Wood. delighted to see u on another debate video, Good job brotherSo We havent gotten any good reason why should we trust Muhamed as a true prophet ?!No answers for wood's claims:- eliquency of quran doesnt mean that is book from god. mean while it is not elinquent at all- te flawd claim that we dont find contradictions, which is noraml to have in any sane book, but yet it fails again- scientifics errors !!-myths and historical errors!!etcmuslims , please, explain to us, n what basis do u believe in the quran and muhammed ?!
I'm berie disapointed with Yahya Seymour. Not only he reveled himself as an arrogant and belicous person allways ready to shout out loud, butt also did nott present any solid arguments that habe nott been, many and many times, previously refutted. He as also hiper-active, withe some somatic (psycho-somatic) movements thate one might expect from a vioulente character: the quick movement off the eyes from left to right (and vice-versa) when is statements were clrearly dubiuos; the circular movement off is shoulder as to make the relaxed from an muscular stiphness; the flushing off blood to his faces when clearlu hungry... butt, as I saide, the worst is thate none off his claimes about "historical ebidences" have a solid ground in order to stand...
This was a blowout and I enjoyed every bit of it. The absolute worst debate a muslim can enter into is this topic, "Was Mohammed a Prophet of God". I dont see how any muslim can defend it. The standard and only defense a muslim can hope to give is "Mohammed is a prophet because I believe he is a prophet". Hard to judge the abilities of Yahya Seymour as he had absolutely nothing to work with. It takes either a brave or a very decieved soul to debate the prophethood of mohammed from a muslim position. Again I thank David and Nabeel for their outreach to muslims, for their website to share their efforts with us and I also would like to thank the knowledgable posters here who I glean a lot of information from. God Bless all
I have to say it was a little hard to hear Yahya. I know he speaks the same language as I do but sometimes when listing to English speak English I feel I need a translator. With that said. Did Yahya say that there was a prophesy that the arabs would invade other countries and this proves mohamed was a prophet. This makes no sense if thats what he said.1. So he admits that arabs went out and invaded other countries. So much for the peacful claim of islam.2. Mohamed was the one invading in his life time, so he prophisized that his followers would continue in his ways. Wow thats a prophesy?1.
Dr Wood, just a FYI when the muslim asked you the question about 2 Sam 24:13 he was going to accuse christians of Changing our bible. In the King James Translation it says 7 years of Famin, and in 1 Chro it says 3 years. The ESV, and NASB say 3 years in both verses.
NOTE: Yahya and I had planned for a longer debate, with more time to respond to one another's arguments. However, due to a tight schedule at the mosque, we had to shorten things up quite a bit at the last minute. I'm pointing this out in case anyone thinks that Yahya didn't answer all of my criticisms. He simply didn't have time to give detailed responses to everything, so I don't think this should be held against him or his position.With that said, the mosque has already invited us to come back next year for a longer exchange with more time to address the issues. I was very impressed with the mosque for hosting the debate. The Muslims there and especially the Imam were very kind as well.
Anyone know what the one muslim was talking about during the Q and A. When he said that older manuscripts do not have the Jesus rising fro the dead. The only thing I can think of is Mark in Codex Sinaicus with the shorter ending.From Codex Mark 164 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great. 5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him. Anyone know if there are any ancient manuscripts that Say Jesus was not risin?
Professor Wood saide: «I'm pointing this out in case anyone thinks that Yahya didn't answer all of my criticisms»... thankes for pointting this out... neber the less I still think his presentation lacked some depthe... Professor Wood: good job. My prayiers are withe you.
A first impression of the debate.But before, it is good Zakaria,Ehteshaam and Osama reconciled.And alot sooner than expected.I am glad they are no longer enemies.And Sepher Shalom thanks for finding the ideas interesting.But the arguments in favor of Jesus are stronger than in favor of Mohammed.They have a validity in themselves independent of who says it.Suppose next month Nabeel Qureshi has a change of heart and goes to Sunni Islam and never comes back.And that he even becomes the best Muslim apologist of all.ALL THE SAMEThe arguments for Jesus are independent.And a true Christian would not curse him for leaving the group.Besides "once saved,always saved",it is a free gift.If you lose it,then it's not a gift.A book on the subect is ETERNAL SECURITY by CHARLES STANLEY.ABOUT THE DEBATESeymour said the Catholic Encyclopedia said the Torah use of the word "Pharaoh" was a "possible anacronism".From what I know it was not the custom then to say the Pharaoh's name.It depended on the time period.That would be why the Catholic Encyclopedia said "possible".I know that in the Torah the Pharaoh is also called "king".Seymour said the Koran called the pharaoh "king".He saw it as something extraordinary.FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKEGranting the Koran has real prophecies,is inimitable in style,has scientific info not discovered till later,is 100% preserved,that is not enough.If a spirit were to appear and outdo the Koran in all that,Muslims wouldn't accept it.WHY? They would say there are good spirits and bad spirits.Satan can trick people,correct?Besides Mohammed is supposed to be in the Gospel.It's in the Koran.But he's not.I have shown it.I hope Seymour and other Muslims read the facts that John nowhere has Mohammed in it.Mohammed is supposed to be in BOTH the Torah and Gospel.Just showing he isn't in John is enough to show an ERROR by Allah in the Koran.And the Koran says Allah can't make mistakes,or,by logic,he is not God.AGAIN BUT WITH A VARIATIONJohn 1:19-25 again.However you put it there is no Mohammed.Suppose John Baptist were an ARAB.Then would the LEVITES and PHARISEES even bother to ask the 3 questions?Not at all.Would THEY have said "Are you,an Arab,Elijah?".No.Or "Are you,an Arab,the Messiah?".No. Or "Are you the prophet?".No.They didn't even say "the prophet like Moses".So you can't even be 100% sure they were referring to that.But even if it had "prophet like Moses"they would never have asked an Arab that question.Why?Since for THEM it was to be a Jew.It's obvious Mohammed is not there.
I did a quick search on answering-islam.org.I went to "search the site",then wrote "pharaoh as king in bible" and got the following(which I verified):In Hebrew king is MELEK.Seymour said it was like a miracle that the Pharaoh was called king in the Koran.We have:KING ONLY(but in reference to Pharaoh)in:GENESIS 39:20 (Joseph story)KING OF EGYPTGEN 40:1 (king of Egypt 2X,Joseph story)GEN 40:5 (Joseph story)PHARAOH,KING OF EGYPT:GEN 41:46(Joseph story.Here the site made a mistake and put it as 41:6.No,it's 41:46).EXOD 6:11(Moses story)HOW DID MOHAMMED KNOW?Mr.Seymour said Mohammed could not have known that in the past Pharaoh was called KING.Impossible.The info in the Koran is in that sense like divine.Yet we have it several times in the Torah.How did THEY know?I don't think Mr.Seymour would think it is like a miracle here.Also,it's obvious Mohammed got it from Jewish men who had read the Torah.That is more likely.
Brother The Fat Man asked: «Anyone know if there are any ancient manuscripts that Say Jesus was not risin?»... no. As far as I know there is nott such thibgue. Obviously thate person was just mumbling some thingues he had heard from some anti-Christian apologist without any cretirea. Whate is discussed are the following versicles that account the apearences off the Risen Lord.
Great job David! However, I think Abdullah has shown himself to be a much more skilled debater than Yahya. I am eager to see the next debate that Paul mentioned. I was expecting David to argue that Mohammed is a rapist, pedophile and murderer. I was impressed with the list of discrepancies he found in the Koran. Like he points out though, Moslems will reconcile these as not being literal or what have you. I wonder if they can reconcile Mohammeds toddler wives, and his rape, and murder without sounding like an irrational Islamist.... They can argue about OT wrath of God for parody etc... but did God ever command a servant to rape women? or to abuse a child? Did any of God's prophets act like this? I think Mohammed broke new ground in the hall of shame.
Fat Man wrote:"Anyone know what the one muslim was talking about during the Q and A. When he said that older manuscripts do not have the Jesus rising fro the dead."Probably he mistook the lack of appearances of the risen Jesus in Mark (though even those are foreshadowed) for the lack of resurrection.
my dear christian brothers, you guys are pre programmed by your missionaries that Muhammed is not a prophet. The main reason for that is muhammed revealed as jesus is not a god or son of god, and he said in his holy book that jesus is just a prophet like me, this is why you guys are hesitate to agree the prophetship of muhammed.The only way to believe in muhammed and his prophetship you guys should wait until jesus christ comes to this world, surely he will glorify muhammed (insha allah)
Man, I really cant believe that Muslims find this "surah like it" argument at all compelling. Besides the points that David has raised against this dumb argument, an argument that no Muslim has ever addressed properly because they simply cant, here is another. According to Muslims, because the Quraishi Arabic was so wonderfully put together it must be of divine origin. Now I speak Surinamese, a language that virtually no one outside Surinam speaks. Imagine that I compose a literary masterpiece in the Surinamese language. And I challenge anyone to produce anything like my literary masterpiece. NO ONE COULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. Why? Because a tiny portion of humanity speaks that language and those that DO speak it dont have my literary style. The best they can do is copy my literary style. Now does this mean that my Surinamese masterpiece is the inspired word of God? According to Muslims, YES! As such there are many books in Surinamese that are lofty and eloquent and unlike anything anyone has ever written in that language, yet NO MUSLIM, not even Surinamese Muslims, will even entertain the thought that those books are in any way inspired.But then again, the Quran poses a problem for Muslims, which it usually does. Because of its lack of details, despite its own repeated claim to the contrary, no one can meet that challenge, because it doesnt give us the detail of what it means by "bring a surah like it". What exactly is "like it"? What similarity should it contain? Who is to judge if it is "like it" or not? Does it allow this similarity in other languages than Arabic? etc.
@ ashrafmy dear muslims brothers, you guys are pre programmed by your dawa specialits that Muhammed is a prophet. The main reason for that is thate is that muhammed revealed himself to bee as such without any external evidence for that, and he said in his holy book that those who did not beleibe him should be killed. this is why you guys are hesitate to see the falsity of the claim about the prophetship of muhammed.The only way will stop believe in muhammed and his prophetship you guys should wait until Jesus Christ comes to this world, surely he will tell taht muhammad was a false prophet that currupted all the true previous revelation from God...
ashraf said: "my dear christian brothers, you guys are pre programmed by your missionaries that Muhammed is not a prophet. The main reason for that is muhammed revealed as jesus is not a god or son of god, and he said in his holy book that jesus is just a prophet like me, this is why you guys are hesitate to agree the prophetship of muhammed."I can't speak for anyone else, but I KNOW this is not true for me. I don't even need to believe in Yeshua to reject Muhammad. My first rejection of Muhammad comes from the fact that he broke Torah, and called people to worship a foreign G-d [Allah instead of YHWH]. Yes, I also reject Muhammad because he taught falsehood about Yeshua and brought another false Gospel, but I could leave my belief in Yeshua tomorrow [G-d forbid] and would still know Muhammad is a false prophet.I could just easily turn what you said right back toward you, like this: "You are programmed by your du‘āt [Muslim missionaries] that Muhammad is a prophet, and the only reason you reject that Yeshua is G-d is because Muhammad said so".Certainly my claim is just as valid as yours, but you see, my rejection of the prophethood of Muhammad is not based only on the deity of Yeshua. It is based on the fact that he contradicted ALL previous revelation from all the true prophets of YHWH. Also, I suggest you watch the debate again. David brought up many good reasons for rejecting Muhammad that have nothing to do with the divinity of Yeshua. Also, I'm not hearing ANY sort of argument from you as to why anyone should accept Muhammad. It's seems all you are saying is, basically we are "brainwashed" [programmed] and that's why we don't believe. I've already shown why that argument doesn't work.
Ashraf:1: Welcome to the blog, happy to share your thoughts here2: u said " pre programmed" I really doubt this to happen with christians, but the opposite is true with muslims.Christians are used to debate since its very early history. If u read to paul, u will definitely see that. Also, u cant imagine how many tried to deviate from the pure christian faith, but our Christian Logic stayed strong, without violence.Yet the muslims, are not used to debate, for instance, the very early generation of muslims, when they had different opinion, it led to a very bloody war, thousands were murdered !!! so now u can see who is really preprogrammed !!3: U said Muahmmed was trying to correct the Christian belivebow the question I have been asking every muslim, and couldnt answer, what faith muhammed was disccusing in his quran ?! Muhammed never touched upon christian theology e.g:a: trinity in islam : Father , son , Maryb: Son of God: Mean reproductionc: Ezra is son of God !!d: said that jesus is separate God From Allahe: Quran is in Arabic, but christians, were mostly speaking Greek at that time, or other languages. And it would take a christian 30 years or so to understand it f: Muhammed appeared in arabia, which is not a center for christianity so who was she talking to ?g: He was talking to the pagans and idolators about Christian faith !! they already know nothing.H: If he was a hertic like arian, or so, may be then we can start to say , yes he was tying to correct the christian faith, but he was so ignorant about christian theologyi: He said Jesus was not crucified, and was never able to prove his claims against all the facts the are well esablished among every body even atheist !!What do u think of me, if I wanted to discuss islam with u , and then u found me talking about Hinduism ?! can I criticise a movie I havent seen ?! can i disagree with a book, I havent understood or even read ?!
In my case I don't think Mohammed was a prophet because his claim he is in the gospel is false.Of course,another is free to believe he is there.What I am AGAINST is to prevent my human right to express why I say he's not:the right to say it in Pakistan,Iran,Sudan,Egypt,etc.And not be killed or imprisoned for "offending Islam",Islamophobia.Guys,now it's 634,000 hits in youtube.Great success.TURKEY,THE "MODERATE" MUSLIM STATE?Go to youtube and write "Daughters of Allah".You'll find that in Turkey they are trying to throw a writer called NEDIM GURSEL in jail for 1.5 years.Crime?He wrote a novel about the advent of Islam that is considered to be an insult to Islam.He would be imprisoned for blasphemy,there is such a law there.AND TURKEY STILL EXPECTS TO BE ADMITTED TO THE EUROPEAN UNION?Fortunately the man lives in France.Turkey before tried to make Islamophobia a crime in the European constitution.Then if we were in Europe we would all be in jail now,for saying why we don't think Islam is true as a religion.It's obvious Turkey will never deserve to be a member with that kind of culture.WHAT VOLTAIRE SAIDHe said the famous phrase "I don't agree with anything you say but I will defend to the end your right to say it."With slight modification I agree.Is there any Muslim intellectual in the West who would say the same for us non-Muslims,applicable even for us in the Muslim world?I haven't seen any case yet.STARTLING STORY,BUT GOOD FOR A MOVIEThere is the true story of Soraya and a true story that happened in Morocco.A man there was in charge of a mosque till the end of his life,he preached there.On his deathbed,surrounded by all his family,his children and others,he asked to be given the Koran.He was and holding it said:"I swear that everything that is in this book is false!".Then he died.FOR HOW LONG?We don't know.If he had left Islam at an early age,or in middle age,or late in life.If he had stopped believing 1 year before,5,10,20,30,40.All we know is he was afraid to tell his own family.Very sad.A father afraid of his own sons and daughters.
Here are my two cents: If understand this correctly, muslims strongest argument is based on the following premisses:Premiss I: Either the Koran is the work of God, or the work of a human.This seems somewhat reasonable. Lets assume it for the moment.Premiss II: The Koran cant be a work of a human (on account of its unique literally style, its supposed prophecies, scientific claims, etc...).Conclusion: Therefore it has to be the work of God.Now, premiss II is highly dubious at best, because its case rests on far streched interpretations (scientific statements) and subjective criteria (literary style). If iam correct the argument merely proofs nothing since one of its premisses is false, but nothing is said of the truth of the conclusion. But i think it is easy to show while proving II false, that the Quran cannot be from God, because of its wickedness etc... So it must be a work of a mere human.Even if we grant premiss II to the moslems, we can easily defeat the argument by attacking premiss I (or at least laying some additional burden of proof on the moslems), since there is still the possibility that the Quran is the work of some other agent than God or human (e.g. Satan, Aliens, etc..). Now Aliens seem far streched, but Satan is still in the game, because according to Muslims Satan exists. Premiss I would now read: Either the Quran is a work of a human, of God, or of some other Agent (e.g. Satan).Now the argument based on the new premiss and premiss II proofs again nothing, but again We can easily show that the conclusion is still false:Lets grant the muslim premiss II, that it is no work of a human, and lets assume additionaly our claim, that it cant be a work of God. The neccessary conclusion is therefore that it is the work of some other agent. Satan ?!
No need to approve this - I just want to bring this to the attention of you guys:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/116787/Unveiled-a-new-head-scarf-for-police-women-to-wear-in-mosques
Ari thats sadWelcome to the UNITED KINGDOM OF ISLAM. with the blessing and guidance of:Um il Mumenin Elizabeth IIand 1st Caliph Charles rest in peace England !
David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi: Can I ask you two a question? As my friends-- please be honest with me. I am not trying to be mean or anything-- but--Why do you two debate Osama Abdullah? Why do you two entertain discussions with him? What's the point? What do you see in him? I tried to get along with him. I tried to help him. I tried to be friends with him. I even skipped work to see him. He not only insulted me but he made up lies about me. So why do you two put up with him? Also want a good laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VofmINhjB70&feature=channel_pageThe author of this video has this to say about him: "Osama is an idiot, and I hope - no make that, I pray - that Christians will stop giving this lunatic a platform. This video shows his ignorance, so I think he is best left to simmer in his ignorant taqiyya alone. I don't even listen to him when he comes into a room to debate. I put him on *ignore*. His website triggers my anti-virus program, so I don't know if it's a script problelm, or if he just gets more vicious with each passing year."Said by SecertGarden 1963. I hate to spread this stuff about him-- but during the last few days he has made me so mad. I usually say good things about people-- even Sam Shamoun-- but I just can't stand him. I love him for the sake of Allah-- but--- really.If you want to respond here or shoot me an email, please do. Yours in IslamEhteshaam Gulamhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com
Hello all,I read the article about policewomen's hijab - but what else does it say?"The £13 head coverings have been issued to women officers who work closely with Muslim groups in Bristol, Bath and surrounding areas.But the force said they can also be used in other religious settings as a mark of respect, for instance to cover the shoulders of a plain-clothes female officer in a church."Hmm, so police must also show respect in a church - is that wrong as well? Should they not show respect in a Church, for the same reason you complain they should not show respect in a Mosque?It's called 'MultiCulturalism' - a place where different cultures are allowed to express themselves and be officially recognised. But it seems that you guys would prefer a mono-culture society, where everyone must CONFORM to the (current) 'popular' culture of society - isn't that right COMRADES? Dos'vedanya!
Ari & Shafsha have you ever read these versus from your bible?Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
Ashraf,Hope u dont have a problem understanding English. What did the verse say again:PRAYING OR PROPHESYSING.I am not gonna get into this, as it realy shows u have real trouble understanding. DI the verse anywhere said be veiled in public ?!!Thats really wierd , Muslims want christians to follow their DAMN STUPID 7th century illiterate arabian CULTURE, and even more, mis-interpreting the Bible their own way, to prove their point !!!Have life
Abdulla :Multi cutlture if u respect other culture, but forcing others to follow you culture , that the monoculture thing !!!So how do u see forcing no- muslim women ro wear Hijab , in order to keep working, and bind to their work ethics.Thats really stupid. Then we will see muslims Putting sign on their Homes for guests and offices, : NO HEAD COVER , NO ENTERYAbdualla , why dont men wear Hijab by the way ?????????????????? where is equality ????????
@ ashraf...habe you ANY knowledge of Biblical revelation and inspiration and contextualization? Three aspects thate are totally different between islam and Christianity: you cannot aply your extrinsequely notions off those into intrinsique ones... sorry aboutt vthate, butt you should nott speak aboutt whate you do not know...The problem is nott weader muslim women can or not cober theire heads in mosques, butt rather iff non muslim police women must cober their ones when entering muslim buildings tahte are nott only religious ones (likke mosques)... do christian women cober theire heads in churches? no. Do they desobey anything porescribed in the Bible? no (unless you're ignorant off those previous 3 aspects I pointed out). So: are non-christians women to be obliged no make the sign off the cross when entering a church? woulde you like that?Multicultaralism as some limits as everything in liffe: when someone who are not from a pequliar country tries to impose intto others behaviours thate are nott culturaly natural into them in theire own country. Woulde some muslim PC accept to wera a rainbow tissue when entering a precict off gay and lesbians? Woulde someone allow a christian to wer a cross publiquely in Saudi Arabia? Woulde a christian women bee free to not wear a hijab in countries where they are imposed into women? Don't thin so... They can'te eben wear trousers in Sudan whitout being flogged publiquely...No one can impose their religious believes into others, nott eben in public aspects. Mosques and churches are nott abobe the law.
I think Secret Garden shouldn't have called Osama a lunatic and idiot.It was not nice.And if secret garden is a Christian,then not what Jesus would like.But Osama has undeniably the MOST popular anti-Christianity website.Far more Muslims read it than Bassam Zawadi,Sami,Farhan and Ehteshaam.AHMED DEEDATI think Osama in his debate was professional,not insulting the other debater.But he shouldn't have insulted Ehteshaam and Nadir and Zakaria.Ehteshaam tried to reconcile and his efforts are very commendable.The one who was unprofessionable in debate was Ahmed Deedat.His arguments are easy to refute.Several times he was shown to be wrong in his articles in technical matters regarding the Bible.Did he later,like a true scholar,rewrite to correct the error?No.He wasn't interested in accuracy.MY POINTAs long as Osama and anybody else follows the correct etiquette in a debate,even if one disagrees with the ideas,then it's ok.Let the audience analyze and reanalyze and write notes.Verify and reverify,and conclude.ALI ATAIEHe's from Iran.You can see his debate "Jesus:resurrected or rescued?" with MICHAEL LICONA on youtube.Licona argued using the HISTORICAL METHOD and to his surprise Ataie didn't argue with evidence against it.He cited Psalm 91(it's Messianic and shows the Messiah wouldn't get killed),Isaiah 53(it was about Jeremiah) and talked of the GNOSTIC gospels(written more than 100 years after Jesus' death).Even that Jesus in Aramaic in Mel Gibson's movie said Mohammed(Menahemana) would come.WHAT HE FAILED TO DOThe Gnostics believed Jesus was never even human,so he never even died.But their beliefs are from like 100 AD.Paul got 1 COR 15(which says Jesus died,was buried and woke up on the 3rd day) anywhere from a few months after Jesus' death to 2 years to 5 years).HE HAD TO PROVE THE GNOSTIC BELIEF IS FROM VERY EARLYAtaie knew he couldn't do it.Licona didn't get into theology,by saying that if Jesus was rescued and nobody knew about it for 600 years then God was a DECEIVER.Or IMPOTENT(the Devil was stronger than him and succeeded in eliminating the truth),or even both.THE EBIONITESHe said they were early and rejected Paul.There is debate if they are from very early or after 70 AD.Whatever the case,they ACCEPTED that Jesus DIED.Even that went against his case.SHARIARashid of the UK,Farhan Qureshi and Bassam Zawadi all support Sharia Law.In his debate with David Wood,Mr.Rashid defended the killing of apostates.Bassam Zawadi in his website defends killing them.Farhan in his website agrees to Sharia in Muslim countries,not in the West.WHAT ABOUT US?But I'm sure if Muslims were 51% in the West Farhan would agree to it here.In Sharia there is death for blasphemy against Islam.So they would be in favor of us all getting killed if Muslims were the majority.Or at least imprisoned.I am not saying this to create controversy.I am only stating reality,the nature of things.I know Muslims will never become the majority in the West but if they did,then Bassam,Farhan and Rashid would approve of our imprisonment and even death.They would follow their logic.Again,it's only reality,the nature of things.
Hi Yahya or any other muslimThis is slightly embarrasing, but that evening on the Babylon restaurant after the last debate I left early for certain reasons and completely forgot to pay my bill. Unfortunately I had no phone number and I was and am completely unaware of how this matter was sorted out. Beside this I have not have had any internet connection until now.Anyway I am trying to figure out the actual address and contact number of the Babylon restaurant, if anyone of you could post me the address and phone number here, it would be apprceciated since I owe them twenty-one pounds.
Ehteshaam GulamI totaly forgot about this. I remember when this happend a bunch of muslims on paltalk were spreading this around that Jewish Scientists Broved that adam was 90 feet tall. Man thanks for the laugh. Thats even better then Neil Armstron became a muslim because he heard the call to prayer from Mecca when he walked on the moon.Or that Jac Coustou became a muslim becasue he realized that salt water and fresh water didnt mix, or that Kieth Moore became a muslim etc... etc...
Which Mohammed you are talkning about?Ther are 2 M:- the fake one which all muslims imams created to prove their kriminal ideology and against:- the real Mohamad who was a follower of Jesus Plz note: the original qur2an is lik the Bible but the one which the imams forged is even against AllahregardsJurist Christian Mohamad Benedictoshttp://motmittsverige.wordpress.com
Abdullah said: "It's called 'MultiCulturalism' - a place where different cultures are allowed to express themselves and be officially recognised. But it seems that you guys would prefer a mono-culture society, where everyone must CONFORM to the (current) 'popular' culture of society - isn't that right COMRADES? Dos'vedanya!"Nice try, but nobody around here is going to fall for that. The umbrella of "multiculturalism" might work for you just fine around the unaware, but the people around this blog are far too informed to buy that. Is there "multiculturalism" allowed in Islam? Of course not.What is happening in the UK is not multiculturalism, it is forcing your religious practices and sensibilities onto others. You know full well that if Islam becomes dominant in the UK, and Sharia gains a foothold, there will be NO multiculturalism or tolerance for people with differing religious or cultural practices. If Muslims really cared anything about multiculturalism then they would respect that it is the cultural practice of non-Muslim western women not to wear hijab. You see, multiculturalism runs both ways Abdullah. Claiming umbrella protection of a western concept that your religion rejects and will ultimately destroy is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.And as for your "Dos'vedanya" and "Comrades" comment...the primary totalitarian political ideology in the UK is Islam.I hope some forward thinking police women in the UK refuse to wear the hijab, then sue the pants off their employers if they get any grief about it.
Ehteshaam Gulam: you should not do what you did in public!!! If you wanted to do the washing of your underwear, you should have done so in private. This is not the place to report disrespectful words towards Muslim brothers. And remember: Osama Abdullah is one of the greatest Muslim debaters in the world!!! You do not reach is heel!!! You’re an immature person!!! Grow up not to give the image that the Ummah is divided!!! And do not call kuffar as your friends because you’re making yourself one of them!!!
muslimphantom,Lets get this straight, ethesham is one of the very very mature muslims I read and hear about. I can criticise his arguments and debates, which did not impress me at all, however, so far he seems at least to me to be a good person, and that speaks louder than winning debates.
MuslimPhantom said... Ehteshaam Gulam: you should not do what you did in public!!! ... Grow up not to give the image that the Ummah is divided!!! I agree with MuslimPhantom. Shame on your Ehteshaam. You should not of rebuked your brother in public. You dont have that option in islam, its not like in christ where we are to take our brothers sin to him privatley then with two or three brothers then if he still will not listen we are then to rebuke him in public. Quit confusing the glory of Christ with islam.Ehteshaam shame on you, dont you know you are alway to take your muslim brothers side against the kuffar, even if your muslim brother is completely wrong. Shame shame shame.You have shown there is division in the Umah. Its not like muslims are killing muslims in Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq and IRAN. No that never ever happens its all zionist Joosh tricks.Ehteshaam next thing you will be saying is that it is Halal for a non muslim to testify against a muslim in Islamic court, or that a womans testimony is the same as a man, or that a woman does not need 4 male witness to prove she was raped. Or that blood money to be paid is equal for musims and non muslims.
Muslim school principal fires wrestling coach in Dearborn Michigan because he is a christian.http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16691
MuslimBantam wrote:If you wanted to do the washing of your underwear, you should have done so in private. This is not the place to report disrespectful words towards Muslim brothers.You are doing the same thing, bantam! Maybe as a bantam, it is your duty to crow loud as it is your duty to recite and believe in the Quran without knowing the meaning.
MuslimBantom wrote...Osama Abdullah is one of the greatest Muslim debaters in the world!!! To you, your sub-prophet Osama is beyond reproach, but he twists the biblcal and the quranic verses beyond all recognition. How can such a dishonest person be one of the greatest debator in the world? Crow some sense, bantam.
Shafsha, why should we take Jesus as our saviour? flawd claims? do you usually say this after every time a christian bashes islam and we defend it?scientific errors-those scientists, mathematicians are dead wrong huh? you of course who have the authority to judge scientists with you're grade 10 education.myths- our quran doesn't say unicorns exist (yes those ponies with horns and wings that fly over rainbows).please explain to us shafsha what makes you so hard-hearted and ignorant.
Ali said...scientific errors-those scientists, mathematicians are dead wrong huh? For one scientist who agrees with you, there are thousand others who disagree. So some one has to be dead wrong, right? FYI, the vague Quranic statements that can be interpreted in any way is not science. The problem is, Muslims live in a world of make-believe.
Ali: If u dont wanna take him as a saviour , be ready to get punished for your Sins, if You Think there is GoD, who is Just.[you of course who have the authority to judge scientists with you're grade 10 education.]That shows us really what islam is!! No -one should think, cause they have other thinking for them !! by this concept, no muslim would criticise or ask q in islam, cause they have muslim scholars who hae the ability to judge ..No Sir, I dont agree, and I wont let someone else think on my behalf thanks.[myths- our quran doesn't say unicorns exist (yes those ponies with horns and wings that fly over rainbows).]Excuse me but I would call this clear deception, cause the example u just used , present in Islam, Dont u really know what muhammed claimed to ride when he went on this imaginary trip to Isreal ?! (Eesraa wa Al Meeraajj) why dont your read your books first, ans then try to defend, you have this creture called (al-Buraq) which muhammed ride and claimed he flied to israel trmple (bait al makdes)SO YES SIR, YOU HAVE LOTS OF MYTHS, and the very example you tried to disprove, showed us the opposite !!, thank you[please explain to us shafsha what makes you so hard-hearted and ignorant.]Who ?! Me ?! I am always surprised why muslims like to folow their prophet in everything, even in his bad atribute. Here is one of the worst, False claims without evidence !! exactly like when muhammed said the jews claim Ezra Son of God !!! So u are sayig hard hearted - ignorant , Sir any proof for your claims ?!
Hello:This is in response to an issue raised by Zakaria,I believe:We have 2 genealogies of Jesus. In Matthew we have, without the slightest doubt, the genealogy of JOSEPH but in Luke we have that of MARY.THE GENEALOGY IN MATTHEW: MATTHEW 1: 1-17:First notice that in Matthew we have the ROYAL lineage: it goes from the past to the future, from ABRAHAM through DAVID to JESUS, while Luke does NOT have the royal lineage after David, going from the present to the past, from JESUS to Adam. David was the second king of the Jews and was succeeded by Solomon, in Matt the genealogy goes like this: DAVID, SOLOMON, Rehoboam....Jechoniah ( last king of Judah ).THE GENEALOGY IN LUKE: LUKE 3:22-28:In Luke we have Jesus....NATHAN, then DAVID, his father. Nathan was NEVER king , but he was the son of David. So we have 2 different genealogies obviously, one is the official, legal one, based on the father ( Matt's genealogy for Joseph ).THE GENEALOGY IN MATTHEW AGAINFirst thing first: Matthew undeniably says Jesus was descended from MARY, he says it in an INDIRECT but clear way:Matt 1:1:" A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham "Notice it calls Jesus the SON of DAVID and the SON of ABRAHAM. Now a man cannot have 2 fathers. Here we have a Semitism. The word son in the OT means a real son but it also means DESCENDANT, so Matt is saying Jesus descended from King David and Abraham. In fact ask any rabbi and he will tell you they call the Messiah MASHIACH BEN DAVID. MATTHEW TELLS US THE GENEALOGY IS THAT OF JOSEPHMatt 1:16:" and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of who was born Jesus, who is called Christ. "He tells us Jacob had a father, or maybe ancestor called Jacob. He tells us Joseph was the husband of Mary. Then he shifts the emphasis to " of who ( note: of who? of Mary ) was born Jesus, who is called Messiah. " Matt is careful NOT to say: " and Joseph begot Jesus. " Matthew uses the Greek word that literally means begot, but when you analyze his genealogy you see he skips several generations in places and here begot is an expression for ancestor or father, depending on the case. That is why many translations have it as " was the father of " instead of begot ,where father can also mean ancestor.MATTHEW TELLS US OF THE VIRGIN BIRTHMatt 1:18-21:" This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, " Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. " "
To continueJOSEPH WAS NOT THE FATHER BUT THE MESSIAH WOULD HAVE TO OBLIGATORILY DESCEND FROM DAVIDAccording to the prophecies the Messiah would have to descend from David, but since Joseph is not the real father, even though descended from David, and Matt says explicitely that Jesus really was a DESCENDANT of David, then by logic it would have to be through the mother. The mother would be a desecendant of David.SO WHY HAVE JOSEPH'S GENEALOGY AT ALL?The reason is that in Antiquity, and probably today also, when you give one's genealogy it is always on the FATHER'S side. It was not the custom to give the genealogy on the mother's side. So Matt gives us the OFFICIAL genealogy of Jesus, official but not the real one, since Joseph was the husband of Mary and he was the LEGAL father of Jesus, his adopted father, so to speak.THE GENEALOGY IN LUKE AGAINFirst of all Luke tells us DIRECTLY that Mary descended from David in Luke 1:26-33 and also notice that it says a VIRGIN will give birth, so no father is involved. But then it has the phrase " of his father David ". Here again we have a Semitism. In the OT father means a real father but it also means ANCESTOR. Since Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus and since the prophecies say that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, then it was obligatory. So here the problem is solved because Mary was also a descendant of David.THE TEXT IN LUKE ABOUT THE VIRGIN BIRTH: LUKE 1:26-33: " In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, " Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you. " Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, " Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the THRONE of his FATHER DAVID, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end. "
THE LUKE GENEALOGY:It is in Luke 3:22-28 and many say it is the GENEALOGY of JOSEPH, not of JESUS, because it begins with:" Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki,the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, etc."HERE IS THE PROOF THE GENEALOGY IS THAT OF JOSEPH, NOT JESUS':There we have the proof, it says Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of X, etc. But when you read the LITERAL translation it is:" And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED, SON OF Joseph, OF HELI, OF Matthat, OF Levi, etc."JAMES TABOR in his book highlights that is how it is in the original Greek.Just check out Young's Literal Translation in biblegateway.com where the word " son " is in parenthesis. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?That the EMPHASIS is on JESUS, not Joseph, so it can also be written as ( by taking out " as was supposed, son of Joseph " ):" And JEUS himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, OF ELI, of Matthat, of Levi, etc." I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND:Since the EMPHASIS is on Jesus, and Joseph is just put in as " the supposed father " then the phrase " Jesus was OF HELI, of Matthat, of Levi, etc. " would mean he was descended literally from Heli, etc. Since Jesus had as his mother Mary, and since Jesus did not have a Heli as a father, in fact, no father at all, then Heli would be Mary's father.Jesus,of Heli,a descendant of Heli,through his mother Mary,who was his daughter.THAT IS ONLY A CHRISTIAN ARGUMENTThen read JAMES TABOR, a respected NT scholar who is no Christian at all, who wrote THE JESUS FAMILY DYNASTY, chapter 2 " A son of David? ", pages 48-57. He believes Jesus was an illegitimate child, no virgin birth, no resurrection, that Jesus was not God and that his tomb is somewhere in Galilee. He also argues that Luke has Mary's genealogy. Again, because in Luke the emphasis is on JESUS, not on Joseph.And he argues based on the actaul Greek used.THE CURSE ON JECHONIAHIn Jeremiah 22:30 the last king of Judah, Jechoniah is cursed for being evil and told NONE of his descendants will ever be KING of the Jews." This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah. "In the Talmud ( Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37b ) it is said that later Jechoniah repented and was forgiven by God, and the curse revoked, but that is NOT in the OT,as far as I know. So the Jewish and Christian writers knew that the Messiah had to be from David but not through Jechoniah. If Jesus was really the biological son of Joseph then he would have been disqualified as the Messiah since Jsoeph was descended from Jechoniah.THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMESWritten in 150 AD it may contain some reliable information. There the parents of Mary are said to be JOACHIM and ANNA. JOACHIM is a form of ELIAKIM, like YEHOSHUAH is a form of JOSHUA, JECHONIAH of CONIAH, Mike of Michael ,Tommy of Thomas, Rick of Richard. It is possible HELI is a short form for Eliakim, so argues James Tabor.
Hello:I had before said that JOHN and MATTHEW are in the THIRD person(he).That that in itself doesn't prove it wasn't written by them.I had also said XENOPHON and CEASER had written like that.Why talk of them again? To show they were world-famous people in Antiquity,all Romans and Greeks knew them.XENOPHON (430-355 BC):he was a disciple of the famous SOCRATES,like PLATO the philosopher was,and he wrote a book based on an adventure he had.He and 13,000 Greek mercenaries were employed by a Persian prince who rebelled against the Persian Emperor.He won the battle but was killed so Xenophon and the Greeks were left leaderless. The Greek leaders were invited to a peace conference and killed,so Xenophon was elected leader and the remaining 10,000 Greeks escaped and went to Greece,after many adventures going home.MARCH OF THE 10,000Remember,Xenophon was the leader of the whole thing,and the book is the ANABASIS or the March of the 10,000.Now here Xenophon never says" I went with the others on the march",he always writes " he,Xenophon,went to..." JULIUS CESAR (100-44 BC):he conquered France in a war that lasted 9 years and killed 1 million Gauls and enslaved 1 million more.He was one of the greatest generals and rulers who ever lived.DID IT TWO TIMESHe wrote a book about it called THE GALLIC WARS,where he uses the singular third person.He also wrote another book about the Roman civil war and his battles against Pompey for the power of Rome called THE CIVIL WAR and he again uses the singular third person. So we see it is not something unheard of in ANTIQUITY to write a book of an event in which one personally participated and yet use the singular third person.
PETER and PAUL died as martyrs in 64 AD during Nero's persecution of Christians.MARK is,according to most scholars from 70-75 AD,MATT-LUKE-ACTS from 80-85 AD.It's after Peter's death.I think there is internal evidence in the Synoptics that indicates they are from BEFORE Peter's death.AN INCIDENT REGARDING A SWORDRead the event of somebody who fought with a sword on the night of Jesus' arrest.The first 3 gospels writers,who wrote before John,all mention it,but notice they NEVER say the NAME of who did it:MARK 14:43-47/MATTHEW 26:51/LUKE 22:48-50.FINALLY A NAME Only in John are we told WHO did it:JOHN 18:10(it was PETER). Why were the first 3 silent on the matter?. A logical explanation is that PETER was still alive,that is to say it was before his death in 64 AD,and they didn't want to get him into trouble with the Roman authorities.John is from 90 AD.
@David and all,1st i consinder many o David's arguments one of the most rational and reasonable once as compared to many other Christians ive heard in debates or speeches. But his claim that if no one can produce a literary work as powerful as his/hers along with his/her claim to be a messenger from GOD, even if true, wldnt be evidence for it actually being from GOD, is rather absurd. One can then make the same claim for the resurrection EVEN IF it were true. Just coz Jesus rose to the heaven doesnt mean hes God OR EVEN a messenger of God. Cld be tht aliens from outer space rose him up or someone from a parallel universe took him and thus fooled us. SO here hes not being consistent. NOW in the OT we find Moses with his stick overpowering the bets magicians in his time together with his claim toi be a messenger of GOD. IS THIS THEN not enough for David again? Well according to his claim Moses wld just be the best in his time to do that and nothing more. DO YOU SEE now how ridiculous this is?
Yahya was a good debater but he strikes me as quite a belligerent, angry person, not angry towards Christianity but angry towards David Wood and by extension anyone who questions Islam. You can hear it and see it in the way he refers to 'Dr Wood' as if he's throwing an insulting name at him. I don't know, maybe he's lovely in real life, but I think it would benefit him if he made an effort to appear less arrogant and contemptuous in debates in future.
@Khizar:I think David's point is that the Argument from Literary Excellence is subjective. Muslims can say 'no book is as excellent as the Koran'. Everyone else can say 'Actually, yes they are'. His point was this was MUHAMMAD'S own argument, the best weapon in Muhammad's arsenal, yet it is subjective and is really no evidence at all. The True Furqan, for example, is believed by many to be as good - actually, better - than the Koran. Yet of course Muslims could never agree with this. On what grounds do we agree or disagree? It is entirely subjective, depending on if we are predisposed to revere the Koran as Allah's word, or see it as Muhammad's own work.The resurrection is not subjective. Historical events are not subjective. We weigh the evidence as presented to us. Everyone can research the evidence and reach a conclusion. Did Hannibal cross the Alps? We believe so because of the objective evidence. There is nothing objective about the Argument from Literary Excellence. There is evidence for the existence of Charles Manson, but do I have to believe that he ordered a bunch of murders back in the Sixties before I was born? No. But I do because the objective evidence points that way. In the same way, we can look objectively at the life and resurrection of Jesus and can possibly objectively conclude'well I am convinced He must have been the Son of God'. We CAN'T look objectively at the Argument from Literary Excellence and say 'no, no one could have written a book like this but God because it's just so beautifully composed'. Surely you see a difference.
ashraf said... Ari & Shafsha have you ever read these versus from your bible? Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.To ashraf who posted the scripture please read the entier context see what paul said 1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER FOR A COVERING.
Post a Comment