Oxford Debate: Can the West Live with Islam?

Sir Jonathan Phillips of Keble College, Oxford, chairs a debate between Professor Nigel Biggar, Theology Faculty, University of Oxford, and Islamic Studies lecturer, Tim Winter, University of Cambridge; on the topic : Can the West Live with Islam?

click here: can-west-live-islam-video


Farhan Qureshi and the Muslim Debate Initiative

Recently MDI invited Farhan Qureshi to two public debates. Both are viewable on this blog. Here are his reflections on his stay with us in London.

From: Farhan Qureshi 
To: Abdullah MDI
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:28
Subject: Statement for MDI

Here is my statement:

In January 2012 I had the opportunity to engage the entire Muslim Debate Initiative team which was by far a spectacular and spiritual experience for me. MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner. Being a former Muslim I was absolutely humbled by their character and professionalism throughout my stay in London. I thank them again for their invitation and willingness to engage in debate on controversial issues. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.

Farhan Qureshi


The Problem of Evil debate – Sami Zaatari vs Farhan Qureshi

The public debate on the Problem of Evil debating questions on why it exists, and why God allows it’s existance in the Universe. Welcome to the public debate.

Sami Zaatari – International Speaker and member of Muslim Debate Initiative.

Debates

Farhan Qureshi – American Ex-Qadiyani Agnostic speaker on Eastern Philosophy and Universalism.

————————————–

UPDATE: 11th February 2012

From: Farhan Qureshi 
To: Abdullah MDI
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:28
Subject: Statement for MDI

Here is my statement:

In January 2012 I had the opportunity to engage the entire Muslim Debate Initiative team which was by far a spectacular and spiritual experience for me. MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner. Being a former Muslim I was absolutely humbled by their character and professionalism throughout my stay in London. I thank them again for their invitation and willingness to engage in debate on controversial issues. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.

Farhan Qureshi


Debate: Is Hell Just? Abdullah al Andalusi vs Farhan Qureshi

Do sinners deserve to go to Hell forever? Will only one group of people be saved, and the rest damned? Should finite sins merit eternal punishment? Should God punish those who reject him? Is Hell Just? Welcome to the public debate.

Wednesday, 18th January 2012

Abrar House, 45 Crawford Place, London

Guests:

Abdullah Al Andalusi – Portuguese revert to Islam, and International speaker on Islamic thought.

Farhan Qureshi – American Ex-Qadiyani Agnostic speaker on Eastern Philosophy and Universalism.

 

UPDATE: 11th February 2012

From: Farhan Qureshi 
To: Abdullah MDI
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012, 5:28
Subject: Statement for MDI

Here is my statement:

In January 2012 I had the opportunity to engage the entire Muslim Debate Initiative team which was by far a spectacular and spiritual experience for me. MDI showed me nothing but kindness and hospitality and represented their faith and tradition completely in a positive and respectful manner. Being a former Muslim I was absolutely humbled by their character and professionalism throughout my stay in London. I thank them again for their invitation and willingness to engage in debate on controversial issues. This speaks volumes in terms of their genuine faith and dedication.

Farhan Qureshi


MDI public debate – The Problem of Evil

The public debate on the Problem of Evil will be debating questions on why it exists, and why God allows it’s existence in Universe. Welcome to the public debate.

Sami Zaatari – International Speaker and member of Muslim Debate Initiative.

Debates

Farhan Qureshi – American Ex-Qadiyani Agnostic speaker on Eastern Philosophy and Universalism.

Thursday, 19th January 2012, 6:30pm

Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street,  City of London E1 6LS

Free Admission – No registration required.

Nearest Station: Aldgate East Tube Station


MDI public debate – Is Hell Just?

Do sinners deserve to go to Hell forever? Will only one group of people be saved, and the rest damned? Should finite sins merit eternal punishment? Should God punish those who reject him? Is Hell Just? Welcome to the public debate.

Abdullah Al Andalusi – Portuguese revert to Islam, and International speaker on Islamic thought.

Debates

Farhan Qureshi – American Ex-Qadiyani Agnostic speaker on Eastern Philosophy and Universalism.

Wednesday, 18th January 2012, 6:30pm

Abrar House, 45 Crawford Place, Edgware Road, London, W1H 4LP

Free Admission – No registration required.

Nearest Station: Edgware Road / Marble Arch Tube Station


Can God Become A Man? James White vs Abdullah Kunde

MDI Australia member, Abdullah Kunde debates Dr James White, of Alpha & Omega Ministries.

Debate filmed 17/09/2011 at UNSW, Sydney, Australia.


The Strange Silence of Christian Apologist Sam Shamoun

Mr Sam Shamoun

Part 1

Mr Sam Shamoun has kindly reviewed my recent debate with Rev Dr Steve Latham on the subject of ‘Salvation in Islam and Christianity’.

Mr S Shamoun has compiled 14 separate responses which can be viewed here. I do not propose on this occasion to go through each and every point raised, but do I intend to focus on several key arguments in my presentation about which Mr S Shamoun is strangely silent.

I paraphrase here some key points that I made in my debate:

In Luke 15 Jesus’ teaches his disciples how God treats repentant sinners. (I am sure Mr S Shamoun is familiar with the passage so I will not reproduce it here.) Note that the Father when he sees his repentant son returning home does not say ‘Because I am a just as well as a loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he had compassion, and ran and embraced him and welcomed him home. So God in this story does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive anyone. God is loving enough to forgive directly. That was the whole glory of the Judaism which Jesus upheld.

Another example is to be found in Luke 18, the story of the tax collector and the Pharisee. The tax collector stood far off and would not lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner’. Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God.  This verdict is worth repeating: Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God.  Note Jesus does not mention the necessity of God dying for the man’s sins first. ‘For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.’ So this is how we are justified before God!

In my experience Christians often use the analogy of a ‘debt’ to explain how God needs someone to pay off our sin debt to him, and, because of his justice, he must take the payment from someone. Jesus however had very different ideas about God, namely that God is quite able to just cancel our debt of sin and forgive the sinner.

In my debate I made repeated reference to Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God in Matthew 18. This key text teaches how God deals with our sins. I had hoped Mr S Shamoun would respond to this teaching of Jesus. So just in case he missed it, here it is again:

The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of pounds. He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.

“But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.

“But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand pounds. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.

“His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full.

“When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.

“That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.”

I invite Mr S Shamoun to notice that according to Jesus, God freely forgives our sins. There is no mention of God dying for our sins or for the alleged necessity of God punishing sinners. The Lord’s Prayer, of course, has the same soteriology.

So how is a human being to attain eternal life, that is, how are we to be saved? I would have liked Mr S Shamoun to respond to Jesus’ teaching on this point in Mark 10. Perhaps Mr S Shamoun did not hear that part of my debate either. So here again is the story:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Did Mr S Shamoun notice that Jesus does not tell the man that he must put his faith in Jesus, or that salvation is solely dependent on Jesus dying to atone for his sins? As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Torah is the main road to salvation, but in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing – he needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven. Did Mr S Shamoun note carefully the sequence?

I had hoped Mr S Shamoun would take cognizance of how this passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels), as is evident from the changes they made to Jesus’ words by removing his denial that he is good.

Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)

And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Instead of Mark’s original ‘why do you call me good?’)

By way of contrast let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question about salvation in Romans 10:9:

If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

The differences are startling. As we have seen, Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah and giving to the poor.  As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus taught that faithfulness to God is to be expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah. Paul’s religion focused on Jesus and he claimed that the Torah had been abolished. Jesus in Matthew chapter 5 taught precisely the opposite.

‘Today salvation has come to this house’ 

Here is an incident I did not mention but which is highly relevant to the question of salvation in Islam and Christianity: the story of Zacchaeus the Tax Collector,

Luke 19 tells us:

‘Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’”

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”

That very day salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house. Jesus didn’t tell the man that the only way salvation could come to his house was when Jesus died for his sins; Jesus did not mention ‘justification by faith alone’; made no mention of God pouring his wrath upon Jesus in the place of sinners to gain Zacchaeus’ salvation. No. Zacchaeus simply repents to God (not Jesus!), does restitution, and is reconciled to both God and man. Full stop. How wonderfully Jewish and how wonderfully Islamic!

All this teaching demonstrates beyond doubt that salvation was available before Jesus’ alleged vicarious atonement even happened. Not only did it happen without a human sacrifice, the ‘mechanism’ of salvation is explained by Jesus as repentance to God (note, not to himself!) and in certain cases restitution to the poor.  Despite this being at the very heart of my presentation, Mr S Shamoun was strangely silent about this in his reply.

It appears to me that the evidence from authentic teaching of Jesus in the earlier gospels (and even they are demonstrably embellished and partially fictionalized) creates a fundamental problem for Mr S Shamoun.  What problem is this? The irreconcilable contradiction in the NT itself between Jesus’ repeated teaching on sin, salvation and God on the one hand (as illustrated above and passim) and the teaching of a man who never met Jesus (Paul) who created a religion about Jesus which Mr S Shamoun now follows.

But I hear Mr S Shamoun’s objection, ‘What do you make of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper?’ I have three comments to make:

1) Let us look at the earliest account we have in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 11)

‘For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’

A close examination of Paul’s phrase ‘For I received from the Lord...’ suggests to me that he meant to say something original and not just to reproduce an often repeated story. When handing down church tradition transmitted to him by unknown people, such as Jesus’ alleged death, burial and later apparitions (1Cor 15:3-5), he prefaces his statement with ‘I deliver to you…. what I also received’. In the case of the eucharist, however, his source is said to be Jesus, which suggests that it was directly revealed to him. ‘I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you’.  If I am correct in interpreting this passage, an account that is many years prior to the synoptic gospels, it may be the case that Paul’s wording may be the primary source for the NT formulation of the establishment of the Eucharist.

Put another way, there is a good chance that the eucharistic interpretation of the communal meal of the church was due to Paul, and that the authors of Mark, Matthew and especially Luke (who follows Paul most closely), introduced it into their respective accounts in the synoptic gospels.

2) Significant further evidence concerning the ‘Lords Supper’ is to be found in ‘The Didache’.

I invite you to watch this video first. I do not agree with all the assertions by the presenter but his discussion of the Didache is valuable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pRbuKDJhzU4

The Didache is a brief early Christian treatise dated by most scholars from the mid to late first century (see Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church article Didache). Thus this text is either contemporary with or even predates much of the New Testament itself!

Interestingly the work was considered by some of the Church Fathers to be part of the New Testament. In chapters 9 & 10 the Didache basically describes the same ritual as the one that took place in Corinth. But with some significant differences. There is no reference to the redemptive death of Christ, or remembrance, as formulated by Paul in 1 Cor 11! Clearly there were 1st century Christians who had a quite different understanding of the Lord’s Supper than Paul.

3) A third piece of evidence is to be found in Acts 3:1,

‘One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer – at three in the afternoon.’

So according to Acts, the first disciples seem to have attended the Temple and to have participated in the Temple cult: the clear implication of Acts 3:1 is that the first followers of Jesus observed the traditional hours of prayer. The hour of prayer was also the hour of Sacrifice: Psalm 141: 2 and Luke 1:10 indicate that the offering of incense was seen as occasion for prayer, and the offering of incense was itself part of the morning and evening sacrificial ritual.  Also Acts 21:24 tells us that the Jerusalem believers expected Paul to demonstrate his loyalty to the Temple by observing the prescribed purificatory rituals. The implication is clear: that the Jerusalem followers did not regard Jesus’ alleged death as an atoning sacrifice, let alone as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Regarding the teaching of the other NT epistles I must confess to finding myself with a further problem. There are many good reasons for entertaining serious doubts about the authenticity of many letters attributed to Paul, John and Peter. Moderate mainstream biblical scholarship has serious reservations about the authenticity and apostolicity of 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Jude, 1,2, & 3 John, and 1&2 Peter. Many in the early church did not accept the authenticity of these books either (see Eusebius’ 4th century work Ecclesiastical History).

So, no one can say with any certainty what Peter and John and really thought on any given subject. Sadly we cannot rule out the possibly we are reading the words of a forgery. And forgeries (then as now) are deliberate intentions to deceive the readership. And who would wish to base their faith on carefully crafted deceptions?

Even the most respected conservative Evangelical NT scholars such as Michael Licona recently (and bravely) wrote

“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend”

Licona continued,

“there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).”

Then he goes on to say that

“Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins”

Licona’s assessment of the gospel’s genre is clearly based on a thorough acquaintance with the subject. For further scholarly analysis I recommend to Mr S Shamoun the standard critical introduction to the gospel’s genre:

What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography 

by Rev Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Kings College, London. Burridge would certainly agree with Licona’s conclusions.

In mentioning these serious problems, well known to mainstream scholars for over a century now, I do not intend to destroy the faith of Mr S Shamoun. No. I simply invite him to become acquainted with responsible (and mostly Christian!) New Testament scholarship. If he wishes to enter into the fascinating world of historical and literary scholarship he is welcome to view the Recommended Reading List on my blog for examples of standard undergraduate texts.

I am sure that if he chooses to take this step he will find the adventure liberating and disturbing but above all spiritually advantageous.

——————————————

A few words regarding Mr S Shamoun’s article:

Islam’s Morally Grotesque Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.

A verse of Quran says: ‘And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.  And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative.  You can only warn those who fear their Lord unseen and have established prayer.  And whoever purifies himself only purifies himself for [the benefit of] his soul.  And to God is the [final] destination’ (Surah Fatir 35:18)

The hadiths mentioned from Sahih Muslim basically mean: for every Muslim that is saved from hell BY ALLAH’s FORGIVENESS, there is a truth-rejecting Christian or Jew that will go to hell. There is no mention of atonement or substitution, merely a statement of proportionality. Consider: were these particular Kafir Jews and Christians going to heaven before sin-laden Muslims were saved from hell? The answer is No. As we all know, the heaven bound Jews and Christians are mentioned in the Quran, ‘Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good – they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve [on the day of judgement]‘. [5.69]

The only possible explanation for the hadith using the phrase ‘rescue’, would be in the figurative sense, in that when two people have been given the same job, and one person who did better than the other is saved, and the other is punished, it is as if one has ‘rescued’ the other from that punishment, even though each was judged on their own merits.

Finally, even if there exists any Sahih hadith (a narration whose narrators appear reliable) and whose interpretation is clear, but is not reconcilable with the Quran, the Islamic Scholars have agreed that it is thrown out of consideration. This is because the Islamic scholars of knowledge have consistently taught “Khabr ul Ahad la yufid ul ilm” – single chain narrations do not benefit [certain] knowledge. This is because the human transmission of them passes through too few narration chains to render them free from error. Hadith scholars automatically classify such hadith narrations as ‘Shadh’ (odd), and cannot be used for any creedal formulations in Islam (for more information, please refer to Imam Shafi’is book ‘Al-Risala’, chapter on ‘Khabr ul Wahid’ [Single chain narrations]).

Part 2 follows inshallah…


Strange reactions after the MDI debate on Salvation in Islam and Christianity

After the debate on Salvation in Christianity and Islam on 4th December  2011, we had received many positive responses from both Muslims and Christians who attended. We would like to thank all the attendees for coming and making the event friendly, open and illuminating.

After we released the video of the event, a few online Christian forums were discussing the event.  Most comments were positive, however we there were some very strange comments coming from the Facebook page of an obscure American Evangelical ‘apologist’ going by the name of Sam Shamoun. Enjoy.

Sam Shamoun

Hey folks here is a debate which every serious Christian apologist needs to listen to, especially to the Muslim speaker who was a former “born again” Christian. Are we ready to answer his use of the Holy Bible to refute what we believe?

Paul Billal Williams, a false Prophet who must be put to death?

Nanna Mae If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, And the sign or the wonder comes to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other elohim, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not harken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for Yahweh your Elohim proveth you, to know whether ye love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after Yahweh your Elohim, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from Yahweh your Elohim

The ‘Behara Code’ – the conspiracy theory that Islam was set up by an unhappy Monk – from ‘credible sources’

Lina Coptic This is a brief story of Islam, passed down to me from many generations of christian Arabs, for I too am a christian Arab. There was a christian monk named “Behera”. he preached false information and was exiled from the church. he sought revenge and so he went to his friend Muhammad and told him that they could start their own religion, wreak havoc on the christian church, and become powerful men at the same time. and this is why you find alot of Christian teachings in the quran.

Discouraging video

Tony Tanious discouraging video….what is the apologetic response to Matthew 18:23?

If we forgive other peoples  sins towards us, does it mean we will have to pay for those sins ourselves ‘out of our own pocket’? (furthermore, the parable of Matthew 18 :23 about pardoning debt, does not contain the word ‘ransom’).

Natalie Rahal I have an answer for Matthew 18 :23
It’s very simple actually.
The man was indebted to his master for a certain amount of money. But he was given pardon by his master, therefore the dept was already payed for from out of his own pocket. There WAS a ransom made. Because by definition, a ransom means for someone or something to be released by means of payment.

Paul Bilal Williams converted to Islam to gain the admiration of some Muslims??

Natalie Rahal

We shouldn’t let tricksters like Paul Bilal try to fool people. Both Muslims and Christians are being fooled. I don’t even think Paul Bilal is even a true Muslim , he is just trying to make a name for himself and enjoys being showered by Muslim admirations.

If Jesus is God, why does he need to be given authority? Ronald’s three questions…

Ronald Peter Sam, for my learning, would you please comment on the following arguments that Paul raised in this debate;

1) (Mark 2:5-12) why the scripture says, the Son of man has power “ON EARTH” to forgive sins? Jesus is God, He has divine powers and he can excercise that power anywhere regardless of location may it be heaven or Earth. Why is there emphasis on Earth?

2) Using the aforementioned passage, Paul argued that Jesus was “GIVEN” the authority to forgive sins if Jesus is God than He needs not to take the authority but excercise it as His right.

I have looked in parallel Bible KJV, NJV, NIV, NLT and did not find the word GIVEN that Paul refered to. I wonder what version he read this passage from?

Actually, if Ronald kept on reading it says in Matthew 9:

‘So he [Jesus] said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

It also is mentioned further on in the same gospel -

Matthew 28:18-19 (NIV)

‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’

Sam Shamoun

Hey guys, here is the second part of that Christ-Muslim debate. You have to hear the Muslim’s rebuttal since he brings up a lot of tough objections that Christians need to answer

Paul apparently has ‘messed up’ a lot of Christian minds…

Lina Coptic Sam can you please do a favor and make a video refuting Paul Bilal Williams ‘s statements!! he brought up many points that need to be refuted!!! and he probably messed up alot of Christian minds! CAN YOU!??


Part 2 of our MDI debate at London Central Mosque: Salvation in Christianity and Islam

Part 2 is now out. It records the rebuttals and the Q & A session.

It took place at the prestigious London Central Mosque on 4th December 2011.

Speakers:

Rev Dr Steve Latham, Director for Continuing Ministerial Development at Spurgeons College, London (a Christian Seminary)

Paul Williams, Director of Muslim Debate Initiative

In my view this was an excellent debate and showcased how MDI hosts, moderates and conducts its debates in a respectful and intellectually rigorous manner.


Upcoming Debate: As a Christian/Muslim, what would I like Muslims/Christians to know about my beliefs?

One of MDI’s speakers, Sami Zaatari, has been invited to speak at the University of London, SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) college. He will be making a joint presentation with Christian politician Alan Craig on what members of the Muslim/Christian communities should know about the other’s beliefs.

MDI are awaiting on confirmation of rooms – and will release them in due course.

If you are available to attend on Friday, please come to Russel Square station by London Underground, the university is just a 5 minute walk from there.

Speakers:

Alan Craig, Head of Christian People’s Alliance Party

Sami Zaatari, Muslim Debate Initiative

Time

Friday 09 December : 17:30 – 19:00

Location

SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), Thornhaugh Street  Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG

Room:

TBC


London Central Mosque Debate: Salvation in Christianity and Islam

How are we saved? How does God save mankind from the consequences of their evils acts? Can we ever be forgiven? How do we obtain this forgiveness from God? Do we need the sacrifice of Jesus, or is striving in good actions with repentance enough? What faith do we need? Did Jesus teach atonement of our sins through his blood, or by faith and good actions alone?

It took place at the prestigious London Central Mosque on 4th December 2011.

Speakers:

Rev Dr Steve Latham, Director for Continuing Ministerial Development at Spurgeons College, London (a Christian Seminary)

Paul Williams, Director of Muslim Debate Initiative

In our view this was an excellent debate and again, showcased how MDI hosts, moderates and conducts its debates in a respectful and intellectually rigorous manner.

Here is Part 1  film of my debate with the pastor of the Church where Paul Williams became a born-again Evangelical Christian.

It took place at the prestigious London Central Mosque on 4th December 2011. We discussed the following questions (and a lot more!)

Part 2 records the rebuttals and the Q & A session.


MDI Debate: “Salvation in Christianity and Islam”


How are we saved? How does God save mankind from the consequences of their evils acts? Can we ever be forgiven? How do we obtain this forgiveness from God? Do we need the sacrifice of Jesus, or is striving in good actions with repentance enough? What faith do we need? Did Jesus (pbuh) teach atonement of sins through his blood, or by faith and good actions alone? Come see the exciting and fascinating discussion on Salvation in Christianity and Islam between two well seasoned experts and public speakers, debating in London Central Mosque (Regents Park Mosque).

Speakers:

Rev. Dr Steve Latham, Director for Continuing Ministerial Development at Spurgeons College, London (Christian Seminary)

Paul ‘Bilal’ Williams, Director of Muslim Debate Initiative

Time

Sunday 04 December : 15:00 – 18:00

Location

The Islamic Cultural Centre and The London Central Mosque

146 Park Road,

London, United Kingdom, NW8 7RG

Room:

Regents Park Mosque Library, 1st floor

Nearest underground station: Baker Street


Upcoming Debate: “Incarnate God or human Prophet? A debate on the nature of Jesus”

The next generation of Muslim / Christian speakers debate, at the University of Sussex, the question “Incarnate God or human Prophet? A debate on the nature of Jesus”

Organised by the University of Sussex Student Union and Islamic Society.

Speakers:

Michael Dantzie – Preaching Place: Final Messengers Ministries

Sami Zaatari – Muslim Debate Initiative

Time: 10 November · 18:30 – 20:30
Location:
Room A
Fulton Building
University of Sussex


Can God become a man?: A Christian/Muslim Dialogue – Australia

We are happy to announce that our MDI branch in Australia will be taking part in a public event on October 17th, the event will feature MDI speaker Abdullah Kunde, and Dr. James White of Alpha Omega Ministries. Full details of the event, timing, and location can be found on the following link: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4783


MDI Event in Australia: Can God become a man?

We are happy to announce that our MDI branch in Australia will be taking part in a public event on October 17th, the event will feature MDI speaker Abdullah Kunde, and Dr. James White of Alpha Omega Ministries. Full details of the event, timing, and location can be found on the following link:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4783

 


Is God selfish? A Christian-Muslim debate at Speakers Corner


How Can We find Forgiveness From a Holy God?

2011 Dubai Muslim-Christian Dialogue

All 6 videos are a must see.

Debate features Muslim Apologist, Bassam Zawadi in discussion with Christian speaker Thabiti Anyabwile. This dialogue was held on March 6, 2011 with speakers Thabiti Anyabwile and Bassam Zawadi. It took place in Knowledge Village Auditorium in Dubai, UAE and was sponsored by GDS Knowledge Consultants and The Christian Fellowship Club of University of Wollongong in Dubai.

MDI praises such debates as these, not just for the discussion topic, but also because it demonstrates that intellectual debate between different religions (which would involve criticism of Islam by non-Muslims) is not only exclusive to the Western world, and never has been. Muslims have been holding debates such as these for the last 1400 years, from the time of the Christians of Najran criticising Islam freely in the Prophet Muhammed (saaw)’s mosque (in the presence of Muhammed himself), to the famous public debates of Baghdad  between Atheists, Christians and Muslims throughout the middle ages.


Debate: Jesus or Muhammed – which one is the better role model for society today?

Topic: Jesus or Muhammed – which one is the better role model for society today?

Venue: Kingston University, London, UK

Date: 3rd  March 2011


Debate: Tawheed or Trinity: What is the nature of God?

This event will give the primary speakers an opportunity to present on the major difference between the two largest Abrahamic faiths. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Islamic fundamental of Tawheed (Indivisible Divine Unity) will be each illustrated and discussed with an opportunity for audience questions and answers at the conclusion of each speaker’s presentations.

Speakers:

Samuel Green – Works for the Australian Federation of Evangelical Students in a chaplaincy role at the University of Tasmania. He has been active in Christian apologetics for some time, in particular apologetics pertaining to Islam. He has developed a training course for Christians interested in ministering to Muslims, entitled ‘Engaging With Islam’ http://www.engaging-with-islam.info/. He has also contributed significa……ntly to the anti-Islam apologetics websites Answering Islam and Answering Muslims http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/index.htm. He has previously undertaken several formal debates against Muslims, including Abdullah Kunde and Beylal Racheha.

Abdullah Kunde – Is a medical student completing coursework at Liverpool Hospital. He is currently studying Islam in Sydney and has previously completed Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish studies at university. He has participated in several formal debates against Christians, including Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, two of which have been broadcast worldwide on an Arab Christian satellite television channel. Abdullah Kunde is a member of the MDI platform in Australia.

Presented by: SUMSA, UWSMS, UWSMSA, MUMSA, Campbelltown MS and UTSMS


Answering Common Questions on Salvation That Christians Pose to Muslims

Here’s a new article by Bassam Zawadi Mansur Ahmed from the excellent site call to monotheism

If it’s not the concept of God Himself that is the major dividing line between Muslims and Christians, then it is definitely the way to attain salvation.

There are nine common questions that Christians usually pose to Muslims regarding the concept of salvation in Islam and we will attempt to briefly address them here in this article.

1) Islam teaches that Allah’s will is arbitrary. He can forgive whomever He wills according to the Qur’an. If Allah can forgive you without punishing you, how does Allah balance between mercy and justice when granting or denying salvation to people? In Christianity, God has punished all sin so we don’t have to worry about this.

Islam does not teach that Allah’s Will is arbitrary. In fact, Allah’s Will is exercised or expressed in accordance to His Divine nature and Wisdom. Sin is not a thing – that exists by itself independent of volitional actors – which needs punishing when committed. A woman is not sin, neither are our eyes, or our hearts. But the action of the eye or the heart when looking at a woman with lust is a sin. Sin does not exist as an entity – wrongly conceived in Christianity – which you can punish. Punishing the actors of sin has a meaning and not punishing the sin.

We do not believe that Allah needs to express both His Mercy and Justice on every individual at the same time at all times. His Justice is carried out on every individual in perfect wisdom. No one will be wronged, for everyone gets their due (as good and bad is explained through the prophets and messengers at all times in human history). Any good one has done or any bad one has done – be they small or big – will be accounted for. That’s the Justice of God.

His Mercy however, though in a general sense is open to all in this life (as understood from His name Al-Rahman). The Qur’an states:

Surah 3:31

Say (Oh Muhammad): If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

Here we see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is commanded to tell the people that they must follow his guidance, which was revealed to him by Allah in order to receive Allah’s love. Allah says:

Surah 21:107

And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.

So here we see that Allah is offering His love and mercy to everyone in the form of Islam. If one rejects Islam then he or she is rejecting Allah’s offer of love in turn. It’s not an issue of Allah not wanting to love the person, but an issue of the person not allowing Allah’s love to reach him.

Allah has declared to humanity about His nature:

Surah 7:156

My Mercy encompasses all things

Surah 6:12

He has taken it upon Himself to be Merciful

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

When Allah created the creation He put down in his Book, which is with Him upon the Throne: Verily, My mercy prevails over My wrath. (Sahih Muslim 4939)

He has however, in a specific sense, reserved the abundant mercy (Surah 7:156) for the believers in the hereafter (as understood from His name Al-Raheem).

God by taking on to Himself to be Merciful, which prevails over His wrath (i.e. punishing through Justice) has told us how He expresses these two apparently contradictory attributes. His attributes therefore are complimentary.

There are two kinds of sins that could occur. One is sin against God and the other is sin against creation. If we sin against God, it is entirely within God’s prerogative to forgive us. If we sin against humanity more than one thing could occur. 1) He whom I sinned against could forgive me for my crime or 2) God could forgive me for my crime and then recompense the victim in order to ensure overall justice.

Furthermore, God could punish me in this life for my crimes without punishing me in hell. For example, he could punish me with trials in this life. He could punish me in the grave. He could punish me and wipe out my sins by making me feel pain when the angel of death is pulling out my soul. He could temporarily punish me in hell for any sins that I committed.

This doesn’t contradict God being All Merciful. We don’t define All Just and All Merciful as meaning that God should be fully just and fully merciful with a human being at all given times. Surely, Muslims and Christians alike would agree that God won’t be merciful to the disbelievers on the Day of Judgment for instance. Rather, when we say that God is All Merciful or All Just we mean to say that His ability to exercise these two attributes is infinitely vast, but whether He decides to exercise them is entirely up to His will that is in accordance with His nature.

Also, we should bear in mind that Justice does not always denote vengeance or punishment. Sometimes forgiveness and display of mercy could be an act of justice. Allah’s forgiving someone for a sin without punishing him for it does not mean that Allah compromised His Justice. Human beings are created weak and are meant to fall into sin from time to time. There is no reason to believe that we deserve to be punished for every single thing that we do. We will expand more on this point below.

2) You Muslims aren’t even sure whether you have attained salvation. For crying out loud, Muhammad himself wasn’t sure if he would go to heaven according to an authentic hadeeth, so how could you be!?

It is not correct that Muslims aren’t sure whether they have attained salvation or not. Muslims have a guarantee of salvation and Promise from God to that matter.

Allah states:

Surah 9:72

Allah has promised to the believers -men and women, – Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of ‘Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.

Allah also states:

Surah 3:9

Verily, Allah never breaks His Promise

Now if you ask the Muslim “are you going to paradise?” he is going to say to you “if Allah wills” (insha’allah). The well informed Muslim is not going to tell you “Yes I am going paradise for sure.” No, the Muslim hopes and prays that he will end up in paradise. It’s not because the Muslim is worried whether Allah will keep His promise, for as we have seen Allah does not break His promise. Rather, it is because the Muslim cannot be sure whether he would continue remaining on the straight path and die as a Muslim and the guarantee or promise of salvation is conditional in remaining and dying as a Muslim.

As for Christians, well there is no consensus regarding this matter.

If you are a Calvinist you would adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of saints, which basically states that once you’re saved, you’re always saved. Once the Holy Spirit dwells in you it will never leave you. But if you happen to be following the Arminian school of thought you would take a different stance and take a position similar to what Muslims take, which is the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and it is possible for one to lose that status.

One verse that Christians who adhere to the conditional preservation of saints often appeal to is the following:

Hebrews 6:4-8

“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”

The above verse according to Arminians clearly shows that the Holy Spirit could possibly leave even after it has dwelt in you.

They also appeal to the various verses in the Bible that warn believers about apostasy (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:1 and several other verses in the book Hebrews) and then ask why the New Testament would warn against something that isn’t even possible?

Also, Paul is reported to have said:

1 Corinthians 15:2

“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

Paul is putting on a condition for one to be saved by the Gospel. That condition is that one holds firmly onto it. Clearly there is no point for saying such a thing if it is not possible for a true believer to let go of it. If the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints were true then it would have been enough for Paul to say (or something similar):

“By this gospel you are saved, once you have firmly embraced the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

According to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints once one has become truly regenerate, he will never apostatize. Once he has embraced the gospel he will never let go of it. There is no “ifs” about the matter. However, Paul’s statement fits perfectly well with the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and that is the condition that Paul put:

if you hold firmly to the word.

These verses point to the apostasy and since apostasy is at least possible, then how could one be 100% sure that he wouldn’t apostatize in the future? Obviously, Calvinists would try to engage with these verses so we will allow the Christians to have their own “in house” debates on the side and they could try to settle the issue amongst themselves.

Uncertainty is a motivational factor to make you word harder in being a better person. Imagine you join a university and you are absolutely guaranteed that you would pass all your subjects no matter what you do. It would make no difference whatsoever if you study or not, you are still guaranteed your degree. If that is the case, would any students study just for the sake of studying? Not too many we suppose.

If someone claims certainty that he will go to heaven then this could lead to some problems. For example if you are absolutely certain that you are going to paradise why should you fear God? The New Testament states:

1 Peter 2:17

Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Why should we fear God if we know for a fact that we are going to paradise? Why should we fear God anyways? Well the Bible states:

Exodus 20:20

Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

So here we see that the reason why we should fear God is so that it could be a motivation for us to stop sinning. Well why should we stop sinning? Well it’s to avoid God’s wrath. But if the Christian already avoids God’s wrath by believing in and accepting what Jesus supposedly did on the cross then the Christian doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore. And if he doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore because he is certain that he is going to paradise then why fear God as the New Testament instructs him to do?

As for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) supposedly not being assured of his salvation, this has already been addressed over here.

3) The Qu’ran says that Allah is a deceiver, how can you trust a deceiver when he promises you something? Even Muhammad’s close companion Abu Bakr said he wasn’t sure about going to heaven because he doesn’t feel safe from the deception of Allah.

Allah in His wisdom throws back the deception at the deceiving unbeliever. The word ‘makr’ for example, according to classical Arabic dictionaries can have meaning of praise or blame depending on its usage in context. Breaking the deceivers plot is not to be taken as a blameworthy action, but it is on the contrary a praiseworthy action.

Such language is also present in the Bible (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:11) where God sends a lying spirit so they can believe in the lie in the spirit of outperforming the evil ones in their own evil plot.

As for the narration of Abu Bakr, this narration has not been proven to be authentic and even if it was Abu Bakr’s statement it is to be interpreted as him speaking out of humility.

4) Islam teaches that salvation is dependent upon the scales and whether your good deeds would outweigh the bad. How do you know what your scales would say on the Day of Judgment? Do you have some kind of notebook where you keep track of your actions or something? How about if you forgot to repent from a sin?

The weightiest deed on the Day of Judgment is ‘laa ilaaha illallaah’ the declaration of faith in Islam. This is both a faith and deed which is described as the key to entering paradise. No other bad deed can outweigh this one on the scales (except Shirk- which negates faith anyway if it’s not repented of before death).

All our actions are recorded – the good and the bad even if they are like the size of a mustard seed -, by the angels who are placed as scribes (Surah 82:10-13). A book that records everything from small to large where everything is accounted for (Surah 42:18)

As for possibly forgetting to repent for a sin, the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught us to make a prayer asking Allah to forgive us all of our sins while acknowledging that Allah knows better about them than us:

O Allah, forgive my sin, my ignorance, my immoderation in my affairs, and all that You know better about my (faults) than myself. O Allah, forgive for me my joking, my seriousness, my unintended error, and my deliberate (mistakes) — and I have done of all that.) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Secondly, Allah said that He will not hold us accountable for what we forgot:

Surah 2:286

Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope. He gets reward for that (good) which he has earned, and he is punished for that (evil) which he has earned. “Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error, our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which You did lay on those before us (Jews and Christians); our Lord! Put not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Pardon us and grant us Forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are our Maula (Patron, Supporter and Protector, etc.) and give us victory over the disbelieving people.”

5) Since Allah’s will and judgment are arbitrary, how do you know if Allah forgave your sins?

Allah’s will and His attributes are not arbitrary as explained before. His justice is such that no one will be wronged unjustly on the Day of Judgment (Surah 42:18). His Grace, love and forgiveness will be showered on the Day of Judgment upon those who showed to be the recipient of His Grace. People will go to Hell due to His Justice and to heaven by His Grace. Allah has described, unlike being anything arbitrary, that to receive His Grace, Mercy and forgiveness – one needs to follow the prophetic guidance and obey Him(Surah 3:31; 3:132). So if one has the correct faith in Allahand follows His will, now offered as Islam, and sincerely repents for his shortcomings/sins, Allah will surely forgive him (Surah 15:49; 40:2; 20:82)

6) How could Muslims believe that finite works could “earn” them paradise and please God? God is too great for that and requires something more and that thing is the acceptance of God’s sacrifice for us.

Islam makes it clear that one will enter paradise based on his faith and good works. Allah says:

Surah 2:25

And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise).

Without faith, Allah will not accept those good deeds that one has done as He states in Surah 9, verse 17.

When Islam says that one must have faith, one must have faith in six specific things.

1) Belief in Allah as the only true God

2) Belief in the angels

3) Belief in all the revelations that God has sent

4) Belief in all the of the Messengers that God has sent

5) Belief in the Day of Judgment

6) Belief in predestination.

It is essential that the Muslim believes in all six of these things in order to make sure that his or her heart is purified because Allah says:

Surah 26: 88-89

The Day where neither wealth nor sons will avail. Except him who brings to Allâh a clean heart [clean from Shirk (polytheism) and Nifâq (hypocrisy)].

Also, the Muslim must recognize and be aware that it is ultimately only by Allah’s mercy that one will enter paradise:

Sahih al-Bukhari

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 474

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

“Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one’s good deeds will NOT make him enter Paradise.” They asked, “Even you, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on me.”

So here we see that it’s not by one’s good deeds that one will enter paradise but by Allah’s Mercy. However, Allah has commanded us to do good deeds and we would not be recipient of His mercy unless we obey His commands.

Now when it comes to Christianity there doesn’t seem to be a consensus amongst Christians regarding this crucial point. The Roman Catholics would say like what the Muslims say and that is that salvation is achieved by both faith and works. However, the Protestants take a different stance and say that salvation is only attained by faith alone and that this is the kind of faith that manifests itself and bears the fruit of good works.

We personally tend to agree more with the Roman Catholics on this point, since it appears that the Old Testament, the Biblical Jesus and his half brother James believed and taught such a doctrine as the following verses below illustrate:

Ezekiel 18:21-22
21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.

22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will

Matthew 19:16-21

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17″Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

18″Which ones?” the man inquired.

Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]“

20″All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

James 2:20-26

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar states the harmony between faith and good works in the process of salvation:

Paradise is something of immense value; a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah. Muslim reported from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah said:

“No one of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone.” They asked, “Not even me, unless Allah covers me with His Grace and Mercy. (Muslim, 4/2170, hadith no. 2816)

The fact that some texts indicate that Paradise is the price for the deeds could be problematic, for example:

{No person knows what is kept hidden for them of joy as a reward for what they used to do.} (Qur’an 32:17)

{such are the dwellers of Paradise. They will abide therein.} (Qur’an 7:43)

However, there is no conflict between these aayaat (verses) and the meaning of the hadith. The aayaat indicate that good deeds will be a reason, not the price, for admission to Paradise. The hadith says that good deeds are not the price for admission. Two groups were misled in this matter: the Jabariyah, who took the hadith to mean that the reward is not connected to deeds, because man has nothing to do with his deeds [i.e. everything is foreordained]; and the Qadariyah, who took the hadith to mean that Paradise was the price for good deeds, and man has the right to enter by virtue of his good deeds.

The commentator on At-Tahaawiyah said: “As for the idea that recompense results directly from one’s deeds, the Jabariyah and Qadariyah are misled, and Allah, to Whom be praise, has guided Ahl as-Sunnah. The Arabic preposition ba’ of negation (nafyi) is not like the ba’ used for affirmation. The negation in the hadith “No one will enter Paradise by virtue of his deeds (bi ‘amaalihi) is the ba’ of substitution or exchange, as if good deeds were not the price of a man’s admission to Paradise. This is like the (false) Mu’tazili claim that good deeds will give a person the right to enter Paradise, whereas the truth is that admission to Paradise is by the Grace and Mercy of Allah. The bi’ in the ayah, {. a reward for what they used to do [Jaza'an bi maa kaanu ya'maloon].} (Qur’an 32:17) is known in Arabic grammar as the bi’ of causation, i.e. because of their deeds. But Allah is the Creator of cause and effect, so everything is referred back to His Grace and Mercy.” (Sharh at-Tahaawiyah, 495.) (Umar Al Ashqar, Islamic Creed Series, Volume 5: Paradise and Hell in Light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, pages 265-266)

7) The Qu’ran says that Allah “misguides people” and “hardens their hearts”. This shows that several people end up in hell and lose salvation because Allah made that to be the case. What kind of hope for salvation does Islam offer us when Allah could end up hindering us from attaining it?

One can refer to this article for a fuller explanation http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/what does it mean that allah guides whom he wills and misguides whom he wills

It is not that He ‘misguides’ them, but rather leaves them astray even after reminding them. This is because they chose misguidance over His guidance. There are some who have become oblivious to the guidance due to their own making, and no advice or warning benefits them. They have chosen to seal their own hearts from guidance. This is from the foreknowledge of God. It is not Allah who hinders us from attaining salvation; neither is it He who has made us like that.

In the Bible, God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. God declares:

Exodus 4:21

I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will not let the people go.

But if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then Pharaoh cannot be held morally responsible for his actions, since he did not do it of his own free will, but out of constraint (cf. 2 Cor. 9:7 ; 1 Peter 5:2 ). Why did he harden Pharaoh’s heart so he would reject God’s will? If God is just, why blame Pharaoh for his sin when it was God who hardened his heart to sin?

Paul says:

God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden (Rom.9:18-19 )

We see that the Bible contains similar apparently problematic passages. The question we would like answered is why Christians are applying double standards when critiquing Islam?

The concept of salvation straight from the time of Adam involved blood sacrifice, yet Islam mentions nothing about this. Islam’s concept of salvation contradicts that of the previous prophets.

Blood sacrifice was not the only way of atonement. Three different methods of atonement are identified in the Hebrew Bible: animal sacrifices, contrite repentance & prayer, and charitable deeds. For a fuller explanation please read: Blood Sacrifice by Messiah Truth Out Reach and Jews for Judaism.doc.

9) Can you perfectly obey God’s law? No you cannot, so why do you deserve going to paradise? Shouldn’t Allah be All-Just and only accepting perfection?

For starters the question is a straw man. Islam does not expect Muslims to perfectly follow each Islamic ruling or law. Secondly, the question seems to demand perfection, yet God did not create us perfect, God created us with free will, and knew that we would fall sometimes, so you can’t demand perfection when you haven’t been created to be capable of being a perfect saint. Thirdly, in Islam God expects us to sin, because when we sin we turn back to God in repentance. In essence this is a way to open up a relationship with God! In Islam God expects you to fall, but it’s about picking yourself up, learning from your mistakes, and moving on. Fourthly, not all Muslims will automatically go to heaven, many will go to hell where they will be cleansed of their sins, as for Muslims who do go straight to heaven, they will be punished in this life as a way to get rid of that sin, as the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught, punishments in this life is a form of taking the sin away and being saved in the hereafter. Fifthly, let us use some logic and rationality as God would want us to, saying a bad word is a sin, punching someone is a sin, etc., yet these are minor sins at most, do you really expect God to send you to hell for eternity for such a small sin? God never created us with the intention of being perfect, hence to assume perfection is a straw man, a straw man Christians can’t impose on us as Muslims.

Allah said:

Surah 16:61

And if Allâh were to seize mankind for their wrongdoing, He would not leave on it (the earth) a single moving (living) creature

Thus, anyone who invokes Allah for His Wrath against his own self will be taking foolishness as their way. Those who have sane minds, in contrast, invoke Allah for His Mercy and only invoke Him for His Wrath with their enemies. This is because Allah’s Mercy encompasses everything:

Surah 7:156

(As to) My punishment I afflict therewith whom I will and My Mercy embraces all things. That (Mercy) I shall ordain for those who are the Muttaqûn (the pious), and give Zakât; and those who believe in Our Ayât (revelations,

Allah does not require anyone to perfectly fulfill His commandments, but to be as righteous as they humanly can:

Surah 2:256

Allâh burdens not a person beyond his scope

Surah 64:16

So keep your duty to Allâh and fear Him as much as you can

Thus, Allah shows His Kindness to His creation that He treats them with His Mercy. How can this be a source of criticism? We thank Allah that He treats us with His Mercy, that He only requires us to do what we can in return for His Promise of Paradise, {(Allah said) eat of the Tayyibât (good lawful things) wherewith We have provided you, and commit no transgression or oppression therein, lest My Anger should justly descend on you. And he on whom My Anger descends, he is indeed perished. And verily, I am indeed forgiving to him who repents, believes (in My Oneness, and associates none in worship with Me) and does righteous good deeds, and then remains constant in doing them (until his death).} (Surah 20:81-82)

We reiterate the point that display of Mercy does not necessarily contradict the notion of being Just. Justice does not equal revenge. Justice equals fairness. Allah could forgive someone fairly without punishing him because that person repented from his sin sincerely and was too weak by his own nature to resist committing it. We are not saying that the weakness of humans justifies their committing sins. There are minor and major sins and there usually aren’t any good excuses for one to commit major sins. Also, it depends on how frequent one is sinning. But what matters the most is how the person picks himself up after sinning. That would determine how Allah would deal with such a person. Whether Allah chooses to forgive or punish, at the end no matter what He does He is being fair.

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com


Debate: “Does science really lead to atheism?”

MDI proudly presents our hosted debate titled “Does science really lead to atheism?”

The Debate was host by the Surrey University Islamic Society, in cooperation with MDI. The event took place on 12th November 2010, at the Surrey University, England, London.


Muslim review of Bassam Zawadi vs. Tony Costa

ON-THE-SITE REVIEW OF BASSAM ZAWADI VS. TONY COSTA

“Was the Prophet assured of his salvation?”
by Abu Yasin al-Kanadi

I attended this highly-anticipated debate yesterday in Toronto and enjoyed it immensely. I will not be going into a nitty-gritty detail of the points since I have not reviewed the recording yet, but will share my initial impressions from my memory of the debate last night. First, a sincere congratulations to both debaters for showing the rest of us here on the Internet and the PalTalk universe that such a debate can be carried out in a civil and respectful manner. Even a provocative debate title such as this one– “Was the Prophet Muhammad assured of his salvation?”– can be handled with tact and restraint when it involves two gentlemen on both sides. Also a quick word in response to what we can expect to see on David Wood and Sam Shamoun’s websites: One brother once put it best to me when he said that, no matter how well a Muslim debater actually does, all you really get on Wood and Shamoun’s hate-blogs from the majority of like-minded Christian reviewers is about how the Christian debater “cleaned the floor” with the Muslim debater. Notice that the two Christians who were actually present at the debate and who have thus far posted some comments on Wood’s blog have not even made such a claim (although I am sure that such claims will eventually follow).

Now as for the debate– the truth of it, that is– Bassam proved his case quite well. Only brainwashed evangelicals who have as their starting premise that everything that touches the Prophet Muhammad turns dark and evil or who are simply too intellectually inept to grasp Bassam’s arguments in the first place would feel otherwise. Bassam clearly demonstrated that the only way that Tony can prove that the Prophet was uncertain of his salvation is by rejecting hadiths and calling upon Muslims to do the same. In other words, he is basically asking Muslims to change their religion (not because he has proven anything false, but simply because it is convenient for him to ask us to), since orthodox Sunni Islam includes the use of authenticated hadiths. Bassam made it very, very clear that Tony was using double-standards throughout the debate in regards to this issue.

Even in regards to the Qur’an, Bassam gave lexicon and tafsir references to show that “`asaa” (translated as “may” in most English translations) can mean several things depending on the context, and that in reference to the forgiveness of the Prophets “sins” mentioned in the Qur’an it actually means “definitely”. He also, for the benefit of the English speaking audience, demonstrated how the English word “may” can likewise in certain contexts imply certainty and not uncertainty; for example, “Let’s sign the contract so that we may do business together.” There is no uncertainty that the carrying on of business will follow the signing of the contract. Tony completely glossed over this response of Bassam’s and kept on repeating that his translations of the Qur’anic word have it stated as “may”, and therefore the Qur’an only says that Allah may forgive the Prophet’s sins but that there is no certainty given here. So basically, this exposes not only Tony’s ignorance of the Arabic language but also his inability to either understand or concede to Bassam’s greater research and expertise in this matter, which would have been the more honest and academic thing to do. Being a specialist in the Greek of the New Testament, one would expect Tony to better appreciate the flexibility and nuances of an ancient language and the need for recourse to classical lexicons and not only Penguin paperback translations from Indigo’s. His failure (from memory) to even address Bassam’s English example arguably also demonstrates Tony’s inability to fully understand English, a charge that we are more used to hearing from the opposite side!

Again, Tony’s standards were completely inconsistent. He deduces from the fact that the Prophet feared what Allah would do with him the idea that the Prophet was afraid that he might go to hell. Bassam explained that the Prophet could still fear Allah for other valid reasons, even if he knows that he is saved; for example, he might fear difficult trials and punishments that await him (as with all prophets), a painful death, etc. Tony did not once directly address this response of Bassam’s. For Tony, acting with “anxiety” and fear automatically equals the fear of going to hell; one wonders if he is simply projecting his own honest and innermost soteriological doubts and fears unto the Prophet of Islam. The double standard of course lies in the fact that Jesus was sweating with fear in the Garden of Gethsemene and prayed to God for deliverance from death. Does this mean that Jesus was uncertain of his salvation or of God’s plan for him? Did Jesus perhaps fear hell or the deception or treachery of God the Father? The typical Christian answer would be: “No, of course not! He knew all along what God’s plan was and that God’s plan is good. This incident only demonstrates Jesus’ HUMANITY.” Well why can’t the same thing be said for the Prophet?

Why can’t the Prophet simply be allowed to be a human being who feared what God would do with him (in this life) and feel uncertain about life’s trials and tribulations which surely await any bona fide prophet of the Lord? Even a so-called “saved” Christian will try to avoid pain and death by wearing a seat-belt in the car, looking both ways before crossing the street, wearing a helmet while bicycling, etc. Does the attempt of a “saved” Christian who has cancer to seek treatment through chemotherapy undermine or expose his faith in his salvation as being false? Why are millions of “saved” Christians in the Bible-belt in the U.S. registered gun and rifle owners if not out of some type of anxiety or fear? Either it’s love of violence or fear, or both. We could go on and on with such examples. But none of these questions or examples directly address the question of whether a Christian is “saved” or not, or even whether he feels saved or not. Similarly, several of the hadiths that Tony quoted about the Prophet exhibiting some type of general fear of God and the future were actually irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. Bassam even tried to help Tony along by asking him the more specific question, “Can you give a reference showing where the Prophet feared hell?” Not surprisingly, Tony could not provide anything except an ad infinitum repetition of his previous points.

Tony also alleged that the Prophet asking for God’s forgiveness 70-100 times a day demonstrates that he was not forgiven. Yet Tony was asked during the Q & A if he (Tony) was saved and, if yes, does he still repent to God or ask God for forgiveness. Tony answered YES to both questions. Does Tony’s continued repenting to God undermine his claim of being “saved”? If both realities and experiences can go hand in hand for Tony, why can’t they go hand in hand for the Prophet Muhammad? I think Bassam should have hammered in this point much more. Nonetheless, the point was made clear through the questioning itself (the question was repeated by a 2nd questioner, illustrating Tony’s inability to satisfactorily address this question in the first instance).

Tony tried to justify his brushing off of hadiths by saying that Muslims do not always agree with them and that Sunnis and Shias cannot agree on the same hadiths, a red herring that I suspect Bassam saw coming from a few Canadian kilometres away. Bassam correctly pointed out Tony’s inconsistency on this because Tony himself had used hadiths elsewhere in his presentation to try to make his case stronger. Why then was he brushing off all the hadiths that Bassam quoted instead of trying to rationally tackle them? What Bassam could have also mentioned here is that there are dozens of gospels in existence but it is reasonable to quote only from the “canonical” gospels in a debate setting with Christians. Similarly, if you are debating a Sunni Muslim, it is rather reasonable to quote from their “canonical” or authenticated hadith collection. If there is a mutawaatir hadith that is accepted all across the board by the world’s Sunni Muslims, that is a legitimate source of information to be used in such a debate. Let’s not re-invent the rules at the 11th hour. I think Tony can probably get a lesson on hadiths from Wood and Shamoun on this particular point; perhaps they can hammer the point to him better than Bassam did. Unfortunately, however, they will not be left with much of a case on this particular topic if they were to do this.

I was a bit iffy about Bassam’s classification of hadiths as “scripture”, however, and wondered if that might be going a bit far, although I did see Bassam’s point and, for the purpose of this debate, the basic point being made is valid. Perhaps it would have been sufficient to state that the hadiths occupy the same level of religious importance to Muslims as the gospels do to Christians. If Christians believe that the gospels are “inspired” words that accurately relay information about Jesus, Muslims believe the same about the hadiths, regardless of the technical semantics involved. So Bassam’s categorization of hadiths as “scripture” required a few short sentences of justification. Nonetheless, we don’t expect to be told by Christians that we shouldn’t use hadiths. Limiting the Islamic side to only using the Qur’an is like limiting the Christian side to only using the Commandments pronounced by Yahweh in the Old Testament (which would incidentally leave the Christian with only the most concentrated form of anxiety and fear!)

If Tony is satisfied with his inconsistent measuring sticks and is unable (or unwilling) to grasp Bassam’s responses (some examples of which are outlined above, and which Tony totally glossed over), then I don’t expect his entourage and other evangelical fans on the “exposing Islam”-type websites to fare much better; it is rather predictable and cliched that some individuals from that camp would pronounce that Tony “proved his case” and that Bassam, like the rest of the Muslim debaters in the West, is good “but not good enough.”

As one of the posts on Wood’s blog quite correctly stated, Bassam is part of the cream of the crop of a very small number of competent Muslim debaters (in the English-speaking arena anyways) and Tony is part of the cream of the crop of a rather large number of Christian ones. Looking at the result of the debate objectively, then, which did clearly weigh in in Bassam’s favour, I think it’s rather clear where the Truth lies. In the case of last night’s debate, the truth did set the Prophet free.


Debate: Islam or Christianity – Which religion can bring peace for today?

Debate: Islam or Christianity – Which religion can bring peace for today?

Which is the true religion of peace for the world today – Islam or Christianity?

Date: 26th March 2010

Venue: Kingston College, University of London
Debate
Speakers:

Reverend Jay Smith
Abdullah al Andalusi


Debate: Women in Marriage: In the Quran and the Bible

MDI proudly presents the debate “ Women & Marriage in the Quran and the Bible ”

Speakers are:

Dr Tabassum Hussain – MDI Visiting speaker from Canada, experienced apologist and speaker on Biblical criticism and Women in Islamic Law.

Beth Grove – Member of CCi (Christians Confronting Islam), public speaker and experienced apologist in Evangelical ministries.

Hosted by MDI:  5th March , 2010

Venue: WestBourne Park Baptist Church, Porchester Road, London

Session was co-moderated by Abdullah Andalusi and co-moderator from
CCi.


Debate: The Big Trinity Debate – Examining Islamic Contentions to Christian Theology

MDI proudly presents the debate “ The Big Trinity Debate – Examining Islamic Contentions to Christian Theology”

Speakers are: Dr James White, and Abdullah al Andalusi.

Debate was held on 22nd February 2010, at the Trinity road Chapel, London.

Part 1 – Opening Statements

Part 2 – Rebuttals

Part 3 – Conclusion


“Does Islam oppress women?” Debate Dr Nazreen Nawaz v Sue Mayer

The current debate on women’s rights has until now been predominantly shaped by its progress in the west. The treatment of women in any society has become, without doubt, a key marker in evaluating its progress. The accepted framework of the debate on women’s rights has centred on the need for ‘equality’. After a century of struggle, many had thought that the glass ceilings have been shattered and there is no impediment to progression whatever your gender. But research from The UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, paints a damning picture of daily life for women living in the UK who continue to fight for a fairer deal in society.

This is a non-MDI event, but we felt that it was a robust and high quality discussion. We hope you enjoy it.

Speaker List:

Dr Nazreen Nawaz,
Islamic Speaker,
Freelance Writer and Author

Sue Mayer,
Feminist Speaker,
Freelance Writer and Author

Date: 17 February 2010

Venue: Queen Mary University, London


Muslims debate the BNP: Islamification of Britain: Myth or Reality?

At long last we have the full unabridged Muslim Debate Initiative debate from December 2009. I chair and moderate this event and open with a brief speech about how I came to embrace Islam.  I believe this was the first time in the UK that Muslims had debated the British National Party. The event was reported around the world by CNN, the BBC Arabic Service and Press TV (amongst others).

Pre-event Media Coverage

Video of the Debate

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Media Coverage:

Press TV:

BBC Arabic:


Debate: Secularism on Trial – Secularism vs Islam

MDI proudly presents the MDI hosted debate “ Secularism on Trial – Secularism vs Islam”

Speakers are: Dan Barker, and Abdullah al Andalusi.

Debate was held on 29th November 2009, at the Birkbeck College, University of London.

Part 1 – Opening Statements

Part 2 – Rebuttals

Part 3 – Conclusion


MDI Debate: Jihad on Trial: Is Jihad Justifiable?

MDI proudly presents a MDI hosted debate on the topic “Jihad on Trial: Is Jihad Justifiable?”

Public Debate: Is Jihad Justifiable? Sami Zaatari vs Alan Craig

by Muslim Debate Initiative (www.thedebateinitiative.com)

In the current political climate, with the war going on in Afghanistan, political instability in the middle East, and multiple insurgencies against occupation and oppression on-going throughout the Muslim world, what is the correct response to this for Muslims who affirm belief in the Quran?

Does Islam command a blindly violent approach, or does it command passivity? Are there only two options? Is the Quranic concept of Jihad the reason for the suffering and predicament of the Muslim world, as some western critics have claimed, or is it Western materialist foreign policy? Is there another explanation altogether?

Muslim Debate Intiative, proudly presents, a debate between International Muslim speaker, Sami Zaatari, and London Councillor & the Head of the Christian Alliance Party, Alan Craig – on the topic ‘Jihad on Trial – Is Jihad justifiable?’.

Date: 26th October 2009

Time: 6:15pm

Venue: Abrar House, 45 Crawford Place, London

Part 1: Opening Statement

Part 2: Questions and Answers

 


Debate: Should God be de-radicalised? – Religion and state in the modern world

MDI proudly presents the debate “Should God be de-radicalised? – Religion and state in the modern world”

Speakers are: Bob Churchill, member of the National Secular Society and Abdullah al Andalusi.

Debate was held on 29 September 2009, in Central London, at the Abrar Hall.
In the modern world, religion is seen as a relic of the past, as being unable to deal with contemporary problems, and at worst, being the cause of today’s afflictions and problems.

But is this accurate? Is religion the cause of modern day wars, social breakdown and global warming? Isn’t it rather the mass industry of materialistically-focused societies producing, and polluting, in mass quantities without regard to the ethical limits we find common in religion? Is public morality in decay due to the secularisation of society? Are wars about Oil and nationalism, rather than religion?but Lastly, can religion provide answers which are fundamentally lacking in Secularism?

Both sides of the debate, both ideological Secular Atheist and ideological Theist, debate the role religion should play in the 21st century in this intellectually stimulating discussion- Should God be de-radicalised?

Speakers:

Bob Churchill

Bob studied Philosophy at the University of Warwick and Queens University, Canada. He worked in communications and marketing, then systems development, before joining the British Humanist Association in January 2008 as the Membership and Web Manager. He now liaises with local humanist groups, manages membership communications, and has been responsible for the BHAs online presence during the Atheist Bus Campaign. He has represented the BHA on radio and television and has discussed philosophy, religion, values and Humanism in public debates and interfaith forums.

Abdullah al Andalusi

Abdullah is a former Christian who embraced Islam at a young age, and has studied Islam in depth since he was 18. He also has an academic background in Computer Science. Abdullah has had a long experience in working for Islamic revival and the establishment of Islamic shariah in the Muslim world.

His activities involve speaking at community centres, universities, colleges and appearances on various TV programmes. He is experienced in debates with Atheists, Secularists and Christians, and has be involved in public and radio debates with Atheists and Christians.

Part 1 – Opening Statements

Part 2 – Questions and Answers