Search
Tonight features a follow up debate to Qadiani Nabeel Qureishi’s debate with the erudite, Dr. Shabir Ally, on the topic of Tawhid and the Trinity.
See the Facebook Event’s page here. The event will be livestreamed on YouTube, via this link. At present, I intend to do a live review of the debate as it happens, as I did with the previous debate between Dr. Shabir and Nabeel.
and Allah knows best.
Live debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpqqqZn7Kg
Nabeel said:
The term tawheed is not found anywhere in the hadith (source):
دَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ يُعَذَّبُ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ التَّوْحِيدِ فِي النَّارِ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا فِيهَا حُمَمًا ثُمَّ تُدْرِكُهُمُ الرَّحْمَةُ فَيُخْرَجُونَ وَيُطْرَحُونَ عَلَى أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ . قَالَ فَيَرُشُّ عَلَيْهِمْ أَهْلُ الْجَنَّةِ الْمَاءَ فَيَنْبُتُونَ كَمَا يَنْبُتُ الْغُثَاءُ فِي حِمَالَةِ السَّيْلِ ثُمَّ يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ ” . قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ جَابِرٍ .
Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said:“Some of the people of Tawhid will be punished in the Fire until they are coals. Then the Mercy (of Allah) will reach them, they will be taken out and tossed at the doors of Paradise.” He said: ” The people of Paradise will pour water over them, and they will sprout as the debris carried by the flood sprouts, then they will enter Paradise.”
Abu Ĥaniifah, said in his book Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar:والقرآن كلام الله تعالى في المصاحف مكتوب, وفي القلوب محفوظ وعلى الألسن مقروء, وعلى النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام منزّل, ولفظنا بالقرآن مخلوق وكتابتنا له مخلوقة وقرائتنا له مخلوقة والقرآن غير مخلوق.
The Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah Taˆaalaa, written on pages (muşĥafs), preserved in hearts, recited on tongues, and revealed to the Prophet (sall-Aļļaahu ˆalayhi wa sallam). Our utterance of the Qur’aan is created, and our recitation of the Qur’aan is created, but the Qur’aan is not created.He means by “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah” that the word “Qur’aan” refers to Aļļaah’s eternal speech that is not letters (thus not language or sounds – as letters are symbols that represent sounds.) I.e. there is no difference between saying “Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech” and “the Qur’aan;” they are synonyms. He makes this clear when he says a few paragraphs later:ويتكلم لا ككلامنا ونحن نتكلم بالآلات والحروف والله تعالى يتكلم بلا آلة ولاحروف.
Aļļaah speaks, but not like our speech; we speak by means of instruments (vocal cords, limbs, etc.) and letters, but Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters.والحروف مخلوقة وكلام الله تعالى غير مخلوق.
Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created.So Abuu Ĥaniifah says that “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah,” and then that “Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters.” Then he emphasizes this further by saying “Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created.
Qur’an gets the Trinity wrong, see this response.
The Trinity is not 3 different Gods, see this response.
Islam has laws to punish people for heresy, see this response, some Christian sects are calling for the return of the Mosaic law to govern their nations, referred to as Theonomy.
YHWH coming or being on earth, see the Law of Agency, a theological construct in the Hebraic Testament in which someone acts on behalf of God but is referred to in the 1st person, known as “Sha’liah.”
In Islam, God could not have the attribute of love (al Wadud), before creation because there was nothing to love, see response.
—-
It’s blasphemy to burn the Qur’an, no it isn’t, where is he making this up from (source):
If there are no such cases where it is necessary to preserve old copies, then there is nothing wrong with disposing of them in respectful ways which achieve the desired purpose. The scholars have mentioned three ways of doing that:
1-
Burning, i.e., burning old copies of the Mus-haf in a careful and respectable manner, in a clean and safe place, whilst ensuring that the words are consumed by the fire and the pages are changed.
Nabeel says that the Jews had, “at least Binitarian view of God”. There goes Hebraic monotheism out the window.
Nabeel says the Schema Yisrael does not say God cannot be like a man, to correct him, it says God is not of any likeness on earth, does he think earth does not contain men?
Already trying to compensate for his disastrous performance, Nabeel has informed the crowd that he will pen a post debate write up as well as a 2 hour video.
Nabeel says that the Bible states that there are, “three persons in the Godhead”, unfortunately this simply does not exist.
Nabeel says that the Nicaean creeds and Chalcedonian creeds are not found in the Bible, and says this is the same problem in the Qur’an, that the statement of Tawheed is not found in the Qur’an, however this is wrong, it is found (Qur’an 47:19):
لَا إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا اللَّـهُ
We’re happy to announce that the first debate between myself and Rev. Steven has been published online. The topic, “What is the True Faith of Jesus’ Disciples?,” featured a lot of discussion on the early Christology of the proto-orthodox Christian tradition. There was also discussion on the New Testament manuscript tradition however the Reverend chose not to pursue that course of argument (I had with me several papyrological studies on hand but the debate did not follow that path). The claim that the disciples were eyewitnesses or the authors of the NT textual tradition was deeply discussed and the Reverend makes quite the statement during the debate, “it’s all hypothetical!,” which then led to some even more interesting remarks.
I focused on the chains of transmission as claimed by Church tradition, and examined them in light of the deutero-canonical traditions, the results would surprise many. I also compared and contrasted several “claims” by the early Church fathers as to from whom they took their testimony from about Christ, which led to quite a major contradiction given Papias’ witness. All in all, this was an extremely enjoyable debate and the audio is 100% clear. Again, I’d like to thank Br. Haseeb from IBN for the recording, Br. Asad (of Motorway Hall) and the MYTT for hosting the event, Br. Nazam for stitching the video together and then uploading to his channel, Pastor Kris for moderating the event and especially Rev. Steven for being my gracious interlocutor. The event was extremely well attended and I must thank the community for their participation.
Enjoy the recording!
and Allah knows best.
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.
As the debate events reach ever closer, both Reverend Stevens and myself have authored introductory pieces on our mission, our works and our backgrounds. You can read my introduction at the E&AM website, below you’d find Reverend Steven’s introduction. As he has mentioned on the E&AM website, we’re expecting and catering for ~400+ for each of the two debates. We’re both excited, thrilled and most definitely humbled to be at the service of our religious communities.
Rev. Steven Martins
I would firstly like to thank Bro. Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians for this opportunity to introduce myself to the Muslim community and to the people of Trinidad & Tobago. I also would like to express my thankfulness to his team who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes to put together our first debate on “What is the True Faith of Jesus’ Disciples?” along with Pstr. Kris Maharaj of the Jesus Worship Centre for receiving us and co-ordinating our itinerary.
My name is Rev. Steven Martins and I am the founder and lead-apologist for Evangelium & Apologia Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization stationed in Toronto, Canada. I am a York University graduate and am working towards a Masters of Arts in Christian Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.
I have studied and developed my ministry under the tutelage of RZIM Canada’s Dr. Andy Bannister, Dr. Tony Costa and Dr. Joseph Boot. I have also served as the chief-organizer of 2014’s Classical Debate between Jay Smith and Dr. Shabir Ally.
I am traveling down to Trinidad with my beloved wife Cindy from February 18 to March 1 to speak at schools, churches, colleges and Universities on apologetic topics such as The Problem of Evil, The Question of Suffering, Biblical Creation, Biblical Archaeology and other topics that we are requested to cover. Amongst our bookings, we have two debates with Bro. Ijaz, one of which takes place on Friday February 20 (topic mentioned above) and the second on Saturday February 28 on “Islam or Christianity: Which is the True Path of Faith?” In truth, although our ministry currently had its sights on Latin-America for this year, God opened the door for us to arrive in Trinidad & Tobago for His divine will and purposes.
As a Christian, I have often been asked why I have endorsed or participated in debates with different faith communities. My response has always been consistent with my faith and worldview, that I am concerned for the salvation of other people and would like to communicate the truth of the Gospel to all nations and cultures. However, I can certainly do that through other mediums, why then choose a debate? Because I also believe that multi-faith communities should engage each other in great positive discussions on theology and spirituality. Instead of embracing misconceptions derived from other people’s opinions, why not ask a Muslim why he believes what he believes on certain topics and issues? Why not hear what other people have to say? Why not present our arguments and cases on the table, and have a civilized discussion where disagreements and arguments can be explored, tested, and refined? Debates and dialogues are a great way to instill peace through respectful and honorable communication, while also getting to know our respective neighbors and friends. We can either isolate our communities from each other, or we can promote engaging discussions which will only better improve society and its internal relations through respect and honor for one another.
Thank you for receiving my wife and I into your beloved country; it will be an honor to meet with you and to engage in fruitful discussion on the dates of our debates.
May God Bless you,
Steven Martins
Executive Director
Evangelium & Apologia Ministries
www.eamcanada.org
Two Sundays ago, prominent Muslim debaters, Br. Zakir Hussain and Br. Ayaz Uddin, met Jay Smith at Hyde Park and challenged him to two debates. Smith refused to debate on the topic whether Jesus is God or not, his reasoning as he states is that it’s clearly obvious and thus not debatable. Well, can’t Brs. Zakir and Ayaz reply the same, that the Prophet’s prophethood is obvious and thus, not debatable?
I find it very odd, that Jay Smith, religiously goes to Hyde Park to debate about Islam & Christianity, and when challenged with an actual debate, he refuses to do so. What is the point of screaming at people every Sunday, and boasting about your debate skills, if you’re refusing to debate on a stage, for a scheduled and moderated debate?
Please enable subtitles to see what each person is saying in the videos.
What is Jay afraid of? Why is he running from Muslims? Can any Christian tell us?
and God knows best!
Update: I have been made aware that some persons are unable to access the paper via Scribd, you can therefore click this link and download the PDF directly: Response to Jay Smith’s Mistakes.
All Praise is due to Allah alone. The paper has undergone some minor changes, which are listed in the paper under the title of, “Structure of the Paper”. A formatting error for some headers were corrected, especially for Appendix B.
and Allah knows best.
Originally Published: 12/11/14, 6:46 a.m.
On Sunday 16th November, two prominent UK Muslim speakers/ debaters, Br. Ayaz and Br. Zakir Hussein both went to Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park (London) to confront Jay Smith. They had decided to challenge him to a debate, the video of that challenge will be uploaded soon. The reason I’m mentioning this, is that while speaking to Smith, they told him that, “Ijaz says hi!“, to which he responded that I was a liar and that he’s preparing a response to my paper.
The problem is, and I hope he realises this soon so that he can stop embarrassing himself – he doesn’t need to prepare a response to me. Following the debate, Smith released an email in which he explains that he’s been studying the topic of Qur’anic manuscripts for sometime, with the dates of January 2014 and March 2014 being mentioned. Given that the debate happened at the end of September, it would then mean that Smith had been preparing for this debate for some 9 months or so.
With 9 months of preparation, research and study, he entered into the debate with what appeared to be a large stack of papers which contained that very research, of which he shared several of them with the audience:
At one point in the debate, he remarked that he’d share his research with the public, and that it was available for anyone to see should they request it. So what does this all mean? Since the day of his debate with Dr. Shabir, he has possessed 9 months of research, collected into that large stack of papers several inches thick on the table beside him. So, the problem is, what does he need to prepare in response to me, if he already has 9 months of research several inches thick already prepared?
Especially when he declared that the research was ready for anyone to see! So what exactly does he need to prepare? Either he did his research over a period of 9 months and had it ready on the day of the debate, or, given the countless errors and lies I found him making during the debate, he really has no research to present for us and is now scrambling to get something done. So Smith, which is it? It’s time for you to clear the air. Either you lied during the debate or you lied after the debate and on Sunday when you made those remarks. Which is it? Can’t get your story straight it seems.
Since you said the research would be shared with anyone who requests it, then I proudly declare that on this day, I request it! Send it over to callingchristians@gmail.com, I’ll be waiting! For everyone else, you can download and view the 53 page paper on Qur’anic manuscripts here.
and Allah knows best.
Seems like Samuel Green’s angry at me for the article published yesterday. When he saw it, he posted this comment:
I mean, that excuse would work, but yesterday he was involved in another conversation with me (names blurred out for privacy):
So his excuse is that he was too busy to respond, but ends up in a lengthy discussion with me and others the very same day that he alleges he was busy on? I chose to confront him on that, how could you be too busy yesterday to respond if you were also arguing with me yesterday?
After being caught out, he decided to call me a slanderer. Although I’m not sure if he knows what that word means. I said he was unable to respond, he says he was also unable to respond. So I’m not sure where the slander is. This is like the time he got angry at me for asking him to qualify one of his claims, he promised to respond to me, and almost a year later he hasn’t. Will he remember to respond this time, or is he going to repeat his lack of finishing discussions when he’s caught out? You’re better than that Samuel, cheer up mate!
and God knows best.
Edit: Delayed to 14th or 15th due to unforeseen circumstances.
My paper critiquing Jay Smith’s allegations and claims in his recent debate with Dr. Shabir Ally, entitled, “The Bible or the Qur’an: Which is the Word of God?“, will be published tomorrow via a PDF on both Scribd and Google Drive. I cannot at this moment give a specific time when the paper would be published, but barring any sudden and unexpected incidents I expect it to be published during the course of tomorrow. At present, the only hindrance to the publishing of the document would be a translation I’m awaiting of a French work that is otherwise not available in English. Considering the inclusion of the French quote’s data as a peripheral to the cause of the paper, when it is made available to me, I shall append it in due course. Following the publishing of my paper, another paper by another Muslim speaker would be subsequently published on a similar theme but more in depth concerning a specific work referenced during the debate. While my response is a point by point rebuttal to Jay’s allegations, this coming work is an overtly critical analysis of an academic work that was mentioned but not really used during the debate. I have not worked in conjunction with this other Muslim speaker, but we have exchanged sources during the course of our writing.
Perhaps what is most interesting is the silly claim that because I have not published any works on this site which include the literature of Deroche or Walid Saleh, it then means that I did not know of them before the debate with Jay hence the lengthy duration of time it took for me to prepare the paper. The assumption or rather the assertion is that I was unfamiliar with their works completely. This is an absurdly baseless allegation. There are many works I read on a daily basis which I do not quote or reference on this site or in my debates, but of which I post to my private Facebook account or which I use in personal correspondence in response to questions. Case in point, I have dug through my personal Facebook timeline, to dig up this post by me on August 4th, 2014:
This is one of the many examples on which I’ve commented on either of these men’s works. I’ve blurred out the name of the evangelical missionary apologist I was condemning in this post which in retrospect was unfair of me and not of proper decorum. For those who are my Facebook friend, you’d be able to see this post on my timeline which I’ve re-posted today so that we all can access it in an easy manner. I have stated before and I will state this again, the only impediment in regard to my writing of the paper has been my health which has been on a steady decline for some two years now via a chronic illness to which no medical institution has been able to adequately decipher. A state of health which most missionaries and apologists are well aware of. Following the publishing of the paper, a video response will accompany it in the coming weeks which at this time I cannot give a definitive date for.
and Allaah knows best.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.