter would enslave them."
It says Arabs are the best looking, and descendants of Ham (including Africans) were meant to be enslaved. Whether YOU accept this as part of Islam or not, the fact remains it was ACCEPTED for many hundreds of years and influenced Muslim attitudes about ethnicity. However, you had the nerve in the debate to bring up something that comes from the Talmud about the "curse of Ham" and attribute it to a condemnation of Christianity. Very poor indeed Shadid.
Shadid says: "So yeah I got a problem with the Western, Anglo American and European version of Christianity that dominates in the world today."
Exactly. Your problem is with Western-Anglo-American/European culture. Obviously, you prefer Eastern-Semitic-Arab colonialist culture. I guess you made your choice (and probably in your injured psyche you even think you are somehow being "ethnocentric" by your conversion). Well, Christianity is obviously the religion of "The Man", so you are probably better off being self-subjugated under Arabic culture.
The race-baiting, inconsitent, angry debater known as Shadid Lewis strikes again.
Shadid: it is extremely saddening to see how focused you are on race. By doing so, you see racism where it does not exist, and you bring racism with you wherever you go. A racist is one who focuses on the race of a person instead of the character traits of that person. You have exemplified racism to the utmost.
Shadid, my heart aches for your confusion. I will be in prayer for you tonight, my friend.
-Nabeel
Nabeel qureshi was never a muslim, he was Ahmadiya. They are considered non muslims by all of the other 99.99% of us.
Ok, some of the world's strictest and most devout muslims live in the Middle East. And what do they have to show for it- violence, human rights issues, poverty, corruption, etc. Now the muslim argument to that would be "No, no, no! The Muslims who are doing bad things are not following Islam correctly!" BINGO! All of the black people who are engaging in pre or extra marital sex are NOT following Christianity correctly. Plus,I know MANY black people who have benefitted from Christianity. Uganda,for example,used Christian principles to create an Anti-Aids campaign which has dramatically reduced the HIV rate in that country (the ABc model: Abstain from sex premaritally, Be faithful to your partner, and condoms. Condoms were for the segment of the population that is very unlikely to change its behavior- like prostitutes, so they can live long enough to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and change their ways).Also,I know of many succesful black doctors,lawyers,politicians, who attribute much of their success to Jesus Christ and his teachings. In addition,you could make the argument that Christianity inspired the African American slaves to fight for their freedom (hence the song "Let My People Go").And finally,North Africans including Nigerians, Ethiopians, and the Coptics of Egypt were CHRISTIAN BEFORE THE WHITE MAN OF EUROPE BECAME CHRISTIAN. Ethiopia for example, has some of the oldest churches in the world.When the Arabs conquered North Africa they subjugated the black man and forced him to accept Islam. Whereas they weren't forced into Christianity by the Jews.
P.S: Nabeel, my heart goes out to you, I'm also an Ex-Ahmadi who has found Jesus Christ.
To nabeel, el cid, Quiet eagle.
1st to nabeel please stop the foolishness. When one points out the clear racism and bigotry of others it does not mean that person is the racist. When christians love to throw some fabricated hadith at me about blacks, I see the racism for what is. Denying that the racism is there is a more horrible crime Nabeel, so please stop denying the racism of your anglo american christian brothers. So you think I'm just imagining when a White christian wants to argue with me and they just throw in some alleged statement about blacks from a hadith? Or on my youtube video comments when the subject matter has nothing to do with race at all, but the response is " shut up muslim nigger" " Or "Islam is false , Jesus is the the only way, repent you dumb muslim nigger". Its all in my head right Nabeel?
Quiet Eagle, No Im nat saying all Christians are anything, thats why I make sure to say WHITE CHRISTIAN BIGOT OT RACIST. See when the adjectives Bigot or racist is there its clear I'm not talking about all christian or even all whites.
Cid
Your exceedingly ignorant response is whats absurd. An your conduct and hypocrisy is astounding. No one is throwing a scholar out. If you had done any research tabari himself admits in the introduction to his work that he did not check the authenticity of the things related to him. He just recorded them as given. It is other scholars of hadith that say that there are many un-authentic things is his works. But again the ignorant christian love to quote them as if they are Quran. I take the attitude I have because I have seen these attacks for years. My charge is right and exact. My experience has it that it has always been a White Christian who uses such claims, and it get tiring after years of the same nonsense. So yeah ,several years later and now I have a real issue with it.
