Thursday, June 11, 2009

The Great Debate Series London: Help Needed!


We have an exciting array of topics lined up for a series of debates in London (July 10th through 19th). However, some of the church leaders who had shown interest in hosting are now having second thoughts. I'm writing this to see if any of our UK readers can help us with locations. Here's a list of confirmed speakers and topics:

Abdullah al-Andalusi vs. David Wood: "The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity"

Nabeel Qureshi vs. Adnan Rashid: "Does the Bible Consistently Support the Deity of Christ?"

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "Muhammad in the Bible"

Yahya Hayder Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi: "Trading Faiths--Islam and Christianity: Why We Chose to Leave and Believe" (This will take place in a mosque)

Yahya Hayder Seymour vs. David Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?" (This will take place in a mosque)

Abdullah al-Andalusi & Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood & Nabeel Qureshi: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

David Wood & Nabeel Qureshi vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi & Sami Zaatari: "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?”

Bassam Zawadi vs. Nabeel Qureshi: “Has the Qur’an Been Perfectly Preserved?”

Sami Zaatari vs. Nabeel Qureshi: "Salvation in Islam and Christianity"

Additionally, Jay Smith is apparently going to do one debate with Farhan Qureshi as part of the series. We're also trying to set up a debate between Mary Jo Sharp and a Muslim woman on the topic "Women in Christianity and Islam."

We've got everything lined up for a great series, but we're short a few venues. Please let me know if anyone has any ideas.


Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I don't think any woman is going to want to debate in regards to Christianity vs. Islam. Almost all Muslim Women (at least the ones I know) don't want to debate their beliefs. But I feel for MJ sharp, here is a woman willing to debate her beliefs and nobody really wants to debate her, it makes me feel sorrow for her--it's not really fair, which is one of the reasons why I agreed to debate her.

As for places willing to host, there may be mosques in the UK willing to host, I'll check.

David Wood said...

Actually, the challenge came from a Muslim woman in London to debate this topic. But she said she only wants to debate a woman. So we asked Mary Jo.

Radical Moderate said...

How does Westminster Abby sound for a place?

David Wood said...

Why didn't I think of that?

minoria said...

Debates and more debates.I hope the Muslim lady becomes a regular debater like the others on the list.I wonder why she only wants to debate a woman on the subject.What difference does it make?I am not an expert but I think she might bring up Numbers 31:17-18 and Deuteron.21:10-14.

I had thought alot about them.Then I read Lev.19 and there we have the general principle of the Golden Rule 2X(Lev 19:18/19:34)The sec. time it applies to foreigners:"You will love them(foreigners)like yourselves."The first time is "you will love your neighbor like yourself."

In Lev 19 we have some 15 examples of the general principle.Analyze it.And we have the basic rule of interpretation for a person's ideas:"A clear passage serves to interpret a less clear one."Experts use it to know what a philosopher's ideas actually were.

So in Numbers 31:17-18 we have 32,000 virgins who are given to the Jewish men or people.And that is all the text says.End of story.Critics say it means they are given the right to rape them(?).Now God in Lev 19 gives us the Golden Rule 2X.Either he is a God of contradiction or not.

If he were to approve of rape in Numb. he would be contradicting himself in Lev 19.In Deut.21:10-14 is a Mosaic Law about how to treat a female captive.Critics say it approves of her rape because in the last sentence it says "humiliated her".The Hebrew can be interpreted that way.But then God would be contradicting himself in Lev 19.The CLEAR verses are in Lev 19.

They serve to clarify how God wants people to be treated in Numb.31 and Deut.21.So the Hebrew in Deut 21:14 is only strong language,expressive but no sensible Jew(knowing the clear verses of Lev 19)would logically say it sanctions rape.

Radical Moderate said...

David Said
"Actually, the challenge came from a Muslim woman in London to debate this topic."

Through some Jello on that.
Ok I have been holding back really I have but that was just to good to pass up. :)

Confident Christianity said...

Fat Man: I see that Jello remark.


Nakdimon said...

Man this is the worst timing EVER! They finally have a great debate series in my holidays, I am in ISRAEL from the 9th till the 23rd. Great timing guys!

David I would like to talk to you about the Muhammad in the Bible subject. Is there any opportunity for you to contact me soon? Maybe I can send you a file that I have made for this with an analysis from the Hebrew of Deut 18:18, Song of songs 5:16, Isaiah 29:13 and more.

Unknown said...

" Yahya Hayder Seymour vs. David Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?" (This will take place in a mosque) "

Since Yahya is Shia, is the debate going to be in a Shia or Sunni Mosque, coz I dont think many sunnis would feel comfortable in Shia mosque ..

Anonymous said...

Last evening we had our debate at the folks North American Muslim Foundation The debate was between Habeeb Alli and Tony Costa. The subject the debate was Tawhid vs the Trinity. Before I begin I would like to thank our Muslims hosts who made the event possible. In particular I would like to thank the following people Fahrouq Khan, Imam Sheharyar Shaik, and of course Imam Habeeb Alli. Qnd all those who went out of their way to make this such a successful event. I would also like to thank the NAMF for their hospitality in allowing their facilities for this venue and for providing the food.

Though there was strong disagreement among the participants the dialogue/debate was cordial and there was strong disagreement at the end of the day we departed as friends. Both sides are willing to continue this series of dialogue/debates in the future in order to promote a better understanding between the two communities.

Tony did a wonderful job in presenting an accurate view of the Trinity and was able to answers the questions posed to him by the moderator. He also easily answered all the questions form the floor from our Muslins friends and yes I do consider them friends. As for the Muslim side it was clear that Muslims still do not understand basic Christian doctrine. Some of the objection form the Muslim side were nothing more than warmed over JW arguments.

We are hoping to have the debate posted on this blog and on YouTube in the not too distant future in order that you can watch the dialogue/debate and come to your own conclusions.

After the debate we were able to engage each other on a one to one basis talk about our differences in a friendly manner. There were a number of opportunities to proclaim Christ. This is the purpose of these dialogue/debates is to have a venue for proclaiming Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Anonymous said...

Good luck to you all and I pray that the Lord annoints you all to speak clearly and defeat the muslim apologists to glorify God.

Fernando said...

So... a marathon off debates... butt: no Osama Abdalla? No one payed for him to go to the UK debate? Strange...

And wahte happened withe those people who changed their minds in hosting some debates?

VJ said...

unfortunately shamoun is not to be seen for the london debates.
man hes the guy who bash up the apologist very well,,,
the his last debate with nadir was the best every.. very well researched topic by him

Confident Christianity said...

Fat man: No worries. :-)

Osama Abdallah said...

"So... a marathon off debates... butt: no Osama Abdalla? No one payed for him to go to the UK debate? Strange..."

I live in the USA. There are other brothers and sisters who live in the UK that are suitable both geographically and in knowledge to be in the UK debates.

Osama Abdallah

Anonymous said...

I think an interesting debate would be, "Was the historical Muhammad in fact homosexual?"

There is data to suggest that Muhamamd was indeed a homosexual. Here is 'Musnad Ahmad, Hadith number: 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Muawiya Ibn Abu Sufyan,"Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy,and narrated by Muawiya who said,

"I saw the prophet (pbuh) sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented.

Radical Moderate said...

KeithTruth said...
I think an interesting debate would be, "Was the historical Muhammad in fact homosexual?"

Yea I can see the headlines now. Riots errupt across Europe... Death toll rising... Fires Burn out of control... Christian Apologists David Wood accused of spreading Hate Speach... Banned From UK...

Keith do you want to get these peopel killed?

Radical Moderate said...

Confident Christianity said...
Fat man: No worries. :-)

Thanks for understanding my crudeness :)

Radical Moderate said...

minoria said on Deut 21:10-14
Critics say it approves of her rape because in the last sentence it says "humiliated her".

First i would like to point out a few things. Notice what the text says in verse 11 "you may take her as your wife."

It then says you are to cut her nails, shave her head put away the clothes she had on in captivity. Then you are to give her a full month to morn her father. After that you may take her as a wife.

Finaly the commandment is made that if you divorce her, you are to let her go, where ever she wants and you are forbiden from selling her into slavery.

You will not find anything like this in the Quran or Hadeeths.Muslims are allowed to just have sex with there slave woman,even if they are married to someone else, keeping them as slaves.

Secondly look at what mohamed did with Sofia. He did not cut her nails, he did not shave her head, he didnt even give her a full day before he "Married" her and had sex with her.

I for one am proud that we have this command of compassion written in such a barbaric time.

there is no comparision with this verse and islam.

minoria said...

I agree with Fat Man regarding Deut.21:10-14.Notice the law is divided into several parts which are in accord with the Golden Rule.I know in Mosaic Law it is forbidden for a man and woman to sleep together without being married.

Again clear verse clarifies how to interpret less clear ones.God would be contradicting himself if he were to forbid one thing and yet approve of a Jewish man sleeping with a captive to who he is not married.And again,though the text does not say so,basing one's argument on the clear verses of Lev 19:18/34 it,the marriage, would,if God is logical,mean it would have to be with her consent.

You see something similar with Paul.In 1 Cor 7:20 he says:"Let each stay in the state in which he was when he was called." Then he says something that shows he was in favor of slaves themselves getting their freedom.

He says in verse 21:"Were you called when you were a slave?Then do not worry.But if you( you,the slave ) can become free,then do it ( then you,the slave,do it )."

Paul knew that many people became slaves due to slave catchers,and wars were whole populations in cities became enslaved.Julius Ceaser,when he was a young man,was captured by pirates,who held him for ransom.If,and I repeat,if,his friends had not raised the large sum asked,Julius Ceaser would have been sold by them as a slave.

Paul is telling the slaves that if they find a way to become free(and it can be by escapng,he does not say to ask for permission),then to do it.He says it in a very general way,putting no conditions on "how" to become free.

Radical Moderate said...

I was doing some more thinking on Deut 20:10-14, and slavery in general.
First slavery has to be understood as an economic reality. As a matter of fact slavery did not end in the USA so much on moral grounds as it did because of the industrial revolution and the need for skilled and unskilled labor. It was becoming increasingly cost effective to pay skilled and unskilled labor a wage then to keep feed and clothe labor as slaves.

Take our current standard of living in the USA and the west in general. To maintain this level of living without electricity, the combustion engine, air conditioning, refrigeration and central heating. Each man woman and child would have to own a minimum of 14 slaves each. That’s just to maintain heating, cooling and transportation 24/7. Not to mention how many slaves you would have to own for entertainment, in order replace Television and Radio. Slavery is neither moral nor immoral it is a matter of economics. Instead it is the treatment and acquisition of slaves that becomes the moral question.

So the issue is not whether slavery is allowed in the Bible or the Quran, but how those slaves were to be treated, in relation to how slaves were treated in general in the time and place of the revelation. For the nations surrounding Mosses and the Israelites raping captive woman after winning a battle was part of the payment for the soldiers. This was the common practice the way of life for the tribes and nations, millennia before Mosses. But as the verse in Deut 20:10-14 makes it clear; this was not to be the practice of the Israelites. God instead raised the standard above that which was being practice by the tribes and nations before and during Mosses time and surronding.

Compare that to Islam. The Quran not only allows this practice by explicit decree, the Sunnah of the Mohamed enforces this by example. So by decree and example the standard for raping captive woman is fixed. The standard is what the Arabs practiced during the time of ignorance before Mohamed. This standard is no different then what the Egyptians, Hittites, Amalakites; Amorites etc… practiced a thousand years before Mohamed. I doubt there is any Muslim then or now that would declare any of these people to be righteous, or use them as an example on how to live. However when it comes to their practice of having sex with slave woman, they have no problem adopting and marinating this practice. Just another proof that Islam has its roots in Arab and human Hedonism.

Confident Christianity said...

Minoria and Fat Man: Thanks for the heads up on Scriptures for my debate on the view of women. Anything else you want to mention or send my way?


