Christian Uses 1 John 2:22 To Attack Prophet Muhammad (p)

In this video, a Christian is claiming Prophet Muhammad is the Anti Christ based on 1 John 2:22. She shortly learns that Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). See Quran 3:45 and 4:171.



This video is also uploaded here and here

1 John 2: 22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

WHAT IS THE TRUE LESSON FROM THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE - AQIL ONQUE

Missionaries Misusing the Hadith: Sins On Jews and Christians

This hadeeth is to be found in Saheeh Muslim (2767), narrated from Abu Moosa (may Allaah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who said: “On the Day of Resurrection, some of the Muslims will come with sins like mountains, but Allaah will forgive them and will put them (the sins) onto the Jews and Christians.” So this hadeeth is saheeh

For explanations of this hadith:

https://islamqa.info/en/9488
https://islamqa.info/en/198745



This video has also been uploaded here and here

Did Jay Smith Not Teach Hatun Tash About Hell in Christianity?

Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity

Andy is the new director of Solas CPC

UPDATE: Richard Lucas did send me a message stating he is no longer a contributor to Solas CPC. The moderator used an old bio from the internet.

Richard Lucas, a former contributor for  Solas Centre for Public Christianity, was promoting a heretical idea of the Trinity in a debate with Muslim apologist Dr Shabir Ally. Richard believes God used to be one Person and then divided into three centres of consciousness to become  Tri-Personal. This is not “orthodox” Trinitarian thought.

All the relevant clips of Solas' Richard Lucas' comments on the Trinity have been compiled in this video


This video has also been uploaded here

I appreciate that Richard Lucas was honest and sincere enough to openly admit Tawheed ( the Islamic concept of God) is coherent and logical. Richard does practically demonstrate the Trinitarian concept of God is incoherent and illogical at the same time. Two quick thoughts (which I may add to in a future review of the debate):

1. Richard Lucas claims God divided into 3 and became a Trinity. This theory contradicts the belief that God is immutable (unchanging). Richard Lucas’ theory of God dividing constitutes a belief that God changed His nature. Some problems for his position:

- For change to take place then that suggests chronological order. Seen as God is eternal the idea of God changing is problematic.

- God is the Perfect Being thus does not need to change. To suggest God changed His nature could be conceived as suggesting at one time He was not the Perfect Being.

- Believing God changed into a Trinity arguably contradicts Bible verses like Malachi 3:6 if one views those verses to teach God doesn’t change His nature

I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

2. Solas Centre for Public Christianity has another theological problem which Richard was honest enough to acknowledge. Richard Lucas’ bravery in publicly stating this should be commended. Richard Lucas openly admitted the Bible does not limit the number of Persons in the Godhead head, he then went on to say(according to his Biblical Christian view) God could add more Persons to the Godhead by dividing again.

It goes without saying that this is an effective admission that Trinitarian cannot even have confidence in believing the Trinity to be a truth about God (even from a Christian/Biblical perspective!).

Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?

Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament

Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea

Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology by Ali Ataie

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Sharia Law against terrorism

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Blog: Lizzie Schofield Believes Jesus Called for Apostates to be Killed

Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Centre for Apologetics believes in the Trinity doctrine thus she believes Jesus (as the Second person of the Trinity doctrine) called for the killing of apostates who called to worship other gods.

If the video does not play, it's also uploaded here

Punishment for Apostasy in the Bible

13 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.


6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.

12 “If you hear someone in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell in, saying, 13 ‘Corrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”’—which you have not known— 14 then you shall inquire, search out, and ask diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination was committed among you, 15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, all that is in it and its livestock—with the edge of the sword. 16 And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again. 17 So none of the accursed things shall remain in your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger and show you mercy, have compassion on you and multiply you, just as He swore to your fathers, 18 because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God.

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?

Beth Grove of Pfander Films Spreading Falsehood of Aisha Being Hit by Prophet Muhammad

Response to Lizzie Schofield on British Muslim "Integration"

Was Jay Smith of Pfander Films fabricating Stories at Speakers Corner?

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Sharia Law against terrorism

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Review of Shabir Ally Getting Ambushed by Shamoun and Dakdok

In one of Imam Shabir Ally's debates with David Wood there was a farce of a QAsession  which just appeared to be a pre-planned gang-up on Shabir.  I want to offer a few comments on the exchanges that took place between Shabir and Sam Shamoun as well as Usama Dakdok. It's easy to criticise after the event as hindsight is 20/20 - I understand there are mitigating circumstances but there is criticism levelled at all concerned.

Firstly, what was that farce? A set-up. Shabir, did not bargain for such sneaky tactics on the part of the ABN crew to try and help David Wood. ABN even had the pics of their questioners conveniently handy, their ABN affiliated apologists were allowed much more time to grill Shabir than other questioners and Sam Shamoun got two bites at the cherry (unprecedented in debates?). Sam appeared to have colluded with David prior to the debate as David conveniently had the sources Sam was referencing in his Q.

Contrast that farce with Shabir's polite but forceful interjection in the QA session in his debate with Jonathan McLatchie to prevent a Muslim questioner overstepping the rules of fairness in debate.

Those ABN folk could learn something from Shabir about fairness.

Shabir rattled

This seems like a first. A rattled Shabir. Dakdok and Shamoun threw enough pressure, insult and antagonism for Shabir to veer away from his customary calm and collected manner. Shabir's debate challenge to Dakdok was born out of frustration and perhaps even an impulse to put Dakdok under similar scrutiny and pressure. Shabir was feeling the pressure.

His acceptance of Shamoun's debate challenge was another sign of Shabir being rattled. Accepting a challenge from a person one seemingly had no interest in debating for the last decade further suggests Shabir had departed from his calculated self. This was a Shabir we had not seen before.

Having said that, Shabir, in now expected to try and make these debates happen. Shabir made his bed...

I don't know how Shabir concluded Dakdok's diatribe against Islam suggested he was a debater but nevertheless there could be some good that comes out of Shabir acting on impulse. Dakdok was hailed by David Horowitz as a scholar. He's also part of the Geller and Spencer cabal. This is the best opportunity Shabir has of addressing the type of audience which is all about demonizing Muslims. That angry mob of Christian Zionists who are united more by politics than faith. Folk who believe President Obama is a Muslim (of which Dakdok is one). It's a different crowd to those Shabir has had the pleasure of addressing. The Shabir that countered Dave Hunt is required for this mission. Welcome back to that Shabir!

As for Sam, Shabir is clearly not in touch with Shamoun's polemics. How much Shabir can cram before a debate is not known but nobody on this side of the fence wants to see Shabir decide to debate a defensive topic with Shamoun. Those topics are vast due to the plethora of Hadith and Tafsir literature thus it's a task for folk in touch with the latest polemics out there nevermind  somebody who is not au fait with Shamoun's arguments. Besides Shabir's strength and experience is overwhelmingly in attacking Christianity. On top of this, Shabir's approach of questioning the authenticity of certain Ahadith  could cause  more confusion than clarity. It also rubs the Islamophobic Christian crowd up the wrong way. I believe this is one of the reasons why they were so quick to denounce Shabir as a liar in his misjudgement of David Wood's alleged 'sarcasm'.

Shabir will struggle and may even offer more confusion than clarity if he adopts an approach similar to that employed in this exchange. Shabir seemed quite unfamiliar with Shamoun's arguments - which was odd as Wood borrows from Shamoun thus one would expect Shabir to have been more prepared in offering a concise, clear and non-controversial rebuttal. In truth Shabir's moved on. This is not the Shabir of 15 years ago who would tussle with the polemics of folk of Shamoun's ilk. It will be a car crash of a debate in my opinion. Just look at the interactions between the two here and the now infamous tussle over whether one was misquoting or not. Car crash stuff.

Undervaluing oneself

Shabir undervalues himself, He's the best known and most respected Muslim apologist/debater yet it seems as though he does not know his own value. Think about it, name me the best known Jewish apologists. Perhaps you will say Rabbi Tovia Singer and Rabbi Schmuley. These folk come at a premium. For a Christian to get into the debate arena with Judaism's best known apologists that Christian has to have standing, mainstream popularity and scholarship. I also suspect those guys don't come cheap either!

Contrast this with Islam's best known apologist, Dr Shabir Ally. Shabir recently debated a guy who, with all due respect, was pretty much unknown in Muslim-Christian interactions. Jonathan McLatchie. Then it was Wood - a man who needed to debate Shabir more than Shabir needed to debate him. Shabir decides to debate this guy 6 times? Was it six or more? So Shabir has debated a guy who peddles internet lies such as the Necrophilia lie more than Licona and WLC put together. And now Dakdok and Shamoun. Who next? Are folk going to set raffles up in churches to see who debates him next :)

Shabir is co-authoring a book with James R. White (does the 'R' stand for reformed?). Why not a stand alone book? I'd buy it. A shed-load of Muslims would. Personally, I'd rather not give my cash to James White though!nIn any case, is there really much more Shabir-White can say that they have not already said in their numerous interactions in past debates.

This is where Muslim debaters could certainly learn from their Jewish counterparts. Don't undersell yourself.

A note for Christians: Shabir is not Islam's best apologist. In my opinion Dr Yasir Qadhi is perhaps the best English speaking apologist out there.  Bassam Zawadi and Waqar Cheema are all better at countering polemics and dealing with the sources. Sami Zaatari is better in handling defensive positions in debates. And let's not forget...

All debaters have their strengths and weaknesses. Shabir is more accustomed to tackling Christian subjects - that's where his expertise and experience lies. Keep that in mind before pronouncing some sort of victory.

