Sunday, April 19, 2009

Was Jesus Crucified --
Ehteshaam Gulam vs. David Wood

I will be trying to post a camcorder version of the debate here within the next 24 hours, but in the meantime I'll go ahead and give my sentiments. I wont provide the details of the debate; Locrian has provided them on the previous post with his review.

I'd like to start off by saying that I like Ehteshaam. He seems to be a sincere young man who is defending Islam from a true desire to honor God. Kind of like me a few years ago. The problem he seems to be having is the same problem I had: trying to defend Islam forces you to espouse horrid arguments, logically fallacious conclusions, and turn to poor scholarship.

For example, Gulam has two strong influences: Richard Carrier and Nadir Ahmed. I'm not saying this as a slight, this is what Gulam has admitted and it's apparent in his arguments. Because of these influences, his arguments suffered tremendously. Carrier advances the idea that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection as opposed to a bodily resurrection, and this fallacious understanding permeated Gulam's position like a cancer. Even when David provided direct quotations from Paul to the contrary (e.g Romans 8:11), Gulam would not attempt to respond to David, preferring to instead reiterate his point. He ended up reiterating this exact point, without addressing David's response, at least 4 times.

This is where a debater can lose serious points with the audience. If he does not engage his opponent's argument, but simply repeats himself again and again, it does a few things:
1 - It makes him appear like he doesn't understand the argument
2 - It makes him look insincere
3 - It strongly implies that his argument is weak
4 - It gives the impression that the argument is being made from an emotional basis, or some other non-intellectual grounding

Other than this flaw, it appeared that Gulam simply wasn't aware of what David was going to say. A debater should really attempt to read his opponent's work, especially if it's as easily accessible as website blog posts. This was Gulam's first debate, so this faux pas is understandable. I look forward to seeing him improve in this regard before his next debate.

Overall, I think David won this debate handily, but this is hardly a surprise considering the topic. In addition, I think Ehteshaam should reconsider writing his book for now - I think he saw today that he needs to do more research and he has a lot to learn before becoming an expert. I pray that God will work in his heart, leading him to consistently applied criteria with Islam and Christianity. I also pray that he will be honest in his investigations, allowing Christianity to defend itself before closing himself off to it.

That's all I got for now. I'll try to post the debate soon. Cheers,
-Nabeel



Opening Statements





Rebuttals and Crossfire





Conclusions and Questions


97 comments:

Semper Paratus said...

Nabeel,

Thanks for the update.

I am a little curious what the focus on a "spiritual resurrection" had to do with the question whether Jesus died by crucifixion. To say that Jesus rose spiritually presupposes at the very least that he died. And so, though one might argue that he didn't die by crucifixion, this does at least nail down the fact of his death, something many Muslims deny to begin with. In any event, even though it doesn't tell us that Jesus died by crucifixion, it doesn't tell us anything about how he did die either, so I just don't get the relevance.

I am sure I am just missing something and so will wait to watch the debate to see how it factors in, unless of course someone who already knows can tell me the answer. I'm sure I will smack my forehead as soon as I find out.

Bryant said...

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what his argument would amount to. Since most Muslims (minus Shabir) believes that Christ was not even crucified. How does arguing that the resurrection is spiritual harmonize with Islamic beliefs when you don't believe he was put on the cross in the first place?

Maybe I'd have to be there to get his point.

David Wood said...

Someone during the Q&A asked about this as well. I think the idea was this: (1) Jesus' appearances to the disciples were physical; (2) the early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection; (3) thus, Jesus' physical appearances show that He hadn't risen from the dead; rather, he survived crucifixion; (4) hence, belief in Jesus' resurrection was a later corruption.

This is about as much sense as I can make of it.

ehteshaam said...

Thank You Nabeel, it was nice knowing you and David yesterday. Anyways I posted a review to the debate on my site:

http://answering-christian-claims.com/review_of_debat.html

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ehteshaam --

I just checked out your review. It doesn't look like a review at all. A review is when you review the debate in its entirety, not just restate things you felt were not adequately addressed.

Anyhow, I hope you keep coming back to this blog site. This way you will be able to interact with everyone here. I think that will provide for good dialogue.

God bless you, my friend. It was good meeting you today. Sincerely,
-Nabeel

Nakdimon said...

Someone during the Q&A asked about this as well. I think the idea was this: (1) Jesus' appearances to the disciples were physical; (2) the early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection; (3) thus, Jesus' physical appearances show that He hadn't risen from the dead; rather, he survived crucifixion; (4) hence, belief in Jesus' resurrection was a later corruption.What I always find amazing is how one can argue for a spiritual resurrection, when there is no death to begin with. There can only be a SPIRITUAL resurrection if there is a SPIRITUAL death. You can’t have a BODILY death and a SPIRITUAL resurrection! If Muslims want to claim that Yeshua was a spiritually dead prophet, then they have a real problem in their theology. How can a spiritually dead prophet be a true prophet of the Living God of spirits?

And there is no such thing as a spiritual resurrection in Judaism! Since, in Judaism, it is understood that the BODY dies but the SPIRIT doesn’t. So since the body died, there can only be a bodily resurrection, not a spiritual one. So to say that the disciples believed in a spiritual resurrection requires the proof and documentation from Jewish sources by the Muslim and mr Carrier for that matter. I know of no such teaching in Judaism.

How many times do we have to explain to Muslims that with the term “spiritual BODY”, Paul means that the BODY that we will have in our resurrection will have all the strengths, the perks, of the spirit and will not have all the weaknesses of the flesh our bodies have now. It stands to reason that Paul meant this because a “SPIRIT” has no tangible “BODY”.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Why does a muslim argue that Jesus rose spiritually if he did not die in the first place.

Secondly 1 Corinthians 15 does nowhere speak of spiritual resurrection, it refers to Jesus' tomb and his risen state, how closer can you get.

This whole idea of reading spiritual resurrection into 1 Corinthians 15 is a modern critical attempt by Carrier, Ludemann and others.

However, this is conjecture to the very extreme through the means of eisegesis being read into the passage.

They otherwise base their presumption on the Jewish mindset which they presume only believed in spiritual resurrection hence the event was purely spiritual.

A number of problems nevertheless emerge here, the Jews did not believe in spiritual resurrection, they believed in a intermediate state, where the spirit remained until judgement, in fact inter-testamental text make much more referrence to physical resurrection than what appears to be spiritual, and which is the intermediate place anyway, not resurrection.

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus refers to both the intermediate place in the story of Lazarus and the rich man and resurrection on another occasion (Luke 14).

Secondly, even if the Jews did believe that resurrection was spiritual why should that render the resurrection of Jesus spiritual? Particularly since the New Testament provides such an explicit explanation.

The critics tend to confuse the matter since the resurrection of Jesus much like the future resurrection of believers is a transformation, rather than a resurrection similar to that of the physical resurrections we see in the Gospels, such as that of Lazarus and the twelve year old girl.

Jesus resurrection was surely physical since the body was included in the process, yet the body was transformed into something very different.
This new state was certainly physical yet it had the ability to enter through closed doors. Hence when Christians refer to Jesus' resurrection it was not simply the same old body in the same state, but a transformation into something slightly different.

I guess muslims need to get a whole more inconsistency into their arguments. So far muslim apologetics smell a long way of utter confusion, contradictions and inconsistency.

Certainly Allah did not bless this attempt of Ehteshaam, was it because Ehteshaam does not present the truth, or because Ehteshaam's attempt was inconsistent.

Fernando said...

Hogan saide:

«The critics tend to confuse the matter since the resurrection of Jesus much like the future resurrection of believers is a transformation, rather than a resurrection similar to that of the physical resurrections we see in the Gospels, such as that of Lazarus and the twelve year old girl.

Jesus resurrection was surely physical since the body was included in the process, yet the body was transformed into something very different.»
That's precisely thate! A really goode sinthesis of the truth... how difficult can it be to grapp it? How far from the truth can a muslim be not to want to see this?

Never the less, glad to see Doctor Ehteshaam in this blogg... I hope for some solid and interesting common search of the truth...

Tony said...

Jesus taught He would die and rise again. Christianity only exists because the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ really happened.

IslamSINS said...

I knew, going to this debate, that I would hear nothing new, nothing persuasive supporting the Muslim view of Jesus' death on the Cross.

When a Muslim - any Muslim - engages his brain, he apostatizes. When one clings to Islam "blindly", the same moldy defenses are usually presented.

I'd be interested in Mr. Gulam's interpretation of Sura 3.144 (along with ibn Abbas tafsir), and tell us who are the preceding messengers who "died". Christ is not exempted from this broad statement, but I'm sure "Allah" has provided an escape hatch so none of his slaves need to fear being pinned to the mat.

I found it a bit surprising - this was my first live debate - that Muslims didn't come out to support this man. Regardless of his inexperience, is he not defending Islam, the superior religion which has the mandate to subdue the entire planet for "Allah"? If they're not interested in one of their representatives, can I assume that they, too, are bored and embarrassed over the intellectual dishonesty that must be relied on to "believe Muhammad blindly"? Shame on Dearborn and Hamtramck for shunning this debate. Is this how you support a "brother"?

At this point, Mr. Gulam is not an apologist, so I hope he lays his pen (or qwerty) down before writing his book (with a very deceptive title, I might add). Saying you're a "debater" doesn't make it so. Same as saying you're a "messenger", when you and your god can't seem to present a choherent thought.

Mr. Gulan needs to hone his skills with a friend (please don't use the moron, Nadir Ahmed), who will be willing to take the Christian position and rehearse him through his wobbly presentation. He also needs to study debate structure so his next effort doesn't make him look as if he was snatched from the street, caught off guard.

This wasn't a debate. It was an intellectual beheading, and while David's "sword" was sharp and swift, it was still painful for me to sit through Mr. Gulan's recovery attempts. I fought the urge all evening to hop on the dais, shove Mr. Gulan from the mic, and parrot the most eloquent Muslim apologists that I've heard. But, I won't aid and abet the enemies of my Lord and God, Christ Jesus.

Ibn said...

Does anyone know when Wood's debate with Yahya, and White's debate with Shabir Ally(the UK one) will be available?

Ibn said...

SINS:When a Muslim - any Muslim - engages his brain, he apostatizes.

Actually, it was because I engaged my brain that I came to believe in Islam as the only true religion. Believe it or not, the one who set the stage for my intellectual journey was Sam Shamoun.

SINS:But, I won't aid and abet the enemies of my Lord and God, Christ Jesus.

Lol! So much for loving the enemies! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Rafa-el_1 said...

I wrote a articel Concerning this topic btw..

It shows the inconsistency of the muslim position:

an interesting read and very short:

http://www.muhammadtube.net/index.php/quran-mainmenu-28/corruption-mainmenu-39/180-early-muslims-believed-in-the-death-of-the-messiah

Fernando said...

Hie Ibn... glade to see you back here...

are you stil wanting to putt your arguments on the Satanique Verses on the teste with Doctor Wood?