Radical Moderate said...

Confident Christianity said...
Minoria and Fat Man: Thanks for the heads up on Scriptures for my debate on the view of women. Anything else you want to mention or send my way?

Othere then what I published above your post nothing much more. I think the main thing to demonstrate is that Mohamed adopted the social norms of his time, where the bible sets the soical norms above what was accaptable in its time.

minoria said...

Hello Confident Christianity,
I didn't know at first you were the debater Mary Sharp herself.This is a truly unique website.It is the only one where one's comments are actually read regularly by several of the debaters themselves(Christian and Muslim).Like Nabeel,David,Osama Abdullah,Ehteshaam,Sami,etc.And they even participate.Strange situation.

Regarding women and Islam,there are arguments in favor and against.But to say "in general" the Koran has been good for women is incorrect.A Muslim woman can sincerely say the Koran gave more rights to women regarding X than existed in Y part of the world at the time.

But she has to specify it is "only for a Muslim woman".That is where Western amateur scholars always don't see reality.Regarding a "non-Muslim woman" the Koran was a disaster.

First of all, a Muslim woman could never be the slave of a Muslim man.Very good.But a non-Muslim one(African animist,Hindu,Christian,etc)could be made a slave.Where is the equality for a non-Muslim woman in that?

A Muslim woman can never be a slave for sexual purposes of a Muslm man.Very good.But that didn't apply to non-Muslim women.

A Muslim woman can divorce a Muslim man.Very good.But a concubine(female slave in a harem)could never leave the Muslim man.

In fact harems of non-Muslim women existed till 1924 at least,when the Turkish caliphate was abolished.He had a harem of hundreds of women.

When Muslims conquered many Christian countries the status of non-Muslim women always went back.They reintroduced polygamy ( which had disappeared hundreds of years ago).Remember a Muslim man can have 1 Muslim wife,one Jewish wife and 1 Christian wife at the same time.And the harem system was also a step back.Establishing those 2 institutions was no good example for the world.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Confident Christianity (Mary Jo),

Is your dissertation on the Jesus myth available for anyone to read.

That field of study sort of interestests me.

Confident Christianity said...

Hogan Elijah: My paper is a master's thesis. I wish it was a dissertation, but that is not so! I would like to explore some publishing opportunities first, but if that doesn't pan out, then I'd be glad to send it along. I'm also still reworking some of the ideas.


Sunil said...

One of the problem with Islam is that the less than perfect life/ideas/morals etc of Muhammad became the last word, while the Christian last word is with Jesus whose life/ideas/morals is a perfection this unmatched by any human. So, while polygamy may not be explicitly condemned in the Old testament, we see an enlightened view in Jesus/NT, while Muhammad’s own life/utterances on polygamy became a problematic last word for Islam. Moreover, given that Muhammad came centuries after Jesus, there is no excuse for his falling short of the life/message/teachings of Jesus. Steve Gregg's verse by verse lectures may be helpful in dealing with some of these topics. In his website ( the lecture on Exodus Chapters 21-22 in the 'Verse by Verse Teaching' section has some introduction to the issue of slavery, polygamy and view of women.

David Wood, any plans or possibilities of including/involving Steve Gregg in some of the debates that you organize?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Mary Joe,

I would love to read your thesis if possible

I am just know finishig my master dissertation on first-second century Christian preservation of the Gospel in oral and written form. I am looking for further studies on New Testament source criticism.

I know you have studied in Biola university, do you know if their master degree appartment in apologetics also provides the opportunity to do a PhD in Apologetics?

Radical Moderate said...

Confident Christianity if your sharing your masters thesis I would like to read it to. Its hard to find accurate info in regards to the pagan cults and the myth that Christianity borrowed from these themes.

Traeh said...

I like this website a lot. I enjoy all the videotaped debate, and David Wood's in-depth knowledge. This is an exciting way to learn.

I wonder what his views are on certain questions, like what to do about the immigration of Muslims into Europe and the U.S., the possible end of freedom in Europe within a couple of generations, and so on.

Haecceitas said...

Fat Man wrote:
"Its hard to find accurate info in regards to the pagan cults and the myth that Christianity borrowed from these themes."

Actually, it's not that difficult. You just have to creatively apply the so-called "via negativa" method of apophatic theology in a novel way. It goes like this.

Just add "is not", "was not", or whatever is grammatically correct in that particular context, to each statement that the typical "pagan copycat" websites assert. That way you'll end up with a rather extensive list of true statements.

"Christianity did not begin as just another Greco-Roman mystery religion."

"Mithra was not believed to die on a cross and rise again on the third day."


minoria said...

Hello Confident Christianity:

I sent you an email today with my view on women and Christianity.I am sure many of the things in it will be brought up during the debate.And that you know at least 90% of what I sent,but there are details that maybe not.

If the email doesn`t arrive in 2 days please tell me to resend it.That has happened to me before.I sent someone an email and it never arrived.I think that considering everything there is no reason that a woman can not be a minister.It would certainly go against the Golden Rule.One thing that struck me was that women in the Pentexostal church are ministers.And they are as orthodox as can be.God bless you and help all the debaters.And the more one debates the easier it becomes,till it comes straight from one`s memory.

Radical Moderate said...

I just realized something, Ehtehsaam Gulam is going to debate Mary Joe on the topic of "Did Jesus Die on the Cross", isnt this the same topic he flopped on against David Wood?

Ehteshaam its so nice that you feel sorry for a girl that you are willing to debate her.

Confident Christianity said...

Hogan Elijah: Biola does not have a Phd in apologetics of which I am aware. Nabeel, do you know?

I believe Southern Evangelical Seminary and Liberty University both have Phd programs in apologetics.

Minoria: Thank you very much. However, I have not received the email yet.


minoria said...

Jesus was on the cross for 6 hrs.From 9 am till 3 pm.The world's greatest authority on death by crucifixion is Dr. Frederick Zugibe.He has even built a machine shaped like a cross to use with live people and make measurements.He has concluded it is possible for someone to die even after only 6 hrs for X reasons.To say it is impossible to die in 6 hrs goes against the experimental evidence.

On top of that Paul personally knew John,Peter and James,brother of Jesus.In Galatians he says so.They certainly told him Jesus had died.

Paul is vital because he was a contemporary of Jesus and we have his letters.His testimony Jesus died is one reason scholars accept it.And he also tells us Jesus was crucified.

Radical Moderate said...

I was reading Ehteshaam Gulam assesment of his debate or should I say Debacle. In this assesment he makes the statement below.

"The other two men who were crucified besides Jesus were also alive when taken down from their crosses so Jesus too must have been alive when taken down from his cross (See Mark 15:32, Luke 23:39-43 and John 19:32.)"

Notice the reference to Mark and Luke, in both these accounts the two who are crucified are speaking ON THE CROSS. There is nothing to say they were taken down from the Cross. So I'm at a loss as to how Ehteshaam can make this claim. Either he is being intentionally dishonest, or he is down right stupid.

Now I know its not nice to call people names, however its like I tell my boy stupid is as stupid does.

There is no way that anyone who has an ounce of integrity, a gram of honesty, and an IQ above 90. Could come to the conclusion based on the text cited that the two crucified were taken down from the cross alive.

minoria said...

Hello Fat Man:

I think it was just a typo glissade on the part of Mr.Gulam.It can happen.Especially when one is studying full time and has no employment.I wouldn't say it was intentional at all.I would give him the benefit of the doubt.I think it was a slip that appears now and then to all.

Hello Confident Christianity:

Wow,what a problem.I checked my email account to see if the email snet to you had been rejected but nothing. I sent it to the address in your blog as:

I will try again tomorrow.It should have arrived.How frustrating.But did I use the EXACT email address I should have? If not can you spell it out exactly? Would it be that I have to exactly use: in this case?

IslamSINS said...

But I feel for MJ sharp, here is a woman willing to debate her beliefs and nobody really wants to debate her, it makes me feel sorrow for her--it's not really fair, which is one of the reasons why I agreed to debate her.

Ehteshaam, if memory serves me, wasn't it you who, after your thorough verbal thrashing from Dr. Wood, said that you would like to debate Mary Jo if she showed any interest?

If I'm in error, I apologize. If my memory is accurate, maybe you were thinking that you might have better success with a female opponent.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3.28

Christ equips His saints, giving no regard to gender or social status. Our Lord sees us all as equals.

Maybe after Mary Jo defeats you, you'll consider coming to the living Christ, who is longing to bring you into His fold. :-)

Radical Moderate said...

minoria said...
Hello Fat Man:

I think it was just a typo glissade on the part of Mr.Gulam.It

I disagree, a typo is when you miss spell or use the wrong word, or leave out a word like NOT.
A typo is not a entire sentence that is part of your argument that other people survived crucifiction.

But I think its nice of you try to cover for him.

Confident Christianity said...


Hello. This is Roger Sharp, Mary Jo's husband. She is deep into preparation for the debates and I noticed the exchange about your email. The one you posted:

The one you need:

The difference is the q & g in gmail. They look a lot alike.

Psalm 150,


nma said...

To Fat Man,

Ehteshaam's assesment:"The other two men who were crucified besides Jesus were also alive when taken down from their crosses so Jesus too must have been alive when taken down from his cross"

If my understanding is right, Ehteshaam wants to prove that Jesus did not die on the cross though He was nailed to the cross.
Ehteshaam is one step ahead of the Quran. The Quran says 'but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them". By this the Quran means Jesus was not crucified at all.

nma said...

To Minoria,

There is a question of purpose. The Biblical account of crucifixion has a purpose; The Crucifixion and the Resurrection was the plan of God to redeem mankind. The Quran’s account of crucifixion does not serve a useful purpose. If Allah is smart enough to deceive every witness by tricking them into believing that the Jews killed Jesus (when in reality they didn’t), why did Allah wait until the matters reached the cross? Was Allah doing a miracle by this great deception? If so, what was that miracle and Why did Allah perform that miracle? The problem is, the Quran has answers to such questions.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Sorry David Wood for posting the link with Richard Carrier. I apologize for that, that was fully uncalled for. It's gone by the way.

So I am sorry.

Ehteshaam Gulam

Alex Albert said...


I watched a debate of yours....and am looking forwad to view more of them....You people are doing a great job....

But there is one Dr Naik from India.....i guess you should have heard of him...

He has been foolin many Indians as to believe that the Bible ia at fault.

I hope at some time you would be able to debate him....From my knowledge he usually quotes Ahmed Hussein Deedat..

Nakdimon said...

WOW guys. I was shocked to hear this. I'm listening to Shabir Ally debating Tony Costa and Shabir was talking about the crucifixion. He boldly declared that he agreed with the commentaries on Surah 4:157 that someone else was put on the cross and Yeshua was never crucified, calling that commentary "the right one". Stunning! Nowadays Shabir, in light of the immense historical evidence to the contrary, Shabir feeds his scholars to the sharks and totally repudiates those commentaries.

You can check this statement out here, at about 57:05 into the debate:


Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...


are you saying that Shabir Ally has changed his mind on the swoon theory?

Nakdimon said...

Hogan, check the video yourself. Apparently he has changed his mind against all the major commentators of the QUran and in favor of the by historical scholars unanimously repudiated swoon theory.

Is he in a quandary or what! He goes from the most unlikely interpretation of the historical facts to the virtually impossible interpretation of the historical facts.


Nakdimon said...

Hi Alex,

Welcome to the blog. Zakir Naik is well known and is challenged many times by leading apologists in the field. But he consistently refuses to debate them. Zakir Naik likes to lecture because his assertions are not challenged in lectures. He doesnt take on real debaters because he knows that once his arguments are challenged he will get stumped.

And that is something that his image cant allow.


Nakdimon said...

