Monday, August 27, 2012

Who is God? A University Forum

Sheikh Wesam Charkawi and Samuel Green - 14th August 2012.


gabriella oak said...

Thanks for posting the vid.

Even among the least appealing Islamic apologists, there often exists a common trait which I find faintly endearing in its naivety, and this chap is no exception.

" But we LOVE Jesus peace be upon him !! We think he's GREAT !! Jesus is one of our top 5 prophets !!! " (I've never heard this 'top 5' comment before, lol. ).

As though this endorsement in their Holy Hit Parade should/must make Christians more amenable to Islamic beliefs. And I think a fair few Muslims in the west genuinely feel hurt that Christians reject Mohammad out of hand, whilst Muslims themselves acknowledge and even revere biblical prophets. You can almost hear them thinking: " but that's like SO unfair you guys! "

Sam said...

Samuel, I saw that you listed Daniel 7:13-14, 10:6 and Ezekiel 1 as examples of God making us in his image. However, these texts are about God appearing in human likeness. Now unless you believe that God has a physical body which resembles that of mankind, I don't see how these prove your case, especially when you try to basically argue that being in God's image really means reflecting his moral qualities, i.e. your citation of Leviticus 19:1. Moreover, Psalm 8 says nothing about being in God's image, and John 14:8-9 and Colossians 1:15 refer to Christ being the perfect expression of the Father by virtue of being truly God in essence.

Sam said...

I think the following NT texts better serve your purpose: 1 Corinthians 11:7-8; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10; James 3:9.

Sam said...

This Muslim speaker is either ignorant or knows more than his own prophet and scripture. The Quran nowhere says that Allah becoming a man or taking a son his beyond him, and therefore he would never desire or will such a thing. This statement contradicts the Quran's plain statements that Allah has power over all things (cf. 22:6; 46:33; 64:1-4; 65:12; 67:1-5). It further contradicts Q. 39:4 which says that Allah could take a son from his creation if he so desired. This shows that the only reason why Allah doesn't have a son is not because it is beyond him, but because he simply doesn't want to. It even conflicts with Q. 19:16-19 which has Allah's own Spirit appearing as a perfect man. Now if Allah's personal Spirit is able to appear as a perfect human why couldn't Allah do so? In fact, if it wasn't beneath the dignity of Allah's Spirit to do such why then should it be beneath the dignity and majesty of the Muslim deity? Finally, the ironic thing about what this Muslim said is that the Quran itself says that Allah actually appeared and entered into a tree in order to talk to Moses! See Q. 20:10-13, 27:7-9, and 28:29-30 for the proof.

Sam said...

Samuel, I just saw you used the same text to prove that Allah could have taken a son if he had chosen to do so. The response by the Muslim was basically desperate to say the least.

southwood said...

Interesting debate but I really find the NIV quite inferior to the KJV both in accuracy and majesty of language. For example, as quoted in the debate (around the 24 minute mark ), Psalm 2, 7 in the NIV stated "today I have become your father". In the KJV it is: this day have I begotten thee". The meaning is quite different. To become a father could imply adoption whereas to beget means to sire. Yes, the old KJV is still the best version.

aaron said...

i really need to work on my oratory skill and presentation skill never spoke in front of so many people

Radical Moderate said...

The Muslim quotes the Quran and says "Allah would not take to himself a son" interesting since thats not what Christians believe when refer to the Son of God.

Radical Moderate said...

Samuel Green

Great job in the Q and A.

The meaning and composition of the Quran are the eternal word of God, but not the letters.

So then the meaning and composition of the Quran and its composition are not in the created letters written on the created page?

Tom said...

muslim regularly use this analogy: so we can just call somebody up and put our sins on him! (something along that line)
Is that person:
1) sinless,
2) willingly step forward to undertake that task and bear all the consequences
Than there is the question of his purpose.

The classic muslim agrument
" Listen ,Listen you must read the Arabic"...what crap... and they say islam is universal.... this guy gets personal when he is caught out.. on the deception of allah about the ressurection...
Use your brain sheik because your allah did not clarify about the 'apparent' mumbo jumbo and we had no idea whatsoever how it took place or any inkling whatsoever that he will pull Jesus off the cross & because of that a Whole new line of believers evolved... use your brain sheik...your allah is supposely all knowing... did he not foresee the future? Why did he wait for christianity to take root before in deciding to clarify?
so allah 'created' the koran b4 or after Christ?
Hey, was the whipping & torture of Jesus Christ also another christian fabrication, did your allah also pull Him away from that situation?

this sheik is disrespectful & brash

simple_truth said...

My speculation is that Sheikh Charkawi used the negative approach to increase his chances of a successful discussion that would help him look convincing to his audience instead of trying to defend the positive. I have to believe that he knew how difficult it would be to take the affirmative because there isn't really much to say that would be as convincing as I feel Samuel was. Samuel actually had more substance, although Charkawi's questions helped him to close the gap a bit.

The main problem that I see with Charkawi's questions is that they really needed a fair amount of time to be answered in a way that would make the Christian perspective more explicit to the Muslim. Muslims have too much Islamic baggage to often hindering them from being able to understand.

