Christian Challenges a Muslim to a Debate

Since my return to apologetics I have had a number of debate “challenges” directed my way from people of varying reputations. In all honesty, amongst the ones which tickled my fancy have been two written debate challenges; one debate with a popular secularist and the other from a Christian apologist named Anthony Rogers (aka Semper Paratus).

The latter is more intriguing as Anthony is willing to debate concerning the Trinity, this does seem to be an interesting phenomenon amongst Christian apologetics in recent times; they seem more willing to tackle the real focal issues of detraction when it concerns the Muslims amongst others.

As Anthony and I have had exchanges in the past I do feel I know him and he deserves a separate response not only out of fine courtesy but out of the fact that Anthony has a great array of phraseology and is a very well accomplished writer; indeed his writing style is something to behold. As a keen article writer, I personally feel it would be extremely interesting to enter into a written discussion with Anthony. I do want to stress my appreciation of Anthony’s writing style does not equate to agreement with his content 

However, personal feelings should always be left aside when deciding what course of action to take in the realm of Islamic propagation and apologetics; every action is judged by its intention, hence our intentions in this noble field should always be free from ego and other worldly concerns. Nevertheless it is an opportunity to witness to Anthony and Anthony’s supporters and one should always take up the chance to deliver the message of the Prophets to all who have not heard it or those who have yet to understand it and thus accept it.

Moving onto the practicalities, Anthony’s time line for the debate was far from practical given all my commitments. I am sure we can come to some sort of agreement on the timeline which is suitable for both parties. I do fear this debate will have to be delayed significantly as Anthony is due a response from myself concerning John 1:1-19 (he, S.Shamoun and D.Wood are all due a response related to this issue) and his colleague, Hogan, is due a couple of responses too. In order to maintain chronological order and fairness I feel I must churn out the other responses before any such written dialogue can go ahead.

I must also say my current mode of witnessing/propagation and apologetics has been yielding fine results (all praise is due to God) so I am reluctant to move away from such a potent methodology; a methodology which is getting Christians to rethink some of the misinformation concerning Islam which is out there (unfortunately much of this misinformation is being disseminated by our Christian brothers/sisters) as well as getting them to rethink Christian doctrines. Hence, I do plan to continue down this path and this has been evidenced through my reluctance to debate anybody (up to now I have not accepted any debate challenges). I do feel a dialogue with Anthony is required and/or a refutation of his material should be carried out.

I must add my slight concern regarding the topics Anthony suggested, surely a more encompassing topic should be chosen rather than limiting a discussion on the Trinity to a certain section of the Bible. I would suggest:

Did Jesus teach the Trinity?

This topic should not be limited to a certain Book; logic should be allowed to come into play as well as other sources. Is Anthony up for this particular dialogue?

Finally I would like to finish on a personal note which is a rather sad state of affairs . Anthony did suggest I was banned from a particular blog due to bad conduct; I do want to clear my name here. I have many Muslims and Christians who will vouch for my fine behaviour in discussion and respect for the Bible and other religious books. I have enclosed a link to what was deemed as “bad conduct” by an administrator/owner of the blog in question (D.Wood). The readers can decide for themselves whether it was bad conduct on my part or merely the result of a glass chin on the part of D.Wood.

I would also like to point out my banning only came into play as soon as I started refuting some of the material espoused/or produced directly by those concerned with the blog. Indeed this refutation material was potent and did get Christians thinking and asking questions. This fact combined with D.Wood’s huge efforts in censoring my highly respectful YouTube video to a lady who newly converted to Christianity leaves me with the impression that the censoring of my material was due to other reasons. It seems as though others sympathise with my plight too.

I would also like to point the readers to my condemnation of ignorant Muslims who insult the Bible (even if these insults are a response to Christian insults). The Muslim way (and the scholarly way) is not to ridicule or mock other faiths. You shall always find me following this great teaching. I am indeed a friend and brother to the Christians. I have a copy of the NIV Bible and I keep it in a lofty place in my room and treat it with care. The same rules apply to other books ie the Book of Mormon

Anthony also suggested I take every opportunity to criticise the Trinity; any arguments against the Trinity are always constructive and never produced out of malice. People can view my material for themselves, my material is produced for both Muslims and Christians to benefit from. I ask all to browse through it and look at it in an unbiased fashion…give it a chance…search for the Truth and the Truth shall free you.

Note to Anthony: In the discussion section to your debate challenge a commenter did claim he posted a message on my YouTube channel and was awaiting approval…I can assure him no such message came to me (possibly due to a glitch on YouTube or due to his link, YouTube does not allow links of that nature). If he wants to try again he may do so but I do want to assure him he was not censored by me.

May Allah guide us further. Ameen

Ban worthy discourse?:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=8397958699663275226

The much censored video message encouraging a Christian lady to give Islam a chance everybody can benefit from this video):

Jesus has Muslim Brothers and Sisters

The Bible Confirms: Muslims are the Brothers and Sisters (and Mothers) of Jesus by Yahya Snow

This may come as a surprise to those who are unaware of the contents of the Bible as well as unaware of whom the Muslims are but rest assured it comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with Prophetic Monotheism.

In order to explain the title let us look into the statement attributed to Jesus within the Gospel of Mark (3:35). Herein Jesus teaches us that his brothers, sisters and mothers are those who follow the Will of God.

Mark 3:35 says “For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

The uninformed may ask; how does this relate to the Muslims? Well, the word ”Muslim” simply means one who has submitted to the Will of God, so we come to know that “whoever does the Will of God” is a Muslim.

Thus we realise that Jesus is referring to Muslims in this passage so we should pass on these glad tidings to the Muslims as Muslims are indeed the brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus. We also realise from hadith literature that all Prophets are brothers [1], so essentially Jesus is confirming that he is the brother of all the other Prophets too as all Prophets do the Will of God, i.e. all Prophets are Muslims.

We should also acknowledge that this verse is from the Gospel of Mark, this Gospel is thought to be the most reliable of the four as it is the earliest but it is also clear that even this Gospel has been adulterated (or changed) by the scribes; this is seen through the footnotes in the NIV Bible (indicating manuscript differences) especially the last ten verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-19) which are forged additions by a scribe(s).

Nevertheless the statement attributed to Jesus in Mark 3:35 does have the ring of authenticity to it as it chimes well (agrees) with what another Prophet taught; Prophet Muhammed taught something similar [2], this also hints to us that this was a general Prophetic teaching.

Of course, it should also be said that the sincere companions and followers of Jesus are Muslims too. And all Prophets are Muslims. So indeed all those who have submitted to the Will of God are Muslims and are brothers and sisters. One big happy family!

As a side note, this verse from the Gospel of Mark does reinforce the view that the followers of Jesus thought of Jesus as a Prophet rather than God as God would not declare people to be his mothers, sisters or brothers. It also shows that Jesus did not view himself to be God as this is not a statement one would expect of God but one would have expected a statement like this from a Prophet, hence Jesus thought himself as a Prophet.

Note: All Biblical quotes are taken from the New International Version of the Bible

References

[1] Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652

[2] Ramûzu’l-Ehadis p. 361, 4460

 

Taken from: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-has-muslim-brothers-sisters-and.html

Alleged Contradiction Against the Quran is Wrong; How Long is a Day? 1000 or 50000 years?

The Critics Accuse The Quran of Contradiction Concerning The Length Of A Day.

 The critic says:

‘Sura 22:47 and 32:5 tell us that one day to Allah actually means 1,000 years, but Sura 70:4 says a day with Allah is 50,000 years’ [1]

 An unlearned individual may read the critic’s claim and feel it is a genuine contradiction. However closer scrutiny shows there is no contradiction and this claim is only borne out of the critic’s own misunderstanding of the text.

 The Arabic word for day is ‘yawm’. Now this can be translated as a day, long period or epoch. As we see from the context the translation would either be long period or epoch as the verses are not referring to 24 hour periods (i.e. the conventional day). So please keep this in mind when reading this article.

 As we further investigate we realise the reason why the length of these long periods or epochs are different (either 1,000 years or 50,000 years) is due to the verses referring to different events. In order to highlight this it is necessary to look at each of the verses individually:

 22:47 – And they ask you to hasten on the torment! And Allâh fails not His Promise. And verily, a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you reckon. [2]

 Tafsir Jalalayn tells us the day (long period/epoch) referred to in 22:47 is concerning a day in the Hereafter (in Hell) [5]. So we note that this verse is teaching us that the length of a regular day in Hell is equivalent to a thousand years.

 32:5 – He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth, then it (affair) will go up to Him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning (i.e. reckoning of our present world’s time) [3]

 Tafsir Jalalayn teaches us the Quranic verse 32:5 is referring to a day (long period/epoch) which is equivalent to a thousand years is referring to the affairs taking a day to go up to Allah [6]. This takes a thousand years of our (human) measure and it is described as a yawm (day, long period or epoch).

 70:4 – The angels and the Rûh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years, [4]

 Tafsir Jalalayn tells us this is concerning the Day of Resurrection [7], though this can also be obviously discerned by reading the verses by prior and after the verse in question (70:4). So essentially we realise that this verse tells us the Day of Resurrection is measured as 50,000 (fifty thousand) years. Tafsir Jalalayn does go further and mention it is of the perspective of the disbeliever; hence the Day will be different for the disbeliever (longer) and the believer (shorter). But for the purposes of this article it is sufficient to know this verse of the Quran (70:4) concerns the Day of Resurrection and is referring to a different event (not the same events mentioned in the two previous verses, 22:47 and 32:5)

 Thus we realise the Quran speaks of three different events which last a specific amount of time (days):

 

  1. Verse 22:47 concerns a day in the Hereafter (i.e. Hell) which lasts 1,000 years.
  2. Verse 32:5 concerns the length of time (a day/long period/epoch) for the affairs to go up to Allah which consists of 1,000 earth years.
  3. Verse 70:4 concerns the Day of Judgement which lasts 50,000 earth years for the disbeliever.

 All three of these events all take a set amount of time. Two of them take 1,000 years of our reckoning while the last one takes 50,000 years of our reckoning.

So to summarise we can say there is no contradiction as the Quran is not speaking of the same event in each verse. Therefore we realise there is no contradiction at all.

 The critic due to his/her lack of research conflates and confuses the three events into one and erroneously believes the three are all the same. This error on the part of the critics leads to their egregious and unscholarly claim which highlights the ignorance on the part of the critic.

 May Allah guide us all. Ameen

 And certainly Allah knows best.

 

Further Reading

 http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/misconceptions/b14.htm

 

References:

 

[1] Anatomy of the Quran by G.J.O Moshay Chick Productions 2007 pg 117

 

[2] Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Verse 22:47

 

[3] Ibid. Verse 32:5

 

[4] Ibid. Verse 70:4

 

[5] Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza. Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan. 2008. Concerning verse 22:47

 

[6] Ibid. Concerning verse 32:5

 

[7] Ibid. Concerning verse 70:4