A convicted criminal and sociopath debates a learned Muslim

An interesting meeting of two very different people

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 21.15.54

 

 

Advertisements


Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Debates

19 replies

  1. I really do respect dr. Ally. He is very sharp, intelligent, and very skilful in this art of debating. In fact, I have not seen any match for him by all christians he has debated so far. He has a very humble look, yet he is indeed one of lions of Islam. I like when the christian opponent gets fooled by that humble look, especially dr. Ally starts to destroy the opponent ‘s stupid polemic “arguments”. And that has append with James White, Mike Licona, David Wood, and others. Masha’ Allah Tabrak Allah!
    Nevertheless, I disagree with dr Ally with some points, and this is one of them. I mean the matter of who is the one he should debate. I encourage dr Ally to elevate himself from debating this kind of people. The clown and his boys are not worthy for muslims’ times. Those people are ignorant & filled with hatred. They are not interested to seek the truth.

    I hope to watch a debate between dr. Ally & dr. Ehrman in the future. I encourage my muslims brothers to work in that.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree that Ally should remove himself from debating gutter trash like Wood, as it just lends Wood undeserved credence.

      But I don’t think that there is really a need for Ally to debate Ehrman either, since Ehrman is not a devoted critic of Islam.

      Like

    • I think rather than a debate, a discussion between Drs. Ally and Ehrman would be most beneficial for us all.

      Like

    • Ibn Issam,
      In contrast, I think a debate with dr Ehrman is very important. Although dr Ehrman is very knowledgeable scholar, but it’s obvious that he has not exposed to another opponent outside the christian realm. Moreover, I think some of his views are restricted because his background is a pure christian one. He needs to be exposed to another view.
      I suggest (The original disciples of Jesus and their faith) as a subject for that debate.

      Like

    • Abdullah1423,
      I understand your enthusiasm but I think Sheik Ally would best direct his effort at debating those who have opinions that are more critical of Islamic beliefs. I think Ally and Ehrman would have more to agree on than disagree. For that reason, I agree with Abu Talhah that, if anything, an intellectual conversation between Ehrman and Ally might be more interesting, but I don’t think it is absolutely necessary.

      In regard to “the original disciples of Jesus and their faith” I doubt that Ehrman would ever come to the conclusion that their original faith was “Islam” as we know it today. But he may at least agree with Ally that their original faith was not the Trinitarian Christianity as it is professed today, and that at least leaves us ground to build upon.

      Like

    • I also think Ehrman may know more about Islam than he publicly lets on, however, I get the impression that he simply prefers to limit his discourse to Christian studies in which he specializes.

      Like

    • Ibn Issam,
      I’m not saying it has to be done, but I think it should be done, especially that dr. Ally expressed explicitly his willing to debate dr. Ehrman in the subject of (Jesus’ disciples). I think he said that in his debate with Tony Costa. Also, I do not expect that Ehrman would agree with dr. Ally.
      My goal is to expose that man to another view which may trigger something inside him. Again, even though dr Ehrman is very knowledgeable man , but after all he’s a man of his culture, and that goes with all western mindset in a general sense. For example, dr WLC declared many times that he would’ve not expected to discuss the subject f Islam although his thesis is almost just a copy/paste from Al Ghazali. They cannot come out from the western centric mindset. Look to Ehrman’s debates about the suffer. He always argues from a christian background which is based on why the “loving God” does….ect.

      “I also think Ehrman may know more about Islam than he publicly lets on”
      Hmmm. I have the same impression sometimes. However, I don’t think he has a clear image. He really needs to be exposed to another view from a muslim man. Let’s work in that! Let’s donate to make this event come true Insha’ Allah.

      Like

    • LOL you must be joking. This is Ally’s 8th debate with Wood and he still haven’t got the better of him.

      If you’re fed up of seeing him get his arse handed to him by Wood, then I suggest you go check Ally’s recent debate with William Albrecht on the divinity of Christ. Shabir got humiliated.

      Like

    • Abdullah1423,
      I was not aware that Dr. Ally expressed a willingness to debate dr. Ehrman in the subject of (Jesus’ disciples).

      I do agree with you that a conversation between the two men on the subject of Theodicy would definitely be interesting.

      Like

    • Although I am sure he was only joking, as soon as David Wood intimated in his opening comments that Shabbir was “…still trying to copy my beard.” I knew that we were in for more of his blatant lies for the duration of the rest of the debate, and my prediction on that point was accurate.

      David seemed to regurgitate the same old tired out Christian arguments in defense of the resurrection, which Shabbir himself has refuted before in previous debates with Wood. Shabbir did a good job of addressing Wood’s arguments, and also made it very clear that there is an evolution in the Gospels and that there is no clear irrefutable proof that Jesus actually died on the cross, and that the stories of the resurrection appearances are later developments after the fact. Even if, after the assumption, the disciples merely experienced “hallucinatory visions” or even actual real visions of Jesus appearing from heaven, this is still entirely compatible with the Qur’anic message that, “….they killed him not, nor did they crucify him.”

      Shabbir Ally provided evidence that a growing consensus of Christian scholars through independent study are coming to the conclusion that there was an earlier Christian proclamation that Jesus was actually assumed alive into heaven, and not resurrected (and this agrees with the Qur’anic account). The best that David could do in response was to attempt to deflect and distract by changing the subject from the resurrection and attacking the Qur’an. David also seems to do this with any criticism of the Bible, or Christian belief, his strategy is to turn the tables and make the same arguments against the Qur’an. During the question and answer period, in regard to eternal Qur’an in comparison with Christian belief of God dying on cross, Shabbir showed that by resorting to such a deflection tactic in that case David is engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. David often gives a skewed or partial explanation of an Islamic belief, and then proceeds to offer arguments in order to attack and disprove his own fallacious misrepresentations of Islam – a cheap and ineffective tactic.

      David’s answer to the question on Matt. 24:36 was weak, incoherent and rambling, while Shabbir’s response to the same was much more understandable and acceptable.

      Although David ineffectively tries to dismiss it, “Q theory” offers a strong argument against the reliability and completeness of the Bible and against the resurrection as well, and this is a serious problem for Christianity.

      This debate was clearly a victory for Sheikh Shabbir Ally.

      Like

    • “f, after the assumption, the disciples merely experienced “hallucinatory visions” or even actual real visions of Jesus appearing from heaven, this is still entirely compatible with the Qur’anic message that, “….they killed him not, nor did they crucify him.””
      Very true, Ibn Issam! In fact, that has been mentioned by Ibn Hazm & Ibn Tymyyiah. Regardless what Jesus’s disciples thought about that incident, it really doesn’t contradict Qur’an.
      Believing that Jesus got crucified ( before the revelation of Qur’an) by itself is not considered a blasphemy. The OT, the NT, and Qur’an all mention that jews killed many prophets of God. If Jesus disciples thought that Jesus was a prophet, yet he was one of many prophets who got killed by disbelievers, that by itself doesn’t contradict Qur’an nor their states as believers.
      In fact, the book of acts shows us that the [core] teaching of Jesus’ disciples was that Jesus is just the prophet Messiah such as in acts 2 & acts 5
      “And every day, in the Temple and from house to house, they continued to teach and preach this message: “Jesus is the Messiah.”

      Christians have to prove that Jesus’ disciples believed that Jesus is the second person in the trinity who came to earth to doe for their sins. And I’m telling you they cannot, and they won’t.

      Finally, dr Shabir raised many good points from dr. Daniel Smith such as why Jesus didn’t remain on earth if he got resurrected and saved from the death?, and why God made the disbelievers believe that they were victorious by killing Jesus. BTW, Ahmed Deedat had raised a similar question which is why did Jesus keep hiding after the resurrection? What’s the point ? I mention Ahmed Deedat because christians always mock him while he was indeed a lion and pioneer.

      Like

  2. list of recommended names for debate and/or dialog :kenneth cragg—michael nazir ali—-keith e small— andrew g bannister— william e phipps— norman anderson— david emmanuel singh—- john kaltner— peter kreeft— jacques jomier— brian arthur brown— clinton bennett— f.e.peters— reuven firestone— carol bakhos— todd lawson— a h mathias zahniser— robert f shedinger— oddbjorn leirvik— gabriel said reynolds— gordon d nickels— norman l geisler— colin chapman— michael ipgrave— mark d siljander— avi lipkin— mark durie— josh mc dowell— chawkat moucarry— don mccurry— craig a evans— james a beverly— george w brawsell— brannon m wheeler— sidney h griffith— sylvain romain— stephen dickie— n.a.newman— nabeel t jabbour— carlos madrigal— daniel wickwire— hank hanegraaff— elass mateen— david pawson— john ankerberg— thabiti anyabville— erwin w lutzer— bruce mcdowell— miroslav wolf— nt wright

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Nice use of the poisoning the well fallacy in the title there, Bilal. Veryyyyy intellectually honest…

    Like

  4. I don’t understand why Williams and other Muslims here always say “convicted criminal and sociopath” about David Wood, when he fully confessed all that, did the time in prison and an institution; and testifies of how Christ came into his life and changed his heart.

    You guys talk about forgiveness; you even try to make the point that Allah is more forgiving and just forgives without a sacrifice (without an atonement of satisfying the wrath/justice of God against the sin); yet you don’t extend the same grace to David Wood, when he clearly confessed his sin and repented of that.

    “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old things have passed away, behold, the new has come.”
    2 Corinthians 5:17

    Samaritan is right; Williams poisoned the well from the beginning by the title.

    It reveals a bad heart. Shabir does not do that.

    Like

    • Ken, Wood’s hard has not changed judging by his fruit. He is still obviously a sociopath.

      Liked by 1 person

    • How do you come to that conclusion? He debates Muslims and tells them about God’s love in the gospel and offer of forgiveness of sins; and Shabir Ally and others debate him and they don’t do ad hominem like you do.

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: