Monday, November 7, 2011

Muhammad in Christianity & Islam



A debate between Mustafa Al Shakarji and Samuel Green.

24 comments:

aaron said...

they should have done it in unvirsity of western sydney or Macquarie university I would have at least came and watched it both have a healthy population of muslims in it. UNSW or University of sydney works too because they are so will known they would make it bigger events.besides most of the muslim population is in werten surburbs of sydney not in Queensland

PETE said...

Mustafa didn't answer the question about song of song 5:16 that students ask. Why he took some part of the song text to prove the 'muhammad'? Why he didn't read from the 5:1? Muslim always do this to prove that islam is true and yet, they also mention that our bible a lots of corruption.

Sam said...

Wow Samuel! You actually debated a Shia who pretty much condemned all of Muhammad's companions to hell with the exception of Ali, Fatima and their household! He also pretty much rejects the sunni hadiths you used since, as Shia, he has his own unique collection of narrations. Sunnis won't be too happy with this debate or this Muslim.

Samuel Green said...

Aaron,
I am hoping to do some debates in those unis next year.

Sam,
Yes, it was a different experience to debate a Shia Muslim.

Mustafa and I get on really well. He is a gentleman.

Sam said...

BTW Sam, the reference to Surah 18:21 to justify building mosques over dead prophets was misquoted. The text doesn't say that this building housed any dead bodies since the men and their dog were raised to life! Therefore, they weren't building a house of worship over the dead bodies of these individuals.

More importantly, this is citing what the people wanted to do, not what Allah commanded them to do. Therefore, one can pass this off as the mistaken desires of people who were not prophets receiving revelation.

Finally, this passage is at odds with the hadiths since these righteous servants had a dog which Allah preserved and raised from the dead, whereas Muhammad ordered the killing of dogs!

Sam said...

It is too bad, Samuel, that you didn't nail him for parroting the pathetic arguments of Ahmad Deedat. For instance, in his final rebuttal he butchered the Greek of John 1:1 by saying that the Word is said to be with ho theos whereas the Word was ton theos. Anyone with a very basic knowledge of Greek would laugh this gross misrepresentation of the Greek language.

In the first place, the Greek says that the Word was with ton theon (the God), and that the Word was theos (God). Secondly, you can't have ton preceding theos since ton is in the accusative case whereas theos is in the nominative. Therefore, you either have to write it as ton theon, if it is the accusative or direct object, or ho theos, if it is nominative.

So shame on this Shia for uncritically passing off the lies and garbage of Ahmad Deedat.

concernedforusa said...

Muslim’s claims that Deuteronomy 18:17, Song of Solomon 5:16, John 14:16, etc. speak about Muhammad is nonsense.

However, I believe that Daniel11:24 may actually speak about Muhammad.

Daniel 11:24 :
"He shall enter peaceably even upon the richest places of the province”

All biblical scholars agree that this prophecy about the King of the North points to both Antiochus IV Epiphanes who ruled from 175 BC to 164 BC over the Syrian section of Alexander the Great’s empire as well as the future Antichrist.

A prophecy that points to two persons is called double reference prophecy.

However, the word “richest” or "fattest" comes from the word "shiman", which means to oil or grease. The word "province" comes from the word "medina", which may refer to the median desert in the middle east. However, Medina is also in Saudi Arabia.

In the light of the words “oil” and “medina”, I would call this prophecy of Daniel 11:24 a triple-reference prophecy.

First, it points to Antiochus IV Epiphanes who was a prototype of the future Antichrist.

Second, it points directly to Muhammad who, in fact entered the city of Medina in Saudi Arabia peacefully and established there his stronghold.

Third, it points directly to the Antichrist who will be filled with Muhammad’s spirit and ultimately with Devil’s spirit.

Both Walid Shoebat in his book “God’s War on Terror” and Joel Richardson in his book “The Islamic Antichrist” proved that the Beast of Revelation will be revived Islamic Caliphate (the 8th Empire), the Mystery Babylon is Mecca and the Antichrist will be a Muslim. All God-loving, freedom-loving people must read these books.

In addition to Walid Shoebat’s and Joel Richardon’s arguments I want to add my own observation. My observation pertains to the Mystery Babylon, The Mother of Harlots.

In Revelation 18:7, Mystery Babylon, The Great Mother of Harlots says:
“I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.”