I also don't feel that Charkawi answered Samuel's questions adequately. I wish that there was time to press him with follow-up questions so that he could no longer repeat his position but would have to actually explain his position in more detail.

I also noticed that Samuel didn't use the 'God-man' argument in defending Jesus as God. He didn't attempt to separate Jesus' acts of humanity from those of His divinity. I believe that approach could have helped him in explaining things a bit better; but, it would have need more time to explain to the Muslim portion of the audience, IMO.

Thank you, Samuel, for your stance for Christ. May God continue to use and bless you, and may you continue to serve his cause.

TPaul said...

Good work Samuel, I always like watching your debates with Muslim. I particularly liked the point where you told Wessam that " Muslims are to immitate the example of Mohammed, whereas Christians are to immitate God himself.
It is such a strong point wherein even Muslims (even though they do not like to admit it) know that Mohammed was less than a perfect humanbeing and his life was riddled with many atrocities.
How then does an eternal God see fit that every man emulate his life as that of the prophet of Islam, not even considering the femenine half of humanity, which are equated to property in Islam.

Keep up the good work.

Toll said...

Good debate.

Interesting to see the Muslim making a distinction between the meaning and the words of the Quran to claim, as I understand, that only the meaning was eternal but not the words used to express them. As if the words were just a packaging for the meaning.

He seemed to be under the false impression that the essence of the Son underwent a change through the incarnation.

Did he also believe in adoptionism? He used the expression "God taking a son". This again is not orthodox belief.

He brought up the oft quoted "The Father is greater than I". Sam Shamoun hss a good article explaining the interpretation of this verse on AI. Jesus is referring to his state of humiliation while on earth as compared to the state of exaltation of the Father in heaven.

goethechosemercy said...

Muslims love Jesus just as long as his followers keep their mouths shut about this "Son of God" thing.
They love Jesus conditionally.
And they despise his followers, his churches, and his words.

goethechosemercy said...

Muslims are fine with Jesus, just as long as his followers keep their mouths shut about the "Son of God" idea.
There is no unconditional love in Islam.
Nor is there any salvation in Islam.
I have a Savior.

goethechosemercy said...

Interesting to see the Muslim making a distinction between the meaning and the words of the Quran to claim, as I understand, that only the meaning was eternal but not the words used to express them.

That's why Islam and post-modernism are so compatible.

aaron said...

I Asked the last question all i got was not a very good explanation in the end. the run and hide with it can only be understood in arabic.

Samuel Green said...

Thanks for the comments. It was not a debate but a forum which made it a different dynamic. It was also in the open area next to the eating area of the university which was quite loud.

@Sam The references I have on the chart are not all about God making us in his image but about the doctrine of the image of God in general. It seems to me that this concept is used in a variety of ways throughout scripture. Thus Col. 1:15 calls Jesus the image of God but assigns to him the non-communicable attributes.

Psalm 8 may not use the word image but it is not all about the glory of humanity as the image of God? It is a psalm based on Genesis 1.

Thanks for the other references I will include them in my table which I am always updating.

Cristo Te Ama said...

Brother Samuel you do a really good job, i also like your style, God Bless you!!

-About the Father greater than i, i think he can't understand the Bible, i.e Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross!

Or John chapter 1 when he explains that The eternal light take the form of a human... meaning, lowering his nature, yet his essence is the eternal "Word", as when Jesus say John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

- I always wonder, when will we see a debate when the Muslim side will represent accurately our beliefs, i know it's really hard for them since even their god doesn't know what we believe and missrepresent us in the Quran, but at least they could try to be honest and give a chance at least 1.... but i think they are afraid that their faith might become weaker...

Leo said...

I liked the question of that Asian dude at the end. The sheikh tried to laugh the question away, and pretending to be deaf. Basically he didn´t answer the question.

I think your overal presentation was very nice Samuel. But you were really focusing on that ´in his image thing´.

And in the question and answer time, it seemed to me you were making things more complex then they actually are. Although I know it is sometimes dificult to explain christian theology.

For example the passage ´for not even the Son knows of this hour´. Jesus was known as ´the Son´ so he was just (I think) referencing to himself, nothing more. He could have said 'for not even I know of this hour' but the people knew him as the Son.

And 'the Father is greater then me' well when I was a kid my biological father also was greater then me in knowledge and authority. But not in essence, my biological father and me are in essence the same.

Anyways I enjoyed watching the debate.

Skýwæłker»» said...

I wonder how come they know about GOD by reading some books ! How mindless & ignorant this debate is ? Can any one define undefined ! But the only thing is to analyse ethical philosophic way about existence of GOD,up to maximum limits of human mind.

Philosophy is not way towards GOD, its about Trust about existence of GOD.

A journey from Ignorance->Knowledge-> Wisdom, Only wisdom can show the way towards GOD.

In west, Socrates gained Knowledge, n Jesus Possess Wisdom, a love Towards GOD.In any religion they speak about Trust n Love towards GOD, But which religion teaches you how to Trust n Love GOD is question ?
Good n Bad are nothing but two different ways to reach GOD.

Art, Science & Religion are nothing but three different ways of expressing single Truth.

aaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jose Joseph said...

Q. 39:4 Allah could take a son from his creation if he so desired. And Q 6:101 says Allah doesn't have a son because he doesn't have a companion

In light of both these quranic passages it is obvious that Allah is a being that is capable of procreating through sexual union.

In order for Allah to fulfill any future desires of having a son he must have a companion to produce that child. And it's a necessity for Allah to have a companion to accomplish that desire.

An objection could be, why assume sexual union? Even if I granted that it possibly isn't the case of sexual union between Allah and the companion.

There is still theological problems because that means Allah is a contingent being depending on a creature to produce for himself a child.

Secondly since some how, some way the companion helps Allah accomplish this desire that would make that companion co creator along side with Allah which Islam claims is shirk. Christtheway24

Jose Joseph said...

Just adding on to my previous post, notice this Quranic passage Surah 43: 81
Say [O Prophet]: "If the Most Gracious [truly] had a son, I would be the first to worship him!"

Muhammad would worship Allah's son if he had a son. And the result of that son coming to existence was through an act of Allah and his companion being co creators which is shirk

And the child would have to be a creature since Allah's son at one point of time didn't exist. Therefore since Muhmmad would be the first to worship that child that would mean Muhmmad would be committing shirk by worship of a created being.

Ironically Muslims find it problematic for Christians to worship Jesus since he is the eternal Son of Father but find no issue that Muhmmad worship a son produced by Allah and his companion which happens to be a creature.

aaron said...

THe asian dude was me :P

jonnykzj said...

@bros Leo and Aaron

We all know that no analogy can perfectly represent the trinity. However a more accurate and easily understandable analogy of the Father and Son relationship in the Divine Being wld be like the BRAIN AND HEART IN OUR BODY. We do not perfectly share the same essence of our bilogical fathers since 1) there are always small genetic changes with every new born and 2) we also inherit half genes from our mothers. YET ANOTHER more complex analogy of the Trinity would be like a CELL DIVIDING coz here the second cell is ALMOST an exact copy of the first, sharing almost the same essence. LAST BUT NOT LEAST I ALSO prefer the classical example of the Church fathers i.e. the SUN AND IT'S RAYS, which r both distinct yet one cannot exist without the other and the rays represent an almost exact image of the sun.

rowland said...

Muslims worship Mohammed whether they like to admit it or not. One of the 99 names of Allah is Al-Mahmud.
Muslims say " jesus is a prophet and we respect him". While they say " mohammed is the greatest of all the prophets" therby relegating our lord and saviour. This is an ABOMINATION. My Bible tells me "
1 John 4:1-3
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already. Mohammed is a false prophet. No prophet ever bragged or boasted but Mohammed said

Sahih Bukhari 1:7:331
Narrated by Jabin bin Abdullah
The prophet(pbuh) said " I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by Awe ( by his frightening my enemies ) for a distance of one months journey.
2. The earth has been made for me ( and for my followers ) a place for praying and a thing for Tayammum. Therefore any of my followers can pray wherever the time of prayer is due
3. The booty has been made Halal ( lawful ) for me, Yet it was not made lawful for anyone else before me
4. I have been given the right of intercession on the day of Resurrection
5. Every prophet used to be sent to his Nation only but I have been sent to all of mankind

Samuel Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aaron said...

IF God become man is a deficiency then he is not a very smart architect so he himself created a imperfect well and not the devil messing up his perfect world. Not that is bad for theology

Naren said...

Bro. Samuel Green,

Your debate with Imran got over ages back... when are you going to upload it online?

In Christ


Seam_on_Us said...

I would like to thank Mr. Green for his courage, hard work, and perseverance in defending the Faith. May the Lord guard and guide you continously.

What I have realised is that it has become desperately imperative for Christians to once and for all refute and reject the claim made by the Quran that we worship the same deity as Muslims.

Once and for all! Otherwise we could never truly have a substantive argument against the lies piled high in the Quran concerning other topics. It starts with disproving that our God and Father, Yahweh, is the same as Allah. Indeed, accomplishing this would deal a resounding blow to Islam as there would be undeniable proof that the Quran harbors a blatant lie.

Such a task would require a lot of work but if anyone is interested I would gladly offer any assistance I can. I already have seven points drafted and will keep adding to that number by God's Good Grace. The world should know that the God of the Bible is in no way the same being as Allah.

God Bless.

Samuel Green said...


My debate with Br. Imram is coming. I had trouble with my video recording and have to wait for the Muslim recording to be available.

Naren said...

Dear Bro.Samuel,

Thank you for your kind response.

Its really sad that you had trouble with your video recording... with the surplus of petro dollars, Imran & Co don't really face those issues.

I suggest you to please try and get a raw copy since these guys have the reputation of "editing" and creating "Highlights" of their copies... finally Taqiyya and Kitman were allowed by their suicidal prophet.

In Christ


aaron said...

Mmmmm wondering If I should challenge Muslims at week 9 on the God being deficient bit if he becomes human

aaron said...

wow further discussion with the sheikh is pointless he goes accusing me of twisting his words when i bought up that he condemn the standards he created humans to.