Persons88
I have plenty of non muslim historians that have testified that Islam was not forced on Black africans. One of them was a Christian named Edward Wilmont Blyden. He wrote a book entitled " Christianity, Islam and the Negroe race". You are just repeating the myths of biased western historians.
Your right though Ethiopians etc were christians before the Europeans yet the headquaters for Christendom was Rome for catholics and the Britain and for Protestants. And they propagated their Europeanized version over those who had been christain before them. Thus Jesus became a white man, God became a white man, the angels all white children, the prophets all white men. Thus White supremacy and christianity was propagated hand in hand. Deny it all you want, but the pictures and the modern movies made( passion of the christ) still reveal this fact.
And to cid,
again why do christian love to quote unauthentic hadith over Quran, or even authentic hadith?? What arab supremacy?? An authentic hadith from Muhammad said " there is no superiority of an Arab over a non arab" So these fabricated things you quoted need not be given any light as they contradict the authentic and accepted statement of Muhammad. Arab supremacy was never part of authentic Islamic theology as Muhammads statement clearly denounced such a thought. And why should any one have corrected you nicely, when your postings were clearly rude and insulting. Now you want to play the innocent one , OH PLEASE!
Mr Islam:
I don't deny things which are true. You're right; people have used Christianity in bad ways in the past and even today.People have manipulated Christianity for monetary gains,white supremacy/slavery,violence,etc.You name it, we've probably done it.But I really do believe that while these social issues are important to consider, they aren't really a good way to measure the truthfulness of a religion. As you know, there are good and bad people of every religion, and every religion has been used in both positive and negative ways. I'm sure you can agree that muslims and muslim countries (black and Arab) are nowhere near perfect either.Christianity practiced CORRECTLY has been and will continue to produce many positive results in people and societies.I believe the best way to judge a religion, is by studying its holy book and founder and see whose teachings you want to be the guiding force in your life.I highly doubt Jesus endorsed pre and extra marital sex,not forgiving people,gang violence, living on welfare,etc.In addition, ask yourself if this person passes the test of prophethood (ie. are there prophecies about him in early scripture or did he just come up out of nowhere and tell people to believe in him)and see if the theology makes sense and is consistent with earlier revelation and history.And if the earlier books have been corrupted, there needs to substantial evidence to prove that, and in my opinion, Islam does not fit with earlier revelation. MOST (not all) of what it teaches contradicts earlier revelation (the bible).
Shadid--
I don't know about "pugnosed raisinheads", but I do know that Muhammad compared an ethiopian to a raisinhead:
Sahih Bukhari #693 (Darussalaam publication, 1997)
"Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, 'Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopin, whose head is like a raisin, were made your chief.'"
For an internet link, check this one out:
Sahih Bukhari Vol.1 Bk.11 #662
So did White Christian Bigots really invent this hadith?
Shadid-
I do not deny that some people are still racist. I myself feel it to some degree whenever I walk into a church.
What I'm calling you out on is that you import that into the Christian doctrine wrongfully - it's not there. Yes, you must have faced some pretty bad racism in your life, but to bring that baggage with you and toss it into early Christian history is also a crime.
-Nabeel
Wow. It seems to me that Shadid has suggested that we can't really know anything about Muhammad.
Shadid claimed that a passage in al-Bukhari was fabricated by white, racist Christians. Thus, white racist Christians influenced the compilation of Islam's most trusted source of information about Muhammad. But if Islam's most reliable historical source has been contaminated by false teachings, how can we trust any of it? Thus, according to Shadid, we can't know anything about Muhammad. Why, then, be a Muslim?
P.S. Shadid, when do you want to debate Jesus' crucifixion? I have to make a couple of trips down to Virginia Beach. Interested?
The channel to contact Hamza AbdulMalik is ummi@aol.com
Personally, Nadir Ahmed will become an Atheist or Christian latter. Though I think Nadir Ahmed and Sam Shamoun are on about the same level of skill.
I can't believe you people even take Nadir seriously! The guy doesn't even prepare for a debate! He goes to McDonald's drinks a cup of coffee has an egg Mcmuffin and sort of wings it.
It's appalling that James White would even debate him. Talk about lowering standards.
However, Sam Shamoun I would never ever debate, he has no class either.
I think James White has come along way and he is now at his prime in maturity. His caveat for a well researched Muslim is the TULIP doctrine and once a Muslim has done a great deal of research on this controversial issue, game set and match.
His over reliance and confidence upon Greek as opposed to Aramaic is also noteworthy.
I consider Hamza AbdulMalik a personal mentor but James White soundly defeated him in the "Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is God." debate Because the title itself gave James victory. I don't know how confident James was going into the debate against AbdulMalik at the time so maybe the reason for the title. In my understanding Hamza AbdulMalik was James first Muslim opponent.
All James had to do was stand up and say, Colossians 2:9 and sit back down.
If the title would have been "Does the New Testament harmoniously teach that Jesus Christ is God" that would have given Hamza AbdulMalik his platform.
So Imam Hamza you taught us in Queens long ago that be careful of people trying to rig the debate.
Just like a clever Christian would never debate "Is the Bible the Authentic word of God"
Anyhow I do not believe that such debates bring glory to either side. Seeing that White and co. believe in Tulip and Muslims have a comparable theology to Tulip doctrine except no blood atonement and resurrection milieu; one is hard pressed to see how any of the debates have substance.
Any how I'd like to see a debate.
Khalid Yasin, Hamza AbdulMalik, Shadid Lewis vs.
James White, David Wood and Jay Smith. I'd like to see a marathon debate.
Or... I think Shabir Ally, Hamza AbdulMalik and Jamal Badawi vs.
James White, David Wood and Jay Smith.
I think they could keep it warm and cordial yet turn up the juice when needed.
Is the Qur'an God's word?
Is the Bible God's word?
Salvation Two Parts:
Salvation by Grace, or Salvation by Works:
Predestination or Free Will
The Concept of God
Practical Teachings for Todays world: Islam vs Christianity.
Strengths for Team Jesus:
Jay Smith is in a better position to unleash a blistering attack upon the Qur'an and Hadith sources.
James White is the strong link for Christian Apologetic and defending his sect of Protestant Calvinism. He clearly understands the need for poise and image in debates. His command of Greek is a very strong point. He is the one Christian I think would become a Muslim if the arguments were cogent and forceful.
Strengths for Team Allah:
Hamza AbdulMalik would destroy any of the above men in a debate upon the authenticity of the Bible. He's a little shaky the first five minutes but unleashes a blistering attack. No doubt he has brushed up and would be even more deadly than in his debate in San Diego where he took on Reverend Samuel on the same subject and won handily. I see him as the opposite of Jay Smith in style. But complimentary in attack.
Jamal Badawi has command of Arabic and all issues related to the Qur'an and Hadith concerning polemics. I think every time Anis Shorrosh debated him he lost and lost badly. Which to me was a key moment for Christian evangelism as it was Arab vs Arab and I really felt that for Team Jesus a great opportunity passed.
David Wood haven't heard of you. But if your studying under James White or aspiring to his greatness as long as you keep wit, charm poise you will do well.
Shabir Ally Well what to say about Shabir Allay he's a hot dog. He's like Jordan going to the basket. His interest in taking up Greek should prove interesting in future encounters.
The Salvation subject would be quite interesting because I'd like to see how both sides reconcile predestination and choice.
undoubtedly assured salvation would be of greater importance but try to read more into it.
forgive my mistakes in grammar and syntax.
Nabeel,the hadith you mentioned is not in the context that white christian bigots like to use it in. Its clear the hadith is telling a majority Arab audience in the 7th century that if an ethiopian became their leader, that they should obey him. Hello!!!! thats clearly against racism. Racism would be, "obey no leader other than your own Arab brothers". And what does a head like a raisen mean?? Does it mean a wrinkly head, a small wrinkly head, is there proof raisen head is equal to the word nigger?? I have no such proof other than the assumptions of the White racist christians who love to quote this hadith far from the context its in.
I never charge early christians with racism. Its the later Europeans who became the leaders and promoters of Christianity that I speak of. Also it depends where you look on the issue of whether racism white supremacy is part of christian doctrine or not. There are some christian writings of justification of the inferiorty of non whites and the subjugation of such people.
And to David. It seems you have a good habit of drawing far out conclusions of what people say. No where do I suggest that we cant know about Muhammad. And yes David, White christians have fabricated a hadith about Muhammad calling blacks pugnosed raisenheads. No such hadith exist among islams trusted information about Muhammad, except on the websites and articles of Anti-islamist white christian bigots. So there is no contamination there, thats why I was able to totally call such statement an out right lie. Come on ,pay attention.
