Tag Archives: anthony rogers

False Claim: Error in Qur’an Surah 112 – “Ahadun”

The following is a guest post by Br. Sharif Randhawa, co-author of the illuminating book, “Divine Speech” which was written alongside Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan. Br. Sharif also runs a wonderfully informative blog called Quranic Musings which I highly recommend!


I was sent the following video clips in which an individual named Anthony Rogers claims that that Quran 112:1 (qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadun) contains a grammatical error, and that, moreover, Muslims mis-recite the verse in order to avoid the error:

Both of the above claims are patently false, as anyone with knowledge of even the most basic rules of Arabic grammar will recognize. It is deeply presumptuous of someone who shows ignorance of such basic rules of Arabic grammar to claim to have a better grasp of it than the premier work of Arabic literature, the Quran, and the entire Muslim tradition of Arabic grammar, not to mention of Quranic exegesis and recitation. In any case, the errors in both of these claims are as follows:

Contention 1: Rogers claims that the wording in the Quran of qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadun (“Say: He is Allah, one,” or alternatively “Say: He, Allah, is one”) is grammatically incorrect, because aḥadun means not “one” but “one of”; the text, according to him, should actually say qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadu.

Answer: Rogers’ claim is exactly the opposite of what Arabic grammar entails. In a genitive construct, which is the form that expresses the grammatical formula “X of Y,” the X (or muḍāf) that is followed by the genitive Y (or muḍāf ‘ilayhi) precisely cannot carry tanwīn (the indefinite -n ending). This is literally one of the first rules of a genitive construct in Arabic (see the excerpt from p. 44 from Alan Jones’ Arabic Through the Qur’ān, below).

cc-2018-ar-ahadun

Contention 2: Rogers then claims that Muslims mis-recite the verse to avoid this alleged error, as Muslims most frequently recite the verse as qul huwa ’llāhu aḥad, without the inflected -(u)n ending.

Answer: The claim that this is a mispronunciation is, again, false according to the most basic conventions of Arabic. This is because in Arabic speech, when one pauses at the end of a sentence that terminates with a short vowel ending, he or she normally drops the short vowel ending, including the tanwīn if there is one. Any Arabic speaker can confirm that for you.

Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick’s Heretical Beliefs Outed By Anthony Rogers (Updated)

As expected, Anthony Rogers is now in damage control. Last night I posted an article indicating that most Christian polemicists do not care about their theology, using their very own words. In that article, I included a discussion with Anthony where he declared that a specific belief contradicted Christian orthodoxy. I immediately pointed out that two of his colleagues, Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick, openly use (to defend Christianity), believe in and promote this doctrine.

cc-2015-ar-insane

Realising that he had just called his close associates heretics, he quickly turned the discussion to a typo I had made in spelling a Latin phrase. True to form, he later himself made a typo in spelling that same phrase, but as an adult, unlike the mentally inchoate Rogers, I chose not to spend several minutes writing three paragraphs about an obvious spelling error. I insisted that he address the issue that a belief he claimed ‘contradicted orthodoxy’, was believed in and promoted by his fellow Christian colleagues. After having duly embarrassed himself by having a rabid rant over a typo and declaring his friends heretics, he quickly left the conversation. In trying to do some damage control after my article had gone public, he’s posted some of the conversation and strangely enough, continued his fixation with the typo.

So, let’s have some fun. What did Rogers say?

However, Tony Costa does not believe in this doctrine of the “communicatio idiomatum” (nota bene: the Latin word is ‘idiomatum,’ not ‘idiomatium’), and that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed (q.v. “inconfusedly,” and “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH NATURE BEING PRESERVED…”).

According to Rogers, the doctrine of the ‘communicatio idiomatum’, ‘is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation’. This doctrine, contradicts orthodoxy. This is otherwise known as….heresy! A belief that goes against, or contradicts orthodoxy is heretical. A person who believes in heresies is a heretic. Simple so far? Yes, but maybe not for Rogers.

If a person believes in a doctrine that contradicts orthodox beliefs, they are heretical. Simple.

Do Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick believe in this doctrine, promote it, or use it to defend Christian beliefs about the incarnation? Yes, they do. In this article, Sam Shamoun uses it to defend the incarnation. Similarly, in this article, Matt Slick promotes this doctrine and considers it orthodoxy. All in all, Rogers called a belief heretical, and his colleagues, believe, share and promote that heretical belief, thus making them heretics.

Well done Rogers.

Updated:

Rogers updated his blog post with continued ad hominem attacks, while continuing to demonstrate his inability to understand the consequences of his own statements, and his disability of knowing how to spell.

1. Rogers as an adult, thinks that making a typo in a YouTube comment means I can’t spell a word.

2. Rogers as an adult, also later made a typo in spelling the same Latin phrase.

3. To absolve himself of abject embarrassment, of #1 and #2, he later argued, that although his spelling of the Latin was wrong, in the English it ‘still meant the same thing’. If you made a typo in the Latin, you got the Latin wrong. I think that’s common sense, not so for Anthony (nota bene: spelling ‘social’ in Spanish as ‘socials’, even if  ‘socials’ is a word in a completely different language like English, does not make the wrong spelling in Spanish correct. It’s still wrong in Spanish.) Thus, it’s apropos that Rogers would conflate the two.

4. Rogers tries to excuse himself of referring to Sam and Slick as heretics, by claiming he was responding to ‘my’ definition of communicatio idiomatum. Yet, this is not what his very comments said, to quote him:

…that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed…

No two ways about it. Rogers has been caught out. Trying to lie isn’t going to help him now.

5. Rogers continues to be deceitful, placing words in my mouth, claiming that I have taught that Jesus’s attributes were ‘mashed together like a sausage’, it would be honest of him to not place words in my mouth to suit his audience and Christian needs, but is Rogers the kind of man we can expect that from? No, he isn’t.

6. It’s cute that he thinks I don’t know what the doctrine teaches. However, as have been noted by his crass comments, uneducated claims and ad hominem attacks, it would clearly seem as if he has not acquainted himself with any modern work of Systematic Theology. One of note, is by Louis Berkhof who writes:

1. UP TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Reformation did not bring any great changes in the doctrine of the person of Christ. Both the Church of Rome and the Churches’ of the Reformation subscribed to the doctrine of Christ as it was formulated by the Council of Chalcedon. Their important and deep-seated differences lay elsewhere. There is one peculiarity of Lutheran Christology that deserves special mention. Luther’s doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper led to the characteristically Lutheran view of the communicatio idiomatum, to the effect “that each of Christ’s natures permeates the other (perichoresis), and that His humanity participates in the attributes of His divinity.” It is held that the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of Christ at the time of the incarnation.

Thus, it’s not a case of me interpreting Christian beliefs wrongly. Rather, it’s a case of Rogers not being educated about what Christians other than himself, believe.

Will Rogers publicly correct himself after putting words in my mouth? No, he most definitely will not.

Will Rogers publicly correct himself for misspelling a Latin phrase important to Christology? No, only his typos are typos, mines are somehow, intentional.

Will Rogers concede that what he’s labelled as characteristically “my interpretation” of Christian beliefs, is actually a belief of Christians “other than himself”? He won’t, even with the quote given above.

Will Rogers take down his post now that he’s been absolutely refuted? Definitely not.

Do I have further time to waste on Rogers? Nope.

(What’s strange is that Rogers, along with speaking with the Holy Spirit, Sam and Slick, somehow believes I interpreted Slick’s belief in the communicatio idiomatum. I merely referenced the article and asked Rogers if he agreed with Slick’s belief. Somehow, Rogers takes asking a question about his belief, as interpreting Slick’s. Dishonest? Quite so.)

and God knows best.

Mari Kaimo: Religious Beliefs Not to be Discussed in Group About Religious Discussion

I’m not exactly sure if I’ve lost my sanity or if I’m misunderstanding something. Let’s take a look at this group’s definition:

cc-2014-mari2

 

If I’m reading this correctly, this is a group created for the purpose of Muslim and Christian Discussion. Just to ensure I’m understanding this, I checked the group’s “about” definition:

 

cc-2014-mari6

 

I was a bit surprised while scrolling through my newsfeed to see the following:

cc-2014-mari1

An Anglo-Christian person being removed for heresy, in a group which its purpose is to discuss religious belief…..that’s….odd? So I decided to look a bit closer:

cc-2014-mari3

Mari Kaimo wastes no time, if you reject the Bible – you’re a heretic, which is odd in a group that is dedicated to Christian and Muslim dialogue. It suddenly made sense why I could find at most 1 or 2 active Muslims commenting in the group. They’ve been banning Muslims in a Christian-Muslim religious dialogue group because to them, Muslim beliefs were heretical.

piccard facepalm

 

Surely, this “Preacher” and friend of Shamoun would know that in a dialogue group about religion, there would be users who practised different religions in all their forms and differences. Surely? I guess not:

cc-2014-mari4

Where is this leading…?

cc-2014-mari5

I had just one reaction, this just sums it up entirely:

flip table

 

I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous things in my life. This is by far, one of the single most absurd things I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing. I probably stared at my screen for a few minutes, in sheer awe at the line of reasoning being played out in front of me. To recap….., this is a group created for the purpose of inter-faith dialogue and discussion. However, if you practise a religion which Christianity (as believed in by Mari Kaimo) disagrees with, you’re going to be kicked out/ removed. Surely, there are smarter people out there in the world. I’ve said it once before and I’ll say it again, this guy is a walking, talking, breathing contradiction inside and out. I pray that this is bad sarcasm at work, there is nothing, no excuse that can allow anyone to rationalize the absurdity of such a situation. If this is anything to go by, I thank God that these are the Christian Apologists and Missionaries that currently lead the Christian faith. They have made our job of conveying Islam so much easier. With people like these, there is no question as to why so many Christians quite literally get frustrated and leave the faith. I feel embarrassed for the Christian community because of this guy, in no way does this person represent a religion with 2000 years worth of study behind it.

and God surely, very surely, knows best.

Mark Bennet Inciting Deceit for Popularity

In the below screenshot from the still public profile of Christian extremist and mouth piece of one Sam Shamoun, Mark Bennet (who thrives off of stealing personal photos of people and publishing sexual scenarios, using the photos he stole), we can see the claim of a Christian woman. This Christian, states that I ran away from a debate and I am a coward, because I refused to debate a team of Christian apologists willing to fly to my home country of Trinidad and Tobago. To demonstrate the wicked and deceitful nature of these specific Christian extremists, I give you the entire chat log from Facebook with said woman. I invite Miss Jane Kim to publish the chat log on Mark’s website to validate the chat log below. Nothing has been edited or removed. This is the fruit of the Holy Spirit among Christians, inventing claims and lying for popularity and donation monies.

cc-2014-markbennet-lying

 

Let’s focus on this one woman’s claim, lauded by Mark Bennet and his gang of sexually deviant extremists (see this article and this other article):

 

  • 28 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 17:44

    Facebook User

    Hello Ijaz, My name is Kim and I have been reading your posting and thought it would be fabulous if you would be willing to be open for perhaps a Christian debate? If you are open for the idea, please let me know? Thank you so much for your consideration, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 18:48

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Hi Kim,

    I’m always open for debate.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 18:55

    Facebook User

    Oh that is wonderful. Would you be open to a video debate perhaps one on Skype or Paltalk which also has Video Rooms?

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 19:17

    Ijaz Ahmad

    My upcoming debate is on paltalk, audio only though.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 19:18

    Facebook User

    Would you be interested in setting up a Video debate perhaps in 30-90 out?

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 19:25

    Facebook User

    (sorry I meant to say 30-90 days out)?

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 19:32

    Ijaz Ahmad

    with whom? You?

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 19:43

    Facebook User

    No, not me but perhaps a friend of mine from India

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 19:50

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I don’t usually debate any Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along, have your friend contact me and I’d see if they’re up to mark.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:07

    Facebook User

    Oh, I see, well I do not want to bother him if you say no, so here take a look at his credentials before I mention it to him and let me know what you think and what your timeframe looks like, ok?He is part of the Sakshi team and perhaps if you agree I can arrange for the debate. The following is their link, but the man speaking is not my friend. Kindly, Kim

    http://www.sakshitimes.net/blog/2008/12/25/debate-invitation/

    This attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:08

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I know about Sakshi, they won’t debate me. You are free to try and arrange it though.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:09

    Facebook User

    Consider it arranged….my friend said he would love to debate you at least 30 days out.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:11

    Facebook User

    Why dont you name the date and I will arrange the room through Paltalk Video….here are some topics would any of these interest you? 1. Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and Death of Muhammad

     

    2. Sin and Salvation in the Bible and the Quran

     

    3. Is Muhammad the prophet mentioned in the Bible (Looks one sided, but couldn’t think how to make this two sided)

     

    4. Yahweh of the Bible or Allah of the Quran

     

    5. Corrupted or not – Quran and the Bible

     

    6. Trinity of the Bible or Tawheed of the Quran

     

    7. Islam or Christianity, which is the true religion of peace

     

    8. Jesus of the Bible or Muhammad of the Islam, which is the best example for humanity

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:12

    Ijaz Ahmad

    £5.

    * number 5

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:12

    Facebook User

    Or…Prophethood of Muhammad and Apostleship of Paul.

    ok

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:12

    Ijaz Ahmad

    As I said, I don’t do video, only audio.

    They can be on video, but I prefer to remain speaking only on audio.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:14

    Facebook User

    He only does video…..since on audio what usually occurs is one simply googles, researches, others can be feeding info as well as scripts are read.

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:14

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I only do audio for the sake of my identity.

    Those are his reasons for video only? LOL

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:15

    Facebook User

    Oh comeon, we are never commanded under the New Covenant never to harm anyone

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:15

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Sorry, all of my debates are audio only, no one knows my face, real name etc. I keep it that way because of my age as well.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:15

    Facebook User

    Anyone could debate on audio while others are feeding the answers one would simply read off

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:16

    Ijaz Ahmad

    You think being on video will prevent Sakshi members from not helping each other? You can see the person, not his computer screen. That’s some weird logic.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:17

    Facebook User

    Most well-known Muslim Apologists debate live even

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:17

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Most well known Muslim apologists don’t debate on Paltalk either

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:18

    Facebook User

    There is no need to live in fear, perhaps other Muslims will benefit from seeing your boldness and be encouraged to become an apologist for your faith as well

    Paltalk is simply a convenient forum for those in separate countries

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:18

    Ijaz Ahmad

    This is not about living in fear This is about keeping my life private and protecting my identity as a young adult from victimization in a Christian country.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:19

    Facebook User

    Are you speaking of India or Trinidad?

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:19

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Plus your logic doesn’t add up. Seeing the person isn’t what matters, because they could be on google and various other websites and you’d never know, because all you’re seeing is the person.

    Trinidad.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:21

    Facebook User

    Yes, but as we are able to view Deedat and Zakir Naik in person and one’s passion can really be felt as oppossed to reading emotionless

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:22

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Plus, in my experience, having two cams running at once, as well with voice chat on Paltalk deteriorates the connection horribly, hence why people normally go for audio.

    The bar is set, if Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and other well known Christian apologists can debate audio only as I do, I don’t see why Sakshi can’t.

    Too much fluff and little substance.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:23

    Facebook User

    I have some other forums we can use such as gotomeeting, or Skype Premium. Welll my dear, I must run now, but if you change your mind, please let me know and I will speak to him about this. Thank you so much for your consideration and may peace and blessings be upon you! Kindly, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:24

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I’ve spent enough time discussing this, I have work to continue. Message me when you have something in concrete.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:24

    Facebook User

    Thank you Ijaz!

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:44

    Facebook User

    Ijaz aside from the video debates, my friend also does face to face debates.

  • 29 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    29/12/2012 10:09

    Facebook User

    Ijaz, I discussed this possible debate with Sakshi, and they have never recd any debate invite from you. They have a strict debate criterion which you can see on http://www.sakshitimes.net/blog/2008/12/25/debate-invitation/. They receive many debate invites from boys high on enthusiasm but they typically back off when asked to send a profile. Anycase, if you can send me the correspondence that you sent them, I can ask them to cross check. Further to which I can ask them to respond to your email which you are supposed to have sent them earlier.

    This attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
  • Ijaz Ahmad
    29/12/2012 10:11

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Clarify whether or not they’d be willing to an English debate, audio only before I send a request.

    I don’t want to send one and then be told that I began to back out.

  • 29 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    29/12/2012 18:25

    Facebook User

    Dear Ijaz, There were two parts to my email to which you replied to only one part… Sakshi frequently gets claims by wannabes claiming that Sakshi didn’t accept their debate challenge when nothing to that effect was ever extended. Please send me the correspondence which you claim to have been sent to Sakshi… I hope I don’t get the usual “I don’t store email”. They are pretty occupied with their work in India and are very particular about video being a part of the debate… perhaps you can “re-forward” your “earlier correspondence” and work hopefully work it out with them

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    29/12/2012 18:26

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Please see my previous message. I told you >> before << I send, to ask your friend if he would do a audio only debate, as I don’t want to send a proposal and then be accused of backing out.

  • 31 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    31/12/2012 09:44

    Facebook User

    Audio debate is out of the question. Sakshi has debated Dawah groups having a million plus members in a mosque boldly hanging up banners “Quran is not the word of God”, they went there without police protection and just about 20 supporters in the crowd… this in a country (India) which offers a fraction of protection of civil rights such as what you enjoy in the Trinidad… they boldly do their work without any human support or protection nor hiding behind the façade of the Internet… no time for juveniles who cannot stand up boldly for their faith even when they are given full state protection. Comeon Ijaz, you are not a Christian living in Muslim country with the possibility of Islamic death threats. Remember Christians do not have a 9:29 to obey. When Sami Zataari, Shabir Aly, Osama Abdallah, etc can openly criticize Christianity in a “Christian” country without any fear, then you also need to come out of the closet, reject the mythological “islamophobia” and debate openly as your leaders do. If not, do not use Taqiyya trying to gain footage by saying Sakshi won’t debate you. They will, but you must debate out of our closet man to man. Kindly, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    31/12/2012 10:48

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Hi there Kim!

    Well thank you for proving your stereotyping to be wrong, if Sakshi members among millions of Muslims, can insult them inside of a Masjid and come out with not even a scratch, then you’ve proven your lie of ‘death threats’ and ‘9:29 false interpretation’ to be wrong. Funny how proof by contradiction works, yes?

    Also, there is something you must know, I don’t have any pride, you can accuse me of being like Paul and using Taqiyya, you can accuse me of being scared, heck you can even accuse me of whatever you want, you’re not going to get a reaction from me. You’re a Christian, your motives are clear and your insincerity shines through the façade of ‘kindly organizing a debate’. Your last message clearly demonstrates your lowly intent.

    If Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and even James White, from whom Sakshi steals most of their outdated information from can debate without video, then who does Sakshi think they are? The truth is, they are scared, and they will look for an excuse not to debate, they will create stringent rules and criteria just to make it impossible for a debate to happen

    When they are ready to grow up and don’t need their faces or names to be known for fame and donation money for their private use, let me know.

  • 31 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    31/12/2012 15:16

    Facebook User

    Dear Ijaz, Thanks for your mail. You still have not forwarded the debate invitation you claimed to have sent to Sakshi, when you stated above that you knew of them yet they would not debate with you.

    Perhaps Muslims cannot all be accused of obeying Surah 9:29. There are some like you who may follow Surah 43:88-89, Surah 109 and some may follow Surah 2:190-194 depending on their strength of population. So, it is very much an opportunistic ideology, depending upon one’s commitment to the Quran.

    Blessed Apostle Paul was not a follower of Muhammad to use Taqiyya “being like Paul and using Taqiyya” as you stated.

    Sam Shamoun, James White, etc do not have a closet hidden policy like you do. They may have debated without video due to technical constraints but they have also debated with video and in public square. Debates with Islamic stalwarts were all on video. With your “hide-behind the screen/veil” policy, how can one be sure of your true profile even? How can one be sure that you would not reappear with a changed name in a new website when you are thoroughly discredited in the debate?

    Anyways, we are speaking about Sakshi. They would want to debate with people who can boldly stand up for their own Religion. Why are you insisting on not having a video debate? When you grow up and can stand on your own and debate like a man, please let me know and I will arrange a debate for you with Sakshi.

  • Facebook User
    31/12/2012 15:20

    Facebook User

    Also, My comment about Sakshi debating in front of millions does not imply that the threat is not impending because as we all know fully well, in many countries precautions are often taking when debating live with Muslims such as metal detectors since Islam is the Religion of intolerance. Many have had looming threats from Muslims with the words of the Quran as justification, unlike the absence of any such words from the the New Testament words for the Dispensation of Grace. Kindly, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    31/12/2012 15:34

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I am sorry you have an overwhelming need to demean others when they do not bow to your whims and desires. You can speak whatever you wish of my religion, my God, my Prophet, you are a Christian, I don’t expect anything better from your ilk.

    You’ve wasted enough of my time Feel free to keep compensating for your own faith crisis by attacking Islam, it won’t change the reality before you.

You cannot reply to this conversation.

A Missionary’s Response to John 8:58

After my article here, Anthony decided to respond in an article copiously filled to the brim with nonsensical ad hominem and straw man attacks. He’s upset, very upset after a bust up we had along with Br. Yahya Snow via e-mail, I didn’t realise my words had stung him that badly that it drove him to such madness. I’ll be skipping the filibustering and get straight to his counter arguments:

Contrary to this authors’ claim, Christians do not argue that Jesus is referring to himself as “a” God, as if Jesus is just one God among others.

He’s arguing pedantically, I removed the word ‘a’ and the argument still stands, “Many Christians claim that Jesus in John 8:58 claims to be “I AM”, and God in Exodus 3:14 refers to Himself by this title/ name, therefore Jesus is knowingly referring to himself as God.” So his qualms, cries and rantings thus far have been negated by simply removing a word. Regardless of how much he writes, the premise still stands, by removing the word ‘a’, he effectively now cannot claim I’m appealing to modalism. Now he has to actually respond to the argument at hand. It’s a shame though, since a significant majority of his “response” is fixated on the trumped up connotations that the word ‘a’ is supposed to imply a belief other than trinitarianism. In no way did I appeal to, or for myself believe, that by applying the word ‘a’, that I would be arguing using modalism. Therefore, by removing one letter, I’ve essentially rendered 90% of his counter argument useless. His next argument rests on this claim:

Those who enter John’s Gospel through the front door would already be alerted to this idea and would not be surprised when they come across it in the narrative. In the prologue to the book, John introduces Jesus as the eternal Word…

Except for a very big problem, the Johannine Prologue is effectively as most textual critics would agree, an interpolation onto the Gospel of John. There are three facts that this propagandist must face:

  • John 1 and 21 are philologically outside of the original text of the Gospel.
  • None of the other Gospels report such language, terms or beliefs associated with Christ.
  • The prologue is in of itself unique to John 1 and cannot be found anywhere else throughout Johannine literature.

In as much as he wants to appeal with it, he has to concede that the prologue is not from the original author of John, we read from the Hermeneia Series on the Johannine Prologue:

“Bultmann has done us the great service of demonstrating, on the basis of style, that the core of the Johannine Prologue is an independent entity, a hymn, that was added to the Gospel as an introduction.”

“What really prompted the author of this Gospel to preface his work with this hymn? Ever since Harnack’s essay, “Uber das Verhaltnis des Prologs des vierten Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk,” this question has been given serious consideration. Did the Evangelist intend to preface his work with a statement of its leading ideas – as an introduction? But does the Prologue really recite these leading ideas? Did the Evangelist want to make his work palatable to hellenistic readers by making use of the Logos concept?”

Anthony even concedes to the fact that there are numerous other “I AM” statements littered throughout the Gospel of John which do not hold such weight as in equating such instances with Exodus 3:14:

In fact, even if we restrict ourselves to the local context of John 8:58 we see Jesus assert this several times in the same dialogue. Moreover, two of these notices even occur in conjunction with other “I Am” statements:

Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:21-24)

So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. (John 8:28-30)
Therefore, even this Christian polemicist agrees that John 8:58 uses a phrase uttered by Jesus many times, and that it’s use in one verse cannot magically carry over to Exodus 3:14. He later fully admits this by stating:
As for Exodus 3:14, along with many scholars I don’t think that it is the most directly relevant verse to John 8:58.
We thank him for disagreeing with the majority of Trinitarin scholarship on the issue, as he echoes a sentiment also claimed by Dr. Anthony Buzzard, a noted Unitarian Biblical scholar. We can now read where in one paragraph the author, Anthony, refutes himself and clearly demonstrates that he is lying:
According to the author the word for “God” in Exodus 3:14 is Elohim. Furthermore, the author tells us that for Christians this word can refer either to the Father alone or to all three persons together. But this isn’t correct, or at least it is not the whole truth, which means that our author has committed the fallacy of false choices or exhaustive hypotheses.
Here he claims that I am wrong for saying that Elohim or God, can refer to one person in the Godhead or all three. Yet here he agrees with what I’ve stated above:
Since all three persons are consubstantial, the word God is equally applicable to any single member of the Godhead, whether Father, Son, or Spirit, or to all three persons together. This means the word can either refer to the Father, to all three persons, or to either one of the other persons, whether the Son or the Spirit.
At this point, we have to ask, does Anthony realise he is arguing against that which he himself claims of his own beliefs? This takes care of his “response” to Problems 1 and 2. Despite refuting himself and declaring what I said as wrong, although he himself in the very same paragraphs claims to believe in that same belief, he went on to state:
In other words, the word Elohim can be used for the Son even as it can be used for the Father by Himself or for the Holy Spirit by Himself.
This is in no way different to what I claimed previously. So the problems still persists:

Problem 1:

Elohiym consists of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit of one substance, united by the Godhead. If Christ is claiming to be this Elohiym (the united Three Persons), then he is claiming to be the Father as well as the Holy Spirit. According to Trinitarian dogma, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit. In other words, if Christ is claiming to be the Elohiym (of Three Persons) then he is effectively breaking the rules of the Trinitarian dogma as the Son is claiming to be other persons in the Godhead.

Problem 2:

If the Elohiym of Exodus 3:14 is the Father alone, then Christ who is the Son is claiming to be the Father and according to Christian Trinitarian belief, the Son is not the Father. Therefore if the Christian is claiming Christ to be Elohiym – the Father, then the Christian is admitting that the Trinity in this case is a false teaching or that Christ did not believe in the Trinity that they appeal to.

Anthony at this stage, did not offer any response to Problem 3, which can be seen here:

The Fallacy of False Equivocation.

Jack is a boy.
James is a boy.
Jack is James.

Obviously Jack is not James.

Orange is a fruit.
Apple is a fruit.
Oranges are Apples.

Obviously Oranges are not Apples.

God says I am.
Jesus says I am.
God is Jesus.

Clearly we can see that this is the fallacy of false equivocation.

His only meaningful reply was:
If first century Jews reasoned like this author they wouldn’t have been upset with Jesus.
Which is hilarious because on this occassion the Christian is willing to accept the testimony of Jews against Christ and he’s also willing to admit that the Johannine author who put those interpolated words into the mouth of Jesus is hinged on 1st century Graeco-Roman Jewish Syncretism with their Roman counterparts whom they saw the word or wisdom of God as being a distinct deity. So appealing to Jewish reasoning during the 1st century is one of the worst counter-arguments he could have used. In other words, he’s appealing to the arguments and reasoning of the same people whom Christ declared as being severely misguided on their beliefs about him, see John 8:44-48.
In response to Problem 4, he states:
While Christians do believe that “the Son is not the Father or the Spirit,” we do not believe that “the Son is the Father and the Spirit unified.”
My argument was as such:

You cannot say that John is an employee in the company, but you can say that John works for the company.
You cannot say that Shem and Ham are brothers, but you can say that they have the same mother and father.
You cannot say that a banana is a fruit, but you can say that the banana belongs in the fruit basket.

Similarly:

You cannot say that the Son is the Father or the Spirit, but you can say that the Son is the Father, Son and Spirit.

I therefore do not see how Anthony has responded to the argument. I agree that you do not believe the Son is the Father and the Spirit unified, you do believe however, that the Son is the Son, the Father and the Spirit unified. By ignoring the argument and responding to his whims and fancies, he’s distracted himself and failed to address the point at hand which still stands.

Conclusion:

Anthony hasn’t presented any new rebuttals, this article of his was a poor attempt at responding to my Problems with John 8:58 which he has yet to refute. In essence, it seems hastily authored and filled with assumptions and ad hominem. The Problems with John 8:58 in Christian usage still stands and Anthony’s article does not add to the discourse on its use but rather distracts from it.

I hope and pray he has something of substance to present next time in response to what I author, I do not consider mad ranting or inane arguing worthy of my time. His response was nothing more but an attempt to recover from the whooping he received via private e-mail discourse.

and God knows best.

Debate Review: Bob Siegel vs Ijaz Ahmad, “Which is more reliable – NT or Qur’aan?”

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 [callingchristians@gmail.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.”

Pastor Samuel Concedes He Didn’t Respond to Me Well During Our Debate

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:

Blogger  Answering Muslims - Post a Comment (2)

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

The Message - Many Christians live in denial and cannot face the...

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.

« Older Entries