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.
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?
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?
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:
Here are some of his websites:
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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).
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?
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.
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 email@example.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.
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.
Shadid, Can't believe that you brought up in this debate the issue of moral and premarital sex in the USA.
As a christian who was brought up in an arab invaded country, You are completely ignorant about living under the islamic laws. But you urged me to write.
1st: Everyone knows Egypt, and the great Egyptian history. This history that astonished the whole world in different aspects, sciences, literature philosphy, architecture, arts..etc. Just few example , the Pyramids, have you heard of them. Secrets of Mumifications. Biblotique Alexandria, which was not onyla library, but it was one of the earliest univerities, with huge amounts of Books. Copts had their music, which thanks god, still used in their Churches till now. Saint mark one of the gospel writers, came to Egypt, and is the First pope of Alexandria. Monasteries and Monascim were first found in Egypt by Saint Anthony. It was Saint Athanasius who defended against jesus Deity , not by sowrd, but his teaching for many several years. Egypt was one of the wealthiest countries and Greatest Nations in the whole History. Of course You know what happened whe Islam took over and invaded Egypt under the power of Amr Ibn El As (who by the way according to islamic books, is son of Meccan Prostitute, no comment). Of course You know what happened to Egypt form that Time after, we are not speaking Coptic anymore , it is arabic. No freedom anymore, civilization was distroyed, Bibotiqua alexandria DESROYED. and Progression stopped.
Here you should think of two things:
imagine if Islam didnt take over in Egypt, imagine what progression we could have reached now, in all sciences; medicine, engineering, mathematics ...etc
also think if it was the case in the USA, and Islam took over, You will find he English language gone, all progression will stop, no more freedom of speech. They will burn and destory Harvard.
Churches can be built anymore, or even renovated. All fast food Chain has to serve halal Food. You will hear Azan 5 times a day, violating the freedom of all non muslims, and even muslim who dont wanna wake up early to pray. They will slaughter sheeps in the street, a completely unhealthy practice in their Adha feast. Christian and all non muslim will no longer be in good positions in the government or any jobs. And sooner, they will exempt all non muslims from America as muhamed did with them in KSA previously.
IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE TEACHING US ABOUT SOCIAL ISLAM ??????
You also mentioned the percent of premarital sex in USA as a reason to convert.
OF course you dont want talk about sex in islam , but let me tell you some facts.
This percent has nothing to do with Jesus teaching.
U said cause Jesus Didnt put a law. Well if you Dont acknoledge the freedom given by God and seeking to be controlled by someone, it is your choice. But this means you cant be responsibly free.
Now to : How Islam prevents Premarital Sex:
1- Allowed Pedophile, so u wont have any earlier than that !!!
2- Polygamy, and malakat yameen (your right hands), so U will never haveprostitution problem or cheating problem
3- Divorce delibretly:
4- If u divorced your wife 3 times, u will need another man to marry her, and have a complete sexual relation wih him before she returns back, amazing solution isnt it ?!
5- Breast feeding of Adults !! WOW!
imagine your maother, or any of your family doing this to colleagues , aint that cool ?!
6- Intercourse during menstruation: though it is not allowed according to quran, but thanks to hadith (Saying of Allha's Prophet) which guide muslims how to perfectly do it during this critical period, without violating God's Laws , intersting right ?!
7- Let met tell you what they hide it when they translated the Quran, the P.. word meaning Vagina, was mentioned in quran many several times in arabic, in its unacceptable term !!! also the a word a bit or less similar to F word was mentioned in the arabic quran , but sometimes used as marriage ... See how moral you Quran is.
8- Nevertheless, you prophet and his companion, used the most vulgar words , like F word, also told some one Go Suck on your mothers Clit !!! all of these in Sahih hadiths !!! ... learn from your prophet Sir
9- You are complaining about premarital sex here , right ?!! dont u know that this is your Job in heaven ?!! u will have 70 virgins in heaven , and your Allah, will do Hymenorraphy for them as maitenance !!! is this Allah job in heaven !! amzaing ?!!
10- You prophet was seen nude more than one time
11- Some people saw you prophet peein while sitting like women!!
12- peopel saw you prophet pooping in his house, which is not supposed to, as there used to be a place outside for that !!
13- see this sunna, which you showed follow to be rewarded for: Muhammed, used 3 stones ( or odd number) to clean his butt hole after pooping !!! isnt that too much useless infromation in your books ?!!
14- Drinking the prophets urine, camel urine !!
15- your prophet cleaned himself from the same well where women dispose mensis .. aw!
16- Homosexaul will be found in islamic paradise according to muslim scholars (al weldan el mokhaladoon) if it is not allowed now
17- there is complete details of what to do after peeing, pooping, and even fartin in your Sunna and Hadith . pretty muc like a user manual Catalogue , with a troubleshoot manual !!
18- Your Prophet is allowed to marry anyone who devoted herslef to him. This doesnt hurt your morals, like premarital sex ?!! so if any of your family, say your mother , left your father to devote her life to your prophet, do u know what they gonna do ?!! not praying, nor fasting .... Your Quran Say it ( NEKAH = which I consider bad word)
19- You islam teaches that every P (vagina) has the names of its user F ( i am trying to avoid using the bad words used in your islam as I cant) written on it ... so this thing that you might need to read before u use :D
20- Muhammed used to Suck Fatma's tonge and put his head between her breasts !!
21- you prophet had sex with all nine wives in one night, with one shower
22- Aisha said to men believer, that no-one of you control his penis as Allah messenger's ... i wonder how did she know when she said that, I though she was virgin when married Muhammed
23- When Aisha was accused o adultery, Muhammed waited 40 days waiting for a revelation .. of course he was afraid that she might get pregnant
24- Muhammed commited Adultery with women who werent form his wives, that why , Allah after this allowed all women!!
25- Muhamed had a homosexual experince with Zaher
26- Muhammed used to shave all his body hair even pubic using sugar !!
27- women are allowed to have male slavery ( Melook yameen) according to quranic verses, but unfortuantely commentaries didnt allow sex, dont know why ?!
28- Marriage in islam is so many differnt types. One of them is called fun marriage, which is just to have sex!! and also Travel marriage, that what u do when u are abroad !!
29- Prophet muhammed also teaches us chastity his way, he said, if u see a woman and get tempted, go have sex with your wife to relieve your tensions !!
30- masturbation is allowed in islam , but within limits ... but they didnt mentioned the limit, hope u will tell us if you know ?!
There are much much more than that,...
So you dont like Pre-marital sex , so do I . But why dont you follow christian teaching easier, than going to this complete lust after Muhamed Sexual teaching ?!!!
(By the way, all what is mentioned above are Mentiond in your books, probably u didnt have chance ccause they are in arabic. And let me tell you that these are also direct, without any misinterpretaion nor mutilating the text as you guys do)
So have fun, and enjoy life and heaven in ISLAM
Why did Shadid Lewis mention Bill Cosby?
I guess I don't understand why Mr Lewis thinks that all churches are like that. Does he really believe that all churches neglect scripture about fornication, or does he not know what the bible says about fornication at all.
Also, does he think that all young people have to be threatened with death by stoning to make them chaste, like Islam teaches? Because I was a virgin before I married, and I expect the same for my grandchildren. But I wasn't a member of a church that would have stoned me to death if I would have acted immorally.
I hope I don't end up struggling to respect Mr. Lewis, because so far (and I am half-way through) I still do.
But I have been alive a long time. No, I wasn't alive during the civil-war, but a whole lot of white men gave up their lives and the lives of their sons to end slavery, because of their Chrisian faith.
I was alive during the "second civil war, when whites came to the south to help with the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King. And many of them did it because of their Christian faith.
My mother, a bible-thumper with the best of them, read all of Martin Luther Kings sermons, and fought quietly, sweetly and respectfully for equal treatment of blacks. Her black friends from work came to her home, when that wasn't done so much, and it was godly women like her, who quietly lead communities to think rightly.
Before her, my grandfather who owned a grocery store, offered, service, respect and even during the depression years, credit to struggling blacks.
I have lived through busing in the 70's and affirmative action of the 80s. I voted for a black president; something that was unforseeable when I was a girl.
Slavery is gone in this so-called honkey-white "christian' nation, but just today there was a news article about a couple in Saudi Arabia who took a servant girl, denied her her wages, and hammered pins and nails into her body before sending her back to Sri Lanka.
I hope that Mr. Lewis is willing to step off of his little cross, anytime soon now, because this whiney blame-game,-- which includes, apparently, "white christian religion causing young black males to impregnate young black church-going females before marriage," is getting more than a little old.
I hope that Mr Lewis can come up with something somewhat fresher than this tired, worn-out racist card.
Xiphone said: "Nabeel qureshi was never a muslim, he was Ahmadiya. They are considered non muslims by all of the other 99.99% of us. "
Islam is getting about just as denominational as Christendom! And I remember the day, when our many denominations was a reason that Muslims gave to not believe the gospel.
Just for the record, I probably would get just as sleepy and bored with that information, as you would if I explained to you the difference between my faith and the Baptists.
When I was in university, I was told by an Arab Muslim woman, from Quatar, that God made blacks ugly, so that they could be humble.
Now that is just what she said. I am sorry if you want to deny that that is taught, but this fully clothed (hajib and gown) school friend told this to me.
And I didn't know that much about Islam back then. I have studied more since, but back then, she w-a-s my Hadith. I didn't know anything about Islam except what she told me, and let me just say this--That little piece of arrogance just about took my breath away.
I told her right then and there that I didn't consider blacks ugly and besides I had a friend from high-school who was this tiny, curvy little "pocket-goddess," and black.
So you can deny whatever you want. Someone told her that. Somebody from back home in good ole' Quatar, and it probably wasn't a blue-eyed white woman. And in any case, when Muslims come over here and tell us these things ...Sorrrrrry, but it is their word against yours and they abbrogate you.
Shalom: " the disparity in AIDS rates in Africa between Muslims and Christians might be attributed to circumcision"
I don't really see how. The HIV virus invades the T Lymphocyte cell (CD4) and uses it to replicate. I don't know if it could live that long outside of the bloodstream, in between the folds of the foreskin, if that is what you are getting at.
As far as the other part, I want to see the Stats. There are a number of crazy religions in Africa, and I want to know exactly who is catching what if it is going to be argued that sleezy Christian sluts are the ones getting infected with HIV. But it is a hetrosexual dx in Africa. There is no argument about that.
With regards to Shadid's comments about Christianity doing nothing for black people, and the HIV problem not being addressed by Christianity, he may want to consider that Christian Aid and other Christian charities have worked very hard in Africa to tackle African problems such as poverty and disease.
He might also consider that Christian charities in general are there to help absolutely everyone (unless they are, for example, Christian rights advocacy groups such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide).
This article talks about Islamic Relief's 2007 financial report, and it's abundantly clear who their priorities lie with:
Islamic Relief are one of the biggest Islamic aid groups in the world. Which Africans actually benefit from them? Almost exclusively the Muslim ones, that's who.
With regard to his assertion that Christianity does no good on a moral and social level in Africa, this atheist disagrees with you:
Christianity dignifies every human being - there is no slave or free, Jew or gentile, male or female in Christ.
Until 1962, it was still legal for Muslims in Saudi Arabia to have slaves, who were often black. Even now the treatment of domestic staff in the Muslim world is abominable.
Also, Shahid stated that HIV infection rates 'are highest incountries where Protestant and non-Catholic denominations predominate'. Could it be because in Muslim-dominated African countries, if you have sex outside of marrige a barrage of stones will kill you before AIDS does? Which is preferable? Just a thought.
Moreover, if Shadid had bothered to look beyond his own male, black cultural experience in the USA, he would have seen all the ways Islam degrades Jews, women, and non-Muslims, yet he chose nothing but the personal and circumstantial.
Let's go through the Bible verses which Shadid used to refute the divinity of my God and Savior Jesus Christ:
1. John 17:3
2. John 14:28
3. 1 Corinthians 8:6
4. 1 Timothy 2:5
(Btw, John 17:3 and John 14:28 are the most COMMONLY used verses by Muslims to refute Jesus' deity.)
1. Shadid ripped the verse out of context. He should have read it in light of verses 1-5:
After Jesus said these things, he looked toward heaven and prayed, "Father, the time has come. Give glory to your Son so that the Son can give glory to you. You gave the Son power over all people so that the Son could give eternal life to all those you gave him. And this is eternal life: that people know you, the only true God, and that they know Jesus Christ, the One you sent. Having finished the work you gave me to do, I brought you glory on earth. And now, Father, give me glory with you; give me the glory I had with you before the world was made.
So what is Jesus saying here?
i. He is God's Son (v. 2).
ii. He gives eternal life to all that God gives him. This shows that he is God Almighty since only God can give eternal life (v. 2).
iii. He existed in glory with the Father even before the world (v. 5).
iv. He demands to receive glory and be glorified alongside the Father. No creature can make such a demand (vv. 2, 5).
So that disproves John 17:3 saying that Jesus wasn't God.
2. Shadid Lewis misunderstands John 14:28. Our Lord wasn't saying that the Father was greater in nature, but in position. And go down to the next verse, our Savior is saying he can answer the prayers of his followers (John 14:29)
3. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is another verse. (James White talked about this a bit, but I'll reiterate for everyone else.)
Shadid quoted only part of the verse: yet for us there is but one God, the Father,
He didn't quote the whole verse, let alone the context:
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
This is reflective of the Jewish Shema:
"Hear O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord."
Here it is saying that God is our Lord. Hence since Paul is saying that Jesus is Lord, that means Paul is saying Jesus is God (Kyrios is used for Jesus in the same way that it's used for Yahweh in the Old Testament.).
4. Paul is showing that since Christ is man he can stand on our behalf and represent us before the Father. Yet as God he comes down to our fallen level to redeem us in order that we may come to know God personally and intimately, just like he does in Philippians 2:3-11.
5. When Jesus (God the Son) was talking about "My God" in John 20:17, he was talking about God the Father.
If I could prove those points to Shadid, there would be nothing left to the religious side of his argument (namely the one where the Quran says that Jesus Christ wasn't God and the Bible proves that point).
Now let's go to what Shadid said about Matthew 15:26-28
Jesus was using common Jewish metaphors to illustrate an unbeliever's or pagan's total depravity. (Cf. Proverbs 26:1; 2 Peter 2:22; Rev. 22:14) The crowds would have understood that Jesus was obviously using metaphorical language, and was not literally calling someone a dog or swine.
Christ was trying to illustrate a key point to his disciples. According to first century Jewish thought both Gentiles and women were held in low esteem. Jews regarded themselves as the children of God, whereas Gentiles were nothing more than house pets.
(The word dog in Greek literally means puppy. What my Savior was implying is that even Gentiles have a place prepared for them in the kingdom of God, like a puppy had a place in the master's house.)
Christ was trying to move his Jewish disciples, who had tried earlier to get rid of the Canaanite woman, to envy by the woman's persistence and display of great faith; a faith exemplified by someone who to them was nothing more than a house pet. In similar fashion, Jesus had used a Roman Centurion's faith in contrast to the Israelites' lack of faith(Matthew 8:5-12). Hence, Jesus was using Gentiles as examples for Israel to emulate, not look down upon.
"Yet another Muslim that wants to justify throwing out their best historians".
This comment is what makes Wood, Qureshi, White, Shamoun and other Christian debaters lose from the start. Why? Watch this? If you ask them what makes them the best of scholars and historians of Islam, the answer is "because they are the earliest of sources". Such logic is completely absurd. Does early mean "fact" in any dictionary? No. Does early mean "reliable" in any dictionary? No. So concluding that they are the best scholars of Islam based on such logic is clearly an example of one's inability to comprehend simple basic English or one desperately using flawed logic to convince others. Tell us Christians, which is it?
Since early seems to mean "more reliable" or "factual" (despite every dictionary on the planet stating otherwise), then according to your logic, as well as the Christian debaters, it must be a fact you are mentally challenged, or that you don't wash. Now of course you would disagree and post differently but according to your logic, it wouldn't be true or reliable. Why? Because my comments came "earlier". My post stating that you are mentally challenged and don't wash is earlier than any comment which would state or refute otherwise. And as your logic goes, the earliest is the most reliable right? Right. Then your own logic agrees that you neither wash and are mentally challenged. Again, I don't say you are, your logic does.
That being said, your own logic shows that the Christian arguments are flawed because according to your logic, you're mentally challenged and as such, can not be credible for stating factual evidence.
This is what I would like Muslims to expose more when debating the likes of Wood and others like him. You have to fully expose the absurdity in their logic that "early" means more reliable or factual. I sincerely urge my brothers and sisters to do this, as it will bring more clearly how flawed the Christian arguments are and cripples the "shock factor" they try to use when quoting unreliable sources.
BTW, Brother Shadid Lewis did an excellent job. Practically superb. I hope though that in the future you can focus more on just how ridiculous their logic is when claiming that something is factual or more reliable just because it came earlier, like I demonstrated above, insha'Allah.
If the Western method of research seems irrational to you, it must be that the universities you are familiar with are not Westernized.
In my English 105 class during my freshman year of school, I learned that my best documentation was the primary source. After that, I looked to authors who were witnesses of the subject, and finally to people who had interviewed witnesses.
In other words, the Western method of research presumes that the primary sources aren't liars, unless it has been proven that they are liars by the people who knew them. They must have a reason to lie. And they are assumed truthful until found otherwise.
The further away a historian is from the actual event, the more apt he is to confuse facts. It is the same way in our American court systems.
"Hearsay" evidence is dismissed.
If you happen to believe that your primary sources of Islam were a passel of liars, then you should by all means, admit to that, in the interest of truth-seeking.
If the Middle-Eastern scholars aren't thinking this way, then it is their scholars and universities which lack reason, not mine. I could not care less about what kind of scholars the Middle East is putting out.
American and European schools are creating scientists and historians daily, who are exporing and designing the earth so that people can live healthier, more productive lives.
Muslims come to my country because my country has something better to offer them. If Islamic scientists can fix the problems of the Middle-East, they should. If they can't fix the problems of their nation, then they should wonder why. And my hypothesis is, is that these Islamic schools of higher learning aren't teaching students to think!
It is from our schools that computers were invented, space was and is explored, and wealth and manufacturing is created. I hardly intend to change the way we use scholarship, because Muslims don't like it.
He keeps saying from Colosians that the fullness of God was in him. True it says that but, he fails to understand an not well brought out is that Jesus did not use his fullness or divinity as the Son. But rather depended on the Father for everything. He was not using his ability to know everything, be everywhere, etc as God on earth. Why can't they understand this?
As well when Jesus returned to the Father his fullness was restored or picked up again because he was glorified. Some how the debates fail to get this thought over..
Matthew 15:24. on this story from Matthew 15:21-28, what Jesus actually do here, is giving the Jews an (his disciples, or any other Jews that were following him) an examples of how faith should be. For some one non Jews, it could be an insult when they called them a dog, but not the case with this woman,she still have faith to the one she believed could help.And Jesus did help. in other hand, I believe, Jesus wanted to show them, look at this woman, she's not Jew, someone who u all always accused as unbeliever, a second class human, doesn't have faith in God, in fact she has bigger faith than you all have. so no words cant take her faith out of her, even the words come from Jesus mouth,why? coz apparently this woman "knows" Jesus's nature better than any other Jews. That's my interpretation.
I find it interesting that Shadid sees Christianity as white supremacism, although the religion started in the middle east and the New Testament says "There is no male nor female, Jew nor Gentile neither free nor slave". Any racial supremacism is repudiated by scripture but we all fall into this because we are human beings (No excuse of course).
I have heard him ranting in the Answering Christianity room and saying "YOU CHRISTIANS GAVE US A FALSE CHRIST, YOU GAVE THE TRINITY, YOU GAVE A WHITE JESUS".
1. The Trinity can be backed up from scripture even though the word Trinity is not used. Even with the references I GAVE TO SHADID, he disregards them as "weak" arguments. In fact the Acts 2:22 argument he brought to me was shallow, considering the fact THE SAME BOOK CALLED JESUS THE AUTHOR OF LIFE.
2. I don't think I have ever drawn Jesus as a white man or black man, I have drawn him as a semite with black hair and dark skin. Why blame the WHOLE Church for what some did in the past?
3. No Trinitarian denies Jesus is a man, Jesus is GOD AND MAN.
Just thought I mention this, thanks for reading.
To Javier, Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the use of the tradition, what it does is subordinate tradition to scripture. Solo Scriptura DOES deny the use of tradition. I just thought I ought to correct you on the meaning of the Sola Scriptura.
It's funny in this debate because Shadid mentioned Colossians 2:9 debunking what John 14:28 actually means, LOL. Colossians shows the Deity of Christ as does John 14 in context.
What is most plainly obvious is that all societies have problems and issues. Legalistic societies, be they religious like Islamic countries or atheist like The Soviet Union were very good and perfect on the outside but all they only pushed the corruption underground. Jesus called the religious people of his day whitewashed tombs, clean outside, rotten within. Laws don't change hearts and only God can do that! that is what Jesus showed on the servant on the mount, although it was not all from the Law of Moses which he spoke about.
Anyway, in the debate, Mr Lewis insinuates that Jesus is being a racist with the Caananite women. Did he not see that Jesus is testing her faith? Is not the Qur'an being prejudice too when it says in Sura 98:6 that Christians and Jews, who do not convert to Islam are the worst of all creatures and Muslims are the best of creatures?
I noticed in another debate, Adolf Hitler is mentioned. Hitler embarked on a properganda campaign to make Jews especially look less than human. The result was the Germans and their allies found it very easy to murder millions including children and babies because after a while they seemed less than human. and Hitler was not a Christian, before anyone says he was.
But in a legalistic system where people are indoctrinated to believe that an ethnic group, or followers of another religion are the worst of all creatures, then it becomes very easy to at best, turn a blind eye to acts of injustice and abuse.
OMG! This conversttion is intresing. I read it clearly, while i say istighfar. I need ahmad deedad or zakir naik in this forum. So i'll say alhamdulillah and feel calm
What about Bible evidence that Christ did not die on the Cross? BTW who is disagreeing to be closer to the source, Let me remind everyone Source is Abraham that's where covanent was. Christ attempted nothing more than reverting the changes made back to Faith. Faith is the key to unlock the Biblical and Quranic underscore meanings. Nabeel chose to join the lost sheep well at least he made a conscious choice.
"What about Bible evidence that Christ did not die on the Cross?"
LOL! Jesus repeatedly says that he's going to Jerusalem to be crucified, and the Gospels repeatedly say that he died by crucifixion. Only someone with no concern for truth or reality would ever read this and say, "What great evidence that he didn't die on the cross!"
I was an athiest. About 35 years ago while reading a translation of the Qur'an it opened my mind to start believing in God. Then I studied Islamic theology and I am so glad that I believe in the UNSEEN One God , that He is not anything that He resembles His own creation. This is a very sublime doctrine and the truth. This is the ultimate beauty of Islam. It teaches humans to exercise his or her true intellect and realise the Creator is One. It is then a spiritual joy and a blessful journey till the end of one's life.
The belief in the absolute Oneness of God is the true SALVATION. Trinity or the belief in a triune God is tantamount to torturing one's soul that should seek to free oneself from falling into the snares of just any form polytheism. Trinity is not salvation. It is a blasphemy. So is the doctrine that says God is a man or a man is God.
The Old Testament Bible says .....
""God is not a man , that He should be deceitful , nor a son of man that he should relent..." [Numbers 23:19]
And the Qur'an says ...
"Nothing is liketh unto Him ..... " [Qur'an 42:11]
Referring to this man (Nabeel Qureishi) ' s testimony :
He is from the beginning a heretic and a blasphemer ( not a Muslim in the true sense ). That's why he is very much at home with Christianity.
The Old Testament Bible says :
" I am the first and the last , and there is no God besides ME" [Isaiah 44:8]
The personal pronoun ME means that God declares that Trinity is a blasphemy.
The Qur'an says :
" Your God is One God " [ Qur'an 2:163 ]
As simple as that ....
Shadid is reflecting normal emotional pain from the many injustices he witnessed. Injustice breeds many negative emotions such as bitterness, resentment, anger, vengefulness, and hatred. These emotions eat away at the heart and steals your peace and joy. Christ came to teach that it is the state of the heart that God is concerned about not the outwardly practise of righteous behaviour. The religious leaders at Christ time appeared righteous before all people, but their hearts were full of deceit, hypocrisy, envy, pride & self righteousness. Jesus condemned them by saying they outwardly appear righteous but inside are like dead mans bones & white washed tombs. Now Shadid said we don't need preaching about love and Christ's sacrifice for our sin but rather a moral code to live by. That is exactly what separates Christianity from Islam. In Christianity, Christ taught that unless your actions are performed out of love then no adherence to any commandments will be genuine. Eg the law of thou shall not commit adultery, or steal, or lie etc must be obeyed out of love for your fellow man and love for God. In Islam these commandments are to be obeyed out of fear of God's punishment rather than out of love for each other or God. In this way Muslims would not be motivated to follow God's law if the threat of eternal punishment were removed. God in the Bible wants us to follow Him out of love; But before He could demand love from us He needed to display that love to us first. The first sign of His love to mankind was His creation. He made all things beautiful for us. But God wanted us to know Him personally and to express His love in a more personal way. So as a King, He left His heavenly throne to come and live amongst us as one of us so that mankind may know that God is not a far off God but one who wants to be accessible and approachable to all as a Father who cares for His children. But God still wanted to express the magnitude of His love to us to the utmost degree. He did this by dying on the cross to purchase our freedom from the punishment of sin. In this way God set the ultimate example of love as the bible says, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jn 15:13. So you see God wants our hearts not our adherence to religious laws. Christians who have tasted the magnitude of Gods love for mankind even in their sinful, fallen state cannot help but adore and worship Him and want to earnestly obey & please Him in every way. Sincere Christians are motivated to obey God out of love for the One who loved us unconditionally even while we were so sinful and unworthy. So when Jesus came preaching about loving your enemies and forgiving one another, He showed us by example and through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit, we begin a personal loving walk with God as He teaches and empowers us to follow & obey Him while changing our heart from the inside out and healing all the bitterness, resentment, hurt, pain, anger, pride & hatred and replacing it with love, kindness, forgiveness, peace and joy. So you see my Muslim brothers & sisters God doesn't want an external adherence to laws; He wants your heart and only He can change us from the inside so that we can better reflect His love in our day to day lives. This is the fulfilment of God's law.
Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3901:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) on migration; he (the Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).
Listening to Shadid's opening and closing StatementS very carefully I find out hid eason for leaving Christianity to Islam was not truly a religious reason or belief reason but rather it had to do with his supposed racism card He did not show a passion or love towards Islam in itself but rather his passion was through anger, as I see, it because of his past and present life as an American citizen being born as a Latino/African person. As Shadid professes Is Landon to be his religion I am quite surprised to hear and see him pull out the racist card both socially and religiously May our Father in heaven bless and keep him.
As regards versions of the Koran you may be interested in the following.
The Sana'a palimpsest, dubbed Ṣanʿā’ 1, is one of the oldest Qur'anic manuscripts in existence. It was found, along with many other Qur'anic and non-Qur'anic fragments, in Yemen in 1972 during restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a.
Many old parchments had older writings underneath
The lower text of the Sana'a palimpsest frequently differs from the standard text of the Qur'an, although only "a small fraction of the variants do make a difference in meaning."
This demolishes the argument about variants in the Bible writings meaning it cant be from God because Koran also has slight variations.
Her is the paper on it:
You bring up very good points on the role of evidence vs emotions when it concerns conversion from one faith to the other.
I wonder what it was about playing the saxophone that Shadid found so unacceptable for a pastor to do?
I bet he was seeking a religion with a strong patriarchal and warrior theme rather than a hippie, love and forgiveness theme.
You'd be surprised how much this kind of outlook is appealing especially to young men.
Logical defense and rationalisations of your faith only come after the fact.
We at Learn Quran USA provide you and your kids with a great opportunity to Learn Quran Online with Tajweed at home conveniently. Book Your Free Trials Now.
online quran classes for beginners
learn quran with tajweed
online quran academy
online quran learning for kids
Post a Comment