Hogan, Shabir changed his views FROM the swap theory TO the swoon theory. The debate with Costa is rather old and Shabir says that he is in favor of Allah switching Yeshua and making someone else to look like him. But now, knowing that the swap theory makes no sense in light of the historical evidence, the only way to try to defend the Quran is to look for a theory that Yeshua would be crucified yet not dead. The only possible theory for this, then, is the swoon theory.


minoria said...

Hello Roger:

Thanks alot for the information.I suspected it was really a "g" but in the blog it appears as a "q".It must be a typo error.I wish her well.I'll send it today.

The bad thing about debates is that if you make the first rebuttal and first conclusion then the other person can make a statement that may or may not be accurate and you have no chance to reply...even though you know the answer.Those are the rules.A free discussion is more to my taste,as long as I or the other don't interrupt every 10 seconds.

Hello Nakdimon:

I'll check out the debate.But maybe the debate is from before Shabir Ally accepted the swoon theory.If not,then maybe he was forced to reject it.Maybe.I know one reason the Ahmadis are rejected is because they accept that Jesus was really crucified but survived.

They also believe Jesus is buried in Kashmir in a certain tomb.But they don't let scientists take out the bones to verify the DNA and age.Assuming there are bones inside.As for the Koranic phrase "he was taken up to Allah",it can mean the physical ascension of Jesus.

But I just thought of something,it can also be interpreted as that Jesus' spirit went to Allah.The Koran does not specifically say anywhere,to my knowledge,"the body of Jesus was taken up".Thanks for the youtube info.

minoria said...

Hello Nakdimon:

I just checked it out.You are right.Now he has a different point of view.Nothing wrong with that.The only thing is that Shabir Ally sometimes makes statements that say only half the story.

For example in Mark 15:43-44 Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus to bury it.Pilate is surprised Jesus died so soon.

Ally said that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark(correct) and that they left out the part of Pilate surprised by Jesus dying so soon(correct again).

Then he says Luke and Matthew did it to hide that detail.Because if their readers knew it they would begin to think:"Jesus wasn't supposed to die so soon.Maybe he really survived."

The problem with that idea is that they whole passage is,Mark 15:44-45:"Pilate was surprised that he had died so soon.

He called the centurion and asked if he (Jesus) had been dead for some time. Being assured by the centurion he gave the body to Joseph."

Notice the other half tells us Pilate was told Jesus was really dead.Luke and Matthew were not trying to hide anything.They left it out to add new things with the available paper space.

Radical Moderate said...

nma said...
"If my understanding is right, Ehteshaam wants to prove that Jesus did not die on the cross though He was nailed to the cross."

I understand that is what he is arguing. To support this argument he is saying that people in history have survived the cruciftction. And that as proof of this he states taht the two who were crucified with Jesus were taken down from the cross while they were still alive. To support this absurditiy he then references three biblical passages.(See Mark 15:32, Luke 23:39-43 and John 19:32.)"

I challange anyone with a IQ above 90 to read those passages and demonstrate how he could possibibly come to that conclusion.

Fernando said...

Hi Alex... goode to see you around here... yes, doctor Naok is a well knowne muslim apologiste around here...

you mighte wante to see this threads:


to sad he's not willing to debatte top Christian apologistes... to sad...

so, Alex, keep your postes comming: you're berie wellcome. May God blees you!!!

Anonymous said...

I gather that when it comes to debates because most Muslims do so badly in debates tehy must be gluttons for punishemt. Tony Costa certianly destoyed his opponant last Thursday in our debate here in Toronto

Sepher Shalom said...


I have always speculated Shabir favors swoon theory for tactical reasons, as a form of taqiyya.

This way if he debates a Christian on the events of the crucifixion he has set up a no lose situation for Islam. No matter how good the arguments of the Christian apologist, there is nothing at risk for Islam because the Christian is arguing against a position that probably 90% of Muslims don't believe in any way. It's like a type of a straw-man forced on his opponent. Meanwhile, he can take shots against the death of Yeshua and attempt to create doubts in the mind of believers. My cousin suggested this possibility to me.

Who knows, maybe I'm projecting a little too much Machiavellianism onto Shabir, but I think it's possible that it's strategic.

Nakdimon said...

Hello Minoria,

I think that Shabir Ally is just full of bluff and needs to be challenged on the intellectual dishonesty that he displays. Lets look at a couple of his assertions that he uses over and over again:

1. We cant be sure that Yeshua really died.
2. A dying Messiah is an oxymoron

1.We can’t be sure that Yeshua really died.

Shabir Ally claims that we cant be sure that Yeshua died, because the gospels aren’t clear. Shabir tries to demonstrate that by trying to show that other gospels “add” things to make them look less reliable than Mark and simply disregarding those other gospels and focus on Mark. While I can demonstrate that his assertions about the unreliability of the other Gospels, based on the criteria Shabir uses, it should be said that even IF we look at Mark alone we see that there can be no question that Mark has Yeshua dying and not just fainting on the cross.

FIRST, there are his prophecies that he was supposed to be handed over to the rulers and be put to death, only to rise again. We have ample attestation of these sayings:

Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that HE MUST BE KILLED and after three days RISE AGAIN.

Mark 9:30 They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. THEY WILL KILL HIM, and after three days HE WILL RISE."

Mark 10: 32 …Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 "We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be BETRAYED to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will MOCK HIM and SPIT ON HIM, FLOG HIM and KILL HIM. Three days later HE WILL RISE."

Mark 14:8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare FOR MY BURIAL. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Mark 14:24 "This is MY BLOOD of the covenant, WHICH IS POURED OUT FOR MANY," he said to them.

Taken all this into consideration, we will have to conclude that if these sayings didn’t come to pass, Shabir claims that, on the basis of the gospel of Mark, Yeshua is a false prophet. He made a prophecy and it didn’t come to pass.

SECOND, Mark is very clear in his crucifixion account:

Mark 15:37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, AND BREATHED HIS LAST.

Mark tells us that he breathed his last. What does it mean if you breathe your last breath? That can only mean one thing: after that last breath he stopped breathing!

Nakdimon said...

