Tag Archives: samuel green

Samuel Green Admits to Polytheism, Believes in 2 YHWHs

Posted on by Leave a comment

In orthodox Trinitarian belief, Christians state that there is one God but three Persons. One Elohiym but three Persons. One YHWH but three Persons.However, Pastor Samuel Green agreed with and promoted a post by a fellow Christian polemic which clearly stated that Jesus the Christ was a second YaHWeH.

cc-2014-samuelgreen-yhwh1

cc-2014-samuelgreen-yhwh2

I honestly ask, do Christians believe in more than one YHWH? Or isn’t the orthodox belief, that YHWH is one but many persons?

cc-2014-samuelgreen-yhwh3

 

 

As you can see from the above photo. Pastor Green has since seen my message to him, inquiring about his change of doctrine and has decided not to respond. This clearly indicates he either screwed up badly or did not realise what he was supporting. I pray that he responds on the matter in a timely fashion.

and God knows best.

Explanation: Qur’aans that contain less or more Surahs

Posted on by One comment

Many Christian polemicists argue that certain companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) had varying amount of Surahs in their copies of the Qur’aan. Some had 112, others had 111, etc. Br. Waqar has refuted those claims in detail here. While I won’t go into explicit detail, I will provide the Muslim with the tools to respond to such claims in a simple and concise manner.

The Argument:

Sahabi X only had Y number of Surahs in his copy of the Qur’aan, therefore he didn’t believe in the Surahs not included in his copy.

Responses:

  • The question must be asked to the Christian, where does the Sahabi (companion) say that he doesn’t believe in the excluded Surahs? The truth is, nowhere is that said. Therefore, the onus (responsibility) is on the Christian to provide evidence for such a claim.
  • Codex is a collection, Canon is an established list, so the canonical codex of the Qur’aan is a Qur’aan consisting of all the Surahs from al-Fatihah to an-Nas, all 114 of them. Many of us have booklets at home that contain the last 10 Surahs, or Surah ar-Rahman with Surah al-Baqarah. Do we consider the excluded Surahs from these booklets to not be Qur’aanic? Of course not! Therefore, not every codex is a canon of the Qur’aan. A codex with 2 Surahs does not mean that Uncle Khan or Aunty Summayah believes the Qur’aan only has 2 Surahs or 10 Surahs.
  • So we must ask the Christian, since every codex is not indicative of a canon, why do you apply this belief to the Qur’aan?
  • We can also turn their own reasoning back onto them. Since Paul wrote 10 of his 13 epistles, then the New Testament according to Paul is only his epistles and not the four Gospels, where does he say he believes in the 4 Gospels? Since the Christian says every collection (codex) is a canon, then Paul’s canon of the New Testament, excludes the Gospels. If the Christian says this is wrong reasoning, shake their hands and congratulate them on using such reasoning in the first place.
  • We can further this by saying, since none of the 4 Gospels refer to Paul’s letters and we have no evidence that any of the Gospel authors knew of Paul’s letters, then the canon of the New Testament for the Gospel authors is their Gospel and their Gospel only. So the New Testament to the anonymous author of the Gospel of John, was just the Gospel of John, to the anonymous author of Matthew, the only canonical New Testament book was his own book.

Closing the Argument

We can make things worse for the Christian – yes, worse, much worse. If we go to the earliest codices of the Bible, namely Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ehpraemi Rescriptus, they all contain extra books, and some even have missing books. Therefore we must ask the Christian, does he take those codices to be canons, and if not, why does he apply such a reasoning to the Qur’aan?

Conclusion

One of the more popular proponents who propagate such an argument is that of Pastor Samuel Green. He’s fond of repeating it, but is unable to see the backward, and illogical reasoning he employs in formulating such an uneducated argument. If you see anyone quoting Pastor Green’s article, send them this link, or use the arguments within – for just like the Pastor, when faced with these responses they will either go silent, try as best as they can to ignore you or simply keep repeating it without attempting to understand what they are saying. If the Christian chooses to be honest, then he would drop this argument and apologize for using it in the first place.

and Allaah knows best.

Samuel Green – Does Islam Allow Muslims to Worship Prophets?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Samuel Green has been caught lying once more, here’s a brilliant video by Br. Yahya Snow:

Samuel claims to be a speaker and reader of Arabic, yet any individual who speaks or reads Arabic, will know that the Duroof Shareef is not a prayer to Muhammad salallaahu alayhi wa salam:

ALLAHUMMA SALLI ALA MUHAMMADIW WA ALA AALI MUHAMMADIN KAMAA SALLAITA ALA IBRAHIMA WA ALA AALI IBRAHIMA INNAKA HAMIDUM MAJID. ALLAHUMMA BAARIK ALA MUHAMMADIW WA ALA AALI MUHAMMADIN KAMAA BAARAKTA ALA IBRAHIMA WA ALA AALI IBRAHIMA INNAKA HAMIDUM MAJID.

“O Allah, let Your Blessings come upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as you have blessed Ibrahim and his family. Truly, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious. Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as you have blessed Ibrahim and his family. Truly, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious”.

Clearly, the prayer begins by addressing God and asking God to do something. It’s very funny that Pastor Samuel who claims to understand the Arabic language to the extent he can spot errors in classical Arabic, that he cannot understand what Allahumma means.

Exposed? Surely so!

and God knows best.

Samuel Green’s Appeal to Pseudo-Scholarship

Posted on by One comment

Pastor Samuel Green loves talking and writing about the history of the Qur’aan. He often quotes many persons and deems them to be ‘scholars of the Qur’aan’. In this discussion, I had posted a quote from a book I was reading at the time about the pseudopigraphical texts of the New Testament. The goodly Pastor then sought to question my use of Prof. Dale C. Allison as an authority, in like, I asked him to prove his use of a blind Egyptian secularist as a scholar of the Qur’aan, an authority on the Qur’aan. As the photo demonstrates, it’s been 5 months, we’re into a new year and the Pastor still can’t justify his claims:

cc-2013-samuelgreensources

 

Hey Pastor, when will you remember to reply?

and God knows best.

Quick Update

Posted on by One comment

Unfortunately I’ve been busy the last few weeks, posts will resume shortly, God willing. I took a break from my work and realised that my debate with Pastor Samuel Green, thanks to Beholder Guardian has amassed over 13, 000+ views! This is jointly Pastor Samuel and I’s largest view count on any debate either of us have had. I really never expected that 13, 000+ persons would watch that debate, but Allaah truly knows best. This view count is despite Pastor Samuel still not having uploaded or posted the debate to his website or to the Answering Muslims website…..surely something’s bothering him about this debate, usually he’s quick to post and promote….but I rather not make any biased conclusions. The good news is, you can join the 13, 000+ other viewers and see what the buzz is all about by watching the debate here:

(It’s all in all, around 14, 000+ views from the various uploads by different users, but 13, 000 from one account is amazing).

Second Recording of my Debate with Pastor Samuel Green

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

Review: An Incarnate God – Fact or Fiction

Posted on by One comment

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 [callingchristians@gmail.com] 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.

Danish Aqueel

Pastor Samuel Concedes He Didn’t Respond to Me Well During Our Debate

Posted on by 3 comments

I really didn’t expect this to be made public so quickly by Pastor Samuel, but here’s his comments on the debate amongst his Christian fans and supporters over at the Answering Muslims website:

Blogger Answering Muslims - Post a Comment (2)

Much of what Pastor Samuel has conceded to is the truth. He didn’t answer close to 1/3 of the historical, theological of philosophical issues I presented with the incarnation theology well. I’m happy he made these statements, as it demonstrates quite a factual reality about our debate. As for his points, my responses are:

  1. Whether fast or slow, the quotes were put there and you had well over 10 minutes and then 5 minutes during the rebuttals period to see those quotes and use them against me.
  2. Not sure how you can call them gross exaggerations if according to the first point you didn’t see the quotes and you didn’t know anything about them (hence why you needed to atleast know something about them to answer them correctly) and thus couldn’t answer them correctly.

These are just shoddy excuses to cover the fact that as the Pastor himself admits, and praise be to God he’s stated this, he didn’t respond to even 1/3 of my points during the debate, which led to a frustrating period for him during the cross fire period.

Addressing Two Hater Comments

One hater boasted that my only argument was the quote from Tertullian which says the belief in Christ’s incarnation was absurd and silly. If this Christian is willing to be honest, he’d have to then explain how in his 15 line quasi review he proudly declared I quoted many liberal scholars, James Dunn, James White and Athanasius. Your own words against me, are self contradictory.

This same hater boasted that I misused the fallacy of confirmation bias, to the contrary, as many viewers of the debate have indicated within the Paltalk room itself, my opening statement and argument was spot on, Samuel did not present any historical, philosophical or rational evidences for his position, he merely said this is what my God in the scripture I believe in said, therefore the incarnation is true. I call upon any Christian to demonstrate that Pastor Samuel did not do this.

One other hater, Anthony Rogers (who is known for threatening to rape me, and also known for getting exposed as a copy paster who claimed to research Arabic sources but instead literally stole the works of a Muslim brother who later called him out on it), claimed I was disrespectful and nasty throughout the debate. I do believe their was a moderator present and Pastor Samuel did not once complain to her, to make matters worse, no Christian during the Question and Answer period claimed the same, nor did any of them post comments to that effect. You seem to have taken issue with my quote of Tertullian, yet quoting your founding fathers of your faith doesn’t make me nasty, it makes them nasty. I understand your misdirected anger though, you obviously can’t attack a Church Father, so I guess I’ll take the hate for him. I also recognize that since our debate, you’ve pretty much been unable to stop me from walking over your ego by becoming more popular in the apologetics circles, I mean you’ve been asking people to ignore me, but since then I’ve – been featured by Dr. James White on his Dividing Line program, Dr. James White’s made videos about me, Sam Shamoun’s found himself arguing with me, your own co-workers at Answering Islam and Answering Muslims (Cl Edwards and Samuel Green) have debated me, you were embarrassed by the Bob Siegel saga which I made worse by publicising it and then to your dismay the guy actually put me on his show and gave me an audience in the week gone. Not only that, our website has exploded in views, doubling really and the Muslim Debate Initiative has made me an official speaker.

So I realised you really didn’t like my quoting of Tertullian, so I did you a little favour and reposted it to my Facebook page of 600, 000 + fans, just to piss you off:

The Message - Many Christians live in denial and cannot face the...

So now because of your silly attack on me, 28, 900+ 42, 400+ 51, 000+ Muslims have been exposed to the statements by Tertullian and I promise, the more stupid things you say, I’m merely going to make more people see how absurd the incarnation is.

Again, I’d like to thank the goodly Pastor for his honest concession and for Anthony who gave me the impetus to share Tertullian’s quote to over more than 28, 900+ 42, 400+ 51, 000+ individuals. More to come.

wa Allaahu ‘alam.

Brief Summary of Points of my Incarnation Debate

Posted on by Leave a comment

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:

  1. The Jews have no concept of the hypostatic union or of theophanies in their religious literature.
  2. The earliest Christians debated the nature of Christ and each group ascribed their view to a disciple/ apostle.
  3. The earliest Christians were primarily Greek gentiles who were familiar with incarnation philosophy and theology.
  4. The early Church therefore read the Jewish books with a Greek philosophical and theological understanding.
  5. In both the Greek and Jewish cultures, men of fame and great public interest were declared to be of divine birth/ natures.
  6. The Greek concept of a Theophany is at odds with the Jewish belief of Shali’ah.
  7. The Church unfairly forced a fixed vote promoting one Bishop’s arguments for a pro-hypostatic union Christ.
  8. The members of the Church revolted and in 359 CE Arius’ position (ante-Nicene) was adopted.
  9. Athanasius’ hypostatic union/ dual natured Christ was declared a heresy under larger Ecumenical councils throughout the Christian world.
  10. 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:

  1. The incarnation theology can be found in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms.
  2. Daniel 7 is an evidence of this.
  3. It’s God’s promise to live amongst us.
  4. To listen to God is to read what He has mentioned in the Prophets.

and Allaah knows best.

Debate Video Release: Samuel Green vs Ijaz Ahmad – “An Incarnate God: Fact or Fiction”

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »