Tag Archives: debate review

Debate: Was Jesus the Son of God or Only the Prophet of God – Audience’s Review #1

This is the first of several audience reviews from the debate between Dr. Tony Costa and myself. The following review is from Abu Ilias (USA):

As a student of comparative theology, I am addicted to watching Christian/Muslim interfaith dialogues and debates. Different speakers have different oratory attributes, skills, knowledge, and of course deficiencies as well, and present their information in various ways. There are some who, to the discerning minds, seem to merely want to spout hate and animosity at the interlocutor’s person and faith conviction, not seriously interested in genuine dialogue or hoping to reach a fair and objective conclusion. And there are those that , bless them, seem to be very sincere and earnest but do not posses adequate knowledge in the scope of their debate endeavors and consequently end up creating straw men arguments, misrepresentations and false conclusions, albeit not intentionally.

This debate between Tony Costa and Ijaz Ahmed encapsulated the best of both worlds in my humble opinion. Ijaz was lucid, intelligent, respectful and up to date on the current landscape of Christian theological doctrine and textual criticism. He did not allow his Quranic or Islamic preconceptions to muddy the merit of his arguments nor did he allow the fever of religious debate to infiltrate and ruin the civility of the event (contrary to what others such as David Wood and Sam Shamoun frequently do on ABN). Tony Costa, is also one of the more respectable Christian personalities and apologists. He displayed a very professional level of dialogue and did not resort to some of the oft repeated bigoted slogans that ubiquitously occupy the lips of others who use the ABN platform. And while I believe some of Costa’s arguments to be weak or unfounded, I never found myself grinding my teeth or face palming at any time during his debate, which is a first for me as a listener of ABN’s material.

Ijaz (as well as some very intelligent Muslim questioners during the Q and A) did a terrific job using only christian and general biblical scholarship to support his claims on various topics and I learned much from his presentations as well as his style of delivery, in fact, I am shocked at his level of knowledge and wisdom at such a young age. I will definitely watch this debate numerous times in order to study the material he so eloquently presented and utilize it in the future! By my humble estimation, Ijaz clearly provided the more objective and faith-neutral arguments while Costa, although being respectful and polite, countered with little more than cliches that have long been discarded by modern studies in textual criticism and Christology. Examples include his continued claim that the Gospels were 1st century documents despite Ijaz’s elucidation of the fact that the oldest known manuscripts like P52 are dated by biblical scholars no earlier than the early second century and as late as the third century (even though Prof Dan Wallace claims to have been a part of the dating and discovery of a small late first century fragment of Mark back in 2012, it is now almost 2016 with still no verification.)

There are many more points, paramount ones, that can be expounded upon to show how Ijaz demonstrated the problematic nature of reconciling unitiarian passages in the NT with the trinity and the dual nature of Jesus peace be upon him, as well as how he academically clarified the dubious nature of the NT text as a whole, which in essence trumped anything Costa could have had to refute!

To have your review or comments about the debate published on the website and on our Facebook page, submit them via our Contact Us page.

and Allah knows best.

Post-Debate Remarks: What is the True Faith of Jesus’ Disciples

My friend and EAM Associate Apologist, Luis sent these books with Steven. Thanks Louie!

My friend and EAM Associate Apologist, Luis sent these books with Steven. Thanks Louie!

I’ve taken some time to think about the debate I had on Friday past with Reverend Steven Martins. Before, I speak on the debate itself I’d like to thank Br. Asad – the event’s host, Br. Haseeb – the videographer, MYTT – the organizers, and Pastor Kris – first time debate moderator and local host of Reverend Stevens. The event was well attended, some 200 – 300 persons, although we got off to a late start ~30 minutes, by the time the opening statements began we had a sizable crowd which grew steadily throughout our presentations. Due to our late start, we also had a late conclusion to the event, close to midnight according to our host and organizers. I however, having just come out of surgery, left 30 minutes after the debate. Reverend Steven’s timing wasn’t the best, but having just come out of surgery two weeks prior to the event, I was skeptical as to how I’d be able to manage a first time stage debate in front of such a large crowd. Thankfully, I was able to hold down my own and go through with the event.

The crowd seemed very well pleased with both presentations, occasionally I’d glance at the crowd and see quite a number of smiling faces, as well as a swelling crowd of guests. I have to admit that I was completely thrown aback by both Reverend Stevens and Pastor Kris’s (on the ‘s, see William Strunk Jr. and EB White’s, “The Elements of Style”) kind words. Pastor Kris’s introduction of, “I’ve only met Ijaz a few minutes now, but I must say he is a handsome young man”, was an excellent start to the night’s proceedings. No doubt, I do agree with the Pastor (why yes, I am being cheeky). Reverend Stevens is a very good orator and I must applaud him for speaking clearly, consistently and loudly enough. Myself on the other hand, had the mic adjusted a few minutes into the debate but the audio recording was not affected (the audience may have been affected, but that was a minor issue as far as I was told). Unfortunately, the Christian videographer had issues with his recording and thus despite having two cameras present, only one actually recorded the event.

Beyond that hiccup, the event proceeded smoothly. I have been told by persons who were at the event that the one on one between myself and the Reverend during our crossfire section was extremely thrilling and quite the spectacle to have watched. The question and answer following the main debate was quite interesting. Unfortunately there was one belligerent (Christian?) man who found my comments in relation to 2 Corinthians 12:6-7 to be somewhat offensive. Although my memory could be wrong, I have conferred with several others and they have agreed that my recounting of the events is indeed accurate (if I’m wrong, shoot me an email or place a comment, I’ll gladly correct myself), it proceeded as follows:

Questioner: Why are you using your intellect in reading scripture? The message of the cross is foolish to those who think they are wise! (He then proceeds to ask me a series of loosely related questions).

Me: I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re asking, can you please clarify?

Questioner: (Expressing his ire with my not understanding him proceeds to ask several more questions and shout after the mic has been taken from him; both Christian and Muslim sides agreed this would be done in the event someone wanted to start their own debate.)


I do fear that my reaction may have gone over his head. I have been told that some of my comments were too witty for certain sections of the crowd (I’m not sure how to respond to that), but essentially, if I turned off my intellect as the man was demanding I do, then it’s quite clear I wouldn’t be able to understand what he was asking. I will excuse him though, his anger and emotions may have gotten the better of him. Although the irony is difficult to escape, there was a deeper level of irony that occurred to me then but alas there was no time to mention it (time limit of 2 minutes had rushed quickly by!), here is a man who reads his scripture without using intellect, while those who constructed his scripture (textual critics) are required to use their intellects in their discipline! I seem to have angered the man with my being unable to understand him, but perhaps if he used his – intellect – it may have helped. Nonetheless, that was the only odd event for the evening and we proceeded to finish line shortly thereafter.

Following the event, I’ve received great feedback from both sides on the presentations for the debate. Fortunately, the questions the audience asked were directly relevant to the next topic, “What is the True Path of Salvation: Islam or Christianity?”, which sets a great stage for the next debate. I’m concerned that the Christian side which is arranging the recording may not be able to follow through on those arrangements for the next debate. I’d be quite disappointed if that is the case, but I do hope and pray that this next event goes as smoothly if not more smoothly than the first. Reverend Stevens and myself do certainly approach these topics quite differently, and I think the audience benefits greatly from our differences. I do look forward to our second and last event for his Trinidad Mission’s Trip. Please keep us in your prayers.

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

Br. Zakir Hussain of the Muslim Debate Initiative has reviewed and critiqued my performance against that of Bob Siegel in our recent radio debate. It’s quite a read, but it’s interesting to see the thoughts of a seasoned debater on what many deem to be a controversial debate:

I would firstly like to thank brother Ijaz for the excellent work he has been doing on his blog and for his great performance against respected Christian apologist Pastor Samuel Green.

After listening to this recent debate and realizing that Bob Siegel hasn’t changed his approach since his performance against Brother Shadid Lewis I thought I would give a brief review of his next encounter with Brother Ijaz Ahmed. I will try to comment on some of the points presented in the order they were made in the debate. One point I would like to say is that it was quite hard understanding a lot of Ijaz Ahmed’s opening statement and rebuttal as it seems his mic or phone line was not very clear. In fact I had to keep replaying some parts in order to try to make out what he was saying so I think this was something that worked against Ijaz in this debate.

Now Bob started off with the usual cheap argument that the Quran teaches that the Bible is the word of God. I think Bob must have Surah 2:75-79 missing in his personal manuscript of the Quran and also Surah 5:13 and 4:157 which refers to his New Testament as CONJECTURE. After this first erroneous point Bob than claimed that although the Quran confirms the Bible, at the same time it also contradicts it. For example the Quran denies Jesus is God yet on the other hand Jesus (AS) allegedly claimed to be God. If Bob had an accurate understanding of what the Quran teaches he would know that the Quran does NOT confirm the entire scriptures of the Jews and Christians. If you read the Tafsir of Surah 5:48 for example you will find the following:

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
Ibn Jarir said,
“The Qur’an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur’an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur’an is false.”

So if as Bob says the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God, than the Quran does not confirm this part of the New Testament and in fact the Quran responds to the Christians regarding the New Testament teaching that Jesus is the son of God:

9:30. The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

So the first reason Bob gives for a positive case for his Bible fails miserably. As even brother Ijaz in his rebuttal period mentioned Surah 2:79 to Bob and no response was given by Bob.

Bob than preceded to show how the New Testament fulfils Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 53. One thing that was very surprising was Bob made the claim that Isaiah 53 says that the anointed one (Messiah) will come and die for our sins, but Isaiah 53 nowhere mentions the Messiah. At first I thought this might have been a slip of the tongue but then Bob mentioned this again and again. So I would challenge Bob to show us where Isaiah 53 mentions the Messiah. There is a difference between Christians claiming it is speaking about the Messiah and Christians saying that the text itself mentions the Messiah.

He also mentioned Daniel 9 predicting the exact time of when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. It’s unfortunate that Bob doesn’t know that Daniel 9 is not speaking about one anointed one but is actually speaking about 2 anointed ones. I recommend he reads a book by Rabbi Tovia Singer entitled Let’s Get Biblical where on pg.114 he goes into great detail demonstrating from the Hebrew how the text speaks of 2 anointed one’s. Not only this but he gives a different timeframe of when the 70weeks actually starts and ends hence it doesn’t line up with the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.  As far as Bob quoting from Josephus. This was where I realised that it seems that Bob hasn’t done his homework at all as many scholars today recognise that much of the material present in the quote of Josephus are actually what they would call a “pious fraud”. In other words some Christian added to and interpolated into the quote of Josephus. Bob also quotes from the Talmud to establish that the New Testament is corroborated by other non-Christian documents but historians like Josephus and the Jews of the Talmud did not have any independent sources regarding Jesus but were just simply repeating what they had heard from Christians so this hardly makes the case for the New Testament any stronger.

So we see that Bobs whole opening statement was riddled with error after error on the other hand let’s see how Ijaz approached this topic.

Ijaz started off by mentioning a key difference between the Quran and the New Testament. Namely the fact that the Quran was viewed as scripture right from the get go and as such Muslims started learning it and studying it from the start whereas on the other hand the NT was not seen as scripture from the start and it actually took years before it started getting viewed as inspired documents. Ijaz mentioned that the Quran was transmitted in 2 ways, namely in oral form and also in written form with both forms complementing each other. He then asked Bob regarding which NT he deems reliable as in the early years and actually for centuries Christians had different books in their canon and this phenomenon is actually the case with Christians today. One can compare the canon of the Protestants with the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian churches. They differ with each other. An excellent question that Ijaz posed to Bob was regarding Psalms 119 which says that the word of the Lord is written in heaven on a tablet (us Muslims also believe this). Ijaz then asked which version of the OT and NT are written on this tablet. I must say I was disappointed with Bob avoiding the question and instead speaking about translations and how 99% percent of manuscripts he trusts are reliable etc thus avoiding the question.

Another excellent point Ijaz made was that the Disciples of Jesus did not have a NT to guide them nor did they have anything but the OT for their guidance so why do Christians need the NT if the disciples didn’t. So these are some of the points mentioned in the opening statement. After this point the debaters had questions posed to them.

The 1st question posed to Ijaz was regarding the transmission of the Quran i.e. who wrote it and how it came to us and when was it written. Ijaz responded with the fact that the Quran was being written down by the companions and followers of the Prophet from the earliest years of its revelation as the story of Umar (RA) visiting his sister who had secretly embraced Islam and who had a written copy of a certain chapter with her thus confirming that it was being written down very early.

Bob than responded by claiming that the Quran was neither written down nor compiled in the Prophets lifetime. It seems that Bob once again must have a missing verse in his personal manuscript of the Quran namely

80.11 Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment,
80.12 So let whosoever will pay heed to it,
80.13 On honoured leaves
80.14 Exalted, purified,
80.15 (Set down) by scribes

Bob was accurate regarding the Quran being compiled together after the Prophet (PBUH) had passed but all of it had been written in the Prophets lifetime and in his presence but it was only put together into a book form by his right hand man Abu Bakr (RA).
Bob than quoted Ibn Umar (RA) to try to show that Ibn Umar believed that much of the Quran was lost but as brother Ijaz rightly pointed out that Ibn Umar was speaking about the fact that some verses and recitations of the Quran were abrogated. What we have in the Quran today is the same as what the Prophet recited to angel Jibreel twice in the last Ramadan of his life.

Bob then in response to the claim by Ijaz that the NT was not seen as scripture in the early years tried to show how the disciple of Jesus Peter claimed in 2nd Peter that the letters of Paul are inspired like the OT. First off Bob should know that biblical scholars are almost unanimous that 2nd Peter was not written by the disciple Peter but by an anonymous person who forged this letter in the name of Peter. He can read the book by Bart Ehrman entitled Forged or even check out the arguments presented by Bruce Metzger regarding 2nd Peter. It must also be mentioned that this is not just a modern view but even early church fathers were in dispute regarding whether 2nd Peter was actually written by Peter. I would ask Bob to give us some proofs that any document in the NT is written by an apostle. I am confident that apart from some of the letters of Paul the rest of the NT has no solid proof that it was written by any apostles. Ijaz also mentioned that 2nd Peter is attributed to the 2nd century by some scholars as opposed to the first century as Bob thinks.

We now move on to the part of the debate where the moderator asked both speakers regarding the internal consistency of their scriptures. Ijaz proceeded to show how the Quran is clear and consistent on the first commandment namely that God is one in an absolute sense and how Islam and Judaism both do not believe in human substitution sacrifices and concepts such as the Trinity. At this point it would have been good to hear Ijaz speak about how the Quran itself in Surah 4:82 mentions that if it was not from God than surely it would have contradictions.

Bob mentioned that the Quran has many contradictions of which he could only bring up his wild theory that the Quran confirms the Bible yet contradicts it which has already been refuted above and in the debate by Ijaz who mentioned Surah 2:79.
The next question was regarding Paradise according to both scriptures of which Bob mentioned that both Islam and Christianity have a similar concept of paradise and both believe you must follow the ways of God to reach paradise. Bob mentioned that before the time of Jesus people like Moses and Abraham worked with animal sacrifices to cleanse their sins. What is remarkable is that Bob contradicted Jesus as Bob claimed that Abraham didn’t know about the coming of Jesus yet according to the Gospel of John Jesus allegedly said

8:56 your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

So Bob needs to explain why he contradicted Jesus. Was it a slip of the tongue or have I misunderstood what he was trying to say?
After this Ijaz once again asked Bob regarding Psalms 119 which states that the scriptures of the Lord are preserved in heaven, so which scriptures according to Bob are preserved? Is it the Masoretic text or may be the Qumran scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus or may be Vaticanus? I must confess I did not hear Bob answer.

The last part of this debate I would like to touch on is how Islam spread. Ijaz claimed it was because of the power of the Quran whereas Bob on the other hand claims it was because of the Sword. So I will ask him something the late great Sheikh Ahmed Deedat asked Anis Shorrosh in 1988. Which Muslim army went to Indonesia with the sword and which army is now in America and Europe where Islam is the fastest growing religion? Ijaz pointed to verses of the Quran such as 2:190 which give the context of warfare in Islam but Bob claimed that the Quran contradicts itself on peace and war where in one place it says be peaceful and in another place it says pick up the sword.

Has it not crossed Bob’s mind that just like the pre Exodus period of the life of Moses (AS) where he did not fight but after the demise of Pharaoh Moses and the Israelites conducted military operations and much like the 1st coming of Jesus where allegedly according to Bob Jesus was a pacifist but on the other hand when Jesus returns in his 2nd coming he will be a warrior with a sword as Bob confirms and Jesus confirms in Luke 19:27. Than in the same way Prophet Muhammad resembled Moses and Jesus in their first period whilst he was in Makkah but in Madina he was in the position of Moses after the Exodus and Jesus in his 2nd coming where he could fight against the disbelievers on behalf of God in the context of Ayah’s such as Surah 2:190 which Ijaz mentioned. It’s silly for Bob to quote Jesus telling Peter to put his Sword down as he who lives by the sword dies by the sword and interpret it in the way he has that Jesus was teaching pacifism. If this is the case than I have 2 questions for Bob

1) Who told Peter to purchase a sword in the first place?
2) if you interpret the statement of Jesus that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword the way you have than please explain if people like Moses and Joshua and David who all waged wars with swords died by the sword.

Isn’t it better to see what Jesus meant how the early Christian commentators understood it that what Jesus meant was think before you pull out the sword and don’t be brash with it rather than how you understand it that Jesus was condemning his followers to use a sword period.

So in summary I think it’s clear that in this debate Ijaz put Bob on the spot and under pressure a few times by posing questions that Bob kept on evading such as which NT is on the tablet mentioned in Psalms 119 and why do Christians need the NT when the disciples and early Christians didn’t need it. Its times like this when I believe apologists should be honest and just admit that they don’t know the answer. I mean none of us knows everything so wouldn’t it have been better for Bob to just say to Ijaz that I can’t answer your questions but I will research them and get back to you. Rather than just talk about other things and act like he was addressing the questions. Does it hurt one’s pride to just say I don’t know?

I am also pleased with the way Ijaz showed how the Quran is more reliably transmitted than the NT as it was written and memorised from the start and the key difference between both books is that the Quran was recognised as the word of God from the very beginning unlike the NT.

So all in all I think that apart from the issues of the audio of Ijaz’s mic that overall this was a good dialogue and praise must be given to Ijaz for his good approach. As for Bob I think he needs to research his claims more rather than just copy and paste arguments such as the Quran approves the Bible from google. I must say though that I do respect Bob as he seems sincere and is a charismatic speaker and I can tell he loves God and has a thirst for the truth. So I pray that Allah guides him to the straight path of the Prophets which is Islam In Sha Allah.

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.”

Fantastic Debate with Pastor Samuel Green

Last night’s debate with Samuel was absolutely splendid. The events could not have gone better than I’d hoped and the experience was certainly uplifting and motivating. Here are two quick incidents from last night:

Pastor Samuel: Ijaz you keep asking me for a verse which demonstrates the incarnate Christological (man-God) creed, well I’ve been providing it all along, here it is:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him.” – Daniel 7:13-14.

Me: Pastor, did you even LOOK at the verse? It literally says that GOD was GIVEN authority, glory and power. That’s funny, because the very definition of God is an all powerful deity, how can an all powerful deity be GIVEN power?

If you that that was bad, this was even worse!

Pastor Samuel: Ijaz you’re confusing Greek mythology with Greek Philosophy, the belief in the Son of God in the Greek culture was mythology not philosophy, you need to study ancient Greek culture.

Me: Reminds the kindly Pastor that Plato and Pythagoras were seen as ‘the Sons of God’ and in Greek Philosophy (as quoted by the Apostle Paul himself!), all men were ‘like’ God because we all possess the faculties of ‘reason’.

I should have the debate uploaded to our channel in a day or two, God willing. There were a few technical glitches and timing issues last night, but we were able overcome these trials and have an eventful debate. At one point I lost internet connection and was unable to hear Samuel’s second rebuttal. The room itself was packed with 120+ persons, and to be quite honest I’m certain it went beyond this number, but because I was busy having a debate – I didn’t think to keep checking the room count, in any case there certainly was a significant turn out from both the Muslim and Christian communities.

Lastly, I’d like to thank Sister Waduha, our moderator who was fair and unbiased. This makes it 3/3 debates in which I’ve worked with her and she pulled out all the stops last night by gifting both Samuel and I a week’s worth of Paltalk Extreme, i.e. we get a full week’s service of the paid Paltalk experience.

In relation to the debate and my performance, I’ve been told by Muslims and Christians alike that perhaps my quotations and my use of them in my arguments seemed to have gone over the heads of most people. I presented an unbiased Christian historical perspective on the development of the incarnate Christology, something in which Pastor Samuel was not prepared for and it clearly shows in his rebuttals that he really didn’t know how to respond and so he went into a hundred and one directions and gifted me three smashing cross fire questions that seemed to put him into the hot seat!

Many have been asking for the sources of the quotes I used during my Opening Statement, rest assured that in the coming days, perhaps after my debate with Bob Siegel, I’ll put something together for the public’s use inshaaAllaah.

wa Allaahu ‘alam.