The GED “educated” Sam Shamoun, has recently accused Dr. Shabir Ally of being, among other things, a “deceptive”, “dishonest”, “slanderer”, who is a purveyor of, “smoke and mirrors”. He’s dedicated several days to attacking Dr. Shabir Ally for apparently “misquoting” Robert Gundry on Matthew 28:19. The irony of all this, is that Sam is quite desperate to one-up a man that he has been obsessing about for the past decade, after a debate in which Dr. Shabir, to put it lightly, “embarrassed Sam”:
As indicated in Dr. Shabir’s responses to Sam, see Part 1 here, see Part 2 here, Sam had to manufacture quotes and lie about what Dr. Shabir said during the debate, to maintain the illusion that Dr. Shabir “misquoted” anyone. Thus, Sam, has shifted the goalposts from first claiming Dr. Shabir misquoted Gundry, to now claiming he “misrepresented Gundry about the Trinity”. These are two different positions, they are not the same. This is typical of the character of Sam, he’s unable to competently understand his opponents, and spends an inordinate amount of time trying to deflect from his stunted intellectual abilities. One might say that I’m exaggerating, but this is not the case. Sam has done the same to Br. Zakir Hussein. Let’s look at Sam’s inability to read. In an article slandering Br. Zakir, Sam accuses him of lying about a quote from a work by Ostrogorsky, by first stating:
Thirdly, Hussein’s assertion concerning what Ostrogorsky says in his book is a boldfaced lie, since there is nothing about a decisive victory taking place in the year 622 on that page. More importantly, this author emphatically says that the Byzantines defeated and vanquished the Persians in 627-628 AD!
Please note that Sam claims to have read the page, and that the author says “nothing about a decisive victory taking place in the year 622 on that page”. He then proceeded to present the following quote from page 101:
Here is the quote:
“The threatening attitude of the Avar Khan made it essential for the Emperor to return to Constantinople. The tribute paid to the Avars was then raised and near relatives of the Emperor were sent to the Khan as hostages, so that Heraclius was able to resume the war with Persia by March 623. In spite of the defeat of the previous year, Chosroes II REFUSED TO CONSIDER A TRUCE, and he sent the Emperor a letter full of the most insulting expressions and blasphemous utterances against the Christian faith.”
Please take note of where Sam begins the quote. Read and re-read that line. Now here’s page 100:
What year is the author speaking of? 622 CE. As the book clearly says, “he left the capital on Easter Monday, 5 April 622.” Now, here’s page 101:
On this page, which is page 101, on lines 11-14, the Ostrogorsky says:
“The two forces met on Armenian soil and the result was a decisive victory of the Byzantines over the great Persian general Sahrbaraz. The first goal was reached: Asia Minor was cleared of the enemy.”
What does this mean? Not only is the quote he claimed on the same page, he has intentionally misquoted the book, by starting his own quotation one line below the relevant quote used by Br. Zakir Hussein! It clearly states that their was indeed a “decisive victory”!
Perhaps though, if Sam had read the very quote he pasted in his article, it speaks about and I quote, “In spite of the defeat of the previous year….”, it really can’t get more obvious than that, does it? The previous year of 623 CE, would be what? (If Sam is reading this, previous means before, so you minus 1 from 623). That would mean 622 CE. What was the defeat in 622 CE? The decisive victory by the Byzantines!
Not only is Sam deceptive for lying about what Dr. Shabir claimed during the debate, and then later shifting the argument to be about a “misrepresentation of Gundry about the Trinity”, when it comes to his own claims, and his own research, Sam is shown to be, in Shamounian terms, quite functionally illiterate.
Sam further alleged in an article, that Dr. Ally needed to be “exposed” and put to shame as a person notorious for “misquoting and mishandling scholars”. Given that Sam has been refuted en toto by Dr. Shabir Ally, and that Sam in this article, has been shown to be notorious of misquoting and mishandling scholars, shouldn’t he then expose and put himself to shame? Perhaps then, this is a case of irony. If Sam spent less time feeding his ego and his stomach, maybe he’d have the cognitive capacity to recognize that attacking people more intelligent than himself is a bad move.
A peculiar incident occurred last night during the call-in section of the debate between Dr. Shabir Ally and David Wood. In a pre-planned call, Usama Dadok was allowed to scream and shout insults, while using obscene language in a stunt meant to provoke a response out of Dr. Shabir.
In what can only be described as an abject failure by the moderator Chris Con-way to “moderate” the debate, what was a peaceful debate became a comedy of errors. Dakdok’s job was to bring the “demon” out of Dr. Shabir by insulting and using obscene language towards the religion of Islam. Dakdok is of the belief that Muslims are demons incarnate:
Yet, Dakdok failed in his objective. The plan by Shamoun and Wood, meant to discredit Dr. Shabir by provoking him into anger did not come into fruition. Rather, the only person who behaved in a “demonic” way was Dakdok himself. Frothing at the mouth during his rabid diatribe, the insults and abuses he hurled did not cause the desired effect. Rather, the Muslims watching the debate immediately became disinterested in the discussion and whatever audience that Shamoun and Wood had intended to reach out to with the message of Christianity, quickly disappeared.
Those viewing the debate, took note of Dr. Shabir’s response to Dakdok’s obscenities. Dr. Shabir demonstrated the Islamic Prophetic example of patience and professional decorum. It is ironic, in the sense that in trying to provoke Dr. Shabir by insulting the Prophet (ﷺ), Dakdok allowed Dr. Shabir to demonstrate the ideals of the Prophetic Sunnah:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man said to the Prophet (ﷺ) , “Advise me! “The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Do not become angry and furious.” The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet (ﷺ) said in each case, “Do not become angry and furious.”
Thus, as a consequence of Wood and Shamoun’s planning, in trying to use Dakdok to defame Dr. Shabir, the opposite outcome occurred. Dr. Shabir’s calm and collected demeanour demonstrated to the audience that Islamic principles and teachings, had not made Dr. Shabir a spiteful and hateful person. Rather, the incident gave the audience a reason to sincerely listen to and pay attention to Dr. Shabir’s message about Islam.
Clearly then, Wood and company have demonstrated their inability to have an academic discourse without having to use childish tactics and games. The Muslim community’s perception of Wood and Shamoun have now fully been qualified, they are certainly an embarrassment to world Christianity. It is without a doubt that Wood knew he would not win a debate against Dr. Shabir and so he pandered to his audience.
The type of Christians that watch the Trinity Channel, are those that enjoy seeing Muslims being demonized and brutalized. The point of the debate was not to win converts or to have a fruitful dialogue, it was to finally have their chance at getting revenge against Dr. Shabir due to the extensive work he has done in bringing Christians to Islam.
Br. Shadid Lewis and CL Edwards recently had a debate entitled, “Can We Trust the Islamic Jesus“, this is not a review of the debate (the review shall be published soon), but this is a criticism of CL Edward’s methodology of which he employed during the debate. I base my informed criticism about CL, on my experience as a debater who has also previously engaged with him in a recorded debate and on my past rebuttals to him.
The Scope and Delimitations of the Debate
It’s all in the title. When two debaters sit down to discuss a topic, they are agreeing to leave off all other discussions and to focus on what the subject of the debate is. So for example, if I sit down with an opponent, and we agree to debate oranges, we are agreeing to discuss nothing but oranges, we will not discuss any other fruit such as an apple, or a banana. This therefore is what we refer to as the scope (depth) and the delimitations (boundaries of the debate). The scope of the debate, is that we have agreed to discuss everything about oranges, as much as we can. The delimitations (or boundaries) of the debate, mean that we limit ourselves to the discussion of oranges. CL would have to explain if he did not agree to debate this topic, to atleast release himself from the criticism against him.
What’s in the Title?
The title of the debate was and up to the start of the debate, declared to be, “Can We Trust the Islamic Jesus“. Let’s break the title up to understand what the scope and delimitations of the debate was:
Can we trust
the Islamic Jesus
Who is being referred to as, ‘we‘, here? Well, let the evidence show that the we, includes solely Christians and Muslims. Why do I say this? Well for one, the organization which CL Edwards represented was a Christian organization, the Center for Religious Debate. The audience was a Christian audience. The debate was held inside of a Church and the debate began and ended with Christian prayers.
Secondly, they were debating the Islamic Jesus, not the sources of the Islamic Jesus, but whether or not Christians, can trust the Islamic Jesus, not the Islamic faith, the Islamic scriptures, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but the Islamic Jesus.
What was Shadid’s Methodology?
Since this was a Christian opponent, and a Christian audience and given the scope and delimitations of the debate title, Br. Shadid’s methodology was quite simple. It can be demonstrated in set notation:
Let Set M represent the attributes of Islamic Jesus:
Set M = {Man, Prophet, Sent by God, Did Miracles, Virgin Birth, Messiah}.
Let Set C represent the attributes of the Christian Jesus:
Set C = {Man, Prophet, Sent by God, Did Miracles, Virgin Birth, Messiah, God}.
Set C represents what Christians trust about Jesus, therefore, Shadid’s methodology is to demonstrate the intersection of Islamic beliefs and Christians beliefs about Jesus, imply that they already believe what Muslims believe, and since they already trust their own beliefs about Christ, they then already trust the Islamic beliefs about Christ.
Let M ^ C be the intersection or what is commonly trusted among the beliefs of Muslims and Christians about Christ:
Set M ^ C = {Man, Prophet, Sent by God, Did Miracles, Virgin Birth, Messiah}.
The Muslim beliefs about Christ, are therefore declared to be a subset of the beliefs which Christians have about Jesus Christ. I’m using set logic, or set notation, since this is the easiest way to explain Br. Shadid’s methodology. I’m also using this form of explanation, since CL Edwards claims to have studied logic, or atleast attempted to explain (without reason), the definition of several logical fallacies during the debate. It is therefore the case, that CL clearly is an inane ignoramus, a sophomore (bookful blockhead), who although being a claimant of utilizing logic, he clearly did not understand the clear and consistent logic as used by Br. Shadid. My criticism against CL shows that he either intentionally misled himself into thinking he was a logician, or he fooled his audience by claiming to understand Br. Shadid’s methodology.
What was CL’s Methodology?
CL Edwards focused his argument on the following points:
The Qur’aan is not from the first century, thus it is not a reliable witness to the personhood of Christ.
The Qur’aan does not contain first person eyewitness reports, thus it cannot be trusted as to what it says about Christ.
The Qur’aan’s claim that Jesus had a scripture which has never been seen or proven to exist, proves that the Islamic Jesus cannot be trusted.
His methodology however, fails to live up to the scope and delimitations of the debate title, for which both speakers agreed upon. Let’s look at the first argument. The debate is not about the reliability of the Qur’aan, therefore the first argument of CL is outside the scope and delimitations of the debate, not to mention it contradicts his own beliefs as the New Testament itself is outside of the first century via empirical evidence (P52 dated to 125 CE), theoretically though it is dated to have existed in some form during the 70 – 80 CE, however there is no physical manuscript (for which CL argued for) which proves this.
His second argument, once again falls outside of the scope and delimitations of the title. The debate is not about the reliability of eyewitness reports. Br. Shadid during the debate also successfully demonstrated that the New Testament was written decades after Christ, by persons unknown to Christ, the names of the Gospels are mere attributions as handed down by tradition and not by fact.
Lastly, his final point, the existence of the Injeel also fails to be relevant to the title. The debate is not about whether the Injeel existed or not, or what the evidence for the Injeel is, therefore this argument of CL is highly irrelevant and clearly outside the scope and delimitations of the agreed debate title.
A Change of Scope and Delimitations
At some point during the debate, CL realised that if he were to argue against trusting the Islamic Jesus, he’d have to argue against what Christians already believe about Christ – since the Muslim beliefs about Christ are a subset of what Christians already do believe (this was demonstrated above). CL, realising this, decided to alter the scope of the debate, by asking Br. Shadid to assume he was an atheist, and therefore from this angle, challenged him to prove that the Islamic Jesus existed.
Once again, this only goes to demonstrate that CL is not a professional debater, nor is he educated. To begin with, if we are to discuss the topic that CL proposed, then we’d be discussing the origins of Christ, since atheists do not agree that Christ may have even existed at all. This is outside the scope of the debate, as the title does not indicate that either speaker was to prove Christ existed, but rather to show that Christians who already believed in a Jesus Christ, can also believe or trust in the Islamic Christ.
A Hypocrite of Unforeseen Proportions
During the debate CL Edwards found himself claiming several fallacies of Br. Shadid, to which he himself is victim of:
Confirmation bias.
Straw man argumentation.
Cherry picking.
CL’s confirmation bias, was demonstrated when he declared that the Bible came from eyewitnesses during the first century. This is clearly a false notion and none of the NT texts have been transmitted as first person verbatim.
By pretending to be an atheist and asking Br. Shadid to prove that Christ existed at all and then condemning him when he chose not to – and to instead stick to the debate, this is in itself a straw man argument.
Lastly, Br. Shadid, practised the Christian methodology of typology, in which they read from their own text/ scripture (the New Testament) about the Christ and then they return to the Old Testament to demonstrate that he was mentioned there, or that the Old Testament offers proofs about him. Br. Shadid applied this same methodology to the New Testament, he declared the Christ of the Qur’aan to be trustworthy and then using typology, demonstrated the Qur’aanic Christ from the New Testament. One of the strangest arguments from CL is that he asked, how could Br. Shadid seek for evidences of an Islamic Christ in a book he himself believe to be corrupted, when CL himself and many Christians believe that Jews corrupted the Torah to hide the truth about the Christ’s prophecies within them. He lowly can he go?
Very Low
In a last ditch attempt to salvage a debate in which the methodology of Br. Shadid flew over his head, in a debate to which he could not commit himself to be relevant, and to a crowd who was anxious – waiting for him to make a single valid point, CL went to the lowest low. He began to insult and use derogatory terms. How are these questions relevant to the trustworthiness of the Islamic Christ?
Does your God have a penis?
Your Prophet had sex with a child.
These have nothing to do with the debate, but rather these were low blows in attacking the faith of Br. Shadid, in order to escape the reality that CL cannot stand up and defend his faith, so he rather cast insults to make himself feel better. In contrast, doesn’t CL believe in a deity who is a man, and therefore does have genitals? We also pray that CL has taken a biology class or two, but again, his level of intelligence is yet to be established, therefore it is no wonder he has labelled a young adult as a child, he does not know that at the age of sexual maturation, a child can no longer be labeled as such.
The Reality of the Debate
If CL had to argue that the Islamic Jesus was not trustworthy, seeing as the Islamic beliefs about Christ, are a subset of Christian beliefs about Christ, he’d be relegated to arguing against his own religion. Therefore, for a majority of the debate, he focused on things outside of the scope and delimitation of the topic – the existence of the Injeel, the Qur’aanic claims about Christ, the eyewitnesses, God’s genitals, explaining the meanings of some logical fallacies, etc. CL did not have the courage to discuss the topic directly and therefore found himself fiddling around with largely irrelevant arguments, pretending to be atheist and mocking his opponent.
I’ve always held that the debate with Bob Siegel was the worst of the series, but to me, CL took the cake for this title. Bob was uninformed, inexperienced, but we cannot offer the same excuses for CL. He’s debated before, this is his field of interest, he’s a seminary student, he claims to be an ex-Muslim, he has no excuse for his lackluster performance, his shameful behaviour and his lack of mental fortitude to cope with the methodology and logic of Br. Shadid.
CL Can’t Change
I experienced the same with CL during my debate with him. Like any other dud, he tried to explain that Christ was God from evidences in the Bible, the debate however was titled, “Is Jesus God, man or both”?, it never asked according to the Qur’aan or Bible! I caught him out, demonstrated that his evidences and opening were useless, I used the secular historical method, never once quoting the New Testament or the Qur’aan. I’d presented an argument, with a methodology that he hadn’t prepared for, so his counter arguments were nuanced, he couldn’t salvage the debate because he didn’t prepare for it in the way I did.
Similarly, he wrongly assumed the arguments Br. Shadid would offer, so when Br. Shadid offered something logical, and clear, something CL didn’t think of – he had to go all out to not lose a second debate in a row. CL lost one debate, perhaps we could excuse him as it was his first, but to lose a second in a row because he was unprepared to deal with his opponent’s arguments – demonstrates that he is not a debater, he cannot hold his own and when he’s put to defend his religion, he can’t.
The Challenge
I know CL cannot debate me, I know that he’d try to mock me or insult my religion or cast aspersions about my character. Regardless of these things, he cannot hold his own in a debate, so here I am, challenging CL to debate me, let’s debate the topic Bob failed to impress on, “Is the NT Reliable“? Can you defend your religion against a person who’s not only significantly younger than you, but who’s unfazed by your theatrics? The challenge has been issued, all we need now is to see if CL can stand up and hold his own…? I’ve issued an email challenge to him, this is the message verbatim:
Good day Mr. Edwards,
Please see the following article assessing your performance, and also see the challenge towards the end:
I found it quite distasteful, if not outright insulting for David to have an audible preamble before his opening arguments. Usually, this would contain greetings, pleasantries, thanking the organizers, commenting on the person’s experience thus far in the country and so on. In contrast to this norm, David Wood decided to appeal to emotion, mentioning the sentencing of 7 Christians in Egypt for the ‘Innocence of Muhammad [saws]’ film. What he fails to mention is that his own God, YHWH, permitted the killing of children for insulting a Prophet:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” – 2 Kings 2:23-24
He also failed to mention that the blasphemy laws in Egypt are also used on Muslims, in this recent case, a Muslim was charged under it for tearing the Bible on TV. Therefore, I must declare David’s preamble to be nothing more than a manipulative and incredulous act for which he should apologize for. I am willing to accept his statements if they were inclusive of his opening statement, but since this is not the case, I must condemn such an intellectually disrespectful act. I’d like to know if Sami agreed to David’s doing of this before the debate began and if not, why the moderator did not stop David or begin timing once the nature of the statements had resonated with his thought process.
David decided to limit his areas of discussion to two topics, they were:
Islam as a threat to non-Muslims.
Islam as a threat to women.
Beginning with (1) he states:
Islam’s attitude to non-Muslims is a threat to society.
David mention’s what the Qur’an says about Muslims and then compares what the Qur’an says about non-Muslims. I can’t say I found this to be a strong argument, or a viable one at that. The entire concept of considering yourself a ‘believer’ in any ‘religion’, presupposes that you consider ‘disbelievers’ to be wrong and thus for being wrong, God would employ some form of punishment on them. Disbelievers would quite obviously be seen in a negative light, unequal to the status of believers. A fair question to David would have to be, whether or not he realises this and if he believes that there are no negative remarks about ‘infidels’ (a natively Christian term), in the Bible. Here are some examples of negative mentions of disbelievers in the Bible: 1, 2, 3. As a theist, David should have atleast recognized the double standard he was employing, I’m not sure if he was naive enough to believe that such an infantile argument would be supportive of his views, if he did, that was indeed poor of him.
He found issue with the Qur’an mentioning that believers are the best people and disbelievers are the polar opposite, the worst of peoples. Does David believe that the elect in Christianity, those saved by Christ, are not the best of peoples and that the disbelievers, those condemned to eternal perdition are the best of peoples? The hypocrisy from David is absolutely mind blowing. It was of course, compulsory according to common Evangelical tactics to mention Qur’an 5:51, unfortunately for David, as has been stated time and time again, the word for friend in Arabic is ‘sadiq’, the word for protector, military ally, is ‘awliya’, one example of the context of this verse is the Prophet’s initial treaty with Banu Qurayza until they sided with the Qurayshi army and thus caused significant distress and harm to Muslims. Then again, David is an Evangelical Christian, from amongst the ilk of Sham the Shamoun and James White, I have learned in the few years I have been active in this realm of apologetics that this low level of study is prevalent among them. If there’s a cheap tactic to use, be sure that they’d use it.
Might I remind David, that the Jews whom he refers to as his friends in being condemned as disbelievers in the Qur’an, that his very own Bible paints are far worse picture. Is it better to be the worst of all creatures, or the children of Satan? Would David please answer this question?
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” – John 8:44-48
David proceeded to mention that Muhammad [saws] decided to rid the Arabian peninsula of non-Muslims via expulsion to establish a proper state for him and his oppressed brethren. How would David then measure up to Zechariah 14, where Christendom believes with the second coming of Christ that all non-elect would be ejected from the Holy Land and then brought only to be forced into worship, or else face torture and disease for not doing so? He continued by mentioning, that if Muhammad [saws] did not want to live alongside Christians and Jews in the Arabian peninsula, and we Muslims have to abide by his Sunnah, how can we expect to have a modern society? David is appealing to ad ignorantium, as Muslim societies have always flourished with a plethora of faiths. When the Muslims entered Africa, Abysinnia, what happened? Peaceful co-existence, when the Muslims conquered Egypt from the Roman Empire, again there was peace among the majority Coptic population. When the Muslims conquered Iberia from the Trinitarian Catholics persecuting Arian Christians and Jews, there was again prevailing tolerance and peace. The 4 rightly guided Caliphs and their reign, did not entail any persecution of Jews or Christians, therefore history and a proper studied of Islamic history, as opposed to a prima facie reading of one hadith is the opposite of what is required to derive sensible, and intellectually acceptable arguments.
Continuing with (1) his second sub point is:
Islam commands Muslims to violently subjugate non-Muslims.
He begins with the notion that there is some magical 3 step program that Muslims follow to take over the world, from wherein we then persecute anyone and everyone. Argumentum ad Baculum indeed. The 3 step program he mentions, is as follows:
When Muslims are outnumbered, proclaim peace.
When Muslim numbers increase, they are permitted to engage in defensive Jihad. He cites Qur’an 22:39-40 as evidence for this.
He doesn’t mention his 3rd stage, but logically, it would have to be when Muslims are in a majority. He cites Qur’an 9:29 as evidence for this.
His ‘3 stage step to taking over the world’ plan, isn’t particularly well studied. Whether outnumbered or not, as the Qur’an commands us in 25:63 to say peace even to those who mock, insult and attack us. No mention of ‘numbers’ there. Similarly, defensive fighting is also prescribed when Muslims were in fact, in charge of the first Muslim state, see Qur’an 2:190-194 which echoes similar sentiments to Qur’an 22:39-40, although Surah 2 was revealed in the ‘3rd’ stage of David’s plan. There is a clear false dichotomy.
Continuing with (1) his third and final sub point on this topic is:
Islam’s command to kill apostates.
The problem with this point, is how would one actually know if a Muslim has left Islam? The only reason one would know if a Muslim left Islam, is if he publicly declared it, therefore inviting the punishment upon himself. There is no room in Islam for punishing a person without reason. The person can leave the nation where Islam is dominant and avoid the punishment, or remain in the nation while openly condemning Islam and mocking it, thereby earning a punishment for such a crime. The same can be seen in ‘free and secular Western nations’, where dissidents undergo torture and renditions where they are imprisoned indefinitely and oppressed, not to mention that the punishment for treason is overwhelmingly death.
David then moved on to his second main topic, “The Status of Women According to Islam”. He begins by stating that Islam ‘drastically reduces the status of women’, despite the fact that the very first University in the world was started by a Muslim woman. His arguments were shoddy at best, he found problems with the Prophet [saws] asking spouses not to do actions which displeased each other, he even attacked the traditional heterosexual familial hierarchy where the man (usually the breadwinner) in most societies is seen as a figurehead in the home. This leads me to question David’s concept of women, doe she truly believe that there is an issue with not doing acts which displeases a spouse? Would that then mean, he approves of doing acts which displeases a spouse? I wouldn’t consider David an expert on marriage relations, but that is probably the worst advice you can receive on relationship counselling. Furthermore, does David accept the notion that a man does not have to lead a household, if so, is he willing to have his wife (if he is to be married, or if he is, I don’t kn0w) be the sole earner for his behalf and his protector in the event of a violent incident? This is clearly what his arguments are demonstrating.
David also found issue with Qur’an 2:23, which explains the sexual acts which are permitted in the Muslim marriage. I suppose that David does not accept stipulations when it comes to his sexual desires, otherwise, I find no reason for issue to be found with this verse. His first issue with Islam and women, is the “Support of Wife Beating“. What he fails to understand is the language of the Qur’an. The Qur’an does permit beating, but it permits a beating which leaves a mark or causes bruising. If you are fair skinned (in complexion) or caucasian, you can test this beating on yourself. Strike yourself with your finger such that it does not produce a pink or red imprint on the hand. Doing so, you’d find it impossible to feel pain. It’s actually quite difficult to hit someone without producing a mark on the skin. Therefore when the Qur’an mentions that you can hit your disobedient wife, it is really rhetorically letting the male know that abusing women is haram, this is understood due to the corresponding hadith on this issue:
” Right along with this option given to men, it has appeared in a hadith which means that, “The best of you will never beat their women.” Thus, (for example) such an action is nowhere reported from the blessed Prophet of Allah. – (Ma’arif al-Qur’an 2:426)”
Therefore, if beating in the manner that David was referring to was allowed, we would have seen it in practised by the Prophet [saws], since this is not the case, then David’s interpretation of the verse is completely out of context. His second issue with “Islam and Women”, is that Islam allegedly claims that “Women are Stupid“. He refers to Qur’an 2:282 refers to the testimony of women when it comes to contracts. What he fails to realise is that:
A woman is not allowed to be in a room with a single man without a Mahram, moreso with more than one man.
To avoid false witness due to forced coercing, she should have someone alongside her to prevent him from forcing her to sign against her will.
This therefore, has nothing to do with her mental capabilities, but with protecting the rights of a woman. It is very ironic then, that David chooses, he willingly chooses to interpret this verse as meaning that women have half the intellectual capabilities of men, or that they are stupid. I must then, regard David’s interpretation as being representative of his own personal view of women, while they are clearly in polar opposites to the intended meaning of the Qur’an. It is in this light, that I call upon David Wood to apologize to the female community and to cease his sexist remarks against our beloved womenfolk. Nowhere does the Qur’an mention in this verse, that women are less intelligent as men or that they are not as reliable. Shaykh GF Haddad explains this hadith in its entirety, which I recommend that Christian and Muslim alike, read to develop an authentic and accurate interpretation, as opposed to preconceived sexist notions of which David has duly demonstrated.
David’s third issue is that, “Islam Allows Marriage to Prepubescent Girls“. I would like to remind David, that in Islam, there is a difference between marriage and consummation. I’m sure he is well aware of this, but then again, he cannot appease his masters and his congregation without being deceptive. Does David relegate marriage to be merely about sexual relations? In Islam, this is not the case, when a man marries a female, he assumes three responsibilities, none of which are sex. They are:
The responsibility of sheltering the wife, or of providing a shelter for her.
The responsibility of feeding the wife, or of providing food for her.
The responsibility of clothing the wife, or of providing clothes for her.
Nothing about sex need be stated. In fact, if a girl is married according to some contract and she rejects it, then the girl is subsequently divorced from the man. No consummation need occur. Similarly, no consummation can occur without a female’s approval, as well as no marriage is valid without a female’s consent. David’s gripe is with marriage to prepubescent girls, the problem with his argument, is that Muhammad [saws] consummated the marriage, post the prepubescent stage, what is termed as the stage of sexual maturity in biology and Islam. That being, when the female stops being a child, or in this case a girl and is in the process of womanhood.
David’s closing to his opening statement is probably as bad as they can come, he has issues with suicide attacks, but doesn’t find issue with suicide attacks endorsed by his own God, YHWH, see Judges 16. He found issue with 40% of Muslims wanting to be judicially guided by their religious law, I guess David, if he were to be honest, would find issue with the American Government passing laws which accedes to Christian beliefs? If not, can he publicly announce such a position, or would his evangelical brethren crucify him for such a stance? He spews off a few more statistics and ends his opening statement. I would easily challenge David on his question of, “what is the correlation between the statistics from the OECD and Muhammad’s [saws] teachings?“. To be quite honest, the nations he referenced have one or more of the following which contributed to their current status:
Former colonies, therefore they lack infrastructure and wealth.
Recently independent, whereas nations higher on the OECD list had some 300 years of Independence to rule, govern and develop their nations, David expects wealth deficient nations to do so in a vastly less amount of time.
Dependent upon economic aid.
Recently engaged in civil war or have been in a perpetual state of internal conflict post-Independence.
Recently experienced droughts or have been experiencing droughts for extensive periods of time.
Therefore, the notion that it is Islam’s fault that these nations are as they currently present themselves to be, is based on abject ignorance of these nation’s history. Not to forego the complete and utter arrogance of expecting developing nations to economically compete with developed nations. I would have to state that David’s opening statement would have been acceptable some 30 years ago, when Muslims were much less aware of their religion. However, David and the evangelical missionaries of the world are facing a new world, one were 20 year old Muslims like myself can debunk their statements, where mid 20 year old’s like Sami Zataari can refute and debate on a platform with someone twice his age without having to resort to cheap insults, disparaging remarks and snide comments, as David has done.
Sami’s Opening
Sami begins by demonstrating to David, how one actually starts a debate. You don’t drop propaganda, you don’t pass a few underhanded comments, you don’t sneak some emotional arguments in before your time (David took 4 minutes lambasting Muslims before beginning his officially timed Opening Statement), you thank the organizers and thank your opponent. I have to commend Sami on his professionalism in this case. Sami lays the law down on David in a very eloquent manner. He indicates that what David spoke about is largely irrelevant, as those were his own personal interpretations of the ayats of the Qur’an and Ahadith. David’s interpretation would not necessarily be that of a Muslim’s understanding, thus David was addressing a reality that only he, himself would believe. He continued by informing the crowd that David’s real argument came at the end of his rabid diatribe, David only began addressing the real beliefs and understandings of Muslims by quoting statistical information. Sami emphasized the importance of establishing a dichtomoy; there is a difference between David’s personal theological interpretations (eisegesis), and the ground reality in the real world.
When it comes to discussing the ground reality, Sami let it be known that this was his area of study, as Osama bin Laden and Extremism was his thesis’ topic. His dissertation was subsequently accepted, thus allowing him to be an authority, or qualified in the subject area, hence his insistence on discussing this topic as opposed to perceived theological notions. Sami calls David out on his irrational logic, he questions him by stating that what David was doing, was that he was quoting verses and applying it to persons, when what he should have really been doing was finding out what the motivations of extremists were. What did the extremists who carry out attacks actually believe? What verses do they quote? What ahadith do they use? Instead of claiming that verses David thinks they use is proper evidence, David should have really brought forth evidences from the persons themselves. Thus in Sami’s conclusion, David’s argument was more rhetoric, than it was applicable and relevant to the topic at hand. To be quite honest, I’d have to agree with Sami. He’s spot on, David did not address the topic, what he addressed was his biased presuppositions, a departure from reality.
Acting upon his own counsel to David, Sami then goes to Osama bin Laden’s very own, “Declaration of War with the United States” dated to be from 1996. Therefore Sami didn’t rely on rhetoric or propaganda (as David’s irrelevant Creeping Shari’a comments were), but he depened upon Bin Laden’s own statements. Did Bin Laden do what he did, due to Qur’an 9:29? His manifesto does not mention this as a motivating factor, according to Sami, Bin Laden’s motivating factors were the aggressions of the US military in Arabian Peninsula, the US support of the Israeli Apartheid State. He also mentions that Bin Laden repeated this as his motivating factors in a 1997 interview with Abdel Bari Atwan, a London journalist. I have to applaud Sami’s use of relevant argumentation and his subsequent use of first person sources is absolutely sensational. As of this stage, Sami has clearly negated and rightfully so, a majority of David’s opening statement and has taken control of the debate. After calling David out on his largely irrelevant diatribe, Sami delve straight into the thick of the topic and immediately set the criteria for which the topic could be argued logically about. In doing so, and by referencing first person sources, I have no choice but to deem Wood as being out of Sami’s league and as being caught highly off guard.
Sami moved on to quote his own statistics, after establishing the reasoning and rationale of Extremists, he went on to state what academics themselves believe about the Extremists. He referred to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research which amounts to saying, “civilian casualties in Afghanistan at the hands of foreign troops creates enemies and causes people to become radicalised“. As the report itself states, “In Afghanistan we find strong evidence that local exposure to civilian casualties caused by international forces leads to increased insurgent violence over the long-run, what we term the ‘revenge’ effect.”, thereby qualifying his claim. Sami also referenced the Washington Post which had this to say, “the escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes [in Yemen] is stirring increasing sympathy for Al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.” Thus far, Sami has presented a logical, well reasoned argument that has extensive amounts of international study to qualify his claims. Not only has Sami stuck to the topic, unlike that of his opponent, Sami’s actually going to Western Academia, not Arab based studies or Sami’s personal convictions or his own personal interpretations of the conflicts.
He then moved on to another report, where New York University and Stanford University examined the effects of the US Administration’s drone strikes in the Pakistani Tribal region, according to the Guardian [UK], it entails, “the report details the terrorizing effects of Obama’s drone assaults as well as the numerous, highly misleading public statements from administration officials about that campaign. The study’s purpose was to conduct an “independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians.” At this point, Sami had actually referenced more academic sources than Wood, cited essential points, quoted the most relevant statistics than the entire time Wood actually spoke. You’d notice that the heat was getting a bit intense for Wood as each time Sami quoted another research paper, he took a swig from his bottled water. Sami then mentioned the false dichotomy of ‘good terrorism’ versus ‘bad terrorism’. When Western Administrations bombard civilian villages, it’s okay, but the moment a villager retaliates, they’re seen as barbaric, evil, and malicious.
Sami then referenced what he called the, ‘smoking gun’ of the debate, he references the Arizona State University’s Center for Strategic Communication’s report on Islamic Extremism which examined over 2000 texts used by extremists dating from 1998 to 2011. The study states, “Other findings in the report raise questions about the veracity of claims often made by analysts. The most surprising is the near absence of the well-known “Verse of the Sword” (9:5) from the extremist texts. Widely regarded as the most militant or violent passage of the Qur’an, it is treated as a divine call for offensive warfare on a global scale. It is also regarded as a verse which supersedes over one hundred other verses of the Qur’an that counsel patience, tolerance, and forgiveness. We conclude that verses extremists cite from the Qur’an do not suggest an aggressive offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor, and retribution. This shows close integration with the rhetorical vision of Islamist extremists.
Based on this analysis we recommend that the West abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination, focus on counteracting or addressing claims of victimage, emphasize alternative means of deliverance, and work to undermine the “champion” image sought by extremists.”
It is noteworthy to realise that none of the passages from the Qur’an which David referenced as a cause for Islamic extremism, was found to be in any of the 2000 texts examined in the report. For me, this is what catapulted the debate into Sami’s hands and ended it. There was no need for Sami to continue from this point, as he had gone above and beyond the requirements needed to overcome David’s rant. Recall that I mentioned earlier, that each time Sami cited a reference from a major publication or academic study, David rushed to take a swig of his water? Here it is in motion, as Sami is about to quote the Arizona State University’s study, David rushes to sip his water, the heat of the moment clearly causing some thirst as it would seem. Sami then went one step further, he mentioned his interview with Counter Terrorism Expert, Mubin Shaikh and the result of this interview is that Mubin statess, while he had infiltrated a terrorist cell, the verses and ahadith used by David Wood were never used by the extremists themselves. The irony of this, is mind blowing to be truthful. Continuing with his trend of using internationally acclaimed and renowned sources, he then referred to ex-CIA, Head of the OBL Unit, Michael Scheuer, who stated that 9/11 occurred due to America’s horrid foreign policy strategies. Moving on, Sami headed to the 9/11 Commission’s Report interview with Special Supervisor with the FBI, Agent James Fitzgerald, which the Guardian [UK] reported on:
“At the 12th and final public hearing of the 9/11 commission on 16 June, 2004, in Washington DC, a phalanx of senior law-enforcement and intelligence officials from the US government arrived to offer their testimonies. “You’ve looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody … What have you found out about why these men did what they did?” asked Lee Hamilton, the former congressman and vice-chair of the commission. “What motivated them to do it?”
The answers to these questions were provided by supervisory special agent James Fitzgerald of the FBI. “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States”, he said. “They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.”
David quoted quite a few polls on Muslim acceptance of violence, funnily enough, an American poll, established that American Jews and Christians (of David’s ilk), were more likely to justify violence against civilians than Muslims were. That violence being military on civilian and civilian on civilian was justified, both times Christians vastly outnumbered Muslims in the affirmative. Sami then went on to explain freedom of speech laws and their already existing limits, placing Wood’s arguments in the realm of being nothing more than fear-mongering and paranoia. This concludes Sami’s opening arguments.
David’s Pros and Cons:
+ He showed up for the debate.
+ He quoted a proper source or two.
– Failed to stick to the topic except for his final 2 minutes.
– Failed to argue relevant points pertinent to Sami’s sources.
– Failed to refute Sami’s sources and arguments.
Sami’s Pros and Cons:
+ Vastly superior sources from a spectrum of internationally acclaimed groups, organizations and individuals.
+ Stuck to the topic.
+ Addressed all of David’s points.
+ Spoke confidently and with authority.
+ Engaged with the audience.
– Can’t hold a mic to save his life. Here’s a tip, next time don’t hold it.
– Buy a hairbrush.
After a period of mourning for his apologetics career, Chessie Edwards, our resident court jester has decided to make a triumphant return. I say triumphant because he has resumed his role as a court jester instantaneously. Let it be known that I do not consider Chessie Edwards to be of any academic, spiritual, theological or human value. I’m really only writing this response to his article because I’m waiting for my post-op medication to kick in and I needed something to do, to pass the time that is. I came home from the hospital and after a long nap, I checked the website in almost more than a week to see that he had commented on a post of mines. Now, before I continue, it should be known that Chessie does not have a good history with me. Time and time again, I’ve embarrassed him into oblivion and every few months when he needs views on his website he posts an article about me, hoping to gather some much needed attention. I oblige with his requests because, well, because I have no good reason save for me enjoying routing the guy. So Chessie, I’m going to do you a favour, if anyone wants to read an article probably written during a druken stupor about his mid-life crisis as a failed Christian apologist, then please visit Chessie Edward’s website:
When you go to his website, on the left you’d see a donate link, if you would like to provide Chessie with some beer and stripper money, I am not going to stop you (although as a Muslim, I have to advise against doing so, but we both know where those funds go buddy!). After you visit his website, you can then visit my refutation page that puts anything remotely close to ‘popular’ on his website to rest. I put popular in apostrophes because the highest rated article hasn’t changed in two years and I’ve yet to see a single Christian quote, cite, reference or use it. Heck, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone comment on it (as of 30-11-2012 there still are no comments on his most popular post, which I suggest you read my response to or this new article of mines on the Sana’a codex).
Chessie’s claim to fame is that this website (Calling Christians) was created by copying his website:
I SAW THE FOLLOWING ON THE SITE OF A MUSLIM BLOGGER WHO I HAD SO MUCH INFLUENCE OVER HE COPIED THE NAME OF MY BLOG.
Now, I’m not sure why he’s written this in all caps, perhaps his caps lock key is broken, or maybe he is angry, either way this isn’t a good start for him. If I had copied his blog’s name, this website would be called, “Calling Muslims”. I’m not sure, but this website’s name is actually “Calling Christians”, maybe Chessie assumed by using the word “calling”, he had copyrighted it or something, I don’t know what he was thinking when he wrote that. The truth is however, that one day, Chessie began to boast he had a website on a mutual friend’s wall on Facebook. To let him know how silly this claim to fame was, I created a website, responded to his most popular articles, shamed him on every response he attempted to make, reducing his blog to something he updates once every few months or so. You’d think by now that he’d learn not to piss off the one kid that made him a laughing stock among Christian polemics, then again, you can’t expect the old and senile to learn new tricks (wait, that’s now how that saying goes, oh well…). He continues:
OUR BROTHER IN HUMANITY CLAIMS THAT JESUS DEATH WAS NOT A REAL SACRIFICE BECAUSE ONLY HIS FLESH DIED AND NOT HIS SPIRIT.
Chessie, I am not your brother in any way, shape and or form. Please do not associate me with you, spare me the embarrassment. I believe Chessie is confused, you see, Christians believe the flesh (a body) has both a soul and a spirit and Christ became God in flesh when the Holy Spirit became incarnate in the body of Jesus and replaced the human spirit. My question was and remains, if Christ died, is it the soul that perished, or the Holy Spirit that perished, or just the flesh (which according to him did not die but resurrected itself), or some combination of all three? You’d notice that he never answers this question, which forces me to ask: If you didn’t write this to answer my question, why did you write it at all?
THAT BEGS THE QUESTION DOES ISLAM TEACH THAT SPIRIT OR ROOH IN ARABIC DIES? SPIRITS ARE IMMATERIAL AND METAPHYSICAL..SO HOW COULD SOMETHING THAT’S NOT PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL DEATH? NO ONES SPIRIT DIES, IF WE ACCEPT THIS PERSONS “LOGIC” THAN NO ONE IN HISTORY HAS EVER DIED. ISLAM TEACHES THE METAPHYSICAL ASPECT OF MAN SURVIVES PHYSICAL DEATH AND GO’S ON TO LIVE IN THE BARZAKH A SPIRITUAL REALM.
Chessie decides to divert from the topic completely and rambles on incoherently about the Islamic concept of the soul (we do not believe in soul and spirit, just one unified ‘soul/ spirit’ – ruh). Which puzzles me as he then makes this statement:
THE WHOLE POST JUST SHOWS THAT MUSLIM APOLOGISTS HAVE A WEAK UNDERSTANDING OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.
Chessie, if you bothered to read your previous paragraph, you didn’t demonstrate Christian theology, you were actually speaking about Islamic theology. Therefore, how can you claim I have a weak understanding of Christian theology, if all you’ve done thus far is speak about Islamic theology? Something doesn’t add up here. I fully believe that no adult man can write such a disjointed post without being influenced by alcohol or some opioid. If he did write this without the aid of an intoxicant, then I hang my head in shame, knowing that the human race has hit a new low in functional retardation. He continues:
CHRISTS HUMAN NATURE WAS NOT JUST FLESH IT WAS A REAL ACTUAL HUMAN NATURE, HE WAS A REAL ACTUAL HUMAN BEING AND HE HAD A REAL ACTUAL DIVINE NATURE, HE WAS REALLY THE DIVINE LOGOS. TO EVEN ASK IF CHRIST’S DEATH WAS THE PHYSICAL DEATH OF NON PHYSICAL SPIRIT SHOWS A LACK OF LOGICAL THINKING. SOME MUSLIMS ARE SO DESPERATE TO OPPOSE CHRIST THEY REACH OUT FOR ANY ARGUMENT THEY CAN FIND WITHOUT EVEN STOPPING TO THINK IT THROUGH.
I fail to see how this is anything more than Chessie shouting, “IT’S REAL”, without answering the paradoxes I presented here. Somehow begging me to think it’s the truth by repeatedly saying the word, “real”, does not convince me. I’m looking for something more of an explanation, an argument, a structured discussion, maybe a few academic references, I don’t know, maybe I’m setting my standards (and hopes) too high for Chessie’s sake. He continues:
A SHAHEED IS A ARABIC TERM USED TO DESCRIBE MUSLIM MARTYRS WHO HAVE DIED IN THE PATH OF ALLAH USUALLY WHILE FIGHTING JIHAD. THE QURAN SAYS ABOUT THEM THE FOLLOWING…
Yay! Free Arabic lessons from Mullah Chessie.
” ALLAH HATH PURCHASED OF THE BELIEVERS THEIR PERSONS AND THEIR GOODS; FOR THEIRS (IN RETURN) IS THE GARDEN (OF PARADISE): THEY FIGHT IN HIS CAUSE, AND SLAY AND ARE SLAIN:…” SURAH 9:111
Can’t wait for the major argument he is building!
THE ABOVE CLEARLY SAYS THEY ARE SLAIN I.E THEY DIE, BUT LOOK AT WHAT THE FOLLOWING SURAH SAYS ABOUT THEM…
“THINK NOT OF THOSE WHO ARE SLAIN IN ALLAH’S WAY AS DEAD. NAY, THEY LIVE, FINDING THEIR SUSTENANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THEIR LORD; THEY REJOICE IN THE BOUNTY PROVIDED BY ALLAH: AND WITH REGARD TO THOSE LEFT BEHIND, WHO HAVE NOT YET JOINED THEM (IN THEIR BLISS), THE (MARTYRS) GLORY IN THE FACT THAT ON THEM IS NO FEAR, NOR HAVE THEY (CAUSE TO) GRIEVE. ” SURAH 3:169-170
THIS SURAH SEEMS TO BE CONTRADICTING THE FIRST ONE, THE LOCAL IMAM AT THE MOSQUE WILL TELL YOU THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. ONE SURAH IS SPEAKING OF THE SHAHEEDS PHYSICAL LIFE IN THIS WORLD AND THE OTHER IS SPEAKING OF THEIR IMMATERIAL SOUL AND SPIRIT IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD. SO JUST LIKE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION HERE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN CHRIST’S DEATH .
That was simply mind blowing! Excuse my sarcasm, but now on to my real thoughts:
Really?
I’m not sure how to tell Chessie this, but thank you for pointing out that while people die in this world, they are alive in the afterlife. Hence why it’s called the after life. Get it? After, life. Maybe I need to break it down a little bit more for my friend Chessie.
When you die in this world, you’re dead. When you’re alive in this world, you’re living.
When you die in this world, you’re in the after life, you no longer exist in this world, but are alive in the after life.
Now, I don’t think by superimposing Islamic theology on Christology is the best way to refute me. You’re confusing two different religious doctrines without really refuting my points which were based on Christian theology. If you wanted to respond to me, you would have clearly explained the nature of life and death in Christianity, then gone on to explain Christ’s nature and lastly, based on the last two notions, then proceed to explain how my logic was wrong in light of Christology. I am not your teacher, I don’t need to tell you how to write a refutation, but when you insist on mocking yourself, I will give you the attention your idiocy so much deserves.
Some might say that my words to Chessie are harsh and uncalled for, but I write this with the hope that Chessie puts his big boy pants on and learns not to interfere when adults are speaking.
Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera has an excellent video on the deification of Christ by Christians, wherein he also expounds upon the Islamic view of Jesus. It’s worth the watch, especially since the Mufti is hailed as being one of Islam’s most popular speakers and represents authentic scholarship:
Indepth, education and sensational, this lecture is simply brilliant and very informative for both the Muslim and Christian.
After a seemingly long absence from the apologetics realm, Chessie L. Edwards has once again returned, with a brand new article. You can read my previous responses to all of his articles here. I am pleased to see that not much has changed, he was attempting to respond to this post of mine. Specifically trying to respond to Argument #1.
His Introduction:
Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature. Christ was not born of a male, he was supernaturally conceived without sperm to the virgin Mary. What this all means is that he was not under the curse of Adam, he did not have the fallen wretched sinful natural that afflicts all other men.
According to Chessie, Christ was not sinless due to moral conduct, but due to being born that way, as he puts it, this was “Christ’s nature”. I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”. We as Muslims also agree with the notion that Christ was not born of a male, however we would like to ask him what curse of Adam he is referring to? That is because, while I am sure he meant the “original sin”, this belief has no Biblical basis. In fact, the only curse of Adam would be that of Genesis 3:14-15, which does not mention any man having been cursed by God to be born with sin.
What is meant by ‘Christ fulfilled the Law’:
When it is said Christ fulfilled the Law and Old Testament, what is being spoken of is again beyond human moral-ism. All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah. No mere prophet was going to fulfill the words of Isaiah when he said….
According to Chessie, following the law, does not mean following the law, as he comprehends it to mean being above “human morality”. So by that logic, if we “follow” the law “perfectly”, i.e. we fulfil it, does that mean we in ourselves are above “human morality”?
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. – Bible, Luke 1:5-6.
Clearly he needs to sit down and study his own Bible, after all these two verses which demonstrate that humans can practise all of the law blamelessly, is in the first chapter of the Gospel according to “Luke”. One of the problems we see with Christians is their poor study of the Old Testament. Rabbi Michael Skobac discusses the irrational belief of the Christians and their prophecies of their concept of a Messiah:
While as Muslims we do accept Jesus as the Messiah, we do not agree, along with the Jews that the Messiah is to be a God, a sacrificial son, a Trinitarian, etc. In the above video, the Rabbi examines the claims of “prophetic-God Messiah-ship”, it’s well worth the time to watch it. Chessie then tries to claim that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Christ being foretold as the Son of God, something which I answered here.
He then proceeded to quote a variety of verses that reference Paul’s and Christ’s attitude pertaining to the law, something which I have already discussed in detail in this article of mines. I won’t bother to answer those claims in this response as the articles I’ve previously written and subsequently linked to (see above) more than aptly go into heavily detailed study and research into these rather simple topics.
Conclusion:
I am left questioning myself as to how Chessie considered this a “refutation”, as opposed to more of an erratic tirade for the purpose of insulting me:
It is no surprise the a unregenerate natural minded man such as our Muslim blogger would be blinded to the Spiritual truths contain in scripture, the Word of God tells us
At this point, I suppose he gave up on trying to respond to my argument and proceeded to just write a post to give the illusion his blog is still active, other than that I can’t fathom a reason he’d write something so silly. My arguments therefore stand and I do look forward to seeing someone else eventually try to respond to them.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.