Khalid Yasin and Inconsistent Islamic Arguments

When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying,

All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.

And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. After eight days, his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them.

Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, Peace be with you. Then he said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see my hands, and reach here your hand, and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God. Jesus said to him,

Because you have seen me have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.

Jesus Christ did not say, I am God, worship me. Now if there's a

Christian in this room that can tell me that Jesus said in his own words, not

Matthew, not Mark, not Luke, not John, not Paul, but Jesus said,

I am God, worship me, then we will raise $5 ,000 for you tonight before you leave.

Break your Bibles out, call somebody up, go make a phone call, get the verse, you'll never find it.

You'll find somebody else's word alluding to that. You'll find somebody else's reference appearing that, but Jesus never said to anybody,

I am God, worship me. Once again, we cannot but help notice both the influence of Ahmed Didat and his frequent repetition of that same phraseology,

Jesus never said, I am God, worship me. And also the fact that evidently, Muslims really find this to be a compelling argument that those specific words have to have been spoken.

Now of course, from a Christian perspective, every time I hear an Islamic apologist using this argument,

I am immediately strongly tempted to discount this person as having done any serious thought about Christianity.

Because if they actually had taken the time to do what I do, read the best the other side has to offer, they would realize that the argumentation that we have for the deity of Christ is far more sophisticated, far more broad -based, far deeper than the objections that they make.

And if you make objections against religious faith that their people are not going to find at all convincing, well, then why are you objecting to their religious faith at all, really becomes the question.

Let me turn it around this way. Muhammad did not say, in his own words, written by himself,

I am the final last prophet sent to all the world, in his own words, using the same standards that Khalid Yassin used just now.

Did he? Don't give me Uthman, don't give me

Bukhari, don't give me Muslim. Give it to me in Muhammad's own words. You go, well, wait a minute, that's ridiculous.

You're creating a false problem here. Exactly. That's exactly what this argument that Khalid Yassin just presented actually is, is a false argument.

You're making the parameters so narrow that they're excluding all the positive information you could possibly have to maintain your position.

So, am I not right? If you can't show me anywhere where Muhammad said this, other people said he said this, but that doesn't mean anything because it has to be in his own words, then he must not be the final prophet sent to all the world, right?

Well, if you say no, then you should likewise reject Khalid Yassin's presentation.

Jesus accepted the worship of Thomas, he accepted the worship of the disciples. He identified

Thomas's confession of faith in him as God and his worship of him as a statement of faith.

If Jesus had been a Muslim, as Muslims believe he was, he would have had to have directly rebuked all such activities, but he did not.

Now, it's interesting that Yassin goes on to quote the very words of Jesus from the

Lord's prayer, the Lord's model prayer in Matthew chapter 5.

So, evidently he accepts the words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew. And so, if that's the case, then how does he explain

Jesus' claim to, for example, possess all power in heaven and on earth?

How does he explain how Jesus, a mere prophet, a resul, could say that heaven and earth would pass away but his words would not pass away?

That's Matthew 24, 35. How then does he explain the words of Jesus in Matthew 11, 27 through 29 when he says, all things have been handed over to me by my

Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the

Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him, come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

What prophet could direct people to himself in this way, in a way that's only appropriate to direct people to God?

What prophet could say the things that Jesus himself says in the book of Matthew? So if Khalid Yassin is going to quote from Matthew, and it's good enough to quote the

Lord's prayer and make false application of that, then why not everything else

Jesus says in Matthew? You can't pick and choose. You can't say, well, I'll take this, but I won't take that.

If you do that, you're demonstrating that your argument really has no validity at all. My father, he didn't say my father who art in heaven, because he was not exclusively the servant of God.

He said, when he taught them how to pray, I used to be a Christian. I still love

Jesus Christ. I'm still connected to his message. I know it very well. He said, and you know that he said, our father, didn't he say that?

He didn't mean our father in the sense that he gave birth to us, but he said our

Lord. Who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, not my name, not our name.

Now, this kind of argumentation is just completely invalid. What is Jesus doing here? He's teaching his disciples.

So what's he going to say? My father? Or is he going to teach the disciples to say our father?

Well, obviously, since he's teaching the disciples, he's going to use non -exclusive terminology. Jesus elsewhere, in Matthew and in the other

Gospels, uses very exclusive language of his relationship with the Father. Remember Matthew 11, that I quoted earlier, uses very exclusive language between himself and the

Father. Certainly in John's chapter 17, the high priestly prayer, very specific terminology, indicating that Jesus' relationship with the

Father as son is very different than anyone else's. That's why Muslims reject these books, is because they present

Jesus as the Son of God in a unique way that is completely incompatible with the

Muslim Jesus that Muhammad presented out of his ignorance of the Christian scriptures 600 years later.

Now, then he gives another bad argument when he says, he doesn't say our name, he doesn't say my name.

And this, again, is arguing against the deity of Christ. But again, that's because he's teaching the disciples to pray, first of all.

And secondly, is there not all sorts of discussion of Jesus' name in the book of Matthew, for example, since he's quoting from Matthew?

Matthew 10, 22. You will be hated of all because of my name, but it is the one who endures the end who will be saved.

My name. Matthew 18, 5. Who receives one such child in my name receives me. 18, 20.

For where two or three have gathered together in my name, I am there in their midst. Is this what Amir Razul says?

This is why Christians continue to gather together even at the risk of their lives in Muslim countries today.

Because Jesus promises to be with them. Is that what Amir Razul does? Matthew 24, 9.

Then they will deliver you to tribulation and will kill you and you will be hated by all nations.

Why? Because of my name. That's all in Matthew. In the early church, Acts chapter 3, known for that phrase, the name of Jesus, on the basis of faith in his name, in the name of Jesus, which has strengthened this man whom you see.

No, it was the name of Jesus that the early church suffered for. It was the name of Jesus that they proclaimed to others.

And so I just have to wonder, why is it that the most popular

Islamic apologists do not seem to focus upon the real issues, but present this kind of argumentation that doesn't even touch upon the central aspects of the presentation of the deity of Christ in the

New Testament? Why is that? That's a simple question of honesty. Isn't one of the 99 excellent names that Muhammad gave for Allah truth?

Isn't Allah true? Why should the most popular Islamic arguments themselves not partake of truth?