Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Debate Announcement

September 20th, 2008--Bellflower, California
***10:00 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Was Jesus Crucified or Substituted?"

***2:00 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.***
Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood
"Can We Trust the Qur'an?"

***6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Can We Trust the New Testament?"

September 21st, 2008--Escondido, California
***2:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.***
James White vs. Farhan Qureshi
"Did Jesus Claim to Be God?"

***6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.***
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood
"Is Muhammad a True Prophet?"

For more information, contact Ministry to Muslims.


Dk said...

LOL, how unfair to put Osama Abdallah in the ring with James White! Assuming this is the same "Osama Abdallah" who runs "".

Is James White purposely trying to find and debate the worse Islamic Apologists out there? Nadir and now Osama? yikes!

Jay44 said...

Hi dk (from Paltalk??)

I agree somewhat. These aren't exactly the best representatives out there. Then again, the arguments that they use seem consistent with the usual nonsense we see from the likes of Dr. Zakir Naik and his ilk.

The debate topic is more disturbing though. I mean they are going to be debating whether Jesus was on the cross or not. This has long been demonstrated as a fact of the historical Jesus and is overwhelmingly accepted as such by the scholarly community. Debating this gives credibility to the other side that they absolutely don't deserve.

BlackBaron said...

Dr. White always says that he strives to debate the best out there, but with regards to Islam, he has said that he also wants to debate opponents who use the same arguments being used by the Muslim street.

Dk said...

Hey JR4 yes Dk from Pal here. I added you as a friend on youtube, nice channel btw.

I agree with your point on finding an Islamic apologst of high calibre, infact this is virtually impossible.

I would say that Zakir Naik is perhaps a slightly more sophisticated version of Deedat, and Osama is perhaps a slightly less sophisticated version of Deedat although with the exact same arguments in general.

However the calibre I recommend would not be these morons or anyone parroting Deedat, just read Answering Christianity and contrast it with the high calibre of Islamic Awareness for example.

As to whether debating a topic gives both positions a certain amount of credibility already to begin with, does that mean your buddy William Lane Craig was giving a certain amount of credibility to Shabir when he argued Jesus survived the crucifixion? or does this mean Craig is giving some credibility to naturalism since he debated a few atheists?

Should we give the time of day to those with the most irrational and absurd beliefs? I would say so to begin with, then if it turns out like "Nadir" it would be futile to continue, Osama is in just the same position, all one has to read is his website to find out why and listen to his debate with Shamoun and study his general behaviour .

David Wood said...

I think there are three fairly good reasons for debating Muslims who aren't scholars. First, their arguments are more typical of the average Muslim in the street. Shabir's appeals to textual critics, etc., bears little resemblance to most of the nonsense I hear from Muslims. Hence, it's good to find Muslims that will use the more common arguments, so that the more common arguments may be refuted.

Second, Islam's top debaters absolutely refuse to take on Islamic topics. They are all too happy to debate the Deity of Christ or the Inspiration of the New Testament, but they won't touch the Prophethood of Muhammad with a fifty foot pole. Thus, the only way to debate Islamic topics is to go to people who are willing to debate them. I'm hoping that Muslims will pressure people like Shabir into taking on some of these topics, but in the meantime, we have to go to others for debate.

Third, whether we like it or not, people like Nadir Ahmed do have some supporters, though Nadir's supporters have significantly diminished since his debates with Sam Shamoun and James White. But that's just the point. Putting these Muslims in a debate against a knowledgeable Christian exposes how weak and silly the Muslim arguments are.

To sum up, I believe that the best Christian debaters should certainly debate the best Muslim debaters. But at the same time, I think it's good to take on practically any Muslim apologist who's willing to step into the ring (especially in America, where Muslim apologists are in short supply).

Elisha Kai said...

All I can say brothers is:

Give them double

Your a doing a good job