Monday, February 22, 2010

Mary Jo Sharp Vs. Tabasum Hussain: "Women in the Bible and the Qur'an"

Uploading is taking a while, but I'll post the videos here as they become available. I haven't seen the debate yet, but I hear it went very well, and that both Christianity and Islam were well represented. Since this is the second formal debate for Mary Jo, and the first formal debate for Tabasum, I'm sure both would appreciate feedback.

OPENING STATEMENTS


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/Q&A


CONCLUSIONS

62 comments:

Confident Christianity said...

The first 25 minutes of the debate has terrible live sound. Immediately following Mary Jo's Opening Statement, Farooq, the Executive Director, turned off the reverb. The audio drastically improves when Dr. Hussain begins her Open Statement.

Enjoy!

Roger Sharp
http://www.confidentchristianity.com

The Fat Man said...

You came in good even with the poor sound, however you are right it does improve.

Dr.Hussain said...

JESUS BLESS THE WORK OF YOUR HAND

FROM GLORY TO GLORY ...AMEN


HUSSAIN

Confident Christianity said...

(re-posted from Facebook)

Isabelle Desrochers says:

I think Tabasum was looking for a Qu'ranic verse stating that it was ok for pre-menstrual girls to marry .. well well what do you know.. here it is black and white in the Qu'ran for all to see:

Surah 65:4
And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.
... See More
... humm did Mary Joe mention that in Islam women were made for the explicite sexual and service of men?? yes yes... she actually mentioned it and the host of the debate also clarified for all to see at the end that in Christianity men were asked to love their wives just as much as Jesus loved us and died for us.. and that in Islam women were the garnment of men!!

Wooowww I dont know why ANY muslim women that saw this debate would remain muslims!

I cant post this on the other website, but anyone that has a google account can... and please feel free to post what I just posted!!
THANKS!!

TobyG said...

It seems the Muslims in Canada are celebrating this one as a victory. What was the feedback of the Christian audience at the end??

minoria said...

Hello:

I was disappointed by Tabasum's use of Paul where he says that "wives have to obey husbands in EVERYTHING."She took it literally.Ok,my point is she has NOT studied Paul.

MAIN IDEAS,SECONDARY IDEAS

For any thinker,be it Voltaire,Marx,Freud,etc,to correctly understand them you have to know their main ideas.It's a BASIC rule.She is a scientist.She knows that.

PAUL's MAIN IDEAS

Regarding morality he states he is against idolatry,murder,stealing,etc.To actually believe that by saying "obey your parents/husbands/masters in everything" Paul means:"if they tell you to kill,steal,worship false gods,etc then do it" is illogical.No NT scholar would say it.He would be rejected as a serious savant.I think she has not studied Paul's ideas.

minoria said...

SECOND THING

I noticed she said that the great majority of Muslim scholars said that sura 4:34 meant that hitting your wife was to be done lightly,or like striking with a handkerchief.The obvious thing is that,accepting that statement as accurate,it doesn't matter.The TEXT ITSELF does not say lightly or PUT CONDITIONS.It's clear:"hit/strike/beat her."

THE POINT

It's obvious that those Muslim scholars felt ashamed of it and were artificially putting conditions not found in the Koran to soften the verse.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

So far I have only had time to listen to the debate for 15 minutes.

I started off with Tabasum.

Only within the first 15 minutes I notice a number of inconsistencies and a number of points in which she greatly misrepresents the Bible.

Bartimaeus said...

I want to make a few comments about the debate in Ottawa. Mary Jo was very good and I thought had the edge in the debate. As I mentioned earlier the debate was informative and both sides presented thier cases clearly and respectfully.

I want to take time to thank North America Muslim Foundation for hosting this event. They seem willing tohave more of these in the future.

Neil and I have always been treated with respect each time we have visited the people there and have meaning, respectful and frank discussions about our differces. One last thing I would like to say is that Osama (the world's worst debater) Adullah will never be asked to particpate in any event hosted by NAMF.

aussie christian said...

Well done Mary Jo Sharp, your whole argument was based upon scripture, aproximatly 100 but I did loose count down the track in it.
Tabasum Hussain I feel was extremely nervous, she used very little scripture to back her claim, prefering to use "scholar" references and her own interpretation of scriptures. I also think the poor lady was suffering a head cold or alergy. sad realy as she seemed to be a relitivly good speaker.

As Hogan points out, she did tend to misreprecent most scriptures from the Bible and Qoran out of context.

Well done Mary, you certainly won that debate hands down purly on content and context. In my humble opinion.

And well done to Tabasum for having the courage to stand up and debate this subject. 10 points for effort from me.

Peace and Love.

Confident Christianity said...

TobyG,

Where are the comments you are referring to? (It seems the Muslims in Canada are celebrating this one as a victory.)

I haven't seen any or heard of any at all.

My advice with debates is to simply watch and listen......I believe the video will make it abundantly clear which argument and arguer came out the clear winner.

Roger Sharp (of course, I am completely biased :)

David Wood said...

If I didn't know better (and I don't), I would think that TobyG is a Muslim.

Todd Hailey said...

Mary Jo does a great job in laying out a clear direction to her case with strong scriptual support.

Tabasum presented a good point regarding Genesis 1:27 as far as the black and white of the text is concerned. Although I don't believe it will ultimately carry, it was at least a legitimate concern to be addressed.

Tabasum overstated her case, however, when she carried it over to 1 Corinthians 11:7. Here, she misquoted scripture. It says that woman is the glory of man, not the image and glory.

Tabasum also fails to make progress on the point of their being no allowance within scripture for a woman to divorce in an abusive relationship, because this is not only lacking in the case of abused women, but also in any case of an abused man. So we see that this lack of a 'third' justification for divorce plays no favorites regarding gender.

Confident Christianity said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
minoria said...

I have had more time to absorb Madame Tabassum's points.

DIVORCE

She stated it was for adultery according to Jesus.But the GREEK word used,PORNEIA,means "sexual immorality",which includes more than adultery.From there comes the word pornography.

ADULTERY IN THE HEART

Jesus said if a man lusted after a woman he had commited "adultery in the heart".So that itself is reason for divorce.And here thoughts are involved.And PORNEIA means prostitution,incest,pornography,mental unfaithfulness.

DIVORCE FOR ABANDONMENT

It's in 1 COR 7:12-15.It's the ABANDONMENT by a NON-BELIEVER.The point here is that since for Jesus mere mental unfaithfulness is reason enough for divorce,it's logical to say "abandonment" is MORE than physical but even to the point of abandonment of marital duties by husband/wife due to drug addiction,alcoholism,beatings,etc.

NON-BELIEVER

That's the point,what is a non-believer?If someone says they really believe in Jesus yet do nothing to get out of drugs,alcoholism,stop abuse,etc(the fruits don't appear) then they can't be believers.

That seems to be the logical conclusion when you see HOW Jesus expressed himself.

Fernando said...

Ok... now: how can someonne, from this world, beliebe thate Tabasum won anythingue despite the poor consideration off all off those who know somethingue aboutte the Bible?

Confident Christianity said...

"I do respect her Scripture even though I don't believe in it." T. Hussain (1st Rebuttals 17:44)

What does this actually mean?

Roger Sharp
Confident Christianity

Confident Christianity said...

"Sexually Explicit; Porno-Prophetics"

(In reference to the Holy Scripture)
T. Hussain 1st Rebuttals 24:45)

Great sound bytes, but were not explained or referenced in detail...

Roger Sharp

Confident Christianity said...

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT:

1st Rebuttals right at the 29:00 minute mark:

"Green Spot" (bruise from beating)

BEATING A WOMAN FOR LYING IN ISLAM IS OK ACCORDING TO MUHAMMAD.

Roger Sharp

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

To answer Roger's rhetorical question:

The Qur'an requires Muslims to believe in the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, etc., because they are the Word of God.

Later Muslims had to seriously attenuate this teaching in light of the many points of divergence between the Qur'an and what came before it. That leaves Muslims with having to make a number of empty assertions and resorting to using weasel words to describe their view (so they don't look like they are contradicting the Qur'an), such as: "We 'respect' the Bible but don't believe it is the Word of God"; and "We 'respect' the prophets and apostles and make no distinction between any of them but we don't have, believe or follow their words. We only listen to the word of Muhammad."

Muslims lay claim to the Abrahamic faith and Biblical tradition in order to create a precedence for their religion, but when it is shown that the latter does not confirm but contradicts the former they allege corruption. Muslims are like people who climb up a latter and kick it away as defective once they get to the top. They never consider the problem this poses for their original claim. You can't get to Islam without the Bible; but you can't have Islam and the Bible: the latter contradicts the former.

Bartimaeus said...

I have been asked by some about my oppinion of the debate. I think I would agree with some that the topic was too large for any meaning insite. There were a lot of sciptures that needed to dealt with fully on both sides that were not fully explored. As I said earlier that Tabasum made the same mistake that most Muslim apologist make in that she took a number of passages of of context and failed to allow the scriptures speak for themselves.

I was trouble by the insistance that God sactions rape as punishment. I think Tabasum should re-examine her position on that. Also she did a bit of a Shabir Aky by appealing to many liberal and radical theologians

Joe B. Whitchurch said...

The 2nd half, rebuttals were best for sound and clarity. In my view Mary Jo was fabulous and Farooq was special pleading. I pray the message has an impact upon Muslim men and women that will turn their hearts to Jesus. Thanks for your preparation and sharing. BTW, I found the youtube site to stream this better than the blog, but it could be as the video is just now being released that it is getting a lot of views. I hope so.

minoria said...

RAPE?

Regarding Tabassum's affirmation that God in the OT approves of RAPE,the problem with her argument is that in MOSAIC LAW it was FORBIDDEN to have sex if you were NOT married.Easy to understand.

If you did it with a woman who was NOT your WIFE it was ADULTERY and condemned.So by logic God in the OT would never consent to raping women.

If the man was not married to her,it was a sin.If married it was a sin.And if he was single and wanted to sleep with her he had to marry her.And from LEV 19("love your neighbor as yourself"/"love strangers as yourselves") it would have to be marriage with her consent.It's hard to believe she didn't investigate such basics.

LouisJ-B said...

Fernando said:

"Ok... now: how can someonne, from this world, beliebe thate Tabasum won..."

As long as the Islamic apologist doesn't cry or faint while debating, victory can be claimed.;-)

Nazam said...

The complete version of the debate has now be upload onto my channel, Nazam44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLcbMkzqtx8

David, please feel free to copy and upload my version of the debate onto your blog as the sound quality of Mary Jo and Dr Tabasam is improved to the current version you've uploaded.


Nazam

minoria said...

BIBLE USED

I noticed a book that is in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible was cited as being anti-woman.It is not in the Protestant one.A very important point is that the OT of the JEWISH Bible and the PROTESTANT Bible are the same.The book is not accepted by the Jews as divine.I think in the case of the OT Christians should accept the vedict of the Chosen People.That doesn't mean I don't like the books called APOCRYPHA.

EXAMPLES

I like JUDITH,the book of the woman who has become a heroine and symbol for freedom-loving people.She saved her people.Then in TOBIT we have the GOLDEN RULE.

minoria said...

ANTI-WOMAN

I don't think so because the HOLY SPIRIT (who is GOD)in ARAMAIC-HEBREW is FEMININE.It's a SHE.In GREEK the word spirit is NEUTRAL.

SO?

Well,the GNOSTICS,who spoke Greek,had the habit of referring to the third person of the Trinity,the Holy Spirit, as MOTHER and SHE.They spoke and wrote in Greek.They knew in Greek it's neutral:"it."Yet they knew in Jesus' language it was feminine.They said:the FATHER,the MOTHER and the SON.

David Wood said...

Wow, Nazam. The intro to that video was a new low for the Muslim Debate Initiative. It would never occur to me to spend several minutes of a video introduction trying to discredit a debater. But Muslims do this. If you're comfortable with the debate, why not let the debate stand on its own? Why try to get Muslims angry at Mary Jo before the debate even begins? Is it so that Muslims won't listen to her arguments? If so, why do you even have debates if you don't want people to listen to both sides?

I'm done with MDI.

Rhology said...

In Video 1, min 40 when Ms. (Dr.?) Hussain complains about the NT's opposition to women as pastors. Um, are there female imams?

She goes on to endorse female Islamic scholars, and apparently doesn't know there are female Christian scholars as well.

minoria said...

Hello:

I also saw the Nazam video.I was shocked by the attack on Mary Jo Sharp.But the point is:are the ideas expressed accurate?It had a part about the death threat on RIFQA BARY.The point is:"Did MOHAMMED say to kill apostates or not?".

1 TIMOTHY 2:11-12

Emphasis was made by Dr.Hussain on women not being allowed to teach/have authority over men.She takes it as a General Statement for all time,it's my impression.

1.But if in JUDGES we have DEBORAH who was married and was the ruler over the 12 tribes.
2.Then QUEEN ALEXANDRA SALOME ruled the Jewish people in the 1st century BC,less than 100 years before Paul wrote.He certainly knew about her.Her certainly knew the RELIGIOUS LEADERS of the time approved of her rule.

minoria said...

WOMEN AS PRIESTS IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

I have given this before but it's necessary again.Dr.Tabassum Hussain quoted from an early commentator named Cornelius,who was against women having authority.Yet the evidence is his views were far from universal.That's the important thing.She has not read the following:

KAREN TORJESEN:"When Women were Priests:Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination."

GARY MACY:"The Hidden History of Women's Ordination:Female Clergy in the Medieval West."

KEVIN MADIGAN:"Ordained Women in the Early Church:a Documentary History."

It can't get more detailed than that.

hugh watt said...

Hello Dr Hussain. I watched your debate with Mary Jo. I would like to ask you, the rights that Muslim women enjoy in the west, why are they not allowed the same in S. Arabia? Shouldn't the ideal example be seen there?

Kirk said...

What's up with Tabasum avoiding answering the question, whether Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha at the age of 7?

A failed attempt to defend Islam by attacking Christianity. Why does this happen?

Kirk said...

I find it interesting that Tabasum says the histories contained in the Bible are considered pornographic, yet the scenes described in paradise for Muslim's include Houris, eternal virgins, and eternal erections... Who's pornographic here? Eternity is a haven of sexual pleasure, or as Jesus said, you will not be given in marriage...

Kirk said...

Genesis 3:16 "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.'"

"greatly increase"... There was previous pain, or else what would be increased?

Pain was not the punishment, but the increased pain was part of the punishment. As well as many other punishments for the man as well as the woman, which Mary Jo expounded on.

It seems that most Muslim debaters seem see truth through the lens of Islam, where Truth is absolute of which Christianity is not in conflict with.

Kirk said...

Where in Islamic lands do women teach or have authority over men?

ned said...

Totally unimpressive; Tabasum’s stress was on what quran says but could not show what respect mohammad showed to women in practical way. She could not defend what quran says about women and about the hadith and sunnah quoted in debate. She sounded more emotional and aggressive like almost most of muslims. She failed to show connection between what she said and the examples laid down by mohammad.

She misquoted with all intelligence that haggar was Abraham’s wife; she did so to show that Ishmael was legitimate son, which he is and was not. In Q and A she was deceptive not to answer directly about 9 year old aishas marriage to 53 year old mohammad. She gave references to some people and medical journals to prove that it is and was ok to marry a 9 year old.

Q about saheeh bukhari 4156 she refrained from answering about muttaa clearly.

She also used hadith where it suited her and rebutted when Mary used hadith references and made refernce to quran as source document. That’s circular and deceptive.

Well done Mary you did well, kept your cool and provided excellent evidences fron Bible and quran.

The 72 virgin reward progran is also an insult to women and similarly marriage to zainab is an attack on women as being weak and taken for granted. one can go on on this but i finish here.

Ilena said...

i think that mary jo did a great job and i would be really interested in knowing why muslims think that tabassum won the debate, since i have some problems figuring it out.

hugh watt said...

In this 'PC world', not only do i see Islam trying to portray itself in a more acceptable way, but i find there are 'PC Quran's' that if you never read older one's, you'd think Islam always taught what these 'spin dr's' are saying. Is Islam embarrassed? Why try to put a 'spin' on things? We do not have to do this with Christ.
'PC' S:2v228; "..but men have a degree (OF RESPONSIBILITY) over them".Not 'PC' S:2v228; "..and men are a degree above them".'PC' S:4v34;" Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend(to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient(to allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity,their husband's property). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first),(next), refuse to share their beds,(and last) beat them lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Not 'PC' S:4v34; " Men are in charge of women, because allah hath made the one to excel the other, and because they spend of their property(for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them".
One wonders how these 2 verses would have been understood from not 'PC' Quran in it's day, and the present 'PC' ones. Perhaps Islam would say the more recent Qurans explain the older. There is also the Q of present day culture and which society their from. What, i wonder, would a female Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Afghan think about western females who live a different style of the Islam they are accustomed to!

The Fat Man said...

I'm listing to the closing, what is Dr Hussain talking about when she says "Womans Fantasies... are in the bible"? Is she talking about song of songs?

The Fat Man said...

Wow "When you go before the almighty you will go alone". That's scary I'm so glad Islam is false.

I remember after 9-11 when Islam got on my radar,and I started chatting with Muslims on IRC. My knowledge of Christ was like that of the reverts we read about. There was a brief moment when I thought to myself "What if Islam is true?"

I tell you it was the scariest loneliest 5 seconds of my life.

Confident Christianity said...

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/02/youtube-mary-jo-sharp-vs-tabasum.html

Ooooooooo! DR. Sharp :)

Roger

minoria said...

It seems that Dr.Tabassum Hussain accepts the story of Aisha as having consummated marriage at age 9.It seems,though I'm not sure if she does,just an impression.I thought she would have argued against it,using the arguments EHTESHAAM GULAN does.Nothing wrong with that,all are entitled to their opinion.

I myself think it's highly probable it's true,she was 9.But I could be wrong,there is a certain possibility.BASSAM ZAWADI accepts it.In that case,accepting it,it's very hard to see that Allah is:

THE BEST OF PLANNERS/PLOTTERS/SCHEMERS

as the Koran says 2X.I mean,really,Allah SHOULD have known that allowing it was NOT the best plan.Just like allowing news that Jesus did NOT die to get lost,not the best plan either.

Nakdimon said...

LOL I like the rebuttal in video 2:

"It says TILTH, not FILTH!"

hehehehe

hugh watt said...

Bukhari Vol.7 pg50,(65)." Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was 6yrs old and he consummated his marriage when she was 9yrs old. Hisham said:" I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for 9yrs ( i.e. till his death)".He was 51 when they married WITHOUT HER CONSENT.Here is a Hadith from Bukhari[8], vol. 7, # 715, that details Islamic wife beating:

"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY WOMAN SUFFERING AS MUCH AS THE BELIEVING WOMEN. Look! HER SKIN IS GREENER THAN HER CLOTHES! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow".
What would cause such marks and remarks by Aisha, a LIGHT beating!!? Can women divorce just as easily as men? What would she have to do to get back with him if they wanted to re-marry? Would the same standard be applied to him?

minoria said...

I remember Dr.Hussain's comment on Mosaic law where the children of the SECOND wife are to receive less in inheritance than the first one.I had wondered about that before.It doesn't seem fair.But I think the REASON for such a strange provision is to DISCOURAGE POLYGAMY.That makes sense.

hugh watt said...

I read this. Kash-shaf of al-Zmakhshari, vol.1, p.525. " On the authority of Muhammad, he said: ' Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it'. And this; " I ( Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik), was the 4th wife ( among 4) of al-Zabayr ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken".
What woman, Muslim or not, would say this is good conduct? Muhammad here is setting an example for humanity!!?

hugh watt said...

Sahih Muslim #3506:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr then got up went to 'Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger for anything he does not possess….

Bukhari volume 8, #828

Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.

Maybe the west is backward in it's dealings with such matters, y'know, domestic violence and all that. I just wonder how many women would have converted to Islam had they known the standard set forth by Muhammad et al. I guess the men are ok with this though. Any Muslim women object?

Sepher Shalom said...

"" On the authority of Muhammad, he said: ' Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it'."

Wait Hugh. Shouldn't that read "hang up your toothbrush where your wife/wives can see it"?

Tabasum Hussain and many other Muslims keep telling me it's a tapping with toothbrush.

Semper Paratus said...

Either that or they used a scourge for a toothbrush.

hugh watt said...

Bukhari volume 8, #828

Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist..." Shouldn't he have been called 'Abu WAKR' after this!
Sepher, you need to understand the culture and circumstances which lead to such acts. See, back then striking with a fist is not like we in this day and age might understand it. No. What the ' infidel' don't seem to realise is, well... See what we don't... Tell you what, perhaps a Muslim ( preferably a female), should educate us on what abuse is, i struggle on this one i'll be honest. Perhaps it was just a ' light fist'!

Nazam said...

DEBATE NEWS

Hosted by MDI: Friday March 5, 2010, 18:30-20:30pm

Venue: WestBourne Park Baptist Church, Porchester Road, London, W2 5DX, UK

Nearest Tube Station: Royal Oak

Speakers:

Dr Tabassum Hussain - MDI Visiting speaker from Canada, experienced apologist and expert on Biblical criticism and Women in Islamic Law.

Beth Grove - Member of CCi (Christians Confronting Islam), public speaker and experienced apologist in Evangelical ministries.


Session to be co-moderated by Abdullah Andalusi and co-moderator from
CCi.

CCi said...

Just to clarify, CCi means "Christians Challenging islam"...

kufr.kufr said...

Now Watch This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYOvFXKkzWQ

hugh watt said...

kufr.kufr said...
Now Watch This:

Now go to this:
http://www.avraidire.eu/category/a-vrai-dire-in-english/

"MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT IN DEFENSE OF THE TRINITY"

1moremuslim said...

The best response to this topic is one presented by Shabir Ally. The OT is horrible for women.

NanG said...

This sounds like a terrific debate.
My note is simply from Acts 18.
At vs 24 a man, Apollos, was preaching but not according to knowledge of the baptism in Jesus' name and of Holy Spirit.
A man and a WOMAN (Priscilla)
expounded this knowledge to him!
In other words, a Christian woman corrected a man.
And nobody beat her up about it.
She is held up as an example to all Christian women.

donna60 said...

I would like both of these women for friends. I haven't finished the entire debate, just the first rebuttal and it seems like these women might be thinking differently regarding terms of submission for women. I'm not sure either woman believes that wifely submission is a matter of oppression.

However, Mary Jo is trying to demonstrate that submission is an act of grace. It has nothing to do with any unbeautiful quality in the woman. I am eager to see how she handles 1 Corinthians 11:7

Monogamy is Jesus' promise to Eve that she would bring forth seed that would crush the head of the serpent, which we know, is Satan. Finally her Deliverer came and gave her, among other blessings, the sweetness of monogamy. Such a tender gift to the woman!

The Jewish religion, was training men, who weren't ready for such faithfulness. The Muslim religion is just a licence for lust. But in Christ, my sweetest Lord and Savior, I can have a husband who is devoted to me alone.

For that alone, I can lift my voice and sing that old, old hymn "Hallelujah, What a Savior!"
And for all you Christian men out there who honor your vows and love your wives. Thank you!

donna60 said...

The two men in the background are very obnoxious!. They are distracting! They act bored, and inattentive. They really should not be there. Why are men allowed to keep their own time in these debates, but Mary Jo and Tabasum are not?

In the second set of rebuttals. I am having trouble concentrating because of the show that these men are putting on behind them.

Jabari said...

Mary jo just laid out the facts as they were, without misinterpreting them or using muslims sources considered uninspired or unauthoritative by muslims.

Tabasum on the other hand misinterpreted Old Testament and New Testament verses as well as going to an apocryphal sources and books such as John Wesley.

Mary Jo you did well in this debate, I didn't expect anything other than a win from you.

And Tabasum, Christianity is about what about the Sunnah (teachings and example) of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not what people such as Wesley and Tertullian said. We don't consider them authoritative.

CristoTeAma said...

i don't know if u noticed the same thing than me, but i see the muslim woman doesn't have a case, she is using sources we don't even consider as athoritative, but them she focused attacking the bible because she knew that if she had to defend Quran and Hadith and Schollars, she would lose even faster. But the thing is, is she trying to deceive who? herself? because as i see in almost every muslim debater, they misquote or uses verses totally out of context to "prove" a point, but i mean, are u really proving a point if u are using lies to do that? at the end of the day many muslims might be deceived but when she gets to her house and look at herself on the mirror, does she feel proud of lying? how can be muslims sure they are in the true faith when they have to constantly lie to keep strong on that faith, it's ok for muslims viewers because they wanna be deceived but she knows she is lying, it's really unbelievable. BTW i consider that old testament was a learning process and we can see that when Jesus talks about the divorce and he explains why Moses set those laws (because of their hearts) so what is really nonsense is that after we have reached the necessary learning to dismiss all those things, we go back and follow Islam's laws which take us again back to old laws (stoning,many wives, when we can see clearly that the first porpose of Eve was to be one with his man otherwise he would've created 2 eves or more,etc).Muslims can say bible is corrupted in Verses like Jesus being son of god,etc.But why would Paul(supposing he wrote all the gospel as many muslims says) would corrupt such things knowing that these would make things harder for him, since it's easier to attract Men (who were the rulers in all levels at that time) using laws like Islam about the woman (many wives,beating,virgins at heaven,etc) even more if he was looking forward to Greece and Rome were men were used to be promiscous,etc etc? it seems more likely that it was muhammad who corupted the scriptures to get more menpower for his wars, it was like "fight for me and if u live u will have gold,captives(sex slaves),etc etc but if u die u will have Virgins,alcohol,and 100 men strenght for sex,etc etc..."it really sounds more corrupted to me.