Not a bad debate from both sides. I thought Abdullah Kunde was being quite honest and straightforward for the most part, but the answer on the question of wife-beating was pure deception and absurdity. How can he say with a straight face that "and beat her" means you never beat her? He even said that all islamic 'scholars' agree with this exact interpretation which is sheer nonsense, and it makes the Quran's statement that it is clear absolutely ridiculous.
Lindert, I've heard that argument before about the wife-beating verse. I heard a Muslim say that surah 4:24 means 'don't beat your wife, stupid!'. That was her exact words. I found it really strange. Supposedly when Allah said 'beat them', what he actually meant was 'don't beat them'. Evidently, Allah was being sarcastic. And it made me wonder how much of the Qur'an is sarcastic. For example, the verse in question says:'if you fear disobedience, admonish them' - does that, then, really mean 'don't admonish them'? And when it says to sleep in a separate bed, does it in fact mean _don't_ sleep in a separate bed?Muslims say that because 'beat them' is the last in a sequence of action to take when you fear disobedience from your wife, it actually means _don't_ beat them. But the very fact that beating is included on the list of potential ways to resolve conflict, tells us that it was an acceptable course of action, at least in some circumstances. Add to this the hadith where Muhammad strikes Aisha hard on the chest and causes her pain, the hadith where the woman is covered in bruises from being beaten and Muhammad doesn't bat an eyelid, and various other hadith... and the truth is very clear.
Lindert and Sophie,Can either of you help me with this 'context' of Q4;24 ? Surely Abdullah cannot be correct in his assertion.How stupid would Yusuf Ali feel today having watched that, knowing he had translated 'not' to beat your wife (with a toothpick). When according to Abdullah's logic he should have written that they 'not' hit their wives (with a claw hammer)....In the meantime, I'm off to read some Lewis Carroll. Perhaps Alice In Wonderland is the lens through which I shall come to a greater understanding. :)
The guy that stated that he was offended sounds suspiciously like the guy that posted a video directed at David Wood saying that he was completely mis-characterizing Islam. I confess, that its Abdullah's logic that I do not follow - that God has to let me into heaven? God knows those that are his and those that are sincere and follow his commandments. No one could stand before God and say - "but you have to let me in". If they had believed in Christ and loved God, then they would have obeyed Him and would not need to make demands. The judgement day scenario Abdullah paints could never exist. Also, Leviticus is not the only book that talks about sacrifices - Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all touch on the subject. Lev. 17:11 forms much of the foundation/justification for sacrifices. Abdullah does not seem to understand the purpose of animal sacrifices and gets lost in the details. Sam could have touched on justice relating to God's holiness as a requirement for salvation, but there's only so much time in a debate to cover a complex topic like this. It was interesting how Abdullah tried to sugar coat Quranic verses and re-interpret them from his own western mindset; even though Islamic commentators and ahadith contradict his position.
Wow I had to play it three times to make sure I heard it correctly. Sixteen minutes into the rebutted period Abdulla Kundee reads from Lev 6, he reads off all the sins. 1. Lying2. Stealing3. cheat their neighbor4. swear falselyAnd then concludes since the passage reads "realize their guilt" that this means that the above were UN INTENTIONAL.Wow the Muslim mind at work here people. Lying, stealing, cheating a neighbor, purgering ones self. All of this is UN INTENTIONAL. These are deliberate acts. But I guess to a Muslim they don't know when they steal, or when they lie, or when they cheat someone. Simply amazing. And then he says with a straight face, "the message is very clear... The only way you can make it unclear is to quote verses out of context"WOW
This is one of the best debates out there, in my opinion. Does anyone know where the quote from Al Ghazzali is found?Abdullah Kunde quoted it at the end on the last video section of questions from the audience."If on the day of judgment Allah decides to send all the good people (believers in Allah) to hell and all the evil people to paradise, He can do that, and we have no right to question." (I am remembering it from memory, so it may not be an exact quote.)Can anyone of you (David Wood, Nabeel, Samuel Green, others?) track that down and publish the reference? It is very valuable for apologetics.If all Muslims agree with that statement that it is Islamic theology and not much disagreement; then that is enough for anyone not to want to become a Muslim, for it reveals the arbitrary and capricious nature of Allah and that His capricious will is above His nature/character and any promise or word to be faithful to that promise that He would give to believers.But the God of the Bible cannot lie and is faithful to His promises.Titus 1:2God cannot lie.James 1:13-14God cannot sin, and is not tempted by sin.I guess that is why Muslims do not really have real peace in their hearts, for they know that Allah can "outwit" / deceive / trick them on the final day. Allah is the best of deceivers/schemers/tricksters" (Quran 3:54; 8:30; 10:21)Yet, Jesus promises true peace (John 14:27, Matthew 11:28-30; Romans 5:1-11) and eternal life (John 3:16; 5:24; 20:30-31; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10, many others.Abdullah Kunde also revealed why the west should never allow Sharia law to be introduced - he admitted that it is a rule that Christians cannot build new churches. (based on the Pact of Umar) What an unjust religion and exposes their agenda in the west.
Good debate,I’m struck by the fact that salvation in Islam is the same as salvation in every non Christian religion............ "Run, John, run the law commands,But gives me neither feet nor hands;Far better news the gospel brings:It bids me fly; it gives me wings." John BunyanThank God for the Gospel!!!!!!!Peace
Gabriella, I heard someone talk about the context once, but I don't know if this is true or where they got their information from. They said the 4.24 revelation came at a time when a woman came to Muhammad who had been beaten by her husband. Muhammad wanted to rebuke the husband, but Allah gave him this revelation instead.Again, I don't know how accurate that is and I don't have any references to give you, sorry! Maybe someone else here can help you out?Good point about the toothpick, too.Ah, Wonderland. I'm sure you'll find more sense there than in the pages of certain other books :)
Btw, converting bad deeds into good deeds = perverting justice.
1 Kunde says that salvation in the OT is compatible with the Quran but opposed to the NT. I suggest Kunde get a Torah course and see how God has stipulated the forgiveness and atonement through sacrifices. And of course we can see how the stipulations for the atonement rites pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice of the Messiah. Unless Kunde wants to claim that the prophets contradicted Moses, while appealing to Moses at the same time as an authority (much like the Quran does with the Bible) he really needs to get his facts straight.2 Kunde says that when Islam objects with the phrase “God is one” it doesn’t talk about a numerical one, that comes after zero and before two. Which is bogus, because that is exactly what the Quran objects to when it says “do not say three”. Or does Kunde claim that this is not an objection to a numerical three, that comes after two and before four? When the Quran objects to “Three” as opposed to “One”, it unmistakably talks about a numerical “One”. Furthermore, if Kunde wants to stick to his claim that the claim that God is “One” in Islam doesn’t point to a numerical one, then he leaves the door open that God can be more than “One” since that statement is no reference to any numerical value and therefore cannot be an objection to “Three”. What’s ironic is that Kunde claims that there is a created aspect involved when it comes to the Trinity. Depends how you look at it, of course. If we are talking about the Biblical Trinity, then Kunde is WRONG, since Father, Son and Spirit are not created. However, when it comes to the Quranic Trinity, which erroneously includes Mary, then Kunde is right! But then again, that would be conceding that the author of the Quran attacks strawmen since no Christian believed that Mary was part of the Trinity.3 Kunde says that we “force” God to let us into heaven. Which is a total distortion of what we believed. Sam has already dealt with this lousy objection in another thread, but I’ll have a go here as well. We are granted access to heaven THROUGH GOD’S WORK! Not of anything we did ourselves. GOD made a promise to us, HE made the provision, HE did the work, so it’s not us forcing HIM, it’s a matter of God being true to his words and keeping his promise. However, as Sam already pointed out, the dilemma is not ours, but it’s entirely Kunde’s. This argument doesn’t work against Christianity, but it does work against Kunde’s own position. Therefore according to Kunde, Allah is not omnipotent. 4 Kunde goes on to claim that the Son gave up his eternal his eternal attributes means that he changed. Which is, again, not what we believed. The Son didn’t LOOSE his divine prerogatives, he just didn’t exercise them! I wish Kunde would just stop making these nonsensical objections and actually address what we believe. Kunde then has to explain how Allah can appear in a fire in Quran 27 and 28. If the Son cannot appear in the flesh, then how can Allah appear in a bush or a tree? >>>>
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but I think Mr Kunde's PoV regarding Sura 4:24 is that the part that says (separate yourself from your wife's bed (which comes before the beat your wife) actually means divorce your wife...And since after divorcing your wife, she is no longer your wife, thus, there is no longer a need or possibility of reaching the third admonition (which is to beat the wife) since she is no longer your wife.I find this to be a very convenient and rather illogical explanation/justification of this verse...And yes, as Nakdimon has commented.. trading a good deed over a bad deed (or more) is perverted justice... thus Allah would be NOT the Most Just...just a perverted/biased judge..Imagine a murderer was free from all guilty charges because he was able to donate a million dollars to an orphanage after his murder..What justice that Mr Kunde has applied himself to be subjected to.
Sophie,First, the passage is 4:34. Second, you heard correctly:(Men are in charge of women…) [4:34]. Said Muqatil: “This verse (Men are in charge of women…) was revealed about Sa‘d ibn al-Rabi‘, who was one of the leaders of the Helpers (nuqaba’), and his wife Habibah bint Zayd ibn Abi Zuhayr, both of whom from the Helpers. It happened Sa‘d hit his wife on the face because she rebelled against him. Then her father went with her to see the Prophet. He said to him: ‘I gave him my daughter in marriage and he slapped her’. The Prophet said: ‘Let her have retaliation against her husband’. As she was leaving with her father to execute retaliation, the Prophet called them and said: ‘Come back; Gabriel has come to me’, and Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘We wanted something while Allah wanted something else, and that which Allah wants is good’. Retaliation was then suspended”. Sa‘id ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Zahid informed us> Zahir ibn Ahmad> Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Junayd> Ziyad ibn Ayyub> Hushaym> Yunus ibn al-Hasan who reported that a man slapped his wife and she complained about him to the Prophet. Her family who went with her said: “O Messenger of Allah! So-and-so has slapped our girl”. The Prophet kept saying: “Retaliation! Retaliation! And there is no other judgement to be held”. But then this verse (Men are in charge of women…) was revealed and the Prophet said: “We wanted something and Allah wanted something else”. Abu Bakr al-Harithi informed us> Abu’l-Shaykh al-Hafiz> Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl al-‘Askari> ‘Ali ibn Hashim> Isma‘il> al-Hasan who said: “Around the time when the verse on retaliation was revealed amongst the Muslims, a man had slapped his wife. She went to the Prophet and said: ‘My husband has slapped me and I want retaliation’. So he said: ‘Let there be retaliation’. As he was still dealing with her, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other…). Upon which the Prophet said: ‘We wanted something and my Lord wanted something different. O man, take your wife by the hand’”. (Al-Wahidi, Asbab Al-Nuzul: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=34&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)There you have it. So much for Kunde's claims. Now I want to say that he was misinformed, however in light of his rather bold assertion that all the scholars have interpreted the text in the very manner he proposes this means that Kunde knew he was lying. This makes it all the more ironic in light of his assertion that he wouldn't be making this up since all someone had to do to easily expose him is to go back to the sources to see what the Muslim authorities have to say about this text. Yet this is precisely what happens when we do consult these authorities, namely, Kunde stands exposed for spreading a lie concerning the occasion and meaning of Q. 4:34.I will have more to say about Q. 4:34 shortly.
I havent heard the debate yet but will very soon.Things at avraidire.com are tense.Please pray for the safety of ANTOINE MARTIN since in 2 weeks 3 Muslims have sent death threats to him,2 have done it publicly,on the comment section.Also don't forget to continue praying for WILL and SHAFSHA,dont forget them please.There is no moderation,so comments appear immediately.Again pray for his safety from evil people.Some days 1,000 go to the blog,other days like yesterday almost 1,400,or 1,600,1,300,once even 2,200.You can translate the French articles and comments by copying and pasting and going to "Google Translate".Recently some exagerated comments by Muslims have appeared.I was taken by surprise,even dragging politics into it.I think,I could be wrong,it is because all the information about Christianity is utterly new and maybe they are thinking:"Is it possible this is true?"So their is an almost violent reaction.Again any who want to write something in English for avraidire.com can send their article to him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Ken, I will try to find the quote for you.The Fat Man, I completely agree about Lev 6. Unfortunately for me on the night I was using the NIV and Abdullah the NRSV. Thus I could not see what he was referring to about "realised" and did not answer it. Muslims seem to be working very hard to make Isaiah 53 not refer to Jesus.
5 Kunde claims that the fact that some of the apostles still doubted that Yeshua really rose from the dead is disturbing. I do not understand why that would at all be problematic since that is not all that the Bible tells us. First of all this is an embarrassing confession about those that still doubted, which attests to its historicity. But most importantly, the same accounts go on to say that these apostles received instructions for 40 days which build their faith to an insurmountable level and that they became unshakable in their faith, especially after they received the Holy Spirit of God. They went on to preach that message with clarity, ergo 3000 people coming to the faith at Shavu’ot. That didn’t happen because the message was vague, it happened because the message was CLEAR! What Kunde does is like us saying that Muhammad couldn’t be a prophet because he doubted his calling when he was almost killed by the spirit he encountered in the cave and ran to Khadijah horrified about what just happened. It wasn’t till after some time after that he became convinced if his calling, but we don’t take that later confidence into consideration at all. We just stop at the point where he doubts his calling and don’t allow the story to continue. What would Kunde say if we would apply this method to Muhammad’s prophethood? Kunde would urge us to consider the rest of the story! Which is exactly what he, for obvious reasons, doesn’t allow for the Bible. So we learn again that Islam cannot exist without double standards. The application of double standards is not just the sign of a failed argument, but it is also the sign of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
6 Kunde goes on to object to the logic of the system of atonement that God ordained first through Moses and then through Yeshua. Again, the irony is that Muhammad endorsed the very same Torah where this “illogical” principle is found. Second, Allah endorses the Injeel in 5:46 where this same principle is found. Third, Muhammad himself said that Muslims will be rescued from Hellfire at the expense of Christians and Jews in Sahih Muslim 6665 and 6668: Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire. (6665) Abu Burda reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (6668) So according to Kunde, Allah’s messenger was illogical when he spoke these words. So why is Kunde still a Muslim since this illogical principle is what is going to keep him out of hell and propel him into Jannah. At least in our case innocent blood is used to purge the guilty. But in Islam guilty blood is used to pervert righteousness and grant the guilty paradise.
7 Kunde goes on about original sin, as if Islam has nothing to do with it. If that is the case, Kunde should wonder why he and the rest of mankind doesn’t live in paradise, since, according to him, we don’t partake in the sin of Adam. 8 Kunde talks about the asham being only for unintentional sin and then appeals to Leviticus. But he doesn’t realize that by appealing to Leviticus he conceded to the system of vicarious atonement does appear in the Tanach. Not only in Leviticus, but also in Isaiah 53 and thus his presentation goes out of the window. But to deal with the claim that asham is ONLY for unintentional sins. That is wrong, since asham is also demanded in case of distortion and deception, which are intentional by default. So his claim that the innocent dying for the guilty is something foreign to the Tanach is complete nonsense. It is the Quran that is out of joint here! So far. I will continue later.
Kunde in the rebuttal claimed that Q. 17:85 where it talks about ar-ruh (the Spirit) being unknowable is referring to the human soul. I hope Kunde is reading this since I challenge him to prove this from the context of the Quran. I am ready to refute that lie by quoting verses the Quran to show that this refers to the Spirit of Allah just as soon as Kunde responds to my challenge.
Thank you Sophie.Yes, I have heard of the same hadith, the woman with the green bruises on her face.Nevertheless, I am almost nearly fairly somewhat certain another authoritative source is out there, otherwise Mr Kunde would be guilty of making stuff up.And I'm almost nearly fairly somewhat certain that he would not do so...
Thanks Samuel!I look forward to learning the reference in Al Ghazzali.Do all Muslims accept this view of Al Ghazzali?In looking a websites about Al Ghazzali and his "Incoherance of the Philosophers", etc. and other works, they claim he disagreed with Ibn Sina (Avicenna), who was a famous Iranian scientist and philosopher. (Al Ghazzali was Iranian also) They were both Sunni; (Persia was mostly Sunni until a Shah after the time of Reformation in Europe decided by decree that Iran would become Shiite - 1600s ) and the average modern Shiite Iranians don't know too many details about what these guys said.What is Al Ghazzali's Qur'anic basis and Hadith basis for this?Isn't this part of why there is so much fatalism in the Muslim world?
with all due respect to the Muslim speaker. I never heard of so much ignorance of what Christianity really is.
"In Order To Demonstrate Truth""1. Method of salvation must be logical.2. It has a precedent in the former Holy Books.3. That it was not invented by a single individual or group with no link to these two things.4. The method must assist the human in both his natures, i.e. The current life and the afterlife, not just one or the other.5. There is some testable evidence for it."1. God permitted sin to happen, and so took the initiative in resolving the problem: Lovingly, mercifully. [Bible]1. Allah decreed sin to happen by making Adam sin so humans would suffer Allah's punishment: [Islam] Lovingly, mercifully?2. Adam & Eve tried to cover their sin with their own efforts. God looked upon it and said: 'That won't do.' Then God slew an animal - a sinless animal, shedding its blood - then covered them to turn away His wrath upon them. They/we though still suffer from their bad decision. This is the attitude of a loving Father who knew His children were in such a deep mess they could not dig themselves out it. [Bible]2. S.9:51 Say: Naught befalleth us save that which Allah hath decreed for us. He is our Protecting Friend. In Allah let believers put their trust!Is this what a "friend" would do; deliberately get you into trouble for the sake of punishing you, forever? Can you really put your trust in Allah? With a "friend" like that, who needs enemies.3. Satan invented works based religion! God offered Adam & Eve Grace at His own expense.4. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.4. How can a Muslim be "assisted" when Allah deceives even them?5. Rom.8:16 God's Spirit makes us sure that we are his children.John 1:13 To be a child of God has nothing to do with human parents. Children of God are not born because of human choice or because a husband wants them to be born. They are born because of what God does.5. How does one test Islamic salvation; "In Order To Demonstrate Truth?"
2-2"Israel (in exile), does not return to God through being hung on crosses." 7.00.How is this a salvation issue? They were in exile! Straw.Kunde says "One" [God] is indescribable and "three" is. 10.00. How then do they explain "Tawhid?" "God's gonna be forced to let you into Heaven." 11.00.No +ian would say such a thing. Will Allah be forced to let Muslims into Jannah, or can Allah deny them access, just because...?"God gave up His attributes...and is changed." 11.15.Phil.2:6 In his very nature he was God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to.7 Instead, he made himself nothing. He took on the very nature of a servant. He was made in human form.8 He appeared as a man. He came down to the lowest level. He obeyed God completely, even though it led to his death. In fact, he died on a cross.Can Allah change from being "just" and "merciful" to being unjust and unmerciful? Allah has the ability to appear to be good but is in his character very deceptive and untrustworthy. Faith alone. 17.15. Kunde asks; "so what changed?" And says: "There is a big big contradiction...between peter and Paul." If he read the passage from 2 Peter 1 and thought about it, he may see Peter answered this. In fact, Kunde said it himself.2 Peter 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
Post a Comment