Mohammad is a Muslim in the UK who frequently sends me private messages via my YouTube channel. Recently he sent me a rather lengthy critique of one of my videos. The video is a recording of a message I commonly give when I have one Sunday or Wednesday at a church, as a general introduction to Islam and Muslim evangelism. The video, for those interested in the context of his critique, can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSPmd2tWsw

 

Mohammad's critique was rather lengthy, so my responses to his concerns are also rather lengthy. Because his critique includes a number of common objections raised against Christians and the Bible, I thought it beneficial to reproduce our conversation here. He raised a total of 18 objections. Each will be blocked off below, with his concern first and my response following.

 

-------

Mohammad

As you requested me to refute your arguments I am going to take the time to go point by point using the timeline in the video to prove to you that the lecture is full with misinformation, conflicting quote from the bible and bias use of the quranic text where it seems you do not know the full text. I truly believe you gave your lecture with the utmost honesty and I can truly say I have listened to more than 20 Apologetic and you are one of the most decent and honest in your speech and I respect you for that. But that does not mean you are right in you info. So lets starts.

 

Me

I try to be fair and accurate. I'm not perfect. You will find that I try to understand Muslims, even the radical extremist ones, from within their worldview, rather than condemning them. That said, I do not excuse some of the evil ideas I see in Islam, and will expose them, and doing so is not 'Islamophobic.' That word I abhor, as it is used generally as a means to end any rational discussion, much like you do below in your critique of Spencer and Geller. Such tactics do not work with me.

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #1

 1.37 mins. You started your lecture with the the word you use as TERROR'. Basically you planted the seeds of linking islam and terrorism into the mind of your students which is unfair. Act of terrorism has nothing to do with islam and this has been condemned by most Scholars. Why you did this..God only knows.

 

There are act of so called terrorism by muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Khasmir. Chechnya Nigeria. Somalia and all have one thing in common and they or either muslims who wanted to liberate their country from occupations or asking for their independence. It has nothing to do with Islam hating the west as some ISLAMOPHOBE such as Robert Spencer. Pamla Geller an Fox news wants you to believe.

 

(Me)

I would agree it has nothing to do with Islam hating the west, but I disagree that it has to do with liberating anyone from oppression. That is the excuse given today, but let's go back hundreds of years. In the first 100 years after the death of the prophet of Islam, from 632 to 732, Islam spread from Arabia eastward to the border of India, and westward across northern Africa and into southern Europe, where its advance was only stopped at the Battle of Tours. That rapid spread of Islam was accomplished mainly by what would be called terrorism today. Who was being oppressed? Who wanted to liberate the nations from 'occupation?' Your statement is laughable in light of history.

 

(Mohammad)

Terrorism Is a Real Threat ... But the Threat to the U.S. from Muslim Terrorists Has Been Exaggerated

 

An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims.

 

Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America's attention killed 66 Americans, "twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,"notes Kurzman's team.

 

(Me)

Invalid assessment. Statistics can be manipulated to prove any point one wants to make. Terrorism is not limited to America, and for you to suggest so by this quote is dishonest. While it may be true that only 33 Americans have died since 9/11 as a result of terrorism, how many have died globally?

 

(Mohammad)

Islam is against killing the innocent and those who are doing it are in desperation because of their inability to fight back with the limited arms they have.The west use the fighters jets, drones, cruise missiles.The killing by drones is fermenting the hate towards the west thus increase the act of terrorism by the victims community.

 

(Me)

See my earlier comment about the first 100 years after Muhammad's death. No cruise missiles, drones, etc. existed then, and it was Muslims who were advancing against innocent people, mostly Christian nations until Islam swept in, slaughtered or enslaved the Christians, and made Islam supreme in the land, just as called for in the Quran. And you said Islam is against killing the innocent, but who are the innocent? According to at least two different scholars I have read, only Muslims are deemed innocent. Non-Muslims are not innocent; they are guilty of not worshipping Allah alone, are guilty of ascribing partners to him, and are guilty of rejecting Muhammad as the last and final messenger, and thus are legitimate targets for elimination.

 

(Mohammad) 

So We decreed for the tribe of Israel that if someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth.(Qur'an 5: 32)

 

(Me)

Yes, and the very next verse says "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land." And Ibn Kathir supplies the understanding of this verse when he says "Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways." So for simply disbelieving, one is to be killed, crucified, or have hand and feet cut off from opposite sides. Who is an innocent person?

 

 

SO YOU SHOULD NOT LINK TERRORISM TO ISLAM IN YOUR NEXT LECTURE.

 

------

Mohammad, critique #2

4.26 mins. You quoted Roman 10-1-4 that Christ IS THE END OF THE LAW AND Apostle Paul was rebuking the Jews being in bondage to the laws. Now this contradict the verse in Matthew5-17 when Jesus said:

 

 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear,not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Now you try to reconcile the verse above with Paul writing and certainly you will not be able to do so with a muslim who knows the bible.Paul is against the laws and Jesus say he is upholding the laws.Who is telling the truth??

 

(Me)

You know the Bible? Jesus is upholding the laws? You seem to imply these verses in Matthew suggest Jesus supports keeping all the laws. Then tell me, if Jesus came to fulfill the law and keep the laws, why then did he break them? For example, Luke 6:6-11 records an incident where Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath whose hand was deformed, infuriating the Pharisees who were strict in keeping all the law. So if Jesus violated one of the Ten Commandments, at least as seen by the Pharisees, to keep the Sabbath holy and to rest on the Sabbath and do no work (a twisted view of the Pharisees), surely your assessment is in error that Jesus came to make sure all the law is kept or fulfilled. What then did Jesus mean by his statement? Exactly what Paul said; Paul did not contradict Jesus, nor did he invent Christianity as most Muslims suppose. Our holiness and righteousness before God is not dependent upon us keeping the law. In the times of the Old Testament, Mosaic law (the old covenant) required a blood sacrifice of an innocent animal to atone for the sin of the people - when they broke or violated the law. But since the death of Jesus, the sinless one even as the Qur'an calls him, our sins have been completely atoned for. Our righteous standing before God is based on the complete atonement for our sin through Jesus, not in the keeping of the law. That is how Jesus came to fulfill the law.

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #3

7.59 mins: You quoted the Quran teaches good deeds and bad deeds and the good deeds outweighs the bad deeds, You also stated that Paul said we are saved by Grace. Now this contradict the teaching of James where in James chapter 2 it says:

 

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 

Note James is talking about faith and deeds and it contradict Paul who was preaching by 'grace only'

 

Now try to explain this to your students and muslims.

 

(Me)

OK. No problem. James and Paul are not contradictory but rather complimentary. Paul and James are writing from two different perspectives to combat two different types of problems. When understood within their respective contexts, they compliment one another.

 

On one hand, in Romans Paul gives us a doctrinal foundation for our justification as righteous before God on the basis of our faith alone, in order to show that Jews, who were self-righteous in keeping The Law, were just as much in need of the saving grace of God as Gentiles were; the works of the law could not save them. We are all sinners, Jew and Gentile alike, and all in danger of God’s judgment. Thematic verse for Romans is Romans 1:16 --  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.  17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

 

On the other hand, James focuses on being a “doer of the word, and not a hearer only – 1:22 “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only”

 

  1. James responds to a phenomenon of the time known as antinomianism – anti=against, nomos=law – those who thought the law had no place in the life of a believer. That is, they could do whatever they wanted, sort of like a “if it feels good, do it” mentality.
  2. Antinomianism: The conviction that believers are freed from the demands of God’s law by depending upon God’s grace for their salvation (thus anti “against”+ nomos “law”). Although the word“antinomian” is not found in Scripture, Scripture’s own history tells of the struggle to maintain balance between law and grace—between an appreciation of God’s merciful and unconditional response toward God’s people on the one hand, and their obliged and obedient response to God’s law on the other.
  3. Someone practicing antinomianism might take the attitude “it doesn’t matter what I do or don’t do; I am saved by grace and my sins are forgiven.” They tend to use God’s grace as a license for sin (something Paul will confront in the next two chapters of Romans!)

