Friday, July 17, 2009

Converts Debate: Qureshi vs. Williams

The opening statements are up, and the rest of the debate should be up by tomorrow morning. God bless you all!

Opening Statements

Rebuttals, Crossfire, and Conclusions


Unknown said...

Mr William reasons to Convert to islam are not clear, is it just me ?! From What I understood:

1- He couldnt understand Deity of Jesus, based on some verses, and some criticism.

The question, did he seek an answer for his question ?!

2- Then he mentioned little bit about Islam without getting into any evidence that support islam.
Just said monthesist God, then why Islam and not Judism for instance ?!

may be my opinion changes when I see the rest

Unknown said...

Also Mr Williams, Didn't even touch on any point of what Nabeel Said so far; Evidene of Crucifixion, Morals and revelaion of muhammed, textual preservation.

Saying that St John put word on the mouth of Jesus, without any eveidence is not right. Specially if you have several other testimonies.

Cause on the other side, We can simply say, The writers of the quran, Sunna and other books, put their own words in these books. Espcially those writers were not even from the companion of Muhammed nor the first Generation writers. So God Knows How truthful those people were !!!

Unknown said...

By the way Mr Williams, Had any one told you that Isalm is One wat, no Exit, you dont have a way out except being Murdered .... thats accrding to what the Muhammed the prophet of peae said said: Whoever Changes his Religion Kill Him !! (Hadith Sahih)

ben malik said...

I did enjoy Paul's opening statements for the simple fact that it was an accurate summary of what the best of critical liberal scholarship has to say concerning this subject. However, where I disagree with him is his assertion that the people he quotes are conservative scholars since they are anything but conservative. Would he accept someone as a conservative Muslim if he were to attribute errors to the Quran even if this scholar claimed to be conservative? I doubt it. And yet he expects us to accept his sources just because they claim to be conservative.

He further confuses assertions as facts. To assert that Jesus never thought or taught that he was divine is nothing more than an unsubstantiated statement which has to undermine or ignore the earliest witnesses which teach the contrary.

The most intriguing aspect of his opening statements is that he pretty much proved that the Quran is wrong and that Allah is a failure since, according to him, the Pauline line won out and trumped the Jewish line which is supposed to have been closer to the Muslim position even though Allah swore that he would make sure Jesus' true followers would triumph and prevail! Paul, however managed to thwart Allah by defeating the followers of Jesus.

And just to correct one of his many mistakes. He said that the council of Nicea took place in 451 which is wrong since it was 325. It was the council of Chalcedon which convened in 451.

Radical Moderate said...

Williams Error number 1. Well it didnt take long to spot his first error. Only a few minutes into his opening he spouts this little gem.

He says that Jesus predicts his return will be right after the destruction of the Temple with in the diciples life times. This is not what the text says. Jesus predicts the Destruction of the Temple in Mark 13 and Mathew 24. However reading on there are many other things that must take place before we see the Son Man returing in his glory. One event that must happen is that the Gosple's must be preached in all nations Mark 13:10 and Mathew 24:14

Secondly jesus also mentions that there will be wars, and rummors of wars, earthquakes, famines in various places etc... BUT THIS IS NOT the end, only the birht pains the begging of the end. Mathew 24:6-8 and Mark 13:7-8

Third Jesus also says that when the end is near you see the Abomonations that causes desolation sitting on the high or holy place were he or it does not belong. Clearly a reference to the prophesy in Danneil, and clearly about the devil or a demonicly influecned person. Mark 13:14 and Mathew 24:15

And finaly Jesus says that when this will happen only the Father knows, not the angels or even the SON. Mark 13:32, mathew 24:36.

So while it is true that yes Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, and while yes Son of Man will return to reap the harvest of the elect. It is not true that he predicted his return in glory imideitly procceding the destruction of the Temple or with in the Diciples life times.

Charlie said...

Nabeel I thought your presentation was solid, you gave reasons for both why you left Islam and received Jesus Christ. In you debates I have yet to hear someone give a coherent rebuttal of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.Good job.
Paul on the other hand while seemingly has done some reading and selective quoting, I felt tried to make his strongest case as to why he left Christianity(Catholicism).
When it came time to tell us while he converted to Islam he seemed to be to create before our eyes and ears a hybrid religion that encompasses the love of the Christian God with the practicality of law based system of belief.
So far I would say that Nabeel by far is staying on topic and being consistent. Paul seems to be very nice guy but his reasons for converting to Islam was not at all convincing. I will go so far as to say I have never heard a testimony from someone who has converted to Islam to be very consistent but more importantly from the heart. Of course an evaluation of truth is certainly important but at some point I would like to see some evidence of the work of God on the individual. Personal testimonies are one of my favorite reads and what seems to be the most ignored part of the new muslims testimony.

Radical Moderate said...

Also Mr Williams, Didn't even touch on any point of what Nabeel Said so far;

This is Williams opening statement, he is building his positive case from a prepaird sttement. I dont think he has to answer any points just yet. thats for the Rebuttle. I could be wrong but I think thats how it is done.

Unknown said...

Mr Williams:

Excuse me, But you really are BORING !!!

Guys , I dont know why a muslim should have intellectual conitive disability in order to become a muslim. Paul , where is the reasoning Sir ?!!

You Just kept reading some unknown books, and asking us to believe ?!

Do u think anyone got really impressed with islam and its strong evdiences after this debate ?! debate is not a reading session

I dont think anyone understood why you became a muslim by anyway, and I dont think that u know why u became a muslim.

I really dobt how debate works sir. Have u heard what consistency is ?!

Do u believe in scholars books more than canonical books in either christianity or islam ?!

Dont you have a free mind to think and search by own , or do u take others opinion for granted ?!

How u say about lost verses , is not important issue in Quran, when textual preservation is one of the most important things that quran appeals to, to proove it is divine ?!

we havent heard any thing from you about muhammed, nor a comment about what he did in Khayber , is this lack of knowledge ?!

Sir , I hope u knew your way back home after that debate, as I really feel that u r a completely lost person, who do know nothing about neither christinaity nor even islam !!

throughing books at a debate does show anything, except that u havent understood what is in them to express it. What do u think if Nabeel replied with the same, giving u bunch of books telling u (read in the named of Allah who created )... were u practicing your reading skills in this debate ?!

When it comes to islam , u say , u think those r minor issues, why didnt u apply the same excellent reasoning to chrisitianit and said, those are minor issues.

You are saying Islam is simple, well it depend on the person himself how he wants to think. as anyone can make anything simple or complex.

Fo instance,about simplictity: U have god as allah, a prophet, and a koran book, thats islam.

Well, using the same method, U have 1 god, disiples, and Holy bible, and now u have christinity.

If you dont wanna go further it is up to u, but if u do examine one religion, why dont u do the same for the other ?!!

Nabeel, Good Job my brother. I liked how u tried several times to keep him on track, so that he didnt drive u away. God bless u. I appreciate ur feelings that u dont want to mention the bad part of muhammed cuz of ur family, however, I believe in order to let people know he truth, u have to mention them, and not hide them as general muslims would do. Keep in mind u r not doing this to hurt anyone, but to uncover satans' works.

How was the reaction of people after the debate ?! how were the arguments with audience afterwards ?!

Glory be to God

Radical Moderate said...

During the cross X, Williams said "Islam is simple"
I have heard that said many times by muslims. I guess it is true islam is simple, for simple minded people. No offense to Mr Williams but again I dont find simpleness to be a argument. I'm not a simple person, I'm complex and if I'm complex how much more is Gods nature complex. So being simple is not a argument.

Robbing a bank is simple.
Learning a trade and earning a living is not

Having a one night stand is simple
Building a loving releationship is not.

Drinking alchohol and doing drugs is simple
Living a sober life is not.

Running out when times get tough is simple.
Sticking firm and standing by your comitmients is not.

Putting a gun to your head and pulling the triger is simple.
Living is not.

Radical Moderate said...

Nabeel it seems a big deal was made about you not able to understand the quran in arabic. I dont know if Mr William reads arabic. However I have a link to share the next time any muslims says anyting about reading the quran in arabic even a natural born arabic speaker.

Ask them to read what is claimed to be the orgnial Koran in arabic.


and Finlay

I have so far found not a single muslim who reads arabic even if they are natural arabic speakers who is able to read those pages. NOT A ONE.

Now in comparision, I have asked jews with a low level understanding of hebrew, 8th grade level and not hebrew speakers and they all can read the great Isiah scroll from the dead sea find.

Just a thought

Unknown said...

William and evry muslims usually refer to the claim that loram is memorized by Heart, and writting it down is to document it.

Thats one of the ost vague arguments, like the elinquet koran, for the following reasons:

1- Applying consistency principle, early christian and jews also memorized heir books by heart, as evidene when they used part of it as refernce in their writing.

2- if your claim was true:
why did muslims have problem collecting the koran, while just one person would have done the job.

3- Depending on Human memory, is defective, specially if u want to go back for verses revealed very early. It is like talling u , what was the verse u heard 20 years ago ?!

4- There were many different version in quran, so Othman burnt all of them out. If they were all the result of perfect memory, why were there any different versions that needs to be burnt

5- Shia, has two more chapter now. and sunni fights shia, who is right !!! have fun :P

6- In the arabic version of quran there differnt version , with some disripancies (like hafs, warsh,..)

7- Quran was first revealed on 7 different readings, so which one were they memorizing ?!

8- simple practicl test, get 10 or even 20 muslims now, let them recite the whole quran, and write it down, can u imagine how many differences u will get, simply cause u assume from the beginning that muslims are having good memories !!! take into cosnideration that , now it is much easier to memorize quran, cause it is already printed, and u have CDs, and audio reading. Compare this to the 7th century, ... they just hear it from the prophet , no way to revise it !!! so is this effective way to memorize

9- As already mentioned, many hadith states that a good portion of the quran is lost. and now it is about 6000 verses, 140 chapter, so it is not even the size of pslams!!!

10- the way they used to write verses was so primitive, on stones, bones, breasts, .... and I wonder when they travelled to Madina, how did they trasnported this load with them ?!! was there DHL, or they lost good part in mecca ?!

11- By the way Muahmmed ordered in a hadith, that his saying should not be collected and written, I dont know why muslims are disobeying him :-)


Pauls U are a very nice person, pleasant, so dont take my criticism offensively, I Just didnt like your reasoning at all

Since u like books, Amazon has a lot, I just hope u will select the right ones ;)

Unknown said...

Paul, u asked Nabeel if he knows arabic, as if this is the problem that he couldnt understand islam so thats why convert it.

1st: I bet u if u understand arabic

2nd: thats a good obstacle to give to people, as they wont understand anything till they learn arabic. So , a Sincere advice, STAY AWAY FROM ISLAM FOLKS, go learn arabic first

By the way, Arabic is one of the most difficult languages in the world, perhaps next to xhinese and Japanese. Even worse, the language of Quran , is so ancient, so that u will have more touble understandin it, whih is good :-)

Bryant said...


For a guy who is very laid back and cordial in person, you certainly take no prisoners while debating. That crossfire was fierce to say the least. I do think it was necessary though. There are souls on the the line and we can't afford not to be assertive. I'm glad you didn't return insult for insult when he attacked you to no end.

This was a solid debate for you Nabeel.

Bryant said...

Mr. Williams relied heavily on quoting scholars. The problem is that anyone can quote a list of guys with doctorates in order to prove whatever bias we have. I'm afraid that I saw no solid interaction with early Christian texts. He says Christology evolved? Has he never heard of the Carmen Christi? People were worshiping Jesus way before John's (high Christology) gospel was written.

Anonymous said...

Mister Williams made a public challenge to our Brother in Christ (Nabeel)

The challenge existed out of providing a single verse from the book ‘Acts of the apostles’ that implies that the earliest apostles believed Jesus was in any sense divine or equal to God.

I would like to quote Acts 20:25-28

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God,WHICH HE HATH PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

Now, who shed his blood? The verse states it was God that purchased the church with his OWN blood. Yet the book ‘Acts of the Apostles’ states that it was Jesus who shed his blood for the church.

dare to explain?

ben malik said...

I just saw that Williams is another low class individual who can't hide his hatred of Christianity. I say this because of the following blogpost he wrote in connection to these debates:

From the Islamic perspective, the once monotheistic – now turned Trinitarian polytheist, religion of Christianity is an aberration of the true teachings of Prophet Jesus. With the worship of Jesus being viewed as idolatry and neo-roman paganism by the worlds 1.7 billion Muslims, Christians are left to defend against the allegations of polytheism, double standards and crusader mentalities.

These apologists just can't help from spewing venom at Christians, trying to present our faith in the worst light, while bending over backwards to excuse Muhammad raping women, turning them into whores, and murdering anyone who stood in his way. This is really disgusting.

Ed U. said...

Christians, or many of them, do not rely on the perfection of the Bible. Many and perhaps most Christians take it that the Bible is inspired from God through human writers, but is NOT the verbatim word of God. Thus for Christians, it is not a big deal to find or suspect imperfections or mistakes in the Bible. Christians do not hold that the Bible is God. They hold that Jesus is God.

But in Islam, the Qur'an is God, in the sense that it is not merely thought to be inspired from God. It is thought to be the verbatim word of God, and to be "uncreated," i.e., to have always existed, like God. (This really amounts to polytheism, though Muslims wouldn't want to admit that.) Thus some scholars have said that whereas Christianity speaks of an Incarnation, in Islam there is an Inlibration, an embodiment of God in a book.

But what this means is that imperfections and mistakes and corruptions in the Qur'an, such as those pointed out by early Islamic sources themselves, and by Nabeel, are more serious for Islam than are mistakes in the Bible for Christians.

I thought interesting Mr. Williams' claim that many (most?) conservative Christian scholars now deny that Jesus referred to himself as God, though I can't judge that, as I don't know the scholarship on this. I have at times wondered about the statement in the Bible where Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God."

One direction in which one might begin to understand why Christ simultaneously distinguishes himself from God and identifies himself with God: In one sense, God is absolutely transcendent and Other to the world and to us. In another sense though, God is in everything and immanent everywhere. These two senses are contradictory, yet they are both part of the truth. Is that perhaps part of what Jesus was saying, when he sometimes distinguished himself from God, and at other times identified himself with God? In Judaism, it often seems that God is absolutely Other, and has no immanence. In Hinduism, the very opposite seems sometimes to be the case: God is utterly immanent, and has no Otherness, no transcendence. In Christianity both sides are acknowledged. There is an evolution of consciousness during the course of history.

The Christian, in the long run, must base himself not on the Bible alone, but more profoundly on experience. The Christian must be able eventually to experience Christ, but not only in the manner of fundamentalists in a church speaking in tongues. Ultimately Christ must be available to calm perception and must be verifiable and understandable in exactly the same way mathematics and physical facts are verifiable, through correlations of direct experiences. The spiritual world can open up to calm, systematic, scientific, spiritual observation, not so higher worlds can be exploited as science exploits the material world, of course, but simply so those worlds can be known and interacted with.

But until we can do that better, I think we can look at the teachings of Christianity and Islam and compare, and see that Christianity's teachings are far more humane and loving.

The fact alone that Muhammad said, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, then kill him," should be enough, in this day and age, to turn us away from him as a religious teacher.

Radical Moderate said...

Error Number 2, actualy there are to many errors for me to count, so I'm just going to end with this one.

Mr Williams said words to the affect that you will not find in the book of Acts anywhere Christ is diafied.

Acts 3:14-15 "14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."

Here Jesus is called the author of LIFE. That screams that he is GOD.

Unknown said...

12: Koran wasnt Memorised entirley by muhammed:
- t was revealed to him on so many years
- there are hadiths that mentions that he forgot verses, and asked someone to remind him , is when he was in prayer during recitation he forgot or confused a word, so he was corrected by the sahaba behind him; this incident is mentioned in the quran saying that this was by the permission of God, this is a very well know incident,

if he made mistake one, why cant it be twice or more ?!

13: collection of quran is like u have a city with some people who knows part of the quran. The a team composed of three, goes around the city asking who is having the quran , plz recite !!! is this by any means a good way to collct the quran.

What about people who knew some verses, and diesd before collection.

What about those who forgot ?!

What about those who dont rmember exxactly the verse ?!

Thats the most vague way I have seen , to collect a book, and then u consider it HOLY, LOL

Anonymous said...

Mr. Williams makes so many historically false statements its amazing... I wish I could have been there to refute every point.

The claim that Jesus' divinity and the trinity was invented the 3rd century or a later council tells me that these people are lazy researchers who dont read the writings of those who believe... but only those who disbelieve.

"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen."
Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).

Anonymous said...

"And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God."
Mark 10:18

It is not the first time I have heard this one used as an argument against his divinity.... Jesus is challenging the young man as if to say 'Why do you refer to me as good but not as Lord?'

Nakdimon said...

Ibn Malik, I think that we should bombard liberal Muslims to conservative Islamic scholars too. Like that lesbian Canadian Muslimah, whats her name, Manjee or something? Seeing Muslims do the same with liberal christian scholars, I doubt that they would feel unhappy about that.

Anonymous said...

Williams sounded like he was selling books more than debating points.

Anonymous said...


You do a good job but I fear these debates rely on modern "scholarship" sources too much as a means of validating positions. Its as if these far removed scholars are alloted a position of unassailable integrity in judgement because the have a university accredation. Nobody knew the historical Jesus better than the pre-nicaene fathers. I think it would be helpful to cite the works of St Justin Martyr, St Polycarp and St. Irenaeus (Irenaeus was disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a student of St. John the Apostle). Their writings absolutely support the trinity, and divinity of Christ. They were the scholars of their time. Why should they be taken any less seriously than todays? Modern scholarship will never know the historical Jesus better than the early Jews and Gentiles themselves.

The Gospel of Matthew, unlike "modern scholarships claim" is as old as Mark. Of course that is not my claim but that is what the students of the apostles claim.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

We dont need the Gospel of John to show his claims of being divine.

Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.

Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 - Jesus says that He is "Lord of the Sabbath." He is the Lord of God's law which means He is God.

The hypostatic union of father and son is described by Ignatius.

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin."
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).

The trinitarian formuala is described by St Justin Martyr

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove."
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

minoria said...


What you said Nabeel impressed me,when you explained WHY Paul hated the Christians at the beginning.It never ocurred to me before.You know more than Paul,his criticism was faulty.


Paul defended the Koran's authenticity but doesn't he know about the latest documents,earliest Korans from Sanaa,Yemen?That they don't support it.2 reliable German scholars have proved it.No doubt about it.It was very,very,very disappointing.I was expecting MORE.Is he really looking 100% for the evidence?No.


Was it because they believed in a Messiah?NO.Because they believed in a resurrection?NO.In the resurrection of Jesus,in itself?NO.I've added the info to my notes.I am know much and now I know more.

By logic only,and only that,that the first disciples said Jesus was God would be the only thing to enrage him horribly,by his own admission he persecuted them(Galat.1:13-14/1 Cor 15:8-9,these letters are considered authentic by all scholars).It can't be denied.I always try to give the citations,so you can all check it.Verify.


The Muslim said Acts 2:22 says (man of God,for Jesus)and 2:36(God made Jesus Messiah).Yes.But it doesn't go against the idea of Jesus as being God.Paul Muslim knows less than I do regarding the NT.


Who wrote Acts?Luke,all agree.Luke has Jesus indirectly saying he is God when he takes the power to forgive sins,an attribute of God,in Luke 5:17-26(which he copied from Mark 2:1-12).

I don't think Paul Muslim knows this.Then in Luke 23:33-34 has Jesus ORDER God to forgive people,in the Greek grammar,in the imperative.Only God can order God.Does he know that detail?

Or does he know Luke read Mark 2:23-28 where he says "the Son of Man (the very expression he says reliable scholars say only means "the Jewish people")is LORD of the SABBATH?"

Luke didn't include it but he knew it.Doesn't Paul Muslim know scholars say it applies as a title only to God?He seems to not know that Luke-Acts is ONE BOOK.We artificially divide it into 2,we shouldn't.

I have more to say but later on.Again Nabeel,you did great.I hope you find my info interesting.

minoria said...


He was Jewish,didn't believe Jesus was God.No way.Famous theologian,and he believed Jesus was a great man and actually resurrected.But later others made him God,he never claimed it.

So?So it was that the disciples claimed Jesus was God would be the only thing to freak Paul out.


I read 1 Thess 4:15-17 and 1 Cor 15:51-52 where he uses "we".Is the"we" a part of a general statement,or Paul saying "I and you will see the second coming".I don't see why it can't be the first.


I can say "We will see all peoples accept Jesus as God,those who are atheist,Hindu,Muslim,etc."Am I saying "I and my generation" or am I speaking in general?The former.


James 5:8-9 says "the coming of the Lord is near/the judge is at the door".1 John 2:18 says "it's the last hour"2X.


The condition for the second coming?The good news must first be preached to all nations.

No doubt about it.The disciples James and John sincerely thought the Roman Empire and neighbors were the whole world at the time.They would have thought there was little time till the whole world was preached to:they knew nothing of Polynesia,Papua New Guinea,the Philippines,China,North America,South America,Australia,etc.

So they thought the task was coming to an end.They were wrong due to lack of geographical knowledge.Not due to misunderstanding of how to tell when the coming would be near:when all nations had received the gospel.

ben malik said...


Luke did quote the saying that Jesus the Son of Man is the Lord of Sabbath:

"Then Jesus said to them, 'The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.'" Luke 6:5

Ali said...

//Nabeel I thought your presentation was solid, you gave reasons for both why you left Islam and received Jesus Christ//

Charlie, leaving the ahmadiyya faith means nothing to us muslims. in fact its better if theres less ahmdiyya's. so i think muslims should thank nabeel for leaving ahmdiyyaism or whatever.

Anthony Rogers said...


I haven't seen this debate yet, I simply haven't had enough time at my computer to do so; however, I am somewhat familiar with Paul Williams. Paul wrote me a couple of months ago after seeing some articles I wrote on AI and asked me what I thought of a couple of his articles. I told him I would look them over (which I did), but that I wouldn't be able to give him a thorough response for a while since other Muslims asked to be refuted before he did. From the way it appears from various comments, it looks like what he said in the articles and in our correspondence overlapped with some of the issues that came up during your debate with him.

In light of that, I wish I would have been on my toes and noticed that it was the same Paul Williams you were going to debate. Perhaps I could have sent you what he sent me and also some of my thoughts. Though I suspect you did a great job, it is always nice to know as much as you can about a person's position before you step into a debate with them. Perhaps next time I will be paying attention and will be able to give you a heads up in advance if I have any information. Sorry for dropping the ball.

On another note, we also had a few brief exchanges about the plural nouns and pronouns used for God in the Old Testament, something that was sparked off from the fact that some of his writings appear on the Bismika Allahumma website.

I mentioned that it was ironic that he was sending me anti-trinitarian (and other) writings from a website that uses a plural noun for Allah in its title. Suffice it to say, he didn't have the same enthusiasm for the observation as I did.

Most interestingly, during our discussion about the Old Testament use of plural nouns and pronouns for God, he conceded that he doesn't know Hebrew and was in no position to speak authoritatively on what I was pointing out about certain terms and how they are used in the Old Testament. (Judging from some of the comments being made here) It sounds to me like that concession on his part is relevant to his question put to you about whether or not you understand Arabic. His exact words to me on the issue were:

"But I personally cannot argue the point from my own research as I do not read Hebrew (though I do read NT Greek)."

More later...

Sepher Shalom said...


You did an excellent job for the glory of the Gospel! It was abundantly clear after seeing this debate that Mr. Williams does not have a serious knowledge of the new belief system he has accepted. I really hope he does research the issues you brought up to him.

Sepher Shalom said...

The Fat Man,

Excellent catch on Acts Chapter 3. I was about to sit down and go through it to see if Williams' claim held true. The verses you cited from Chapter 3 are not ambiguous in any way.

Unknown said...


Passages in Mark (since some think Mark has the 'lowest' Christology, let's start there!):

Mark 1.38: Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else -- to the nearby villages -- so I can preach there also. That is why I have come."--there is a hint of pre-existence in the end of the sentence.

Mark 2.5ff: When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...."--A rather strong statement of divine authority, and the context SHOWS that it was a blasphemous assertion IF He was NOT God!. Notice that He does not answer their charges with a "Hold on now! I am not claiming to be God! I am claiming something less!"--not at all!

Mark 2.28: So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."--Notice: Jesus has the authority to override the laws of the Sabbath.

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. --Notice: very early identification with the messianic Servant of Isaiah.

Mark 8.38: If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."--Notice: Jesus identifies Himself with the exalted 2nd coming--even linked to the Father's glory (cf. Is 42.8: "My glory I will not give to another" said YHWH).

Mark 9.41: I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.--Notice: Jesus makes an explicit claim to Messiahship here ("Christ").

Mark 9:42: "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, --Notice that He is endorsing Himself as an appropriate object of religious faith! A rather important clue as to deity--cf. Jer 17.5: This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man.

Mark 10.45: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." A hint of pre-existence.

Mark 11.3: If anyone asks you, `Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'" Notice how closely Jesus is linked to 'the Lord'. We cannot tell in the passage if it refers to Him or to His Father. [The same is true in 5.19-20...Jesus tells the demoniac to tell his family "what the Lord has done for him", and he tells them "what the Jesus did for him"--exact same linguistic construction and words!]

Unknown said...

Mark 12.1-11: The parable of the Tenants. In this passage Jesus differentiates Himself from the religious leadership of Israel (i.e. "the wicked tenants"), with a claim to a UNIQUE Sonship-Heirship. So "He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.' "But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.. He interprets this messianically in v.10-11, as does His enemies around Him (v.12). He is the UNIQUE Son and Heir of God--a rather high claim!

Mark 12.35-37: While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' 37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"--Notice: this is the classic text on the two natures of Christ...Jesus, as messiah, is greater even than David!

Mark 13.26-27: "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.--Notice: Jesus identifies himself with the Divine figure in Daniel 7.13, talks of his coming with 'great glory', calls the angels 'HIS angels', calls the elect "HIS elect", and somehow is able to gather them together from all places on the globe. There are quite a few strong deity claims in this little passage!

Mark 13.31: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.--Notice--a rather exorbitant claim for a mere creature, eh?!

Mark 13.32: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.--Notice this claim--the order of words suggests that the Son is greater than the angels!

Mark 14.27: "You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' --Notice Jesus applies the messianic passage Zech 13.7 to himself.

Mark 14.62: Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."--Notice Christ claims to be both Son of God and the messianic Son of Man in Dan 7.13! Notice also that the High Priest in the next verse proclaims that this is blasphemy--an ascription of deity to that which is not god! Jesus' claims to be the Danielic messiah and to be the Son of God were understood by the 1st century Palestinian Jew to be claims to deity!

Mark 15.2: "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.--Not a claim to deity, but certainly a claim to Messiahship (which was linked to deity, as we observed in the section on OT).

Summary of Mark's accounts of Jesus words: Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Divine Eschatological Son of Man (from Daniel), the Unique Son of God, Lord of the Sabbath, Forgiver of Sins, appropriate object of religious faith, Unique Heir of God, greater than David, possessor of angels and the elect, speaker of eternally binding words, King of the Jews. He is repeatedly accused of blasphemy (i.e. making Himself GOD) by His enemies and He never corrects this viewpoint. Jesus words in Mark, as a 'low' Christology, are surprisingly HIGH!

Unknown said...


Passages in Matthew (in addition to those in Mark):

Mt 5.17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.--Notice: this would be the most ridiculous of statements if made by a mere man!

Mt 5: The "you have heard...but I say to you" passages are generally considered to be statements of divine authority [RF: 240-241].

Mt 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'--Notice that Jesus makes people's eternal destiny contingent upon HIS approval of them! What an incredible claim! (cf. also Mt 10:32-33)

Mt 10.34-35: -- "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.--Notice: a hint of pre-existence.

Mt 10.37: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me--Notice that Jesus claims allegiance and loyalty GREATER than the strongest of relationships--the family. Only a relationship with God supersedes those relationships! This is a sublime statement of deity.

Mt 11.10: Jesus applies the Mal 3.1 passage to John the Baptist, which would put Jesus in the role of YHWH in those passages (e.g. 'the LORD will come to His temple').

Mt 11.27: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.--Notice: Jesus claims to be the ONLY person who knows the Father! And to be the only distributor of that knowledge! This is a claim to unique Sonship and relationship to God if there ever was one!

Unknown said...

Mt 12.6: I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."--Notice: We have already encountered this passage in Mark, but I wanted to point out that Jesus refers to himself as 'one greater than the temple' here.

Mt 12.41-42: The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.--Notice Jesus claims to be greater than Jonah and Solomon.

Mt 18.20: For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."--Notice: this is nothing short of a claim to omni-presence! That is the ONLY way this could be true, with the expanding church.

Mt 23.34: Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.--Notice: Jesus will send prophets/teachers.

Mt 25.17-46 ("The Sheep and the Goats"): "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'--Notice these exalted claims! The eternal destiny of those people depend upon how they responded to Jesus! The references to 'his throne', 'in glory', 'he will separate', 'King'...all high, high references--beyond that of creatures.

Mt 28.18ff: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."--Notice: ALL authority (in heaven!) given to Him, his name is linked equally with the Spirit and the Father(!) with the single word "name", and the promise of omni-presence!

Summary of additional data from Matthew's accounts of Jesus words: Jesus claims to be able to abolish the Old Testament scriptures, to have divine authority over the interpretation of the OT, that peoples' eternal destiny hinges on their response to Him, to be worthy of higher loyalty than family, to have exclusive knowledge of the Father, to be the exclusive distributor of that knowledge, to be greater than the Temple, greater than Jonah and Solomon, to be the sender of prophets, to have ALL authority in heaven, to be omnipresent and one with/equal to the Father and the Spirit. Again, this is VERY high stuff!--superhuman, superangelic, divine.

Unknown said...


Passages in Luke (in addition to those in Mark & Matthew):

Lk 7.48-49: Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"--Notice: this is just another passage that points out Jesus claims to forgive sins, and the response of those around him.

Lk 10.19: I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.--Notice: He somehow had the authority to 'transfer' authority over evil!

Lk 12.49: "I have come to bring fire on the earth--Probably a statement of pre-existence (vs. 'I have appeared')

Lk 19.10: For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."--Probably a statement of pre-existence also.

Lk 19.43ff: The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."--Notice: They did not recognize "GOD'S" coming to them. YHWH was supposed to come to His temple (OT prophecy), which of course happens in the NEXT section of Luke. Jesus is making a clear claim to deity here.

Lk 21.14-15: But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.--Notice: in this version of the end-time persecution prophecy, Jesus says that HE will give them the words to say, but in Mt 10 it has 'Spirit of your Father' and in Mr 13 it was 'the Holy Spirit'. This is a rather clear and close association (besides a statement of supernatural power to be able to do that, and omnipresence to BE there!)

Lk 22.29f: And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me--Notice: he has the authority to 'confer a kingdom' JUST AS the Father does--equality of action/authority.

Lk 22.31: "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."--Notice that somehow Jesus has knowledge of what goes on in the throneroom of Heaven! (cf. Job 1). He either is so "tuned in to" the Father or is somehow 'linked to' the Father (requiring Jesus' permission also), as to have access to this information. (Cf. Heb 7.25).

Lk 24.44: He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."--Notice this explicit statement that Jesus was the messiah of prophecy.

Lk 24.49: I am going to send you what my Father has promised--Notice: Jesus has authority to SEND the Holy Spirit?! Is this not deity?!

Summary of additional data from Luke's accounts of Jesus' words: Jesus claims to have authority to grant authority over evil to humans, actually claims to be "God" visiting them, to be interchangeable (or co-extensive in operation) with the Holy Spirit/Spirit of the Father, omni-present, to have special knowledge of what goes on in the Father's throneroom in heaven, and to have the authority to SEND the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Again, rather exalted claims if He were a mere creature (even a very exalted one!)

Unknown said...

Summary: The claims of Jesus in the Synoptics:

To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah
To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous)
To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
To be Lord of the Sabbath
To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous)
To be an appropriate object of religious faith
To be the Heir to God
To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple
To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect
To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority
To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures
To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT
To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!)
To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge
To send prophets
To be omnipresent
To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them
To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits
To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!)
To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies)
To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit
To have special knowledge of heavenly events
To have ALL authority in HEAVEN
To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!)

Conclusion: The Synoptics, often considered to portray an "earthly Jesus" and not the "divine Christ", provide ample data for both! The claims above are simply TOO NUMEROUS, TOO 'HIGH', TOO consistently understood as being claims to deity (and hence, deserving the term 'blasphemy' by the Jewish religious establishment of the day) for us to make this Jesus a 'mere man--noble, sublime, wise--but still JUST a man'. No, the data is quite clear--Jesus reflected a self-consciousness of being God. There are times, predictably, in the economy of redemption, in which His humanity and servant-nature revealed itself, but those passages CANNOT 'explain away' the import of the above mass of data. The Synoptic gospels consistently portray a Jesus who understood Himself as the divine Son of God and eschatological Son of Man, and one totally consistent with the early creedal/liturgical forms of the church.

Sepher Shalom said...

I found some interesting reading from an Islamic source. It's not necessarily relevant to this debate, but I thought some people might be interested in the topic.

It is titled: The Clear Proofs for Refuting the doubts of the people of Takfeer and Bombing

To see what material it covers, you can go to the table of contents on pg. 5 of the pdf.

IslamSINS said...

Mr. Williams' entire opening statement consisted of the written opinions of others, without any balance of a personal experience.
He gives no reason why he believes Muhammad was a "prophet", outside of the glowing opinions of Muslims. What is there in the Koran that would lead anyone to think the Muhammad and Jesus were "spiritual brothers"? Did Christ teach us that a Holy God created seven flat earths, sperm becomes a blood clot, apostates and infidels are to be slaughtered?

1Jn 2:19 - 22 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Many Muslims refer to Roman Catholic dogma - praying to Mary for intercession - and apply it to all of Christianity. Why? There is nothing in Scripture teaching us to enlist the assistance of anyone, and Paul calls us all "saints". Williams again demonstrates only a very superficial knowledge of Christianity. He also lies when he says that he once accepted Scripture as the inerrant word of God. But in his opening, he says the opposite: In spite of his earliest misgivings about the inerrancy of Scripture, he decided to become Christian anyway.

In the critical analysis of the signs of the "end of" our planet as we know it, Christ gives a number of events that will usher in His return. Williams will need to prove that they've all been fulfilled, IF he wants to claim this is a mistake in Scripture. If Mr. Williams can give the dates when every sign was fulfilled, then I will also question the Bible.

His comparing the disciples seeing the resurrected Christ to the accounts of a woman who saw her dead husband are so sophomoric, he disqualifies himself as a serious debater. Still, he's easier to listen to than either Ahmed or Abdallah, but that says nothing, since standards for their performances are so low as to be nonexistant.

I signed off 31 minutes into the rebuttals, so unless there was a sudden spasm of intellect on William's part, I probably missed nothing.

Fernando said...

Dear shafsha711... good pointes outt there brother. May God bless you!

Radical Moderate said...

shafsha711 excellent work sir Just excellent. I was acutaly putting together a spread sheet with this in mind. You just made my life easier. Thanks again.

Radical Moderate said...

Quoting Acts Acts 20:25-28
tops my quoting Acts 3:14-15 where jesus is called the author, or originator of life. Excellent just excellent. I love this blog :) So much knowlege here.

Radical Moderate said...

I finally got up the nerve to listen to Mr. Williams Opening statement in its entirety. It takes a certin amount of preparation to listen to a man who was once with us but was driven out from us. A heavy supply of Pepto Bismal, and Tums antacid.

On the one hand it is funny, to listen to him in his appeal to authority. The best was at the end when he quoted a poem. I shouted at my computer screen sarcastically “Well that does it, you have convinced me I now want to become a Muslim” However after the words left my mouth I quickly realized the gravity of the situation, and how truly sad the situation is that this man finds himself in.

He said that he accepted Christ even though he had doubts, now whether these doubts were real or just imaginary does not take away from the fact that they where his doubts, and since he had these doubts they were real to him and he never should of accepted something if he doubted in the clear doctrine.

He said that he was a Christian apologist, and that he loved apologetics, he expressed hatred and intolerance, to the point that it prevented him from caring out the great commission and following the teachings of Christ. I can not help but see in him the Justice of GOD. For he truly will not let a man remain in the body of Christ who does not truly belong there. He will cut off any branch that does not bear fruit and is not productive. He will cast out from us who are not truly of us, and he will not allow them to eat at our love feasts. Here truly expressed in this man is a demonstration of the JUSTICE OF GOD.

I can not help but feel pity for this man. Not because he was an unbeliever who God did not allow to remain. But because this unbeliever chose to justify his unbelief with something that is not of God, convincing himself that he is following GOD.

I would not pity this man so much if he had become an atheist, to live his life in UN abashed guilt free sin, following UN apologetically his sinful desires whatever they may be. At least he would be going to hell in his own way. However instead he has chosen a way of life that is just a simple form of behavior modification. He has convinced himself that he is doing right by doing what is wrong.

Imagine a married man, who although rejected Christ and God, lived a life of total physical faithfulness to his wife. He prides himself on being a good husband. Although he has never committed adultery, he has still been tempted with thousands of beautiful woman over his life time. He has tortured and tormented himself with the idea but always remained physically faithful. This man because of his rejection of God winds up in Hell next to Hugh Hefner. Can you imagine a greater cruelty?

el Lobo said...

Qureshi says he used the same criteria for both islam and christianity. In all fairness he did'nt. I have more to say about this later. Just to give one example, he says that everyone around jesus belived he died on the cross, he was divine etc. Even his enemies Paul and James came to believe it. Why not apply the same criterion on islam. Everyone around prophet muhammad (peace be upon him) believed he was the prophet of God; in some cases immediately in other cases like his archenemy abo sofyan after a while.

He knows as well as I do that in the best case scenario he became a christian because of theological reasons not because he can prove christianity is correct and islam is wrong. In the worst case scenario he became a christian due to secular reasons.
However, I must say that he is a good debater.

Unknown said...


Thanks, GBU all

minoria said...

Ben Malik:

Thanks for the correcion.A stupid mistake.Wow!That makes Luke-Acts saying Jesus was God even stronger.Thanks again.I believe your name means Son of the King,but I'm not sure if in Arabic or Hebrew.

And now 286,000 hits on youtube in about 3 weeks.Astonishing.

I hope lots begin reading


If people praise a Muslim and he says:"Have you not heard it is written of me:"you alone we ask for help,guide us to the right path,the path of those who you blessed?"

Then he's saying he's Allah.It comes from Sura 1.


It's 10 verses and is about God saying "Yahweh,our Lord,your name is magnificent over the whole earth" and ends with the same words.

MATT 21:15-16

Jesus enters Jerusalem.Children call him Son of David (er,Messiah),the priests tell him to tell them to shut up.But he quotes Psalm 8:3 and applies it to himself.He said he was God.

Unknown said...


U got things confused my friedn. About Jesus Deity, we proof it by saying of Jesu himself, we wont put word in his mouth

He was talking aboit how we prove ressurection, so that absolutely different from Muhammed case, muhammed was neither crucified nor resureected.

So when we talk about resurrection, we ask ourselves why do all his discciples belived that Jesus Resurected?! why do they all go to preache, sacrificing their souls for this reason.

Even More, The enemies, like Paul, who was one of the most radical Jews, What do u think him , that made him believe ?! James is same story, but was less radiacl. And both Claime that jesus appeared to them.

So it is not because other believe, so We believe. But thing is, why did they believe in a person who was crucified, humilated , and died !!!

Put it this way, u know a someone, that u really hate and persecute. This man went to prison, and Died. U continued persecution, Then al of a sudden u changed ur behaviour cuz u said that u saw this neighbour !! what in the world would make u change ur behaviour if your story want true.

Applying consistency method in islam, I cant find anything similar, if u do, please let me know.

Unknown said...


though I really dont know you nor do i know Nabeel in person, I wouldnt claim such a thing as u did, specially if it is related to internal belief. Cause it sounds like saying u are lier, and u really dont know him ... so no one would trust such a claim that it was for secular reason.

Moreover, listen to his eveidence and what he says, and what Paul says, then comment on what was said ... it is easy to say both were lier, it is hard to prove evidence


Anonymous said...

IslamSINS said--
"Many Muslims refer to Roman Catholic dogma - praying to Mary for intercession - and apply it to all of Christianity. Why? There is nothing in Scripture teaching us to enlist the assistance of anyone, and Paul calls us all "saints". "

Dear brother in Christ, you may disagree with Catholic/Eastern Orthodox dogma, but to say veneration of saints is not scriptural is merely your opinion and not an unassailable fact. The ~300 million members of the Eastern Orthodox, the 1.1 billion Roman Catholics and the ~60 million Anglicans all disagree with you for very valid reasons. We do not follow our faith blindly. And Muslims are right to call out challenges to Eastern and Western Christianity because Orthodox and Catholics make up the vast majority of Christians in the world.

I am not looking to have a protracted debate on this topic because this is not the forum for such a discussion. I know your scriptural reasons....and I respect them.... have you ever investigated the scriptural reasons Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans would disagree? You might come away still in disagreement... but at least you would know our reasons are a different interpretation of scripture backed by sacred apostolic tradition.

Anonymous said...


I believe that the provided verses are sufficient enough to refute the allegation made by mister Williams. I hope he will reconsider his ‘’argument’’ cause it has been demolished.

Lets see if mister Williams is as sincere as he claims and admit his error concerning the early history of the church (ie Acts of the apostles)

I somewhat doubt he will.

el Lobo said...


Nabeel set up a bunch of criteria. He said that he used the same criteria when judging islam and christianity. U seem to confuse the criteria he used with what he applied them to. One of his so called historical criteria used to prove jesus' resurrection was that why would people around him think that he did. So if a lot of people think that then it is very probable that it really took place. This so-called no smoke without fire criteria or what have you can by the same token be applied to a number of things, namely the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh). However, Nabeel did'nt. Because if he did he would end up with the conclusion that Muhammad indeed was a prophet. In other words a the same set of criteria can be used to judge different things. He himself made the courtroom analogy. In a courtroom you don't use different criteria for judging whether a white or a black has committed a crime just because they have different skincolor. He used four different criteria. I'll get back to you concerning the other three. I don't have access to the debate right now.

Dk said...

I could not find a single reason why Paul Williams actually became a Muslim.

I note he rejects Biblical Inerrancy, the Divinity of Christ etc, yet hundreds of believers in the NT agree with him on this point, and still consider themselves "Christian" (obviously not orthodox to the mainstream).

What has anything of this however got to do with accepting Islam?

And why doesn't Williams bother to give justification for the liberal scholars he so excessively quotes?

Why does it seem like he is avoiding the substance of the issues?

Fernando said...

Man... Who is this Wiilams? He seeams almoste as bad as The Osama The Great Abdalah...

Anonymous said...

Dear all

A post from me, Paul Williams.

I've read most of the posts on this blogg.

I obviously did not expect sympathetic reviews of the arguments I gave that night in my debate with Nabeel (who I have grown to respect and like as a person after a couple of enjoyable meals together).

I don't intend to mount a fresh defense of my position on this blog, as it would take days to do, so I would like to refer interested readers to several articles on my blog about Jesus, Christology and the NT:

The Apotheosis of Jesus of Nazareth

The Authentic Gospel of Jesus: Evidence that Demands Christians Rethink Their Faith

The Historicity of John's Gospel in Question

...and Chapter 2 of my forthcoming book (which is taken from my opening presentation).

You can read these by looking for the titles on the right hand side on the bloggroll, or clicking under 'Quick Guide to Contents', 'Articles by me' and 'New Book'.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam

Paul Williams

Unknown said...


No Sir, it seems to me u r very confused.

first the criteria is, examining evidence historicaly (Early source, multiple, embarassing, and from enemies)

Second what are the claims to examine:

.Muslim claim Jesu was not crucified / Didnt say he is God, Not resurrected
.What muslims Claim , that Muhammed has the best moral, true prophet, quran is from Allah .. so on.

Then apply methodology on examining the claims.

can u see the difference now ?! so he applied same criteria on the different claims.

Point is , Claims Are different, method is the same !!

Unknown said...

Paul, welcome to our Blog.

1- u r calling us to examine christianity, we are alrady did, and now we are examing Islam, and we will move to Hindu next

2- Why dont u examine islam too in return ?! we all are inviting u to examine islam carefully, and u will know how incompatible with humanity

3- Till now, we havent seen any good reason to trust you and become muslim, the only two reasons u mention(a- Simple, b-u dont understand christianity)

Again, thanks for joining our blog Sir, pleasure to read more comments from you

ben malik said...


After viewing the debate the last thing anyone would have suspected is that you respect and like Nabeel since you kept attacking him personally and were very rude to him, even though he was nthong but kind to you.

I have read your articles and to be quite honest your arguments are quite unimpressive and only proves what Nabeel and others like Dr. White have been saying about your kind. You are simply inconsistent since you would never use the same kind of criteria and scholarship against the Quran, otherwise you would end up being atheist, agnostic or perhaps Buddhist.

I see why you hid your name from your article on John's authorship which Zawadi posted in reply to Shamoun since it seems that you were afraid of having him take you to task and school you for producing it. But hey, I have it on good word that Shamoun is now going to target you and your articles.

Speaking of Shamoun and White, are you willing to debate your assertions with either one of these gentlemen since I am sure they would love to take you on? Do let us know.

David Wood said...


Greetings, and welcome to the blog. I added a link to your website on the sidebar, so that anyone who wishes to check it regularly can do so.

ben malik said...

Since the brothers here have been quoting passages from Luke in reply to Paul's challenge I thought that these articles from Shamoun would be of some benefit since they do provide some in-depth info concerning the high Christology of Luke-Acts.

Anonymous said...

Hi David, nice to hear from you.

I feel a bit like Daniel in the lions den here, but hey, you never know, I might make some new friends...

el Lobo said...


Islam says jesus wasn't crucified. One of the criteria he used to refute that was that people around jesus seemed to believe that he was. Therfore it's more probable that he did.

Claim two muhammad is a prophet. How did Nabeel refute that? By saying he was possessed and by saying that he can not be a profet because of the Khayber incident. Some sort of character assassination criteria is used to refute this claim.

The same criterion is not applied on these two claims.

Unknown said...


First since u arouse the crudcifction issue let me ask u :

Christians, Jews, Asheist, Romans, and everyone on earth except muslims Says and proves that JESUS WAS CRUCIFED

Only Mihammed came 600 years later, and said, OOPs sorry , it was a mistake. Do u have eveidence for your claims , Sir ?!


Now Back to Nabeel:

Nabeel Found all Muhammed claims about chrstianity were wrong follwing this methodolgy. ( Remeber nabeel was a muslim, and his aim of investigating evidence was to prove christianity is wrong, and he wouldnt convert if he found false eveidence)

Nabeel also said, that he didnt want to speak a lot about Muhammed in this debate for two reasons:
1- this is a general debate, and so he used just two examples
2- Till now, he doesnt want talk bad about muhammed in public mentioning his bad deeds cause he doesnt want to hurt the feeling of his family.


About the mentioned two examples :
Nabeel said he used same methodolgy investigating issues about Muhammed.
So using using same methodolody about satanic verses, showed that this is a well documented event in early multiple sources from muslims. Also Khaiber event is a true one, that Muhammed took as slave hurl and had sex with her before reaching back home. those tw event are well documented events.

So, I really cant understand what is so unclear to u ?!

let me put it this way:
There are claims from both sides
Jesus deity

and for islam :

and he used same criteria to examine both

Do u understand english ?!

ben malik said...

I feel a bit like Daniel in the lions den here, but hey, you never know, I might make some new friends...

Paul, since you are in love with liberal scholarship which you try to pass off as conservative scholarship, could you please care to inform us what they, your true "prophets" and source of religious and spiritual guidance, say concerning the historicity of Daniel, especially the story of him being in the lion's den?

Since these scholars deny that this story actually took place should we take what you said about being in the lion's den in the same way, as being as every bit as fictitious as the story of Daniel?

Anthony Rogers said...

Paul said: "I feel a bit like Daniel in the lions den here, but hey, you never know, I might make some new friends..."

Hey Paul,

I'm sorry to hear that you got thrown in here for praying three times a day towards Jerusalem. (Dan. 6:10)

I am sure that the circumstances leading up to your presence here are disreputable. I assume that like Daniel you are innoccent of any wrongdoing and don't deserve such a fate (6:4). No doubt the one who "forced" you here wanted to let you off the hook but couldn't do so because other people insisted that according to the law this is your punishment (6:12-16). I know this is a terrible turn of affairs for you, to go from expecting to be set over the whole of Blogdom by the decree of the king himself, only to find yourself in this pit (6:3). The jealousy that led people to try to entrap you by turning a religious edict into a civil one is truly terrible (6:4-9). No doubt it was a kangaroo court and mock trial as well. What a travesty of justice.

Yet, if it is any consolation to you, I believe the rest of the story could be quite bright and hold great promise for the future. Although you may feel encircled by lions now, I trust that no one intends you any final harm. We don't really have deadly fangs strapped to our jaws that are ready to explode on you, even if some of us give that impression with an occasional growl. Nevertheless, when the stone is rolled away early in the morning and you are brought up from here, I am confident that you will appear unwounded and with all your bones in place (6:19-23).

Most importantly, I think that all this could very well result in a great commission going forth that all people must fear and reverance the living God, the God who brings people up from the pit and from certain death, the God who lives forever and ever and whose dominion will never pass away. The God who rescues and saves and does great wonders in heaven and on earth (6:25-28)

In other words it all has the potential to shape up to be a very beautiful story, and maybe even a picture or foreshadowing of greater things to come. You never know.

Of course I could be completely off here by assuming with you that you are appropriately cast in the role of Daniel; if it really isn't the case and you pray to a different god besides the God of Daniel, in a direction God never commanded, in ways and on occasions that he didn't reveal, and if you really belong to a people whose works seem to mirror Daniel's accusers who thirsted for his blood, then of course you will be thrown into the pit, there to be devoured (6:24).

Anthony Rogers said...

Ben, great point!!!

nma said...

Paul said...

I feel a bit like Daniel in the lions den here, but hey, you never know, I might make some new friends...

At least here you can speak your mind, unlike the Muslim websites where they don't allow disagreement.

Haecceitas said...


Since you are here, could you either reaffirm or retract your assessment that Nabeel doesn't know the scholarship?

Also, if I understood your position correctly, you seem think that applying Daniel 7 as a prophecy about Jesus can't be legitimate unless it can be shown by grammatico-historical methods that the original author intended such meaning. Is this correct?

Haecceitas said...

Oh, and in addition to the other passages that people have mentioned here, Acts 7:59 could be plausibly thought of as portraying Stephen's belief in Jesus' divinity.

Haecceitas said...

Just a few comments about the debate.

- IMO, Nabeel was stronger on issues related to Islam, he was by no means weaker on issues related to Christianity that Paul addressed, and there were many other points on Christianity that Paul didn't even adress. However, we should consider Nabeel's statement that his case needs all three of the points (Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection and claims to deity). In that light, Paul's failure to deal with all of Nabeel's points isn't necessarily a sign of failure on his part, as far as one thinks that he won the Christological debate (which I don't think is the case).

- The crossfire section was intense. So much so that I could feel the adrenaline flow and my hand was shaking a little from the excitement. Must have been quite an experience for those who witnessed it live. :-)

Anonymous said...

Dear Haecceitas

I won't be engaging in debate or discussion on this particular site because if I do I suspect I'll be deluged with responses from many Christians, some of which might be unpleasant or off topic.

However, I am happy to have serious discusions about Christology (or Islam) via my email address. That way it stays civilised (hopefully!) and is manageable - from my point of view.

I would be happy to post such exchanges on my blog (unedited), or folk could put them on other sites if they wished.

best wishes

Paul Williams

Unknown said...


I have already written several times to you here (see above) if u want this via email, u can copy my post to your email, reply to them and send them back thanks.

And Dont worry, nobody here bite, nor do we insult ever.

Second , I wanted To tell u , that there no point of resemblence at all between U and Daniel.
1. u r not a Jew
2. we are not lions
3. u r not inocent
4. God will not save you


ben malik said...

Paul writes,

However, I am happy to have serious discusions about Christology (or Islam) via my email address. That way it stays civilised (hopefully!) and is manageable - from my point of view.