We are all waiting some unswers from you... never the less I guess someone may gibe you an answer to your out-off-the-thread question...

And here's another question for you, mie friend Ibn: do you agree with IslamSINS whenn he sais that «When a Muslim - any Muslim - engages his brain, he apostatizes»? We all would be enourmouslie glad to see an answer specially from you...

Ounce again: glade to see you back here...

Fernando said...

Ooops... Ibn... you answered me before I eben wrote mie post... it looks we all touched a twisting nerve in your heartt... how can itt bee? as someone said: “quidquid percipitur, percipitur secundum modum percipientis”...

Ounce again: glade too see you arounde... someone had to come around to denie the fact aboutt the greatt wall of silence...

Fernando said...

Just an amaizing sentence from Doctor Ehteshaam (nice shirt, bie the way... quite like Doctor Nadik: very fancie taste for clodes...): «there are 60 historians of the Roman empiere, but onli two christian sources refer the cruxifixion»... did I understood it right?

let's not mention the fact he mistured potatoes with tomatoes, but there are more thann 130 bizantine historians contemporary (or in 100 years tim periode) to the life of Muhammad that wrote about the arab poeninsula, but none off them spoke of him... conclusion: Muhammud neber existed...

Well... that we all know for sure: he was a fabricated person made up bie Uthman and lady Aisha... don't we?

ben malik said...

Ibn, it is clear from your decision to embrace Islam that you didn't really use your brain but thought you did. Only someone who is braind ead would ever follow a fake like Mo.

BTW, when you got up this morning did you snort water in and out of your nose three times to make sure you flushed Satan out?

Or did Satan decide to uriniate in your ears so you weren't able to hear the call to prayer this morning?

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night." Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516

Narrated 'Abdullah:

It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise).

The Prophet said, "He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated." Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 492

Here is how you can avoid these problems in the future. Next time make sure you leave animal dung and bones in a dish for Satan so he won't urinate in your ears or stay in your nose since Mo said that he made a deal with the devils that he would not use dung or bones to wipe himself since that is the jinns favorite dish.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

That once he was in the, company of the Prophet carrying a water pot for his ablution and for cleaning his private parts. While he was following him carrying it(i.e. the pot), the Prophet said, "Who is this?" He said, "I am Abu Huraira." The Prophet said, "Bring me stones in order to clean my private parts, and do not bring any bones or animal dung." Abu Huraira went on narrating: So I brought some stones, carrying them in the corner of my robe till I put them by his side and went away. When he finished, I walked with him and asked, "What about the bone and the animal dung?" He said, "They are of the food of Jinns. The delegate of Jinns of (the city of) Nasibin came to me--and how nice those Jinns were--and asked me for the remains of the human food. I invoked Allah for them that they would never pass by a bone or animal dung but find food on them." Bukhari - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 200

You sure used your brain alright!

IslamSINS said...

"When a Muslim - any Muslim - engages his brain, he apostatizes. When one clings to Islam "blindly", the same moldy defenses are usually presented."

After years of listening to tortuous "debates", I stand by my statement. The only change I'd make is if it could be stated more adamantly.

Rafa, it is good to see that the site is open! I thought it was still locked up, waiting for some Divine intervention to free it from bondage. :-)

KeithTruth said...

Wow that was a very impressive opening statement. Praise God for such great Christian apologists to share the truth with the deceived men and women who embrace false religions. Good work Dr. Wood. God bless you.

ehteshaam said...

Actually if a Christianity actually started thinking-- he would leave Christianity.

"Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror."
Voltaire

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. "
Mark Twain

Don't pray in my school,
and I won't think in your church.
Unknown

Ibn said...

I see Fernando's English is just as bad as ever.

Fernando:are you stil wanting to putt your arguments on the Satanique Verses on the teste with Doctor Wood?

Sure.

Fernando:And here's another question for you, mie friend Ibn: do you agree with IslamSINS whenn he sais that «When a Muslim - any Muslim - engages his brain, he apostatizes»? We all would be enourmouslie glad to see an answer specially from you...

Of course I don't agree with him. Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind have been Muslims- Ibn Sina, Al Biruni, Ibn al Haytham, Jafir as Sadiq, Jabr Ibn Hayyan, etc. All these people rigorously engaged their brains, yet remained committed Muslims.

Malik:Ibn, it is clear from your decision to embrace Islam that you didn't really use your brain but thought you did. Only someone who is braind ead would ever follow a fake like Mo.

Just like only big, fat, bald, loud mouthed numbskulls follow Christianity, right?

The Fat Man said...

well I give credit where credit is do. At least he said the Gosple of Barnabas is a forgery.

The Fat Man said...

He said he didnt subscribe to the substitution theory. But he wrote a entire article on how Barabas, aka Jesus the son of the father was the real jesus, and the imposter Jesus the King of the Jews was one who was crucified.

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/jesusorjesusb.html

At least two Canonical Gospels or Early Christianity support the Islamic position that Jesus Christ was not crucified and had got away from the alleged crucifixion. Pilate had released Jesus Barabbas- Jesus the son of the father, the Jesus Christ we all know and had another Jesus, Jesus the King of the Jews or the Messiah, an insurrectionist probably about to lead a revolt against Rome to be crucified. After this, the Gospel writers wanted to finish their theological story and thus made up the story to make it look like Jesus Christ was crucified when in reality he had gotten away, thanks to Pontius Pilate. Anyways, this supports the Islamic view point of the crucifixion as always Allah knows best!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I surprised me that Gulam referred to the myths of Apollonius and the Sumerian gods. I don't think he has even bothered to read the primary sources related to these figures.

These myth theories are based upon a number of serious conjectures of those who promote the myth-conspiracy. There is simply no evidence that these figures were ever crucified or resurrected.

The writers mix crucifixion with hanging on a tree and resurrection with the new life in the underworld, these are vastly different things.

Also Apollonius is a spurious figure, the writings about him ussually date a century or more after Christ, and the debate still rages whether he existed prior, temporarily or after Christ.

Furthermore, Apollonius also performed similar miracles as Jesus, why did Gulam not refer to these? well it is obvious, I wonder if Gulam thinks that Christians plagiarized this aspects of Apollonius as well, which then means that the author of the Qur'an plagiarized this from Christianity, and hence the Qur'an contains myths.

This is exactly what our muslim friend Ibn does continually, refering to sources and authors whose approaches and conclusions equally debunk the Qur'an. Hence muslims seem continually to shoot themselves in the foot.

I find it amusing that a muslim actually utilizes these sources and then decides to pick and choose.

As a matter of fact this inconsistency does not surprise me. Gulam boasts that he and his website contrary to so many others such as the virus loaded Answering-Christianity of Osama Abdallah, which Gulam and long with Nadir Ahmed seems to hate (so much for the islamic ummah) is an academic website. Yet I see nothing of the kind.

On the contrary when I went through his articles, he does not seem to have studied Justin Martyr or Irenaeus but simply quotes Barth Ehrman.

I mean how can he refer to his website as academic when he has not even studied the primary sources?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Salaam Ibn,

My Discussion with David will be released when it's finished by Arabic Christian Perspective, unfortunately I forgot to arrange filming for mine by the brothers, however it's probably a good thing, the quality of my friend's equipment isn't upto scratch for this stuff.

Likewise with Shabir's with White, btw it was two debates. Also, a Muslim brother filmed it but he went for Umra recently and hasn't completed it quite yet. That version should come out soon.

Nakdimon said...

b. malik: Narrated Abu Huraira:
That once he was in the, company of the Prophet carrying a water pot for his ablution and for cleaning his private parts. While he was following him carrying it(i.e. the pot), the Prophet said, "Who is this?" He said, "I am Abu Huraira." The Prophet said, "Bring me stones in order to clean my private parts, and do not bring any bones or animal dung." Abu Huraira went on narrating: So I brought some stones, carrying them in the corner of my robe till I put them by his side and went away. When he finished, I walked with him and asked, "What about the bone and the animal dung?" He said, "They are of the food of Jinns. The delegate of Jinns of (the city of) Nasibin came to me--and how nice those Jinns were--and asked me for the remains of the human food. I invoked Allah for them that they would never pass by a bone or animal dung but find food on them." Bukhari - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 200
Is this a sick joke or what? This is something one would invent to belittle a true prophet. But in Islam this serves to glorify the false prophet called Mo.


Really, Muslims are to be ashamed of themselves to follow this sheer nonsense:
Satan staying in the nose,
Satan urinating in the ear,
Jinns eating dung and bones,
Yawn, and Satan laughs at you,
Monkeys stoning each other because of adultery,
Sucking on tongues and lips of a person to rescue him from hellfire,
Shooting down eavesdropping jinns with shooting stars,
Not praying in a certain direction means prayer request denied,
Eating of garlic is wrong bc it stinks, yet drinking camel urine is not only ok, but also wholesome.

Not to mention all the plagiarism in their “holy” book.

Nakdimon said...

What I would also like to say, though, is that I would like to see Muslims debating people like Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludeman and all the SECULAR historians, that also believe that Yeshua died on the cross. They are in the same boat as they are. Muslims are actually saying that those historians suck at their jobs and that their conclusions are the result of inadequate historical research.

So what do you guys think that Muslims will say about this? Would they dare to challenge these secular historical scholars?

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Wait a second. Just listening to Estheshaam’s opening statement. What is he doing? He first tries to demonstrate that the resurrection was spiritual and not physical, yet he then goes on to quote from the NT that Yeshua says to feel the hands and feet and check out the wounds to make sure it’s Him and NOT A SPIRIT because spirits don’t have flesh and bones like He did. What will it be? Was he spiritually resurrected or was he bodily resurrected? If he resurrected spiritually, then this requires a spiritual death! If he resurrected physically, then this requires a physical death! Either way the Muslim cant reconcile this with Islamic theology, because Islam denies physical death. And spiritual death is also impossible, because if that’s the case then Yeshua can’t be a true prophet. Yet the Qur’an says that he was!

Can you spell DILEMMA? But all in all, it was a very incoherent opening statement.

Semper Paratus said...

Ehteshaam quoted: "Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror." VoltaireTurnabout is fair play.

"But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him. - Voltaire, Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, December 1740

Fernando said...

Mie friend Ibn... thankes for your answer... and manie tnakes for youre effords to read mie poor english... that testifies to us all thate you're, indeed, a good soul as I habe alwaies been saying...

but, if I cann make a good "copy and past", you saide: «Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind have been Muslims- Ibn Sina, Al Biruni, Ibn al Haytham, Jafir as Sadiq, Jabr Ibn Hayyan»...

well... just some thoughts...

obviouslie (and, please, rectify me iff I'm rong) you could not presente us a long liste, butt what strikes mee, and perhaps other bloggers, is thate all off those names are priour to the middle XI centurie when in islam was still an ongoing debate --for instance the famouse "querelle" with thee Mu'tazilahs-- about the rolle of the reason inn itt... could it bee juste because you pilled the first examples fromm islam's historie?

I also habe to admit that when you started saying «Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind», I reallie thought you were going to speak about other persons... I reallie thoughte... can itt be due to somekind off ethnocentrism? ore was itt due juste to mie peculiar question? I reallye can't see whou any of those names can stant in theire feets when in comnpareason with other, gretear, people...

Non the less I habe to say that the theories (philosophic and theological) off those gentlemens you enumerated have been followed in islam's historie, some off the greatt myths muslims nowadaies believe could have been prevented...

Ibn... I would realie be berie glad to see that you would follow theire examples and put your rason to work without putting your orthodox muslim's believes in a darke corner... it would bee a greate brakthrough and a grette example to manie muslimes around there...

may God, the Holie Trinity, bless you...

IslamSINS said...

Ehteshaam, you make the same mistake as other mindless talking heads. Voltaire, et. al. men - be they critics or Christians - will not be seated on the throne of Judgment when Christ returns. There are many scathing opinions of Muhammad's islam, but mortal opinions don't codemn Muslims to eternity in hell, your heresy does. Christ said if you do not believe that "IAM", you die in your sins. Without YHWH's forgiveness.

Christians and Jews will NOT be redeeming Muslims from hell, regardless of Sahih hadiths that teach otherwise. Muhammad will have no powers of intercession. Your Imams will be completely impotent. We all will stand all alone, without excuse. Our eternity is fixed the moment we die. No do overs, no intercessor.

Christianity stands on Christ alone. Islam falls on Muhammad's heretical teachings (including inserting himself as the Muslim "savior", and partnering with "allah"). Compare their lives: Christ is sinless and Holy, Muhammad confessed to having to ask forgiveness more than 70X/day. One led a filthy life, filtering suras through his genitals; One led a sinless life, in perfect harmony with YHWH. One can guarantee salvation, the other had no idea what "allah" would do with him (though he is "allah's" mouthpiece). Muhammad is a corpse, deaf to your greetings; Christ is the Living Lord, Omnipotent and Omniscient.

This isn't a game of winners and losers, based on debates. If a Muslim managed to "win" a debate, he still loses his eternal soul. God is not bullied by threats, nor impressed with any human effort. He has provided His Lamb, then calls us to worship Him in spirit and in truth, not through slaughtering unbelievers. He says He sets before us life and death, and we are to choose whom we will serve. Choose, free choice, free Grace, because what good is a follower who's heart is still lost because he has "reverted" through force?

We don't draw close to a Holy God with rituals. The only sacrifice He wants is a broken and contrite spirit. I pray you, and every Muslim, stop majoring on the minors, and seek the forgiveness offered to you through the Atonement on Calvary.

ben malik said...

Wow, what a wonderful refutation of those hadiths from Ibn?

Just like only big, fat, bald, loud mouthed numbskulls follow Christianity, right?For a moment I thought you were insulting the wife of Muhammad, Sawda the daughter of Zamaa, since the Islamic sources say that she was a very fat old lady whom Muhammad, your prophet of mercy, wanted to divorce, obviously because he was no longer attracted to her. Is that why you Muslims hate fat people because Mo the ladies' man dumped his fat old wife?

Ibn, did you make sure not to use animal dung to wipe yourself today? You know how angry those jinn can get!

And did satan say anything to you this morning after you flushed him out of your nostrils? Or was he too busy sucking on some bones?

Yeah, you sure used your brain alright!

The Fat Man said...

Oh he did not, he did not just say "We do have historians... a 17th century historian who said jesus was not crucified"... He did not just say "WE HAVE THE DIVINCHI CODE"

The Fat Man said...

Ehteshaam said in the last time up during the Cross Examination.

The Empty tomb could not be checked out becasue Rome had saked Israel. "So these White Lies could not be checked out" LIES!!!! Isnt he the one who said he would not debate those that insult islam. But yet in a debate he calls the early christians and writers of the Gospels LIARS. Ok to be fair he called it "WHITE LIES" so I guess that makes it ok.

ehteshaam said...

Nabeel,

Thanks for posting this video, my friend. Please keep in touch and inshallah (God willing) I will see you again soon.

Btw-- Thank you for the kind words about me and May 8th might work for me please give a call if you'd like to debate anything.

-Ehteshaam Gulam

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Nakedimon wrote:

So what do you guys think that Muslims will say about this? Would they dare to challenge these secular historical scholars?

Elijah replies:

Actually Muslims prove themselves inconsistent in a variaty of angles.

They agree with these secular scholars when they attack the supernatural aspect of the Bible that contradict the Qur'an since these events are supernatural. Here muslims prove themselves to be anti-supernatural.

They agree with speculators that the Jesus in the Bible was the product of copy-cats who borrowed the ideas from e.g. Mithra, Osiris, Apollonius and Sumerian gods, such as Jesus' death and resurrection.

These muslims don't even bother to do their home work and check out if these atheist scholars are correct in their presumptions (which they are not).

However, these muslims will even pick and choose from these speculative ideas, they will agree with Archya and others that the early Christians borrowed the crucifixion and resurrection from these early religious figures.

However, they will reject the similar claims by these same scholars who claim that the early Christians also borrowed e.g. Jesus' virgin birth, miracles, excorcism, his training of disciples and ascension to heaven.

Even here these muslims prove themselves inconsistent. How can you choose one aspect of an argument and reject the other when the argument even contradicts your own presupposition, without any basis expect your own prejudice and presupposition. Sounds confusion, it sure is, I don't even know how to word adequatly.

How is one to make sense of islamic apologetics?

notbenmalik said...

Lets Try This Verse:

Luke 24:45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

What does "suffer and rise from the dead on the third day" mean? Honesty, anyone? I do not believe anyone can truly read this and not conclude Jesus stated "I died... I rose". If you say otherwise you are either woefully lacking in basic grammar skills and your comprehension does not exist. Or you can simply say, "yes, the teaching is clear but I do not believe that is true." I don't see how you can escape this obvious dilemma. Unless dishonesty is your game.

notbenmalik said...

I did not realize the name of this account was still active. This is by no means intended as an insult to BM.

Read the scripture noted above and ignore the goofy name here. I can't remember my password for my other account and, as mentioned, I thought this was disabled!

nma said...

Quran is Allah's revelation because Mohmmed said so. Mohammed was Allah's prophet because Quran says
so. Quran is Allah's revelation because Mohmmed said so. Mohammed was Allah's prophet because Quran says
so. Quran is Allah's revelation because Mohmmed said so. Mohammed was Allah's prophet because Quran says
so.
........
........
Can you find any single logical, scientific or any other error in the above statements? You cannot. So Quran is Allah's revelation and Mohammed was Allah's prophet. Those statements themselves are the proof.

Nadeem Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Semper Paratus said...

nma said: "Can you find any single logical, scientific or any other error in the above statements?"

Yes, you forgot to say PBUH each time after mentioning Muhammad. :p

Sakhr said...

The whole thing is in error. The quran is Allah's revelation because Mo said so? Dude that doesn't even make sense. Just because someone says it's true... doesn't make it true. I can claim the moon is made out of cheese and I write a book about it. Is it true? No! But because the book justifies my position, it must be true because I say so!

The Fat Man said...

Nadeem Gulam said...
"Unfortunately this website and organization do not present any type of tolerance. This organization Mr. David Wood and Nabeel are running is an organization based off of lies and fallacies."

What do you define as tolorance? This site lets me post my commnents and I'm a total jerk. So their tolerent of me. They also posted your comment? So what are you looking for in the terms of tolerence?

"Your organization uses all the money it can to deceive Muslims into believing Chirst as God. I beg your pardon, other than Nabeel, who else have you "convinced" to come to your version of the "truth?" Your organization, unfortunately is all based off of hate. Look at the books and links you are promoting! I am not sure as to what the goal of this organization is other than to promote hatred of Islam."

Wow David and Nabeel you got money. Oh thats right Nabeel is a newly minted medical Doctor, I would hate to see his student loan bills. David is a newley ordained PHD in philosphy. I did a search of Ladders, Monster, and HotJobs for PHD in Philosphy and wow I was shocked at how many hits I got. NONE.:) Doctors David and Nabeel i'm shocked your spending you millions on Blogger :)

"Look at the books and links you are promoting"

hmm you meean books like the quran, the haddeths of Bukarai, Abu Dawood, and Muslim. The Tafsirs of Ibn Kathir. You meen those books of hate.

"the goal of this organization is other than to promote hatred of Islam."

Well I can only speak for myself, but yes I hate Islam. Just like I hate facisim, stalisnism, imperalism (to be honest I'm getting comfortable with the new socialism of the US). However the question is why dont you hate islam?

I can only guess, but you have some distorted view of islam. Based on a myth. Based on a false belief that islam is something it is not. I gurontee if you had the full faith of islam oppressed on you, you would have a different view of islam.

See people this is what I meen when I say islam should be allowed to be practiced on muslims. If you give someone a little bit of arcynic over time they will deveolop a tolerence twords it. If you give them the fatal dose all at once they will either throw it up or die. Islam is that arcynic. Let them have the fatal doese all at once. You will see people leaving islam in droves.

The Fat Man said...

nma said
"Quran is Allah's revelation because Mohmmed said so. Mohammed was Allah's prophet because Quran says so"

Silly Kufar, didnt you listen to the debate and read ehteshaam papers. Don't you know that ""Apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself."
(From Ehteshaam Gulam article Was Jesus cruified.)
Dont you know that the Quran written 600 years after the fact and the hadeeths 800 years after the fact are more authentic then the Narative gosples written 40 to 70 years after the crucifiction.

Silly Kufar trixx are for muslims not for Kufar.

Dk said...

"Actually, it was because I engaged my brain that I came to believe in Islam as the only true religion."

LOL

Try engaging your brain a little further.

=)

Royal Son said...

Nadeem Gulam said: "Why do you have to debate inexperienced people? Because that's all you can debate. Why not leave them alone and debate such heavy weights as Jamal Badawi or Zakir Naik?"

I'm not sure about Jamal Badawi's situation now but I do know that the apologists from this site have been trying for quite some time as have other Christian apologists, to debate with Zakir Naik. He has turned down many debating opportunities. If you are able to organize a debate I can guarantee you that David, Nabeel, and Sam would all be very eager to step up for the job.

As for Jamal Badawi, the same applies. Please don't think that ANY of these gentlemen are afraid to debate him. The Christian gospel is ROCK SOLID. Get your people together and see who wants to debate them.

I know you want to write off Ehteshaam Gulam, but you should encourage him. He's trying his best and is trying to gain some experience. Sure, he experienced a major defeat, but what are you going to do ? Give up on him? If you were a good muslim, you would pray for him. I can tell you, people on my side of the dividing line of truth are praying for Him. :)

Great work Dr. Wood, you are an encouragement to me. A great inspiration to be sure.

The Lord Jesus Christ bless you richly.

Nakdimon said...

Elijah replies:

They agree with speculators that the Jesus in the Bible was the product of copy-cats who borrowed the ideas from e.g. Mithra, Osiris, Apollonius and Sumerian gods, such as Jesus' death and resurrection.
Yeah, and notice this, Hogan. They accuse the disciples of Yeshua of borrowing from these miths, yet these are the very disciples that they quote saying that they didn’t believe Yeshua died and resurrected. This is exactly what Estheshaam did in the debate. He made his case for the disciples not believing that Messiah died and rose, and then turned around in the very same breath to make his case for “pagan legends” that they supposedly borrowed from.

The same with “spiritual resurrection” and physical bodies. He claimed that Paul only preached “spiritual resurrection” and then quotes Yeshua in the Gospel of Luke saying that the disciples should touch him to see that he is no spirit, since a spirit doesn’t have bodies.

Also, do they really think that the Jewish disciples would borrow from all those pagan legends? Where would they get them from? Instead of coming up with some convoluted version of Jewish legends, they go and borrow from all these pagan legends to undo the fact that the one they thought to be the Messiah was shamefully killed.

And by the way, wouldn’t those disciples be the uppermost over their enemies according to the Quran? Muslims have two options: either those disciples were true and they didn’t go to pagan sources, or they weren’t the true disciples and did go to pagan sources, but then we would like to know who the real disciples were (names and all) and how they got uppermost according to the Quran.

Nakdimon

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Nadeem Gulam wrote:

Why do you have to debate inexperienced people? Because that's all you can debate. Why not leave them alone and debate such heavy weights as Jamal Badawi or Zakir Naik?

All of you may think Ehteshaam is pathetic and Christianity now has victory after the debate. But Muslims are immune to this non sense and will not accept you. Unfortunately you bring hate and no peace between Christianity and Islam. Mr David Wood why can't we come to respect and dialogue instead of hatred?

Elijah replies:

Why all of a sudden do we have to have peaceful dialoges with muslims, bringing Christians and muslims together? Do you truly believe this yourself? I don't think so. What you are writing here is the outmost offence.

Remember that this site and many others, as well as the growing number of Christian apologists against islam are all a reaction to decades of islamic attacks on the religion of Christianity, its book and teaching.

Now when we turn the table and you taste your own medicine, suddnely we are haters and racists, and we should rather come to our senses and engage in peaceful dialogue. Something the majority of muslim exponents are not interested in themselves.

The funny thing is, the majority of these Christian debaters are peaceful, the truly love muslims.

You also mentioned Zakir Naik, now consider it, what has that guy been doing the last ten years, except attacking the Christian faith?

Christians in e.g. Pakistan hear this false teacher (Zakir Naik) attack their faith and book on everyday basis without the freedom to respond. Here in the West we respond and because we do we are haters, does it not seem a bit ambiguous?

Zakir Naik has even called for the killing of apostates to Christianity and the suppression of free speech. That does not surprise me since he was trained by the organization of Ahmed Deedat which also engaged in assassination, persecution and the urge to attack the non-muslims physically. And you present him (Zakir Naik) as one of the primary figures in islam when it comes to having peaceful dialogue as we Christians now all of a sudden are supposed to engage in.

Mind also as I mentioned that Zakir Naik was trained by Ahmed Deedat who established an entire global organization to attack the Christian faith in all the most notorious ways, even physically. His organisation attempted several times to assassinate Christian debaters. It is this organization that trained Jamal Badawi, Shabir Ally, Zakir Naik and countless others. This was all before James White, David Wood, Nabeel, Sam Shamoun and Jay Smith came on the scence; these individuals simply respond, you may call it whatever you want, but that is all they do.

You mentioned also Badawi whose primary focus has been the same and who attacked the Christian faith on a everyday basis prior to the Christian response to islam.

It seems extremely naive and ignorant of you and even intolerant to refer to this site and other Christian debaters as haters when you consider that muslims themselves forced these Christians into dealing with the religion of islam by applying similar methods.

Sepher Shalom said...

Nadeem Gulam,

The Fat Man and Hogan Elijah have already dealt with the depth of your other fallacious statements, so I would just like to point out, in response to this:

"Why not leave them alone and debate such heavy weights as Jamal Badawi or Zakir Naik?"

David Wood is part of an open challenge to Badawi and Naik, as well as others, to debate. But, for some reason they seem to be unable to respond. Strange isn't it? Supposedly, they are Islam's top appologists yet they cannot be bothered to engage David Wood and others to the debate you are clammoring for. I suggest you take up your complaint with them.

Also, there is nothing hateful in the actions of David and Nabeel. You sound like (with all due respect) an absolute simpleton when you make claims like that.

If you are upset or disatisfied with the performance of Ehtesham, get over it!! It was his first public debate.

Muslims so often have completely displaced antagonism and anger. Why is that?

Fernando said...

Yep... I saw that commingue... after the great wall off silence was denounced the other alternative course off action could onlie be the one Nadeem Gulam just expressed... a true dialogue, according to him, is onlie ok when muslimes can articulate theire lies and incosistencies in a moore fashionable way...

butt as someone said: this is nott about who won this or that debate, rader than to see who, in expressing theire points of views, are honestt and truthfull when dealing withe the historical, logical and scriptural (bothe christian ans muslim) data, and, in doing so, expressing being more in touch with the objective truthno one, I must sai, is in this blog promotting hate... our religions forbides so... can muslims say the same?

Yes, we are denouncing the typical fallacies and lies islam vehicolattes around the worlde...

Yes, we are exhanging arguments withe everyone who can come into this blogg without starting to act like mister Osama Abdulah did...

Yes, we are always open to debate any toppic that can be in conection withe the difefrent threads that are created...

That's wie this blogg is called "Answering Muslims"... it gives answeres to the questions muslims and islam putts to the worlde:

a) is islam a true religion as theire followers claim?

b) is Muhammad a true prophet as theire followers claim?

c) is islam a religion off piess theire followers claim?

d) is the muslim way off living the best way off lieving theire followers claim?

e) are the constante violent and vile actions that muslims do around the worls just an epiphenomenon that does not have anything in connection with the true islam as theire followers claim?

And mister Nadeem Gulam... before trying to rectifie what others, in your opinion, are doing wrong, please do trie to do the same in all the muslim sites in the WEB who are, objectively speaking, doing whate you complainn about this site...

butt then... you can't to thate, cann you? and I wonder whie...

butt, mister Nadeem Gulam, please do continue to write in this blogg, rectifieng, withe your example, what must, in your oppinion, be changed... we would all bee very gratefull... we do not have fear off the truth... please: show us were, in your oppinion, we are wrong, and we all walk the path off the truth-seakers together...

p.s.: sorrie iff I gave the impression I'm writting as one off the "owners" off this blogg... that's not, obvioulsie, the case...

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Hogan,

You've claimed Zakir Naik was trained by Deedat, and his organisation trained Shabir Ally also.

Could you provide evidence for that claim, I know for a fact Shabir has never recieved training from Deedat.

Secondly, read any biography of Deedat, he makes it clear he got involved in "Apologetics"/Polemics, whatever you might want to call it, because of him being harassed by south african trainee missionaries. His main inspiration was the Scholar Kairanwi who wrote his book in response to Karl Pfander (Jay Smith's hero, who his channel is named after) who originally began the attack on Islam in the Asian Subcontinent.

Fernando said...

Yahya Seymor said: «because of him being harassed by south african trainee missionaries»...

1) please, Yahua, do beliebe in the honesty off this question: does the word "harassed" have anie sexual conotation? I really thought it had. When you wrote itt I went to see and realized it has a giggest amplitud off meaning... I habe not read any biography of Deedat, so, could you, please, explain the meaning him and/or you gabe too thate worde?

2) the reason whie I neber read a biography of Deedat is because, due to the contact I hadd with him personaly (althoug noy face to face), in his apologetic books and in the videos ans tapes of him around I neber thought he could be considered a "topp" muslim apologist... I came to realize, much latter, that he was taken in that account bie manie muslims, butt eben so I can't agree... his expositions are full off incosistancies; erroneous interpretation; out of context twists; an offensive ironie that shows a tottal lack of respect to the position the "other" stands for; an amaizin lack off knowledge off the christian positions (onlie in that way --and I don't beliebe he can't grasp them... he just decides to make foon of them in order to make is arguments more plausible-- he can expect to make is position seem solid); and so on...

In may opinion, with some defects, the most honest and competent muslim apologist is mister Shabbir Alie: he seams to be a very good human being... iff he could onlie aplie the tecnics he uses when in dealling with christianity in is use off islam he could, imdediately, see the truth of the true religion...

So Yahya... perhaps you won't answer my question... but it would be greatt iff you did... we could, from there, start an honest exchange off words about the diference in christian evangelization and muslim dawa and, from there, make an exposition off the difference between "telling the truth" and "menacing"...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya wrote:

Hogan,

You've claimed Zakir Naik was trained by Deedat, and his organisation trained Shabir Ally also.

As to Naik you may wanna consider what muslims themselves have to say about his training:

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=C2EIEpBbTfg&feature=PlayList&p=BE3D1B37D5523AE6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23&shuffle=130

I have indeed seen rather old recordings when the young Zakir Naik was sitting under Deedat's instruction.

Yahya wrote:

Could you provide evidence for that claim, I know for a fact Shabir has never recieved training from Deedat.

Elijah replies:

I did not say Deedat personally trained these individuals I wrote:

’It is this organization that trained Jamal Badawi, Shabir Ally, Zakir Naik and countless others’.

Seymour wrote:

Secondly, read any biography of Deedat, he makes it clear he got involved in "Apologetics"/Polemics, whatever you might want to call it, because of him being harassed by south african trainee missionaries. His main inspiration was the Scholar Kairanwi who wrote his book in response to Karl Pfander (Jay Smith's hero, who his channel is named after) who originally began the attack on Islam in the Asian Subcontinent.

Elijah replies:

I doubt strongly that Deedat was harrased by Christian missionaries.

In fact it is quite common in missionary history that Christian missionaries found it difficult to meet the muslims including Hindues who were often better equipped with the skills of debating.

Pfander and others began their approach exactly becaus of that reason.

As a matter of fact Deedat's organization was into assassination and crime, some of my missionaries friends told me how his followers broke into a Christian studie and stole first hand debate material in which Allah had failed Deedat in his task to expose Christianity, his reputation is not good at all among South Africans, contrary to what they tell you in islamic propaganda.

Why on earth then should I believe this fellow?

IslamSINS said...

Nadeem Gulam: "Why do you have to debate inexperienced people? Because that's all you can debate. Why not leave them alone and debate such heavy weights as Jamal Badawi or Zakir Naik?"

Nadeem, every debater has to start somewhere. When defending something as important as his doctrine of faith, Ehteshaam should have been better prepared than he was. That he wasn't, is his shame, no one else's.

Should Dr. Wood have written him in advance to say "Make sure you're rehearsing your public appearance so you can debate on my level."? Good grief, Ehteshaam was an embarrassment - nearly an intellectual insult - to those of us in the audience. When any Muslim puts himself "out there" as a debater, it is not up to the Christian to double check his skills.

In Islam's circles, it's apparent from the ilk of Abdallah and Nadir Ahmed, that Muslims think they can hork up anything they want, no matter how ridiculous, and it's to be accepted as "allah knows best".

Islam is a cesspool of ignorance. If its terminal darkness is spotlighted in the public debates, that would be the Muslim's problem, not the Christians'.

Your misplaced sniveling about Ehteshaam's performance should be directed where it belongs: To your Muslim community.

Christians want Muslims to avoid the only eternity that awaits them, hell. This is why debates are held, . . . to galvanize the Muslim mind that has been anesthetized during the past 14+ centuries.

Allah doesn't "know best". It takes only a perfunctory read through Islam's texts to see that "allah" knew absolutely nothing. He was not God, but merely an accomplice in Muhammad's lustful sinning. Muhammad will pay with his eternal soul for his heresy. We don't want the rest of you following him to an eternity in hell.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Nadeem Gulam said...

Unfortunately this website and organization do not present any type of tolerance.

ubiquitouserendipity says: you are posting here. mohammers cannot tolerate any questioning of your belief set (no, mohammedanism is not a religion), and whine and snivel when someone with intellectual and scholastic acumen brings the filth, deceit, and illogic of mohammedanism into the light of public discourse. you guys are intellectual and spiritual cowards. i can usually tell what mohammers are representing by what you all try to impute to Christians; it's called "projection."

Nadeem Gulam said...

This organization Mr. David Wood and Nabeel are running is an organization based off of lies and fallacies.

ubiquitouserendipity says: so then it is your job to identify those lies and fallacies, or just sit there and project your lies and fallacies. do you see how that works nadeem?

Nadeem Gulam said...

Your organization uses all the money it can to deceive Muslims into believing Chirst as God.

ubiquitouserendipity says: what is it with you guys and money nadeem? mohammedanism is a collective of "slum-dog millionaires," always seeking to live off of the work product of others. look at mohammedan societies: they couldn't produce a pencil, a piece of paper, or a cogent thought to write down on that paper with that pencil. if it weren't for oil those decrepit societies would still be drinking camel's urine from goat bladders instead of western produced cups and glasses. quit whining and get over yourself.

Nadeem Gulam said...

I beg your pardon, other than Nabeel, who else have you "convinced" to come to your version of the "truth?" Your organization, unfortunately is all based off of hate.

ubiquitouserendipity says: doesn't matter who other than dr. qureshi has come to the Truth of G_d through the ministry of dr. wood. one soul is precious in G_d's sight. if dr. qureshi is the only one to ever come to Christ through this ministry, this ministry is a success, and dr. wood will be given a crown of glory by our Lord for his work reaching (a) lost soul(s).

Nadeem Gulam said...

Look at the books and links you are promoting! I am not sure as to what the goal of this organization is other than to promote hatred of Islam.

ubiquitouserendipity says: dr.'s wood and qureshi seem to me to be very loving, caring, and committed Christians. now me, on the other hand, i'm a jerk like the fatman, and i couldn't really care less about your sensitivies. quit whining and grow a set of ovaries... mohammedanism is hatred, violence, pedophilia, misogyny, xenophobia,,, period. it is perversity all the way down the line. i despise your belief set. do me a favor: get out of the united states of america, please. go to some mohammedan country where you will be compelled to exist in a garbage bag, and your daughters will become sexual receptacles by the age of nine. sickening, disgusting, and you call it religion. spatooie

Nadeem Gulam said...

Why do you have to debate inexperienced people? Because that's all you can debate. Why not leave them alone and debate such heavy weights as Jamal Badawi or Zakir Naik?

ubiquitouserendipity says: i believe, though i do not know for a surety, that these gentlemen will debate anyone anywhere in the world. your "scholars" (mohammedan scholar is like a football bat, or a cat bark) try to cherry pick both their opponents and the settings. zakir naik (an intellectual coward) won't come out of india or pakiland to debate capable Christian scholars. he is a punk in nice clothes. there is a standing debate challenge posted about a year ago for jamal badawi, zakir naik (the punk in nice clothes) and one other whom i cannot recall now, to debate dr.'s wood, qureshi, james white, and or sam shamoun. why don't you try whining to those intellectual and spiritual cowards, hmmmmmm?

Nadeem Gulam said...

All of you may think Ehteshaam is pathetic and Christianity now has victory after the debate.

ubiquitouserendipity says: i have only listened to dr. wood's opening, and about half of ehteshaam's opening,,, and i certainly don't think ehteshaam is pathetic as a person. but as a public speaker he umm'ed me to death in 10 minutes. it is just a matter of training, and awareness. my wife had two degrees in communication, a bs in organizational, and an ma in rhetoric and. she mentored me in my public speaking and taught me those things that are so obvious but which i was unaware of in my presentations. umm being the number one offense. instead of "umm" tell your boy or man to use "further" or "to expand."

Nadeem Gulam said...

But Muslims are immune to this non sense and will not accept you. Unfortunately you bring hate and no peace between Christianity and Islam. Mr David Wood why can't we come to respect and dialogue instead of hatred?
April 21, 2009 10:08 PM

ubiquitouserendipity says: if mohammedan moslums are immune quitcher' whining. end to nadeem

thank you for posting this debate. i will find the time to listen to the whole mess in the next day or so. it is in the 70's and 80's F here in montucky, and the last two days i've been out visiting with a pair of nesting bald eagles. thank you Father for such a wondrous creation,,, i am humbled to be able to experience the grandeur and beauty of this life. i cannot even imagine the beauty of your wounds my Lord

Peace to all who bow the knee to Jesus Christ, our Lord, our G_d, our Savior, and our King

Peace, in His love, joe

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

In fact inviduals such as David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun and others have challenged Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally multiple times.

But Zakir Naik the muslim gladiator has been on the run for years, and Shabir Ally though willing to debate has avoided Sam Shamoun since his terrible defeat some ten years ago.

Alforreca said...

What astonished me in the last response of the pseudo-intellectual and false convert Yahya Seymour is that he DOES NOT denied any off the affirmations that Deedat's organization was into assassination and crime... but then... he can't do that without lying, can he? Yahya… If someone wanted to see how low someone can go being a muslim, he just needed to know you.

Nakdimon said...

Yahya: You've claimed Zakir Naik was trained by Deedat, and his organisation trained Shabir Ally also.

Could you provide evidence for that claim, I know for a fact Shabir has never recieved training from Deedat.
isn't it funny how muslims will eagerly ask for evidence when an outsider makes a claim about them. But isnt it funny how they need no evidence at all for Islam's assertions towards others such as, let's say, that the Bible is corrupted?

Nakdimon

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

1) Hogan:

Point A: As to Naik you may wanna consider what muslims themselves have to say about his training:

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=C2EIEpBbTfg&feature=PlayList&p=BE3D1B37D5523AE6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23&shuffle=130
From what I was aware of previously Naik only studied Deedat's material, not under him directly, I've seen a clip of Naik speaking to Deedat from Deedat's paralysed state, nothing prior to that.

Point B: I did not say Deedat personally trained these individualsCan you provide evidence that either Badawi (who was involved in Arabic apologetics in Egypt prior to Canada) or Shabir Ally (whom I have personally asked about this) was ever trained by IPCI?

Point C: I doubt strongly that Deedat was harrased by Christian missionaries.

Doubt what you like, however he has claimed this, so I would be inclined to believe someone of his background would have no other reason to, he even shows the Missionary Training centre beside his childhood workplace where he first got harassed, I believe it was called "Adam's mission".

Point D: In fact it is quite common in missionary history that Christian missionaries found it difficult to meet the muslims including Hindues who were often better equipped with the skills of debating.Doesn't mean they didn't start anything, which is natural as a missionary faith, Pfander appears to have attacked unprovoked at large.

Pfander and others began their approach exactly becaus of that reason.Not according to the studies I've read according to Academics in this field.

Point E: As a matter of fact Deedat's organization was into assassination and crime, some of my missionaries friends told me how his followers broke into a Christian studie and stole first hand debate material in which Allah had failed Deedat in his task to expose Christianity, his reputation is not good at all among South Africans, contrary to what they tell you in islamic propaganda.Actually two points,

Number 1) Islamic Propaganda doesn't teach anyone that Deedat is held in high regards by South Africa, so you might want to look into what Islamic "Propaganda" teaches.

Number 2: If IPCI did that, which I must say I really doubt they did, but you could provide evidence for it... in any case if they did, May Allah expose that wrong action of theirs and hold them accountable for it.


Question 1: Why on earth then should I believe this fellow?Which fellow? Me?

Oh and I wanted to ask you this months ago when I saw the post, you said Josh McDowell "smoked" (Meaning?) Deedat in their Debate, where can I see it? Also his debate with Gilchrist any idea where that is?


Fernando1) please, Yahua, do beliebe in the honesty off this question: does the word "harassed" have anie sexual conotation? I really thought it had. When you wrote itt I went to see and realized it has a giggest amplitud off meaning... I habe not read any biography of Deedat, so, could you, please, explain the meaning him and/or you gabe too thate worde?My definition off the cuff:

Harass- To literally pester and constantly pursue someone in an endeavour, to disturb them in such a manner.

According to the dictionary the best definition to fit what I am describing would be:

(1): to annoy persistently

Secondly to address your earlier point, it only really has a sexual connotation when the word "Sexual" is prefixed to the word, namely as an example- "He sexually harassed her..." (Hope that helps)

2) the reason whie I neber read a biography of Deedat is because, due to the contact I hadd with him personaly (althoug noy face to face), in his apologetic books and in the videos ans tapes of him around I neber thought he could be considered a "topp" muslim apologist...Fair enough, I enjoy watching Deedat videos, he is an entertaining performer and a great orator as Dr. White has conceded, but I agree he is not the top apologist, rather a product of the hostile cheap polemics that the enviroment he came from produced on both the christian and muslim sides.

I came to realize, much latter, that he was taken in that account bie manie muslims, butt eben so I can't agree... his expositions are full off incosistancies; erroneous interpretation; out of context twists; an offensive ironie that shows a tottal lack of respect to the position the "other" stands for; an amaizin lack off knowledge off the christian positions (onlie in that way --and I don't beliebe he can't grasp them... he just decides to make foon of them in order to make is arguments more plausible-- he can expect to make is position seem solid); and so on...I agree, he does often Misrepresent the Christian view, but again so would the christians with the Muslim view as Shorrosh did. This is inexcusable on both sides, I only realised this myself after studying two terms of Divinity at my old University where I was exposed to Christian Scholarship. Indeed it is a shame that Muslims consider him a top Apologist, just like it is a shame that people such as Walid Shoebat, Reza Safa and Joel Richardson are given any credit as authorities on Islam.

In may opinion, with some defects, the most honest and competent muslim apologist is mister Shabbir Alie: he seams to be a very good human being... iff he could onlie aplie the tecnics he uses when in dealling with christianity in is use off islam he could, imdediately, see the truth of the true religion...I respect and admire Sheikh Shabir immensely, although I disagree with many of his views on certain minor matters, as for his methodology, I believe the inconsistensy rant is really running out of steam, and I personally do not feel Shabir is half as inconsistent as people make out.

The Fat Man said...

One more comment on what Nadeem Gulam said...
"Unfortunately this website and organization do not present any type of tolerance."

Nadeem, do you meen like the tolerance in islam?

From Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:29

"(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.)"
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986


I find it interesting that muslims can not even initiate the Salam to non muslims. Something so simple, so mundane. And yet they can not even initiate the Peace of God on them. Some tolerance.

Also is it just me. But I seem to rember that when I first started comming into contact with muslims after 9-11. They all seemed to say that ordinary men could not interpret the Quran. You had to be a scholar to understand it. But now since these scholars have been translated into enlgish. It seems that ordinary muslims are no interpreting the quran radicaly different from these same scholars that only a few years before they appealed to.

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

Nadeem,

Just out of curiosity, which "race" are we condemning when we say that Islam is false?

And please address the issue of consistency that was raised. The Qur'an says far harsher things about Christians and Jews than anything said about Muslims on this site. So, if you're going to call people on this blog "racists" for claiming that Islam is false, shouldn't you say that the Qur'an is a racist book for claiming far worse things about Christians and Jews?

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Blogger Nadeem Gulam said...

I hope you are all well. My comments are harsh, but it is off of my frustration of years of hatred on Islam and Muslims.

The comments on this blog have been nothing but racism. I wonder what you have achieved using hatred? Nothing. I am sorry, hatred does not work. Hatred will fail, period. All of your comments are great evidence of hate and racism, and your comments clearly demonstrate that. One has even admitted it. The comments of one poster was even illegal. It's illegal to threaten people and tell them to leave the country. Some of you have been using a mass means of communication to literally threaten Muslims.

ubiquitouserendipity blathers: no one hates you, you poor societal victim. stop it, i'm starting to tear up. i grew up as a victim and target of racism, so don't try to sell that lie here. mohammedanism is not a race, it is a mental and spiritual illness.

and nadeem, if you knowingly misrepresented what i said, then you are lying, which makes you an obvious liar. here is exactly what i said: "do me a favor: get out of the united states of america, please. go to some mohammedan country where you will be compelled to exist in a garbage bag, and your daughters will become sexual receptacles by the age of nine. sickening, disgusting, and you call it religion..." end quote

the movement of your belief set is a threat to the constitution of the united states. and i'm telling everyone i can. mohammedans are not to be trusted with this country's future. you guys mess up every country you run. you run their economies into the ground, enslave and objectify women and little girls, turn your boys into hate-filled, misogynistic walking time bombs. please, take your beliefs about mohammed and just go away from the world, for humanity's sake.

nma said...

Nadeem Gulam said...
Islam is still the fastest growing religionCancer cells grow fast too. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not because of its merits, but because of high birth rate, gullible people converting to islam and gullible people marrying muslims. Historically Islam was spread by force and deception, but nowadays mainly by deception. After all, Allah himself is the greatest deceiver because he tricked believers into believing that Jesus was crucified.

Semper Paratus said...

nma said: "Historically Islam was spread by force and deception,..."

Since Muslims like appealing to atheists so much, here is a good one from Antony Flew's days as an atheist:

"And the truth is that whereas Christianity, for the first three centuries of its remarkable expansion in the face of successive persecutions, made
all its converts by peaceful individual persuasion, Islam already during the later years of the prophet’s own lifetime—from the time of the move from Mecca to Medina—was gaining most of its
converts in consequence of military victories." (“Islam’s War Against the West: Can it Abide A Secular State?,” Free Inquiry 22:2 (Spring 2002), p. 40)

I've got an idea Gulam. Why don't you guys beat your swords into plowshares and try it our way, through simple preaching, and see how fast Islam grows.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya wrote:

1) Hogan:

Point A: As to Naik you may wanna consider what muslims themselves have to say about his training:

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=C2EIEpBbTfg&feature=PlayList&p=BE3D1B37D5523AE6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23&shuffle=130From what I was aware of previously Naik only studied Deedat's material, not under him directly, I've seen a clip of Naik speaking to Deedat from Deedat's paralysed state, nothing prior to that.

Elijah replies:

This is a link to a youtube lecture of Ahmed Deedat to Zakir Naik personally, it also reveals Zakir Naik being highly active within Ahmed Deedat's organisation in his early days.

http://nl.truveo.com/Sheikh-Ahmed-Deedat-teaching-Dr-Zakir-Naik-Part-3/id/218003709

I can't say of course whether the video is a hoax or not.

Yahya wrote:

Point B: I did not say Deedat personally trained these individualsCan you provide evidence that either Badawi (who was involved in Arabic apologetics in Egypt prior to Canada) or Shabir Ally (whom I have personally asked about this) was ever trained by IPCI?

Elijah replies:

lol, I should probably have explained myself more explicitly.

I do not imply that either Shabir Ally or Badawi where ever in South Africa, though I would not exclude that possibility. Even Zakir Naik was there in his younger days and we don't hear very much about that. I would rule out the possibility that either of them have attended seminars or courses by Deedat's organisation.

Deedat's organisation has certainly had great influence on islamic apologetics in the West, including Badawi and Shabir, that is what I refer to.

The debating I engaged in in 1995-6 in which Badawi was a famous figure clearly pointed to his great inspiration of Deedat, that is what I refer to.

We find similar elements in the arguments of e.g. Shabir Ally.

If I am not totally wrong these three in contrast to the majority of muslim apologits belive that Jesus was indeed crucified, resucitated, and escaped from the grave without ever dying; which seems, at least to me, to contradict the Qur'an.

I am not sure whether this is what Jamal Badawi was taught in Egypt, but I simply doubt it, since this is typically the ideas promoted by Ahmed Deedat (paradoxically being a sunni) and the Amadyyia movement.

Yahya wrote:

Point C: I doubt strongly that Deedat was harrased by Christian missionaries.

Doubt what you like, however he has claimed this, so I would be inclined to believe someone of his background would have no other reason to, he even shows the Missionary Training centre beside his childhood workplace where he first got harassed, I believe it was called "Adam's mission".

Elijah replies:

I don't think that even showing a picture of the Adam's mission proves anything.

Yahya wrote:

Point D: In fact it is quite common in missionary history that Christian missionaries found it difficult to meet the muslims including Hindues who were often better equipped with the skills of debating.Doesn't mean they didn't start anything, which is natural as a missionary faith, Pfander appears to have attacked unprovoked at large.

Elijah replies:

What do you mean by start anything? Could please expound upon that.

What did the Christians start?

Are you referring to simple mission in which they preach their message and do relief work or are you saying that Christian missionaries arriving in India centuries ago aggressively began to attack the islamic faith?

Yahya replies:

Pfander and others began their approach exactly becaus of that reason.Not according to the studies I've read according to Academics in this field.

Elijah replies:

According to my studies that is how it started.

I wish had a specific book with me at the moment. It was printed probably 50-60 years ago, and refers to an indian muslim centuries ago who initially became a Christian.

He describes personally how the Christians were preachers of the Gospel but not debaters. Which is why I asked you to define what you mean by 'start anything',

I will agree that Christians spread their message in e.g. India but did they begin the actual insult on the Qur'anic religion?

Yahya wrote:

Point E: As a matter of fact Deedat's organization was into assassination and crime, some of my missionaries friends told me how his followers broke into a Christian studie and stole first hand debate material in which Allah had failed Deedat in his task to expose Christianity, his reputation is not good at all among South Africans, contrary to what they tell you in islamic propaganda.Actually two points,

Number 1) Islamic Propaganda doesn't teach anyone that Deedat is held in high regards by South Africa, so you might want to look into what Islamic "Propaganda" teaches.

Elijah replies:

Let me formulate myself again, I am not sure whether you misread my text here or if I came in unclearly. I said the reputation of Ahmed Deedat among South Africans is not the high profile presentation we read on the internet or hear about in the West.

Yahya wrote:

Number 2: If IPCI did that, which I must say I really doubt they did, but you could provide evidence for it... in any case if they did, May Allah expose that wrong action of theirs and hold them accountable for it.

Elijah replies:

You doubt they did?

They even attempted to assassinate Shorrosh, it's all on video, and they tried this more that once. If you can attempt openly to buthcher two opponents in one go what hinders you to break into a location. Anyway the information on the break-in comes from personal and co-workers and contacts in 1995 (who were into all this), that will take me some time to track down.

I think however based upon your wording that you realise the possibility.

Yahya wrote:

Question 1: Why on earth then should I believe this fellow?Which fellow? Me?

Elijah replies:

Oh come on, You know fully well I did not refer to you.

Yahya wrote:

Oh and I wanted to ask you this months ago when I saw the post, you said Josh McDowell "smoked" (Meaning?) Deedat in their Debate, where can I see it? Also his debate with Gilchrist any idea where that is?

Elijah replies:

I have not seen the debate with Gilchrist. I have the debate with McDowell on tape somewhere around.

I think that the debate with McDowell probably can be downloaded from the internet. I think there is a transcript also, that was once was published as a book.

Be blessed

Royal Son said...

Elijah said "I think that the debate with McDowell probably can be downloaded from the internet. I think there is a transcript also, that was once was published as a book."

I haven't managed to get the video but if it's out there, I'd love to see it.

Fernando said...

Hello... I realized thate somme bloggers were responding to a new (?!?) poste bie Nadeem Gulam, butt I could not finde itt... could it be the poste that was deleted at April 22, 2009 7:12? Juste before the poste off Doctor Wood? Does anyone have it recorded and can poste it here againe? I really woulde like to follow the path off mister Gulam's argumentattion...

Yahya... thanks for your unswer... juste one question: at one pointe you saide: «(...) misrepresent(ation) (...) is inexcusable on both sides, I only realised this myself after studying two terms of Divinity at my old University where I was exposed to Christian Scholarship»...

to what kind off misrepresentation habe you been exposed (become aware) in thate University? Habe you become aware thate whatt muslimes saide aboute Christianity was incorrect, or that what your teachers saide about islam was incorrecte?

I (at 9 years olde), with mie famili (that was forced to imigrate to the south of the Philipines), were forced to become muslims and I grew upp always listenning to discritions off the Christian faith that, latteer, I realized were completely false...

islam's Christianity does not exist... and the islam I knew, as a young muslim, is not the islam that islam apologists presente to the weste...

perhaps this is a similar experience you had in your school... I do not know...

Yes... I tottalie agree we should know better our religions... the problem I see in thate is that islam has, or wantes to habe, a differente face in the west, and when someone pointes that fact every muslim denies itt... butt I do beliebe some kind off an honest path can be donne...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hi again Yahya

Answering-islam has actually a transcript of the debate between Deedat and Mcdowell:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Debates/Deedat_McDowell.html

I am still trying to find the audio, and I believe I have seen a video clip as well.

Believe me it is an experience to hear the debate rather than read it.

Fernando said...

Hogan... I read that debate a few months ago... the arguments off Dedatt are juste boggus... the problem I see is that anie muslim reading/hearing him, believing he is a top muslim debater ande schoolar, will, indeed, believe that the farse he presents as being christinty is indeed Christianity... appaling... just an example: he says that christians, according to his interpretation off the Bible, muste be crucified...

The Fat Man said...

Looks like Nadeem deleted his comments

David Wood said...

Yes, it's quite odd that he would delete them.

Anyway, here are few thoughts on some of the comments.

Some people were surprised that there weren't more people at the debate. This was intended. When ACP sets up a debate with someone they don't know, they try to arrange a small setting so they can make sure (a) that the person actually shows up, (b) that the person doesn't go on an insult tirade, (c) that the person isn't insane or a heretic, etc. Thus, not many people are invited to such a debate.

Ibn asked when certain debates will be available. When I was in California, I finally found out what had happened. ACP had arranged for debates to be professionally recorded or edited by a private company, and they've done dozens of debates over the past two years. But due to the economy, ACP is falling short on donations, which means they haven't been able to pay the company. Thus, they're only able to get the debates as they're able to pay, which is a slow process.

I know someone who has the entire video of the Deedat-McDowell debate. Nabeel and I will be seeing Josh in June. We'll ask for permission to post it.

I have all of Nadeem's comments recorded, but I don't want to repost them, since I believe he has the right to retract his false statements.

Nadeem asked why I debate inexperienced people. In general, I'll debate anyone who challenges me to a public debate, whether experienced or inexperienced. (Contrast this with Zakir Naik, who will only debate inexperienced people.) Notice the difficulty Christian debaters face here. If inexperienced debater Muslim X challenges us, and we accept, we're guilty of taking on someone who is inexperienced. If inexperienced Muslim debater X challenges us, and we don't accept, we're cowards because we're scared of facing the facts and the evidence. It seems that, no matter what we do, Muslims will complain.

As for Badawi and Naik, all I can say is this: Anytime, any place. Set it up. But the fact is that Naik won't debate anyone who knows how to debate.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Fernando:
"one question: at one pointe you saide: «(...) misrepresent(ation) (...) is inexcusable on both sides, I only realised this myself after studying two terms of Divinity at my old University where I was exposed to Christian Scholarship»..."to what kind off misrepresentation habe you been exposed (become aware) in thate University? Habe you become aware thate whatt muslimes saide aboute Christianity was incorrect, or that what your teachers saide about islam was incorrecte?Both really.

I (at 9 years olde), with mie famili (that was forced to imigrate to the south of the Philipines), were forced to become muslims and I grew upp always listenning to discritions off the Christian faith that, latteer, I realized were completely false...That's a shame, as a descendant of the Philippines on my mothers side, I can relate to what you are saying, my ancestors were forced into Christianity by the Spaniards. May Allah lift the Bangsamoro and re-establish the sultanate. I believe that the blood that cries out of the grave of those ancestors is captivating the hearts and minds of so many young filipinos to embrace islam.

islam's Christianity does not exist... and the islam I knew, as a young muslim, is not the islam that islam apologists presente to the weste...hehe.... if you say so.

perhaps this is a similar experience you had in your school... I do not know...Perhaps.

Yes... I tottalie agree we should know better our religions...Good.

the problem I see in thate is that islam has, or wantes to habe, a differente face in the west, and when someone pointes that fact every muslim denies itt... butt I do beliebe some kind off an honest path can be donne...You're right, people shouldn't lie about their religion

BlackBaron said...

Thanks for posting this debate.

Really enjoyed it. The summary by the moderator between turns was a little different though. Is this something new in debates?

Keep up the good work. God bless.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Fernando wrote:

Hogan... I read that debate a few months ago... the arguments off Dedatt are juste boggus...

Elijah replies:

I agree bro,

Deedats arguments in this debate were all bogus, many muslims today find it embarrasing, which is why so many of them will probably agree that McDowell won the debate.

The problem remains nevertheless that Badawi, Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik, the top debaters in islam still use these arguments.

And if Ahmed Deedat was such a bogus, how do muslims explain that Deedat has virtually inspired probably hundreds of millions of muslims within the last three decades?

Are they confessing that their whole approach (or much of it) to the Bible within 30-40 years has all been bogus, and that islam generally fails to differentiate fact from fiction and reality from utter speculation?

And we do know it is bogus, just read Ibn's comments on this blog and ponder over the level of inconsistency. Unfortunately muslims continue in the footsteps of their hero Ahmed Deedat.

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

Yahya said: «Both really»... that’s a shame… a reall shame… someone speaking about X shoulde know, at leaste, for whate X standes for…

«my ancestors were forced into Christianity by the Spaniards»… yes… thate’s probable… mie ancestours camme from china to the Philipines, so I can’te sai they were forced too become Christians, butt I trullie regrette all the conversions to Christianitie thate happenned bie force: social, militarie, economique, psychologiclie and so onne… gladd that those daies are well more than 400 years in the paste: the Gospell is to bee proposed, not imposed… the problemme, I reccon, was iff, nowadays, someonne was obliged to changge religionn due to anie off tahte aspects… and sometimes thate’s what we all see happening in somme muslim countries…

«May Allah lift the Bangsamoro and re-establish the sultanate»… do you rellie want a Sultanatte in southwest Philipines? Not, I wantte to believe, trhough the actions off MILF… butt, with a Sultanate there, woulde non muslims habe the same rights a muslim has now? A sultanate might be ok for muslimes, butt I thought it would be ok for anieone else…

«believe that the blood that cries out of the grave of those ancestors is captivating the hearts and minds of so many young filipinos to embrace islam»… now it’s me who saie: “hehe.... if you say so” … I stille habe to sisters who are muslimes, with whome I speak from time to time, and that’s not whatt she tells me: children being abducted fromm Christian families; yoeung women who are kidnnaped to become “breading machines” to increase muslim population; clandestine inmigration for the same effect... butt, yes, “dawa” is strongue there specialie in whatt you saie: trienguing, in a revisionistic fashion, create that kinde off fealing in persons who, as far historie can tell, were not, eber, a muslimes… butt perhaps that’s that same feelingue that’s making so manie north-africans (and nott onlie) to return, manie off them in a cripto-wai, to Christianitie… soorie that they, in manie cases, had to come to Europe to live theire new religion… in the town we live, one mosque had to close because “suddently” 70% off theire magrebinne population assumed they were Christians… butt that’s nott thee waie I wouls things to happen…

«hehe.... if you say so»… yes… that’s a nother sad thibgue… I grew upp listening too manie false allegations about Christians: that we ate children; thate we were canibales (a reference to the Eucharietie?); thate we rapped our daughters; thate we were politheistes; thate the Gospels we now habe were rewritten in the 8th senturie to erase all the passages thate reffered to Muhammad…

Perhaps… that cann go both waies…

Good… sadd, I reconn, is that no muslimme eber wanted to speakke about all these subjects when I came to local mosques… eben less when I told them that I was a former muslimme…

You're right, people shouldn't lie about their religion… yes… Christianitie may habe manie historical “black-holes”, butt they won’t desapeare justt because we ignore them… they cannot bee erased, butt theyre repetition can bee avoied… I hoppe islam his whilling to follow the same pathe…

Mai the Triune God guide all who seack the truth to his hearte…

ben malik said...

Ibn Muta said:

That's a shame, as a descendant of the Philippines on my mothers side, I can relate to what you are saying, my ancestors were forced into Christianity by the Spaniards. May Allah lift the Bangsamoro and re-establish the sultanate. I believe that the blood that cries out of the grave of those ancestors is captivating the hearts and minds of so many young filipinos to embrace islam.Does anyone see the hypocrisy here or is it just me? One wonders, then, what Ibn Muta has to say about all those MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of Jews and Christians (not to mention Persian Zoroastrians, Hindus and all the rest) who were and are still being murdered, raped, and enslaved by Muslims who were and continue to faithfully implement the teachings of the false prophet Muhammad?

Ibn Muta is correct on one thing. The blood of these people are crying out and that is why the Lord Jesus is exposing the evil of Muhammad and the lies of Islam since Islam is one of those satanic systems that Christ will destroy and bring under his glorious feet. That is why millions of Muslims are seeing the darkness of Muhammad and embracing the light of the Lord Jesus Christ, praise be his all-holy name!

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

that’s a shame… a reall shame… someone speaking about X shoulde know, at leaste, for whate X standes for…True.

yes… thate’s probable… mie ancestours camme from china to the Philipines, so I can’te sai they were forced too become Christians, butt I trullie regrette all the conversions to Christianitie thate happenned bie force: social, militarie, economique, psychologiclie and so onne… gladd that those daies are well more than 400 years in the paste: the Gospell is to bee proposed, not imposed… the problemme, I reccon, was iff, nowadays, someonne was obliged to changge religionn due to anie off tahte aspects… and sometimes thate’s what we all see happening in somme muslim countries…Well, I'm glad you've condemned them, thanks.

do you rellie want a Sultanatte in southwest Philipines? Not, I wantte to believe, trhough the actions off MILF… butt, with a Sultanate there, woulde non muslims habe the same rights a muslim has now? A sultanate might be ok for muslimes, butt I thought it would be ok for anieone else…Well, I would hope that any sultanate in the south of the Philippines would ensure autonomy for Christians to be governed with a secular law but for the Muslims to also have self-determination. Btw, I don't support Abu sayyaf by the way, more the MNLF.

now it’s me who saie: “hehe.... if you say so” … I stille habe to sisters who are muslimes, with whome I speak from time to time, and that’s not whatt she tells me: children being abducted fromm Christian families; yoeung women who are kidnnaped to become “breading machines” to increase muslim population; clandestine inmigration for the same effect... butt, yes, “dawa” is strongue there specialie in whatt you saie: trienguing, in a revisionistic fashion, create that kinde off fealing in persons who, as far historie can tell, were not, eber, a muslimes… butt perhaps that’s that same feelingue that’s making so manie north-africans (and nott onlie) to return, manie off them in a cripto-wai, to Christianitie… soorie that they, in manie cases, had to come to Europe to live theire new religion… in the town we live, one mosque had to close because “suddently” 70% off theire magrebinne population assumed they were Christians… butt that’s nott thee waie I wouls things to happen…Well, I condemn that, rather I was refering to conversions not done under duress =)

yes… that’s a nother sad thibgue… I grew upp listening too manie false allegations about Christians: that we ate children; thate we were canibales (a reference to the Eucharietie?); thate we rapped our daughters; thate we were politheistes; thate the Gospels we now habe were rewritten in the 8th senturie to erase all the passages thate reffered to Muhammad…Well, I would have expected more educated lessons on Christianity, especially as the nation is 80% Christian.... segregated island though, so perhaps they just lived off misinformation.

Perhaps… that cann go both waies…

Good… sadd, I reconn, is that no muslimme eber wanted to speakke about all these subjects when I came to local mosques… eben less when I told them that I was a former muslimme…

You're right, people shouldn't lie about their religion… yes… Christianitie may habe manie historical “black-holes”, butt they won’t desapeare justt because we ignore them… they cannot bee erased, butt theyre repetition can bee avoied… I hoppe islam his whilling to follow the same pathe…Sure.

Mai the Triune God guide all who seack the truth to his hearte…May Allah (SWT) guide you and all to know him.

Thank you for that respectful dialogue Fernando, I was surprised, perhaps we just got off on a wrong footing.

As for he who has referred to me as Ibn Muta, perhaps he was too uneducated to know the difference between Muta and Mu'tah...never the less, I don't discuss with bigots who do nothing but insult. Born again? I very much doubt it....

Fernando said...

Well... nothing in mie wordes can infer I condemned those action...

yes, I trullie regrette them as an distortion of the true Christianitie...

yes, I wich they could neber have happened...

butt I would onlie condemn them iff there was, in those latte dayes, the healthie separation -- that we, nowadays, habe -- betwenn the Church and the states that used the prior to takke advantages from that connection (and, sometimes, vice-virsa)... never the less it's possible these wordes can habe somesorte of condemnation it them...

Thates whie I'm nott so optimistic thatt, one daie, islam will stopp to habe the temptation to impose it's version of religion... and that's whie I don't think anie Christian will, eber, habe the possibility to live under a secular law in a Sultanate... in a authonomous region perhaps...

Aboutt the misinformation aboutt Christianitie... well, that was the same misinformation I found when I inmigrated, still as a teenage muslim, to Indonesia...

in some waie the path I followed back to Christianity was a confluence off the loving shock I had when I contacted with the true face off Christianity, and the painfful shock I had when I begun to have a real and mature contact with so manie aspects of islam, spetialye (butt not onlie) that distortion off it's, and Christian's, realitie...

Glad to see, indeed, we can habe a respectefull dialogue...

Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ben malik said...

Haha! Ibn Muta complains about the way I spell the word for Islamic prostitution but has no problem with Muhammad getting the names of people wrong, e.g. Jesus becomes Isa (which is not the Arabic form of his Hebrew Name), Elijah becomes ilyasa and in another place becomes il yaseena!!!!

There's more of these kinds of blunders from the the most eloquent and perfect piece of Arabic literature ever produced.

Yeah, that Ibn Muta, is just too funny. He should have been one of the compilers of hadiths.

Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ben malik said...

What makes it even funnier (or actually sad and pathetic) is that he has no problems with the fact that Mo allowed muta to even be practiced! As a faithful Shia he still thinks it is lawful to ask a woman to marry him for a period time and then divorce her, which he will gladly pay her for her service! Now you tell me this isn't prostitution.

What was that about spelling? Yeah, he is a joker for sure.

Confident Christianity said...

Nice review Nabeel. I intend on watching the videos tomorrow (Thurs). Praying for you, David and Mary Jo May 23rd at the Apologetics Conference in North Carolina!

Psalm 150,

Roger
http://www.confidentchristianity.com

CosmicBoy said...

@ All,

Al-Quran 4:156-159 "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

My problem with this ayat:

1. Why only one ayat mentioning Jesus crucification? The dead of Jesus is most important event in history...it involve not only religion but other aspect. Why only 1 ayat/verse ! (Allah don't know...Mohamet don't know, so do his companion...they just guess.)

2. Who is "we"? Allah they say knew all things...why say 'me'...If Allah knew everything...just say The Jews or The Romans...why say "we". (Prove that Quran was not from God, because God knew everything)

3."...but so it was made to appear to them,..." Who was made appear to them? Who? Allah is all knowing, why he is just guessing. God don't guess...He knew everything! (Another prove that Allah of Islam is not all knowing !)

4. "...and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

Who is full of doubt. The Jews? No, they believe that they kill Jesus. Up till today...they believe that beyond doubt that there forefather kill Jesus ! The Romans? No, no...the also believe that they kill Jesus. They are used to crucified people...thousand of people...they sure thousand people die...beyond doubt...they kill Jesus. They might not believe in his resurection coz its beyond rasio but cross...its normal...its is a historical facts.

The Christians...they were so convince...that is their doctrine...

Then who is in doubt?

The Moslems...there are the one...they have so many theory regarding Jesus dead...the subtitutions theory up till today haven been resolve yet...they are sill in doubt...is he Judas, or Joseph of Aramatean...or one of the diciples...or one of the Saducee or Pharisee. They come up with almost 12 name?????

Then came Ahmediyyah...who also in doubt...was Jesus crucified? They say YES...BUT Jesus did not die...he was alive and kept in India. Wakakakkaaaaaaaaaaa.

Pity on you moslem. You people are still full of doubt !!!

Salam.

CosmicBoy said...

@ All,

Moslems are not friend of history.

Doctrine is more important that historical facts.

Remember when the Quran say that the earth was FLAT.

Their thelogians say that the Quran is the true...science is false.

Wakakakakaka.

1400 years of stupidy.

Thats why I left Islam.

La ilaha ilahallah, yusowa kalamullah.

There is no god safe the only and one true God and Jesus is His Word.

Salam.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Okay here's what Richard Carrier has to say about Romans 8:11 (and since 80% of my material was from Richard-- this is my offical response to David's rebuttal on this):

Q: In Romans 8:11 Paul says God "will also give life to your mortal bodies" just as he did to Jesus, and then he says in 8:23 that we await "the redemption of our body." Don't these passages clearly indicate the same body that dies is the body that will be raised?

A: Not necessarily. I already challenge this interpretation of both verses in the book (pp. 149-50). I say a lot there that must be read. Here I will only note three of the facts that I discuss further there: the "also" in Romans 8:11 does not grammatically correlate with the resurrection of Jesus (bad translations have falsely given that impression); Paul does not say "our mortal bodies will be raised" (in fact, he never connects our "mortal bodies" with resurrection at all, not even in 8:23, which is a whole twelve verses away from 8:11 and does not speak of a "mortal" body); the context of 8:11 appears to be about our current state of grace, not our future resurrection (as in 2 Cor. 4:10), while Paul only gets to the resurrection in later verses; and 8:23 actually says we expect "the release of our body," without specifying which body he means, or in what way it will be released. Close examination suggests he more likely meant the release of our "inner man," which is our new spiritual body, which we are already growing inside us.

So that settles it. Romans also was teaching something spiritual and physical. To again quote Richard: Romans 8:11 does not grammatically correlate with the resurrection of Jesus. Paul does not say "our mortal bodies will be raised"

So how can Christians use this as evidence for a phyiscal ressurection of Jesus? This greatly increases his chances of survival.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ehteshaam--

You ignored a lot of David's response here. Carrier's response is entirely inadequate for the onslaught of proofs that the resurrection is physical.

For starters, Carrier only responded to one point, and he does so using a poor rendering of Greek (are you going to take Carrier's translation, someone who has no credentials in ancient Greek manuscripts, or the translations of generations of Greek scholars? Don't pick your sources inappropriately!)

But more poignantly, what are you going to do with 1 Cor 15:44? Paul says "it is raised a spiritual body", and in all the 800+ times this phrase is used in ancient Greek, not once is it used to mean anything other than a physical body. Why make this the only time you'd translate the words "spiritual body" in a different sense?

Don't forget, Paul is juxtaposing "spiritual" with "natural", not "physical". Keep the context in mind.

Ehteshaam, there is no case for your position. The longer you keep this up, the poorer your arguments will be.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Nabeel,

Richard Carrier is actually a very smart man. He has a Ph.D. in Ancient History from Columbia University (2008. He's also a qualified scholar on Greco-Roman studies. The guy is very smart--- in fact he's the main reason why I decided to do debates-- because his material is very good when refuting evidence for a Physical ressurection. The reason why I lost the Debate with David Wood is because I wasn't organized at all-- however this is something that will improve in the future.

You can read his case against the physical resurrection here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/

Again, both Richard Carrier and Nadir Ahmed are huge influences on my research and my Islamic Ministry-- to do dawah (Islamic preaching). Richard Carrier knows his stuff-- I like his work a lot.

Richard Carrier is also the main reason why I made my site: answering-christian-claims.com. I believed that his scholarship was very good and I wanted to re-create that in favor of Islam (which can be done). As for Debating-- my friend Nadir Ahmed got me into that.

Anyways when you guys are in Michigan, give me a call-- we can go out for lunch or dinner-- and I'll explain why I believe in Richard Carrier's writings against Christianity so much.

btw-- Richard Carrier Knows ancient Greek-- isn't that what the N.T. is written in?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Also-- Paul never mentions Jesus being Physical resurrected-- If the resurrection was phyiscal then Paul would've mentioned it. Rather what I believe happened is this:

Jesus was crucified-- however he survived.

None of disciples were eye witnesses to the event (see Mark 15:50).

He came back to his disciples and tried to tell them that he was phyiscal-- not spirtualized-- however they must've misinterpreted it (maybe because of the influcene of the story of Inanna or something like that) to be him coming back from the dead.

Because of the disciples not being around during the crucifixion-- they taught that Jesus was spiritually resurrected (see I Peter 3:18)-- even though Jesus survived and was phyiscal standing right before them. (Don't forget-- The Gospel of Mark the earliest Gospel says that the disciples were slow, stupid and not very bright)... so this is very possible that they misunderstood what really happened to Jesus.

Paul (not being an eye witness to any of the events in Jesus life on earth) was also misinformed about this-- thus preached some sort of spiritual resurrection (after his "vision")

This confusion went on and on-- until the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who through the grace of Allah (God) brought the truth-- that they (the Jews and Romans) didn't kill Jesus nor crucify him-- rather it only looked like they did. So I believe the Quran is right-- this is the thing that can happen, this is very possible.

CosmicBoy said...

The greatest event in history and Allah just have 1 sentence about it.

How funny!

santhkumar said...

Muslims have to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ because the Koran was written/copied to counter Christianity and Judaism and made it a final book. That is the reason they have no other choice/way except to deny at any cost for their survival. The truth is in the Holy Bible, the miraculous birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus was predicted and was fulfilled by our Lord and saviourr Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord. If the Muslims accept Jesus is God, Islam is collapsed. Whereas the Christianity is spread like a water of the Sea and nobody can empty the water/Christians by removing or pumping the water of the Sea. Jesus Himself build the Church as He says to Peter, Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Mary said...

Dear David, in my humanities class we are talking about historical Christianity, and my teacher brought up the crucifixion of Jesus and how if someone were to be crucified they were to be left on the cross so that their body would be there. He added that it was interesting why Jesus was taken down from the cross, and why he was not left there??...

So this confuses me I never knew that if one were to be crucified they would keep them on the cross. That is why I never thought of the question why Jesus was taken down…
hopefully you can respond.

Thanks for your time!

Jesse Morton said...

Mary,

You asked, "So this confuses me I never knew that if one were to be crucified they would keep them on the cross. That is why I never thought of the question why Jesus was taken down… hopefully you can respond.

The answer to this question is found in John 19:31, which says, "Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.