For those of you in the Phoenix area . . .
Friday, October 21st, 7:00-9:00 PM
Glorious One Christian Center - 775 E. Baseline Road, Phoenix, AZ
Panel Discussion - "Answering Muslim Objections"
Saturday, October 22nd, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Glorious One Christian Center - 775 E. Baseline Road, Phoenix, AZ
Multiple Topics, e.g. "Has Muhammad Met the Biblical Requirements of a Prophet?" "Women in Islam," "Has the Qur'an Been Perfectly Preserved?" "The Islamic Dilemma," "Was Muhammad Assured of His Salvation?" "Who Corrupted the Gospel?"
Sunday, October 23rd, 8:00 AM
First Arabic Baptist Church - 2232 West Campbell Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85015
Osama Abdallah vs. Sam Shamoun: "Is Muhammad a True Prophet?"
Sunday, October 23rd, 1:00 PM
Roosevelt Community Church - 924 N 1st St., Phoenix, AZ
Sam Shamoun vs. Osama Abdallah: "Do the Gospels Teach That Jesus Is God?"
Sunday, October 23rd, 5:00 PM
First Arabic Baptist Church - 2232 West Campbell Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85015
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood: "Did Muhammad Practice What He Preached?"
Sunday, October 23rd, 5:00 PM
Apologia Church – 1035 East Guadalupe Road, Tempe, AZ 85283
Sam Shamoun: "The Islamic Dilemma"
Just in case someone wants to see video (aside from the debates) from the previous set of events some weeks ago, here's the one talk by David and Sam that I was able to find:
Overcoming Fear: Facing the Muslim Challenge Conference – Session 1
Just reminding you David to tell sam shamoun (because i know he will not listen to me), When he debates Osama Abdullah to bring up hadith that are authenticate and agreed upon by our muslim scholars as authentic. I know he will bring up the satanic verses, but it is not a saheeh hadith, which means muslims will just ignore that point when he brings it up. So he should debate what the authentic traditions of what the prophet said and did, not the hadiths that are weak. You also bring up ibn ishac even though the man was not a scholar, and he did not even authennticate his hadiths. He was like a reporter who just accepted anything he was told. Please play fairly (Bring up AUTHENTIC HADITH) in these debates, i beg of you guys. Hopefully you and shamoun will listen to this before the debates, even though i find it unlikely.
I think I have an answer regarding Ibn Ishaq.You know he wrote in 750 AD and 80 years later his book was REVISED by IBN HISHAM around 830 AD.
Ibn Hisham took out the Satanic Verses detail.My point is it seems to me Ibn Hisham was a SCHOLAR,he kept what he thought was good.So even this REDUCED version passed the test,at least for one Muslim scholar.
It is they use the HISTORICAL METHOD,which is accepted by all historians,presumably modern Muslim historians also.
The modern Muslim historian can not just reject all of Ibn Hisham,he has to classify the information according to the historical method,using the criteria of multiple attestation,embarassment,early attestation,enemy attestation,etc.
HISTORY is a SCIENCE,one has to use its methodology and not just if the information has a chain of transmission or not.
DID MUHAMMAD EXIST?
SVEN KALISCH,when he was a Muslim,in 2008,said that using the very skeptical method people use regarding the Bible,he had concluded "Muhammad probably did NOT exist".
He will soon publish his book "Did Muhamma Exist?" and he uses the historical method and he doubts it.
So Minora, you must understand the difficulty the man has to go through to disprove the existence of Muhammad(pbuh). No christian apologist would even think about debating a muslim apologist (like bassam zawadi, sami zaatari, Shabir ally, Zakir naik) on whether Muhammad(pbuh) exists, because they would simply get laughed off the stage. I really hope a christian apologist can try to do this. And anyone can write a book, but can Sven engage in a dialogue to defend his points. And as to the satanic verses, the majority of scholars have called it a weak hadith. For more information here is a link http://call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_satanic_verses
Brother, here is website for you
Hey Haecceitas, if you click on the media link on that page you listed for David's video, you will see the other 2 videos under the "special events" link above the video. So Dave, are you going to make videos available from your upcoming talks? I hope so. I use a lot of your material when I give my classes on Islam at my church. Thanks brother and keep up the good work you do.
I would love to be at these debates. The one "Did Mohammed Practice What he Preached" sounds like it may be the Most interesting.