THIRD, after Yosef HaAr’mati (Joseph of Arimathea) requested the body of Yeshua, Pilate wondered of Yeshua was really dead. Muslims will jump all over this story and say “Aha! Here is Pilate doubting the death of Jesus.” But Pilate doesn’t assume that Yeshua is dead. He makes SURE that Yeshua didn’t survive! He summoned the centurion and made him check if Yeshua really was dead. Now Shabir raises a few points:

1. Shabir assumes that one cant die after a few hours on the cross. Shabir always goes with the worst case scenario, that which goes directly against the concise testimony of the witnesses of the Gospel. Meaning, that since there is an account of a person hanging on the cross for days, Shabir takes that as the standard time that it takes for a person to die by crucifixion. Also, Shabir always claims that there are records that people survived the crucifixion. Shabir fails to tell people that this record (yes, singular, Shabir likes to overplay his hand) of Josephus whose 3 friends were nailed on a cross. Josephus pleads for them and they were taken off of the crosses. Despite of the best medical attention they could receive from Rome, two died instantly and one died a little later from his injuries. Note the difference: Yeshua got no medical care of any kind and Shabir claims that Yeshua survived the crucifixion.

2. Shabir has claimed that Pilate might have wanted to let him go, because earlier he found no guilt in him. This is just mere speculation and isn’t supported by anything in the text. All Shabir is interested in is to cast as much doubt on the account of Mark only to avoid to come to the conclusion that Yeshua died. Shabir claims that it is damaging to the crucifixion account that Pilate’s doubted that Yeshua was actually dead. However, it is just the opposite. Pilate double checks if Yeshua is really dead. Notice that Pilate didn’t summon the Centurion to make sure that Yeshua was ALIVE, but to make sure that he was DEAD! If Pilate wanted to spare Yeshua he would have asked the Centurion to make sure that Yeshua was ALIVE.

3. Shabir has claimed that the Centurion was in the plot too, because the Centurion proclaimed at the cross “Truly this man was the Son of God” instantly bombarding the Centurion into a fervent believer. But that also is unjustified. Shabir has to assume that it was the same Centurion that stood before the cross making the proclamation. Shabir has to assume that the Centurion had so much pity on Yeshua that he wanted to let him live and take the risk to be executed himself if Yeshua hadn’t died. Shabir overlooks the fact that the Centurion came to the conclusion that Yeshua was the Son of God AFTER he breathed his last. So the so-called compassion was too little too late. Lastly, Shabir wants us to believe that the Centurion had so much compassion for Yeshua that he would look at his disfigured body, suffering excruciating agonies, rip him off of the cross (remember when someone is taken off of the cross the nails don’t come out of the wood!), have people wrap him up in blankets and put him in a dark tomb with no food and water (remember, the people that buried Yeshua thought he was dead!), all this knowing full well that Yeshua was alive, hoping that he would come to and survive his wounds? Again, if he was risking his life by lying to Pilate and really wanted to spare Yeshua death, then he would make sure that Yeshua got the best medical care he could get him, making the chance of survival much higher. It is just nonsensical to think that the Centurion have him put in a tomb with no chance of survival, knowing he suffered unbelievable pains. Rather, he would want to save him the misery and get it over with, instead of letting him suffer any longer.

Nakdimon said...

So what do we have from the first century report, looking only at Mark:

Yeshua claiming that he will be put to death
Yeshua breathing his last breath
Pilate having the Centurion making sure he is dead
Centurion confirming the death of Yeshua
Yeshua being taken off of the cross and buried

Yet Shabir takes all this out and makes up his own details and spins on them and then claims that the conclusion of the Gospel writer is deceptive and unreliable. Remember, they were the witnesses and tell us these things based on what they saw them. Shabir is anything but a witness and claims to be able to give us the reliable account based on mere assumptions.

2. A dying Messiah is an oxymoron.

Shabir has always asserted that the concept of a dying Messiah is an oxymoron. This I really don’t understand. Especially when you consider that Shabir is familiar with the different concepts of Messiah’s in Judaism. What on earth is Shabir trying to have people believe when he makes these unsupported claims? There is also the concept in Judaism of the Moshiach Ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph) who will, just like Joseph, will suffer and die, but will be raised again by God on the petition of Moshiach Ben David (Messiah son of David). So the question then remains: What is the basis that Shabir Ally claims that a dying Messiah is as contradictory as a square circle? Judaism teaches it, Christianity teaches it. Maybe it is to the Muslim, based on theologically biased reasons. But there is no objective basis for that assertion whatsoever.

nma said...

Nakdimon said...
1. Shabir assumes that one cant die after a few hours on the cross.

Maybe Shabir does not know this, but dying sooner or later often depends on someone’s will to live. In certain situations, a dying can prolong his/her life by refusing to die. During accidents or similar situations, paramedics and others often encourage dying victims to cling onto their lives and some of them live because of their will to live. On the other hand, people die faster when they don’t have the will to live. So Shabir’s assumption that a person need to spend certain number of hours on the cross before dying is wrong. In Jesus’ case, He did not have the will for two reasons; The first one is, His mission on earth was about to be completed and there was no need for prolonging His life further and the second, people would prefer to have a quick end to all that suffering.

As for his other arguments, Shabir is jumping to conclusions by twisting the Biblical account of crucifixion and by assigning unintended meanings to those accounts.

nma said...

minoria said...

Ally said that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark(correct)

I was wondering where you got that from ...

Nakdimon said...

Sepher Shalom,

I know for a fact that Shabir defends the swoon theory for tactical reasons. Your cousin’s analysis is dead on. Seeing he appeals to scholarship all the time he has to take the swoon theory as his position because he doesn’t have other options. He has two axes to grind here:

#1 is appeal to secular scholarship
#2 is the maintenance of the Quranic position

Because he appeals to scholarship he knows that he cannot defend the position that he held before, namely that Yeshua was not crucified at all. If Shabir would hold this position he would automatically disqualify himself. Anything he had to say as far as appeal to scholarship goes would be regarded as nonsense and he wouldn’t be taken seriously at all by anyone.

But by taking the swoon theory as his position, he would make a leap from NO credibility at all to very slight chance of convincing some stern sceptics who stubbornly hold to the swoon theory. With that he doesn’t have to take the position that Yeshua died, he can just concur with most of the historical points, accept one: the death of the Messiah.

While the Quran is clear: They killed him not, nor did they crucify him. This means nothing else then that he wasn’t killed nor even hanged on the cross. It doesn’t give us two “overlapping” methods of death, as Shabir claims. Shabir claimed in his debate with William Lane Craig about the resurrection of Yeshua that crucifixion in the Quran always points to DEATH by crucifixion. WL Craig did a great job demonstratingthat this claim of Shabir is nonsense by pointing to Surah 5:33 where it doesn’t give us overlapping methods of death, but different methods of punishment.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be

murdered or
crucified or
their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or
they should be imprisoned

This is not talking about different methods of death but of punishment.

So, yes, I believe that Shabir is guilty of taqiyah, seeing that the only other option other than the swoon theory is to either lose all credibility by holding the position that Yeshua was never even crucified and with that maintaining that you support the Quran, or to acknowledge that he did die, therefore opposing the Quranic view.

minoria said...

Hello nma:

You asked where Ally got the idea Luke and Matthew copied from Mark.In one debate he said they had left out the Pilate being surprised Jesus died so soon passage.Other times he talks about Q.One infers he accepts the other 2 used Mark for material.

Nakdimon made a good argument,and I was specially interested in the pat about the centurion and Jesus in Mark "breathing his last."

I always like to take the minimalist approach.Robert Funk,one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar,said the death of Jesus is one of the indisputable facts about him.Why?

Shabir several times has said "that if a man lived 2,000 years ago then naturally scholars conclude he is dead."He repeats that.Would the Jesus Seminar agree that is the REASON they accept it.No.Why?

They look at the 4 gospels as human documents,plus Paul.No problem.And they ask what information they can get.They reject the idea Pilate was sympathetic to Jesus,some reject he was put in a tomb.Fair enough.Yet they are unanimous he died.Why?

Do they accept 100% Jesus actually died after 6 hrs?I doubt it.Yet they are sure he died.It is because even if,and I repeat,even if,Jesus was still alive at 3 pm then the Romans would have broken his legs and he would have died.

Think about it.Even if the death of Jesus so soon is false the Romans would have killed him.That is the reason they are sure he died,not because he lived 2,000 years ago.That is what Crossan or Funk or Marcus Borg,etc of the Jesus Seminar would have said in a debate with Ally.How would Shabir have answered that?

He also says most NT scholars reject the spear thrust in John into Jesus' body as true?Why?I suspect it is because they doubt Jesus died in 6 hrs.So then his legs would have been broken and no spear thrust would be necesary.But if he did die soon,then the most logical thing is for a spear thrut to occur,to make sure he died.

On top of that,assuming Jesus survived and everybody,including Jesus,thought a real resurrection took place,then why didn't God reveal the truth?Instead for 600 years God let a lie be believed?Does that give you a high opinion of the Muslim God?But there we get into a theological question.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

That Matthew and Luke copied from Mark is the 2-source hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke utilize Mark's Gospel and a second source named Q (Q stands for quelle meaning source). Personally I am open for this theory, but through extensive study it remains according to my personal view, that the two-source hypothesis is merely academic conjecture.

If if is true it certainly strenghtens the view that early Christians were fully able to preserve their information and even possessed some of the highest literary standards of the first century, at least according to Kloppenborg.

I find it much more reliable however, when we consider the early Christian data and the historical investigation into first century transmission and preservation of information, that the early Christians preserved the Gospel account through memorization as a fixed standard account, which Peter transmitted to Peter freely and which Matthew recorded as a more literary account, and which Luke based upon these two and additional parts of this transmission also recorded.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I am fully aware of the fact that Shabir Ally often presents the Two-source theory as a problem to Christianity, however, nothing is further from the truth, on the other the Two-Source theory remains a theory.

Furthermore, Shabir Ally seems to take a step further from the Q theory to theories of dismantlign the Gospel account in to minor parts that supposedly were compiled.

There is simply no shread of evidence for this theory. If it occurred, it occurred in the very beginning of Christianity, 30-60 AD, but in that case the Qur'an wrongly refers to the Gospel as a revelation deriving from God, furthermore, much in contrast to the Qur'an the apostles would have failed in their task, hence the author of the Qur'an at least according to Shabir Ally was wrong. Muslims can't have it both ways, the theories don't allow that.

If Kloppenborg is correct about this layers of Q, then Jesus was a only a great teacher, who never performed miracles. If Burton Mack is correct about the layers, then Jesus was only a Jewish-Greek Cynic philosopher.

If Shabir Ally here refers to the theory of form-criticism, then the Jesus portrayed by Christianity or islam hardly existed.

So my muslim friends careful, careful, too many of you have shot yourself in the foot and you continue doing it, I wonder if you have any legs left to walk.

Oh yeah, that is why muslims recently have lost so many debates, they have in their apologetics based themselves on the wrong foundation.

minoria said...

Hello Hogan Elijah:

Check out today's new article by Sujit Das on I emphasize,write "org"and not "com",otherwise you will not get there. is a website by an ex-Muslim called Ali Sina,from Iran.In today's article the info is about the Koran manuscripts found in Sana,Yemen around 1970.

German investigators have microfilmed it all,thousands of pages.Some are not of the Koran,but others are.Some come from around 700 AD.They are different from today's Koran,having different verse orderings and there are significant textual variants.

And so?The German researcher is writing a book with his conclusion,he is a top Koran expert,and it some articles already written by him to states the Sana manuscripts prove the Koran has evolved.In other words the Koran says no words of it can be changed and the manuscript evidence shows the contrary.

They even have a photo of some manuscripts,it is entire pages preserved.Check out the info.

nma said...

Thank you, Hogan Elijah Hagbard and minoria for the clarifications of the Two-source theory.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

There is no doubt based upon source investigation, historical investigation and textual investigation that the Qur'an orginated from a team that fabricated the material from a signficant number of available ideas and sources, that this material was partly lost and rest undergoing a painful and failing recovery and then suffered under the hand of political corrupters and redactors.

The Qur'an that muslims read today seems to be a revised standard version of a weak compilation of a weak state of information of an even earlier fabricated bulk of material.

Hence we have four problematic states of the Qur'anic formulation:

2)the fabrication is not fully preserved
3)the partly surving fabrication is badly compiled
4)the bad compilation is simply revised

Talk about fabrication, lack of preservation and corruption

I guess the muslims should sweep their own floor before they worry about ours

Sepher Shalom said...

Here's the link to the Faithfreedom article minoria mentioned.

Alex Albert said...


Yeah I did see the answers to all those questions posed by Dr. Naik.

But the thing that bothers me is that he influences a lot of Indians with his wrong interpretation.

I remember in one of his debates, he asked the audience the question ' Why Did Mary wanna go see Jesus in the tomb the third day......? And his reply was because Jesus was actually alive and had a lot of faulty theories..

The only question I had was...would Dr. Naik never go to the tomb if some one he loved so much was buried.....Dont wanna give examples of who it would be but..

minoria said...

What gives credibility to the whole affair is that the old Koran copies were found in the Grand Mosque of Sanaa,Yemen,where they had been buried for more than 1,000 years.They didn't come from some obscure private home or cave.Also the Yemen authorities (read:Muslim confimation) tell us the documents are authentic.They even built a museum next to the mosque containing the documents.Also the German scholar didn't come to his conclusions in 1 week.He spent years analyzing and verifying.He doesn't make wild-eye accusations.

minoria said...

Hello Alex:

I have never heard Zakir Naik but your info shows he is more into winning a debate than being scholarly.A thing he could say that would seem convincing is the following:"You say you are against the death of apostates in Sharia Law.But Jesus in Matthew 23:1-3 says to do what the Pharisees tell you.In Matthew 5:17-19 he says Mosaic Law is forever and he who says to disobey its least law is to be condemned.Mosaic Law had death for apostates.The Pharisees upheld Mosaic Law."

The problem is that according to the Talmud in 6 AD the Romans took away from the Jewish authorities the right to impose the death penalty.That was more than 20 years before Jesus began preaching.What did the Pharisees tell the people?To obey the Roman decision to avoid trouble.

In John 18:31 the Jewish priests tell Pilate they can't execute Jesus because they don't have the power.The only exception was if a Gentile entered the Temple.We know because an inscription was found.

Matthew 5:17-19 means,in my view that Mosaic Law was ok(and remember it was only for the Jewish people) till"all was fulfilled"of the prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah.So Jesus technically upheld death for Jewish apostates but he knew it was void since the power had been taken from the Jews more than 20 years ago.

In John 8:1-11 in the story of the woman caught in adultery he is given a trick question by the Pharisees.Is it ok to kill her?If he said no,he would be accused of going against Mosaic Law.If yes,of going against Roman law.The story was not originally in John.But scholars think it is an authentic oral tradition that got in.That's ok,as long as it's true.Jesus got out using his wits.

Fernando said...

minoria saide: «The German researcher (...) proves the Koran has evolved»... let's hoppe he has the chance to publish them...

Fernando said...

minoria... just some a few problems withe your silogysm about Matthew 23:1-3: the Pharisees woulde never tell someone to kill someone eben iff the jewish authoritys had the possibility to send someone to the death: they could, onlie, tell to present someone to the jewish juditial sistem. Another problem is to know iff Jesus in thate same passage is not being pedagogical since he also says thate to be according to God's law one must overcome the justice off the Parisees... so: he's not saying to do whate they do in a concrete fashion (do A or B or C), butt rather to have the same zeal to the Law off God fullfilled in Jesus thate the Pharisees had towards the pedagogical and not yet fullphilled law of Moses... finalie: Jesus did not respect Moses laws sometimes; specially when the dignity off someone was in danger to be overcome due to some aplication off this or thate aspect off the Moses' Law... butt who am I to say such thing?

God blees you!!!

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

I see you have good points.I think Jesus was recommending the Pharisees in general.There were 4 groups:Essenes,Pharisees,Saducees and Zealots.The Essenes were 4,000 and were 100% against slavery but withrew from the world(not the best solution).The Zealots were in favor of violent revolution.The Saducees rejected all scripture except the Torah(they rejected the books of Isaiah,Jeremiah,etc.)They rejected the resurrection,when you died that was it.

So Jesus only had the Pharisees to recommend.I think his saying in Matthew 5:19 that he who abolishes the least of the laws and teaches others to do is least in the kingdom of God is in the context of an independent Jewish kingdom.But in 33 AD Palestine was under Roman rule and the right to do capital punishment was passed to the Romans.The Jewish leaders were pragmatic.

Jesus used his wits.In one instance he was asked a trick question if it was ok to pay taxes to Ceaser.It reminds me of Hillel,the greatest Pharisee teacher,who lived one generation before Jesus.A Greek said he would convert if Hillel said all the Torah standing on one foot.Here either he was mocking him or it means"to say it in a very short way".

Hillel said:"Do not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.The rest is commentary,go and do the same."Another time he said:"If I am not for myself then who will be for me?If I am only for myself then what am I?If not now,then when?"

Anonymous said...

Man i cant wait for these debates.

Muslims trying to proove trinity wrong from the bible it is useless. The bible preach the divinity of jesus it makes me wonder why they still use verses in bible to proove divinity of jesus wrong. They can only proove it wrong by show us the bible is corrupted changed or added. thats their only way.

Lol Muhammed in the bible. How come that the propchecy mentioned jesus never changed, How come these verses about the coming of jesus was never chnaged or touched by the jews but verses reffering to muhammed is gone wich make me think that there was never any muhammed in the bible. Otherwise God would have protected the verses about muhammed from the jews like he did with the verses speaking about the brith of jesus and his death. they were never changed or touched by the jews.