A great deal of thanks must be conveyed upon Brother BeholderGuard who not only recorded the debate, but also did a video for it, added quotations and commentary. If I was difficult to hear in the first recording produced, then please note that this recording is 100% clearer! Glory be to Allaah for this recording, as it’s clear and crisp in its audio:
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
Today I present the first of a set of reviews on my debate with Pastor Samuel, these are independent reviews from persons who have watched the debate and arrived at their own conclusions. At present, I am inviting any Christian who would like to have their review posted on this website, to email us [firstname.lastname@example.org] and regardless of their view, it’d be published. Here’s Br. Danish’s review:
Ijaz’s opening statement was impressive both on etiquettes and presentation of his case. He used scholarly arguments, intelligent reasoning and logic to prove his points as he vowed to do at the outset of the debate. His polite urge to Samuel Green to refrain from being preachy is completely justified as the theory of God Incarnate is proposed by their interpretation of the Bible only, as such the credibility of the Bible and their interpretation itself is under question in this debate, hence taking an accused for a witness will be a logical fallacy, therefore a critical analysis of the biblical teachings about the topic will have a lot more appeal for the audience and this is what Ijaz has done fantastically.
Evolution of Jesus as God incarnate/ doctrine of trinity are vividly examined in Ijaz’s presentation. With the quotations from early Christian Patristics he was able to underline the fact that early Christians did not have sufficient proof in favor of the divine incarnation of Jesus and this is the reason why they had to resort to illogical arguments like “you will not be “wise” unless you become a “fool” to the world, by believing” the foolish things of God. Ijaz successfully expounded the sequential development in Christianity into a Trinitarian system of believes owing to the existence of mutually opposing school of thoughts among Christians and opportunist swaying of Roman emperors between Nicean and Arian creeds for their own political benefit. Moreover the statement of Athenesius himself admitting his inability to understand the concept of Incarnation support Ijaz’s line of argument perfectly. Lastly he cites Biblical scholars like John Gill and CS Lewis which leaves no doubt with regards to the falseness of the doctrine of God incarnate.
Throughout his opening statement Ijaz remained polite, well behaved and unprovocative and was able put his case forward strongly and comprehensively and there was no sign of rudeness in his tone and manner.
Allah knows best.
I recently debated Pastor Samuel Green on the topic of, “An Incarnate God: Fact or Fiction”. I argued that the Incarnation of a God, in this case – Christ, was fiction using the following reasoning:
- The Jews have no concept of the hypostatic union or of theophanies in their religious literature.
- The earliest Christians debated the nature of Christ and each group ascribed their view to a disciple/ apostle.
- The earliest Christians were primarily Greek gentiles who were familiar with incarnation philosophy and theology.
- The early Church therefore read the Jewish books with a Greek philosophical and theological understanding.
- In both the Greek and Jewish cultures, men of fame and great public interest were declared to be of divine birth/ natures.
- The Greek concept of a Theophany is at odds with the Jewish belief of Shali’ah.
- The Church unfairly forced a fixed vote promoting one Bishop’s arguments for a pro-hypostatic union Christ.
- The members of the Church revolted and in 359 CE Arius’ position (ante-Nicene) was adopted.
- Athanasius’ hypostatic union/ dual natured Christ was declared a heresy under larger Ecumenical councils throughout the Christian world.
- My conclusion therefore is that an incarnate Christ as a God was a theology developed by Greek minded elements of the early Church, adopted by the Church, refuted and declared heretical by the Church and later re-adopted, thus showing it’s early development into a doctrine as opposed to something which was initially and always believed by the majority of Christians.
Pastor Samuel’s arguments were:
- The incarnation theology can be found in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms.
- Daniel 7 is an evidence of this.
- It’s God’s promise to live amongst us.
- To listen to God is to read what He has mentioned in the Prophets.
and Allaah knows best.
Here’s the debate video from our Paltalk debate which took place last night between Pastor Samuel Green and I. It’s just about two hours and the audio is quite clear and consistent. Two edits were made, there was a lot of technical sorting out at the beginning (mic testing etc) and the Pastor clarifying the time not to be used during his pre-Opening Speech’s Introduction. The audio gaps of 10 seconds or so were not removed, this occurred when the speakers were changed and I decided to leave them in as it set a good pace and tone for the event.
It hasn’t even been more than a day and we’re already releasing the debate! Much thanks to the room recorder, Br. Abdul Wadud (a fellow Trinidadian Uncle), without his hardwork, dedication and efforts, we would not have been able to release the debate this quickly.
Much thanks to Pastor Samuel and Sr. Waduha who worked through the Day Light Savings time error and allowed us to amicably decide on how to have proceeded with the night’s event. There is one point of note, this is the first debate against a Muslim speaker in which Pastor Samuel chose not to speak off topic on the alleged corruption of the Qur’aan, I’m not sure if this is because he’s found it useless given his discussions with me on it, or if he simply didn’t have the time to do so, either way, it’s a good sign of the intensity and excitement that the discussion carried.
wa Allaahu ‘alam.