Allahu Akar :-)
Samatar,you need to understand not every muslim thinks like you do.Millions millions muslim if they heard Sam and then do some research they will find that what he says is definitely recorded by muslims.If early muslims were not honest enough to record stuffs then it is doubtful whether the actual muhammad is being recorded at all.So I dont think nor David or Sam should focus on what muslim apologists of 21st century thinks ,but what general muslims belives.Suppose in my country all mosques teach to hate christians accusing christians of believing in isa being God's biological son(nauzubillah)!!Because all imam studies only islam and so they know what the islam says.Problem with western muslim apologists is as they find that it is not true they need to re-interpret it like Bassam Zawadi.So let Sami,Bassam do whatever they want in the western world.If they were honest they should go in their own lands Saudi and Palestine and teach in mosques that christains dont believe ISa being God's biological son(nauzubillah).But if they do millions of billions of muslim's faith will start to shake and they know it.But more importantly they could be beheaded or shot for making such a statement like murtads
Sam and David, may God bless you and grand you all wisdom to expose the lies and evil of islam.
Bartimaeus, Do you know where I can find that lecture entitled "Did Mohammed Practice What he Preached"? Thanks friend.
I understand what you are saying, but the authentication of hadith, and it being accepted or rejected by scholars is not a 21st century way of thinking, but many centuries ago. And Sam shamoun definitely does make things up about Islam to win brownie points. For example, i saw a video where he was actually saying that we muslims worship not the God of Abraham, but a moon God. And he was actually trying to provide evidences for it when the Quran explicitly contradicts his statements. So even though there might be muslims who are saying that christans believe that Jesus(pbuh) is the biological son of the father, one of your top apologist says that muslims worship a moon God.
I will give credit where credit is due. Osama is terrible debater. He should not debate PERIOD. But he is 10 TIMES BETTER nadir. I know I have seen them both.
Samatar,now you need to be consistent.If you watch debates you will find muslims quoting liberal scholars to disprove christianity or attack the authencity of the Bible.Now liberals do not believe in supernatarulism.Both you and we do.Yet muslims quote them.Even they quote atheists scholars like Bart Ehrman.Do you think the muslims should deal with what actually christians believe?Now Sam as a christians do not need to say what muslims want to hear.He says those thinks which conservative muslims wont like at all.Now Sam definitely thinks that maybe allah was a moon deity.If you think as a non-muslim it is possible .I personally believe allah was a pagan deity .But do not know if allah was a moon god or not.Now you said," So even though there might be muslims who are saying that christans believe that Jesus(pbuh) is the biological son of the father, one of your top apologist says that muslims worship a moon God."
Well if that muslims are the founders of islam,even your prophet then there is problem for you.Just examine the facts.Ask any muslim imam who has not studied christianity or do not have any idea about christianity unlike muslim apologists,all will say to you that islam says christians believe in ISa being god's biological son(nauzubillah).
So if muhammad can insult our religion in this way based on false assumption(as early muslims believed in this way) so there is no problem I find Sam Shamoun coming to a conclusion of allah being moon god.I need to check bro Sam's paper's on this subject to see what evidence he has found.But definitely allah was a pagan god before muhammad wanted to make him as God of the judeo-christianity
Nice post. I do agree that muslims do appeal to atheist and liberal scholars, but i personally believe christian apologists do the same thing if it makes their argument better. I've heard David Wood himself bring up Bart Ehrman to justify his belief that Jesus(pbuh) died on the cross (which muslims deny). And remember that people can think one way due to a mistake one has made. For example The King James version of the bible shows The father saying he has "begotten" a son. It turns out that begotten was a mistranslation. Same thing with christian apologists who read the text about ibn mas'ud saying that zais was guilty of deception. However, looking back at the arabic texts, there is no part where ibn mas'ud says that zaid was actually guilty of deceptions. So mistakes can happen due to mistranslations, you see.
@ Samatar. Why did Allah by his own deception making it appear as though Jesus died on the cross, but in fact he raised him up onto himself and replaced Jesus?
so in effect Allah created Christianity by his own deception according to Islam.Now either Allah wanted to create Christianity, or he didn't know what the result would be of his deception. Either way Islams Allah cannot be God.
And David Wood quoted Bart Ehrman because Bart Ehrman says it's a historical fact that Jesus died on the cross. Also there are pictures of the moon God known as Allah on the internet. It is a historical fact! And why do you kiss the moon rock that is shaped like a vagina? Oh and where is this list of authentic hadith? Surely someone by now would have discarded all of the false ones?
Samatar,as you said muslim apologists used those atheist scholars to make their argument better so I think you should not have problem if christian debaters use the sources which is the most celebrated sources collected and written by muslims who were more close in time of muhammad and knew the arabic language culture better than any westerner muslim of these days.Even if after centuries some muslims started to argue about stuffs ,but that should not bother a christian.And you need to consider that not every muslim thinks like you.I never heard one imam to say in my country that any hadeeth of sahih bukhari or sahih muslim is not authentic.Sahih bukhari is said to be the most pure source after the quran.Now if you disagree then its your personal opinion.Sam and David dont need to satisfy every muslim,do they?
And also 99.99% muslims of this world believe Isa was taken to heaven before being placed on the cross.While the best muslim debater in the west Shabir Ally is promoting the swoon theory.I was shocked what he was saying in the debate with Dr Craig.Now Sam and David if they debate Shabir they still should deal with the typical muslim belief ,not Shabir's view right?Even Shabir wont like it or disagree with it.
I agree with what you said about thetranslation issue.Yes you are right.But even the word "begotten " was used still the christian belief was always same.KJV came 1600 years later the Bible was written.So even mistranslation occurs there it wont make effect.Same goes with Yousuf Ali who said in sura 5:73 one in 3 in a trinity.Where in the arabic trinity is not there.And also in arabic it perhaps say 3rd of 3.But still the quran is wrong even Yousuf Ali tried to correct it.And I am not familiar with that particular issue you said about Zaid and Ibn Masood.You maybe right on that point.But I think if you stay honest(which I believe u r) you should agree with me that Ibn Masood had negative view about Zaid Ibn Thabit
The argument for the probability Muhammad did not exist is stronger than the argument Jesus did not exist.
With Jesus we have:
1.The letters of Paul,who says he talked with Peter,James and John,the disciples of Jesus.
2.Josephus Flavius who was born and grew up in Jerusalem till the age of 25 or 26,when he went to Rome.
He was about 25 when James,the half-brother of Jesus,the head of the Jerusalem Church,was killedin Jerusalem.
He wrote "James,the brother of Jesus,the one called the Messiah".Virtually no scholar disputes that except 2 or 3,and they say Jesus never existed.
With Muhammad,as Robert Spencer and others have pointed out,there is no mention of MUHAMMAD or the KORAN or the group called MUSLIMS for 60 YEARS after the death of Muhammad,either by Muslims or non-Muslims.They mention invaders from Arabia but never refer to any religion or prophet.
THE MOSQUE IN JERUSALEM
It has alot of Arabic passages but mentions Jesus and says nothing about Muhammad like in "There is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet".
THE KORANIC CITATIONS
The Jerusalem mosque on Mt Zion has Koranic passages that are DIFFERENT from the ones in the Koran.If you go to a mosque they sometimes have Koranic passages and they are exactly like in the Koran.
A MUSLIM ARGUMENT
It is that it is an ORIENTAL CUSTOM to PARAPHRASE words from somewhere else.That could have weight if it were not for.....
THE MUSLIM CLAIM VAST NUMBERS OF MUSLIMS IN THE 7TH CENTURY GENERATION AFTER GENERATION
memorized the Koran PERFECTLy from beginning to end.
Then why did they not have a PERFECT MEMORY when they wrote the Koranic passages in the Jerusalem mosque?
If you know PERFECTLY the words in the Book WHY PARAPHRASE?There is no logic.
THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION
It is that here is evidence the story of the PERFECT memorization of the Koran was probably invented,in other words the Koran has DEVELOPPED over the DECADES.
You said "The argument for the probability Muhammad did not exist is stronger than the argument Jesus did not exist."
But my point was that the arguement for the existence of Muhammad(pbuh) is stronger then the arguement against his existence. And I believe Jesus(pbuh) existed anyways so that doesn't refute me in anyway.
you should agree with me that Ibn Masood had negative view about Zaid Ibn Thabit
Yes, i do agree that Ibn masud was jealous towards Zaid because Zaid was chosen over him. My point was that Ibn Masud did not in anyway say that the Quran Zaid had with him was corrupt in anyway as apologists like David Wood and nabeel qureshi like to point out.
In a comment Spencer said Muhammad probably did exist, but his idea is there is room for doubt,at least for the MUHAMMAD as WE KNOW HIM TODAY, due to the astonishing lack of evidence for 60 years.
That seems to imply an embellishment of a real historical figure,in other words LEGENDARY additions over time,that he saw an angel for 23 years,went to Jerusalem miraculously,split the moon,etc.
ABOUT JESUS' SECOND COMING AND KILLING ENEMIES
In an article in loonwatch.com by a Muslim called DANIOS:
and also in comments by SHABIR ALLY in his debates:
They essentially say the NT Jesus will KILL HIS ENEMIES,os he is violent and bad,he is not peaceful.But they obviously have NOT read the NT,only a little bit here and there.
