Thursday, November 29, 2012

Zakir Hussain vs. David Wood: Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and the Covenant

I think Zakir Hussain is going to be a popular debater. He's only started debating recently, but he's got three essential requirements for debate: (1) he's a confident communicator, (2) he studies his material, and (3) he doesn't panic when arguments are thrown at him. He'll obviously develop his abilities further as he builds on his experience.

In this debate, we discuss God's covenant with Abraham and the role of Ishmael in God's promises to Abraham.

21 comments:

Zack_Tiang said...

On a different matter...
Hey! you're in the news.

"A federal judge has ruled that Christian evangelists who were arrested at a Dearborn, Mich., festival sponsored by the Arab Chamber of Commerce can sue the business organization."
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/judge-christian-evangelists-can-sue-muslims/

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Been there, done that.

Done exactly that, in that same library theatre, on that very same side of the scene.

Good job David!

Radical Moderate said...

Is it just me or does this Muslim like to put square pegs in round holes and then say "See it fits"

In his opening statement he first quotes two verses out of order.

His first "Proof Text" he uses is Gen 17:20 that Ishmael will become a great nation.

Then he goes back to Gen 17:18 where Abraham says "If only Ishmael will live before you". This means that Ishmael and his decedents will live before God spirituality?

Well all I can say is that verse 18 comes before verse 20 and verse 19 which he does not quote comes after verse 18 and before verse 20.

In verse 18 Abraham says "If only Ishmael will live before you"
God answers in verse 19 a verse that Mr Hussain failed to quote.

"NO"

God answers "NO"

So much for proof texts 1 and 2.

For proof text number 3 he goes to Deut 33 Final Blessing on Israel, specifically the blessing to Ruben.

"“The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned from Seir upon us;[a]
he shone forth from Mount Paran;
he came from the ten thousands of holy ones,
with flaming fire[b] at his right hand.
3 Yes, he loved his people,[c]
all his holy ones were in his[d] hand;
so they followed[e] in your steps,
receiving direction from you,
4 when Moses commanded us a law,
as a possession for the assembly of Jacob.
5 Thus the Lord[f] became king in Jeshurun,
when the heads of the people were gathered,
all the tribes of Israel together.
6 “Let Reuben live, and not die,
but let his men be few.”"

He claims that Mt Paran refers to Mecca (a common unsupported claim based on total nonsensical speculation) and that the one who comes with the ten thousand holy ones and flaming fire in his right hand is in fact a prophesy about Mohamed who conquered Mecca with an army of ten thousand and brought the Quran as law.

The verse in its context is not a prophesy it is referring to what God had done thus far with the Israelite's and Mosses.

It is YHWH who came from Sinai, and shown from Mount Paran (which is another name for Mt Sinai). It is YHWH who came from ten thousand of the Holy ones with flaming fire in his right hand(Verse 2)

So much for Proof Text No 3.

His remaning "Proof Texts" are just more of the same absurd assertions that Becca is Mecca etc...

Zakir I'm sure this was a success to other Muslims but your performance to Christians is a epic failure.

Zakir you said a number of times "Connect to dots" well sir you have no dots to connect.

It's sad really that to defend your belief you have to come up with the nonsensical incoherent ramblings that you have come up with.

Radical Moderate said...

Zakir you accuse christians of corrupting Gods word. The sad fact is we do not have to, because Muslims like you who corrupt the bible for us.

At 50:28 you interpret a hebrew word 'et' in Gen 17:21 as "together". you then use this interpretation to say that Gen 17:19 to say "YES" instead of "NO"

Michael said...

Great job David!

I'd like to point out what Zakir failed to think about. It has to do with the Prophet Jeremiah 31:31.

The days are coming,” declares the Lord,“when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Obviously Jesus initiates the sign of the NEW covenant... that is for EVERYONE, not only the Israelites. Thus to David's point... it's all about the big picture of the narrative thread of God's salvation for mankind.

Hazakim1 said...

Wow....and I thought the other one was a "body"...Zakir's proverial bodybag got bodybagged.

Selecta Mark said...

Yo David, great to see you in Birmingham last night bro. I love your style and delivery. It's a shame you didn't arrive to a full house but no doubt the next one will have a longer promotional time frame. May The Lord continue to anoint and use you for his glory. Blessings also to your dear wife and children.

Nakdimon said...

Man! A lot of gems there by zakir. This demands an analysis of his arguments, especially on the application of the Hebrew of the Tanach.

Overall... Well done David.

Jamal Hassan said...

Islam teaches not to interact with people of other faiths except in best way possible. Real Muslim scholars understand that. It would be awesome if one of these scholars would debate you guys. I'm not even talking about masters of Islamic sciences like Abdallah bin Bayyah (he speaks arabic anyways), but people like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir. I guess people like them do not like debates. They are higher than that. Like wheen Ahmed Deedat challenged the Pope, I think the Pope was spiritual and at a high level internally, above debates and things of the nature.

Hazakim1 said...

David,

I noticed Zakir used a lot of Jewish anti-missionary arguements (Jesus not a physical descendant of David, blood atonement, etc). I would strongly recommend Dr. Michael Brown's "Real Kosher Jesus" and his "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" series. Also, check out his 1991 debate with Rabbi Tovia Singer and his other debates from his Real Messiah website.

When we show that the death, resurrection and deity of Jesus are firmly rooted in the Tanach, a lot of the opposition to these truths are blown away. THANK YOU DAVID for appealing to Tanach and Torah the way you did. I do believe, however, that the aforementioned resources would simply add to your arsenal.

BTW, you clearly won, to the glory of God. You graciously smashed Zakir. May he come out of the darkness of Islam and into the glorious light and love of Messiah! So be it. Shalom

Tony

SD17 said...

Seriously David how did you come to the conclusion that this guy is an up and coming debater, his points are poor, easily refuted and laughable, I mean this guy is ignoring history stating all the lands are no jewish land but Arab lands.......he also accuses Christians about taking verses out of context or harmonizing them to fit a Christian theme or theology (Sami did that in your other video) when he did they very same thing when he picked and choose verses from the bible and harmonized them to prove an Islamic perspective, but it somehow that is okay from their perspective.....double standards at its very best!
I wished you had the time to respond to his question about how Jesus can the seed of Abraham since he did not have a father....biblically what answer would you give?, I'd think the 2 genealogies in Mathew and Luke, if i am right then I would have have asked him this follow up question:
how does Islam/Muslims deal with that same question given they also believe that Jesus was born without a father, would they consider Jesus to be the seed of Abraham, and if yes then through whom and if no then who is he the seed off?? It's sad to see Muslims apologist debate points without any substance and any scholarly approach, I think they just do it for bragging rights that they debated a Christian and oh look how we defeated them, Ahmed deedat was the pioneer with this kind of approach.

Lastly I was shocked during the Q&A when the one person asked about some Jewish law or tradition about 10 generations of genealogies and referencing Jesus as a "bastard" ( God forgive me for repeating it), If you would have done the same about mohammed the room would have sighed and been all in shock, and probably relay the news to those crazy Islamist who would have come for your head.......

Fifth Monarchy Man said...


This was a great debate. Zakir is to be praised for his effort to understand the topic.

I would also hope to see more debates on the covenant. It is the very core of the reason Islam will never be accepted by the people of the book. I was looking forward to this event and it did not disappoint. Perhaps there is a Muslim here who would like to discuss

If I had the chance I would offer Zakir a piece of advice. Slow down and focus on a few points at a time. A scattergun approach makes it seem as if you are not confident in your total position.

His method seems to be to throw out 100 things and when his opponent only has time to refute 95 claim victory.

Meanwhile the viewer assumes that if your opponent can refute 95 points in such a short time all your points must be equally as weak.

David good job as usual. It is impressive that you can understand the Muslim sources so well and still have such a grasp of biblical theology.

as far as how Jesus can the seed of Abraham since he did not have a father. It only shows that Zakir has the same mindset as the Jews in the time of John the Baptist thinking that God covenant is constrained by the phyisical line of Abraham.

So I would have used John's responce that God could raise up Children for Abraham from the rocks if he wanted to.

It would be a short and sweet responce but when you have to answer a scattergun short and sweet is all you have time for

Peace


Peace

minoria said...

Guys,

Zakir was incorrect about Hebrews 11:17 which says "Isaac was the only-begotten(monogenes) son of Abraham".

He took it literally but:

1.Hebrews is in Greek.

2.In Greek monogenes means a biological son and is ALSO an expression meaning UNIQUE,SPECIAL.

3.Jesus in the Greek text is called the MONOGENES son of God(literally only begotten) but all scholars knows it means special son of God.

The author of Hebrews certainly meant it in the metaphorical way.

Hazakim1 said...

The two geneologies and questions about how Jesus can be the seed of Abraham/Seed of David is easily answered in the Mosaic Law (regarding inheritances)....again I encourage you to check out Dr Michael Brown's Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series.

Another thing: The muslims often speak of the Old Testatment as if it is "Jewish Scripture" and the NT as a distinct "Christian Scripture" - thus they accuse Christians of "using Jewish Scripture" the way they (muslims) use Christian Scripture (as outsiders). They need to be reminded that the Disciples of Jesus were Jews, building on the Hebrew Scriptures as Jews - not as proponenets of a new & foreign religion but as proclaimers of the coming of Israel's Messiah and the fulfillment of Jewish Scripture. Therefore it wasnt "outsiders" using someone else's Scripture but Jews appealing to their OWN Scripture to reveal the Messiah. Furthermore, the birth, ministry, death & resurrection of Jesus were Jewish concepts found in the Tanach. This is why the disciples, and the disciples of the disciples (us) can appeal to the Tanach....our Sciptures ARE the Tanach. And we dont claim them to be corrupt the way muslims claim ours is corrupt. So they have no right to use ours.

Hazakim1 said...

Another thing: The Messiah is the Son of David but in the Psalm David calls Messiah "Master/Lord". Thus, the Messiah is not limited to a "Son of David" status but a "Greater than David" status. He is both the offspring AND THE ROOT of Jesse (David's Father), so questions regarding whether or not his paternal ancestry can be linked to David is a silly question....He is David's Lord!!!

Jesus is Lord said...

@SD17 You're right about the Muslim when he asked a question refering Jesus as a "B" word! If you dare say something againt Mr. Muhammad, you might end up headless without finishing your sentence: "Muhammad is just a bast..slip". The debate was fun to listen to as a Christian because someone really really got to be "lost & confused" if he thinks that Zakir won! His logic is poor, he's not coherent in his answers which means that he is not being clear and consistent. Many Many times, Zakir Hussain was being deceptive by taking bible verses out of context, well most of the time, the Torah, in order to satisfy his claim that David proved to be wrong without any doubt. At times, you could see Zakir demeanor changed, I call that the "Truth effect". I admit that it must be a very hard task for Muslims to take a book being full of violence, discrimination, anti-semitism, fascism, irrationalities, inconsistencies, immoralities, sexism, etc; and presenting this book in our language in front of many intelligent person's who have already read it some many times and try to make them think the opposite of what their brain already analysed and understand has being very false and corrupted on thousands of reasons supported also by historical facts and evidences, scholars who studyied the subject deeply, modern forenscics, archeology, modern science and/or scientific evidence and our study proves that Islam is not a religion of peace but more militant. In pre-Islam, Allah was a pagan deity and he had three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat who the pagan followers worshipped. We also know that Muhammad delivered the satanic verses and tried to throw himself of a cliff, sadly it did't happened. We know that Muhammad is a False Prophet who died by eating a poison lamb served by his Jewish wife who wanted to know if he was a true prophet of God because a real prophet would of known before putting the deadly poison in his mouth but he did not so he died as conmsequences a short time after. The scientic claims in the Qur'an are not just totaly false but embarassing, dangerous and unscientific. If I was a Muslim, I would not even attempted to debate the Qur'an because in order to present the Qur'an as Peaceful, Devine and Sinless, I would have to lie and deceive the people. By being a Christian, we are are confident and know that our scriptures from the Torah to the New Testament, that it's all consistant with the Prophets talking about the coming of Christ, the covenant being made not with Ishmael and so on. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the father but by him. O Muslims, may the God(Yahweh) of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob open your eyes to the truth!

minoria said...

Hello,
The genealogy issue is answered here,Luke has MARY's genealogy and MATTHEW has JOSEPH's.It is based on an argument by JAMES TABOR,a SKEPTIC,non-Christian.

"The Genealogy Issue:Is there a Contradiction between the Genealogy of Matthew and of Luke?


http://www.antisharia.com/2010/03/28/the-genealogy-issueis-there-a-contradiction-between-the-genealogy-of-matthew-and-of-luke/

AS FOR ABRAHAM'S SEED

Ok,Zakir said that descent is through the FATHER not the MOTHER because SEED has to be through the father.

Ok,but the HEBREW word ZARA(seed) is also used in a METHAPHORICAL way in the OT.So Jesus can,in a non-literal,not through the father,way be a "SEED of ABRAHAM".Here is the evidence of SEED being used in a METAPHORICAL way.

"Again on Isaiah 53 and about the use of the Word Zara(Seed)"

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/07/again-on-isaiah-53-and-about-the-use-of-the-word-zaraseed/

minoria said...

Guys,
I am not sure if David covered this detail but Zakir is wrong regarding the OT passage which he says states:

"10,000 saints" and says it refers to the 10,000 Muslim soldiers who conquered MECCA.

In the ORIGINAL HEBREW it is in the PLURAL,it is NOT 10,000 but "ten thousands(plural)".

SO?

So, the NUMBER is NOT 10,000 but AT LEAST 20,000 persons...or 30,000 or 40,0000,etc.No way can it refer to Muhammad.

minoria said...

Again about Zakir,

Ok,he said Hosea(about jacob wrestling with an angel.so it cant have been with God) and so there is a contradiction,it cant be about God.

The thing is the words "malakh(Hebrew)means MESSENGER.Not to confuse with melekh which means KING.

If you accept the Trinity then of course God the Son can be sent by God the Father as his messenger/malakh

minoria said...

I found this in answering-islam about Genesis 21:14 and if the Hebrew actually says Ishmael was placed on Hagar's shoulder.It appears not.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen21-14.html

Trinity325 said...

One question, Does anyone know how to refute Zakir on the subject of the Chumash, he uses that to try and show Muhammad to be in the Bible. Also, although Michael Brown has interesting material, I would advise caution because of the false prophecy in Jerusalem in 1987,