This verse is connected very closely to Isaiah 48:8 where the “daughter of Babylon”, “The Lady of Kingdoms” says:
“I am, and there is no other else, besides me; I shall not sit as widow.”

This claim of the daughter of Babylon “I am” is associated with the Name of our LORD, the God of the Bible which is “I am”.

Furthermore, in Isaiah 45:18, the Lord of the Bible says:
“I am the LORD, and there is no other.”

Therefore, as I understand it, this Mystery Babylon is a spiritual center that has its origin in Babylon, particularly connected with Babylonian moon-god. But, unlike Babylonian moon-god who never claimed to be the only “god”, this spiritual entity will claim allegiance to a “god” who is the only “god”.

Islam is the only religion whose god Allah was a moon-god in pagan times. Allah was represented by the biggest rock in Kaaba. With advent of Islam, Muhammad claimed that this same Allah is the only “god” of the universe.
“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”

Islam is the only religion in the world which attempts to replace the God of the Bible with a former moon-god, Allah, who claims to be the only god of the universe and who is a total opposite to the God of the Bible.

Therefore, this Mystery Babylon is a spiritual center of Islam which is Mecca.

andy bell said...

Shias are nothing more than a persianized version of islam. And they worship Ali.

Persians have always hated arabs. They view them as being illiterate animals (beasts).

Although, I do have to say that shiites are not as caffeinated as the crazy sunnis. All your "peaceful" screwball sects--ahmadis, ismailis,druze, alawites---stem from shia.

minoria said...

Regarding the PARACLETE

There is an argument used by Shabir Ally,Osama Abdallah,etc that says:

"The world renowned and distinguished ANCHOR BIBLE confirms that the original concept among the noted Christian scholars and populace, for the Paraclete was for a MALE SALVIFIC FIGURE(Muhammad?),

but that concept was later confused with the "Holy Spirit".It is written there:

"The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In 1John ii1 Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father. ...Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit,

but scholars like SPITTA, DELAFOSSE, WINDISCH,SASSE,BULTMANNA AND BETZ have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit." (page 1135)."

HERMANN SASSE(1895-1976)

He was a German theologian who said PARACLETOS=EVANGELIST JOHN.

SHABIR ALLY in a debate said he said it because it was because of his Christian thinking,point
of view,etc.

WRONG

There you see Shabir Ally's trick.There is a SPECIFIC reason WHY EVEN IF the Paraclete was a MAN he CAN NOT be Muhammad and WHY Sasse said it was the EVANGELIST.

minoria said...

PART 1:


Regarding the PARACLETE

There is an argument used by Shabir Ally,Osama Abdallah,etc that says:

"The world renowned and distinguished ANCHOR BIBLE confirms that the original concept among the noted Christian scholars and populace, for the Paraclete was for a MALE SALVIFIC FIGURE(Muhammad?),

but that concept was later confused with the "Holy Spirit".It is written there:

"The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In 1John ii1 Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father. ...Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit,

but scholars like SPITTA, DELAFOSSE, WINDISCH,SASSE,BULTMANNA AND BETZ have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit." (page 1135)."

HERMANN SASSE(1895-1976)

He was a German theologian who said PARACLETOS=EVANGELIST JOHN.

SHABIR ALLY in a debate said he said it because it was because of his Christian thinking,point
of view,etc.

WRONG

There you see Shabir Ally's trick.There is a SPECIFIC reason WHY EVEN IF the Paraclete was a MAN he CAN NOT be Muhammad and WHY Sasse said it was the EVANGELIST.

minoria said...

PART 2:

The reason,it is because of JOHN 16:7-13:

"But I tell you the truth:

1.It is better for you that I GO AWAY.

2.When I (Jesus) GO AWAY, I will SEND THE PARACLETE to you.

3.If I(Jesus) DO NOT GO AWAY.

4.The PARACLETE WILL NOT COME.

When the Helper comes, he will prove to the people of the world the truth about sin, about being right with God, and about judgment.9 He will prove to them that sin is not believing in me.10 He will prove to them that being right with God comes from my going to the Father and not being seen anymore. 11 And the Helper will prove to them that judgment happened when the ruler of this world was judged.

"I have many more things to say to you, but they are too much for you now. 13 But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth. He will not speak his own words, but he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is to come."

NOTICE

Jesus says he HAS TO depart,it is NECESSARY for him to leave,otherwise the PARACLETE would NOT come.

Jesus would have DIED by 100 AD,500 years before Muhammad.

So if the PARACLETE was Muhammad there would be NO REASON to make it OBLIGATORY for Jesus to say he HAD to leave,he would have left,died BEFORE 600 AD.

THAT was WHY Sasse said Paraclete=the Evangelist John,it wasnt because of a Christian mentality,way of thinking,etc.

I am sure ALLY knows that technicality,so even if the Paraclete was a male salvific prophet he could NOT be Muhammad,according to the conditions given.

JESUS SENDS THE PARACLETE

In Islam it is Allah who gives orders,sends prophets.It was Allah who through Gabriel spoke to Muhammad.

JOHN says it is Jesus who will send the Paraclete,it cant be Muhammad.

SO?

That is ANOTHER REASON why Sasse said it was the EVANGELIST,it was JESUS in heaven who inspired the Evangelist and he became the Paraclete,the Helper,Advocate(Parakletos) of the Christian community.

I am sure Shabir Ally knows that tehcnicality also but he does not tell the Muslims.

mkvine said...

Samuel,

Great job. You are very civil and professional in your debates. I'm glad you brought up the hadith where it attest to textual variations in the Quran- namely, surah 92:3. That is actually one of my favorite ones to quote because they cannot simply pass it off as "ahruf" - it absolutely stumps Muslims. God Bless.

mkvine said...

Samuel,
Is that a critical edition of the Quran? Perhaps you should pass it off to Dr. James White, as he's been looking for one for a while.

Samuel Green said...

Sam,

because I spoke first it meant that I could not reply to all he said, ie, the Greek of John 1. However, this responsibility is with the Christian audience. They need to ask me about matters in question time.

mkvine,

I just had the pleasure of meeting Dr. White and gave him a copy.

The Purple Marquise said...

This guy Mustafa was really really BAD! He gave pathetic non-arguments rehashed ten million times by other Muslim debaters and torn apart ten million times by Christian debaters! Nothing original in his presentation! Very lazy! I think he just browsed a few weak and shabby anti-christian websites and called it preparation for a debate!

By the way since I come from a Shia background I can tell you that as bad and ahistorical as the Sunnis might appear to you the Shias are MUCH MUCH WORSE! They are really in La La Land as far as their theology and history of religion goes and they so often pull stories out of the places that I don't want to mention, which usually show Ali as being the wisest or the most just or what ever, totally out of step with Sunni Hadiths!!!!!

I kind of can understand why Sunnis are so angry with them (not that I approve that they want to kill them, but I understand their frustration with them) because the Shias are so gosh darn irreverent to all the people that broke bread with the prophet and were instrumental in his success and were his best friends and even family members.

All three Khalifs before Ali also were relatives of Muhammed through marriage. Besides he entrusted very important missions to each of them. Especially Abu Bakr was his best buddy!! Muhammed should have been a true idiot and a total failure if all of his closest friends were such wicked and damnable people??!! What does it say about his judgement if his best companions were such evil people!? But Shias without a care in the word damn Umar and Uthman and even Abu Bakr regularly! In some areas of Iran there are yearly Umar-Killing festivities where they burn Umar in effigy or make an ugly rag doll to represent Umar and then beat the heck out of it with wooden sticks!!!! Of course understandably Sunnis get really offended!

The Shias also hate and disrespect Aisha which was the darling of their prophet whom he loved so much! They call her a whore and amongst other things accuse her of poisoning Muhammed without ANY evidence and send curses to her every time her name is mentioned! Of course the main reason is that she had a bad relationship with Ali and eventually went into a battle with him called the battle of Jamal or The Camel!

They have really no historical basis for the fantastical and outlandish claims that they make about Ali and his offspring. All of their sources are made up several centuries later than the Sunni sources and we all know how late those Sunni sources already are! When ever they are confronted with the fact that the earliest Islamic sources are against their claims they always give this excuse that since Shias were prosecuted the Sunnis had the upper hand and changed and manipulated all the records (basically the same nonsense that the Sunnis and Shias both say about us Jews and Christians because our sources don't match up with their claims).

This lack of evidence for their imaginary claims make Shias even more angry and more poisonous and bitter than the Sunnis and deeper steeped in paranoia, conspiracy theories and pathological victimhood complex. They feel the whole world is against them and hate absolutely EVERYBODY!!!

You see? The whole Islamic world has conspired against them and Ali to disposes them of their rightful supremacy! Everybody is treacherous! Everybody is a back-stabber! Nobody is to be trusted! If even the best companions of Muhammed turned out to be such treacherous back-stabbers then what could be said about today's Sunnis, not to mention the infidels?!!! Very sick mentality indeed!

...to be continued

The Purple Marquise said...

...continuation

But to top all of this they have some practices in their worship tradition and acts of piety that can seriously be called idolatrous and Sunnis really cringe at them. It was interesting that Samuel brought up the fact that Muhammed was buried in a mosque despite the ban on making people's graves a place of worship.

Well... it was no wonder that Mustafa quickly denied that since this is a very big deal in Shia piety to go for supplication to the grave of not just their dead Imams but even the dead children and grandchildren of those dead Imams and literally pray to them and beg them for health and wealth and protection and other things that one must only ask of God!

People in Shia shrines literally grab the fences around the tomb of Imam's or their children and cry and kiss it and touch it for benediction and even get a box full of the earth on the garden of these shrines and make an object with it which in Farsi language is called Mohr which the Shias put on their prayer mat while doing their daily prayers and when they bow down to the ground their forehead touches this piece of solidified grave dust called Mohr. No Shia prays without a Mohr. This practice seriously smells of idolatry!

Then of course there are all these morbid Shia festivals or days of morning which commemorate the martyrdom of various Imams and especially it gets very wild on the anniversary of the death of the 3rd Imam, Imam Hussein, the grandson of Muhammed and second son of Ali and Fatima which was supposedly killed under rather gruesome circumstances 1400 years ago. These morning ceremonies can get pretty bloody and is usually accompanied not just with hysterical crying but also by self flagellating and even cutting of one's own head or the head of one's own small child with a machete to draw blood! In these ceremonies usually people walk around in the street with faces and shirts soaked in blood! It is pretty disgusting and abominable!

Then there is this almost deification of Ali by sometimes giving him more importance and emphasis than Muhammed and even Allah himself.

Fatima his wife is treated exactly like the virgin Marry in Catholic pop piety which is practically like a goddess! Ali and his children, i,e, the Imams are consider to be completely sinless as well as Fatima the daughter of Muhammed and Muhammed himself! The Twelver Shias call them The Fourteen Maasoom (sinless ones)!!

All of this has ZERO Quranic support and ZERO support from history and Hadith. But Shias are emotionally attached to their Imam's or as they call them Ahl-ul Bait (the household of Muhammed) and no facts and historical, Quranic and theological constrains can come between them and their cherished beliefs!!

As bad as Sunni Islam is Shia Islam is even worse and what disgusts me the most is that Shias in the west take advantage of the ignorance of the Westerners about their beliefs and often in this kind of debates they try to claim the moral high ground and pretend that all those criticisms that christians make about Islam only apply to Sunnis and they are completely beyond reproach! They try to pretend that their Islam is not as bad as Sunni Islam! But let me tell you that all the vast majority of the criticisms against the Sunnis apply to them as well and even there are lots of strong criticisms that can be made ONLY to Shia Islam which cannot be made to Sunnis! So don't let them fool you!

The Purple Marquise said...

@andybell: You wrote: "Although, I do have to say that shiites are not as caffeinated as the crazy sunnis."

You really think so? Then I invite you to go to places like any town in the province of Azebaijan in North West of Iran during the first ten days of the month of Muharram which is the time when the Shias commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussain!

When you see how people stab their own heads and the heads of their own little kids with machete and beat their chest and flagellate their backs to the point that it starts to bleed and when you see how the mobs of mourners beat their heads and whip themselves into a total frenzy and cry hysterically and even faint in the middle of all this messy ceremony, maybe you will change your mind!

I believe that Shias are in no way more peaceful! They are literally psychos! Of course not the nominal ones like my family who never participated in these crazy and abominable ceremonies and always shunned them. But I mean the ones that are true believers are really dangerous people! They also have this crazy Mahdi doctrine which is their 12th Imam and supposedly is hidden in the bottom of a well in a place called Jamkaran in central Iran in the province of Qom of all places and is supposed to come in the end times when things get really bad to set everything straight and fill the world with justice!!!!!

His devotees like the current usurper president of Iran, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, are really really dangerous maniacs who want to occasion chaos in this world for the Mahdi to come out of the well as soon as possible! TOTALLY NUTS!!!

uniquenz said...

John 1:1 is completely irrelevant to the discussion of Mohammad anyway.

D335 said...

Aaaah!

2 SAMS! 2 people ASKED OF GOD!

however to Mr. Samuel Green, yes we understand what you mean.
There is no big point of gaining victory by blasting every points he made, ... rather show directly why it is Jesus the way of the salvation!

If you had wasted the time of debate on taking out ALL his debate points, you could gain victory in debate, ... but what's that means to the muslims? They will thought that they had an amateur representative only.

So yes, continue your effort! we support you!

D335

Baron Eddie said...

Mustafa mentioned 4 conditions must be met for hadith to be valuable (must be known person/must be just) ...

He gave an example of "Inas" as a single name and rejected his testimony ...

Does Islam accept the testimony of non-Muslims (Priest Bahayra)?

Did Mustafa check if priest Bahayra is just?

What is the full name of Priest Bahayra?

Bahayra is a single name also!

Does anybody know his full name?

Who said that by looking at a man's shoulder or back could tell he is a prophet!

why did Baharya think that every tree was bowing to him (Mohammed)?

Maybe the trees were doing aerobics or it was a windy day ...

I think it is absurd to quote the Bible left and right with his interpretations ...

Iconodule said...

At many times I wanted to respond to the muslim but also to you Samuel. Icons are not idols, nor in the old testament is there a command to forbid images wholesale, otherwise God would be contradicting himself in odering the imagess of the snake staff of Moses and the ark of the covenant, and let us not forget the greatest image (icon) of all, Jesus Christ. The image of the invisible God made manifest.

But the muslim certaintly had alot wrong and to take blessing from any inanimate object is definetely something which should raise red flags for anyone.

aaron said...

@samauel green

would be great if you did it during islamic awareness week down at maquarie univeristy. i got into a discussion with a bunch of muslim women. they tried to use the gospel of barnabas at me but reseach indicae falsehood.

I used my most common historical evidence of the empty tomb which debunks their explanation of a substitute for christ.

explaining trinity was much more harder though. they can;t seem to understand it.

donna60 said...

I'm off work tonight, so I am excited about watching this. I'm going to finish my chores; pop some popcorn and dig in to it. I love Samuel Green, because he presents the gospel exactly like a loving father or uncle tells these exciting stories. I find myself breathlessly listening for the next word, as though I had never heard it before.

Rocky2 said...

Is Islam the Antichrist?

Islam, part of the Living River of History, can affect even the 2012 US election!
The "headwaters" of this River was Adam, according to Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc .
In the OT (Deut. 28), "tributaries" wanting to join the River will be blessed while "distributaries" who want to flow away from it will be cursed. Those wishing to totally separate from the fresh Living River will end up as polluted, dying "oxbow lakes."
In the OT we see Israelites repeatedly flowing away from God, then repenting and returning to Him; we also see heathen "oxbow lakes" creating their own "gods" and being allowed by God to plunder and kill the erring Israelites.
Then, at the right time, the Living River took on new life with the arrival of the Promised One who offers "living water."
In the 7th century Islam, drawing from both OT and NT, chose to be a distributary away from this River. Many scholars have viewed it as the final Antichrist: note "scourge" (Isa. 28), "Assyrian" (Mic. 5), "Euphrates" (Rev. 9) etc.
God will allow this "scourge" to temporarily persecute and even kill apostate Jews (JINOs) and Christians (CINOs). Jews, especially in "entertainment," seem more expert in apostasy than Christians since Jews have been at it 2000 years longer than Christians have - but Christians apparently want to catch up to the Jews!
It's apparent that others will join Islam in its end-time inquisition; its great oil wealth can captivate many leaders and already we are seeing apostate American leaders being bribed into turning against true American patriots.
Those who ignore the God-ordained Living River of History or, much worse, try to destroy or dilute it will be swept down it to an ocean made by their own never-ending tears of agony and despair!

(Answering: Saw this on the net!)