Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Shabir Ally's Response to Sam Shamoun's Catching Shabir Ally Red Handed!
This is Dr Shabir's quick response to Sam Shamoun:
Shabir Ally and Lying
During my debate with David Wood on ABNSAT, Sam Shamoun called in to challenge one of my statements. According to my statement, Robert Gundry said that the formula in Matthew 28 does not imply that the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same name. Rather, the formula meansthat baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Sam claimed that Gundry wrote no such thing, and he had Gundry’s books to prove it. I pointed out that I was referring to another book by Gundry. But Sam was not convinced by my plea. Rather, he was convinced that I was lying. Hence he wrote to that effect here:
In that document, Sam cites two books of Gundry, and links to a third, all to prove that Gundry did not voice the view I attributed to him.
However, in each case he is referring to a book other than the one I was referring to. As I am away from my hometown at the moment, I cannot check the reference at the moment, but here is something I found on my laptop that I had written elsewhere complete with a reference to the book I was referring to.
As for the apparent Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19, Robert H. Gundry writes that “Matthew seems to be responsible for the present formula.” 
As will be immediately clear, this is not the same as any of the three books Sam cited or referred to in his above linked article. It should also be clear that Gundry is saying that Matthew is responsible for the saying whereas we would expect Christians to think that Jesus actually said this.
Sam apparently assumed that the books he came across are the only books that Gundry wrote on the subject. Instead of hastily composing an article claiming that I was lying, he should have asked me for thereference to the specific book I was citing, and then check the reference in that book. As it turns out, people these days are too quick to assume the worst about other people but the best about themselves.
Even if it turns out that the book I was referring to does not contain the material I cited, does this necessitate a charge of lying? Or, could it be a case of citing from memory and recalling incorrectly as humans sometimes do?
During the debate itself, I cited many other books, some of which I had on the desk before me. These too I cited from memory, as is my usual style in debates. I do not claim that my memory is impeccable. However, in how many cases did Sam find a significant discrepancy between my citations and my named sources? If it is just this one, does that require such a serious charge? Is Sam here exhibiting the usual charitableness of Christians? If we go about slinging such uncharitable accusations against each other will that lead to better dialogue and mutual understanding?
When I get back to Toronto, I wiill check again to see if my memory serves me correctly, and thus that Gundry said what I cited him to say. Otherwise, I will issue a public retraction. But if what I cited is correct, will Sam retract his article and issue an apology for his false accusation?
Meanwhile, it is interesting to know that after Gundry published this critical commentary in 1982, some evangelical scholars called for his resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society. He resigned in 1983.
Does that sound like Gundry was saying in this book what Sam wants to hear?
 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 596.
End of Shabir's response
I think the QA was a premeditated ambush. Fairness went out of the window last night which was really sad especially considering Shabir is such a dignified character thus I felt sorry for Shabir in the midst of that amateurism and outrageous zeal on the part of Sam Shamoun and Usama Dakdok.
Many of you may not be familiar with the Islamophobe Usama Dakdok but I've investigated this man and his ministry efforts, I will leave you to make up your mind on him - have a gander at the Usama Dakdok section (brace yourself)
As for Sam Shamoun he's well known as a polemicist who uses low-level internet arguments. He has an obsession with Shabir Ally - clearly he was extremely excited to have had so much QA time and tow attempts as witnessed by his FB comment. His excitement at Shabir's acceptance of a debate challenge in the heat of the moment is indicative of this man's maturity level. I hope Shabir reconsiders and just leaves this man in his current state - groping for attention on the internet:
WOW! ANOTHER HUMILIATING DEFEAT FOR SHABIR! GLORY TO OUR RISEN LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, DAVID WOOD TOTALLY SCHOOLED THIS DECEIVER!
MAN, I DID IT AGAIN! I NOT ONLY ASKED SHABIR 2 QUESTION BUT I ALSO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT AND MADE HIM ACCEPT A CHALLENGE TO DEBATE ME! AIN'T I A
The capitalisation was his - pointing to his customary emotional state. Shamoun should be advised to learn to behave himself - Shabir was a respected guest and Shamoun's antagonism, emotions and testosterone are unwanted by anybody who wants to see civility in dialogue. Shamoun will suffer another backlash for this which I feel will plague him for the rest of his fading 'career'. For more on Sam Shamoun see the Sam Shamoun section.
Well done to Shabir for keeping his dignity and composure in the face of such provocation, bias and insults. May Allah reward him. Ameen
Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan
Muslims give the most charity and have least sex outside of marriage!
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam