Tag Archives: debate

[Live] Debate: Is the Crucifixion a Fact?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Today at 2 PM (EST – New York, Trinidad), 7 PM (GMT – London) Br. Aqil Onque will be debating Pastor Angelos Kyriakides on the topic of the Crucifixion. The stream will go live on YouTube at the above mentioned times.

Questions for the debaters can be submitted in the YouTube Live video’s chat and will be read to the debaters during the Question and Answer session. Please indicate whether you are a Christian or a Muslim at the start of your question. Not all questions are guaranteed to be asked and the length of the Question and Answer session is dependent upon the debaters’ discretion.

and God knows best.

The Rise of Modern Christian Extremism

Posted on by 3 comments

cc-2016-gunandcross1

The following are quotes from Christian author and journalist, Chris Hedges’ book “Wages of Rebellion”:

The breakdown of American society will trigger a popular backlash, which we glimpsed in the Occupy movement, but it will also energize the traditional armed vigilante groups that embrace a version of American fascism that fuses Christian and national symbols.

cc-2016-gunandcross4

Gabrielle Giffords, a member of the US House of Representatives, was shot in the head in January 2011 as she held a meeting in a supermarket parking lot in Arizona. Eighteen other people were wounded. Six of them died. Sarah Palin’s political action committee had previously targeted Giffords and other Democrats with crosshairs on an electoral map. When someone like Palin posts a map with crosshairs, saying, “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” there are desperate, enraged people with weapons who act. When Christian fascists stand in the pulpits of megachurches and denounce Barack Obama as the Antichrist, there are messianic believers who believe it. When a Republican lawmaker shouts “Baby killer!” at Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, there are violent extremists who see the mission of saving the unborn as a sacred duty. They have little left to lose.

The kind of extremism that Hedges refers to, can be seen in the vitriol of Christian extremists such as Robert Spencer and Jonathan McLatchie. The next quote more accurately refers to these two missionaries:

Left unchecked, the hatred for radical Islam will transform itself into a hatred for Muslims. The hatred for undocumented workers will become a hatred for Mexicans and Central Americans.

More specifically, their self-delusion in referring to groups they dislike, as in the case of Jonathan McLatchie referring to Muslims as a cancer in European civilization speaks to their extremism. Hedges further says:

The ethnic groups, worshiping their own mythic virtues and courage and wallowing in historical examples of their own victimhood, vomited up demagogues and murderers such as Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic. To restore this mythological past they sought to remove, through exclusion and finally violence, competing ethnicities. The embrace of non-reality-based belief systems made communication among ethnic groups impossible. They no longer spoke the same cultural or historical language. They believed in their private fantasy. And because they believed in fantasy, they had no common historical narrative built around verifiable truth and no way finally to communicate with anyone who did not share their self-delusion.

In conclusion about these extremists, he says:

Those who retreat into fantasy cannot be engaged in rational discussion, for fantasy is all that is left of their tattered self-esteem. Attacks on their myths as untrue trigger not a discussion of facts and evidence but a ferocious emotional backlash.

That last quote reminds me solely of Sam Shamoun. Rather than engage in intellectual dialogue, he copy pastes articles, and insults those he disagrees with. Thus, the rise of Christian fascism, and its role in spreading hatred and violence towards Muslims is a growing pattern among polemicists such as Robert Spencer, David Wood, Sam Shamoun and now recently Jonathan McLatchie. The result of this hate can only be expressed as follows:

cc-2016-gunandcross3

and God knows best.

Debate: Is the New Testament the Word of God? – Br. Ijaz and Luis Dizon

Posted on by Leave a comment

On Friday 12th, August (2016), I debated Luis Dizon on the topic of, “Is the New Testament the Word of God?” at TARIC Masjid in Toronto. The initial publicly published recording found here (MDI) had a small audio issue which has been fixed in this version. It’s the exact same video, with the echo removed and the colour of the video slightly adjusted.

and God knows best!

Jonathan McLatchie Begs For Do-Over Debate with Mansoor

Posted on by One comment

After a disappointing and embarrassing encounter with Br. Mansoor, Jonathan McLatchie has challenged Br. Mansoor for a re-do. The following video in its entirety really demonstrated Jonathan’s inability to dialogue and debate under pressure:

This video has cleaned up audio and subtitles to hear the mistakes that Jonathan made:

In this video, both Dr. James White and Jonathan’s friend, Sam Shamoun correct and refute Jonathan’s mistakes about core Christian doctrines:

Unfortunately Jonathan claimed that fellow Christians were in agreement with him, and that he did not make heretical claims about the Trinity, which is contradicted in this conversation I had with his friend, Rudolph Bushoff:

After suffering such a humiliating debate defeat against Br. Mansoor, Jonathan is begging and pleading for another turn, this is Br. Mansoor’s response to him:

It appears that Jonathan Mclatchie had an unpleasant experience at Speakers’ Corner speaking with us (Hamid, me and Paul). He wishes for a second chance. He has challenged me openly for a debate. Needless to say that I am not interested in public/ formal debates and will have to let this one pass. Perhaps what he should instead do is to answer some of the points already made in our brief exchange at Speakers’ Corner to the wider Christian audience who might be reflecting on burning him on the stakes for his unorthodox belief if that were to happen in classical times.

