Islam's Deification of Muhammad: A Conversation with Sam Shamoun

Here is the recording of a recent Apologetics Academy webinar session with Sam Shamoun on Islam's Deification of Muhammad. Enjoy!

For information on upcoming sessions of the Apologetics Academy and on how you can participate, see the confirmed speaker lineup at this link.

Islam's Deification of Muhammad: Sam Shamoun to Teach This Saturday's Apologetics Academy

As readers of this blog will probably know, I run a weekly webinar series called the Apologetics Academy. Each week, I bring in a different specialist (representing positions across the theological and philosophical spectrum) to talk about topics of interest to Christians. There is always plenty of opportunity for audience participation and discussion. The idea is to provide Christians with the opportunity to interact one-on-one with a top scholar or apologist that they probably would otherwise never have access to. Bringing in non-Christian guests also provides a unique opportunity for Christians to practice their skills in defending the faith against some of the best objections. The currently confirmed speaker line-up can be found at this link.

Participants can engage the speaker using live audio and video, submit questions anonymously, participate in the chatbox, or simply watch and listen anonymously.

The meetings usually take place on Saturdays at 8pm GMT / 3pm Eastern / 2pm Central / 12noon Pacific.

This coming Saturday (June 11th), we are going to be in conversation with Sam Shamoun (of Answering-Islam.org) on Islam's deification of Muhammad. To help prepare, Sam recommends reading the materials available at this link.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/457736238

Doing so will immediately prompt you to download and install the Webinar platform we use, called Zoom. This should take at most a minute or two.

I hope to see plenty of you there! All are welcome, Muslim and Christian alike.

Messianic Prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures: A Conversation with Dr. Michael Brown at the Apologetics Academy

Here is the recording of the Webinar I hosted as part of my Apologetics Academy weekly webinar series, with Dr. Michael Brown on Messianic prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures -- also featuring Sam Shamoun and Yusuf Ismail! This session is very much worth watching. Enjoy!

Turning Tables on Muslim Objections to the Trinity: The Recording

On popular demand, I have started recording my Saturday "Advanced Apologetics" group for public consumption, and will from henceforth be uploading them to a dedicated YouTube Channel.

Here is this past Saturday's session, on "Turning tables on Muslim objections to the Trinity", with Sam Shamoun. Enjoy!

In this coming Saturday's session, we will be discussing the problem of evil with atheist Cory Markum (one of my former debate opponents). Click here for instructions on how you can join and participate in the conversation. 

Is Jesus a Prophet or is He also God? Sam Shamoun vs. Anjem Choudary

Here is a must-see debate that recently took place between Sam Shamoun and Anjem Choudary. In this debate Sam manages not only to demonstrate the deity of Christ and dismantle popular Muslim arguments against it; he even manages to educate Anjem on what the Qur’an teaches about the authority, preservation, and reliability of the Bible, and also helps Anjem see why it would not be a good idea for him to go to Iraq, at least while it is under the control of ISIS.

  

Sam Shamoun Responds to Abdullah Kunde: Part Three

I really wish that all Muslim debaters would spend a few semesters at the Sam Shamoun School of Religious Consistency. It would keep them from constantly attacking their own religion (without knowing it). Here's Sam's third reply to Abdullah Kunde:

**********************************************

Kunde stated:

“We also need to accept that it implies a limited God, a God that cannot hold the attributes of eternalness, being all-powerful, and also a unified God. Why? When we say that God is one in opposition to the Trinity, we don’t mean one in terms of the numerical one, that zero can come before it and two can come after it. We mean it in an absolute unity that is not describable in mathematical terms. And when we consider the Trinity, that actually applies a created aspect to God. You’re saying three; the number three in that two comes before it and four comes after it. There’s no way around this, it’s not a complex number. For those of you doing mathematics or science you’ll know it’s even been in the real number system, three. So you’re applying a created aspect to God, and there can absolutely be no such divine unity in that concept. Even if somebody came to you and said that God is one in the sense of the number one, that zero can come before it and two can come after it, that in itself is not even a proper unity, in terms of a godly unity. It’s very important to understand that point.” (Saviour of the World: Jesus or the Quran?)

Kunde keeps creating problems for his own theological views. If what says here is correct, we can only conclude that Muhammad was mistaken on several counts.

First, it is apparent that Muhammad defined Allah’s oneness numerically. This can be readily seen from the following Quranic verses:

O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. S. 4:171 Shakir

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. S. 5:73 Shakir

By contrasting Allah’s unity with the alleged belief of “Christians” who supposedly claimed that God is three and the third of three, it is apparent that Muhammad was thinking in terms of numerical oneness in that zero can come before it and two come after it.

Muhammad is reported to have also said that Allah is odd or single (witr) and actually likes odd and single numbers as a result of being an odd/single number himself:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah has ninety-nine Names, i.e., one hundred minus one, and whoever believes in their meanings and acts accordingly, will enter Paradise; and Allah is Witr (one) and loves 'the Witr' (i.e., odd numbers). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 419)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: There are ninety-nine names of Allah; he who commits them to memory would get into Paradise. Verily, Allah is Odd (He is one, and it is an odd number) and He loves odd numbers. And in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): "He who enumerated them." (Sahih Muslim, Book 035, Number 6475)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying: Verily, there are ninety-nine names for Allah, i.e. hundred excepting one. He who enumerates them would get into Paradise. And Hammam has made this addition on the authority of Abu Huraira who reported it from Allah's Apostle that he said: "He is Odd (one) and loves odd numbers." (Sahih Muslim, Book 035, Number 6476)

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: The Prophet said: Allah is single (witr) and loves what is single, so observe the witr, you who follow the Qur'an. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 8, Number 1411)

No one can doubt that Muhammad is clearly likening Allah’s unity to odd or single numbers, i.e. Allah is one, which is an odd and single number. He even says that this is the reason why the Muslim god likes odd or single numbers. Apparently, had Allah been two or ten then he would have liked even and double digit numbers instead.

This comparison to the numerical system again establishes that in Muhammad’s mind Allah is numerically one in the sense that zero can come before it and two come right after it.

Also notice how the preceding narratives from both al-Bukhari and Muslim refer to Allah having ninety-nine, or more specifically a hundred minus one, names (attributes, characteristics). Here is another narration which states the same thing:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Allah has ninety-nine names, i.e. one hundred MINUS ONE, and whoever knows them will go to Paradise." (Please see Hadith No. 419 Vol. 8). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 894)

Muhammad even believed that Allah divided his attribute of mercy into one hundred parts!

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, Verily Allah created Mercy. The day He created it, He made it into one hundred parts. He withheld with Him ninety-nine parts, and sent its one part to all His creatures. Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 476)

It is once again evident that Muhammad was thinking in terms of the actual numerical system. There is simply no way of denying this fact. Muhammad obviously believed that Allah’s attributes could be numbered since he listed them as ninety-nine, and that these could be further divided much like in the case of mercy which Allah broke down into one hundred parts.

Thus, Muhammad actually thought that Allah’s attributes are numerically ninety-nine in the sense that ninety-eight can come before it and one hundred can come right after it. Since this is what Muhammad clearly believed, we must conclude that, according to Kunde’s logic, there must be a created aspect to the Islamic deity, for he is a being composed of real numerical limitations. As such, Allah is neither eternal nor is he omnipotent.

The final problem with Kunde’s assertion is that if Allah is not a numerical one, but a UNIFIED one as he claims, then Kunde no longer has any grounds to object to the possibility of God existing as three distinct divine Persons. After all, if God’s unified nature can be composed of a plurality of names and attributes then surely God can exist as three Divine Persons who are unified in a single essence or being. In fact, on Kunde’s view Allah can actually be an infinite number of Persons since his oneness is not constricted to or confined within a numerical system such as we find in the case of a numerical oneness.

Hence, instead of refuting the Trinity, Kunde actually provides a strong reason why God's unity in no way undermines or rules out the Biblical teaching that God exists as three eternally distinct divine Persons. Kunde's argument actually affirms that it is quite consistent with the belief in God being a unified one as opposed to a numerical one.

Sam Shamoun Responds to Abdullah Kunde . . . Again

As I noted in a previous post, Abdullah Kunde is making the classic Muslim Debater's Blunder. He's tossing criticisms at Christianity without considering whether those criticisms would also apply to Islam. Sam Shamoun draws attention to yet another inconsistency on Abdullah's part. What follows is from Sam.

****************************************************

Kunde claimed that Christ’s sacrifice is illogical:

“Why do I say these things? Well, as I said, first of all the method of salvation is illogical, absolutely illogical. How’s it logical that somebody should be punished for something that, a) they didn’t do, because we assume that God wasn’t part of the whole original sin thing with Adam; that b) I should be punished for something I didn’t do because I didn’t eat in the garden. And that c) it’s the punishment of an individual who didn’t even commit the sin at all, who created the system in the first place and that sets it all back in motion. If you are kind of lost in what I am saying there it’s because it doesn’t make sense.”

By using such argumentation Kunde ends up once again condemning his own god and prophet. Unlike Kunde, Muhammad had no problem with people being punished for the sins of others since he taught that Adam’s transgression led to all of mankind being expelled from the garden:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father WHO DISAPPOINTED US AND TURNED US OUT OF PARADISE.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action WHICH ALLAH HAD WRITTEN IN MY FATE forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet added, repeating the Statement three times. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611)

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira and Hudhaifa that the Messenger of Allah said: Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, would gather people. The believers would stand till the Paradise would be brought near them. They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open for us the Paradise. He would say: What turned you out from the Paradise WAS THE SIN OF YOUR FATHER ADAM. I am not in a position to do that; ... (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0380)

Kunde’s prophet also blamed Eve for wives rebelling against their husbands, and even blamed the Jews for food becoming stale and meat decaying!

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not FOR EVE, no woman would ever betray her husband." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 611)

Hammam b. Munabbih said: These are some of the ahadith which Abu Huraira narrated to us from Allah's Messenger, and one of these (this one): Allah's Messenger said: Had it not been for Bani Isra'il, food would not have become stale, and meal would not have gone bad; and had it not been FOR Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully toward her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3472)

But that’s not at all. Muhammad further claimed that the reason why human beings do not walk around naked, but instead cover themselves, is because of the shame which the sin of Adam and Eve brought upon mankind:

And (We said): O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden; so eat from where you O Adam, inherit, thou and thy wife, the Garden, and eat of where you will, but come not nigh this tree, lest you be of the evildoers.' Then Satan whispered to them, to reveal to them that which was hidden from them of their shameful parts. He said, 'Your Lord has only prohibited you from this tree lest you become angels, or lest you become immortals.' And he swore to them, 'Truly, I am for you a sincere adviser.' So he led them on by delusion; and when they tasted the tree, their shameful parts revealed to them, so they took to stitching upon themselves leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called to them, 'Did not I prohibit you from this tree, and say to you, "Verily Satan is for you a manifest foe"?' They said, 'Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if Thou dost not forgive us, and have mercy upon us, we shall surely be among the lost.' Said He, 'Get you down, each of you an enemy to each. In the earth a sojourn shall be yours, and enjoyment for a time.' Said He, 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from there you shall be brought forth.' Children of Adam! We have sent down on you a garment to cover your shameful parts, and feathers; and the garment of godfearing -- that is better; that is one of God's signs; haply they will remember. Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their garments to show them their shameful parts. Surely he sees you, he and his tribe, from where you see them not. We have made the Satans the friends of those who do not believe. S. 7:19-27 Arberry

Muhammad also taught that mankind forgets and makes mistakes because Adam forgot and made a mistake:

Commenting on this Ayah (7:172), At-Tirmidhi recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said…

((… So Adam denied that and HIS OFFSPRING FOLLOWED SUIT (denying Allah's covenant), Adam forgot and HIS OFFSPRING FORGOT, Adam made a mistake and HIS OFFSPRING MADE MISTAKES.))

At-Tirmidhi said, "This Hadith is Hasan Sahih, and it was reported from various chains of narration through Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet. Al-Hakim also recorded it in his Mustadrak, and said; Sahih according to the criteria of Muslim, and they did not record it."

These and similar Hadiths testify that Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored, brought forth Adam's offspring from his loins and separated between the inhabitants of Paradise and those of the Fire… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 7:172)

Muhammad even believed that Allah would punish Jews and Christians in hell for the sins committed by Muslims:

Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY

Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your RESCUE from Hell-Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6665)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit IN HIS STEAD a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6666)

Abu Burda reported Allah's Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with AS HEAVY SINS AS A MOUNTAIN, and Allah would FORGIVE THEM and He would PLACE IN THEIR STEAD the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah's Apostle? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6668)

Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians

8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

(This Hadith is sound and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20)

These hadiths shockingly testify that Allah is going to ransom Muslims from judgment by condemning Jews and Christians to hell in their place! According to Muhammad, Allah is going to actually place all the sins of the Muslims upon the Jews and Christians so as to punish them for the evil and wicked acts committed by Muhammad’s followers!

Thus, instead of the sinless Son of God ransoming men from eternal wrath by his death on the cross, Muhammad believed that Allah will actually accept the sacrifice of fallible, imperfect beings as an adequate substitute for the crimes committed by Muslims!

This further shows that Muhammad had no problem with Allah actually punishing people for their own personal sins as well as for the transgression of others. After all, the Jews and Christians are not only going to be sent to hell for the evil deeds of Muslims but also for their own sins, especially for the crime of rejecting Muhammad as a prophet and messenger.

In light of such teachings, Kunde is going to have to reject Muhammad and abandon Islam altogether if he is to remain honest and consistent.

Sam Shamoun Responds to Abdullah Kunde

Australian debater Abdullah Kunde is apparently making the same mistake virtually every Muslim debater makes: he's so focused on raising criticisms against Christianity, he fails to see how those same criticisms would, if accurate, refute Islam. Sam Shamoun draws attention to one such error on Abdullah's part (which Abdullah made in his recent debate with Samuel Green). What follows is Sam's reply.

***************************************************

Kunde's argument that God is not omnipotent because he is obligated to save all those who accept Jesus' sacrifice is not only an absurd claim, but it actually backfires against him.

The Quran says Allah has bound himself to give paradise as a reward to all those martyrs who murder people in the cause of their god:

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is BINDING ON HIM in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success. S. 9:111 Hilali-Khan

Also notice what Muhammad is reported to have said:

It is narrated on the authority of Mu'adh b. Jabal: I was riding behind the Prophet and there was nothing between him and me but the rear part of the saddle, when he said: Mu'adh b. Jabal: To which I replied: At your beck and call, and at your pleasure, Messenger of Allah! He moved along for a few minutes, when again he said: Mu'adh b. Jabal: To which I replied: At your beck and call, and at your pleasure, Messenger of Allah! He then again moved along for a few minutes and said: Mu'adh b. Jabal: To which I replied. At your beck and call, and at your pleasure. Messenger of Allah He, (the Holy Prophet) said: Do you know what right has Allah upon His servants? I said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily the right of Allah over His servants is that they should worship Him, not associating anything with Him. He (the Holy Prophet) with Mu'adh behind him, moved along for a few minutes and said: Mu'adh b. Jabal: To which I replied: At your beck and call, and at your pleasure, Messenger of Allah! He (the Holy Prophet) said: Do you know what rights have servants upon Allah in case they do it (i.e. they worship Allah without associating anything with Him)? I (Mu'adh b. Jabal) replied: Allah and His Messenger know best. (Upon this) he (the Holy Prophet) remarked: That He would not torment them (with the fire of Hell). (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 46)

It is narrated on the authority of Mu'adh b. Jabal that the Messenger of Allah said: Mu'adh, do you know the right of Allah over His bondsmen? He (Mu'adh) said: Allah and His Apostle know best. He said: That Allah alone should be worshipped and nothing should be associated with Him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What right have they (bondsmen) upon Him in case they do it? He (Mu'adh) said: Allah and His Apostle know best. He (the Holy Prophet) said: That He would not punish them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 48)

Here Muhammad says that Muslims have rights over Allah just as he has rights over them. The right that Muslims have over Allah is that he must save them from punishment if they believe that there is no god besides him.

This is the height of blasphemy since no creature can ever claim any rights over God so that God must or is forced to do something for that creature.

As the Apostle Paul put it, no one will ever be able to boast before God or make him a debtor on account of what they have done:

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments,and his paths beyond tracing out! 'Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?' 'Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?' For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." Romans 11:33-36

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Ephesians 2:8-10

Paul was merely echoing what the OT writers had known and affirmed:

"If you are righteous, what do you give to him? Or what does he receive from your hand?" Job 35:7

"Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine." Job 41:10b-11

This next hadith is even worse:

It is narrated on the authority of Mu'adh b. Jabal that he observed: I was riding behind the Messenger of Allah on an ass known as 'Ufair. He (Mu'adh) observed: He (the Holy Prophet) said: Mu'adh, do you know what right has Allah over His bondsmen and what right have His bondsmen over Him? Mu'adh added: I replied: Allah and his Messenger know best. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet remarked: The right of Allah over His bondsmen is that they should worship Allah and should not associate anything with Him, and the right of His bondsmen over Allah, Glorious and Sublime, is that He does not punish him who associates not anything with Him. He (Mu'adh) added: I said to the Messenger of Allah: Should I then give the tidings to the people? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Do not tell them this GOOD NEWS, for they would trust in it alone. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 47)

Not only do Muslims have rights over Allah, thereby making Allah impotent per Kunde's logic, this hadith also exposes Muhammad as a transgressor who willfully broke Allah's orders. For instance, the Quran tells Muhammad that he has to convey the message he receives from his impotent deity:

O Messenger (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from mankind. Verily, Allah guides not the people who disbelieve. S. 5:67 Hilali-Khan

Allah warns Muhammad to convey his message to mankind, otherwise he will fail in his mission if he doesn't do so.

Yet according to the above hadith Muhammad hid some of the so-called revelation from his followers and forbids Muadh from making known to the rest of the Muslims an important piece of information which Allah had supposedly given to him and which he himself called good news!

What makes this all the more intriguing is that Muadh obviously didn't listen to Muhammad and chose to dishonor his prophet by publishing this information to the rest of the Muslims. After all, we wouldn't have known this piece of information had Muadh not opened his mouth and told it to others.

This now places Kunde in a bit of a dilemma. If Allah has bound himself by a promise to give his jihadists paradise for killing and being killed in his cause, and if he has also committed himself to saving Muslims from punishment because of their confessing and believing that he is the only deity worthy of worship then this makes him impotent since he cannot do otherwise. However, if Allah isn't under any necessary obligation to save anyone and doesn't have to commit to keeping his promise or fulfilling his obligation to his servants then this means that Allah is a lying, deceitful, capricious deity who cannot be taken at his word. Such a god cannot be trusted and is unworthy of being worshiped.

So much for Kunde's logic.

Sam Shamoun vs. Shabir Ally: The Bible or the Qur'an?

Thanks to Nazam for forwarding the link.

A Reply To Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part Two

The following is a continuation of the post found here.

The previous post demonstrated that Sam was justified in asserting that the Jews expected a Jewish prophet, a fact that forces Muslims to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews of John 1:19-21 could have been mistaken in believing the Prophet and the Christ to be separate individuals. This led Sam to point out that John’s Gospel as a whole affirms their belief that the Prophet would be an Israelite, but confutes their expectation that the Prophet would be someone other than the Messiah Himself.

Unhappy with the conclusion Sam drew from the evidence on this score, Yahya accuses him of engaging in textual acrobatics, but in Yahya’s efforts to prove this harebrained charge he ends up looking like an exegetical cat on hot textual bricks, as the reader is invited to see.

(The following picks up my enumeration where I left off.)

*******

8. Presumably because the passage does not specifically identify Jesus as “the Prophet” and “the Christ,” Yahya dismisses the relevance of the testimony found in John 1:45, where it is written:

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Yet, if Yahya would continue to read the chapter, he would find not only that Nathanael identified Jesus as the Messiah, saying, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel,” but that he did so in response to Christ’s display of prophetic insight into his character and the circumstances surrounding his calling, all of which shows just what Nathanael understood Philip to mean when he spoke of Jesus as the one foretold by Moses and the Prophets:

The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." (John 1:43-49)

It is also well to observe that this passage is not only found in the same chapter as the discussion of John 1:19ff, but it is quickly followed in John’s Gospel by Jesus performing a Moses-like miracle, i.e. changing water into wine, as we see in the next chapter.

9. With respect to John 5:39-40, which says,

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”

Yahya tells us that these verses don’t shed any further light on the matter, for they don’t call Jesus the Christ and the Prophet.

Aside from the fact that Yahya completely glossed over the other verses that Sam quoted along with verses 39-40, namely, verses 46-47, where Jesus says that He is the one spoken of by Moses, this reply shows once again that Yahya has absolutely no regard for context.

The words of Christ found in John 5 are once again followed in the next chapter by a Moses-like miracle, i.e. the miracle of feeding five thousand people, a sign that harkened back to the Manna that was provided for the people of Israel from heaven under Moses’ ministry.

10. In fact, it is this very miracle that led the people to say, as Sam pointed out:

Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world." (John 6:14)

In response to this, Yahya makes what is perhaps his greatest blunder:

Again, this reference does not prove Shamoun’s belief that “the Prophet” and the Christ was the same person. All this reference teaches us is that a group of people saw Jesus performing a “miraculous sign” and then they believed him to be “the Prophet”. There is no mention of the people calling him the Christ as well in this passage and nor is there any mention of the people exclaiming the two are the same person. Suffice it to say Shamoun interpolates his own understanding and imposes it upon the people of this passage without any authority or logical reasoning whatsoever. Even if we go with the view that Jesus is “the Prophet” then the question of who was the Christ arises.

Yahya’s blunder is exposed by the verse that immediately follows:

So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone. (John 6:15)

This verse clearly shows that these Jews believed the Prophet and the Christ, i.e. the Messianic King, would be the same person, and, consequently, leave Mr. Snow and his argument out in the cold.

Although I have much more that I would like to say on this and one point in particular that I am saving for a special occasion – to be released once I think Yahya has been sufficiently prepped and primed – it just doesn’t seem right not to give Mr. Snow a chance to scrabble his way up from the bottom of the avalanche he presently finds himself buried under. Accordingly, I will break off my reply here for now.

A Reply to Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part One

In an article found here and here, an upstart Muslim apologist has attempted to write a refutation to brother Sam Shamoun’s short and extemporaneous but nonetheless devastating critique on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network (hereafter ABN) of the ill-conceived notion that John 1:19-21 has something to do with Muhammad (See here). In order to free Sam up for more pressing matters, the present writer has taken in hand to say something of what Sam himself would have said by way of response, especially if this dawagandist had called in to the broadcast to speak with Sam directly, something he was invited to do, but for some reason – no doubt a prudent one, at least when judged from the vantage point of the all too predictable outcome of such an exchange – declined. (In a future post, David will be providing some comments from Sam.)


************

With respect to Sam’s case on John 1, Yahya grants that it may have sounded pretty convincing to many people; yet, he says, with a little analysis it turns out to be full of holes. This means that if Yahya’s analysis doesn’t uncover these holes, then Sam’s response remains as it initially appeared: convincing.

In my estimation, Yahya’s refutation amounts to little more than a snow job (pun intended), an attempt to miss the obvious and abet others in doing the same. Here are my initial observations:

1. Yahya cites two examples of Muslim apologists who argue (so he says) from John 1 that Muhammad is “the Prophet”: 1) Jamal Badawi, in his pamphlet/paper “Muhammad in the Bible”; and 2) Zakir Naik, in his paper “Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.” However, the former never offers any argument for seeing the passage as a reference to Muhammad, and the latter never even so much as cites the passage. Moreover, Sam responded to Badawi’s paper long ago, “Answering Dr. Jamal Badawi: Muhammad in the Bible,” and, though Naik’s article hardly merits refutation, I’m sure if Yahya asks nicely, Sam would refute it as well. (Another response to Badawi, written by Samuel Green, can be found here.)

2. The above is most unfortunate, for with the exception of referring to the fanciful story that Muhammad miraculously fed his followers – obviously an embellished account by Muhammad’s overzealous followers to try and make him look more like Moses and Jesus – which contradicts the Qur’an (S. 28:48), Yahya completely avoids trying to personally prove that Muhammad is “the Prophet.”

3. Yahya also offers no positive evidence that the Prophet was predicted or even expected by the Jews to be a non-Israelite, and much less that the Jews expected the Prophet to be an Arab. Instead, Yahya contents himself with arguing that the evidence Sam provided does not prove that the Jews believed he was going to be an Israelite. (We will see)

4. The only thing Yahya really ends up trying to prove in his paper is the (relatively) uninteresting thesis that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people. But this, let it be remembered, and as Yahya grants at the end of his paper, is still a long ways off from proving that Muhammad was the prophet or even a prophet, a thesis Yahya wisely aborted anyway.

5. When it comes to the question of what the Jews believed about “the Prophet,” Yahya accuses Sam of reading his bias into the text, for nowhere in John 1 does it say that they believed “the Prophet” was going to be an Israelite. But Sam was talking about what the Jews assumed by their question, not what they said.

The salient facts that it was a delegation of Priests and Levites, i.e. Jews, who were sent by the Sanhedrin, i.e. Jews, to question John, a Jew, whether he was the Prophet promised to Israel, a nation of Jews, by Moses, a Jew, doesn’t seem to have affected Yahya very much. But if Sam’s view that the Jews assumed that the Prophet would be a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that they were questioning John the Baptist, is a case of reading his bias into the text, then what should we call it in Yahya’s case since he somehow sees a turban where everyone else can only see Yamakas?

(Nota Bene: It is important to keep in mind that Sam’s argument at this point was not that the prophet would be an Israelite simply because the Jews thought so; rather, he argued that if, as Muslims must concede, the Jews were mistaken in assuming that the prophet would be an Israelite, then Muslims also have to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews could have been wrong in drawing a distinction between “the Christ” and “the Prophet.”)

6. Since John (the Baptist) does not question or challenge the assumption of the Jews that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people – something easily accounted for by the fact that John is purposely being brief and dismissive in regard to himself, since his goal is to point people to the Messiah – Yahya says it suggests that John was aware of the distinction they drew and agreed with it. There are several responses to this:

a. Just because a person answers someone on their own terms, doesn’t mean they agree with their underlying assumptions. If it did, then this would backfire on Yahya; after all, it would mean that John also held the Jews’ assumption that “the Prophet” would be an Israelite. (See point #5)

b. If directly answering a person’s comments or questions without challenging all of their underlying assumptions is tantamount to agreeing with them, then it would also mean that Yahya accepts any assumption of Sam’s that he chose not to call into question; for example, that the Torah that we have was written by Moses.

c. Rather than seeing John’s terse replies as an indication that he agreed with the Jews, it can actually be argued that John answers “no, no and no” to their questions precisely because of their false assumptions.

7. By a happy “coincidence,” what Yahya is too blind to see, but prefers to write off as bias on Sam’s part, just happens to be exactly what we know from the historical record:

a) Not only do some ancient Jewish sources identify the Christ with the Prophet, but we have no evidence of any Jew of the time period who was expecting the Prophet to be a non-Jew or Arab.

b. In addition, even the Samaritans, according to authorities such as Grimm (Clavis N. T., p. 99) and Edersheim (LTJM, p. 278), believed the Christ and the Prophet to be designations that refer to one and the same person, and, therefore, to an Israelite.

c. In fact, the Jews of Muhammad’s time weren’t expecting a prophet from among the Arabs or pagans either; instead, they expected a prophet who would come to them and who would aid them against the disbelieving Arabs:

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me that some of his tribesmen said: ‘What induced us to accept Islam, apart from God’s mercy and guidance, was what we used to hear the Jews say. We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were people of the scriptures with knowledge which we did not possess. There was continual enmity between us, and when we got the better of them and excited their hate, they said, “The time of a prophet who is to be sent has now come. We will kill you with his aid as Ad and Iram perished.” We often used to hear them say this. When God sent His apostle we accepted him when he called us to God and we realized what their threat meant and joined him before them. We believed in him but they denied him…. (Sirat, p. 93)

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me on the authority of some of the shaykhs of his tribe that they said that when the apostle met them he learned by inquiry that they were of the Khazraj and allies of the Jews. He invited them to sit with him and expounded to them Islam and recited the Quran to them. Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they themselves were polytheists and idolaters. They had often raided them in their district whenever bad feelings arose the Jews used to say to them, ‘A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill you by his aid as ‘Ad and Iram perished. So when they heard the apostle’s message they said one to another: This is the very prophet of whom the Jews warned us. Don’t let them get to him before us….(Sirat, p. 198)

According to what I heard from ‘Ikrima, freedman of Ibn ‘Abbas or from Sa’id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas, the Jews used to hope that the apostle would be a help to them against Aus and Khazraj before his mission began; and when God sent him from among the Arabs they disbelieved in him and contradicted what they had formerly said about him. Mu’adh b. Jabal and Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur brother of the B. Salama said to them: ‘O Jews, fear God and become Muslims, for you used to hope for Muhammad’s help against us when we were polytheists and to tell us that he would be sent and describe him to us.’ Salam b. Mishkam, one of B. al-Nadir, said, ‘He has not brought us anything we recognize and he is not the one we spoke of to you.’ (Sirat, p. 257)

….before this Messenger came to them, they used to ask Allah to aid them by his arrival, against their polytheistic enemies in war. They used to say to the polytheists, “A Prophet shall be sent just before the end of this world and we, along with him, shall exterminate you, just as the nations of ‘Ad and Iram were exterminated.” Also, Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Jews used to invoke Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over the Aws and Khazraj, before the Prophet was sent. When Allah sent him to the Arabs, they rejected him and denied what they used to say about him. Hence, Mu‘adh bin Jabal and Bishr bin Al-Bara’ bin Ma‘rur, from Bani Salamah, said to them, ‘O Jews! Fear Allah and embrace Islam. You used to invoke Allah for the coming of Muhammad and when we were still disbelievers and you used to tell us that he would come and describe him to us,’ Salam bin Mushkim from Bani Nadir replied, ‘He did not bring anything that we recognize. He is not the Prophet we told you about….Abu Al-‘Aliyah aid, “the Jews used to ask Allah to send Muhammad so that they would gain victory over the Arab disbelievers. They used to say, ‘O Allah! Send the Prophet that we read about – in the Tawrah – so that we can torment and kill the disbelievers alongside him.’ When Allah sent Muhammad and they saw that he was not one of them, they rejected him and envied the Arabs, even though they knew that he was the Messenger of Allah. (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Abridged, Vol. 1, p. 292-293)

(For part two, click here)

Muslim Threatens Christians for Speaking about Muhammad

Is Jesus Eternal? A Muslim Sheikh Responds

Are There Other Gospels That Refer to Muhammad?

Was Muhammad the Comforter of John 14:16-17?

****NOTE**** There's an error in my comments in the video. I said that we have close to 6000 manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It's actually close to 6000 manuscripts of the New Testament. But since many New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary, the number of manuscripts of John's Gospel will be fewer. Just wanted to point that out.

Does John 1:19-21 Refer to Muhammad?

Sam Shamoun vs. Farhan Qureshi: "The Trinity in the Old Testament"

The Debate Results Are in! Sam Shamoun Wins over Nadir Ahmed by a Landslide!

Prior to Sam’s debate with Nadir—“Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”—audience members were given a questionnaire. After the debate, more than fifty attendees answered the questions.

Interestingly, the Muslims at the debate were so upset by Nadir’s performance that all but one refused to answer questions concerning who won the debate! Christians, on the other hand, were quite eager to offer an assessment.

Below, I have listed the questions attendees were asked about the debate, along with the average scores of Sam and Nadir. The results weren’t even close!

On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being the least and 10 the greatest):

How convincing was Nadir Ahmed in presenting that Islam is a Religion of Peace? Nadir scored a 2.6 on a scale from 1 to 10. One person declined to answer this question.

How convincing was Sam Shamoun that Islam is a Religion of Terrorism? Sam scored an 8.7 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How would you rate Nadir Ahmed’s debate skills? Nadir scored a 3.7 on a scale from 1 to 10. One person declined to respond.

How would you rate Sam Shamoun’s debate skills? Sam scored a 9.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How faithful was Nadir Ahmed to staying on the topic, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Nadir scored a 3.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How faithful was Sam Shamoun to staying on the topic, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Sam scored a 9.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

Of course, not even these devastating results will change Nadir’s absurd proclamation that he won the debate. The Muslims at the debate were completely disappointed; the Christians shouted in triumph. Yet Nadir has tried everything imaginable to change the outcome of the debate. He has tried to alter the topic (both during the debate, when he tried to divert the issue to Christianity, and after the debate, when he claimed that the real topic of the debate was the views of Pastor George Saieg); he has claimed that the terms of the debate were unfair; he has even come on this site under a false name and praised himself for his performance!

Yet those of us who know Nadir Ahmed have come to expect this sort of thing. Nadir claims to be the only true Muslim debater in America, despite the fact that he has no credentials, insults and threatens his opponents (sometimes calling them child molesters or insulting their families), attacks his fellow Muslims, and, in general, acts like a complete child. Shouldn’t we expect such a person to claim victory even when he is utterly defeated?

Nadir Ahmed’s First Positive “Review”: Did This Guy Even Watch the Debate???

Nadir Ahmed has been contacting numerous people, trying to get some positive reviews of his debate with Sam Shamoun. Apparenly, someone finally wrote a review that he likes. The amazing thing is that the reviewer, Kaiwaig, either didn’t watch the debate, or didn’t pay attention at all!

Kaiwaig talks about the debate itself very little. After vaguely mentioning the debate, he spends most of his time trying to prove that Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately, Kaiwaig obviously hasn’t studied the history of Islam—especially early Muslim commentaries and the Sira literature. Kaiwaig went so far as to say that the “Muslim method” is to distribute information about Islam and to let people decide for themselves! Has he read the Qur’an? Did he consider the verses presented by Sam in the debate? Has he read Ibn Ishaq, or Ibn Sad, or Al-Tabari? Obviously not.

But we can go further. Kaiwaig points to the “no compulsion in religion” verse in the Qur’an (2:256), which was addressed by Sam in the debate. Amazingly, Kaiwaig tells his viewers that Sam’s response to this verse was to point to modern day Muslims as proof that Islam is a religion of violence! Yet anyone who actually watched the debate knows that Sam did no such thing. In fact, Sam specifically said (over and over again) that he would not point to modern acts of violence by Muslims to defend his case. How could anyone who watched the debate miss this???

Sam’s answer was clear. The peaceful, tolerant passages, delivered by Muhammad when he was outnumbered in Mecca, were later abrogated when Islam took control. Yet Kaiwaig’s viewers will never know Sam’s real answer, since practically everything he said about Sam’s position was wrong. We can only conclude that Kaiwaig never even watched the debate, and that he got his information from skimming some of Nadir’s articles.

What’s even more interesting is that Nadir lists this as the first review of his debate! For the record, if I were to ask someone to post a review of my debate, and when they gave me the review it was obvious that they hadn’t even watched the debate, I would ask them to take back their review until they were ready to be more accurate. But not Nadir!

To see whether I am correct or not, please watch Kaiwaig’s review after watching the debate. This is hilarious!

Nadir Ahmed on “Dirty Tricks”: Part Two—the Tu Quoque Fallacy

Nadir Ahmed has accused Christians of forcing him to accept unfair debate terms in his recent debate with Sam Shamoun. As I showed here, the debate terms were entirely fair and reasonable, which means that Nadir was simply trying to justify his embarrassing performance by falsely accusing Christians of deception.

As I will show in this post, it was Nadir, not Sam, who resorted to “Dirty Tricks” (as Nadir calls them).

Prior to his debate with Sam Shamoun ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"), Nadir Ahmed agreed that he would not go off-topic by criticizing the Bible. However, when the debate started, he began attacking the Bible very quickly. Soon, the Bible became Nadir’s primary focus—in a debate about Islam!

It was obvious to everyone that Nadir was simply trying to draw attention away from Islam and to put Christians on the defensive. Yet if this was his goal, one wonders why he agreed to debate a Muslim topic in the first place.

Nadir’s tactic was a perfect example of the Tu Quoque fallacy. The Tu Quoque fallacy occurs when instead of answering an objection, a person points his finger back at his questioner and says, “Well, you’ve got problems too!”

This fallacy is quite common among Muslims. When a person asks a Muslim, “Aren’t you shocked by all the innocents killed in the name of Allah,” it is quite common for the Muslim to reply, “What about all of the innocents killed by the West?” As if this answers the question!

To give another example, suppose I were to tell you a vicious lie, and you realized that I had lied to you. “David, you just lied to me,” you respond. “Now explain yourself!” “Well,” I reply, “You’ve lied too.” As if this makes it okay for me to lie!

And that’s why this approach is fallacious. The question of whether you have lied is irrelevant to the question of whether I have lied. Whether innocents have been killed by the West is irrelevant to whether Muslims should be killing innocents.

Thus, in a debate titled “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” it makes no sense for the Muslim debater to argue that Christianity is a religion of violence. Indeed, if the evidence proved conclusively that Christianity is the most violent, bloody religion in history (silly, isn’t it!), this would not help us answer the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Hence, it was disturbing to see Nadir place so much emphasis on Christianity and the Bible in his debate about Islam. Indeed, on his webpage devoted to the debate, Nadir claims that there were five “Key Topics” of the debate: (1) “Islam condemns terrorism,” (2) “Bible accepts terrorism,” (3) “Challenge to Christianity,” (4) “The 4 arguments of why Islam is a religion of peace,” and (5) “Why Bible terror is relevant for this debate.”

Notice that, in Nadir’s mind, three out of five “Key Topics” in his debate about Islam revolve around Christianity!

However, Nadir has made an interesting (although horribly flawed) case for why the Bible was relevant in his debate with Sam. Nadir argues that since Muhammad came to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity (!!!), Islam must be a religion of peace.

Of course, it is obvious to every informed viewer that Muhammad didn’t come to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity (!!!), since Christianity doesn’t teach genocide and terrorism. In Christianity, we are commanded to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to never return evil for evil (ever heard of the “New Covenant?”). Hence, a person who looks at all of this and says, “Christianity teaches violence and bloodshed” is obviously biased against the truth.

It is also ridiculous to claim that Muhammad came to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity. When did Muhammad claim this? I challenge Nadir to show us that Muhammad claimed that this was his purpose. If Nadir cannot produce such proof, he is guilty of ascribing false motives to his prophet.

But let’s lay such issues aside and examine Nadir’s claim on logical grounds. The fact remains: Even if Christianity were the most violent religion on earth, this would have nothing to do with whether Islam is a religion of peace (even if it were true that Muhammad came to confront Christian violence).

To see why this is so, think about Nadir’s argument, which goes something like this: “Christianity teaches genocide. But Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to commit genocide. Thus, Muhammad was coming to confront Christian genocide. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.”

To see why this is completely flawed, let us consider two analogies. Suppose the debate topic had been “Was Muhammad Polygamous?” In the debate, Sam would have provided numerous sources, proving that Muhammad had at least nine wives at one time. Sam would have concluded, “Thus, Muhammad was polygamous.” Nadir would have argued differently. He would have argued thus: “In the Bible, Solomon is said to have had 700 wives! But Muhammad came to confront this Christian [!!!] polygamy! Muhammad made it very clear that no one can marry this many wives. Therefore, Muhammad was monogamous!”

The fallacy here should be obvious. Even if Solomon had far more wives than Muhammad, this wouldn’t mean that Muhammad was monogamous. And even if Muhammad had come to confront this “Christian” (!!!) polygamy, this still would have nothing to do with whether Muhammad was polygamous or not. Hence, Solomon and the Bible would be entirely irrelevant to such a debate!

Consider another analogy. Suppose there were two religions: Religion X and Religion Y. Religion X teaches its followers that it is right to violently torture all non-members as much as possible. Religion Y comes along and agrees that it is right to torture non-members, but with one exception. According to Religion Y, “It is wrong to torture old ladies, even if they are not members of our religion.” What would be the difference between these two religions? One tortures all non-members, while the other tortures all non-members except old ladies.

Now suppose there were a debate titled, “Is Religion Y a Religion of Peace?” If he gets his logical training from Nadir Ahmed, the defender of Religion Y would argue: “We don’t torture old ladies. Our prophet came to confront the practice of old lady torturing! Thus, Religion Y is a religion of peace!”

But would this have anything to do with whether Religion Y is a religion of peace? Nothing whatsoever! Indeed, it would be impossible for any rational person to look at a religion that advocates torturing all non-members except old ladies and conclude that it is a religion of peace.

The point here is that even if Religion Y were more peaceful (comparatively) than Religion X, this would not mean that Religion Y is peaceful. Similarly, even if Islam were more peaceful than Christianity (doesn’t that just sound silly!), this would not make Islam a religion of peace.

Therefore, Christianity was entirely irrelevant to the debate between Sam and Nadir. They both agreed to debate whether Islam is a religion of peace. Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, etc., had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The fact that Nadir kept pointing his finger at Christianity, then, was an admission that he could not defend his religion without resorting to fallacious debate tricks. And the fact that, after the debate, he has tried so desperately to defend his fallacious reasoning shows that he will do anything to justify his weak, flawed arguments.