Reviewing the Ally/Craig Debate then Calls

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Theology and Apologetic Method Matter

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. I would like to play major portions today of a debate. I was listening to while writing I was gonna do this a number of weeks ago and then stuff happened and got busy, but I think I think we need to listen to what is said in this debate.

It was a debate between Shabir Ali and William Lane Craig and That Brings us to a Recognition of the fact that theology matters and I've said that many many times it seems to be a A Theme of mine in essence as well.

It should be. I think theology matters the theology when you engage in apologetics your apologetic methodology Must be consistent with your theology. In fact, it should be the natural outgrowth of it.

It should come from it you should have a very consistent systematic theology that gives rise to your apologetic methodology if you're giving a defense of something obviously That defense should arise from what it is you're defending.

Unfortunately, many people develop an apologetic methodology based upon pragmatism what they think works Even if it is not actually representational of their theology in fact, many apologists don't have much of a theology, which is not really a good thing at all and so What we hear, you know, I might in my apologetics classes.

I contrast Greg Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein with William Lane Craig's debate against Frank Zindler now I'm sure there are other debates that I could utilize it just happens to the videotape that I have from Willow Creek.

It's got pretty high production values on it but I contrast the certainty of the presentation made by Bonson with William Lane Craig's the the greater Probability is that the greater portion of the data?

Points to the greater probability of the truthfulness of the existence of a god type of an argumentation and That's because the underlying theologies of the two systems are very very different from one another between Bonson and William Lane Craig and So as a result This debate between Shabir Ali and William Lane Craig there are times When unfortunately, I have to agree with Shabir Ali because of the fundamental and foundational theological issues that exist with William Lane Craig is a full-blown Arminian and a Molinist a Proponent of middle knowledge and so to give you some background.

Let me at least back up so you can hear some of the character of Craig's arguments. Before we get into Shabir Ali's responses so that you have some context to hear in this debate.

Divine Justice, Love, and Forgiveness in Islam and Christianity

And this is related to the objection. I raised in our debate over the doctrine of salvation. I argued there that the Islamic doctrine of salvation compromises God's justice because he just overlooked certain people's sins without Punishment and our present discussion reinforces this why I think the punishment is incompatible with love.

Well Shabir's answer is because if he loved them, then he just forgive them since he doesn't forgive them He must not love them. But I want to know why do you think that God can just forgive sin without payment?

And I think the answer is because on the Islamic conception of God God's omnipotence Trump's his justice. You see God can do anything he wants so if you wanted to forgive everybody He just do it since he doesn't do it.

He must not want to. Why doesn't he want to save everyone. The answer because He doesn't love everyone. You see on the Christian view God's omnipotence does not imply the ability to act contrary to his own nature.

Part of God's nature is holiness and absolute justice and to overlook sin would be to contradict his own.

Holy nature. Now, I'm just stop right there fully agree with that statement. Very important element of dealing with Islamic theology. Islamic teaching God's holiness demands punishment of sin. It cannot simply be overlooked.

It cannot simply be dismissed with a wink of the eye, but you are already hearing some things relevant to Discussions that have gone on recently in the blogosphere. Especially it sounds like and when link Craig will say us later that he is promoting an Undifferentiated omnibenevolence on the part of God.

In fact It's it's part and parcel of his argument for the existence of the Christian God over against the Islamic God is that God will equally love in the same way those who are in hell and those who are in heaven no, no difference that you can't have any concepts such as Redemptive love or common grace. No equal love.

Which of course I think would then introduce all sorts of problems of God's unhappiness throughout eternity. And why he created this way and so on so forth, but that's what you're gonna run to. But at this point what's being said about justice does need to be heard.

With both his perfect justice and his perfect love and hence God does love even those who he punishes. So the real question I think should be here tonight is whose concept of omnipotence is correct. And I want to submit that omnipotence does not imply the ability to act contrary to God's own nature.

Just ask yourself the question could God commit sure could he create an idol and fall down and worship it? Surely not. Shabir himself said God can't break his own promises so that God's own nature provides the boundaries about of his omnipotence.

In short an acceptable account of Omnipotence shows that love and punishment are not Incompatible. And since the God of the Quran does not love sinners He is therefore not all loving and therefore he is not the perfect being.

I think that argument is Incontestable, but Shabir then tries a second strategy what my teenage son would call it Yo mama the fix that is to say rather than defend your own view. You just cast aspersions on the other view and say well.

It's just as bad as mine. He says in the Bible. It says God hates evil doers. But notice those statements are found primarily in the poetic books like the Psalms and everybody knows it is an interpretive Principle of literature that you cannot use poetic books as a basis for doctrine.

Poetry must always be interpreted in light of the didactic or the teaching portions of Scripture. It is of the nature of poetry to use hyperbole metaphor Personification. And when you look at the didactic portions of Scripture what you find is scores of passages that God loves Unbelievers.

He loves sinners. And that's why he sent his son. The Bible says that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. That whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

And it is in light of those passages that we understand the songs to mean that yes God detests the evil that these people do. He detests their behavior. He hates their sin, but he loves them as persons.

Creatures.

I'm not sure. I think I may have just cut off the last few seconds of his presentation. When I recorded this I had all sorts of problems that I had to reverse things and do all sorts of anyways. There you have the the assertion.

That the texts that say that God hates sinners. Like Psalm 5 5. That those texts are in the poetic portions and therefore they cannot be used for doctrine. Tell the early church that and how many times they quoted from the Psalter to establish resurrection and prophecy anyway.

The irony here is is gonna be that that and it's a little bit uncomfortable. We're gonna we're gonna end up having to agree with Shabir Ali a few times here. Because what you're gonna hear later on and we're gonna get to it what you can hear later on.

Is going to explain all of this when when we hear Dr. Craig address the issue of original sin. It's it's it's quite.

Is not loving or the God does not love everyone. But notice however that the Quran tells us in a general statement That God is in fact the fool will do. What will the fool will do in Surah Al-Murood and that just simply says that God is Forgiving and he is full of loving kindness as one translator put it.

Moreover, the Quran says in the line had been nasty. Not a fool. Rahim surely. God is Tender and loving towards all humankind as in the crime of. So these general statements are there and the God's love has been shown already in the Muslim doctrine.

By the very fact that he has already created everyone in a default situation where they are automatically safe. It is people who will turn away from that safe position. I think again the doctor Fred's difficulty with this is that he thinks that people are automatically created depraved and Somebody needs to save them.

So don't forget it from that angle. Dr. Craig has a different interpretation of what's happening here. But now when we look at these passages in late in the Bible. We see that in fact the Bible maintained a similar Muslim position regarding God and how he treats evil doors.

The idea that God is love or that statements itself of God is love. Is it first John that's one of the letters of John that was disputed in Christian Church until it was finally accepted. Notice that it comes towards the end of the Bible.

And I would see that emphasis in this letter of John. As a later emphasis that came out of the understanding of Jesus Pentos of his passion of what he bore in suffering and that was interpreted as a suffering out of the love for humankind.

I'm not denying that God is love. But I've seen that that later emphasis is a later emphasis. But when we go back to what the Bible itself says we see that the Bible maintains a similar Quranic stance.

Dr. Craig says this is only in the poetic books. Like in the Psalms for example, but notice I did not only come from the poetic books like the Psalms. I caught it from Leviticus, which is a law book. I.

From Deuteronomy another law book Deuteronomy again Zacharias Revelation in Romans in the New Testament Paul maintains that God loved Jacob, but he hated Esau. I think it would be unbiblical to try and maintain for the purpose of this dialogue that God Does not hate people the worst.

Dr. Craig thinks well God hates the sins. But notice that these verses are not saying. But God hates the sinner. Oh that in fact what will happen in the end is not that God will put the sin into hell.

But God will put the sinners into hell.

The Nature of Omnipotence and God’s Ability to Forgive

Now let me just stop just just a moment. You got to give him credit. Yep. God's God's gonna put the sin in there. And you heard people chuckling When you when you try to make these these distinctions that this ain't there you're setting yourself up to get your head hands you on a platter and.

That's that's what happened there. Now I think you know, we're gonna get it the debate will get into this a little bit more later on. I think there's everything proper and good about discussing within the Christian faith the concept of God's love Expressed between the Father the Son the Spirit and how Unitarianism cannot address that but I don't see that as the world's strongest apologetic argument.

Obviously it requires time to establish the biblical foundations the doctrine Trinity begin with and I've Honestly never been in a debate where I had enough time To develop something that large anyway, let alone to then develop something like this along alongside it.

So while I think that there is validity in the discussion within the Christian faith It's difficult for me to see that it's the best way to approach this particular subject in regards to making a criticism of Unitarianism, I think there are more.

I think there are better arguments that can be mustered against Unitarianism. But obviously I'm one of those sticks sticks in the mud that Actually thinks arguing from Scripture would be the best way to handle these particular things.

Now, what about the Christian? Understanding of God. Dr. Craig says that God is the greatest conceivable being. Notice that actually proves that the Muslim belief is the correct one. Because for God to be the greatest conceivable being and for Jesus to declare that the father is greater than he is Would indicate to me that Jesus is not God.

Now I'm gonna stop right there, isn't it interesting. I think back again to the Bonson Stein debate and One of the things I think that was wise about what Greg Bonson does. He said I'm I am defending specifically Christian theism up and I'm not defending any other form of the ism.

I'm not defending some basic definition. Remember he and Stein went back and forth on that because Stein wanted a more basic definition of well sort of like a being is creator of all things and no greater can be conceived and things like that and and Bonson said no, I'm I am going to defend the God who has revealed himself in Scripture.

Here again is the difference between the two presentations now should barely is an error here. Because he is ignoring the biblical understanding of who Jesus Christ is. He is speaking in John chapter 14 verse 28 of his Position as one who has entered into human flesh and the greater there is is not greater as in being but in current position.

He has humbled himself. And so that's the context and the reference that is being used there. So it's it's an inappropriate application and an inappropriate argument against the position that Craig has taken.

But the fact remains that of to define God is simply the greatest being which can be imagined. It's not how the Bible defines God. And so when you use less biblical argumentation than the Bible actually allows you to use you're gonna end up in these These sort of dead ends that you really can't get out.

Love because there were three persons in that one God here and so the three persons could love each other. Notice that in the end. The analysis leads to the same conclusion in the Muslim view if God is to love he has to love himself.

And in the Christian view for God to love God has to love himself. Whether he's loving another person within the same Godhead or whatever. This is the same one God loving God. I Have solved anything but as Dr. Craig has pointed out this is a Christian apologetic that has been developed by some Philosophers and Christian scholars to try and find more reasons for believing in the Trinity, which is a very difficult concept.

Let me just mention I've read Shabir Ali's material against the deity of Christ and things like that and I'm really hoping That Shabir has progressed far beyond what he has put into print. Anyway, those books look like they were fairly old because they they really do not show an understanding of the doctrine at all.

Then again, I wonder if Shabir or any other believing Muslim can Honestly come to understand the doctrine at all. The reason being the Quran misrepresents it it miss. Misidentifies the doctrine of the Trinity as long as you accept the Quran as the final authority.

Then you're always going to be arguing against a straw man a version of the Trinity that simply doesn't exist.

So it's like saying that Jesus is ready. Well, then in order to maintain the Trinity doctrine here we have to now redefine God from God being a person To now God being an attribute. So it looks like in this case.

What we're doing is that we're cutting the foot to fit the shoe. You see we cannot start by assuming that the Trinity is true and then change everything around to fit the Trinity. We have to look at the Bible carefully and find out does it actually teach the Trinity doctrine and.

Then if it does teach that well, then we will have to make other adjustments. But if the Bible does not teach that we cannot shape the Bible to fit our faith. We have to change our faith to fit the Bible.

So I think it is mistaken. I Want to turn that into a sound clip that I can put on an mp3 player and put in front of the microphone every time Shabir Ali and I debate. We we cannot change the Bible to fit our faith with change our faith to fit the Bible.

But that's exactly what he refuses to do. Since his faith forced upon him by Islam is different than that of the Apostles and Prophets themselves. Then he has to change the Bible constantly change the Bible adopting the most destructive criticism of the Jesus seminar and people like that to alter the Fundamental message of the Christian scriptures so as to fit the the Islamic faith that comes later.

Which comes from a man who didn't know the Bible to begin with? The circularity and error of that action is is glaring, but it's it's there of Jesus as.

God. True the debate is not about whether or not Jesus is God in this question of who exactly is God but if dr. Craig maintains that God is a Trinity then he is maintaining that Jesus is part of that Trinity and Naturally we have to find out whether or not Jesus is really part of that Trinity.

He thinks I introduced a red herring by talking about whether or not Jesus is God. But it is not the red herring because we have to find out whether or not God is made up of three persons and we have to Identify these persons and find out if each one of these persons really is God.

