Hello everyone, Nabeel here!
So the debate series so far has been pretty exhilarating! We're done with the first three, and we got 3 more in the next 2 days. Here are some reviews on the first three; understand that these are reviews I typed up, and therefore are obviously biased :-) If anyone out there saw the debates, please write a review and I'll past it over my review. Alternatively, in the future, if someone writes some reviews after watching them online, I'll post that in here.
Converts Debate
Qureshi vs. WilliamsI opened this debate with my ground-up apologetic to Christianity: defending the death, deity, and resurrection of Jesus. I did so using arguments that I've used many times before in public debates, so there was really nothing new here (except for the cursory depth secondary to time constraints). I followed up with a 2 step apologetic against Islam, showing that it was not likely that Muhammad was a prophet, nor was it likely that the Qur'an is a book from God. For the former, I simply pointed out that the inception of Muhammad's prophethood was very suspicious, and that he did many things that raise doubt concerning his status as an exemplar, let alone the best exemplar for all time (i.e. the atrocities at the Battle of Khaybar).
Paul's opening statement really demonstrated the he has studied up on Christology, as this topic consumed the vast majority of his OS. In fact, he attempted to center the whole debate on this topic. He quoted James D.G. Dunn, F.F. Bruce, and other notable scholars to support his position that the New Testament contains a gradually evolving Christology and the Gospel of John cannot possibly be considered to have the words of Jesus. He then briefly, ever so briefly, touched on his reasons for becoming a Muslim, most notably that the Muslim portrayal of Jesus was rather similar to his conclusions about Jesus.
In the rest of the debate, I think I did fairly well on making Paul branch out into other areas. Though he had studied the field of Christology to greater depth than most (including me), his lack of familiarity with virtually any other topic in the debate was obtrusive. He defended Jesus' non-death on the cross by quoting John Hick who said it's non-falsifiable, and he argued against resurrection by going with the hallucination theory. He also advanced a Pauline corruption of Christianity, as no Muslim position is complete without it. I returned fire by quoting Hick against his position, as Hick states that Islam's denial of Jesus' death by crucifixion is entirely due to Islamic presuppositions. I responded to the hallucination theory by showing its poor logic and low rate of espousal in the scholarly circles. All in all, I think the Christian side made an excellent overall case, including responding to difficult arguments against Jesus' deity, whereas the Muslim case was lopsided on one issue and entirely unequipped to discuss the other four.
That's my appraisal of that debate. Let's now move on to the second debate.
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
Wood and Qureshi vs. al-Andalusi and SeymourThis is an expounded version of a review I sent to some of my friends as soon as I got back from the debate on Tuesday. Here goes:
Well, David and I just got back from our debate "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", and I have to say, it was the most fun debate I've ever had. It was a blast! It was a 2 on 2 debate (something I've never seen before) with the two of us versus Yahya Seymour and Abdallah al-Andalusi. The debate was fast paced, intense, and non-stop. Well, there was a 15 minute break, but the event ended up being over 3 hours long!
The affirmative case from the Muslims can be summed up as follows: Islam teaches peace from multiple aspects, including peace within one's self, peace with others, and peace with God. The permission that is granted for physical violence is the method God uses to establish justice in the land. There is no gratuitous violence in Islam.
Our position was the usual: The Qur'an contains peaceful and violent passages, but the violent ones were the later, unabrogated ones. Ahadith, sirah, and tafseer all support the view that Islam condones violence as the solution for most difficulties in Islam, and it is enjoined upon unbelievers, women, apostates, critics, and homosexuals, to name a few. In fact, certain verses such as 9:29-30 seem to indicate that people can be killed for their beliefs, and ahadith commanding the death of apostates and war against non-Muslims until they recite the shahadah definitely support this. One final point that we made was that violence is more than just a peripheral thing that's allowed in Islam, it appears to be of central importance (this is deducible from ahadith in Sahih bukhari which consistently say that fighting/jihad is the most valuable thing in this earth).
At the end, everyone was electrified with energy - even after a 3 hour debate! Someone remarked that this debate "Was better than watching sports". I certainly agree - I'm still coming off the rush. Praise God, I think some wonderful points were made, and David and I worked together really well as a tag team. Can't wait to do it again on Thursday!
Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?
Wood vs. al-AndalusiUnfortunately, the tag team didn't happen again. The Muslim Debate Initiative had not been certain with regards to who would be debating alongside Abdullah. It was first supposed to be Sami Zaatari, then Yahya Seymour, then there was rumour of Paul Williams taking the spot, back to Seymour, and finally on Tuesday we had confirmed that it would be Adnan Rashid. However, just moments before the opening statements were to be given, we were told that Abdullah would be debating by himself. This threw us off, as we had prepared to do a 2 on 2 debate; alas, what could we do? We weren't going to go 2 on 1, it just doesn't seem right. So I decided to step down and let David debate on his own.
David's case was as straightforward as it can be: the New Testament is abundantly clear that we are to love our enemies, show kindness towards everyone, and love indiscriminately. He also showed that basic principles of hermeneutics could preclude many misinterpretations: taking account of context, genre, and clear teachings. He argued that any argument against a peaceful Christianity falls into one of three logically flawed categories: ascribing to Christianity the violent actions of Christians, importing Old Testament commands as imperative upon Christians, and misconstruing clear statements.
Abdullah came out of left field by appealing to what he labelled "orthodoxy". He quoted Augustine's "just war" theory and stated it was a logical outflow of the teachings of Christianity. Augustine was just one of many Christian thinkers whom he quoted; Aquinas and Luther were two more. His basic position was this: Christianity enjoins violence according to Paul in Romans 13 and Peter in 2 Peter, and the violence is justified since it involves taking care of people in a systematic way. However, since there is no fully developed code for governing in a Christian state, the Christian violence is less just than Islamic violence.
Abdullah mangles Romans 13, not taking into account that Paul is referring to the Christians as the subjugated, not the subjugators. In no way was Paul talking about Christians governing, but rather submitting to those who governed over them. Abdullah simply ignores this. Regarding 2 Peter, I was unable to find the exact verse to which Abdullah was referring. Perhaps I misheard him. When the video comes out, I'll definitely be checking out what he said. Besides these, Abdullah was entirely dependent upon Christian thinkers for their opinion, though he did not show the audience how their opinion was automatically orthodoxy. That being said, he spoke with authority and the tone of his voice was quite convincing.
Well, that's it from me. Hope these comments from me will suffice until we get to upload the debates! We've tried a few times, but the internet at this hostel has been pretty "dodgy", to use a good English word. May the Lord keep you all!
In Christ,
-Nabeel
