Search
For further information, please see the Facebook event page as created by Ratio Christi. There is no information as of yet on whether or not there will be a livestream of the debate or the duration till the recording will be made public. As soon as any pertinent details are made aware to us, we’ll update this post and share the relevant information on our social media platforms.
and God knows best.
Br. Shadid Lewis and CL Edwards recently had a debate entitled, “Can We Trust the Islamic Jesus“, this is not a review of the debate (the review shall be published soon), but this is a criticism of CL Edward’s methodology of which he employed during the debate. I base my informed criticism about CL, on my experience as a debater who has also previously engaged with him in a recorded debate and on my past rebuttals to him.
The Scope and Delimitations of the Debate
It’s all in the title. When two debaters sit down to discuss a topic, they are agreeing to leave off all other discussions and to focus on what the subject of the debate is. So for example, if I sit down with an opponent, and we agree to debate oranges, we are agreeing to discuss nothing but oranges, we will not discuss any other fruit such as an apple, or a banana. This therefore is what we refer to as the scope (depth) and the delimitations (boundaries of the debate). The scope of the debate, is that we have agreed to discuss everything about oranges, as much as we can. The delimitations (or boundaries) of the debate, mean that we limit ourselves to the discussion of oranges. CL would have to explain if he did not agree to debate this topic, to atleast release himself from the criticism against him.
What’s in the Title?
The title of the debate was and up to the start of the debate, declared to be, “Can We Trust the Islamic Jesus“. Let’s break the title up to understand what the scope and delimitations of the debate was:
Who is being referred to as, ‘we‘, here? Well, let the evidence show that the we, includes solely Christians and Muslims. Why do I say this? Well for one, the organization which CL Edwards represented was a Christian organization, the Center for Religious Debate. The audience was a Christian audience. The debate was held inside of a Church and the debate began and ended with Christian prayers.
Secondly, they were debating the Islamic Jesus, not the sources of the Islamic Jesus, but whether or not Christians, can trust the Islamic Jesus, not the Islamic faith, the Islamic scriptures, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but the Islamic Jesus.
What was Shadid’s Methodology?
Since this was a Christian opponent, and a Christian audience and given the scope and delimitations of the debate title, Br. Shadid’s methodology was quite simple. It can be demonstrated in set notation:
Let Set M represent the attributes of Islamic Jesus:
Let Set C represent the attributes of the Christian Jesus:
Set C represents what Christians trust about Jesus, therefore, Shadid’s methodology is to demonstrate the intersection of Islamic beliefs and Christians beliefs about Jesus, imply that they already believe what Muslims believe, and since they already trust their own beliefs about Christ, they then already trust the Islamic beliefs about Christ.
Let M ^ C be the intersection or what is commonly trusted among the beliefs of Muslims and Christians about Christ:
The Muslim beliefs about Christ, are therefore declared to be a subset of the beliefs which Christians have about Jesus Christ. I’m using set logic, or set notation, since this is the easiest way to explain Br. Shadid’s methodology. I’m also using this form of explanation, since CL Edwards claims to have studied logic, or atleast attempted to explain (without reason), the definition of several logical fallacies during the debate. It is therefore the case, that CL clearly is an inane ignoramus, a sophomore (bookful blockhead), who although being a claimant of utilizing logic, he clearly did not understand the clear and consistent logic as used by Br. Shadid. My criticism against CL shows that he either intentionally misled himself into thinking he was a logician, or he fooled his audience by claiming to understand Br. Shadid’s methodology.
What was CL’s Methodology?
CL Edwards focused his argument on the following points:
His methodology however, fails to live up to the scope and delimitations of the debate title, for which both speakers agreed upon. Let’s look at the first argument. The debate is not about the reliability of the Qur’aan, therefore the first argument of CL is outside the scope and delimitations of the debate, not to mention it contradicts his own beliefs as the New Testament itself is outside of the first century via empirical evidence (P52 dated to 125 CE), theoretically though it is dated to have existed in some form during the 70 – 80 CE, however there is no physical manuscript (for which CL argued for) which proves this.
His second argument, once again falls outside of the scope and delimitations of the title. The debate is not about the reliability of eyewitness reports. Br. Shadid during the debate also successfully demonstrated that the New Testament was written decades after Christ, by persons unknown to Christ, the names of the Gospels are mere attributions as handed down by tradition and not by fact.
Lastly, his final point, the existence of the Injeel also fails to be relevant to the title. The debate is not about whether the Injeel existed or not, or what the evidence for the Injeel is, therefore this argument of CL is highly irrelevant and clearly outside the scope and delimitations of the agreed debate title.
A Change of Scope and Delimitations
At some point during the debate, CL realised that if he were to argue against trusting the Islamic Jesus, he’d have to argue against what Christians already believe about Christ – since the Muslim beliefs about Christ are a subset of what Christians already do believe (this was demonstrated above). CL, realising this, decided to alter the scope of the debate, by asking Br. Shadid to assume he was an atheist, and therefore from this angle, challenged him to prove that the Islamic Jesus existed.
Once again, this only goes to demonstrate that CL is not a professional debater, nor is he educated. To begin with, if we are to discuss the topic that CL proposed, then we’d be discussing the origins of Christ, since atheists do not agree that Christ may have even existed at all. This is outside the scope of the debate, as the title does not indicate that either speaker was to prove Christ existed, but rather to show that Christians who already believed in a Jesus Christ, can also believe or trust in the Islamic Christ.
A Hypocrite of Unforeseen Proportions
During the debate CL Edwards found himself claiming several fallacies of Br. Shadid, to which he himself is victim of:
CL’s confirmation bias, was demonstrated when he declared that the Bible came from eyewitnesses during the first century. This is clearly a false notion and none of the NT texts have been transmitted as first person verbatim.
By pretending to be an atheist and asking Br. Shadid to prove that Christ existed at all and then condemning him when he chose not to – and to instead stick to the debate, this is in itself a straw man argument.
Lastly, Br. Shadid, practised the Christian methodology of typology, in which they read from their own text/ scripture (the New Testament) about the Christ and then they return to the Old Testament to demonstrate that he was mentioned there, or that the Old Testament offers proofs about him. Br. Shadid applied this same methodology to the New Testament, he declared the Christ of the Qur’aan to be trustworthy and then using typology, demonstrated the Qur’aanic Christ from the New Testament. One of the strangest arguments from CL is that he asked, how could Br. Shadid seek for evidences of an Islamic Christ in a book he himself believe to be corrupted, when CL himself and many Christians believe that Jews corrupted the Torah to hide the truth about the Christ’s prophecies within them. He lowly can he go?
Very Low
In a last ditch attempt to salvage a debate in which the methodology of Br. Shadid flew over his head, in a debate to which he could not commit himself to be relevant, and to a crowd who was anxious – waiting for him to make a single valid point, CL went to the lowest low. He began to insult and use derogatory terms. How are these questions relevant to the trustworthiness of the Islamic Christ?
These have nothing to do with the debate, but rather these were low blows in attacking the faith of Br. Shadid, in order to escape the reality that CL cannot stand up and defend his faith, so he rather cast insults to make himself feel better. In contrast, doesn’t CL believe in a deity who is a man, and therefore does have genitals? We also pray that CL has taken a biology class or two, but again, his level of intelligence is yet to be established, therefore it is no wonder he has labelled a young adult as a child, he does not know that at the age of sexual maturation, a child can no longer be labeled as such.
The Reality of the Debate
If CL had to argue that the Islamic Jesus was not trustworthy, seeing as the Islamic beliefs about Christ, are a subset of Christian beliefs about Christ, he’d be relegated to arguing against his own religion. Therefore, for a majority of the debate, he focused on things outside of the scope and delimitation of the topic – the existence of the Injeel, the Qur’aanic claims about Christ, the eyewitnesses, God’s genitals, explaining the meanings of some logical fallacies, etc. CL did not have the courage to discuss the topic directly and therefore found himself fiddling around with largely irrelevant arguments, pretending to be atheist and mocking his opponent.
I’ve always held that the debate with Bob Siegel was the worst of the series, but to me, CL took the cake for this title. Bob was uninformed, inexperienced, but we cannot offer the same excuses for CL. He’s debated before, this is his field of interest, he’s a seminary student, he claims to be an ex-Muslim, he has no excuse for his lackluster performance, his shameful behaviour and his lack of mental fortitude to cope with the methodology and logic of Br. Shadid.
CL Can’t Change
I experienced the same with CL during my debate with him. Like any other dud, he tried to explain that Christ was God from evidences in the Bible, the debate however was titled, “Is Jesus God, man or both”?, it never asked according to the Qur’aan or Bible! I caught him out, demonstrated that his evidences and opening were useless, I used the secular historical method, never once quoting the New Testament or the Qur’aan. I’d presented an argument, with a methodology that he hadn’t prepared for, so his counter arguments were nuanced, he couldn’t salvage the debate because he didn’t prepare for it in the way I did.
Similarly, he wrongly assumed the arguments Br. Shadid would offer, so when Br. Shadid offered something logical, and clear, something CL didn’t think of – he had to go all out to not lose a second debate in a row. CL lost one debate, perhaps we could excuse him as it was his first, but to lose a second in a row because he was unprepared to deal with his opponent’s arguments – demonstrates that he is not a debater, he cannot hold his own and when he’s put to defend his religion, he can’t.
The Challenge
I know CL cannot debate me, I know that he’d try to mock me or insult my religion or cast aspersions about my character. Regardless of these things, he cannot hold his own in a debate, so here I am, challenging CL to debate me, let’s debate the topic Bob failed to impress on, “Is the NT Reliable“? Can you defend your religion against a person who’s not only significantly younger than you, but who’s unfazed by your theatrics? The challenge has been issued, all we need now is to see if CL can stand up and hold his own…? I’ve issued an email challenge to him, this is the message verbatim:
Good day Mr. Edwards,
Please see the following article assessing your performance, and also see the challenge towards the end:
Can you hold your own?
Let’s see what his next move is.
and Allaah knows best.
The now infamous and controversial debate video between MDI’s Br. Shadid Lewis and CRD’s Bob Siegel on the Reliability of the New Testament, has been mysteriously pulled from the YouTube Channel of the Church where the series of debates were held. A few days ago, I posted that the videos were uploaded for public viewing, however, earlier yesterday afternoon – the video was pulled without reason.
According to several insiders, the Church disliked the content of the video, given Bob’s antics which were seen as an embarrassment by the wider Christian community, therefore the Church’s technician who uploaded the videos, was told to take them down as the content was inappropriate for the Church’s Ministerial purposes. Luckily for us, my Brother in Islam, MuslimByChoice, had downloaded and re-uploaded the entire debate!
and Allaah knows best.
It is no secret that the Answering Muslims Blog is operated by extremist right-wing American Christians, David Wood himself is a very active member of the anti-iimigration, anti-Muslim organization Act4America!, and several of their posts are very critical of the US President simply because of his ethnicity. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the persons who often view their blog, think similarly to them. Unfortunately, they have no shame in what they say, despite claiming to be religious folk and a few of their members let their racism openly be known directly on the Answering Muslims Blog and via one of their friend’s Paltalk rooms of which Anthony Rogers (under the pseudonym, Charles Martel), frequently visits and supports:
Click to Enlarge
This particular Christian found it particularly pleasant to refer to Br. Shadid’s ‘fetish‘ for being whipped. It is quite well known that African slaves in America were punished via the whip, or lashes with whips as is described in violent beatings referred to as ‘lynchings’. Therefore, this person’s insinuation is that Br. Shadid is a black Muslim who like those before him, likes to be whipped by his Caucasian Christian superiors.
This comment is a bit more direct and was featured prominently on the Answering Muslims blog. Here we can see a Caucasian Christian, insinuating that Br. Shadid was an angry black Muslim, who was very threatening to those in the West. Why would the color of his skin need to be mentioned, and why the adjective angry? It’s fairly common to see racists referring to Afro-Americans as ‘Angry Black Persons‘, in this case, Br. Shadid is rendered as an ‘Angry Black Muslim Man‘, who is ‘very threatening‘, and was ‘yelling‘ at his audience. Whereas Bob Siegel who debated Br. Shadid, was screaming and making strange noises on stage, but never once was he described as ‘loud‘, ‘yelling‘ or ‘angry‘.
Neither David Wood nor Anthony Rogers who commented on the same post on their blog, found it to be inappropriate that Br. Shadid’s color of skin was used as a criticism against him, which only goes to show that they agree with what this person wrote. As Muslims, we do not allow racism to be a part of our religion, even if we dislike a certain culture, we dislike the culture itself and not the persons, as it is easy to dislike a sin, but not to hate the sinner – as no one is devoid of God’s mercy and guidance.
We kindly ask Answering Muslims to issue an apology to the Muslim and African communities in regards to their racism and we hope to see that they shall take punitive measures to curb the racist culture which is bred amongst their fan base. I decided to send an e-mail to Anthony Rogers (smprparatus@aol.com), asking him to address the issue:
Good Day Mr. Rogers,
I am quite appalled to have seen several racist comments issued by your fan base in regards to Br. Shadid Lewis, including mentions of him liking to be whipped and that he was also an angry black man. I do not know if you condone, or if your faith allows you to pursue such views (viz a viz the curse of Ham), but as a Muslim I have found those remarks to be quite distasteful and abusive.In this article I have screenshotted said comments issued by your fan base:
https://callingchristians.com/2013/09/13/christians-racially-abuse-br-shadid-lewis/
Will you be intending to address the racist culture bred amongst your fan base, or is this behaviour something you and your faith condones? Looking forward to a reply given the serious nature of this situation.
Br. Ijaz Ahmad
http://www.callingchristians.com
and Allaah knows best.
Bob Siegel is a Muslim hero. After his debate with Br. Shadid Lewis, there can be no doubt that Bob secretly works for Muslims. I say this because Bob seemed to offend, almost insult and argue against Christianity in last night’s debate. Not only did he not defend the reliability of the New Testament (as was the topic of focus), but he successfully argued against it, while embarrassing himself in one of the most absurd displays of immaturity I have ever been privy to witness.
Unfortunately for Bob, I have a very strong feeling that he would now be the focus of many Muslim-Christian debates, because of his self refuting nature, it’s impossible that anyone debating him could actually lose. In a debate where Bob had to defend the reliability of the Christian New Testament, Bob said, in no uncertain terms:
one scribe writes something stupid and another scribe crosses it out
According to Bob Siegel, the hero of Muslims everywhere (Calling Christians is probably going to consider forwarding him a proposal to make him our spokesperson), during the writing of his scripture, people wrote stupid things in it, or a scribe copied stupid things that God said and other scribes crossed out what they felt was stupid. Now isn’t that funny, in a book that he’s supposed to be defending as reliable – he argues that arbitrary editing on the count of something being apparently stupid – was done. If that isn’t arguing against his own point, then I don’t know what to call it.
This however, wasn’t the worse thing that Bob did, at one point Bob decided to break out into song and dance – yes, singing and dancing during an academic discourse because he felt like it. Flailing arms, animated speaking, voice impersonations and more, Bob is a man of many talents, but what he is not is a professional debater, nor an academic. To be quite honest, I’d pay money to have Bob entertain me, he’s good at it, he’s very theatrical, a great singer, amazing dancer, his voice impersonations would make you laugh – it was a blast! Yet, this was neither the place nor the occasion for Bob to showcase his dramatic talents.
This was a debate, on behalf of the Center for Religious Debate. His arguments were poor, so poor that during his opening statement I successfully only counted one argument about the reliability of the New Testament. One, just a single stand alone argument. Other than that, Bob was largely a dud, nothing intelligent came out of his mouth and with each passing moment he seemed to slowly poison the well of Christian thought and belief. Besides negating the reliability of the New Testament and declaring the Bible to contain stupid man made writings, he happened to use awful analogies and at the very worse, emotional ranting.
Emotional Bob, this should be his stage name, and this is not meant to be insulting. Bob started his defense of the reliability of the New Testament by declaring that he spoke to God, he knows God and therefore nothing can be said to change his mind about the reliability of the New Testament. Isn’t that funny? For an academic discussion, you’d like to assume that one would provide evidences, maybe discuss or mention a theory or two, perhaps reference some famous scholarly works, but not Bob, he decided to throw thousands of years of Christian scholarship into a liberal trash can and figured his best plan of defending the reliability of the Bible is to declare that God literally, told him it was reliable.
Now, Bob wasn’t all that horrible, he did have some good, hard hitting points. His discussion on the cayaf (?, cayaph, kayaf, kayaph) was very insightful. Bob, what in the heck is a kayaf and what did it have to do with your debate last night? Apparently ‘kayaf’ is something Islamic that no Muslim knows about…
Sorry Bob, but I just had to make you into a meme, did God also tell you I was going to do that? If not, maybe you should try to figure out what that voice in your head was, I’m thinking that it wasn’t God.
Now, Bob spoke largely about the Qur’aan and Islam, perhaps for 75% of the time he was speaking. This was a debate about the reliability of the New Testament, but I don’t think Bob got the memo that this was a debate or what the topic of the debate was. At one point, he asked the moderator how much time he had left and decided to forego 2 and 1/2 minutes of speaking time during his rebuttal period. Funnily enough, he later complained that he was not given enough time to speak.
Bob, you are the hero of Muslims everywhere. I pray that one day I do get to debate you, because you’d be the easiest person to debate. I’m hoping that you do more debates with Muslims, especially focusing on the topic of Christianity, perhaps you’d bring more Christians to Islam than is possible – you’re a great spokesperson for Islam and we wouldn’t have it any other way.
Note: This review is based on the video posted by Br. Shadid on his YouTube page. He has stated that his rebuttal and portions of the cross fire questioning are missing. Regardless of what is missing, this is a review on the debate ‘as it is’.
Opening Statements:
Br. Shadid:
He begins by defining the delimits of the topic. What exactly is peace and how does Islam relate to it? What is the definition of peace which Mr. Spencer is operating with? From the very start, Br. Shadid is laying his logic clearly on the table. Merely asking, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?“, does not allow for the topic to be discussed. Is peace here supposed to mean pacifism? Outlined and strategical aggression? Interpersonal or between state and citizens of the state?
He doesn’t exactly convey his point very eloquently, nor does he stick to his line of reasoning perfectly. At the beginning he jumps around a bit after providing a dictionary definition of peace, and comments on the previous speakers before him (mind you who were not part of the debate), and then he comments on Arab Nation spending on weapons, versus that of America’s Military Industrial Complex. Unfortunately, all of these topics in less than two minutes, muddled his opening statement.
He recovers though and makes quite the point. The so called Axis of Evil of nations, some of which are Muslim majority – have a total weapons and defense expenditure of $15 billion dollars combined, whereas the United States alone has a budget of $800+ billion dollars for the very same purpose. Even if Muslims did have goals of war – their expenditure simply does not allow for, or demonstrate this. He then moved on to proving that Islam does promote peace, on the basis of one the dictionary definitions of peace which he provided earlier. Somehow a few comments about taqiyyah got jumbled in there by him – which again, muddied the waters, taking away from what could have been a clear and consistent message.
Despite disrupting his outlined flow on the topic of Islam and Peace, Br. Shadid did present a solid rebuttal to the place of, and the use of taqiyyah in Islam. He then stops working with the four definitions of peace, and now discusses the place of abrogation of the peaceful verses of the Qur’aan. The flow of his argument (both overarching and sequentially) is very disruptive and a bit all over the place.
Br. Shadid discusses the validity of the translation of some verses, provides his reasoning on the exegetical sciences and then rests on the verses which clearly outline the conditions for warfare in the Qur’aan, specifically those of Qur’aan 2:190-194. He then returned to one of the four definitions of peace, indicating that Islam does allow for peace treaties and this therefore fulfills another one of the definitions given. Cleverly, knowing that Mr. Spencer would eventually comment on the jizya and subjugation, Br. Shadid does sneak it in that even the polytheists of Makkah in the treaty of Hudaibiyah were not subject to the tax or monetary tribute. Br. Shadid in the closing moments then states that Islam is not a faith of pacifism.
Robert Spencer:
He began by saying that his statements would be solely based on Islamic source texts, written by Islamic scholarship, therefore his statements would be credible and seemingly unbiased. Spencer though, begins with his foot in his mouth by quoting one of the members of the Taliban who indicates that Jihad is recommended. Mr. Spencer says this, despite the fact that the Taliban’s fight is against Christian American soldiers invading a Muslim country. For those with a bit more awareness, his first point of contention aided Br. Shadid’s opening statement concerning Christian Americans and their war machine.
Spencer then quotes 2 or 3 other Jihadists, to bolster his position, despite these cases being few – he then mentions one of the Jihadists who claims his acts are in response to American war tactics and incidents. Once again, taking away from his position and aiding Br. Shadid’s. Spencer asks, where did these Jihadists get this understanding of Islam from, in this occasion, he paints them as students of knowledge – despite a significant majority of the exemplars used having no Islamic certification in any area of Islamic study. He quotes a Qur’aanic ayah and then mentions that he will abide by what Mr. Lewis suggests and that he’d appeal to a scholar on understanding the verse. In this regard, he chose Maulana Moududi (d. 1979) whom he says teaches that Muslims must usurp political power from any and all non-Muslim led nations.
Spencer then claims to agree with Br. Shadid that we cannot judge a faith based on what its members do, but based on what the faith itself teaches. He then goes to Maulana Moududi’s commentary on Qur’aan 3:28 – on the topic of taqiyyah, he agrees that one of its uses is during a state of persecution or imminent danger. His logic is therefore, that since Muslims claim America is at war with them, they are therefore in danger and currently must use taqiyyah at all times. Br. Shadid already specified what the circumstances were using a graphic retelling of a Grey’s Anatomy episode, thereby cancelling Robert’s misuse of reasoning. On abrogation he agrees that Muslims do not have a set agreement on how many verses have been abrogated. At this point the camera cuts off and begins towards the end of his rebuttal to Br. Shadid.
Rebuttals:
Br. Shadid’s was cut by the camera and as such I am unable to comment on it.
Mr. Spencer says that non-Muslims are not compelled to believe in Islam, but they must live in humiliation and subjugation. He then cuts across to rebutting Br. Shadid on peace treaties by quoting from the fiqh manual, Reliance of the Traveller – his quotes entail that warfare is prescribed and that scholars accept and promote this book thereby promoting warfare. He goes on to say that Muslims only accept peace treaties so that they can regroup and gather themselves for when the truce ends (traditionally, all nations at war do this, claiming that Muslims alone do this is very silly).
My Conclusions:
Seeing as I’m unable to see Br. Shadid’s rebuttal, I’m unable to declare either him or Mr. Spencer the true ‘winner’. However, given what I have seen and heard, Br. Shadid did stand his ground and he did successfully pre-empt the arguments of Mr. Spencer. To his benefit, Br. Shadid disarmed Spencer from using his usual arguments and seemed to make Spencer quite subdued in his argumentation.
Br. Shadid however, did jump around a bit, but despite doing so – when he made a point, he was consistent, clear and delivered very strong points which rendered a majority of Spencer’s points moot. It is with great earnest that I look forward to seeing the final 5 minutes of Spencer’s opening statement and the entirety of his and Br. Shadid’s rebuttals.
However, given what I’ve seen, and without bias, Br. Shadid did put a muzzle on Spencer’s arguments leaving Spencer to argue a bit aimlessly and with his tail between his legs. I do admit, that I am disappointed that Br. Shadid was all over the place, but in the very short time of his opening statement, he covered every single topic Spencer could have brought forward (something which Spencer did commend him for during his opening statement), thus pre-empting a majority of his arguments and placing the upper hand in his favour.
As far as I can tell, if Spencer’s opening statement and partial rebuttal are anything to judge by, despite his oratory skills, he has not defeated Br. Shadid.
and Allaah knows best.
Here’s the promised debate video from Br. Shadid’s engagement with R. Spencer. Haven’t listened to it as yet, but the reviews have been solidly in favour of Br. Shadid (as reported on our Facebook page).
Let us know what you think.
and Allaah knows best.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.