Sunday, February 27, 2011

Trinity or Tawheed?

Introductions and Readings from the Bible and Qur'an

Abdullah Kunde's Presentation

Samuel Green's Presentation


Question Time


helen said...

i love watching these debates thanks for posting them

its so hard for muslims to understand the trinity which is a logical thing to christians so they ask how can christians believe in it, etc

well as a christian it is so excruciatingly difficult for me to understand how muslims can believe in god wanting muhammed to do all the things he has done that will land you in jail in most of the world, etc

hopefully we can all understand each other eventually

Michael said...

The doctrine of Tahweed is a non-starter as in the conventional practise of muslim belief it is subverted into dualism. The Shahada and the traditions carried on by Muhammad concerning the Hajj, seem and actually on robust inspection contradict pure monotheism in respect to Tahweed (the Islamic Unitarianism).

On the Trinity I found Samuel Greens use of the whole text of the Bible as an encouraging approach for textual analysis and criticism of his argument. By rooting his argument in the ancient scriptures namely the law of moses, the Prophets, the Psalms the minor Prophets etc... I found it showed a logical progression to the argument. What better way to show consistency within an your argument than to reveal that the Holy scriptures that preceeded and prophesied of the events to come actually confirm it and are at harmony with the Trinity in revealing the nature of God.

Abdullah Kunde, I like his philosophical approach to debate and his use of wordly sources either than Islamic sources; Quran, Hadith, Sunnah of Muhammad and scholary expositions of scripture. His referal to the Egyptian library and greek/latin meanings to logos and mythology is alright. But this is not an accurate way to bolster his argument as the sources in question nither refer directly or come from respected interpretations of the Trinity. And certain books of the old testament pre-date Greek theology. It is important to note what we call the old testament for Christians was accessible for reading in the ancient world in the synagogue and Hebrew courts. Apart from his comments on Annanius et al these examples were simply portions not whole paragraphs or chapters but were paraphased. The point is any one can prove any notion through paraphasing.

The scripture in leviticus saying not to take a stone or fashion an image from a stone as Muhammad did is prohibited this is Idol worship and in the most orthodox schools of Islamic thought an act of shirk (But this will not be easily admitted) this is reiterated in the last book of the Bible in Revelation concerning the image of Artemis (Walid Shoebat lectures on Biblical eschotology).

Anyway good debate I pray the Lord may call whom he pleases to Himself to be saved in Christ Jesus.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Samuel you are the man. I love your style. Compared to folks like White David and the other Sam you seem timid and nervous but you pack quite a punch. Great Job. Like you point out it seems to me this comes down to whether we accept the message of all the Prophets. Claiming corruption seems very weak to me but I guess it’s all the Muslims have

On that note I’m wondering if you could point me to some info on the early variants in the Quran

Thanks and Peace

TPaul said...

Excellent debate, Samuel as usual did a wonderful job on conveying the trinity as revealed in the Bible, however that would not be enough for any Muslim, let alone Abdullah, a convert to Islam from Christianity who is now in the position of trying to defend his decision.

Somehow integrity will always reamin an issue with Muslim appologists, because even though there are evidences from history that the koran was burnt by Uthman obviously due to major differences as recorded in the hadiths, they will not admit it.

Abdullah shamlessely tried to defend kissing of the black stone by saying that it was allah's command, even though Samuel showed from scripture why bowing down before any stone was clearly forbidden by God.

The tawhid in Islam is a hypocritical notion simply because even though not mentioned in clear terms, Mohammed is clearly a partner with Allah, as his name appears in the Shahadah and besides Allah's name in most Mosques, and Muslim homes.

Anthony Rogers said...

Samuel, I am excited to hear this debate. So far I have only been able to get through the first 10 mins of Abdullah's opening, which I listened to on my phone on the way home from church. I may do some blog posts on remarks made by Abdullah on the main page, depending on what you were able to address in your opening and response periods. In any event, I remember you told me a while ago that you were going to be doing this debate, so I am wondering when this actually took place, especially in light of the fact that some of what I have heard so far are a repeat of something Sam (Shamoun) has already commented on both here and at AI.

Anthony Rogers said...

edit: ...some of what I have heard so far IS a repeat...

Samuel Green said...

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Fifth Monarchy Man: Yes, I am timid and nervous and more. In the past I use to lose my voice before a debate. Also, setting up the video gear and data projector adds to the stress for me.
Regarding early variants in the Qur'an, have a look in Answering Islam. I have not written up my material yet but others have.

TPaul: Yes, I agree it is not enough to convert them. I was trying to get right back to the foundations. Until we make some progress on, Image, Sonship and Spirit we have no grounds for talking about the Trinity.

Thanks again.

Mr McStizzle said...

I noticed Abdullah missed the point entirely of the question regarding how one can trust that the Qur'an has been preserved if God did not protect the prior scriptures.

He focused on "texutal variations" and compared the Qur'an to the Bible, completely ignoring that we KNOW entire suras and verses are missing from the Qur'an as spoken of in the Hadith.

We KNOW that Uthman burnt earlier manuscripts not because of pronunciation but because of these significant differences.

He also ignored that the vast majority of variations in the Bible are also textual in the sense of copyist errors, vowels, letters etc. And even the larger variations have NO IMPACT ON DOCTRINE. Even if one were to discount the account of the adulterous woman or the long ending to Mark, this would not change doctrine.

All the things attested to in the long ending for Mark can be found elsewhere in scripture.

But the point of the question was simply this: (1) God supposedly says in the Qur'an that his word cannot be changed and that he will preserve it.

(2) The Muslims (not the Qur'an) tells us the scriptures have been changed and have not been preserved.

(3) Therfore, either the Muslims is lying/misinformed, the Qur'an is lying/misinformed, or God is not reliable, or indeed all of the above.

The fact of the matter is this, if God said he will preserve his word and he does not, God is a liar. There is no dancing around this issue. According to Islamic theology, God failed to preserve the earlier scriptures. Therfore, we have no reason to assume that the Qur'an is reliable, even if it has been "perfectly preserved"

Perfect preservation is not proof of truth.

A lie can be just as perfectly and easily preserved. The greatest lie ever spoken that continues to this day, that has been preserved throughout history is this: "There is no God"

The second greatest lie, perfectly preserved for the last 2000 years is this: "Jesus was no God."

There may only be slight variations in the wording, but the lie is preserved all the same.

minoria said...

Hello Samuel,

I think you did fine.As for me I don't see you as nervous or timid at all,your presentations are great.

I would here like to add,for the readers,my view on Jesus saying,on the cross,"My God,why have you abandoned me?"

For me it is obviously MIDRASH.Midrash is a Jewish technique where the person makes parallels,notices repetitions.

Psalm 22

It is by David and his sufferings,the first line is "My God why have you abandoned me?"

Another is:"They have pierced my hands and feet."

We have a copy of Psalm 22 from Qmran written about 130 before the crucifixion.Read all the details in

Anthony Rogers said...

I just wanted to clarify that I think Abdullah has repeated some things Sam Shamoun has responded to. For example, his claim that Allah is one but not in the mathematical sense. Since Sam responded to this, I was surprised to hear Abdullah saying the same thing without any trepidation.

donna60 said...

If Psalms 2 is referring to either David, or his son Solomon, either one, then Muslims are in big, big trouble on the day of judgement, because they need to give that temple mount back, and I mean yesterday.

For that matter, they need to quit fighting over Palestine altogether because that land belonged to the throne of David, and if Psalms 2 is truely talking about the land kingdom of David, and not a spiritualkingdom, then Psalms 2:8-9applies to the Muslims.

"Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession, You will rule them with an iron scepter, you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

donna60 said...

Mr. Kunde, you are the best Muslim debater that I have ever heard. Mr. Greene has to be good to debate you.

I'm saying this because I hope you keep debating. I learn from your debates more than any other Muslim debater on this forum.

But I just have to tell you that the passage you quoted in Matthew about the Nazarine might not be the safest place to go to debate against Christianity.

Matthew 1:23 is a word play on the word Nazer, and it isn't Matthew's only word play.

In any case, it is the Hebrew word for "Branch," and it is used in Isaiah 11:1 and to quote the whole passage--and this is exactly where someone will probably will take you if you ever try to get by with that again is this:

Isaiah 11:1-4
Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch (Nazer) from his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.

I mean the whole chapter is Messianic, but you just walked in to the definition that Matthew was making about Jesus being the Branch.

TPaul said...

Hi Samuel,
Thank you for your response.I feel honoured.
No doubt convincing any Muslim to even consider the concept of the Trinity is next to impossible. Your approach at the foundations was well presented.
Ironically, on the flip side many ex-christians renounce Christ because they feel they have to 'understand' God completely in this life in order to worship Him.
Obviously, Islam offers them a kind of short-cut solution, the kind that they could easily wrap their heads around. The rest of the truth about Islam, it's brutality and the morality of Mohammed is an apparent leap of faith, the kind that they have a hard time justifying thereafter.

Sadly these 'Christians' did not investigate Islam well enough, or else the Christian concept God would not have been so hard comprehending rather than a pseudo-Unitarian God of Islam, who has no problem having his so-called messenger's name besides himself, or a black stone kissed and adored besides himself in the act of worship.

Furthermore, It really boggles me that the beautiful message of a Loving, and Forgiving God as exemplified in Christ, can EVER be replaced simply because a Unitarian yet vengeful anti-Semite, anti-everyone-else God of Islam is EASIER to understand.


otto said...

My Favorite part of the debate is Samuel Green's opening presentation, minute 18:40 - 20:00, particularly when Mr. Green says,

"you want to be a Muslim, you have to confess Muhammed...have a look at how it is under Moses. It says, "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart" - there is no mention of Moses. Its just God alone. And this is how it is for Christians. When we confess we confess God alone, we dont include any humans in our confession."


Christians confess all God, not God plus Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, or any other human, but the Holy Triune God as He revealed Himself in Scripture.

I want to complemet Abdullah on wearing a tie, and I want to complement Samuel on smiling a lot.

Gabriella Oak said...

Thank you for posting this debate. I don't find Samuel Green timid in his presentation at all, merely quiet and mild mannered. Horses for courses and all that.

This faux struggle with the concept of the trinity from Muslims is just so much nonsense. Fair enough to declare that they don't believe in a Trinitarian deity; but the idea that they can't even get their head around such a concept gets on my last nerve, quite frankly.

If a non-religious person's brain can cope with the idea of God, (a HUGE leap for an agnostic like me) then surely the concept of God existing as 1 being/3 persons does not even constitute a baby step on the road to faith among believers of any persuasion.
It seems perfectly clear to me that Muslims have to adopt this position of 'non comprende senior' regarding the trinity, as the alternative simply raises more questions about their own faith than they have answers for.

What sort of God exhorts his followers not to think, and why would such a God be worthy of the title? Only an anti-God.
Now there's a concept for some of our Muslim friends to get their
heads around....

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with Abdullah's mathematical example:

1.It is a bit similar to Deedat's:

1+1+1=3 so the Trinity is false.

2.Abdullah said:

a)Infinity/Infinity is FALSE.

b)Infinity X Infinity is FALSE

Both are exact statements.


We have mathematical laws that say:


And also:

infinity=infinity (that is obvious)

infinity + infinity=infinity

infinity +infinity+infinity=infinity

The Trinity is mathematically valid.

Anonymous said...

Hello Donna:

You made a good point about Matthew saying:"And he will be called a Nazarene".

You mentioned Isaiah 11:1 with the word NETZER(branch).

JAMES TABOR,a skeptical,non-Christian scholar,in his book "The Jesus Dynasty" says NAZARETH has as its root word the Hebrew NETZER.Nazarene would be like "the branched one".


It's obvious Matthew was doing MIDRASH.

2X in ISAIAH the word Netzer is used for the Messiah

2X in JEREMIAH the same thing

2X it appears in ZECHARIAH,the way it is used Gives Us the Name of the Messiah:YESHUAH(Jesus).

To see all the exact citations and how they give us the name of Jesus:

"The OT says the Messiah's Name is Yeshua" in

Fifth Monarchy Man said...


I only meant to say that you were like Teddy Roosevelt in that you speak softly and carry a big stick.

It seems that unlike you I don't do a good job of expressing myself.


donna60 said...

Minoria, Thanks! I can't believe that Mr Kunde walked right into offering his audience a Messianic OT passage, and admitted that it had been attributed to Jesus!

He might as well have read them the book of Isaiah and then just set down.

donna60 said...

Sam Green, you did great, and what is best of all, you were so relaxed, and it was so obvious that you are so loving and generous as a person.

It has been very obvious every time I have watched you.

Mr. Kunde is no light-weight debater, and you did more than hold your own.

Anonymous said...

Hello Donna,
I am glad I gave you good information,I had half-forgot that argument using the word netzer.I always try to "never assume anything."Just because I had given that argument before I must never assume all know it.

For the general public,here is an article that shows Yahweh sending Yahweh to the people of Jerusalem(God-Father sending God-Son).
It's in Zechariah.

Wildan fauzan zaki said...

"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.'" (John 14:28).

Jesus said that the Father is greater than I. So if we prove the trinity in mathematic
is: " Jesus < Father = 1<2
The equation: Jesus x Father x Holy = 1x2x2=4 Cristians have 4 God....LOL

abouelmich said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
abouelmich said...

Regarding the last question why Jesus said "My God, My God why have you forsaken me' indeed he was reciting Psalm 22 which starts with:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

it starts with the suffering and what was happening on the cross and how people were mocking him (Psalm 22:1-21) and continues with the saving (Psalm 22:22-26) and ends with eternal salvation (Psalm 22:27-31)

Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it.