Good-Bad fruit argument

Shamoun's first polemic is an old one which has an easy refutation to it. Shamoun coupled Mat7:16 with the Sharia's period of non-prohibition of Mutah, he then proceeds to call this the bad fruit of Prophet Muhmmad (p) - thus using it as an argument against Prophet Muhammad's prophethood.

Shabir went to the well of questioning the hadith - when he really did not need to and nor should have. We must remember a huge percentage of the Christian viewers on ABN would  be hardcore Islamophobes and/or those who have been regularly subjected to Islamophobic propaganda - including the nefarious propaganda that Muslims can lie about their religion (a distortion of the concept of Taqiya). Those people would have had nothing, absolutely nothing, from Shabir's answer to alleviate such suspicions. Perhaps Shabir's method of going to the well of questioning Ahadith which are in the more trusted collections would only have reinforced their misconceptions of Muslims.

Hindsight is 20/20 but it would have been better if Shabir had answered by appealing to the piece meal method of Revelation and that there were things which we know to be sinful now which were initially not prohibited by Islam immediately due to the nature of Revelation - including alcohol consumption, beating slaves, prostituting slave women, pre-marital sex as well as temporary marriage.

These matters can only be forbidden upon the Revelation of the Quran and/or an express statement from Prophet Muhammad p.

So for alcohol consumption to be first banned, I believe it would have happened at the time of the Revelation of Quran 5:90. And likewise for the prohibition of maids being forced into prostitution (Quran 24:33), prohibition of beating slaves I believe would have been the time Quran 4:36 was revealed or a saying of Prophet Muhammad p on this issue (whichever came earlier).

As for Mutah (temporary marriage), this was part of the pre-Islamic Arab society and was actually one of the forms of marriage in that society. This is said to have been prohibited by Prophet Muhammad in 7AH. There is Hadith literature to show this.

The point here is, there were times during Islam where there was no explicit prohibition of things we clearly know to be sins now. Does that mean Prophet Muhammad p was producing bad fruit? Of course not, we must look at the completion of the formation of the religion which was revealed through Prophet Muhammad p. That's only fair.

If we do this we see Sam's argument falls flat on its face. In fact, if Shabir adopted this approach he could have turned the tables around and moved from a defensive position to an offensive position in t he interaction to highlight the inconsistency and then even move on to really get stuck in to Sam.

Christians have a similar concept for things which they would now call sins being allowed in the OT, they believe Jesus p fulfilled the Law and thus only then matters such as  beating the slave to near death was forbidden [Exodus 21:20-21] as well as chopping a woman's hand off for a low blow on her husband's assailant [Deut 25:11-12].

Would Sam say Jesus p brought bad fruit because according to Sam's view, there was a point at which Jesus did not forbid such actions and folk were allowed to beat slaves to near death and chop a woman's hand off for defending her husband? These are now considered sins in Sam's Christian view.

Shabir could have gone further still and used the point of alcohol prohibition. Alcohol is a poison which even in moderation is a risk factor for cancer. Prophet Muhammad came with a Revelation which forbade this yet Christians believe their Scripture did not forbid this. Thus, Sam's argument of bad fruit backfires and he ends up arguing against Paul and his own Scripture!

Shabir, if he wanted to be even more adventurous, could have used the Nadir Ahmed argument (yes, Nadir Ahmed!) - which I have never seen refuted by a Christian. IIRC Sam in his last desperate  attempt tried to refute it by claiming Islam did not forbid alcohol consumption - an obvious fail on Sam's part.

And if he wanted to add more on the bad fruit idea he could have totally flummoxed Shamoun by presenting the stats concerning premarital sex - Muslims have the least premarital sex out of all major faith groups and as Pastor Joseph Najm learned here 80% of evangelical Christian youth engage in premarital sex

Shabir could have asked about the fruit of Paul. If Shabir wanted to get Christians thinking how about talking bombs; Christians are the only group to have decimated innocent people through nukes  something which  Christian apologist James White was shamelessly caught condoning here

Oh yeah, there's plenty to talk about when it comes to countering Shamoun's bad fruit argument. I sense a Shabir of 15 years ago would have buried Shamoun in a ton of rotten apples, banana peel and pineapple heads.

An opportunity missed.

Like I say, hindsight is 20/20.

Hadith of sins being put on Christians

I can see why Shabir automatically questioned the authenticity of this hadith (as it seemingly contradicts with the Quran) yet Shabir was not aware of the Hadith so it does not appear he was prepared for such a polemical approach (further highlighting how Shabir has moved away from dealing with polemics). Perhaps if he was aware he would have went down the route of mentioning Imam Nawawi who did not teach it to be literal. I think this would have been sufficient to take the wind out of Sam's sails, in showing that early Muslims did not believe the Hadith in the way Sam was representing it

To further show Shamoun's understanding to be flawed would have been to highlight the fact the Hadith in this case refers to a certain group of Muslims - not all Muslims. Some Muslims go to Heaven straight away - these people would have sinned yet they are forgiven without having their sins transferred onto others. The same applies to Muslims who go to Hell before being released through the Mercy of Allah (swt) - their sins are not transferred on to others.

