next mais Próximo blog» Criar um blog Login Home About Allah Christianity Dearborn Debates Islam Jihad Muhammad Quran Women Sunday, January 16, 2011 Saviour of the World: Jesus or the Quran? Introduction Samuel Greens Presentation Abdullah Kundes Presentation Rebuttals Question Time Posted by Samuel Greenat 8:07 PM 23 comments: Lindertsaid... Not a bad debate from both sides. I thought Abdullah Kunde was being quite honest and straightforward for the most part, but the answer on the question of wife-beating was pure deception and absurdity. How can he say with a straight face thatand beat hermeans youneverbeat her? He even said that all islamic scholars agree with this exact interpretation which is sheer nonsense, and it makes the Qurans statement that it is clear absolutely ridiculous. January 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM Sophiesaid... Lindert, Ive heard that argument before about the wife-beating verse. I heard a Muslim say that surah 4:24 means dont beat your wife, stupid!. That was her exact words. I found it really strange. Supposedly when Allah said beat them, what he actually meant was dont beat them. Evidently, Allah was being sarcastic. And it made me wonder how much of the Quran is sarcastic. For example, the verse in question says:if you fear disobedience, admonish them - does that, then, really mean dont admonish them? And when it says to sleep in a separate bed, does it in fact mean _dont_ sleep in a separate bed? Muslims say that because beat them is the last in a sequence of action to take when you fear disobedience from your wife, it actually means _dont_ beat them. But the very fact that beating is included on the list of potential ways to resolve conflict, tells us that it was an acceptable course of action, at least in some circumstances. Add to this the hadith where Muhammad strikes Aisha hard on the chest and causes her pain, the hadith where the woman is covered in bruises from being beaten and Muhammad doesnt bat an eyelid, and various other hadith... and the truth is very clear. January 17, 2011 at 3:38 PM Gabriella Oaksaid... Lindert and Sophie, Can either of you help me with this context of Q4;24 ? Surely Abdullah cannot be correct in his assertion. How stupid would Yusuf Ali feel today having watched that, knowing he had translated not to beat your wife (with a toothpick). When according to Abdullahs logic he should have written that they not hit their wives (with a claw hammer).... In the meantime, Im off to read some Lewis Carroll. Perhaps Alice In Wonderland is the lens through which I shall come to a greater understanding. :) January 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM mikeyh428said... The guy that stated that he was offended sounds suspiciously like the guy that posted a video directed at David Wood saying that he was completely mis-characterizing Islam. I confess, that its Abdullahs logic that I do not follow - that God has to let me into heaven? God knows those that are his and those that are sincere and follow his commandments. No one could stand before God and say - but you have to let me in. If they had believed in Christ and loved God, then they would have obeyed Him and would not need to make demands. The judgement day scenario Abdullah paints could never exist. Also, Leviticus is not the only book that talks about sacrifices - Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all touch on the subject. Lev. 17:11 forms much of the foundation/justification for sacrifices. Abdullah does not seem to understand the purpose of animal sacrifices and gets lost in the details. Sam could have touched on justice relating to Gods holiness as a requirement for salvation, but theres only so much time in a debate to cover a complex topic like this. It was interesting how Abdullah tried to sugar coat Quranic verses and re-interpret them from his own western mindset; even though Islamic commentators and ahadith contradict his position. January 17, 2011 at 6:56 PM The Fat Mansaid... Wow I had to play it three times to make sure I heard it correctly. Sixteen minutes into the rebutted period Abdulla Kundee reads from Lev 6, he reads off all the sins. 1. Lying 2. Stealing 3. cheat their neighbor 4. swear falsely And then concludes since the passage reads realize their guilt that this means that the above were UN INTENTIONAL. Wow the Muslim mind at work here people. Lying, stealing, cheating a neighbor, purgering ones self. All of this is UN INTENTIONAL. These are deliberate acts. But I guess to a Muslim they dont know when they steal, or when they lie, or when they cheat someone. Simply amazing. And then he says with a straight face, the message is very clear... The only way you can make it unclear is to quote verses out of context WOW January 17, 2011 at 7:47 PM Kensaid... This is one of the best debates out there, in my opinion. Does anyone know where the quote from Al Ghazzali is found? Abdullah Kunde quoted it at the end on the last video section of questions from the audience. If on the day of judgment Allah decides to send all the good people (believers in Allah) to hell and all the evil people to paradise, He can do that, and we have no right to question. (I am remembering it from memory, so it may not be an exact quote.) Can anyone of you (David Wood, Nabeel, Samuel Green, others?) track that down and publish the reference? It is very valuable for apologetics. If all Muslims agree with that statement that it is Islamic theology and not much disagreement; then that is enough for anyone not to want to become a Muslim, for it reveals the arbitrary and capricious nature of Allah and that His capricious will is above His nature/character and any promise or word to be faithful to that promise that He would give to believers. But the God of the Bible cannot lie and is faithful to His promises. Titus 1:2 God cannot lie. James 1:13-14 God cannot sin, and is not tempted by sin. I guess that is why Muslims do not really have real peace in their hearts, for they know that Allah can outwit / deceive / trick them on the final day. Allah is the best of deceivers/schemers/tricksters (Quran 3:54; 8:30; 10:21) Yet, Jesus promises true peace (John 14:27, Matthew 11:28-30; Romans 5:1-11) and eternal life (John 3:16; 5:24; 20:30-31; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10, many others. Abdullah Kunde also revealed why the west should never allow Sharia law to be introduced - he admitted that it is a rule that Christians cannot build new churches. (based on the Pact of Umar) What an unjust religion and exposes their agenda in the west. January 17, 2011 at 8:14 PM Fifth Monarchy Mansaid... Good debate, I’m struck by the fact that salvation in Islam is the same as salvation in every non Christian religion............ Run, John, run the law commands, But gives me neither feet nor hands; Far better news the gospel brings: It bids me fly; it gives me wings. John Bunyan Thank God for the Gospel!!!!!!! Peace January 17, 2011 at 9:45 PM Sophiesaid... Gabriella, I heard someone talk about the context once, but I dont know if this is true or where they got their information from. They said the 4.24 revelation came at a time when a woman came to Muhammad who had been beaten by her husband. Muhammad wanted to rebuke the husband, but Allah gave him this revelation instead. Again, I dont know how accurate that is and I dont have any references to give you, sorry! Maybe someone else here can help you out? Good point about the toothpick, too. Ah, Wonderland. Im sure youll find more sense there than in the pages of certain other books :) January 18, 2011 at 7:28 AM Nakdimonsaid... Btw, converting bad deeds into good deeds = perverting justice. January 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM Nakdimonsaid... 1 Kunde says that salvation in the OT is compatible with the Quran but opposed to the NT. I suggest Kunde get a Torah course and see how God has stipulated the forgiveness and atonement through sacrifices. And of course we can see how the stipulations for the atonement rites pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice of the Messiah. Unless Kunde wants to claim that the prophets contradicted Moses, while appealing to Moses at the same time as an authority (much like the Quran does with the Bible) he really needs to get his facts straight. 2 Kunde says that when Islam objects with the phrase “God is one” it doesn’t talk about a numerical one, that comes after zero and before two. Which is bogus, because that is exactly what the Quran objects to when it says “do not say three”. Or does Kunde claim that this is not an objection to a numerical three, that comes after two and before four? When the Quran objects to “Three” as opposed to “One”, it unmistakably talks about a numerical “One”. Furthermore, if Kunde wants to stick to his claim that the claim that God is “One” in Islam doesn’t point to a numerical one, then he leaves the door open that God can be more than “One” since that statement is no reference to any numerical value and therefore cannot be an objection to “Three”. What’s ironic is that Kunde claims that there is a created aspect involved when it comes to the Trinity. Depends how you look at it, of course. If we are talking about the Biblical Trinity, then Kunde is WRONG, since Father, Son and Spirit are not created. However, when it comes to the Quranic Trinity, which erroneously includes Mary, then Kunde is right! But then again, that would be conceding that the author of the Quran attacks strawmen since no Christian believed that Mary was part of the Trinity. 3 Kunde says that we “force” God to let us into heaven. Which is a total distortion of what we believed. Sam has already dealt with this lousy objection in another thread, but I’ll have a go here as well. We are granted access to heaven THROUGH GOD’S WORK! Not of anything we did ourselves. GOD made a promise to us, HE made the provision, HE did the work, so it’s not us forcing HIM, it’s a matter of God being true to his words and keeping his promise. However, as Sam already pointed out, the dilemma is not ours, but it’s entirely Kunde’s. This argument doesn’t work against Christianity, but it does work against Kunde’s own position. Therefore according to Kunde, Allah is not omnipotent. 4 Kunde goes on to claim that the Son gave up his eternal his eternal attributes means that he changed. Which is, again, not what we believed. The Son didn’t LOOSE his divine prerogatives, he just didn’t exercise them! I wish Kunde would just stop making these nonsensical objections and actually address what we believe. Kunde then has to explain how Allah can appear in a fire in Quran 27 and 28. If the Son cannot appear in the flesh, then how can Allah appear in a bush or a tree? >>>> January 18, 2011 at 10:54 AM Zack_Tiangsaid... next
Posted on: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:54:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015