And what I have found. Referring to materials from scholars that dr. Craig respects is that the idea that Jesus is God is an idea that developed and evolved over time.

And no there's one of the major differences. She barely would never be able to say who dr. White respects. Because I wouldn't be respecting any scholar who would Take that evolutionary approach and ignore the mountain of evidence.

Not only within the Christian scriptures themselves But likewise within the writings the early church. And again if Shabir Ali were consistent with himself the way he attempts to establish the validity of the companions of the Prophet and their ability to hear perfectly the Quran and recorded In an exact fashion if you were to be consistent use the same standards.

Then we clearly have evidence of the deity of Christ within the time period and lifetime of those people who ministered with Jesus Christ. They heard him preaching they heard him teaching and yet no evidence whatsoever.

They bring any objection to this instead their writings Clearly present the doctrine the deity of Christ. The earliest of the Christian writings outside the New Testament likewise do the same thing and That's that's right there on the surface so again inconsistent utilization of materials is the only way that's That Shabir can argue at this point.

The Deity of Christ, the Trinity, and Historical Evidence

Of Jews Christians and Muslims. This is a point I made in my first speech during the development from Judaism to Christianity and into Islam. And I've indicated that Christianity by adopting this different belief has actually gone in a sense Off that path of flow from Judaism to Islam in our concept of God.

I Want to look now at the question of God loving people in such a way as to guarantee their salvation. Remember that I said that God created people for his mercy. But he left them free to choose a different path.

Agrees that God will punish people. But he thinks that God loves also those whom he punishes. But my question specifically was this. Does God love those people in the same way that he loves the ones who are close to him.

Now there's a good question. I mean let's face it. He's asking a very good question. Does he now no, but notice something. There's two there's an error on Shabir's part here as well, and this is where theology matters.

Does he love all in an undifferentiated way. I Don't know how people can read the Old Testament or how people can can do this and and come to that conclusion. But it's love all in undifferentiated way.

But then did you hear what was just said. Those who are the closest to him? How do you get closest to him see the biblical answer is that God is the one who brings you? He is the one who draws a person to Christ.

It is all done of grace not of what I do. It's not I that get myself closer to God by what I do. That's where the difference to be found. See those who come close to him by what action. By their action.

By their activity. Or. By the grace of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

That he hates evil doers. But that's a great thing so God must punish the evil doers. And I mentioned that God does not have to punish evil doers. He may if he wants or he may forgive them if he wants.

It's forgiveness contrary to justice. No, I don't think so. If any one of you were to have a speeding ticket and you went to court you pleaded your case you explained your circumstances.

Now now listen to listen to this very carefully because the fact that here you have a tremendous insight into the mindset of the Muslim who is thinking about justice holiness and the punishment of sin a Tremendous insight.

What is he? What is he liking it to a traffic ticket and How a judge might accept your excuse that you were rushing your wife to the emergency room to give. And that's why you were speeding. This is how God's justice is seen and how quite honestly lightly it's taken.

Forgiveness is not contrary to justice. It is within the scope of the judge's activity to be able to forgive and by his forgiving He is still ruling by a just decision. Injustice, however could occur if I rob you and if the judge lets me go free.

But if that judge is God. And if God can compensate you in such a way that you are happy that you were wrong in the first place. Then God can forgive me and God would lose nothing. But in the Islamic conception, we are told that in order to get forgiveness from God He must first right our wrongs with other human beings.

And in fact Jesus seems to have thought the same thing because in the Gospels is reported to have said that if you have a gift Taking it to the altar first, you know. Don't put face your gift yet go and make right with your brother and then come back and offer your gift to the altar.

So I do not see that the Muslim conception of God is at all objectionable in any way and on the other hand I see the Christian development of the idea that Jesus is the Son of God and that he's the second person of the Holy Trinity and that there is a Trinity is a later idea for which we do not find proper sanction in the Bible.

That's the correct thing that Jesus did in fact make a claim which we would consider blasphemy. But not only that we would consider blasphemy that the Bible itself in the Old Testament would declare a blasphemy.

If indeed that were the case, then Jesus would have died as a blasphemer.

Now, you know, I it just seems to me that that here we have another one of those major major major stumbling blocks just just. Something you it doesn't matter how often you explain it. There is something in Islamic theology and the Islamic worldview that just keeps people from hearing this and you understand this because.

This is the primary reason that Muslims just cannot believe that we believe that Jesus was crucified upon a cross. That would mean that he died as a blasphemer. God would never let a prophet a resul die as a blasphemer.

Therefore it couldn't have happened despite all the historical evidence. And the the primacy of the Christian documents and and everything else. The fact that people died that way historically and everything else they just can't believe it.

And and now you just heard it. Well, he could not possibly have died as a blasphemer. When did the Jews and their understanding of who Jesus was become the determining factor of the truth? Isn't it? So odd given the antipathy that exists between Muslims and Jews that in this point the Jewish Interpretation is taken as being the infallible one.

They were in error as to who Jesus was. They rejected Jesus for who he was and so what they thought in Jesus's death is irrelevant. The point is who was he was he who he claimed to be and did God have a purpose in the crucifixion?

That's the real issue.

Enemies. First I argued that the doctrine of three persons in one being is rationally Unobjectable and all he's been able to say here is well, then you're redefining God. God becomes an attribute. Not at all.

It just means that words can be used in different ways to mean either things or attributes. For example, if you say X is concrete. That doesn't mean that concrete is therefore property rather than a thing.

But you may be saying in this case you're saying it's a concrete thing. It's made out of concrete. Or in another case. You can use concrete as a noun. It can be either a noun or an adjective. Similarly when you said Jesus is God or the father is God.

These are not identity statements. These are statements of predication affirming that all three persons are divine. So one God comprised of three persons that is rationally Unobjectionable. Now Shabir again tries to divert this into a debate over the deity of Christ and I want to resist this.

Because that's not the issue tonight. He did not refute the authenticity of Jesus claims of the trial in which he blasphemed by robbing God of incommensurateness and unity he in effect committed sure but what Shabir says is well.

Then he died as a blasphemer. Not all his claims are blasphemous. Only if they are untrue. But if they are true, he is not a blasphemer and as Muslims those of you who are Muslims tonight. You must believe what Jesus of Nazareth said because he was a prophet sent by God.

And so you must believe him when he said that he is the son of man who will succumb in the clouds of power sitting at the right hand of God. Oh. One other example of using a word is either a noun or an adjective say X is leather.

That can be either an adjective or a noun doesn't mean that you turn leather from cowhide into an adjective. So again, I don't think we've seen any reputation of my argument that the doctrine of three persons in one being is incoherent.

The Trinity as Self-Giving Love and the Limits of Unitarianism

Now what about my plausibility argument for the Trinity based upon God's nature of self-giving love? Here Shabir's response is frankly very weak. He says on your view God also loves himself. But it's totally different because God is composed of three persons it is not one person Self-absorbed in self-love as it is in Islam rather.

It is a triad of persons each person loving the other the father loving the son the son loving the spirit the spirit loving the father and so it's completely different and thus God can be a community of Loving persons as one being and that is a more plausible doctrine of God then a Unitarian concept which has this self-absorbed deity who doesn't give himself away in love and therefore cannot be Morally perfect.

So I think we've got not only a rationally unobjectionable doctrine. We've got a doctrine that is quite plausible as well. Now let's contrast the Islamic conception of God as a being whose love is conditional Partial and selective.

Here should your quotes general statements in the Quran that God is full of love and kindness. But the question is what does that mean? What does it cash out to? What that cashes out to is that if you do works of righteousness and if you believe the right thing then God will sign love To you.

Otherwise, he will not love you and that is crucial to Shabir's answer to the question Why doesn't God punish people? Or pardon me, why does God punish people if he loves them. The answer Shabir gives is he does not love them.

Otherwise, I asked Shabir Ali. Why doesn't God then just forgive everyone if he's so full of loving kindness. Why doesn't everybody go to heaven if that's within God's power the real issue? I believe tonight between us is these different concepts of omnipotence.

That Omnipotence trumps his own nature so that he can act contrary to his justice. But on the Christian view his own nature provides the boundary channels for his omnipotence and therefore God both Punishes and loves at the same time like any loving parent does who finds himself obligated to punish his children.

Now just yesterday and The response I got back from Paul Owen was anything just a little bit short of absolutely filled with hysterics, but I pointed out that this utilization of the term God's children in this way is It's not biblical.

It is it is Inappropriate and and untrue and what do I mean by that? Well, it should be straightforward, isn't it? Howard's how is anyone truly a son or daughter of God except by faith in Christ Jesus were adopted Into the family of God and so here you have a Craig.

It sounds like identifying individuals who will be under his punishment for eternity as his sons and daughters as his children and Not differentiating As he must differentiate between that and and what sonship Adoption in the family of God means and then you just attach the love of God to that and well, like I said theology matters.

Did you catch that did you catch it does he love those Whom he is punishing in this a same way to use term exact same way As those who are saved. Yes, so you have God With Undifferentiated love there.

There's even though we differentiate in our love. There can be no differentiation in God's love even in eternity. Which I cannot possibly see how that does not lead to the idea that God is going to be eternally dissatisfied.

It took God create a situation where he would eternally be loving those that he's punishing. That's that's what we're being told. I I just I don't know I shrug and go don't think so. Now notice the the those are two separate statements God loves the lost.

See people people hear you saying God has a specific love. I mean even the Apostle Paul said he endures all sake all things the sake of whom He endures all things the sake of the elect now. Did he know who the elect were?

No. But he knew what the purposes of even his suffering in Evangelism and in the missionary enterprise he knew what they those those purposes were now God does know and so yes, God loves sinners because every single one of the elect is a sinner in a redemptive fashion and Since he doesn't wipe every sinner off the face of the planet the instant that they're born because they're born in sin.

Then he shows common grace and love for them as well and long-suffering and patience. But if you if you don't allow God to have at least as great an ability to differentiate in his love as man has if not a greater one more holy one a one informed by perfect knowledge and perfect grace and mercy and holiness.

If you don't allow that then the result is really indefensible.

On the Islamic view, however, God does not love. You should hear things that I'm presupposing that people are born to pray not at all. I'm willing to set aside any doctrine of original sin. The Quran agrees that all persons are simple.

It says that if God punished men for their sins, not one creature would be left alive. Now, did you catch that?

I bet you some of you fell asleep there. I know the folks in the control room didn't catch that. So maybe maybe you didn't either but let me let me repeat that if I could for just a moment because I think you Need to hear what we just heard.

Did you catch that Shabir thinks that I believe that all men are born depraved. Not at all. I'm willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin. Excuse me, I What. That's what I heard and and I when I first heard this a couple weeks ago.

I Was riding it was extremely cold. I was just oh, it's miserable and Is is in the low 40s and you know when you're riding a bike, you know You've got a 15 mile an hour wind going by you and so it feels like it's in the 30s somewhere and the eyes just horrible and I heard that and I was like No, I I must have misheard that but Shabir heard it that way, too as we will hear when we get to that point, but I am willing to set aside the doctrine of Original sin.

I think that's what I heard him say. Yep, I think that's what he said, I think he said I'm not even gonna go there which Pretty consistent if you're gonna be a full-blown Armenian. You're not really good believe in total depravity because what's your ultimate Philosophical pre-commitment Libertarian free will and if you're totally depraved Libertarian free will doesn't work very well.

So we are willing to To put it aside and I I just scratched my head and go. Whoa. Okay. Well and interestingly enough and sadly enough I'm should barely he's gonna nail him on it. He's gonna nail him on it as well.

He should have do bear with me. Yeah, I if you're gonna if you're gonna be willing to waffle like that, then expect to get To get nailed because these these folks know which ends up and they're gonna catch the inconsistency.

We'll continue with that, but we're gonna take a couple phone calls real quick. Make sure to get everybody in this afternoon and so we're gonna Start off with Nasser. Hi Nasser.

Doing good. Hey, thanks for taking my call. I really appreciate it. I wanted to compliment you on exposing the double standard that should be Raleigh uses when he evaluates the Bible. But yet he refuses to apply when he's looking at the Quran.

Oh, yeah.

It's well, I'm it sounds like you've listened to probably even more of Shabir than I have and the constant the constant drumbeat of All of his presentations whenever he dresses the Bible and whenever he dresses the Quran.

So I took the time before our debate. I took time to go and listen to stuff where he isn't talking about Christian. He isn't even he's just talking to Muslims about Muslim issues. And I listened very careful carefully to the standards he used as to what scholarship he would he would accept and and what forms the background of his own presentations and when he's talking about the Hadith literature when he's talking about the time frames between Muhammad speaking and the companions and their recording of the elements the Quran the formulation of the Quran the Hadith literature all that stuff.