I don't buy your excuses since if civility was really a concern of yours you would have been civil to Nabeel. Instead, you were rude, arrogant, and condescending which is great since you came off as a complete turn-off which discredited much of your message. But you did say from my point f view, which I take to mean that civlity to you means that you can attack your opponents all you want as long as they don't do the same to you or ask you tough questions which shows why you really didn't have any good, honest reason to embrace the lying, deceptive prophet Muhammad apart from your hatred of truth, including the truth of Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Dear Haecceitas

I agree that Nabeel was stronger in the points he made about Islam. He made criticisms about Islam that could not answer. I acknowledged this during the debate and promised to look into the issues myself and I am in the process of doing just that. Some of the issues he mentioned, for example the ayat eaten by a goat, were ably dealt with in the later debate with Basam and Nabeel (which in my view was the best debate in the series), and I believe the Muslim speaker had a better command of the textual issues.

I feel I was stronger on Christological issues, as Nabel has acknowledged before. That is no shame on his part. We all have different levels of knowledge and familiarity with the relevant scholarship.

I agree that the crossfire was intense and not particularly enjoyable from my perspective!

On the plus side, it was my very first public debate and I learnt a lot from it, not least about the importance of being much better prepared Islamically against a pretty aggressive Christian opponent.



Ehteshaam Gulam said...


Lets do this topic next year or in December 2009.

Yours in Islam,
Ehteshaam Gulam

minoria said...

I have reheard the rebuttal by Paul Williams.His idea that the Jesus in the Synoptics isn't as elevated as in John is incorrect.

1.Lord of the Sabbath for the "Son of Man" in Mark/Luke is Deity.Here Son of Man can't mean "Jewish people".No rabbi would say "we Jews are the equal of God."

2.Psalm 8 is for God and Jesus applies it to himself in Matt.Luke has Jesus ordering God(would Mohammed order Allah to give him victory?).

3.Jesus forgives the sins of others.The rabbis say he's claiming Deity.Jesus doesn't deny it...hmmm,blasphemous behaviour for a pious Jew.

Since Luke wrote Acts and Jesus claims Deity in Luke then by logic his disciples in Acts would have believed it.


Paul Williams says it shows Jesus didn't claim Deity.Now Mark and Luke in other passages have Jesus claim it.Either:

1.Jesus was contradicting himself.
2.Or Jesus was asking them to define good.Following a Jewish custom of teachers asking disciples questions.

If a Muslim doesn't say option 2 is just as valid,then he goes against the evidence.He just wants to ignore it.


Williams says the later appearence of words like God the Son and Son of God=God the Son(no longer holy man,the Jewish sense),etc shows a development of Jesus?

He's right in that those titles are not in the Gospels.But right from Mark Jesus,God.How much HIGHER can you get?


IBN WARRAQ:ex-Muslim

1.The Origins of the Koran:Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book

2.The Quest for the Historical Mohammed

3.What the Koran Really Says:Language,Text and Commentary

ALI DASHTI:ex-Muslim(Iran)

1.Twenty-three Years:A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed(critical of him and the Koran)

He was killed by Khomeini.His book had been banned by the Shah.Before being killed he said:"If this book had been allowed to be read then we would never have had an Islamic Revolution."


Paul Williams emphasized knowing Arabic.ALI DASHTI knew Arabic.His analysis of the Koran's many,many GRAMMATICAL ERRORS(I think he said 100) in his book are good.


ALI SINA of,ex-Muslim,from Iran,is very critical.He ALSO knows Arabic.He reads it in the original Arabic.


Father ZAKARIAS BOTROS,a Coptic priest from Egypt,also KNOWS Arabic,and he critiques it every day and Mohammed every day in his program.It's watched by 50 MILLION Arabs,mostly Muslims,every day.

He is hated by the Muslim experts,but they never debate him.It's true.They only insult him.Paul Williams debated.Why don't Muslims who have studied Islam and know Arabic(the experts) REFUSE to debate Botros?


Hmmm,food for thought.I hope one day ZAKIR NAIK debates ZAKARIAS BOTROS on the Koran.And on Mohammed.Father Botros in his show always,always,always says to the Muslim viewers that if he's wrong on this or that,then to show it and he would publicly admit it.

Paul Williams could help by using his reputation to convince Zakir Naik to debate Zakarias Botros,not just once but several times.


A hallucination is seeing something that's not true.A see a pink elephant.A hallucination is in the MIND.


So,if I get my camcorder and film it,no pink elephant will appear.Why?Because it was in my mind.


In 1917 some 70,000 in Portugal saw the sun move like crazy(the Miracle of the Sun).Scientists said the sun didn't move at all.A mass hallucination?There are pros and cons to it.


In 1968 tens of thousands in Egypt saw the Virgin.She appeared for a whole year to:Christians,Muslims,agnostis,Jews,etc.A mass hallucination?

NO.Because several photos were taken.You can NOT photograph a hallucination since it's in your head.

epsalmos said...


I would love to add:
Salman Roshdy, and his famous book Satanic verses !!

God Bless Father Zakaria Botros, and save him from Satan works.

For those who Dont Knwow father Zakria , here is a link:


Haecceitas said...


Lets do this topic next year or in December 2009."

You'd better get busy then. You need to first convert to Christianity and then reconvert back to Islam if you want to debate this topic. ;-)

minoria said...

Hello Kush:

Thanks for the info.I read the link you gave.I am glad you know Zakaria Botros(Botros means Peter in Arabic).Every month 1,000 Muslims call his program and accept Jesus as Saviour.

His success is astounding.Al-Qaida has declared him one of "the most wanted infidels" and they say has put a reward on his head of $60 million.


For Ben Laden it's a mere $20 million more or less.Believe me,this guy is BIG in the Arab world.There are 200 million Arab speakers,so 50 million who see him every day is no small amount.

Go to the LEFT is "search this site".Write"zakaria botros"and you'll get several articles.

One is where I got the above info:


In he says in the original Arabic the saying is "Allah aliyhi we sallam".

It means literally "Allah PRAY on him and peace".But how can God pray?To who?What for?

It's based on Sura 33:56.But check out the article for more details,and about the Muslim defense.

ben malik said...

Some of the issues he mentioned, for example the ayat eaten by a goat, were ably dealt with in the later debate with Basam and Nabeel (which in my view was the best debate in the series), and I believe the Muslim speaker had a better command of the textual issues.

That Paul could say that he felt that the Muslim had a better command of the textual issues simply provides more proof that he is not a serious seeker of truth but is only intersted in finindg any reason to believe in the Quran no matter how corrupt the text is. So Paul, are you telling me that you buy into the lie that the Quran was sent down in the seven ahruf? Can you help us understand what these ahruf are since till this day your own scholars have proferred over 40 explanations, none of which proved satisfactory.

Are you saying that you are ok with Uthman destroying six of the seven without any divine command to do so? And are you telling me that you have absolutely no problems with Uthman's Quran being transmitted in various, at times, conflicting, wording? Are you also ok with Muslim scholars standardized ten of the multiple Arabic versions of the Uthmanic text, and are also ok with the fact that these readings were transmitted through two different routes?

Man, and you had problems with the Bible!

Anonymous said...

A polite reminder to Ben Malik and anyone else...

I won't be engaging in debate or discussion on this particular site because if I do I suspect I'll be deluged with responses from Christians, some of which might be unpleasant or off topic.

However, I am happy to have serious discusions about Christology or Islam via my email address.

I would be happy to post such exchanges on my blog unedited

Paul Williams

minoria said...

I read P.Williams' blog.There was something on the historicity of John.To my surprise it was by Bassam Zawadi,not by Paul Williams.

Zawadi raised several issues.Essentially he rejects John because there is paraphrase in it.For him the paraphrase is proof Jesus never said he was God.


They were 4,000.They wrote alot.Their STYLE is very similar to how Jesus talks in John.Before 1947 and Qmran it was said the way Jesus talks in John was NEVER used by Palestinian Jews.John was un-Jewish,"hellenistic",Greek style.

By the way,Jesus talking like the Essenes is in only 50% of John.The other 50% is like or almost like in the Synoptics,non-mystical.


So the question is,what percentage of Jesus' sayings in 50% of John is paraphrase?Since there were Jews in Palestine who used such language ,then why wouldn't Jesus now and then also use it?


In Antiquity,with a 90% illiteracy,paraphrase was accepted by historians.Thucydides,the greatest Greek historian, invented a speech for Pericles in his masterpiece "The Peloponesian War" (war betwen Athens and Sparta).

There is a certain amount of paraphrase in the 4 gospels.Just compare how Luke paraphrased the words in Jesus' trial that he copied from Mark.

That was 100% ok in Antiquity.As long as the person's ideas are Accurately Given.In the Koran Allah in like 3 events gives different words for the conversations of the characters.

Bassam certainly must know of those Koranic examples.Yet he accepts paraphrase.


He cites various scholars who mention the paraphrasing.Some think it goes beyond.That the author invented ideas for Jesus.Though not stated the idea invented would be that Jesus said he was God.

If a scholar believes Jesus never said he was God,he was only a good Jew,for him it would be blasphemy(GEZA VERMES,PAULA FREDRIKSEN,the Jesus Seminar(Crossan,Borg,Robert Price,Robert Funk))then of course Jesus saying he was God in John is an invention.


Geza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen are Jewish.They don't believe Jesus,as a good Jew,ever said he was God.

Pinchas Lapide was a Jewish theologian.He believed Jesus resurrected.Yet Jesus never claimed Deity.So you can accept Jesus resurrected,and reject Deity for him.So for Lapide John has invented words for Jesus.


Q are 230 verses shared by Matthew and Luke,but absent in Mark.In Matt 11:25-27/Luke 10:21-22 is a FAMOUS passage where the very high Father-Son relationship appears.

It's mystical.Just like in the long speeches by Jesus in John.


The style in that part of Q is just like in John.Q is from 50 AD,decades before John (90 AD).That proves Jesus DID on occasion,in the very earliest material,talk in a mystical way like in Jew.


Read Matt 11:25-27 and you'll see it just like John 5:19-22/14:23-24.

Unknown said...

Hi Paul

First, I would welcome u again in our blog.

Second: Be consistent. Since u dont wannadiscuss anything here, why are u inviting us to your blog?! is that making any sense to u ?!

third: U r talking as if u know anything abou christology. Listen, if u have questions about christology, you ask us, and not the opposite, is that clear ?!

fourth: You are using resources such as some bunch of scholars, however we dont do the same with islam, we go to early muslim books that they approve, and not depend on scholars.

Peace, and if u wanna discuss something u are welcome

Unknown said...


fifth: U already declared that u dont know much about islam, and nabeel already asked u question, and u said, u will get back to him, but we havent seen any response yet ... so do u expect us , to ask u more questions, if u havent answered the two questions nabeel asked u in the debate ?!!

Teach youreslf first, and if u need help, let us know, we would be happy to provide u with true original muslim sources, and not bunch of scholars.


el Lobo said...

Ben malik

First of all there are numerous things over which there are conflicting opinions. That is a blessing from Allah. That in itself doesn't invalidate the quran because if you are so obssesed with conflicting opinons how many conflicting opinons are there concerning the authenticity of the quran among muslim scholars. You yourself are relying on muslim scholars when it is convenient to do so. Please be more consistent.

Secondly you talk about conflicting wordings and different versions of the Uthmanic quran can you please explain what you are referring to. Is it the qiraats?

Lastly, we know how the quran was compiled and based on that knowledge our scholars are sure about its authenticity. In regards to the Bible among your own scholars are there any conflicting opinions regarding its authenticity or at least parts of it? Yes there certainly are and if you want references I'll be happy to provide you with them.

Accordingly, in islam among our own scholars you find conflicting opinions regarding aspects related to the quran but never regarding its authenticity. In christianity you find conflicting opinons among your own scholars regarding its authenticity.


Unknown said...



And honsetly I see this that u dont have enough courage to defend your belives, either about christianity, or islam. this post was about issues u raised in the debate, and we everyone made his comments, it is your turn to answer. Coming here just to invite us to ur blog, is rediculous. It is like making ad on our blog. We dont have a problem, but this is a cheap method, Sir.

Of course we r against islamic believes, same as u r against christian believes, but that doesnt mean we cant debate, and disucss who is write.

Why you are escaping this blog. Give me single comment here that was wrong, or was vulgar ,... nothing ..

anyway, u r free to escape and hide into ur blog, have fun .. this way u will never know or even show the truth to others

Unknown said...

Ben Malik:

Actually the proves that the quran is soooo much corrupted are too many.

But I just wanted to say, that what uthman did was most ridiculous method in the world, to prove the Verse ( that Allah preserves the quran) simply he collected all the copies of different qurans, which he thought they r corrupted according to his view, and burnt all of them. there was abou 23 versions if I am no wrong !!

Funny part is, this method still didnt work, quran still so much corrupted !!

U know it is like u now become the president, and u have ur own version of the bible. Others people might have different version. So u collected all of these, and burnt them !!! and said now the quran is not corrupted !! LOL!

MuslimPhantom said...

As-Salamu Alayk brother Paul Williams. Fear do not. I, the MuslimPhantom, am here to protect any Muslim believer against the hatred and intolerance of Christian bloggers. They neither know nor dream the amazing wrath that will be upon them when Islam will rule the world as it’s Allah’s will. We, as martyrs, have to stand firm against all the threats that can be directed against Allah and His Prophet (saw). They are just a bunch of delusional human beings that could not see the truth even if it was presented to them in type size 123. So: do not fear to express your opinions here or in your blogg.

Unknown said...


Corruption in the qiran is on so many levels like Moral, scientific myths, historical errors, ...etc but since we are talking about Uthma and collection , I guess the one we are dealing with now is The corruption of the Textual integrity of the Koran .

So If you like english , U can this website for more:,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Corruption_of_the_Qur%27an

However let me quote some of my favorite Hadith:

- ’Ibn Umar al–Khattab: "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available
(this is said by Umar Ibn El Khatab, second Khalifa, one of the direct companion og muhammed, and Called Al farouk; meaning very fair and just)

A’isha: "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded
(Muhammed told muslims to learn have of their religion from this little donkey; and he meant Aisha)

Ubay ibn Ka’b: "This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."
(Ubai Ibn Kab is one of the best reciters of the quran according to muhammed)

Thats enough for now, as the evidence for textual corruption are so much many than this blog can accomodate

Unknown said...

and by the way those are not scholars , those are the very first Geneartion people who accompanied muhammed. So I reallt doubt u can say they were wrong !!!

Unknown said...


1: Rule the world : LOL ... it will all vanish ... and Islam too ..Solisten to Lord Jesus, Dont aim to own the world !!

2: I noticed that muslims always mention Muhamed along with Allah, I guess this is Shirk, isnt it.
a-Like all over the quran , verses ordering muslims to give obeedience to Allah and his messenger, even more other verses orders to give obedience to muhammed, without mentoning allah.

b- Also muslims always mentions, that Allah and his Prophet know, so does this means that muhammed has same knoweldge as Allah ?!

c- Muslims says that Allah prays on Muhamed !!! Also muslims gives the prayer to Muhammed !!

d- Quranic verse cursed the christians and jews for making the tomb of thier prophets places to pray, Which is not true. Meanwhile we see that muslims make the tombs of their prophet and caliphs as mosques and places for prayer !!!

e- Allah will leave his throne to muhammed to sit in his place !!

g- If u really want to believe in allah, U can say Shehada (witnes) That u beleiev in no God but allah and stop, but U have to add muhamed !!! otherwise it is not accepted that u became a muslims. Why is that ?! dont believing in Allah is enough to know the true god, and get closer to him ?!

Christians and Jews never prayed through their prophets like Jermiah, Isiah..etc.

A prophet just has a message from God, take it or leave it!!

g- the main difference between u and pagan of kabba and Qurish, is that the also believed in ALLAh, but they prayed to him through idols like Allat, OZA, Manat ...etc, so muhammed removed all of these , and unified the idols in him, so muslims pray to allah through him

so many things about shirk in islam, and u just prove it when u said that u want to defend allah and his prophet

Third u say u defend islam and support paul, yet we havent heard any comment from u on any of our questions, so are u answering like u implied through fighting , to become martyr ?!

Fourth you want to become martyr:
What is definion of Martyr first. You have to be innocent and not to start the attack. U should be the prey not the predator to be a martyr. But if u r fighting and u are Killed, u r not a martyr, YOU WILL BE A LOSER !!

el Lobo said...


The first one is mentioned in suyuti. What's his conclusions regarding the authenticity of the quran? The other two as you very well know have both been explained as referring to abrogation and nothing else (by all muslim scholars). However I would appreciate it if you provided complete references. By references I don't mean islamophobic sites.

nma said...

MuslimPhantom said...

They neither know nor dream the amazing wrath that will be upon them when Islam will rule the world as it’s Allah’s will.

On that day on humanity,civilization and cultures will be totally destroyed. It is Allah the Devil's will to push the world into darkness and ignorance. Evil flourishes.

Anthony Rogers said...

MuslimPhantasm said: We, as martyrs, have to stand firm against all the threats that can be directed against Allah and His Prophet (saw).

Allah is going to need a better bodyguard than you.

Also, I sure hope Allah is paying you in advance for your protective services. Allah can't deliver on his promises; heck, as you show in your rhetoric, he can't even deliver himself.

Don't believe the hype about virgins who will pleasure you in paradise. Not only does that show that you come cheap (he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world), but it is a pipedream, a phantasm.

minoria said...

Muslim Phantom:

Sorry if you got the impression we hate Paul Williams.Certainly I don't agree with much he says.But we would never dream of telling him to shut up.

And if he has a better point than me on X thing,I would admit it.I understand he believes Jesus claiming Deity was invented.


Nabeel made a very good point.Paul used to hate the Christians.If they had NOT said Jesus was God,there is no good reason for Paul's hatred.Pinchas Lapide believed Jesus resurrected.It's a Jewish doctrine.So the resurrection of Jesus in itself,or that he was claimed to be the Messiah weren't good reasons for Paul's hatred.

CARMEN CHRISTI(in Philippians)

Paul mentions it but it's not from him.It shows Somebody Else independent of Paul came up with the idea Jesus was God.Who?Could it have been the first disciples?I don't see why not.The earliest evidence shows Jesus was claimed as God from the beginning.

Again,the Carmen Christi is not by Paul.You can't say he invented the Deity of Jesus.


John mentions a 5 portico building in Jerusalem(John 5:1-2).BEFORE it was said to be an invention.Such a building was nowhere in all Palestine,so much less in Jerusalem.

It was a symbol(like they say today John invented Jesus getting pierced and water and blood coming out,an invention,a symbol).


Of the 5 books of the Torah.Till they discovered it really existed.They also found the Pool of SILOAM(John 9:7).It has to do with a story of Jesus and a man born blind.That detail has also been confirmed by science.


One thing,in my earlier post about the Jesuit Confederation(1609-1763)I forgot to add that there was No Capital Punishment allowed.Criminals were whipped,jailed or exiled.So it shows the Jesuits,in Christian spirit,tried their best,to establish the Kingdom of God on earth,with the Guarani Indians.

Unknown said...

Dear zakria:

First: are u expecting islamic website will criticise islam in anyway ?! of course not. But I am not using them to attack islam by anymeans. Just, sas an easy way to reach references. And as I told u , I usually try to make sure that the refernces I use are authentic.

I dont care where things are posted, so long the information is right, then fine

However, I can only quote the hadiths directly to u, and u dont have t visit any site if u like :-)

second syuti: what is wrong with him ?! I am not using him to quote his conclusion. I am using it as a refernce to earlier muslims saying. When u do a research u dont have to quote the whole book , u just use what u want to make ur point.

third: how they are refered to abrogation ?!
when someone tells u , that Sura X used to be the double than what we have in hands, so u lost have of it , u want to call it abrogation by loss?! fine , but the mere fact it is loss of large parts of the quran !!

And it is not just one source, so many as I already told u , I can keep quoting hadith to u , but after u tell me, how do u call these abrogation, when u lose large parts of quran !!! not just a word, or even verse !!


el Lobo said...

Dear Shafsha711

You can refer to as many hadiths you want. Neither you nor I are knowledgable enough to provide an accurate interpretation. Especially when you quote them out of context. For instance the umar hadith is found in suyuti's abrogation chapter if i'm not mistaken.

You guys have still not answered my question. How many muslim scholars have on the basis of hadith and quran reached the conclusion that the quran is not authentic or at least parts of it?
You seem to like suyuti what's his conclusion?

And the grand finale how many christian scholars think that the bible or parts of the bible is not authentic?

For starters I can mention one right now: Origen. For muslims that would be like if ibn taymiyya thought parts of the quran was not authentic.

There are many more. You say 'Corruption in the qiran is on so many levels like Moral, scientific myths, historical errors, ...etc but since we are talking about Uthma and collection , I guess the one we are dealing with now is The corruption of the Textual integrity of the Koran .'

Please ok if you were an atheist and only belived in things that are scientifically proven. This comes from a christian whose bible is the posterboy of corruption. There are more variations between the new testament manuscripts than there are words in the new testament. Even your own church fathers knew that at least parts of the bible was corrupt.
Finally you say that whole suras can not be abrogated. But in regards to the bible basically the whole old testament was abrogated.

Stick to your love argument there at least your own scholars seem to agree.

One more thing. You said:

"third: how they are refered to abrogation ?!
when someone tells u , that Sura X used to be the double than what we have in hands, so u lost have of it , u want to call it abrogation by loss?! fine , but the mere fact it is loss of large parts of the quran !!

And it is not just one source, so many as I already told u , I can keep quoting hadith to u , but after u tell me, how do u call these abrogation, when u lose large parts of quran !!! not just a word, or even verse !!"

No muslim scholar has ever drawn the conclusion that we have abrogation by loss. Name one. You better read suyuti's chapter on abrogation. You might learn something.

You seem to like cut-and-pasting. I think i will do some cut and pasting myself. I leave you with one of my favorite verses in the bible.

Jer 8:8
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?


Unknown said...


" quote them out of context."
1- It is not Just 1 or 2 hadith
2- there other evidence beside hadiths
3- I am mentioning to you the whole hadith, do u consider this out of context ?!
u r pulling the verse in Jer out of context, cause u are selecting a single verse and trying to build a case. I am not doing this.
I am giving u a whole bunch of evidences, and u want to ignore them all saying out of context. If u have better interpretation let me know, otherwise, my questions are up.

"How many muslim scholars"
Are u forcing me to believe in muslim scholars, when the evidences are crystal clear. Shouldnt I trust hadiths, and other evidences?! so are u telling me that ur religion is made by your muslims scholars ?! if so let me tell u , scholars never agreed upon one issue, for instance open up ibn katherr, and u will find in the commentary of a single verse so many interpretation. It is like a super market and u pick up what u like.
what does a scholar do specially when he is late, he gets the evidence, and build up a case. so tell me first , do u believe in every muslims scholar ?! if so, let me know, I will give u a surprise :-)

Who said, we take out religion from scholars ?! do u think every christian should read or fpllow origen ?! we have our earliest source, the BIBLE !

Bible, revelation in the bible is revelattion of meaning. and the only two considerable textual corruptions are the story of the adulter and part of the last chapter in mark, and we have them , so do u think this is a loss ?!
But thats not true withe quran, revelation in the quran is revelation of text and not meaning , cause u claim the quran is found in the Perserved stone (loh mahfouz), so which version is written in this stone ?! was it dot it or not ?! do they have the two other suras from shia or not ?! does this stone has uthman version of quran or others ?! which version is in this stone, hafs, warsh, ...etc ?! isnt all this against the verse : a great quran in a preserved stone "?!

"No muslim scholar has ever drawn the conclusion that we have abrogation by loss. Name one. You better read suyuti's chapter on abrogation. You might learn something"
Wrong. are u trying to ignore all evidence, thats fine, but try to provide the opposiste if u can

nma said...

Zakaria wrote..
How many muslim scholars have on the basis of hadith and quran reached the conclusion that the quran is not authentic or at least parts of it?

The problem with muslim scholars is that, they don't admit anything because faith takes precedence over anything. If they do, their delusory world will shatter around them. For example, all over the internet, there are numerous refutations of the bogus claims of scientific miracles in the Quran. Muslims won't accept those refutations out of stubbornness and blind faith.

el Lobo said...


Shafsha117 says the bible is authentic while some christian scholars say its not. Who should we believe. The bible shafsha117 replies which version?

Regarding believing in muslim scholars. Of course i don't believe in everything they say. But we are talking about a central issue the authenticity of the quran. On that issue there is ijma.

You can argue as much as you want. I will inshallah always be muslim. The reason I refer to your own scholars concerning the authenticity of the Bible is that most people don't have time to become scholars before making up their minds so if you have scholars already in christianity saying that at least parts of the bible are not authentic then right there we have a dealbreaker your own scholars disagree on such a central issue.
Our book is consistent regarding the oneness of Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet.
Our scholars all agree that the quran is authentic.
Your book is not consistent regarding the nature of God and our prophet Jesus.
Your scholars are not in agreement concerning the authenticity of your book.
If you want an expert opinion on an illness you would be stupid if you turned to some anonymous clown on this site. The same applies to religion. I prefer to listen to scholars.
Concerning context just because you refer to an entire verse or hadith there is still a lot of additional info one must have before drawing an appropriate conclusion. Furthermore, it's a waste of time to start arguing over semantics. You use the word lost what do you mean by lost? How did you reach that conclusion?
Finally I would like to thank you shafsha117 for taking the time to discuss religion with me. Unfortunatly I have other things to tend to so this will be my last comment.

Fernando said...

Zakaria said: «Please ok if you were an atheist and only belived in things that are scientifically proven. This comes from a christian whose bible is the posterboy of corruption»... no one needs to bee an atheist to see historical and documental evidences of corruption in the qur'an. And, Zakaria: can you show uss where the Bible is, according to historical standards (your refference to Jer. 8,8 is so naïf that I'll simply ignore that an iteligent person could say suche thing), corrupted? Thankes.

minoria said...

Zakaria talks about the Koran being authentic.He ignores that the earliest Korans from the Sanaa Mosque in Yemen prove the Koran has changed over time.

The Muslim claim that not a single word of the Koran has been altered is not supported by the evidence.If a Muslim says yes then Islam is false.


In Antiquity 90% of people were illiterate.So a group of people known as scribes existed.They wrote letters and documents for others.

Often a person would tell the scribe the main ideas.The scribe would write it in HIS OWN WORDS.If the same person went to another scribe that scribe would use a DIFFERENT style but using the same ideas.


One reason used that John could not be by John is that he was an Aramaic speaker.He couldn't have learned to speak perfect Greek.It even seems he was illiterate.


So John would have used a scribe ho knew perfect Greek plus Aramaic.If he was illiterate the scribe would help.


It seems even Peter was illiterate.One argument used that 1 Peter and 2 Peter can't be by Peter is the Different Styles used.But if Peter gave the main ideas to different scribes,and each had his own style,then the letters would be in different literary styles.

Unknown said...


Before I go further in this discussion, I would like to understand u better.

Where do u get your religion from. If I want to become a muslim for instance, whom Should I trust ?! You or Umar Ibn El khatab / Aisha / Ubay Ibn Kab ?!

Were they bunch of liers when they said those hadiths I already mentioned ?!

I am waiting for you answer , to give me foundation for some basis to our discussion, thanks

Unknown said...


With all respect to ur opinion, and the scholars opinion. The eveidences are not so strong for such a case, so for me they still lay within the frame of theories, and they are just not proven speculations. Taking into consideration, that this wouldnt affect Christinaitity corner stone (Jesus christ) whatsoever.

Let me give an example how this will not affect christinaity, ... if we lost the whole bible, and we only one gospel or even CARMEN CHRISTI or the Q documents, does this by anyway would prevent us to worship Jesus ?! I would say know. Cause still it declares his deity, crucifictinn and death, and his resurrection.

But in the case of Koran, islam builds itslef presence on Koran and partly sunna, Yet all the evidence are so strongly against al the claims of the koran. It needs a reall stubborn to become a muslim (No offense) to ignore all the evdience or reinerpret them.

Unknown said...


Why I am saying theories, cause did u forget what happened on te pentecost Day, after the Apostles were filled from the holy spirit, they spoke in tongues... they knew other langugaes, and as you know this is one of the fruits of the Holy spirit, specialy in the early church.

So , I would say, that saying that X apsostle didnt know Greek , or didnt know how to write, that could be against what the bible reveals to us, and still those claims are not proven.

how would u explain that Thomas went to India, or those who traveled to different countries . ethipia for instance, how did they talk to people ?!

minoria said...


Thanks for the comment.I believe miracles are possible,since there is enough evidence for me God exists.Not 100%,otherwise then all would be forced to accept it.That would eliminate Free Will.So what happened at Pentecost did happen.As for Thomas he could have well have had divine assistance.I don't rule it out.

You are right much is speculation but we have evidence from the NT itself of the use of scribes.By the way, 514,000 hits on youtube!This website is now known to many.

ACTS 4:13

It uses a word about Peter and John that can be translated as "illiterate".

1 PETER 5:12

Peter says "with the help of SILAS...I have written to you".

ROM 16:21-23

Paul also used a scribe.The guy even wrote in the letter:"I,TERTIUS,who wrote down this letter,greet you."

AKIBA(50-135 )

That doesn't mean once illiterate,always illiterate.I mentioned the use of scribes as a professional group because most Muslims don't know about it and say "scholars say 1 Peter and 2 Peter are too different to be by the same person."

I believe the Holy Spirit guided the leaders to choose the right writings.So 2 Peter's different style would have a rational cause.Not because a mistake was made.


He was the greatest Jewish teacher of his time.One of the greatest of all,with Hillel,Maimonides,etc.

He was ILLITERATE till late in life.He was a SHEPHERD till 40,when he began studying the Torah.He was self-taught.He supported BAR KOCHBA as the Messiah(132-135 AD rebellion).Akiba was later cruelly martyred by the Romans.


He said the Torah was "Love your neighbor like yourself"(Lev 19).Similar to HILLEL ( lived a generation before Jesus,considered the greatest pharisee teacher) who said it was "Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you."

This Golden Rule also appears in the apocryphal book TOBIT.


So it shows an intelligent man(and Jesus was a literary genius),but from a poor group,could have taught
himself to read.

The gospels show him as reading and writing.Since he was smart,even if he never went to school,he would have learned to read and write by himself.


I say he could have taught himself to read also(like Akiba) and also Greek.But for those who laugh at it,then he still had the option of a bilingual scribe.

Unknown said...


I am not against logic , not I am trying to refer everything to miracles, let me refer you to these parts:

acts 2:3-12, 10:46
First Korenthian 12:10, 12:28

and I believe that this is a better retionale than what wcolars can provide.


Haecceitas said...

I discussed some of the points that were raised during the debate at Paul's blog:

From my perspective, the bottom line is that he either refuses to be consistent, or at least refuses to make his position clear in such a manner that it would show how he's not being inconsistent. And not only that, but he accuses me of being just polemical when I call for consistency! Since I'm a participant in that discussion, I'm certainly not impartial to evaluate our dialogue. So you be the judge (though obviously, most of you are biased in one way or another as well).

If you choose to comment on his blog, I'd hope that you respect Paul's wishes to avoid turning the discussion into a heated polemical debate. As I understand it, that's the reason why he didn't want to have any extended dialogue here.

minoria said...

Thanks again Shafsha.Appreciate the info and advice.Which brings me to the idea of the miraculous.Millions of Muslims in the Muslim heartland have become Christian.About 33% were convinced because of visions or dreams of Jesus.I was thinking about that.

I have NEVER had a vision nor do I know anybody who has.In fact I think nobody in the West ever does.It's not that that convinces any Westerner.Apparently it's not necessary.


Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet.The second best after Mohammed.So a beared man in white has appeared to about 1 million Muslims.


In the dream or vision they know it's Jesus.He is never mistaken for Mohammed(another bearded man).And they decide to find out about him and are convinced almost just like that that Jesus saves.That the gospel story is true.


Those people have no access to Nabeel,Mary Jo and David's debates,nor to don't even know English.

They know little or nothing of the Christian arguments.Yet the bearded man has an astonishing power to convince their hearts.


If I were him I would have the idea of sending bad spirits disguised as Jesus to convince Muslims of a false religion.But that gives the impression that he is more powerful than Allah.


Why doesn't Allah make millions of Christians convert to Islam by making them have visions and dreams of Mohammed?That's what I would do.

So the Devil is smarter than Allah,or more powerful.That is the impression.Or it is that the visions of Jesus are indeed telling the truth.


In Matthew 17:24-27 a tax collector badgers Jesus about paying his tax.He tells Peter to catch fish.The first fish he catches he is to open his mouth and he will find a coin to pay the tax.


There is a fish called tilapia,also St.Peter's fish,in the sea of Galilee.The female fish carries its young in its mouth till they can be independent.

Since she is used to having something in the mouth she then gets small PEBBLES or even bottle CAPS in the mouth.


So when I find read the story I thought it was made-up.It was like saying to find a coin in a bird or cat.But it is based in reality.There is a Real Fish that is found with things in its mouth,in the same sea of Galilee.


So it's not a "one in a million" thing to open the mouth of a female tilapia from there and find something,even a coin.The miraculous part is that Jesus knew it would be there.

Unknown said...


Let me add that we never heard a muslim said that muhammed or any of his comapnion appeared in a mosque, or even in a vision to christian to invite him to islam.

While the opposite (as u already mentioned) is true. And not only to single people in a vision, but As u already know, several well documented apparitions are recorded, some of them even was in the middle east, specially egypt. A well documented apparition is Lady of Zeitoun in the 60s, which ironically enough that muslims agreed they have seen her several times on her church, with all the accopnaying signs of her apparitions.

Police and authorities investigated tis issue, as they assumed it was kind of trick, but couldnt prove their false claims. Muslims as usual tried to reinterpret everything, and claim false claims as they did with the fact of Jesus crucifixion.

Also Muslims always seek the church help for exorcism, since most of those who are demon possesed are muslims. But still so ironic, that they still believe in isla after all of these well established facts !!!

any one can google these fact ( Virgin mary apparition or the exorcism issues), even videos and repoters have documented these fact. So I really cant understand, what else do they need to believe ?!!

Sepher Shalom said...

This is a recent post from Paul's blog:

"My recent contacts with Christians has highlighted a problem that is becomeing [sic] increasingly widespread in the world, namely Christian fundamentalism.

Many good folks who enter into the active life of Christian faith enter it through the gateway of fundamentalism (as I did). But it is just as true that many of those who do so come to feel after some time that it is a deeply inadequate form of religion. But finding a way out is difficult. Making the transition to a different understanding of the Bible, of faith, and of theology can be a time of deep uncertainty and even of severe personal suffering. Fundamentalist groups will do nothing to help the struggling person who becomes convinced that he must leave it and find a different world of faith.

So as a service to those struggling Christians who want an authentic faith free from the prison house of fundamentalism, I strongly recommend the excellent book by the Old Testament scholar James Barr, who has done the church a great service in this book and in many others:

Escaping from Fundamentalism."

So, according to Paul there is this "increasing problem" of Christian fundamentalism in the world, and we all need help escaping it!! I guess Paul thinks no one should adhere to the fundamentals of their faith?

Let's see, a "fundamentalist Christian" would presumably take the teachings of the New Testament very seriously and apply them without reservation to the world around them. Well, I think anyone who has read the New Testament knows what the absolute highest teaching according to Yeshua is:

Love the L-rd with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

*Gasp!!* We don't want people running around doing that!!! What would become of the world??

I can't take this guy seriously, and I don't know how anyone can.

minoria said...

I read a book once called Escaping Fundamentalism,maybe it is by James Barr.I don't see those who really believe the Bible as true to be a world problem.

Again,as I said before,a true Christian has to follow the Golden Rule.I know Paul Williams knows that.Or maybe not.It is possible,and I have seen it,many are in the Christian group for years,and never learn it.


So no real Christian is in favor of discrimation of people on religious grounds,of Hindus,Buddhists,atheists and Muslims,etc.So why should there be a world problem?


I would love that Paul Williams should have an article in his blog saying that criticism of Islam and Mohammed,or Islamophobia,is NOT wrong,it's no crime.It's free speech,a right.

And that Islam is a set of ideas,and you CAN criticize ideas.And Islam is NOT a race,so criticizing it is not racism.


What is wrong is muslimophobia,discrimination against Muslims.That is a hate crime.Will he ever,I doubt it.

I'm sure if Nabeel Qureshi were still an Ahamdiya Muslim and had a blog he would certainly say it.Or maybe not.


It is if I were in the Muslim group by chance of mere birth then I would certainly be against muslimophobia but in favor of free debate about Islam and Mohammed,or Islamophobia.


As you can see,it is the position of practically all the Muslim leaders in the West,all their intellectuals,to always say that criticism of Islam and Mohammed is wrong,should be penalized,made a crime.

They want people to reject their right to free speech.They use the euphemism "Islamophobia" so we won't notice it.And most don't.


They want people to confuse Islamophobia with muslimophobia.To think Islamophobia(being against the ideas in Islam) is of the same nature as being anti-Jew or Judeophobia (hatred of humans).And they have succeeded.Most don't make the distinction and never will.So goes the world.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.Again,if I were a Muslim,I would point that out.


Also they want others to think that in the Muslim mind Zionist is different from Jew.It is in the sense that not all Jews are for Israel and its existence,but most are,99%.

What they don't want to say is that for them Zionist=Jew DE FACTO.Since 99% are in favor of a Jewish homeland.Again,if I were a Muslim I would point that out.


So when the Muslim terrorists write against the "Zionists",they do NOT just mean Israelis,but almost all the Jews in the world.For them,they are also legitimate targets.They aren't innocent,since they support Israel.

minoria said...

Since I think the part having Nabeel and Osama's debate will disappear soon I decided to post about Isaiah 53 here.


Isaiah 53:10 has "he will "see seed(zara)"."It's argued it means only physical descendant.It can be a metaphor for follower.It appears as a metaphor by the same writer in other places.


That is the literal phrase used.It refers to the nation of Israel,the Jewish,it's a metaphor.


Again,literal phrase used.It also refers to the Jewish people,another metaphor.


Again,literal phrase and used for the Jews,another metaphor.


"And I will send another(allon) helper....the spirit of truth".

Again,no matter how you look at it,the Greek doesn't allow spirit here to be a metaphor for human.


Even making it mean "another helper of the same nature",you can't say it means another "human helper".Because it's said to be a SPIRIT,not a human,the helper is a real spirit.


I had said before "same nature in being a helper".A human who helps,a spirit who helps.

But for argument let's say no.Then same nature regarding what?


The spirit is defined as incarnating TRUTH,spirit of truth.The spirit is the other helper,of the same nature in that it is truthful.

Jesus,a helper,helper in that he tells the truth.Again,as you can see,no matter how you look at it,the Greek shows 100% Mohammed is not in John.

ARE YOU THE PROPHET?(yes,again):

Again,to show John 1:19-25 can't be Mohammed no matter where you look.According to the experts the Jews of the 1st century were expecting 2 Messiahs:Messiah,son of Joseph and Messiah son of David.Or even 3:Davidic Messiah,Prophetic Messiah and Dying Messiah.


So "are you THE prophet",not "A prophet",whatever they meant by that,could very well be a reference to a "prophetic messiah",or even a dying one,messiah son of Joseph.Again,no Mohammed.The Koran is in error.

minoria said...


Again about Isaiah 53 for the umpteeth time,but I think it's necessary.I hope you find the info interesting.I think a very good case can be made it can apply to Jesus.

HASSIDIM( Pious ones )

A man called ISRAEL BEN ELEAZAR (1700-1750), a Yiddish speaking Jew from the Ukraine founded a new religious movement called HASSIDISM, which emphasized dancing and singing and emotion. They are now known as the Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox Jews.He was given a new name of BAAL SHEM TOV ( Master of the Good Name ). Once most of the Eastern Jews were Hassidic.


In 1797 a Hassidic group formed founded by Rabbi SCHNEOUR ZALMAN called the CHAVAD LUBAVITCHERS. After WW II they had as their leader MENAHEM SCHNEERSON (1902-94) who ruled from 1950 till 1994 in New York.

Well many Lubavitchers claimed that rabbi Schneerson was the Messiah and that Isaiah 53 applied to HIM, in other words they said it meant an individual who is the Messiah, not the entire Jewish people.


The expression obviously means the person is going to be killed. In the Talmud one interpretation is that it means JEREMIAH. Why? Because of Jeremiah 11:18-20:

" Because the LORD revealed their plot to me, I knew it, for at that time he showed me what they were doing. I had been like a gentle LAMB LED to the SLAUGHTER; I did not realize that they had plotted against me, saying,
"Let us destroy the tree and its fruit;
let us cut him off from the land of the living,
that his name be remembered no more."
But, O LORD Almighty, you who judge righteously
and test the heart and mind,
let me see your vengeance upon them,
for to you I have committed my cause. "


We dont know how he died,one tradition is that he was killed by his own people in Egypt. As you know in the Law of Moses there the sacrificial system,where sheep were killed for sins,and so " like a lamb led to the slaughter " meant a person was going to get killed. In Isaiah 53:7 we have:

" He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a LAMB LED to the SLAUGHTER,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth. "


You see that it means getting killed also in Psalm 44:20-22:

" If we have forgot the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god; will not God search this out? for he knows the secrets of the heart. Yes, for your sake are we KILLED all the day long; we are counted as SHEEP for the SLAUGHTER. "

Conclusion: in other words,the person in Isaiah 53 was killed,not dying a natural death.

minoria said...

To continue


One reason given is that in Isaiah 53:10:

"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will SEE SEED ( zara in Hebrew for seed) and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. "

The phrase " see seed " is interpreted to only mean biological descendants and since Jesus never married or had children it cant apply to him. Also notice that before the person has been killed and now is now alive again, seeing his seed, and it even says the Lord " prolongs his days ". It can only be by a resurrection.


Since in the the OT a holy man is actually called a " son of God " then one can say seed can also be a METAPHOR(like the metaphor "son of God")for spiritual follower,disciple.

In the Talmud one interpretation of Isaiah 53 is that it means Jeremiah.

The detail is that Jeremiah was told by God not to marry, so he never had any children, yet the Talmud says it applies to him. If zara only means a biological descendant then Isaiah 53 would NOT have been said to apply to Jeremiah in the Talmud.


We have Jeremiah 16:1-4:

" Then the word of the LORD came to me: "You must NOT MARRY and HAVE SONS or DAUGHTERS in this place." For this is what the LORD says about the sons and daughters born in this land and about the women who are their mothers and the men who are their fathers: " They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like refuse lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth."


Menahem Schneerson was married yet he never had a family, his wife was sterile. Now if seed only meant a biological descendant then the Lubavitchers would NOT have applied Isaiah 53 to him. You can verify his wife had no children in:

Fernando said...

Brother minoria... you're doing a blessed job around here: withe youre capacity of positive dialogue and indepth analasis... a great example to us all and a great greatting card to all our muslims friends thate want to know the true face of our God...

dasize said...

Mr Williams reasons for converting are quite shocking. I can't beleive the 3 verses he quoted were such a stumbling block for him. There are NO ERRORS about the 2nd coming as he thought. If you read the verese in their context there is NO ERROR.

He quoted 1st Thessalonians 4:15

He stated Paul thought the 2nd coming would happen in his life time. This is FALSE statement. All Paul was saying is that he did not want the believers in Yeshua to grieve and morn about those who had already passed on. He said in verse 15 that we (Christians) who are still alive at Christ's 2nd coming will not percede those who were dead in Chirst. The dead in Christ would ressurect first and those who are still alive at that time would be caught up with them in the air. There is NO error about the 2nd coming, and Paul was NOT saying he thought the 2nd coming would happen in his life time. He was just stating as the vesre states, that those who are still alive at that time would not hinder the ressurection of the departed saints.

Mr. Williams quoted 1st Corinthians 15:51. This is so easy to rufute because their is no problem here.

Paul is revealing the mystery of the catching up of the saints, that moment when all believers in Yeshua will be caught up into the air to receive the redemption of their new bodies. Paul acknowledges that not every believer will suffer death prior to this event. When Yeshua returns in the air, there will be a group of living believers on the earth at that moment. THAT generation will pass from life to eternal without ever experiencing the pangs of death. There is NO ERROR OR CONTRADICTION HERE. I can't believe he converted because of this.

The other verse he quoted was Mark Ch. 13 when Yeshua was telling his followers about the destruction of the temple and the signs of his 2nd coming. AGAIN there is NO FALSE prophecy or error here. For one thing he did not mention a verse, but there is no error in the whole chapter as we will see.

In the beginning of the chapter Yeshua is telling his deciples that not one stone of the great walls will be left standing which happend. Yeshua then goes on to say that in the last days there will be wars and rumors of wars and nation will rise against nation, but the end is not yet. There will be earthquakes in diverse places etc. These are just the beginning of the birth pains. He says the gospel must frist be preached to all nations before his 2nd coming. He then goes on to tell that many false prophets would arise, and the different signs about the sun being darkened, the moon not giving it's light, the heavens being shaken etc. He says THIS generation meaning the generation that sees all these things will NOT pass away until these things happen. Where is the error here????

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Thanks for the comment,really.I only do my best.The reason I give info is so others can copy it,if they think it's good.

Then give it to others.I divide it into little segments for better digestion.The theme of religious truth is fascinating.And also so non-Christians will see there is evidence.


It is one that can be interpreted in a way that it is about the TIME PERIOD for when the Messiah Jesus would come.The scholars say that the Jews of the 1st century in Palestine were expecting the Messiah to come THEN?Why?It can only be that they saw Daniel 9:24-27 as being about him.Here is the documentary proof:


ESSENES and their writings in Qmran.It shows they believed the Messiah would come in their time period.They existed from 250 BC to 70 AD,numbered 4,000 and were 100% against slavery.

JAMES TABOR,a skeptical NT scholar,in THE JESUS DYNASTY(2007),says the Essenes in their writings show they thought Daniel 9:24-27 was about the Messiah.Since he knows more about them,I'll take his word for it.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS ( 37-100 AD ), the famous Jewish historian, in his JEWSIH WARS, which told of the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD says in Book VI, 5.4, about:" an ambiguous ORACLE that was also found in their ANCIENT WRITINGS,how about THAT time, one from THEIR COUNTRY should become GOVERNOR of the habitable earth." (He can only be referring to the DANIEL 9:24-27 prophecy).

TACITUS ( 50-117 AD ), greatest of the Roman historians, wrote in his HISTORY ( note: of the Roman empire), Book V, 13:" the MAJORITY were deeply impressed with the persuasion that it was contained in the ANCIENT WRITINGS of the priests that it would come to pass that AT THE VERY TIME, that the EAST would renew its strength and they that should go forth from JUDEA should be RULERS of the world. "

SUETONIUS ( 75-150 AD ), another famous Roman historian, in his LIVES of the CEASERS ( chapter on the Life of Vespasian ) says:" a FIRM PERSUASION had long prevailed through all the EAST that it was fated for the empire of the world at THAT TIME to devolve on SOMEONE who should go forth from JUDEA. "

WHY NOSTRADAMUS ( 16th century French prophet ) WAS NOT A TRUE PROPHET

In the documentaries about him they say he is the GREATEST prophet of all time, but what they don't say is that every time he made a prophecy with a DATE it never came true.


He wrote a book of prophecies called CENTURIES in which we have poems of 4 verses ( quatrains ). He said:

1. In 1607 the Catholic Church would conduct widespread persecution of astrologers ( quatrain 8-71 ). FALSE.

2. In 1607 the Arabs would capture the King of Morocco ( quatrain 6-54 ). FALSE.

3. In 1609 a monk from Campania ( in Italy ) would be elected Pope ( quatrain 10-91 ). FALSE.

4. In 1700 Turkey would conquer vast areas of Europe ( quatrain 1-49 ). FALSE.

5. In 1727 the Turks would capture the King of Persia ( quatrain 3-77 ). FALSE.


Then there is quatrain 10-72:

" The year 1999, seventh month ( JULY ),
from the SKY (NOTE: an ATOMIC BOMB?) will come a great King of TERROR
to bring back to life the great king of the mongols,
before and after MARS ( note: the Greek god of war ) to reign by good luck. "


The great king of terror was supposed to be a great METEOR ,or the ANTICHRIST ( note: turn 999 of 1999 upside down and you get 666, which is the supposed to give us the NAME of the Antichrist in the book of Revelation ), or a NUCLEAR WAR. None of that came true.


Then it was said that since Nostradamus wrote his book before the reform of the calender circa 1580 ( the Gregorian calender we have now ) then it was really to be in July 2000 or 2001, so we weren't safe yet, but those years passed and NOTHING happened in the month of July.

Fernando said...

dasize... glad to see you arounde here. Good posts. Keep upp withe your participattion and may God blees you and your family!

dasize said...

Hey, thanks Fernando. I didn't realize The Fat Man had already posted what i posted.

I would just like to add. I almost left Christianity and converted to Judaism due to an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine who challenged my beliefs in Yeshua. I had never really thought about those arguments before

My friend used to be a Messianic believer like myself, he converted to Rabbinical Judaism because he was challenged by an Orthodox Rabbi, and he had no answers to his arguements so he converted. Well he then used those same arguements against me.

I'm glad Mr. Williams questioned his faith, but it bugs me when he and others don't take the time to REALLY research both sides of the arguements before converting. They claim they found no answers from "Christian Scholars". There are plenty of answers and not just from Christian scholars.

I like Mr. Williams had really questioned my faith. I had a lot of sleepless nights and spent a small fortune on different books, Bibles, Targums, and Jewish commentaries. I examined both sides of the arguement and prayed that God would show me the way. If Rabbincal Judaism was the way then i would abandon Yeshua and Christianity. This struggle lasted almost 2 years. I had no peace, i was so confused, but i was determined to find the truth. I even spoke with various Rabbis about this.

I really feel bad for Mr. Williams and will pray for him. I walked down that same path and know what he went through. The only thing that kept me from giving up is that i knew my faith was real, i could not deny that my life was SUPERNATURALLY changed when i became born again, to simply deny that would be to deny that the sky is blue. I questioned God and my faith. I'm so glad i did because it made my faith unshakeable, and has made me that much stonger to counter those types of arguements. We should all question our faith and study to show ourselves approved. Yaweh does not was us to walk in a blind faith.

Chennai Man said...

Ali said...

//Nabeel I thought your presentation was solid, you gave
reasons for both why you left Islam and received Jesus Christ//

Charlie, leaving the ahmadiyya faith means nothing to us muslims. in fact its better if theres less ahmdiyya's. so i think muslims should thank nabeel for leaving ahmdiyyaism or whatever.

well said Ali, Qaadhiyaanis(Ahmediyya)converting to christianity does not make any diffrence, infact both are equal in the viewpoint of islam.

Fernando said...

Brother dasize: thankes for youre sharing. You are a blessed person. I also left islam after a similar journei. Many reasons were behinde thate, butt one off the not less importatnte ones was thate a Christian priest once saide to mee: «no matter the pathe you may choose, the importance is the coherance off youre liffe in accordance to it: which pathe, in conection with the study you are doing aboutte islam and Christianity, makes you more free and human?»... he did nott conditioned mee in any form; he did nott forced me in any form; he eben saide he woulde still bee my friend iff I chosed to keep being a muslim; he tolde me to go speak to muslim schoolars (the oposite neber coulde habe happened...); he eben saide to me, afeter i decided to became a Christian, to learn aboutte diferent Christian traditions (catholicism; protestantism; easter orthodoxy; evangelism) in order to see which one was the one more connected with the truth I was learning... thate touched my heart deaply: those in the righte path are nott afraide off whate others say: the truth is self-evident to those with an open heart and open mind. May God bless you dasize...

faktb said...


If scholarship says that John is fiction, then scholarship will emphatically establish that most of the stories in the Quran are fiction!

Please be consistent!

Unknown said...

@shafsha711 comment #3
"By the way Mr Williams, Had any one told you that Isalm is One wat, no Exit, you dont have a way out except being Murdered .... thats accrding to what the Muhammed the prophet of peae said said: Whoever Changes his Religion Kill Him !! (Hadith Sahih)"

I must be seeing a ghost then! Or did Qureshi also rise from the dead? Should we deify him as well?

Unknown said...


God bless you guys, Mr William stated that he couldn't reconcile Luke 13 Olivet discourse and specifically, the Parable of the fig tree. He said that he found this amazing problem with the passage 'Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done". he stated that all these things were suppose o pass in ha present generation. What??? This is a prophecy. Go to the Strong's concordance and look up generation.
genea: race, family, generation
Original Word: γενεά, ᾶς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: genea
Phonetic Spelling: (ghen-eh-ah')
Short Definition: a generation
Definition: a generation; if repeated twice or with another time word, practically indicates infinity of time.