PS we already debated the Crucifiction, under a different name " Did jesus rise from the dead?" remember? Its the same topic, new name, thats all. Lets debate a more important issue to both Christians and Muslims- Who is God, is it Jesus? Or is Jesus God almighty? This is what I want to see you on when you come to Va again. Let me know.
Shadid,
You say that Muhammad isn't insulting blacks by calling them raisin-heads. Indeed, you find a way to insult white Christians in your comment! (And we're the ones who have racist tendencies, right? After all, we're the ones who bring up race in every possible context. Oops. That was you.) I find it amazing that you find Muhammad's statement positive. Muhammad is telling his followers that they must obey their leader, no matter how much they detest and despise him. To illustrate this, Muhammad goes to an extreme and says that even if a black person were in charge of them, they should obey him. Now if the Muslims had no problems with blacks, why on earth would Muhammad consider this an extreme instance where no one would want to follow the leader? The fact is, Shadid, that if this statement were found in the Bible, you would be stomping your foot and declaring that this is clear proof that the Bible is a racist book.
You say that you're not accusing the early Christians of being racists. Did you listen to your debate with Nabeel? You accused Jesus of being a racist!
You say that you haven't suggested that we don't know anything about Muhammad. Here you've simply missed the point. When you investigate Christianity, you appeal to the silliest writers you can find--people who have absolutely no scholarly background--and you present their views as absolute fact. You also reject dozens of sources written within a century and a half of Jesus' death, and you declare that we don't know anything historical about Jesus. Well, if you were to apply these standards to Islam, what would happen? Whereas all of the sources Christians use to learn about Jesus were written within about seventy years of Jesus' death, Muslim sources on the life of Muhammad don't start until 125 A.H. Sahih al-Bukhari was written more than two centuries after the events! And if we're going to go with any random person who talks about Islam and treat this person as if he's a scholar, I can tell you about several such writers who declare that Muhammad never existed. So that's the point. If you apply your standards consistently, we can't know anything about Muhammad. The problem is that you're so incredibly inconsistent, it never occurs to you to apply your method consistently. (I know, I know. I'm a racist for saying this.)
You say you don't want to debate Jesus' crucifixion, since we've already debated it. We debated Jesus' resurrection, and my opening statement was a defense of Jesus' resurrection (of which his death was only one part). You never challenged much of what I said in my opening statement. In order to have a more focused debate, in which we discuss the whole topic and not merely a sub-topic, I thought it would be good to have a debate on Jesus' crucifixion. That way, we're not arguing past one another, and I can point out the many flaws in the Muslim view. But if you'd rather not, that's up to you. I'll see if anyone else is interested in debating in North Carolina in May.
On that note, are any Muslims here interested in debating Jesus' crucifixion?
Another topic I'd like to see is this: "Was Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ?"
Let me know if anyone knows of a Muslim debater willing to take this topic.
That was a great debate. Nabeel you really helped the truth shine clearly. I can't believe Shadeed came to the mic and said "Well, I was hoping to hear some of Nabeel's reasons for converting...".
I guess the guy just doesn't get it. Nabeel presented a very clear systematic explanation of why he converted: a) textual transmission of the Quran is unreliable b) 'New Testament' documents are reliable.
It seems Shadeed's reasons were a) his former pastor missed his calling as a musician, b) some professing christians are poor practitioners of their faith, c) the 'New Testament' has textual variants, d) Christianity lacks discipline, e) the Bible is racist.
I feel the need to mention: a) the disparity in AIDS rates in Africa between Muslims and Christians might be attributed to circumcision, b) some congregations worship in a correct context, c) some Muslims are poor practitioners of Islam, d) the Quran has textual variants [and pre-Uthmanic issues Nabeel addressed], e) the Bible contains rules for living a disciplined life and the "sunnah" of Yeshua, f) Shadeed misunderstands the "curse of Ham" and the words of Yeshua
If I were to prove the 6 points above, I don't think there is anything left of Shadeeds argument. Shadeed failed to refute Nabeel's 2 primary claims which franky I find carry much more weight than anything Shadeed brought, and Nabeel did a very nice job of either refuting Shadeed's claims or providing reasonable alternative explanations consistent with the evidence.
Game, set, match > Nabeel. I really learned a lot from this debate.
Post a Comment