James condemns any form of Christianity that drifts into a sterile, actionless “orthodoxy” (verbal profession only). Faith, not what we do, is fundamental in establishing a relationship with God. But faith, James insists, must be given content. Genuine faith, he insists, always and inevitably produces evidence of its existence in a life of righteous living. Biblical faith cannot exist apart from acts of obedience to God.

To dissect your quote of James 2:14-17, I am pasting a partial outline of a lecture I gave years ago on the seeming incompatibility between what Paul and James say.

 

POINT 1 –TRUE FAITH BY DEFINITIONJames 2:14-17

 

2:14 - What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? (NKJV)

  1. This seems to be in complete contradiction to the verses read previously in Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, and Titus. James seems to imply that faith alone is not enough; works are also required.
  2. Note the contrast between what one “says” and what one “does.”
    1. An important distinction; the key to this entire section. James is contrasting what one “says” with what one “does” to drive home a point which will become clear.
  3. V. 14: Can faith save him? (KJV, NKJV): This is a rhetorical question, a question which does not require an answer because the answer is obvious. The construction of the Greek here suggests that the expected answer is “no”, faith alone cannot save.
    1. The KJV rendering of “can faith save him?” is an inaccurate translation. The word “faith” in the Greek has a definite article ha with it… “the faith”.. which implies the faith under discussion is the same faith used previously. “Faith” refers back to the same word “faith” used previously; i.e. someone who “says” they have faith but does not have works as evidence of that faith. This “faith” is what a man who does not have works claims to have. James’ main point is that this “faith” is, in biblical terms, no faith at all.
    2. A more proper rendering of this verse (NASB, NLT, NET) is “Can that kind of faith save him?”

AN ILLUSTRATION

James 2:15-17 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,  16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?  17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

Here is an illustration of someone who says something, but does nothing to back up his or her words. He says “Be filled” but fails to provide food to eat, or says “be warm” but fails to provide clothing or a blanket for warmth,his words are empty and meaningless. In the same way, one who “says” he has faith, but does not put his words into action, is simply uttering meaningless words.

 

James is not really contrasting faith and works, as if these were two alternative opinions in one’s approach to God. He is, rather, contrasting a faith that, because it is inherently defective, produces no works and a faith that, because it is genuine, does result in action. 

 

Paul and James compliment one another.

 

To summarize:

 

John Courson: “You know you’re truly born again when you find yourself obeying God.We’re not saved by obedience. But our obedience proves we’re saved, for true faith works.”

 

John Walvoord: Spiritual works are the evidence,not the energizer, of sincere faith.    

 

--------

Mohammad, critique #4

19.29 mins: You mislead your students to link Zakaat (charity) to the christian giving of 10% to the church.The church giving is not obligatory upon Christians and the fund is partly use for church expenses WHEREAS zakaat is OBLIGATORY upon all muslims who has excess wealth and it is even said the poor has the right of 2.5% of the wealth over the rich. basically saying that this money belong to them and we should give it to them.

 

Who is entitled to receive Zakat?

 

There are eight groups of people on whom Zakat should be spent, as mentioned in the Quran:

 

"The alms are only for the Fuqara' (the poor), and Al-Masakin (the needy) and those employed to collect (the funds); and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined(towards Islam); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and forAllah's Cause, and for the wayfarer (a traveler who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise."[Al-Quran 9:60]

 

Now the AL-masakin (the needy) is the Palestinians also who are subjected to hadship from the zionistsJews .A lot of Zakaat are sent to the Palestinians via Hamas who are the governing authority in Gaza are responsible to distribute the money to the needy there.Now for you to say it goes to terrorists organisation is misleading as Hamas is the government there and it is not their problem if others labelled them as terrorists.They have a job to with the money received and did it according to their needs. For you to generalized that charity money received by them is use for terrorists purposes in inaccurate and misleading.

 

(Me)

I did not mislead anyone in comparing zakat to the act of tithing in Christianity. I simply used tithing as something similar to zakat in that both are giving of a portion of our wealth. I'm sure nobody assumed I was equating the two. I think you are over reacting.

 

And the fact that Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza has no bearing on whether or not they engage in terrorist activities. They do and should be labeled as such, as the FBI has done in the USA. Your argument is irrelevant.

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #5

17-29 mins . You stated that the month of fasting in the month of ramadan muslims eat more than other normal months. I think you are trying to belittle the month of fasting and say 'hein' what the point of fasting when we muslims eat like a horse during the evening.

 

1.There is a limit a belly can take after breaking the fast and it is not true to say we feast all night. This is untrue.Yes large family join together to eat and there is lots of food on the table with a lot a people to eat and the eye can mislead you we are scoffing ourselves with food

 

2 .Vast majority of muslims who fast are very poor family in poor countries who will break fast with a date and water and will have their normal meal as you have during mealtime. Not all muslims are Arab rich sheikh.Your saying that we feast during the night is misleading and not proven.A lot lot of family rely on food donation from family and friends to eat at night after breaking fast.

 

(Me)

My comments were not belittling or denigrating Muslims. I simply pointed out that the act of "fasting" during Ramadan is not really a fast at all, since fasting implies abstaining from something completely for a pre-determined period of time. Fasting during Ramadan is nothing more really than a reversal of normal meal times.

 

--------

Mohammad, critique #6

23.55mins You stated that God of islam does not have give us 'free will' and he control everything and you stated that in Christianity you have free will and can choose to disobey God. This is misleading statement from you as you are not aware on the quran talking about free will. God has power over all things in regard to life and death and calamities etc etc. But according to the quran he gave mankind freewill as stated in the following 2 verses:

 

"Certainly you are accountable for what you do."Quran (16:93)

 

"We have shown man the path of truth and the path of falsehood; he may choose either the path of guidance and offer the thanks, or choose the path of ingratitude."Quran(76:3)

 

So you mislead your students on the topic of free will in islam.

 

(Me)

Nope, no misleading. But the Quran once again contradicts itself, because clearly the verses I mention in the lecture imply without a doubt the lack of free will, and the quotations by respected Muslim scholars themselves, whom I mention, back up that assertion.

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #7

27.30 mins:You say that Allah(God) does not give assurances that he will forgive sins. This is misleading from your part as you do not know all the content of the Quran when God says:

 

Allah says: "Say: O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Quran [Sûrah al-Zumar: 53]

 

(Me)

Another example of contradictions in the Quran. 

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #8

27.59mins You say Muslim say god cannot have SON and we think it is physical.

 

Well in John 3.16 it says that God so love the well he gave is only BEGOTTEN Son.

 

In another version of the bible they changed the word BEGOTTEN to UNIQUE.

 

You tell us and the your students why they changed the word Begotten.

 

What does the word Begotten mean?

 

(Me)

Recent scholarship of the Koine Greek in which the New Testament was written shows the King James translation of the Greek word as 'begotten' was not the best translation into English. Renowned New Testament scholar Wayne Grudem discusses this issue in an appendix of his Systematic Theology book, almost the standard theology text in Christian seminaries. Appendix 6 is entitled "The Monogenes Controversy: 'Only' or 'Only Begotten?'

 

To summarize (I can't retype the entire appendix here), Grudem notes the following:

 

The controversy over the term 'only begotten' was unnecessary because it was based on a misunderstanding of the Greek word 'monogenes' used of Jesus in John 1:14, 18; John 3:16 &18, and 1 John 4:9.

 

For many years it was thought to be derived from two Greek terms: mono, meaning 'only', and gennao, meaning 'to beget or bear.' But linguistic study in the twentieth century has shown that the second half of the term is not closely related to 'gennao' or 'to beget' but rather to 'genos' which means 'one of a kind' or 'unique.' The idea in Greek of "only begotten" would not have been expressed in the word 'monogenes' but rather 'monogennatos.' Thus, the more accurate translation of monogenes in John 3:16 and elsewhere is "unique" or "one of a kind."

 

My comment, not Grudem's: Clearly, no Christian throughout history has ever conceived of Jesus as the literal, physical "begotten" offspring of God, yet this is what the author of the Quran implies. Thus, it seems the author of the Quran cannot be an all-knowing God, else he would not have made such a simple error of misrepresenting what Christians have believed since the time of Christ.

 

------

Mohammad, critique #9

28.49mins You stated thatMuslims has 99 names of God and NOT ONE HAS THE NAME LOVE.

 

This shows your lack of knowledge of islam and one of the name in the list of 99 is AL-WUDUD(Loving)Quran 11.90.

 

(Me)

I am well aware of Al-Wudud, or the Loving One. I am also aware the word 'love' is associated with Allah in several verses of the Quran. But the term is used not in the true sense of love, but more of a respect. Allah does not love, Allah respects those who ... (fill in the blank). Nowhere does the Quran ascribe the attribute of unconditional and unquestioning love of others to Allah.

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #10

30.53mins You stated you have the tryune God for relationship and Islam does not have this.

 

Well, here you contradict yourself as in the New Testament Jesus says O Israel your God is ONE. Who do I to believe you or Jesus?

 

(Me)

There is ONE God, manifest in three unique persons. This is no contradiction as you imply. It is not inconsistent to have unity and multiplicity existing at the same time within the same entity. Take yourself for example. You are much more than just the chemical elements that make up your body; you have a spiritual nature also. You are at the same time, within the same entity, both physical and spiritual. Does that make you two persons, because you exist as two separate components: spiritual and physical? Nonsense. Yet I'm amazed that Muslims have a difficult time believing that God can exist as three different unique components within the same entity. If we humans exist in two parts, cannot God exist in three? Certainly He can, and does.

 

------

Mohammad, critique #11

32.25mins You stated that Muslims God created good and evil and YOU ASKED WHETHER THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVIL??? Does he cause evil to exist? NO you say.

 

Well let see what the bible say:

 

Isaiah 45:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

 

 

It look like you are unaware of your own bible.

 

(Me)

Isaiah 45:7 (NKJV): I form the light and create darkness,

         I make peace and create calamity;

         I, the LORD, do all these things.

 

(NET) I am the one who forms light

         and creates darkness;

         the one who brings about peace

         and creates calamity.

 

(NASB) The One forming light and creating darkness,

         Causing well-being and creating calamity;

         I am the LORD who does all these.

 

(ESV) I form light and create darkness,

                  I make well-being and create calamity,

                  I am the LORD, who does all these things.

 

Interesting you would pick the translation using the most archaic language, an English over 500 years old, to make the verse say something it does not. More recent translations render the verse accurately. Do you speak the English of King James of 1611? I hope not!!

 

This verse affirms that God is ultimately sovereign over his world, including mankind and nations. In accordance with his sovereign will, he can cause wars to cease and peace to predominate (as he was about to do for his exiled people through Cyrus), or he can bring disaster and judgment on nations (as he was about to do to Babylon through Cyrus).

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #12

33.48 mins; You stated that Allah in the Quran DELIBERATELY allows mankind to the wrong path. It does not say this in the Quran.In chapter 4 119 it says those who choose to forsake god and chooses Satan as friend he will let them going astray and will have their dwelling in hell.

 

(Me)

The Quran does indeed say this. You obviously did not listen to the several verses I quoted, so I will list them here. And if another verse says the opposite, then here is proof once again of the Quran contradicting itself.

 

Sura 4:119--"I will mislead them, and I will create in them false desires;”

 

Sura 18:17-“Such are among the Signs of Allah: He whom Allah guides is rightly guided; but he whom Allah leaves to stray- for him wilt thou find no protector to lead him to the RightWay.”

 

Sura 14:3 – “Then Allah sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will.” 

 

Sura 4:88 – “"What is the matter with you that you are divided about the Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way."

 

Sura 4:142 - "… Those who Allah causes to go astray and err will not find a way. Believers, take not for friends unbelieving infidels rather than believers. Do you want to offer Allah an open proof against you? The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire."

 

Sura 16:93 - If Allah so willed He could make you all one people; but He leaves straying whom He pleases and He guides whom He pleases; but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions.

 

Moreover, Al-Ghazzali is credited with the following statement: "He can do what he wills, and whatever He wills comes to pass. He is not obliged to act. Everything, good or evil, in this world exists by His will. He wills the faith of the believers and the piety of the religious. He willeth also the unbelief of the unbeliever and the irreligion of the wicked. All we do we do by His will; what He willeth not does not come to pass. If one should ask why God does not will that all men should believe, we answer: ‘We have no right to enquire about what God wills and does. He is perfectly free to will and to do what he pleases’. In creating unbelievers, in willing that they should remain in that state; in making serpents, scorpions and pigs; in willing, in short, all that is evil, God has wise ends in view which it is not necessary that we should know." (Quoted in Norman Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, "Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross", p. 32)    

 

-------

Mohammad, critique #13

34.05 mins you said that allah is a DECEIVER. This is lies made by islam haters who speak Arabic to discredit Islam and the Quran and you picked that up from them. Most translations says:

 

Quran 8.30

 

Sahih International: And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.

 

Pickthall: And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.

 

Yusuf Ali: Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.

 

Shakir: And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.

 

Muhammad Sarwar: The unbelievers planned to imprison, murder or expel you (Muhammad) from your city.They make evil plans but God too plans and God's plans are the best.

 

Mohsin Khan: And(remember) when the disbelievers plotted against you (O Muhammad SAW) to imprison you, or to kill you, or to get you out (from your home, i.e. Makkah);they were plotting and Allah too was planning, and Allah is the Best of the planners.

 

Arberry: And when the unbelievers were devising against thee, to confine thee, or slay thee, or to expel thee, and were devising, and God was devising; and God is the best of devisers.

 

All these translators cannot be wrong and you are right as you are not an Arabic speaking person.

 

You are misleading your students on this.

 

(Me)

Are you an Arabic speaking person? Only 15% of Muslims speak Arabic natively, so I don't know if you are even qualified to critique this point. But I do have several Arabic speaking friends, primarily from Egypt but elsewhere also, and all confirm what I said about Sura 3:54. (I have no idea why you brought up Sura 8:30 when that was not the verse under discussion here. Did you even pay attention?)

 

Here is a good explanation of this point, written by a man I personally know who writes under a pseudonym to protect his identity, for fear of physical violence (what in the world would he have to fear if Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance??) http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/cornelius/makr.html

 

-------

Mohammad critique #14

38.11mins you quoted ERGUN CANER was an ex muslim and you spoke highly of him. He was found to be a liar as reported in the Washington Post of June 30th 2010:

 

 

The biography of Caner,43, has become shrouded in doubt after apparent exaggerations were brought to light by an unusual alliance of Muslim and Christian bloggers. They have pored through his sermons, books, speeches and court documents, finding contradictions in his narrative. His expertise on Islam and his claim to having been raised as a radical Sunni Muslim in Turkey have been questioned. Wednesday is Caner's last day as dean; Liberty announced he was being removed because of"factual statements that are self-contradictory." Although he will no longer be dean, Caner will continue as a professor. Critics say the school's explanation falls short.

 

Why you did not tell your students that this man is a charlatans and a liar?

 

(Me)

Whenever someone is denigrated by another, I first look to see what axe the one has to grind against the other. In the case of Ergun Caner, there are two primary antagonists who come against him: Muslims like yourself who wish to discredit his testimony, and otherChristians who are engaged in a theological dispute with him. Sadly, Caner has come under fire from another Christian apologist, James White, over a peripheral issue in Christian doctrine, as well as Muslim apologists. The testimony of these two groups against Caner means I should take what they say against him with suspicion, and I do.

 

Although Caner has admitted to some inaccuracies in his biography, I must confess I don't find these troubling. Indeed, if I were to try to recreate my biography from my childhood years until the present, no doubt I would be in error regarding certain times, places, and events that took place 20 to 30 years ago, because I cannot remember all the details.  For that reason, I am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.    

 

--------

Mohammad critique #15

43.24mins: You stated that God asked Abraham to sacrifice is ONLY son. Note the word ONLY and it is found in the bible also:

 

 

"By faith Abraham,when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his ONLY son ..." (Hebrews 11:17, R.S.V.).

 

This is a lie from the bible and you uttered the same lies to your students because according to the bible Abraham had another son named Ismael which means he had 2 sons at that time.

 

Why the bible and you uttered the same lies about Issac the ONLY son.?

 

Explain this to me.

 

(Me)

OK. The Bible is very clear that Abraham fathered both Ishmael and Isaac, so the question needs to be asked: Why does the Bible here refer to Isaac as the ONLY son within this context? What is the significance of ascribing Isaac with this title? One key principle of interpretation is context, as you probably well know. So in what context is Isaac referred to as Abraham's only son? There are two contexts to keep in mind here: The cultural, and the theological.

 

The cultural: At this period historically, only Isaac was residing with Abraham. Hagar and Ishmael had moved out of the home as described in Genesis 21. Families tended to stay together under the same roof and only Isaac lived in the same household as Abraham. So it was not incorrect to say that Isaac was Abraham's only son at the time as he was the only son living at home. Ishmael had moved on and was not considered a part of the nuclear family living under the same roof.

 

The theological: In Genesis 12 God makes a covenental promise to Abram to multiply his offspring as numerous as the stars of the sky. The promise was to be made through his natural offspring, meaning between him and the woman to whom he was married at the time: Sarai (later Sarah). But Abraham took things into his own hands and fathered Ishmael through Hagar. But Hagar was not Abram's wife at the time of the promise in Genesis 12; Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a wife after the fact because of the unbelief of both Abram and Sarai that God would give them a natural offspring together. The promise of Genesis 12 never included Ishmael.That promise was passed on to Isaac, and then Jacob in Genesis 26 and 27 respectively.

 

Thus, Ishmael was never considered the legitimate son of Abraham, since he was born out of disobedience and as a result of a lack of faith on the part of Abraham and Sarah. It is no surprise then when the apostle Paul writes in Galatians 4: 22-23, "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise."

 

--------

Mohammad critique #16

47.39 mins you say muslims are in the USA because God want them to get save.

 

This is not true. Muslims are in the US due to immigration, some of economics reasons and some the government wants them in the state due to their academic qualification which is good for the economy.It is farcical to say God want them there to get save. This is not a good reason given by you. Most are them are born and a lot of them converted to islam. More Christians are converting to islam than vice versa and according to polls there are about 20.000 converts to islam from Christianity in the USA This does not look like they are getting save and worship Jesus. They are rejecting the notion that God is a man named Jesus.

 

(Me)

You need to do a bit more research in this area. Islam is growing simply due to a higher birth rate among Muslims than non-Muslims. Muslims have more children per family than do others. But in terms of conversion rates, there are twice as many conversions from Islam toChristianity than vice versa. You are in error. In fact, religious leaders inIran are searching for ways to stop the rapid conversion to Christianity among the youth there (http://www.mohabatnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7427%3Airan-desperately-looks-for-a-remedy-to-stop-growth-of-christianity&catid=36%3Airanian-christians&Itemid=279). 

 

Also http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/iran-steps-its-campaign-against-christians

 

---------

Mohammad critique #17

48.14 mins you mentioned that some muslims preached their children to hate. Christians does the same and some Christians preached in their church to hate muslims. You continuously mislead your students on this false claim.WHY YOU DID NOT QUOTE THESE VERSES BELOW FROM THE QURAN TO YOUR STUDENTS. THAT SAYS:

 

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

 

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We areChristians,' because among these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (QURAN 5:82).

 

(Me)

And why do you disregard verses like the following:

 

Sura 5:51 - O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ' (friends, protectors,helpers, etc.), they are but Auliyâ' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliyâ', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers and unjust).

 

Sura 60:1 - O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism, this Qur'ân, and Muhammad SAW), and have driven out the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) and yourselves (from your homeland) because you believe in Allâh your Lord! If you have come forth to strive in My Cause and to seek My Good Pleasure, (then take not these disbelievers and polytheists, etc., as your friends). You show friendship to them in secret, while I am All-Aware of what you conceal and what you reveal. And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone(far) astray, (away) from the Straight Path .

 

Sura 3:118 - O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors,helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians,and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.

 

Moreover, Muslims curse Christians daily during times of Salat by reciting Al-Fatiha. Verses 6-7 of Sura 1 says "Guide us to the Straight Way, The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)." If Christians are nearest believers in Islam as you suggest, why then do Muslims curse Christians daily when reciting Al-Fatiha?

 

I did not say ALL Muslims are taught to hate Christians, but certainly a significant portion are. One only needs to view world events to see this played out in reality. Christians are the most persecuted of anyone within Islamic lands; this is an undisputed fact. Why is this so, if Christians are nearest believers as you suggest?

 

Here is the testimony of the former Muslim I alluded to in my comments: http://bcove.me/drph8oum

 

-------

Mohammad critique #18

57.49 mins you quote from 2 Timothy 2 verse 25-26 where Paul said to gently instruct those who oppose the truth.

 

Well in Philippians chapter 3 verse 2 Apostle Paul contradict himself and insult others behind their back as he called them DOG.

 

Verse 2 Watch out those DOGS, THOSE MEN WHO DO EVIL.

 

How can a man of God called others DOG.

 

Apostle Paul was a strange man.

 

(Me)

Paul was no wimp, and was not afraid to use descriptive language to emphasize a point. Jesus did the same thing when he called the Pharisees "a brood of vipers" or "whitewashed sepulchers" or "hypocrites."

 

Paul was so incensed against those who pressed for Gentiles to become Jews that he called them dogs, the name that Jews gave to Gentiles. These people, however, were more deserving of the name than any Gentile because of the way that they liked to ‘prowl round the Christian congregations, seeking to win Gentile converts over to Judaism.

 

---------

Mohammad, final comments

I end my rebuttal herewith the following quote from the Quran chapter 5. 116

 

And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam(Mary)! Did you say unto men: 'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?'" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly,You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden and unseen.

 

I invite you all to look into islam again before its too late as you do not know when death will reach you and you have to answer to your Lord.

 

Peace and blessing be with you all

 

(My final comment)

Thank you for your genuine concern for my eternal destiny. I share the same concern for you. That is why I invite you to actually read the Bible with the mind of seeking the truth.

 

Here is the bottom line: We both believe our respective points to be true. But since Islam and Christianity stand in opposition to one another, both cannot be true. I remain fully convinced that Islam is deceptive and is misleading hundreds of millions straight to hell. Muslims believe the same of Christianity.

 

Who is correct? Based on my years of studies of Islam, reading Islamic scholars themselves, and comparing the evidence for Islam against the evidence for the truth of Christianity, I have to go where the evidence leads.  That's why I am a Christian and will always remain one. I want you to remember this day, because God will hold you accountable for what you now know.

 

Based on fully convincing evidence, I have absolute assurance of where I am going after I die. I hope you do also.

 

Peace.

Copyright © 2016 Radical Truth, Inc. All rights reserved.