They also both point to PSALM 137:9 "Blessed is the one who grabs your BABIES and SMASHES them AGAINST a ROCK."
(The argument is also used by atheist,ex-Christian DAN BARKER,who shows lack of knowledge even though he says he is a scholar).
We know it is because the author,a religious JEW,knew MOSAIC LAW forbids killing the INNOCENT(er,Babies).He was using a literary metaphor,no serious scholar believes it was meant literally,to mean"Blessed is he who causes you(you,an evil person) alot of pain,great punishment."
DANIOS and SHABIR lack knowledge.
Regarding DANIOS and SHABIR they don't know that the NT says:
1.There will be a RAPTURE of all the Christians in the world.Most believe it would also INCLUDE ALL the NON-CHRISTIAN CHILDREN,about 50% of the world.
2.It is written Jesus will destroy the ARMY of the ANTICHRIST in a place called ARMAGEDDON.They are SOLDIERS.
Would there be anything wrong with Jesus killing a army of NAZIS with HITLER as their chief,who had killed MILLIONS of innocent civilians(like the followers of the ANTICHRIST will do)
IT IS STILL WRONG TO KILL THE FOLLOWERS OF THE ANTICHRIST
That is the argument of Danios and Shabir.That shows their amazing lack of knowledge of the text.
HITLER AND THE NAZIS
Suppose they had been given EVIDENCE the Bible is true:they saw the RAPTURE,they saw the GOG and MAGOG war,the 2 saints of Revelation who were killed and rose from the dead.
Hitler and his millions of Nazi followers would have NOBODY TO BLAME for Rejecting Christianity except themselves.
So the followers of the Antichrist will see and know the evidence and make the decision to reject Christianity.
Have Danios and Shabir missed that fact that is so obvious in the text?So the followers of the Antichrist:
1.Had SEVERAL CHANCES(the events take place over several YEARS)to decide.
2.And since the Antichrist rules 7 YEARS it is MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to decide for Jesus,it is not they had to decide in 1 YEAR,or 1 MONTH or 1 WEEK.
I am sure MANY will INITIALLY follow then Antichrist but LATER will choose Christianity,based on the evidence,but the NT says most of them will be killed by the ANtichrist.
you said "They essentially say the NT Jesus will KILL HIS ENEMIES,os he is violent and bad,he is not peaceful.But they obviously have NOT read the NT,only a little bit here and there."
Again, i think we have different views with regards to violence and whether it is always a bad thing. If Jesus(pbuh) harms his enemies does that make him a bad person, it would depend on what his enemies had done. You are aware that christianity openly claims that any person who is not christian will be burning in hell for eternity. If cristianity is true, then i can see the justification of sin and punishment, but christians use double standards in this issue. If you have read some of the passages in the old testament, you would not even dare to call God peaceful, but would you call God bad, i do not think so. Because, if you were to then you would be in a dillema.
Samatar said: 'If Jesus(pbuh) harms his enemies does that make him a bad person, it would depend on what his enemies had done.'
samatar, he let his enemies put him on a cross and asked the father to forgive them because they didn't know what they were doing.
That's what Jesus did. You should be more like him because your prophet wasn't.
To clarify what you stated:
"You are aware that christianity openly claims that any person who is not christian will be burning in hell for eternity."
In reality the NT says children go to heaven,it's understood that means all children whether Christian or not,y logic also,the mentally retarded who are at a level where they dont know right from wrong.
The NT verses about children in heaven are here.It can be translated(about 95% well,though sometimes badly) with GOOGLE TRANSLATE
The article is in French:
You ask good questions,often the questions asked by Muslims give rise to articles.You said:
"but christians use double standards in this issue. If you have read some of the passages in the old testament, you would not even dare to call God peaceful, but would you call God bad, i do not think so. Because, if you were to then you would be in a dillema."
JESUS WAS NOT ALWAYS PEACEFUL
There was the TEMPLE INCIDENT where he threw out the merchants guilty of CORRUPTION,Jesus called them THIEVES.
He was the MESSIAH and one of the duties of the Messiah is to establish justice,so he for a short time he EXERCISED his AUTHORITY as Messiah.
GOD IN THE OT
It is true there were violent orders by God but LIKE THE TEMPLE INCIDENT there was a reason.Regarding the order to kill all the CANANITEs,it was CONDITIONAL.Read this article in French:
Post a Comment