Alternatively, if he is really desperate, I am found visiting most Sundays at Speakers’ Corner where we can continue our friendly discussion there informally, (sitting comfortably on the grass with the Sun shining over us) as the exchanges there can be more fruitful for mutual understanding of each others faith than from a formal debate setting where often it’s all about scoring points, in my opinion.

I can understand that whenever an intellectual exchange takes place on the Christian doctrine of Trinity at Speakers’ Corner, there often seems to be a realisation of a need for a second chance in a different debate setting as appreciated by external audience by the virtue of internet, as if that debate setting will provide somehow a comfort zone where the same points made in the exchange will wash away. As for Jonathan, I did want to continue our discussion at the park a little bit later from the initial exchange, but he was not that keen at all and had instead jumped on the ladder with Jay’s students only to be heckled down badly by the regular hecklers.

Anyways, apologetic Christians should rethink about throwing open challenges to lay Muslims like myself instead of engaging with our scholarly community. Or may be abandon the idea of formally debating our Islamic scholars, especially when even the Muslim laity seems to rock the foundation of the faith of your scholarly community?

and Allah knows best.

Debate: The Bible or the Qur’an? – Sadat Anwar vs. Dr. Tony Costa

Posted on by 6 comments

One of favourite Muslim debaters, Br. Sadat Anwar (may Allah preserve him) recently debated Dr. Tony Costa. Today the debate video has been released and suffice it to say, Br. Sadat is simply mesmerizing. He’s previously debated Alex Kerimli and Carlton McDonald, as well as one Qadiani, Ansar Raza. I strongly recommend that this debate be shared on behalf of Br. Sadat, it should be watched and studied.

Let us know what you think of Br. Sadat’s arguments.

and Allah knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Sam Shamoun’s Cursing Rage

Posted on by 21 comments

Tonight I find myself disappointed in the Christian inter-faith community. In my possession is an image of a comment on YouTube by Sam Shamoun. When we speak of good, moral people, we expect them to behave in a certain manner. It is strange to me, that people like Nabeel Qureishi and Jonathan McLatchie endorse and continue to promote Sam as not only a Christian teacher, but as a friend and someone to support. It says a lot about their characters that they consider a man who behaves in such a manner to be someone they endorse and support. That they hold this man on a pedestal, when he behaves and speaks like a thug. Curses more than a drunken sailor. I really need to ask if this is Christian behaviour, if this is the work of the Holy Spirit guiding Sam. It is absolutely a shame that people like Nabeel and Jonathan endorse Sam as someone to learn from and that they endorse his behaviour. We need to ask, where have Jonathan and Nabeel ever condemned Sam’s behaviour, rebuked him for unChristian-like speech, corrected him for his thuggish behaviour? The answer is nowhere, because to them, this is the example of a good Christian, that Sam is a good representation of what Christianity can do to a person. This, is sad.

Note: The image has been censored because of the extreme obscenities and vulgar language used. Curses to the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) have been censored, but the language has been left to bear witness of Sam’s character.

cc-2016-ss-samcntimage-clicktoreveal

If clicking the image does not open it, click this link to see the Facebook post about it.

Yes, he was arguing with someone and they traded insults. However, as an adult, as a faith leader, he should know to behave in a manner befitting his Christian faith. Is Christ not the one who said to turn the other cheek? Or was he the one who said to behave in an uncouth and obscene manner? I do not hold Sam to be a representative of the Christian faith and I am concerned that people, especially the two mentioned above continue to hold him as such.

and God knows best.

Jonathan McLatchie Flops in South Africa

Posted on by Leave a comment

cc-2016-jm-meme

Embarrassing. This is the term being used by Christians in response to erratic, untruthful and dishonest claims made by Jonathan McLatchie about his South African events. Despite having the support of his close friend and teacher Sam Shamoun, Jonathan’s events in South Africa have had appallingly small crowds (?) attending those events. One South African speaker, Br. Yusuf Bux, decided to question Jonathan about the size of attendance at his events:

cc-2016-jm-sadebate1

Jonathan replied with a large figure, 200 people! However, Br. Yusuf Bux responded with a picture that clearly showed roughly 20 people in attendance or less. In questioning Jonathan’s integrity, Br. Yusuf Bux replied as follows:

cc-2016-jm-sadebate2

Jonathan insisted that the photos were taken at a bad time, however these are photos from two different debates, both showing less than 100 people at either event. Instead of responding with photographic evidence to the contrary, Jonathan insisted that “someone did a headcount”. Unfortunately for Jonathan, the pictures were taken by attendees who confirmed that such numbers from Jonathan are not only imagined, Jonathan was simply lying. Another person who attended the event also replied and confirmed that Jonathan’s numbers were simply made up:

cc-2016-jm-sadebate5

According to the above eyewitness, the testimonies of both Christians and Muslims, and the photographs of the events, Jonathan is simply making up attendance numbers at will. In fact, Br. Yusuf Ismail has mentioned that there were 40 people at the first event and 70 at the second. No where near the large figures that Jonathan claimed:

cc-2016-jm-sadebate6

Not only have the events themselves failed to draw in any crowds, attendees from both Islamic and Christian backgrounds have complained that Jonathan’s arguments were not only poor, but he was significantly repetitive, leading to crowds leaving while he was speaking. As seen in this photo below, the room is practically empty while Jonathan is speaking:

cc-2016-jm-sadebate3

cc-2016-jm-sadebate7

In another event, there are 4-5 more people, but the seats are simply empty while Jonathan is speaking:

cc-2016-jm-sadebate4

There’s no need to make up numbers Jonathan, the pictures speak for themselves. If anyone would like to submit further pictures of the crowds, send us an email or post them to our Facebook Page.

and Allah knows best.

 

Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie’s Argument Fails Spectacularly

Posted on by One comment

Jonathan is known for making mistakes, whether that’s being ignorant of the Bible (he didn’t know God literally inscribed the ten commandments according to Exodus), or ignorant of the Qur’an:

In this amazing video from Br. Yahya Snow, Jonathan claims that nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah say: I am God, worship me. That’s unfortunate, for the Qur’an says:

Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance. – 20:14.

Br. Yahya has a ton more clips of Jonathan to be released in the coming days. Subscribe to his YouTube channel here: Yahya Snow.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie Doesn’t Understand How Debates Work

Posted on by One comment

Earlier today I watched a dialogue between Jonathan and someone named Inamullah on the topic of, “Is Jesus God?”. I found a statement of Jonathan’s to be quite peculiar and made a post about it. If you’re unfamiliar with Jonathan, he’s the guy that referred to immigrants in Europe as “cancers” and “viruses”. Also the guy that believes Br. Khalid Yasin, is a Caucasian man, despite being…..African American. So what was the problem?

Moderated debates follow formats. Typically, something along the lines of:

  1. Speaker 1’s Opening Statements.
  2. Speaker 2’s Opening Statements.
  3. Speaker 1’s 1st Rebuttal.
  4. Speaker 2’s 1st Rebuttal.
  5. Speaker 1’s 2nd Rebuttal.
  6. Speaker 2’s 2nd Rebuttal.
  7. Speaker 1’s Concluding Statements.
  8. Speaker 2’s Concluding Statements.

There’s an alternation between the speakers, as can be seen above. What should also be noticed is that there are Opening Statements and then Rebuttals. This is common sense, but Jonathan does not seem to understand this. In the Opening Statements, each speaker open’s….with….their…..statements! Shocking, I know! This is where each speaker presents their arguments, their research, their ideas. Following this, the speakers then rebut, that is, respond to the arguments and claims made in each others’ Opening Statements. That’s not difficult to understand, it’s pretty much common sense. Jonathan however, does not seem to understand this basic concept. In his dialogue with Inamullah, following Inamullah’s Opening Statements, Jonathan during his 1st Rebuttal asks Inamullah why he (Inamullah) did not rebut Jonathan during his (Inamullah’s) Opening Statement.

In other words, Jonathan gave his Opening Statement. Then Inamullah gave his Opening Statement. Then Jonathan gave his 1st Rebuttal. However, it is during this 1st Rebuttal that Jonathan asks why Inamullah did not respond to Jonathan’s Opening Statement. I made a post on Facebook asking Jonathan why he expected Inamullah to rebut him, when his (Inamullah’s) 1st Rebuttal had not yet occurred. He replied:

2016-01-13-17.27.48.jpg.jpeg

You’d notice that Jonathan immediately falls into his Christian character and must find a need to insult me. I don’t mind this behaviour, after all, Jonathan did mention that Muslims were like cancer, so his hate is understandable. Follow what he says carefully though. While he acknowledges that his opponent’s rebuttal should have come during his rebuttal period, he still and amazingly so….argues that his opponent must also rebut him during their Opening Statement. I agree with Jonathan, your opponent does have a responsibility to engage with your material, that’s why there’s a Rebuttal period! There’s a solution for that Jonathan, it’s built into the format of the debate, it’s called Rebuttal periods.

The problem here is quite a good example of Jonathan’s inability to deal with criticism. There was no need for him to be condescending and rude during the debate, by speaking down to his opponent directly after his Opening Statement. You don’t demand things of people during a debate, you most certainly don’t order them around if you don’t like what they’re saying. If only there wasn’t a moderator, how much more uncouth would he have been?

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »