Tag Archives: fraud

Missionary Mishap: Korede vs Shamoun

We’ve previously reported on Sam Shamoun’s allegations of corruption, fraud and monetary misuse, as well as the following and teaching of a false Gospel at ABN/ the Trinity Channel. Here’s Sam’s comments about the issue. Here’s another article about the issue.

An obscure internet troll, known only as “Korede” from Nigeria, has challenged many Muslims to debates. In today’s case, he’s challenged a Br. Mustafa. Unfortunately, following in the footsteps of many criminals, this “Korede” person who follows Sam Shamoun, has decided to promote the same ABN/ the Trinity Channel which Sam has made serious allegations about.


It seems as if there is no honour among thieves. Despite knowing the serious allegations leveled against the ABN/ Trinity Channel, Christians like “Korede” continue to use ABN as a means of spreading their false Gospel message and encouraging the crimes of fraud and the misusing of donations as indicated by former disgruntled employee, Sam Shamoun.

So who’s right and who’s wrong?

Is “Korede” in the right for using a platform involved in heresy and criminal activities? Is this the kind of criminal behaviour that Christians are supposed to be involved in? Only Mr. “Korede Olawoyin” can answer. Unfortunately, I reached out to “Korede” and received no answers on this moral quandary. Instead I received messages about Dr. Shabir and Islam. In other words, when confronted with serious allegations, “Korede” becomes silent and Christ is out of the picture, the only word he can use is “Islam”, however I don’t think the police or the judges would consider that an appropriate answer in cases of fraud and criminal conduct.

and God knows best.

Moaning McLatchie

In the days following the announcement by Nabeel Qureishi about his illness (stomach cancer), this is how the Muslim apologetics world reacted:

That’s a video with hundreds of positive comments and about 18,000 views (and growing). Prayers, well wishing and general reflection on the state of apologetics. Yet, many of us were shocked to see Jonathan McLatchie’s reaction to the news. On the Dividing Line program, several of our names were mentioned, including Br. Yahya, myself and a few others. We took no note of it, there was nothing there that needed to be celebrated. It was a somber time, not a time for “scoring points” against each other or trying to use Nabeel’s illness as a means of “getting mentioned” on social media.


Yet, in the days following Nabeel’s news, there was one person. A notorious individual, universally disliked in Hyde Park, and who has been rebuked several times in person in Newcastle itself whenever he tries to bully the Muslims doing da’wah there; who found a reason to use Nabeel’s illness as a means of promoting himself.


It’s uncouth enough to like such a narcissistic post in the first place, starstruck, really? How obsessive can one be about one’s self? Yet, during this obscene display of self conceitedness, while the rest of us were busy sending well wishes to Nabeel, our friend Jonathan McLatchie found himself counting how many times he was mentioned on the Dividing Line. What kind of person counts how many times their name is mentioned in a video? Well it’s the same kind of person who thinks it’s a good idea to promote themselves by posting 10 photos of themselves just talking to someone else.


I get that he might like Jay, I understand that he may like taking a picture or two of himself, but what kind of individual who abuses debate opponents post-debate and lies about attendance numbers, behaves like this?



Jonathan McLatchie is that kind of person, and that is why we in apologetics cannot take him seriously any longer.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: McLatchie Loses the Plot

Once again, we find ourselves appalled at the behaviour of Jonathan McLatchie. After mocking my illness and wishing ill upon me, I continued to dialogue with him despite his negative disposition towards me. Today we had a chat that quite upset him. I questioned his dislike for the scholar Candida Moss, he asked me a question about his behaviour and when I answered his question, he once again chose to block me.


This is the same person, who on the very day after Nabeel Qureishi made public his illness with stomach cancer, found himself on Facebook concerned with how many times Dr. James White had mentioned his name on the Dividing Line. He was much more concerned with the number of how many times his name was mentioned, while the inter-faith scene was upset with the news of Nabeel’s illness.


Truly, I am tired of having to receive messages from both Christians and Muslims that have been abused by Jonathan.


There are a lot more messages like this from Jonathan and his 15 year old friend, who both have been rebuked for their abusive and intolerant behaviour online.

and God knows best.

Sam & John: Partners in Fraud?

In a recent article, I brought to light claims by Sam Shamoun about theft and fraud ongoing at the Trinity Channel. I indicated that Sam’s friend, Jonathan McLatchie would know whether Sam was lying about his own Christian brothers and sisters, or if Sam was being truthful. The consequences of which project badly on both Sam and Jonathan. As it turns out, my article raised questions that many in the interfaith community have been bothered about.


Having published my article merely asking about Sam’s statements, in a fit of rage, Jonthan McLatchie, rather than clear the air on his position on this serious issue, has decided to end communication on this and similar topics with me. The question needs to be asked, if Jonathan and his friend, mentor and partner in….God knows what…are not bothered by the consequences of Sam’s claims, then why the sudden disconnect? Their silence says more than they think.

and God knows best.

Sam Shamoun vs the Trinity Channel

In our latest episode Br. Ijaz and Br. Aqil discuss Sam Shamoun’s discrediting of his former employers at the Trinity Channel, and their conversion to the Prosperity Gospel sect. Why didn’t Sam warn Christians about the financial impropriety ongoing at the channel? Why didn’t he warn them 10 months ago about their apostasy and following what he calls a “false Gospel”? This and more are answered with emails, evidences and quotes.

and God knows best.

Response to Hill’s and Baez’s Defense of Ravi Zacharias’ Fraud by Steve Baughman

The following is a guest post by Steve Baughman, otherwise known as the Friendly Banjo Atheist on YouTube. Steve was the first person to bring to the public’s awareness, the issue of Ravi Zacharias’ false academic credentials. To catch up to speed, check this article here. Since Steve’s initial video about Ravi’s fraud, there have been a lot of ‘excuses’ offered in the name of defending Ravi by those close to or working on behalf of his ministry. In this exclusive article, Steve responds to some of these defensive arguments and demonstrates without a doubt that Ravi has personally benefited from the use of fraudulent academic credentials. Perhaps though, what is most troublesome, is that Christians have chosen to defend Ravi, rather than calling upon him to be truthful and honest. Does this mean that Christians are willing to commit fraud, so as long as it benefits their faith?



Nick Hill’s defense of his former Christian apologetics teacher is full of facts.  Almost all of them are irrelevant, and what is left is misleading, false or downright bizarre.

The first point misleads. Ravi Zacharias does not stand accused of specifically claiming to have a PhD. The accusation is that hepresents himself as one who has earned a PhD when he has not.  For the specifics of Mr. Zacharias’ “Dr. Zacharias” behavior, see my reply to Professor Beau Baez below.

Nick Hill’s second is bizarre.  The complaint against Mr. Zacharias is that nowhere at his RZIM.org bio does he disclose that his doctorates are “honorary.”  Mr. Hill thinks this no problem.  If we want to know if the doctorates are real or honorary, all we have to do is “google the titles and where he received them” and we can see that these schools do not offer academic doctorates. Thus, we would be able to deduce that Mr. Zacharias’ degrees are honorary.

One wonders how Mr. Hill can be serious that, in lieu of Mr. Zacharias simply putting the word “honorary” in his bio, we are to spend hours researching and visiting the websites of each school to see if they offer academic doctorates of the kinds Mr. Zacharias was awarded.  I say “hours” because Mr. Zacharias does not list the names of the schools that gave him these doctorates, so we would first have to find that out somehow.

Third, and falsely, Mr. Hill tells us that during his sabbatical Mr. Zacharias “was supervised by a Cambridge scholar Dr. Jeremy Begbie.”  Mr. Hill should know, however, that Dr. Begebie did not begin teaching at Cambridge until 1993, three years after Mr. Zacharias was his student at Ridley Hall.  This information is publicly available at Dr. Begbie’s Duke University profile.


In his defense of Ravi Zacharias Nick Hill presents us with a fine example of the absurd and sometimes fact-adverse depths to which devotees of Ravi Zacharias will descend in defense of their guru.


Law Professor Beau Baez does not fare much better.  He offers five defenses of Mr. Zacharias. Each one is very easily dispatched.

First, Mr. Zacharias should not be held accountable when others loosely refer to him as “Dr. Zacharias.” 

This is a straw man.  The problem is that Mr. Zacharias actively promotes himself as “Dr. Zacharias.”  We see it at his website, at his YouTube posts, in the jacket of his autobiography, and it seems that he even instructs his secretary to call him “Dr.” (When I called his office to speak to him, his personal secretary answered “Dr. Zacharias office.”  You can too. (770) 449-6766. Ask to be put thru to Mr. Zacharias’ office.)

Second, it is not uncommon for people to call themselves “Dr.” based solely on honorary degrees.

The problem for Mr. Zacharias is that Mr. Zacharias uses the title “Dr.”in academic settings where it is very likely to cause some people (probably many) to believe he has earned an academic doctorate. It is undisputed that this is an ethically controversial practice,

It is undisputed that more people will falsely believe he has a PhD if he calls himself “Dr. Zacharias” than if he calls himself “Mr. Zacharias,”

Mr. Zacharias does not disclose at his website that the doctorate degrees are honorary,

The only conceivable benefit of using the “Dr.” title and failing to disclose the honorary nature of the degrees is that it bolsters Mr. Zacharias’ public image by leading many to think he has a PhD,


The potential to mislead can be greatly reduced by simply adding the word “honorary” to his bio and refraining from using the controversial title.

Perhaps most noteworthy is the fact that even one of the institutions that gave Mr. Zacharias an honorary doctorate does not approve of the practice.  In response to my inquiry, Asbury University informed me that, “As a general rule, Asbury University — which utilizes Associated Press style as its foundation — does not refer to a recipient of an honorary doctorate issued by the University as “Dr.”

Knowing the controversial nature of the practice and its potential to mislead, Mr. Zacharias continues to hold himself out to the world as “Dr. Ravi Zacharias.”

Third, Prof. Baez says “when I saw the degrees that he listed on his website I immediately recognized them as honorary degrees. I see no reason to list the obviousness [sic] nature of the degrees–he was not hiding anything.”

This is truly odd.  Mr. Zacharias’s website says

“He has been honored with the conferring of six doctoral degrees, including a Doctor of Laws and a Doctor of Sacred Theology.”

That’s it!  How was Prof. Baez able to “immediately recognize these as honorary degrees” when four of them are not even named?  And how did he know that there was not a real doctorate amongst them?

If one Googles “Doctor of Sacred Theology” and “Doctor of Laws” one immediately learns that these are often demanding academic degrees in both the United Kingdom and the United States (the two countries where Mr. Zacharias spends most of his time).

These are not “immediately recognizable” as honorary degrees.

Now, in fairness to Prof. Baez, he has indicated to me in correspondence that “When I see that many doctorate degrees I immediately conclude that they are honorary degrees. Two earned doctorate degrees is fairly unusual, let alone anything beyond that. ”

But this argument is also odd. Prof. Baez assumes it to be common knowledge that “conferring of six doctoral degrees” means they areall honorary.  But why does he assume this?

A casual investigator trying to ascertain Mr. Zacharias’ actual credentials might find that Allam Iqbal holds 17 PhDs from top universities, and that Viva Luxme has earned 15!


I do not know if this is information or misinformation.  But that comes up when one searches.  And it gives the lie to Prof. Baez’s apparent assumption that we are all like him and “immediately recognize” that “conferring of six doctoral degrees” means that all were honorary.

What conceivable reason could Ravi Zacharias, or his people, have for not simply adding the word “honorary” to his bio, other than to mislead?

Fourth, Prof. Baez tells us that “it is possible that Ravi was unaware of the loose affiliation Ridley now has with Cambridge University.”

By way of brief background, Ravi Zacharias has very thin academic credentials. He has a Master’s Degree in Divinity and no academic publications to his credit. The crown jewel of his academic bio is the claim, which he has loudly made for the past 25 years, that he was once a “Visiting Scholar at Cambridge University.”  Without that claim he is just another circuit rider with a preacher’s degree and a load of political connections.

I investigated and found the Cambridge claim to be false.  The true fact is that in 1990 Mr. Zacharias did a sabbatical at a relatively unknown place called Ridley Hall, which was affiliated with Cambridge, and that while at Ridley he “attended” some classes at Cambridge.  Cambridge University confirmed that Mr. Zacharias was never a visiting scholar at Cambridge University.

I then informed Mr. Zacharias of my intent to go public with this information if he could not explain himself. Several days later he withdrew the “Visiting Scholar at Cambridge University” claim from his website bio.

Prof. Baez now asks us to believe that perhaps Mr. Zacharias was confused and honestly thought that being on sabbatical at Ridley Hall and attending classes at Cambridge University entitled him to claim that he was a “visiting scholar at Cambridge University.”

This is very charitable to Mr. Zacharias. But why should we assume “good faith” on Mr. Zacharias’ part here? We may acknowledge the affiliation between Ridley Hall and Cambridge University just as we may acknowledge the affiliation between, say, Babson College and M.I.T.  The fact remains that any Babson student who claims to have been a “visiting scholar at M.I.T.” merely by virtue of that affiliation and attending some classes at M.I.T. would be subject to academic discipline for C.V. fraud.

To make matters worse, I was not the first to raise the Cambridge problem with Mr. Zacharias.

I have a devout Christian colleague who several years ago developed suspicions about Mr. Zacharias’ Cambridge claim.  He informs me that he made several inquiries of Mr. Zacharias’ ministry about the matter and eventually RZIM stopped replying. My colleague then stopped pursuing the matter.

I must also note that Mr. Zacharias’ supervisor at Ridley Hall, Dr. Jeremy Begbie, makes a very clear distinction in his C.V. between his duties at Cambridge and his duties at Ridley Hall.


Should we not expect similar integrity and clarity of understanding from Mr. Zacharias?  After all, this was an impressive claim to be making. Are we to believe that Mr. Zacharias just never noticed its falsity until a banjo playing atheist on the Internet threatened to expose him?

Finally, Prof. Baez notes that “From what I understand, as soon as any question was raised about his credentials he quickly clarified them on his website.”

That is not quite accurate.  Mr. Zacharias did remove the false Cambridge claim.  But he continues to refer to himself as “Dr. Zacharias” in his videos and at his website, where the word “honorary” remains tellingly absent.

Prof. Baez asks us to be charitable and to not impute ill motives to Mr. Zacharias.  We can agree that charity is a good policy.  But it cannot be disputed that what we see with Mr. Zacharias on the “Dr. Zacharias” issue is (at very best!) a willingness to construe an ethical gray area in a way most conducive to his public image.  It also cannot be disputed that his practice of calling himself “Dr. Zacharias” is more likely to mislead large numbers of people than “Mr. Zacharias” would. But he chooses to do it anyway.

Such a demonstrated preference for public image over truth makes it more likely that on the “visiting scholar at Cambridge University” claim Ravi Zacharias simply chose to mislead the public because it made him look good and he thought he could get away with it.  And he did, for 25 years.

All interested in making inquiry directly of Mr. Zacharias’ press secretary may contact Ruth RuthMalhotra, RZIM Public Relations, Email:pr@rzim.org   Phone: (770) 449-6766


Steve Baughman is an attorney and banjo teacher in San Francisco.  He is known on YouTube as The Friendly Banjo Atheist who first exposed the misleading claims Ravi Zacharias made about his credentials.  Mr. Baughman first contacted Mr. Zacharias’ ministry with his concerns in May, 2015. All references to Mr. Zacharias’ website are as of 10/27/15.

Steve can be reached through his Friendly Banjo Atheist channel at YouTube or by email at FriendlyBanjoAtheist (at) gmail  (dot) you-know- what.

Fraud at Ravi Zachiarias International Ministries: Fake Qualifications Exposed

Ravi Zacharias of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries is being called upon by the public to respond to allegations of manufacturing his theological and academic qualifications. Touted as a “Dr” who is alleged to be a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, UK, Ravi Zacharias is facing claims of being a fraudster. Popular YouTuber FriendlyBanjo attempted to verify the academic qualifications of Mr. Zacharias and found them to be absolutely false. In a damning video, showing clear manipulation of academic credentials and falsifying biographical details, the inter-faith community is calling on Mr. Zacharias to tender his resignation, and return monies stolen under false pretenses. Mr. Zacharias is the founder of an international evangelical ministry which attempts to spread the “Gospel” worldwide, specifically targeting Atheists and Muslims. An acclaimed author and international speaker, Mr. Zacharias is now being labeled as an Ergun Caner 2.0, a complete and total fraudster who attempted to pass of honorary degrees as having been academically qualified.


Questions are now also being asked about monies collected under these false pretenses, which are said to have been used in the publication and promotion of the Qadiani Nabeel Qureishi’s latest publication, “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus”. Written in a similar style to Ravi Zacharias’s biography, as well as funded and promoted by Ravi’s Ministry, many are now asking if Nabeel’s biography also contains similar embellishments as have now been indicated in his mentor’s manufactured biography. As pictured above, Nabeel closely works with Ravi and is featured heavily in RZIM’s Toronto tour on September 12th of this year. Many faithful believers assumed that Mr. Ravi’s theological and academic qualifications were accurate given his popularity in evangelical circles, today that assumption is causing many to regret donating thousands of dollars to a fraudster on par with internationally condemned Ergun Caner who also falsified academic and theological qualifications, as well as having been accused of manufacturing his biography in exchange for monies, academic positions and paid speaking engagements.

It remains to be seen whether or not these allegations will be clarified by Mr. Ravi Zacharias, or by those profiting from monies donated under false pretenses, such as Nabeel Qureishi. See the shocking video below:

and God knows best.

Jay Smith concedes he isn’t familiar with the sources used

Recently Jay Smith sent an email lauding himself for referencing scholars and scholastic work he has not read nor has he studied. He claims in his email:

Dr. Gordon Nickels helped me (via skype) put together the main body of the material I used before the debate itself.

It thus makes sense that someone else told Jay what to say, without Jay having read or studied any of the materials used in the main body of the debate. This also explains why he refused to reference any of the sources he took his information from. As I’ve explained in my response to him, most of what he says and what the people he refers to says, contradicts. The apparent disconnect between Jay and the studies he refers to now makes sense, as he’d never read them before, he had someone else over Skype give him snippets of information that he was not familiar with. He continued:

I made sure to initially highlight the French scholar Dr. Francois Deroche’s research, coupled with the two leading Turkish scholar’s work on the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts (Dr. Tayyar Altikulac, and Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu).

I’m not sure if highlight is the word here to be used. He certainly mentioned Dr. Deroche, but as I’ve explained in my response, what he says of Deroche and what Deroche himself says – wholly contradicts each other. Jay merely referenced a number, 93, without giving Deroche’s explanation but trying to explain it himself, which led to him overstating what Deroche had intended. I’ve referenced the page number and the book where Jay got this number 93 from, but I present the rest of what Deroche says which completely refute’s Jay’s uneducated and baseless statements. One would also notice he mentioned the names of Dr. Tayyar Altikulac, and Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, neither of whom he quotes or refers to again. All he quite literally did was mention their names. So not only has he admitted he got these names over an Evangelical on Skype, he’s also admitted he has no experience with their writings themselves! He continued:

I then introduced Dr. Keith Small’s research concerning his comparisons between the Biblical and Qur’anic manuscripts, and his excellent assessment of the political control in standardizing the Qur’anic text 1-2 centuries after Muhammad.

He keeps using the term introduced and I think this is where he’s being honest. During the debate, you’d notice a very disconcerting pattern. He’d drop a name, explain why the person is important and then proceed to give some snippet of information that he was unfamiliar with and when he expanded on them, began to contradict what the sources themselves had said. Keith Small has already been replied to en masse by scholars and lay men alike. The assertion that the Qur’aan was protected by the Muslim governors and rulers can’t be seen as negative. When the power of the State ensures the validity of the transmission, that in no way can be a negative thing. After all, the State has both the power and the resources to invest in the preservation of such important and sacred documents. Perhaps what is troubling is Jay’s ignorance of New Testament transmission, he claimed during the debate that there was no political power involved in the copying, distribution or preservation of the New Testament. Perhaps he should educate himself, as the Latin Vulgate was produced after Pope Damasus near the end of the 4th century, commissioned Jerome to produce the “best” edition of the New Testament based on the various Latin transmissions of the text during that time. If I cannot expect a man to be honest or to be acquainted with the history of his own text, on what grounds can I expect him to speak truthfully of any other religion’s? He continued:

I also introduced Dr. Andy Bannister’s Formulaic material, pointing out the many instances in the Qur’an where Jewish formulaic apocryphal writings were borrowed.

I think it’s fairly easy to understand that if God sent a message before and He reiterated that message again in another revelation, we’d expect it to say something similar, or repeat the same thing again. I am familiar with Andy’s work, and to be honest, all the poor guy’s done is taken the claim that the Qur’aan is based on Jewish and Gnostic apocryphal writings and stated they have similar words between them. It does not take a genius to make the connection that if two statements convey the same message, they’re going to contain similar terms. It’s one thing to claim though that the Qur’aan literally took from those sources, as opposed to explaining how an Arab had access to lost apocryphal literature in a language he, neither his people can speak or have since been able to speak. It’s a nice conspiracy theory, but on the grounds of objective academic and scholastic work, it’s mere polemics. Dr. Shabir does speak at length about Bannister’s claims and opinions in this recent video. Jay continued:

But most of my time was spent introducing Dr. Dan Brubaker’s new research on the hundreds of variants (up to 800) which he found in the 10 Manuscripts he researched, some written as late as the 9th century. Earlier this month I had spent a day with him at his home, and he let me use pictures from his doctoral thesis to underline the 6 forms of consonantal corrections he found in these manuscripts. So, our best evangelical scholars in this field were well represented in my presentation.

This is perhaps where it gets to be quite interesting. Dan only let Jay take pictures. I own and currently posses the entirety of Dan’s thesis. So while Jay’s arguments are based on photos he took, I have the entirety of Dan’s work and I’ve actually read it. All 45 mb’s of it. So thus far, Jay’s information has been from a Skype conversation on works he does not own and has never read, along with a thesis he took photos from and hasn’t read. Can this get any worse? Yes, it’s Jay Smith, it can get worse.

It was the variants in the manuscripts which pointed to a later standardization of the Qur’an after the 8th century which seemed to especially cause a problem with the Muslims who were present, or were watching, and for good reason. With this evidence Muslims will no longer be able to simply say, as they so often do, that their Qur’an is 1) eternal, 2) sent down 3) complete, and 4) unchanged. Now they will have to prove it, and you can see just how difficult that is now going to be.

The problem is, that nothing Jay stated in the debate is contained within the works of the people he has name dropped. I know full well that Jay has been informed of my response to him, since then, my indication of his errors and mistakes were used in a sit down in which he was unfortunately unable to defend himself and his academic dishonesty. We can say as Muslims with confidence that the Qur’aan was standardized in the 7th century CE, with the orthography as we read today developing further in each century. With the extant evidences we posses, we can say with certainty that the Qur’aan is eternal, sent down, complete and unchanged. We have proved it and I’ve used Jay’s own sources to do so in my draft response to him.

What have we learned? We now have an explanation as to why Jay’s statements in the debate, contradict the works and people he appealed to. This is because he has neither studied those works or read them, instead as he admits, this information was provided to him via a Skype conversation and as he further claimed, this information was taken from a thesis he took a few photos of without having studied or read it, a thesis which I own and posses completely. Have some fun with Jay, demand that he explain his errors and mistakes, his deceits and lies as documented in this article by me.

and God knows best.

James White Lied to his Audience, Fails to Fulfill his Offer

As most would know, at the end of my discussion with James on his Dividing Line program, he offered me a copy of his book, “The Forgotten Trinity”. After emailing him (numerous times) and failing to receive a single response, I have bought the book myself. It would seem that James was very happy to deceive his audience by pretending to send me a copy of his book, his attempt at extending a hand towards interfaith dialogue was nothing more than a charade to boost his ego.


I have already read one chapter of the book provided by a colleague from Beirut, Lebanon. Fortunately, I’ve also had the pleasure of reading another book on explaining the Trinity, “What is the Trinity“, by RC Sproul. It’s free at the moment, so go grab the Kindle version! In comparing the two books, James’ diatribe is overtly verbose – this generally happens when a person struggles to explain the topic under discussion. Admittedly, the Trinity is a problematic theological invention, therefore we should expect it to be difficult to explain. I’ve written on RC Sproul’s book here. He happens to be excellent at explaining the development and creation of the Trinity, he states:

“The concept of the Trinity has emerged as a touchstone of truth, a non-negotiable article of Christian orthodoxy. However, it has been a source of controversy throughout church history, and there remains much confusion about it to this day, with many people misunderstanding it in very serious ways.”

This is direct and straight to the point. We Muslims agree that it’s a controversial belief, that Christians remain confused about it and that Christians misunderstand the central belief of Christian theology in very serious ways. It’s a great book for Muslims willing to see how Christians understand and misunderstand the Trinity, it’s a very candid book that can help us give da’wah to Christians from a more studied position.

I’d like to thank James White for demonstrating that he deals in bad faith, cannot hold to his word and unfortunately, he saw it appropriate to lie to his congregation without any hesitation. A fine example of Christian scholarship.

and God knows best.