Answering via this type of approach would have perhaps been better for the audience. Less confusion. Less controversy. Less frustration on the part of the Islamophobes.

It would have also quickly allowed Shabir on the offensive to talk about things he's really good at, such as pointing at problems in the Christian concept of atonement.

Final thoughts on Sam and Shabir

Shabir is a lovely man. I really feel these two should not interact. Just look at the division and argumentation the recent interactions between them caused between Muslims and Christians on social media. Many insults were traded. Much unedifying behaviour was exhibited.

It's also not good for Sam's health. I was in Sam's PalTalk class recently and somebody mentioned this Shabir feud is not good for Sam's health. Sam agreed.

Also, Sam upon realising I was in the class (and potentially recording) was very pleasant with me. Sam has it in him to be pleasant and friendly to Muslims. I think in the debate setting, especially with Shabir, Sam is prone to overstep the boundaries of acceptable dialogue.

No matter how bizarre it sounds, the thought of Shabir brings out the worst in Sam for some reason. Bizarre considering Shabir is such a lovely guy. This in turn leads to some Muslims to retaliate as Shabir is much-loved and is seen as a bit of a father-figure to most Muslims involved in online Christian-Muslim dialogue/apologetics.

Shabir's legacy will be him having pretty much single-handedly spearheaded a modernisation of Muslim apologetics here in the West. Arguments from the 80's are being pushed aside in favour of more appropriate and honest arguments.

I want to see Shabir have a flurry at the end of his career marked with respect, dignity, love and orthodoxy . Best not debate Sam. Debating Dakdok would be more beneficial in reaching people who are yet to hear Shabir's presentation.

As for Sam, I think 's important some Muslims try to engage with Sam behind the scenes. Build relationships and understanding so he can greater appreciate Muslims. Perhaps he will relent in his antagonistic stance. Perhaps he will become a Muslim one day. InshaAllah

Are Muslims Allowed to Rape Slave Women? No.

Hypocritical Jonathan McLatchie on Hygiene in the Bible and Ahadith

Do Unmarried, Childless and Divorced Women Enter Paradise?

Dr Yasir Qadhi: The Distortion that Prophet Muhammad 'Robbed Caravans'

Did Prophet Muhammad Have Epilepsy? No. Dr Yasir Qadhi

What does Awliya mean in Quran 5:51

Murder Rates in Muslim Countries Compared to Non Muslim Countries.

The Hitler Propaganda on Muslims

Numerical miracle in Quran

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Sam Shamoun Should Apologise to Shabir Ally After False Accusation

After much noise from Sam Shamoun on this claim of misquoting, we see Sam Shamoun is wrong and Shabir Ally is innocent of the allegations Sam levelled at him. I hope Sam will apologise, learn from this experience and move on from this positively. Shabir's full response is below, note the first part can be found here.

Part 2

Shabir Ally

October 1, 2015

Now that I am back in Toronto, and have access to my books, I am able to write a more telling response to Sam and his accusation about lying. I also had a chance to review the recording of what I said during the debate, and Sam’s interaction with me during the Q&A.

Two things (at least) will become evident below:

I correctly cited that book of Robert Gundry to which I was referring;

In order to generate his proof that I misquoted Robert Gundry, Sam actually misquoted me!

This is a sad day for Muslim-Christian dialogue.

Having listened to the recording, I still have the question that I had put to Sam during that conversation. Sam had said that he had two books right in front of him: one book is Robert Gundry’s commentary on the New Testament; the other book is Gundry’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular. Sam read a portion from the commentary on the New Testament which obviously includes a brief commentary on Matthew’s gospel. That is not the book I had cited. I had studied and cited the other book: the commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular.

So, I asked Sam for the page number of the relevant section of the commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular. Instead of supplying this simple piece of information, Sam kept telling me pages 135-36 of the book which he had read from. I asked him why he could not simply tell me the page number of the relevant section of Robert Gundry’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel which he said he also had in his possession at the time. Sam admitted that the page numbers he was giving me were from Gundry’s commentary on the entire New Testament, But when I asked him again for the page number of the commentary dedicated to Matthew’s gospel, there was a definite silence. I thought he had hung up. But he was still on the call. Why the silence?

Moreover, in listening to the recording I realized all the more how bizarre was the conversation between me and Sam. I kept asking him for the page number of a book which he claimed to have with him. In response, he kept challenging me to read a book which I did not claim to have in my possession at the moment. Naturally, I could not read a book I did not have in my hands; I could only accurately quote the most relevant line from my head. But, for some reason, Sam was unable to give me the page number of the book he had in his hands even though the relevant page number is easy to find. The commentary progresses from the start to the end of Matthew’s gospel, and the page headers show the progression verse by verse. It would have been a snap for Sam to thumb through the commentary following the page headers to chapter 28 and then to its verse 19 and give me the page number.

Obviously, he later located the relevant page number of a commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, this being the first book Sam referred to in his article composed on that same date. It would be interesting to trace the relationship between this commentary and the one I was citing. It seems that the one Sam is referring to is the second edition of the same book, now with a different subtitle. The page numbers of the relevant sections are the same, and the wording is strikingly similar, though the subtitles are different.

Now, the book I was citing really said on p. 596 what I cited it to say. So too does the second edition, as is evident from Sam’s citation in his article. But both of these are dissimilar to the book which Sam was reading on air.

To understand what is going on here between me and Sam, one has to see the big picture, as follows. In debates between Muslims and Christians, Muslims argue that in the Old Testament Yahweh is the only God. Jews agree. Many Christians also agree. Consequently, for Jesus to be God, he would have to be Yahweh. But if he is Yahweh, then he is the only God, and therefore the Father and the Holy Spirit would not be God.

In response to this clear logic, some Christians cite Matthew 28:19 as proof that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each Yahweh, and yet altogether Yahweh. In that verse, Jesus directs his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians point out that the name here is singular, though the named persons are three. Hence they insist that Jesus is Yahweh, the Holy Spirit is Yahweh, the Father is Yahweh; yet altogether the three are Yahweh.

This is the big picture, the context within which I am using the citation from Robert Gundry. I am saying that according to Robert Gundry the verse does not imply that the three persons bear the same name. According to him, the verse is not actually referring to their name; rather, the verse is saying that the baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here is an approximate transcript of what I said, as evidenced by the video recording:

In Matthew’s gospel towards the end where Jesus says, “Go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” some will take that as an expression of Trinitarian doctrine. But in fact, as Robert Gundry says in his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, it does not actually mean that—it does not mean that the three of them have just one name—it means, ‘Go and baptize with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ It does not mean that the three are one. In fact, there is no passage in the New Testament gospels or in any of the writings of the New Testament that says that the three—the Father Son, and Holy Spirit—are together as one God.

This is what Sam needs to address. Instead, he changes the subject to me. But attacking me will not remove the problem. The problem, as the clear logic above indicates, is that there is only one God Yahweh, as Jews, Christians and Muslims agree. According to Matthew 12:18, Jesus is the servant of Yahweh. This too Muslims and even Christians accept. But Christians insist that, in addition to being the servant of Yahweh, Jesus is also Yahweh himself. I have been refuting this latter claim with my clear logic. And now Sam wants to attack me. But my logic is not exclusively mine. Logic is universal. To get rid of this problem, Sam does not need to attack me, he needs to battle with the fundamental laws of nature, or the designing work of God who fashioned us to think logically. He needs to battle with his own thoughts which cannot escape the same logic.

When Sam called, he accused me of claiming that Robert Gundry in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel denies that Mt. 28:19 is a Trinitarian text. But that is not what I claimed.

In the above transcript of the relevant portion of my speech, I started out with my own statement, cited Gundry, and then ended with my own statement. I can see where at first glance it may not be clear to others where I intended to end my citation of Gundry. But if that was not clear at first, during the call I explained to Sam:

In that commentary, Robert Gundry says very plainly that the idea that the mention of Father, Son and Holy Spirit should mean that they share the same name—that is not the idea. He is saying that the idea there is that the baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I am not saying anything more than this.

Notice that last sentence: ‘I am not saying anything more than this.’ Now it should be clear that I am only claiming as follows: in a particular book, Gundry denies that Mt 28:19 implies that the three persons bear the same one name.

Despite my taking pains to clarify the point on air, however, Sam charges in his writing composed after the debate:

Ally basically claimed that Gundry denies that this text supports the Triune nature of God.

That is not what I claimed.

I am not saying that Gundry is not a Trinitarian, or that he denies that Mt. 28:19 can be put to Trinitarian use, etc. It should be clear to all students of logic that a statement of the form,

‘A does not imply B’

does not mean the same as,

‘A implies that B is not the case,’

and it does not mean the same as,

‘I deny B.’

In what follows, I will replace B with ‘the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name.’

Logically, therefore, when I cite Gundry to say,

‘Mt. 28:19 does not imply that the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name,’

that is not the same as citing him to say,

‘Mt. 28:19 implies that the Father, Son and Spirit do not share the same name.’

And it does not mean the same as citing him to say,

‘I deny that the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name.’

It is really sad to see Sam misquoting me to prove his charge that I misquoted someone else. Sam does not like my message. But does that justify shooting the messenger? Dialogue between Muslims and Christians need to move beyond such tactics. We need to listen to each other, learn, and pray to God asking him to guide us all.

Finally, the book I was citing was published in 1982 for an academic level of readership. It caused a stir in evangelical circles leading to Gundry’s resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society. The book Sam read on air was published 28 years later in the year 2010 for a more common readership.

This latter work, from which Sam’s read to me on air, and which he cited second in his article, clearly supports Sam’s contention that Gundry believes that the three divine persons are included in ‘the name.’ I am grateful for this information. I did not know it until Sam pointed it out. And I am glad that I did not overstate my case in citing Gundry. However, if I do cite him again, on this matter, it will be appropriate for me to add that Gundry apparently changed his mind about this as is evident from his later writing. Why he apparently changed his mind would be interesting to learn. Is it that the two books were meant for two different audiences, in which case he was willing to tease the academic community but not the masses? Did the negative response to his earlier book cause him to be more cautious? Or, did he find new evidence to convince him that his earlier statement was incorrect?

In short,

I correctly cited Gundry’s earlier statement,

I am willing to incorporate his later statement in future citations, and

I am grateful to Sam for alerting me to this, but

I find it at least ironic that Sam would misrepresent me to prove that I misrepresented Gundry.
-----------------------------
End of Shabir's response

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

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

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:

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

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.” [1]

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?

[1] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 596.

End of Shabir's response

----------------------------------

My comments

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
STINKER!

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

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Was Paul actually a false prophet? - Dr. Shabir Ally

What does the definition of Jeshua tell us?

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Was Muhammad (pbuh) a false prophet? Dr. Shabir Ally refutes Dr. Andy Bannister

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

 

Sharia Law against terrorism

 

Conversions to Islam

 

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Why is the Trinity doctrine so difficult to understand? - Dr. Shabir Ally answers Nabeel Qureshi

Christian evangelists have real issues with the doctrine of the Trinity



Ignorant Nabeel Qureshi 'Outclassed' in Debate with Shabir Ally

Indonesian Muslims Converting to Christianity?

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage

 

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

 

Sharia Law against terrorism

 

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Ignorant Nabeel Qureshi 'Outclassed' in Debate with Shabir Ally

It appears as though Dr Nabeel Qureshi did not impress certain folk who were in the Christian camp during his debate with Dr Shabir Ally. Here's a critical comment by a user called Eli Santana who states he's on the side of Nabeel Qureshi yet he considers Nabeel Qureshi to be lacking in skill and ultimately outclassed by Dr Shabir Ally:

Dr. Ally is a phenomenal debater, Hope Dr. Nabeel "ups his game" for future debates as he seemed to be outclassed here, And this is coming from someone who's on his side of the debate.

... Deconstructing the other side of the argument is perfectly acceptable in a debate, especially if the person you're debating allows you to do so. It was Nabeel's responsibility to force Dr. Ally into a defensive position, however he lacked the skill to do so.

Tony Arsenal offers his analysis and criticises Dr Nabeel Qureshi for not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity:

Now, I want to get some things straight. I understand that Qureshi is not a theologian. I understand that this is not his specialty. I understand that the Trinity is complicated and people are bound to make mistakes. However, when you put yourself forward to debate the leading Muslim apologist on the subject… you better have your doctrine straight.

 ...I think it is safe to say that Dr Qureshi has a lot to learn. I appreciate his desire to reach Muslims, but at this point I don’t think he has an adequate command over the doctrine of the Trinity to be debating these things.

Tony Arsenal is a graduate of Bethel University (BA: Biblical and Theological Studies, Minors in Biblical Greek and Biblical Languages) and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (MA: Church History, MA: Theology). He currently resides in Enfield, CT with his wife Lee.
Tony’s interests are Patristic theology, Trinitarian and Christological theology, Reformed Dogmatics, and Historical Theology focusing on the Conciliar period of the 4th and 5th centuries.
He serves in his local church as occasional preacher, as well as unofficially as a theologian in residence. He also occasionally helps with youth events and worship.

I personally have not viewed the debate. I've followed Nabeel for a few years talking about Islam and I have noticed he is prone to presenting misinformation and low level internet arguments. One wonders whether Nabeel will one day value accuracy with a better regard.

Here's Nabeel Qureshi using a couple of ignorant internet arguments against Islam:




Here's another one where he seems to have just plagiarized from a shoddy Christian internet apologist:



The Nabeel Qureshi section

Is the Gospel of John Reliable?

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage

 

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

 

Sharia Law against terrorism

 

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

What Does Jesus is the Word of God Mean According to Muslims? Dr Shabir Ally

In this video you will see a group of Christian missionaries/apologists embarrassing themselves with their use of ignorant, superficial and silly Christian apologetics concerning the Muslim belief that Jesus (p) is the Word of Allah.

A clip of a Muslim scholar, Dr Shabir Ally, is sufficient to offer the relevant explanation and teaching concerning the term Word of Allah with regards to Jesus (p).


If the video does not play, see: http://youtu.be/lU9mJq66Ke0

This just further highlights the sad state of Christian apologetics, it's riddled with intellectual dishonesty and pure ignorance. I've seen Christian apologists look silly numerous times...this is just another example.

Rebuking Rev. Steven Martins of Evangelium & Apologia Ministries - 'Western Values'

Is the Gospel of John Reliable?

The Sicarii

More about the Paraclete

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Important Video for Pauline Christians

Dr Shabir Ally, in this 30 second video, mentions the early followers of Jesus (p) kept the Law while Paul and his followers broke the Law.

Did Paul Contradict Jesus? Dr Shabir Ally



False Prophecy by Paul 1 Thessalonians 4:17

Who wrote Hebrews?

Is the Gospel of John Reliable?

The Sicarii

More about the Paraclete

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

False Prophecy by Paul 1 Thessalonians 4:17

Here's some material from Dr Shabir Ally and Bassam Zawadi in which they posit Paul made a false prophecy in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.

What I'd like Christians to do is to ponder upon the points made by Dr Shabir Ally and Bassam Zawadi. At the end of the day, if Paul is making false prophecies then how can the average Christian deem him to be reliable?

Look into this and look into Islam. The Islamic view of Jesus (p) makes more sense than the Trinitarian view of Jesus p.

Dr Shabir Ally on the false prophecy attribute to Paul in Thessalonians 4:17



Bassam Zawadi's comments on 1 Thessalonians 4 and the claim of false prophecy is taken from here but is reproduced in full below:

Paul made a false prophecy about the coming of Jesus during his lifetime...

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

    ¹³Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. ¹⁴We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. ¹⁵According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. ¹⁸Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Lets look at some of the commentaries regarding this passage...

"Prevent" means "having an advantage over." Those who live until the Lord comes won't have any advantage over those who died earlier.

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1139502792-6755.html

a. Paul emphasized the soon return of Jesus, and the Thessalonians believed it earnestly; this was part of the reason that they were the kind of church that Paul would compliment so highly. But after he had left, they wondered about those Christians who died before Jesus' return - did they miss out on that great event? Would they miss the victory and blessing of Jesus' coming?

b. The Thessalonians were afraid that the dead in Christ would miss out, but Paul assures them that those gone on before them won't feel cheated at not being on earth when Jesus comes back to this earth, because the dead in Christ will gain first benefit

a. Those alive and remaining until this coming of Jesus are caught up to meet Jesus in the air, together with the dead in Jesus who have already risen

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1139503168-6235.html

The "we" means whichever of us are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord.
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1139503752-1625.html

Christians may tend to argue back and quote...

Matthew 24:42

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

to show that Christians never knew about when Jesus was coming and therefore should always be expecting it. However, when we look at the way Paul is talking about the coming of Jesus we see that he is confident and sure that Jesus would be coming during his lifetime. He didn't say 'IF Jesus comes now then...". He was talking confidently and emphasized that Jesus was coming for sure during his lifetime in that passage. Obviously he was wrong. Paul wrote something wrong and wrote a failed prophecy. According to Christians all scripture is inspired (2Timothy 3:16). How could the Holy Spirit who was inspiring Paul, inspire Paul to write a false prophecy like that?

Who wrote Hebrews?

Is the Gospel of John Reliable?

The Sicarii

More about the Paraclete

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Who Wrote The Second Epistle of Peter? Dr Shabir Ally

Dr Shabir Ally touches on the uncertainty behind the authorship of 2 Peter.



Who wrote Hebrews?

Is the Gospel of John Reliable?

The Sicarii

More about the Paraclete

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html

ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

"The Wife of Jesus" by Anthony Le Donne - Review by Dr. Shabir Ally

A small piece of papyrus appeared that claimed to be the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife". Even though it was discovered to be fake, the interest in Jesus' marital status remains high. Dr. Shabir Ally reviews "The Wife of Jesus", a book on the subject.



Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html

Sign: No Dogs in Tower Hamlets. Rght Wing Stunt?

Piece of paper gets Islamophobes excited

Of course the Islamophobes are making a big deal out of a paper sign about how Muslims don't want dog walkers in the area of Tower Hamlets.

People are stupid aren't they? This could well have been a silly stunt by Britain First, EDL or some other right wing organisation to further their agenda of hatred and division. Jim Fitzpatrick is requesting a full investigation:

The MP for Poplar and Limehouse said: ‘I have no idea whether this was posted by the EDL, Islamists or another organisation. Regardless, this is a highly divisive sign.

It seems to be as though this piece of paper has been totally blown out of proportion. I'd imagine it's a right wing anti-Muslim bigot who put that up. Yet we see the anti-Muslim brigade already using this for their purpose to bash Muslims. Pathetic.

Here's a Muslim scholar, Dr Shabir Ally, discussing the Muslim view on dogs.

Q and A: How Should Muslims View Dogs?



From the news report:

'Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs': Fury after poster discovered near popular London park warns dog-walkers to stay out of 'Islamic areas'

• Sign sparked anger after being seen on railings of Bartlett Park, east London
• Notice advices pet owners not to walk dogs as it is an 'Islamic area now'
• MP Jim Fitzpatrick has written letter of complaint to Tower Hamlets mayor
• It is not yet known who put the sign up and police are investigating
  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644058/Do-not-walk-dog-Muslims-not-like-dogs-Fury-poster-discovered-near-popular-London-park-warns-dog-walkers-stay-Islamic-areas.html#ixzz33I94ZCih

Muslim country stops perverts!

If a Muslim School Forced Female Teachers to Wear Underwear and Banned Spandex...

Ex-Muslims in Muslim Countries and Self Hatred

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother/sister of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

How Do We Know Quran is from God? - Dr. Shabir Ally

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html

Come to Islam today:

http://www.ediscoverislam.com/
http://www.thedeenshow.com/

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Christian Complaint: Shabir Ally Dialogue with John Dominic Crossan

Debate Comment: The Historicity of the life of Jesus in the Gospels

Here's an analysis, by Ijaz Ahmad, of the complaints some Christian evangelicals are directing at the discussion between Dr Shabir Ally and Dr John Dominic Crossan:

Christian Evangelicals in an attempt to discredit the dialogue between two scholars, namely Dr. Ally and Dr. Crossan have been enforcing some very odd, if not extreme arguments against the speakers. In their vain attempts, they have used the example of Ahmadi/ Qadiani opportunist turned Evangelical Ultra Conservative Christian speaker, Nabeel Qureishi. Their argument is presented as such:

• Dr. Crossan has heretical beliefs according to Evangelicals.
• Nabeel is to Islam, what Dr. Crossan is to Christianity.

However, this is an appeal to the fallacy of false equivocation. The decision to have Dr. Crossan share a stage with Dr. Ally was not due to Dr. Crossan’s beliefs, but due to his scholastic credentials – which far outweighs that of his detractors. The comparison with Nabeel is a bit simple minded, if not juvenile. Nabeel was not qualified in any Islamic science, not one. He was not a Mufti, Mawlana, Qadhi, Mufasir, Muhadith, he was qualified in not a single Islamic field of study. His authority to speak on Islam as given to him by the Evangelical community is merely due to a title of, “ex-Muslim” and not due to his lack of Islamic scholastic credentials. Whereas with Dr. Crossan, his list of well attested and erudite scholastic credentials is significant. This is possibly the first time that Dr. Ally will be on stage with a Christian scholar with such a grand background of scholarly qualification, study and research. Therefore, while the Evangelicals are running around screaming bloody murder, basing their Ministerial authority on titles and lack of study, we – the Muslim community have our arms wide open in accepting dialogue with those whose credentials stand first and beliefs after.

I was a bit appalled though, to find one Christian colleague of mine, defending the above logic, by claiming that Nabeel – despite his heretical beliefs was still more qualified to speak on Islam than Dr. Crossan is on Christianity because Nabeel affirmed the 6 articles of faith and the 5 pillars of Islam.
This only goes to demonstrate the weak understanding of Islam that both the Ahmadis/ Qadianis have along with the Evangelical community. Before we even get to the articles of faith and the pillars of Islam, the first criteria of belief is Tawheed and then the Khatm Nubuwwat of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Since Ahmadis deny the latter, they therefore do not qualify to be labelled as Muslims according to orthodox beliefs. Even if we examine the articles of faith – included in it is the belief in the Prophets and the belief that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last Prophet – something Ahmadis/ Qadianis vehemently deny. What is a bit ironic is that the young apologist who claimed such a defense originated from Nabeel’s previous correspondences with him, concerning his “orthodoxy” in Islam, demonstrated through such an argument that Nabeel was firmly ignorant on what the 6 articles of faith are, or what they entailed.

In another twist of events, it seems as if the Christian colleague of mines decided to label Dr. Crossan as a de-facto atheist. So not only has the Evangelical community decided to give authority to Nabeel because of a label he once wore with no scholarly credentials behind him (in regards to Islam), they’ve taken away authority from one educated scholar not due to his credentials but due to a title they’ve typecasted him into. To me, that is not only a double standard and self defeating – it is quite unfortunate to see that this is the level with which the Evangelical Christian movement must stoop to, in order to prevent healthy and scholastic inter-faith dialogue. As our teachers have taught us, damnant non quod intelligunt – they condemn what they do not understand.

and God knows best.

From: http://callingchristians.com/2014/04/05/evangelical-hegemony-on-religious-dialogue/

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk