The Qur’aan says:
“And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.” – Qur’aan 4:157.
An early 1st century group, the Basilides believed the following:
“This second mimologue mounts another dramatic piece for us in his account of the cross of Christ; for he claims that not Jesus, but Simon of Cyrene, has suffered. For when the Lord was marched out of Jerusalem, as the Gospel passage says, one Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear the cross. From this he finds his trickery <opportunity> for composing his dramatic piece and says: Jesus changed Simon into his own form while he was bearing the cross, and changed himself unto Simon, and delivered Simon to crucifixion in his place. During Simon’s crucifixion Jesus stood opposite him unseen, laughing at the persons who were crucifying Simon. But he himself flew off to the heavenly realms after delivering Simon to crucifixion, and returned to heaven without suffering.”
The above was quoted from the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Anacephalacosis II, Against Basilides, page 78 (Brill, 2008).
We also read from the Nag Hammadi Library, from the Second Treatise of Seth, Chapter 9, he says:
“For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And the plan which they devised about me to release their Error and their senselessness – I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I <suffered> according to their sight and thought, in order that they may never find any word to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.”
Credit goes to Br. ‘Oeleju’ for pointing this out to me and for giving me the incentive to search for the information on Basilides in the Panarion, credit also goes to Br. Gomerozubar for informing me of the quote from the Treatise of Seth, May Allaah ta ‘aala reward them accordingly, ameen.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
I’d like to announce that Ustadh Alie Ataie, whom I personally consider to be the most professional Muslim scholar on Christianity is having a 12 week course on the Gospels for free! This is an unmissable event, he speaks Arabic, Hebrew and Greek, he’s also graduated from a Christian Theological Seminary!
Here’s a little information on him:
Ali Ataie is the President and Founder of Muslim Interfaith Council and has been involved in interfaith activities for over ten years. He earned his undergraduate degree in Accounting from Cal Poly State University in 2000, during which time he served as the President of the Muslim Students’ Association . He has been both a guest lecturer and guest instructor at several colleges and universities such as Cal Poly State , UC Davis , UC Berkeley, and Cal State East Bay . He studied various Islamic sciences under local Bay Area scholars and has dialogued and debated with several Christian scholars on a variety of topics ranging from the historicity of the resurrection of Christ (upon whom be peace) and the Prophethood of Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings). He is a graduate of the Badr Arabic Language Institute in Hadramawt, Yemen and studied at the prestigious Dar al-Mustafa under some of the most eminent scholars in the world. He holds a Masters’ Degree in Biblical Studies from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, (the first Muslim seminarian in the 143 year history of the school to do so), and is working on a PhD in Islamic Biblical Hermeneutics.
Spaces are limited! Very limited, so please ensure you register early. Here’s the breakdown of the course:
- The importance of interdisciplinary knowledge
- Jesus (peace be upon him) and his confirmation of the theology of the Old Testament
- An introduction to the Gospel of Mark
- The two parts of the Gospel of Mark
- Eschatology and expectation of the end of time
- The two strands of Christianity
- The Messianic secret
- Gospel of Mark represents Oral Proclamation of Pauline Christianity
- Matthew uses Mark’s chronological structure
- Interdependency of the Four Gospels
- Four Gospels are called Synoptic Gospels
- An introduction to the Gospel of Matthew
- Jesus (peace be upon him) as the interpreter of Sacred Law
- Matthew’s use of Old Testament to foreshadow life of Jesus (peace be upon him)
- The influence of Paul on the Gospels
- Sources of the Gospel of Matthew
- Matthew changes the Gospel of Mark
- Gospel of Luke
- An introduction to the Gospel of Luke
- New characters and their significance
- The role of Jesus (peace be upon him) in salvation
- Portrayal of Jesus (peace be upon him)’s character
- The nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) as a savior
- Sections of the Gospel
- Sources of the text
- Unique Lukan material and its significance
- Differences between Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark
- Authenticity of verses on the Communion
- An introduction to the Gospel of John
- Comparing John to the other Gospels
- Historicity of the Gospel of John
- The person and essence of Jesus: only human, only divine, or both?
- Was Jesus created?
- Comparison of various views of Jesus
- Authorship of John
- The importance of the Gospel of John
- The word “god” in Hebrew and Greek
- Jesus (peace be upon him) as the Messiah
- Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Gospel of John
- Who is Paraclete?
- Understanding sin and forgiveness
- Oneness of God
- Jesus (peace be upon him) has limited knowledge
- Jesus (peace be upon him) does not say he is God
- Source of names Matthew, Mark, Luke & John
- Source of the claim that Bible is Divinely Inspired
- Language of the Bible
With 3569 subscribers and approximately 2 million views, Nazam44′s channel is one of the biggest and most well respected sources of Muslim-Christian dialogue and debate videos. I’d like to announce that the debate has successfully been uploaded to Uncle Nazam’s channel and is now free to view at this link.
I’d like to extend much appreciation and thanks to Uncle Nazam for uploading the video, making it accessible to thousands across the globe who frequent his channel each day. May Allaah ta ‘aala reward him abundantly, ameen.
Are you a Muslim speaker? Interested in the history of the Bible? Are you tired of hearing contradicting information about the preservation and history of the Bible? Then this is the course for you. I, Br. Ijaz Ahmad, will be presenting a free course on introducing the Bible to Muslims this Saturday the 7th of December.
Please note, that this is not a polemical presentation, it is not intended to malign the Christian scripture. Look below for more details on our search for a Christian speaker and a Jewish speaker for the night’s event. This is an academic presentation based on Christian scholarly writings on the historical development of the Biblical literature.
- What is the Bible?
- Canons and Codices.
- The Jesus Oral Tradition.
- A Comprehensive History of the Biblical Text.
- Introduction to Textual Criticism.
- Responding to Missionary Apologetics and Polemics.
- Question and Answer Period.
- A FREE Digital Handbook Summarizing and Expanding on the Course Topics.
Who Can Attend?
- Persons of any religious or irreligious background can attend.
Where Will You Be Attaining Your Information From?
- Textual Critic Journals, all citations will be given in the FREE digital handbook.
- Textual Critic Books, all citations will be given in the FREE digital handbook.
Christian and Jewish Representatives Needed:
- A Christian speaker is needed to introduce from the Christian perspective, their beliefs about the Bible, historically and faithfully for a period of 5 – 10 minutes, please contact us if you are willing to fill this open slot.
- A Jewish speaker is needed to introduce from the Jewish perspective, their beliefs about the Bible, historically and faithfully for a period of 5 – 10 minutes, please contact us if you are willing to fill this open slot.
* – The course outline is subject to change at the discretion of the speaker.
Note: Manuscript used is Judges 8:12-9:54, dated to 10th – 12th CE, Davis, M. C., Hebrew Bible manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah collections, 2, Cambridge, 1980.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
A great deal of thanks must be conveyed upon Brother BeholderGuard who not only recorded the debate, but also did a video for it, added quotations and commentary. If I was difficult to hear in the first recording produced, then please note that this recording is 100% clearer! Glory be to Allaah for this recording, as it’s clear and crisp in its audio:
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
Br. Zakir Hussain of the Muslim Debate Initiative has reviewed and critiqued my performance against that of Bob Siegel in our recent radio debate. It’s quite a read, but it’s interesting to see the thoughts of a seasoned debater on what many deem to be a controversial debate:
I would firstly like to thank brother Ijaz for the excellent work he has been doing on his blog and for his great performance against respected Christian apologist Pastor Samuel Green.
After listening to this recent debate and realizing that Bob Siegel hasn’t changed his approach since his performance against Brother Shadid Lewis I thought I would give a brief review of his next encounter with Brother Ijaz Ahmed. I will try to comment on some of the points presented in the order they were made in the debate. One point I would like to say is that it was quite hard understanding a lot of Ijaz Ahmed’s opening statement and rebuttal as it seems his mic or phone line was not very clear. In fact I had to keep replaying some parts in order to try to make out what he was saying so I think this was something that worked against Ijaz in this debate.
Now Bob started off with the usual cheap argument that the Quran teaches that the Bible is the word of God. I think Bob must have Surah 2:75-79 missing in his personal manuscript of the Quran and also Surah 5:13 and 4:157 which refers to his New Testament as CONJECTURE. After this first erroneous point Bob than claimed that although the Quran confirms the Bible, at the same time it also contradicts it. For example the Quran denies Jesus is God yet on the other hand Jesus (AS) allegedly claimed to be God. If Bob had an accurate understanding of what the Quran teaches he would know that the Quran does NOT confirm the entire scriptures of the Jews and Christians. If you read the Tafsir of Surah 5:48 for example you will find the following:
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
Ibn Jarir said,
“The Qur’an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur’an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur’an is false.”
So if as Bob says the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God, than the Quran does not confirm this part of the New Testament and in fact the Quran responds to the Christians regarding the New Testament teaching that Jesus is the son of God:
9:30. The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
So the first reason Bob gives for a positive case for his Bible fails miserably. As even brother Ijaz in his rebuttal period mentioned Surah 2:79 to Bob and no response was given by Bob.
Bob than preceded to show how the New Testament fulfils Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 53. One thing that was very surprising was Bob made the claim that Isaiah 53 says that the anointed one (Messiah) will come and die for our sins, but Isaiah 53 nowhere mentions the Messiah. At first I thought this might have been a slip of the tongue but then Bob mentioned this again and again. So I would challenge Bob to show us where Isaiah 53 mentions the Messiah. There is a difference between Christians claiming it is speaking about the Messiah and Christians saying that the text itself mentions the Messiah.
He also mentioned Daniel 9 predicting the exact time of when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. It’s unfortunate that Bob doesn’t know that Daniel 9 is not speaking about one anointed one but is actually speaking about 2 anointed ones. I recommend he reads a book by Rabbi Tovia Singer entitled Let’s Get Biblical where on pg.114 he goes into great detail demonstrating from the Hebrew how the text speaks of 2 anointed one’s. Not only this but he gives a different timeframe of when the 70weeks actually starts and ends hence it doesn’t line up with the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. As far as Bob quoting from Josephus. This was where I realised that it seems that Bob hasn’t done his homework at all as many scholars today recognise that much of the material present in the quote of Josephus are actually what they would call a “pious fraud”. In other words some Christian added to and interpolated into the quote of Josephus. Bob also quotes from the Talmud to establish that the New Testament is corroborated by other non-Christian documents but historians like Josephus and the Jews of the Talmud did not have any independent sources regarding Jesus but were just simply repeating what they had heard from Christians so this hardly makes the case for the New Testament any stronger.
So we see that Bobs whole opening statement was riddled with error after error on the other hand let’s see how Ijaz approached this topic.
Ijaz started off by mentioning a key difference between the Quran and the New Testament. Namely the fact that the Quran was viewed as scripture right from the get go and as such Muslims started learning it and studying it from the start whereas on the other hand the NT was not seen as scripture from the start and it actually took years before it started getting viewed as inspired documents. Ijaz mentioned that the Quran was transmitted in 2 ways, namely in oral form and also in written form with both forms complementing each other. He then asked Bob regarding which NT he deems reliable as in the early years and actually for centuries Christians had different books in their canon and this phenomenon is actually the case with Christians today. One can compare the canon of the Protestants with the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian churches. They differ with each other. An excellent question that Ijaz posed to Bob was regarding Psalms 119 which says that the word of the Lord is written in heaven on a tablet (us Muslims also believe this). Ijaz then asked which version of the OT and NT are written on this tablet. I must say I was disappointed with Bob avoiding the question and instead speaking about translations and how 99% percent of manuscripts he trusts are reliable etc thus avoiding the question.
Another excellent point Ijaz made was that the Disciples of Jesus did not have a NT to guide them nor did they have anything but the OT for their guidance so why do Christians need the NT if the disciples didn’t. So these are some of the points mentioned in the opening statement. After this point the debaters had questions posed to them.
The 1st question posed to Ijaz was regarding the transmission of the Quran i.e. who wrote it and how it came to us and when was it written. Ijaz responded with the fact that the Quran was being written down by the companions and followers of the Prophet from the earliest years of its revelation as the story of Umar (RA) visiting his sister who had secretly embraced Islam and who had a written copy of a certain chapter with her thus confirming that it was being written down very early.
Bob than responded by claiming that the Quran was neither written down nor compiled in the Prophets lifetime. It seems that Bob once again must have a missing verse in his personal manuscript of the Quran namely
80.11 Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment,
80.12 So let whosoever will pay heed to it,
80.13 On honoured leaves
80.14 Exalted, purified,
80.15 (Set down) by scribes
Bob was accurate regarding the Quran being compiled together after the Prophet (PBUH) had passed but all of it had been written in the Prophets lifetime and in his presence but it was only put together into a book form by his right hand man Abu Bakr (RA).
Bob than quoted Ibn Umar (RA) to try to show that Ibn Umar believed that much of the Quran was lost but as brother Ijaz rightly pointed out that Ibn Umar was speaking about the fact that some verses and recitations of the Quran were abrogated. What we have in the Quran today is the same as what the Prophet recited to angel Jibreel twice in the last Ramadan of his life.
Bob then in response to the claim by Ijaz that the NT was not seen as scripture in the early years tried to show how the disciple of Jesus Peter claimed in 2nd Peter that the letters of Paul are inspired like the OT. First off Bob should know that biblical scholars are almost unanimous that 2nd Peter was not written by the disciple Peter but by an anonymous person who forged this letter in the name of Peter. He can read the book by Bart Ehrman entitled Forged or even check out the arguments presented by Bruce Metzger regarding 2nd Peter. It must also be mentioned that this is not just a modern view but even early church fathers were in dispute regarding whether 2nd Peter was actually written by Peter. I would ask Bob to give us some proofs that any document in the NT is written by an apostle. I am confident that apart from some of the letters of Paul the rest of the NT has no solid proof that it was written by any apostles. Ijaz also mentioned that 2nd Peter is attributed to the 2nd century by some scholars as opposed to the first century as Bob thinks.
We now move on to the part of the debate where the moderator asked both speakers regarding the internal consistency of their scriptures. Ijaz proceeded to show how the Quran is clear and consistent on the first commandment namely that God is one in an absolute sense and how Islam and Judaism both do not believe in human substitution sacrifices and concepts such as the Trinity. At this point it would have been good to hear Ijaz speak about how the Quran itself in Surah 4:82 mentions that if it was not from God than surely it would have contradictions.
Bob mentioned that the Quran has many contradictions of which he could only bring up his wild theory that the Quran confirms the Bible yet contradicts it which has already been refuted above and in the debate by Ijaz who mentioned Surah 2:79.
The next question was regarding Paradise according to both scriptures of which Bob mentioned that both Islam and Christianity have a similar concept of paradise and both believe you must follow the ways of God to reach paradise. Bob mentioned that before the time of Jesus people like Moses and Abraham worked with animal sacrifices to cleanse their sins. What is remarkable is that Bob contradicted Jesus as Bob claimed that Abraham didn’t know about the coming of Jesus yet according to the Gospel of John Jesus allegedly said
8:56 your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
So Bob needs to explain why he contradicted Jesus. Was it a slip of the tongue or have I misunderstood what he was trying to say?
After this Ijaz once again asked Bob regarding Psalms 119 which states that the scriptures of the Lord are preserved in heaven, so which scriptures according to Bob are preserved? Is it the Masoretic text or may be the Qumran scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus or may be Vaticanus? I must confess I did not hear Bob answer.
The last part of this debate I would like to touch on is how Islam spread. Ijaz claimed it was because of the power of the Quran whereas Bob on the other hand claims it was because of the Sword. So I will ask him something the late great Sheikh Ahmed Deedat asked Anis Shorrosh in 1988. Which Muslim army went to Indonesia with the sword and which army is now in America and Europe where Islam is the fastest growing religion? Ijaz pointed to verses of the Quran such as 2:190 which give the context of warfare in Islam but Bob claimed that the Quran contradicts itself on peace and war where in one place it says be peaceful and in another place it says pick up the sword.
Has it not crossed Bob’s mind that just like the pre Exodus period of the life of Moses (AS) where he did not fight but after the demise of Pharaoh Moses and the Israelites conducted military operations and much like the 1st coming of Jesus where allegedly according to Bob Jesus was a pacifist but on the other hand when Jesus returns in his 2nd coming he will be a warrior with a sword as Bob confirms and Jesus confirms in Luke 19:27. Than in the same way Prophet Muhammad resembled Moses and Jesus in their first period whilst he was in Makkah but in Madina he was in the position of Moses after the Exodus and Jesus in his 2nd coming where he could fight against the disbelievers on behalf of God in the context of Ayah’s such as Surah 2:190 which Ijaz mentioned. It’s silly for Bob to quote Jesus telling Peter to put his Sword down as he who lives by the sword dies by the sword and interpret it in the way he has that Jesus was teaching pacifism. If this is the case than I have 2 questions for Bob
1) Who told Peter to purchase a sword in the first place?
2) if you interpret the statement of Jesus that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword the way you have than please explain if people like Moses and Joshua and David who all waged wars with swords died by the sword.
Isn’t it better to see what Jesus meant how the early Christian commentators understood it that what Jesus meant was think before you pull out the sword and don’t be brash with it rather than how you understand it that Jesus was condemning his followers to use a sword period.
So in summary I think it’s clear that in this debate Ijaz put Bob on the spot and under pressure a few times by posing questions that Bob kept on evading such as which NT is on the tablet mentioned in Psalms 119 and why do Christians need the NT when the disciples and early Christians didn’t need it. Its times like this when I believe apologists should be honest and just admit that they don’t know the answer. I mean none of us knows everything so wouldn’t it have been better for Bob to just say to Ijaz that I can’t answer your questions but I will research them and get back to you. Rather than just talk about other things and act like he was addressing the questions. Does it hurt one’s pride to just say I don’t know?
I am also pleased with the way Ijaz showed how the Quran is more reliably transmitted than the NT as it was written and memorised from the start and the key difference between both books is that the Quran was recognised as the word of God from the very beginning unlike the NT.
So all in all I think that apart from the issues of the audio of Ijaz’s mic that overall this was a good dialogue and praise must be given to Ijaz for his good approach. As for Bob I think he needs to research his claims more rather than just copy and paste arguments such as the Quran approves the Bible from google. I must say though that I do respect Bob as he seems sincere and is a charismatic speaker and I can tell he loves God and has a thirst for the truth. So I pray that Allah guides him to the straight path of the Prophets which is Islam In Sha Allah.
In keeping with my promise to post reviews of debates submitted by Christians, I have received a debate review from a Concerned Reformed Christian in Canada, this is his review posted verbatim, no edits, no changes. Any Christian can submit their review of any of my debates for publishing [email@example.com]. If you’d like to ask the Christian brother questions on his review, please post them on the comments section and he’d gladly respond. Here’s his review:
I have listened to the debate between Ijaz Ahmad and Bob Siegel on the reliability of the Qur’an, and I must say that from the perspective of this detail-oriented Christian listener, the result of the debate could best be described as a stalemate. I do not find Ijaz’s arguments for the authenticity of the Qur’an (such as the claim that its message spread like wildfire throughout the known world and changed the course of history—a claim that almost any other religion could make, including Christian) to be convincing at all.
That being said, however, I cannot agree with my friend Anthony Rogers in his claim that Siegel “was dealing it to him so handily.” I found Siegel’s arguments for the reliability of the Bible to be rather unimpressive. He lacks knowledge on the discipline of textual criticism (e.g. He does not know what an “eclectic text” is, even though he was clearly attempting to articulate the concept).
Also, I had the distinct feeling that Siegel was relying entirely on secondary and tertiary sources for his arguments. This was made painfully clear when he attempted to address the contents of the Qur’an. Even when I might otherwise have been inclined to agree with his assertions, he never once backed up his assertions by citing chapter and verse from the Qur’an, and his failure to do so seriously hurt his ability to speak to the Islamic holy text’s claims.
I was also disappointed by the way Siegel and his moderator bounced from topic to topic. I was expecting a debate on the reliability of the respective holy texts, but there were issues being thrown around that had nothing to do with that topic. The discussion on heaven and hell comes to mind, as well as the one on whose holy text is the most violent. It has been my experience that when someone resorts to jumping from topic to topic, that is a sign that they have given up on attempting to argue for the central thesis of their debate.
As for Ijaz Ahmad’s debate performance, I have to give kudos to him for restraining himself from making any kind of snide comments or below the belt attacks in this latest performance (though I cannot speak to any of his past debates in that regard). The one thing that I respect about him is that he attempts to step up the game from previous Islamic apologists who have done little but parrot the claims of old-style polemicists such as Zakir Naik. He does attempt to critique Christianity at a scholarly level by looking into academic sources (including primary sources) on textual criticism and early Christian history. Whatever else one wishes to say about Ijaz, he is certainly no slouch when it comes to doing research in producing his arguments.
Finally, I must speak on the issue of Christians leveling ad hominem attacks against Ijaz in their reviews of his debates. I totally understand how in the heat of the moment, we can become very adversarial in our treatment of those we are in opposition to. However, some of the statements that are being made against him are simply unwarranted and—from a Gospel-centered perspective—un-Christlike. No, do not excuse your attacks by saying “well, he does it too”. The tu quoque fallacy was and still remains a logical fallacy, so resorting to it will do no good here. I would like to remind my Christian brothers of the words of the apostle Paul: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:6, ESV). Perhaps once we all—Christian and Muslim—rise above these petty personal squabbles, we can accomplish something genuinely constructive in our intellectual debates and exchanges with each other.
End of review.
As for why the Christian decided to respond to my request of reviews, he says and I quote:
As for why I said yes to your request for a review, my desire is to help my fellow Christians as much as it is to help you. This is my way of telling them: “Come on guys, I know you can do better than that.”
So lately a few angry Christians have been attacking me. They’ve foregone publishing one of the debates while attacking me for not posting another one immediately, irony at its best.
Their comments are personal, vicious and are not based on discussing the materials or arguments for either debate. One brother who viewed their comments, saw right through their actions. Someone half their age, went head to head with their best debater with decades of expertise, and yet I persisted (note: not declaring myself a winner, just saying I persisted during the debate). Here’s his insightful comment:
Their ad hominem have increased because they cannot stand up to or deal with my arguments. It’s therefore become very polemical and personal. Just goes to show when missionaries attack you this way and this much, it means that I must be doing something right. I just find it funny that grown men who claim to ignore me, can dedicate so much time and effort into following my posts, trying to talk to me privately (Radical Moderate messaged me on Paltalk), write posts about me, publish – review and promote my debates, yet they’re ignoring me. I mean, if you’re claiming to ignore me, and you’re so obsessed with me and my debates – mind you, debates attracting crowds of 120+ (something none of them can achieve), how is it that they’re actually ignoring me?
If I’m such a waste of time, why do they bother to attend my debates, promote them, share them, view them, discuss them, review my articles, comment on my articles, etc? As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. If this is how they ignore me, I wish they’d ignore me all the time!
and Allah knows best.
Today I present the first of a set of reviews on my debate with Pastor Samuel, these are independent reviews from persons who have watched the debate and arrived at their own conclusions. At present, I am inviting any Christian who would like to have their review posted on this website, to email us [firstname.lastname@example.org] and regardless of their view, it’d be published. Here’s Br. Danish’s review:
Ijaz’s opening statement was impressive both on etiquettes and presentation of his case. He used scholarly arguments, intelligent reasoning and logic to prove his points as he vowed to do at the outset of the debate. His polite urge to Samuel Green to refrain from being preachy is completely justified as the theory of God Incarnate is proposed by their interpretation of the Bible only, as such the credibility of the Bible and their interpretation itself is under question in this debate, hence taking an accused for a witness will be a logical fallacy, therefore a critical analysis of the biblical teachings about the topic will have a lot more appeal for the audience and this is what Ijaz has done fantastically.
Evolution of Jesus as God incarnate/ doctrine of trinity are vividly examined in Ijaz’s presentation. With the quotations from early Christian Patristics he was able to underline the fact that early Christians did not have sufficient proof in favor of the divine incarnation of Jesus and this is the reason why they had to resort to illogical arguments like “you will not be “wise” unless you become a “fool” to the world, by believing” the foolish things of God. Ijaz successfully expounded the sequential development in Christianity into a Trinitarian system of believes owing to the existence of mutually opposing school of thoughts among Christians and opportunist swaying of Roman emperors between Nicean and Arian creeds for their own political benefit. Moreover the statement of Athenesius himself admitting his inability to understand the concept of Incarnation support Ijaz’s line of argument perfectly. Lastly he cites Biblical scholars like John Gill and CS Lewis which leaves no doubt with regards to the falseness of the doctrine of God incarnate.
Throughout his opening statement Ijaz remained polite, well behaved and unprovocative and was able put his case forward strongly and comprehensively and there was no sign of rudeness in his tone and manner.
Allah knows best.
I really didn’t expect this to be made public so quickly by Pastor Samuel, but here’s his comments on the debate amongst his Christian fans and supporters over at the Answering Muslims website:
Much of what Pastor Samuel has conceded to is the truth. He didn’t answer close to 1/3 of the historical, theological of philosophical issues I presented with the incarnation theology well. I’m happy he made these statements, as it demonstrates quite a factual reality about our debate. As for his points, my responses are:
- Whether fast or slow, the quotes were put there and you had well over 10 minutes and then 5 minutes during the rebuttals period to see those quotes and use them against me.
- Not sure how you can call them gross exaggerations if according to the first point you didn’t see the quotes and you didn’t know anything about them (hence why you needed to atleast know something about them to answer them correctly) and thus couldn’t answer them correctly.
These are just shoddy excuses to cover the fact that as the Pastor himself admits, and praise be to God he’s stated this, he didn’t respond to even 1/3 of my points during the debate, which led to a frustrating period for him during the cross fire period.
Addressing Two Hater Comments
One hater boasted that my only argument was the quote from Tertullian which says the belief in Christ’s incarnation was absurd and silly. If this Christian is willing to be honest, he’d have to then explain how in his 15 line quasi review he proudly declared I quoted many liberal scholars, James Dunn, James White and Athanasius. Your own words against me, are self contradictory.
This same hater boasted that I misused the fallacy of confirmation bias, to the contrary, as many viewers of the debate have indicated within the Paltalk room itself, my opening statement and argument was spot on, Samuel did not present any historical, philosophical or rational evidences for his position, he merely said this is what my God in the scripture I believe in said, therefore the incarnation is true. I call upon any Christian to demonstrate that Pastor Samuel did not do this.
One other hater, Anthony Rogers (who is known for threatening to rape me, and also known for getting exposed as a copy paster who claimed to research Arabic sources but instead literally stole the works of a Muslim brother who later called him out on it), claimed I was disrespectful and nasty throughout the debate. I do believe their was a moderator present and Pastor Samuel did not once complain to her, to make matters worse, no Christian during the Question and Answer period claimed the same, nor did any of them post comments to that effect. You seem to have taken issue with my quote of Tertullian, yet quoting your founding fathers of your faith doesn’t make me nasty, it makes them nasty. I understand your misdirected anger though, you obviously can’t attack a Church Father, so I guess I’ll take the hate for him. I also recognize that since our debate, you’ve pretty much been unable to stop me from walking over your ego by becoming more popular in the apologetics circles, I mean you’ve been asking people to ignore me, but since then I’ve – been featured by Dr. James White on his Dividing Line program, Dr. James White’s made videos about me, Sam Shamoun’s found himself arguing with me, your own co-workers at Answering Islam and Answering Muslims (Cl Edwards and Samuel Green) have debated me, you were embarrassed by the Bob Siegel saga which I made worse by publicising it and then to your dismay the guy actually put me on his show and gave me an audience in the week gone. Not only that, our website has exploded in views, doubling really and the Muslim Debate Initiative has made me an official speaker.
So I realised you really didn’t like my quoting of Tertullian, so I did you a little favour and reposted it to my Facebook page of 600, 000 + fans, just to piss you off:
So now because of your silly attack on me,
28, 900+ 42, 400+ 51, 000+ Muslims have been exposed to the statements by Tertullian and I promise, the more stupid things you say, I’m merely going to make more people see how absurd the incarnation is.
Again, I’d like to thank the goodly Pastor for his honest concession and for Anthony who gave me the impetus to share Tertullian’s quote to over more than
28, 900+ 42, 400+ 51, 000+ individuals. More to come.
wa Allaahu ‘alam.