More Cultural Insanity in the First Half Hour / Anjem Choudary and Sam Shamoun Debate Review

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name's James White, the unmatchable king of all things technical, Rich Pierce behind the glass there. So the stuff you're recording wasn't a part of the Wayback Machine?

There are just some things that as I have poked through them, it's like, you know, I don't like how I digitized that. Oh, so it was part of the Wayback Machine. I'm remastering them. Oh, okay. All right.

So you're saying you're doing the series where I responded to Norman Geisler. This was even before The Potter's Freedom. Probably while I was writing The Potter's Freedom. Actually, if I recall this series of events, you got chosen but free and within one week you were on the air about it.

Oh, yeah. And after the series was over, it just then snowballed into the book. Yeah. Yeah, well, that's getting re-digitized and put up on Sermon Audio. Even for those of you who are whining and complaining, evidently, lots of folks do like having all that stuff on Sermon Audio.

And it's just a matter of, you know, switching your feet over to them and all as well. But so that's cool. I've not heard those since I did them. That's... I suppose I should go back and I might learn something since it's been so long.

Well, like I told you before the show started, and just going back and re-listing to them is like, wow, you know, there's a lot of people that never heard these. That's true. And this was a devastating critique.

It just, you dismantled this book. The book was never mantled. Well, there is a dismantling. It was not that difficult to do. It's just push hard on it. It sort of falls apart. Anyway, that sort of does take me to my first subject on the program today.

Criticism of Peter Lumpkins and the Brethren Article

This was something I had set up for the last program, but certain Internet troublemakers pointed me to an article. I did not know that that Lumpy was still around. I figured, you know, once you've been a vice president of something and then what you're vice president of just sort of goes away.

Is he no longer working for them? No, no, no, no. Shockingly. I did not know that. I mean, I mean, obviously he got his job simply based upon, you know, pure merit in the first place. So why he wouldn't be there anymore?

I have no earthly idea, but I just honestly had not heard anything about Lumpy for a long time. And but he's he's still out there. And he he posted an article. J .B. Nicholson, Jr. Confessions of a Zero Point Calvinist has to do with the Brethren.

And he mentions me and Dave Hunt. And of course, Dave was very much involved with the Brethren, though he. I don't know that he was a member of any particular church, but he provided a footnote. Did you see what it was?

I thought he was Plymouth Brethren. Well, so part of the Brethren movement. Did you see the footnote? Did you read this? No. Oh. What's footnote? White is on the first line. Peter Lumpkins. White is founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

I used to follow White's ministry several years ago. Now, given that this guy has produced videos where he edited stuff to try to make me say things I didn't say and and, you know, for a long time, especially between 2010 and just a while ago, was clearly following the ministry very closely.

I guess what he means by that was in a positive sense, maybe. When he, as did Hunt, focused on cult theologies. However, when White began defending strict Calvinism from critics like Dave Hunt, his entire demeanor and ministry morphed, at least in my observation, into a kill or be killed animism.

A what? A kill or be killed animism. I'm thinking he ran that through Google Translate a few times personally. He began to ruthlessly attack people rather than analyze ideas. Dave Hunt, being one of those people, and has, to my knowledge, never recovered what he once had, a viable theological contribution to the discipline of comparative religions.

You know what? Which is why I've not done anything with Islam or anything. You know what's going to happen after I finish remastering the Potter's Freedom series? A year later, you learned about Dave Hunt's book, Chosen.

What Love Is This? It was on the horizon, remember? Oh yeah, that's because we did the KPXQ interview. And there was a period of time there where many people, myself included, were trying to tell Dave, Dave, you don't...

But he, no. I've offered several critiques of White on this site, notably critiques concerning White's scorched earth approach in responding to his critics, especially critics among Southern Baptists.

Yeah, no, Petey Lumpkins never does anything like that. No, he's never, you know, edited videos and done scorched earth stuff. But yeah, kill or be killed animism. There you go. There you go. So, of course, the only time he would have known anything about me was long after I became Reformed.

So the idea that I became Reformed and all of a sudden everything changed is just inane, as most of the dates on these files I'm editing started June 26th, 1999. When did he start paying attention? Oh, I don't know, but I was presenting Reformed theology long before 1999 because certain books were published in the early 90s.

And he wouldn't have known me before the early 90s. And I was already publishing God's Sovereign Grace and Drawn by the Father and Letters to Mormon Elders, Thoroughly Reformed. All of my books were based on Reformed theology.

So it's just, you know, once again, I need to queue up. I just need to queue up somewhere on the computer. Just have it come up when I start. The Fraser Crane, what color is the sky in your world? It's a cassette tape.

That's great. Did you get it from a museum or what? This is a predestination and election recording. Was Peter Lemke even born yet? May 16th, 1987. Yeah, yeah, yeah, 87. That was, trust me, long before he'd ever heard of me, I'm sure.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Not difficult to do, not difficult to do. So anyways, but kill or be killed animism. Almost as good as some of Gil Ripplinger's, almost as good as serial soul killer. Not that, but not quite.

Yeah, he's definitely not in her league when it comes to wordsmithing. No, no. May 26th, interesting article. Confidential meeting seeks to sway Synod to accept same-sex unions. And we're talking here about Rome.

We know that all the other liberal denominations have all the liberal, quote unquote, mainline. Why in the world they got that term? I don't know. But the mainline denominations have, of course, collapsed.

No question about that. But there is a lot of pressure on Rome, and you've got to believe that a large portion, I've said many times, I think if you put inclusivism and universalism together, the large majority of Rome's curia would fit into that group.

And so, especially if Francis is any indication of the direction that Rome could move, I really wonder what all of those converts to Rome who talked about the constancy of the church and so on and so forth, I really wonder what they all do.

I really wonder what they all would do. Interesting stuff going on there. A lot of people keeping a close eye on what's going on. Now, I'm not saying, I'm just simply saying, there's a lot of pressure.

There is a lot of pressure out there. And what will they do? I don't know. I don't know. But it certainly would have a lot of impact on a lot of things. I had this from the 26th. It has gone up a good bit.

Baltimore bloodshed continues. 28 shot, nine dead over holiday weekend. I was just listening to a report on the way in. 35 homicides this month in Baltimore. Civilization is just fraying. It used to be there was a great police presence in the most violent neighborhoods, which allowed life to continue on.

It's not there anymore. And what you're seeing is the total depravity of man. And it's, I mean, I don't even have here how many in Chicago, but that's just such a regular deal now that no one even talks about it.

Of course, one of the things now is that a seven-year-old was shot yesterday, shot and killed yesterday, along with his mother, I believe. And civilization is a blessing from God. You know, when I grew up, everybody knew Kate Smith.

Kate Smith sang, God bless America. And when you would hear Kate Smith start that, God bless, you know, everybody would stand up and everybody knew how to sing it and everything else. But, you know, there was a context to that.

There was a context to that. There was an underlying understanding that the blessing of God was tied to some kind of acceptance of his lordship and authority over the people asking to be blessed. There was an understanding that a sinful people who would reject everything that he says and everything that he indicates is true and right and just could not expect the blessing of God.

And holding together a culture requires the blessing of God and the restraint of evil, the restraint of evil. What happens when God simply lifts his hand of restraint? Well, that's judgment. I mean, God doesn't have to actually exercise any kind of power to bring judgment.

He just stops restraining the evil of man and lets man be man. And the result is incredible. The only possible prayer for this culture is repentance. That's the only blessing that could possibly have any kind of meaningful assistance right now.

I also had an article on May 25th. A federal appeals court has issued a ruling banning Choose Life license plates in New York State and claiming his decision that pro-life views are, quote, patently offensive, end quote.

It's just sort of like, why are we even bothering? And then earlier, I had read this article on May 21st. It was called Heads Christians Win, Tails They Lose. It should be Heads Christians Lose, Tails They Lose because the point is that no matter what they do, a Canadian Christian jeweler custom made a pair of engagement rings for a lesbian couple, Nicole White and Pam Renouf, at their request.

Later, when they found out that the jeweler personally opposes same-sex marriage, they went to pieces and demanded their money back. They were great to work with. They seemed to have no issues. They knew the two of us were a same-sex couple, White said.

I referred some of my friends to them just because I did get some good customer service and they had good prices. That was before one friend went in to purchase a ring for his girlfriend and instead found a distressing sign.

It reads, the sanctity of marriage is under attack. Let's keep marriage between a man and a woman. The couple now believes the rings they ordered will have been tainted. By having been fashioned by a jeweler, he saw Jarden's hands given what impure thoughts he holds in his mind.

Jarden said, he won't apologize for his beliefs. I feel really bad that White feels that we would be, that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract what we believe.

I cannot say, well, because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe. When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see LGBT rainbow flags and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don't have a problem with them.

I accept it. I choose to come to Canada and we accept the whole package. I don't discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. The same reason I asked to have the same respect in return, especially when it's in my own business.

Well, you silly man, don't you understand? That's not allowed. These people are totalitarians. They want to control what you think. They demand not that you simply make wedding rings for them and do so at a good price, but you must celebrate with them.

And if not, you will be put out of business. And you know what the guy did? He gave them their money back. He gave them their money back. And they get to keep the rings. Abject insanity. Abject insanity.

But you have now a generation of these people coming up and for many years now, they have been in essence told, you have uber rights. You have the right to demand that everyone bow before you and say, you are wonderful.

We celebrate what you do. And so they're just behaving the way that you would expect them to behave. Absolute insanity. Absolute insanity. I mean, I could fill my feet up with this kind of stuff if I wanted to go through my RSS feeds.

In fact, I haven't done that for a few days, and I probably would have had more today. But, you know, people send me stuff. I get stuff on Twitter all the time. And so I know it's so constant now. I don't even know what to say.

I don't know what to say. You just go, people have lost their minds. And they are trying to force all of us to follow them. And they're insanity. Well, I do want to cover something today. Those were some of the sort of introductory things, things I didn't get to last time because, oh, by the way, on the last program, I spent quite some time, well, I spent the whole program responding to Adrian Warnock and his article on why Christians should participate in international anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, anti-biphobia, whatever day.

And, you know, I identified the last half of the article as just coming straight out of the Gay Christian Handbook. It was just... And so he listened to the program. And so we had a fairly lengthy back and forth on Twitter.

And it was like I was talking to somebody other than the person who had actually written the article. It was very strange, the disconnect between what was in the article and the person I was talking to.

But even then, I would try to ask direct questions and I wouldn't really get really clear, obvious answers. And I even brought this up. I even said at one point, you know, talking to Brits is a little difficult because we don't get clear answers.

And he even said at one point, he said, well, we try to be nuanced in our responses. And I'm like, you know, especially when it comes to the gospel and stuff. I'm not sure that nuance is a good thing, but it's obviously big in the UK.

And at one point, I had a bit of a conversation. Let me see if I can find it here. It wasn't that long ago, so it might still be fairly toward the top here. Man, there's a lot of stuff in my feed. But someone else had likewise had a conversation.

There it is. Dan Phillips. Yeah, here's how I put it. Let me see if I can bring up the conversation here. Yeah, he said, he said, we had an extended back and forth between Pyro and his blog regarding charismata.

Also frustrating, like boxing with cotton candy, like boxing with cotton candy. And I said, that's interesting. And then he expanded upon that. You end up sticky and a landed a blow. And that's what I was feeling.

You know, I'd act I'd ask direct questions and you'd get this nuanced response, you know, that's not really a yes and it's not really a no and it's not really on the topic. And it was yeah, it was frustrating.

And it was like it was like boxing with cotton candy. That was that was a good way of putting it. So it was it was an interesting exchange. So if you want to see that, you can still find it on Twitter if you want to track that down.

Anjem Choudary and Sam Shamoun Debate Review

But over the weekend or was it on Monday? Yeah, I think it was on Monday. A debate took place on the Trinity channel at ABN between Sam Shamoon and Anjum Chowdhury. Now, Anjum Chowdhury is well, he's probably best known now in the United States as the guy that Sean Hannity screams at constantly.

That's that's the only reason that he goes on. That's the only reason Hannity has him on. And Anjum just sits there smiling because he is using Hannity. He's just using it. I mean, it amazes me that John Hannity cannot see how Anjum Chowdhury is just chuckling every time his face appears on Hannity.

You know, Hannity thinks he's using Chowdhury, but he's not. I mean, his audience is already more than biased on that subject anyway, so he doesn't need to bias him anymore. But, you know, he's the one that ends up yelling and screaming with Hannity because he is a clear, open advocate of Sharia.

He is he is Salafi. He is very, very, very much the conservative, in-your-face supporter of ISIS. I think, though, he continues to get public funding in the UK, which is the amazing thing. Most of these guys that are militating for the overthrow of the UK are also on public funding.

They're getting money from the government, which I find, of course, grossly hypocritical. I mean, if you're saying that the government should be overthrown, then if you had a decent bone in your body, you wouldn't be taking government money.

But anyway, it happens down in Australia, too. So, some of you may recall that Chowdhury and some other imam, whose name I do not remember, did a debate with David Wood and Robert Spencer on the existence of Muhammad.

And I reviewed it and made the argument then that I could have done a significantly better job defending the existence of Muhammad than Anjum Chowdhury and this imam did. I mean, they weren't even in the ballpark.

Now, part of that might be the different people from different cultures think in different ways. And it's not that the law of non-contradiction changes. It's just how quickly you get to it and the way that you see how things relate to one another.

And so, maybe, especially the imam who, you know, Chowdhury's been in the West for a long time. And so, you would think that he would have been a little bit more influenced in Western ways of thought.

The imam was out there somewhere. But, be it as it may, I had heard that debate, had not been impressed with Chowdhury's performance. And so, I was really interested. Now, you're actually going to have the topic was, well, the topic is exactly the same thesis statement, even as my debate in California with Sheikh Mustafa Omar, which I didn't talk about a whole lot on Tuesday, not for any of the reasons I got on other things.

But it was a wonderful debate, really had a good time at that debate with Sheikh Omar. But it's the same topic, Jesus, prophet, and or God. And so, I was sort of looking forward to, you know, how reflective is Anjum Chowdhury?

Because I've never gotten the sense that the man hears anything you're saying to him, that he reflects upon his own statements, his own beliefs. And I respect people who are reflective. And I don't mean how much light's coming off top of their head, who can hear what someone else is saying and can stop long enough to go, that was one of the things that I really, oh, someone in channel, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad.

Yeah. That, sorry, I'm impressed. That's one of the things that really struck me about some of the people that I've debated in the past is when someone is, when I debated John Dominic Crossan, the man is reflective.

You could tell he was trying to listen to what I was saying, even though it was from a worldview perspective, completely outside of his own. I mean, just one that he doesn't clearly have almost any experience interacting with, but he's reflective.

He thinks, he considers things. And I respect people like that, especially when they're, it's something they've never thought of before, but they're willing to think about it. I don't find many Muslims that are reflective.

I think part of it is because there is an element of the mindset in Islam that we have it, even considering what anybody else believes is seen by many as an act of compromise. But the reality is on our side, there are far more Christians who will take the time to learn Islam and study the background elements and read the Hadith and read the Quran and read al-Qurtabi and Ibn Kathir.

I was even saying to Sheikh Umar, man, I really wish Razi was available in English. And he's like, man, don't we all? And stuff like that. But, you know, we do that on our side. There's almost nobody who does that on the other side.

And even when people read some materials, they don't show any desire to be consistent as to the kinds of sources. When I'm, if I'm going to be debating a less Western Muslim or a more Westernized Muslim, I'm going to try to find out what kind of background they have, what kind of sources would most reflect their understanding of Islam.

There are almost no Muslims that I know that would even give consideration to doing something like that. They're just very, very few, very, very few. And I certainly had not gotten the feeling that Anjum Chowdhury was going to make me feel any better about that reality.

And that's the case. That's the case. Now, let me just make some comments before I play you some material. It was a fascinating debate, but Sam didn't mind allowing the topic to just go away. I think he has, he's come to the conclusion that when you debate a Muslim, they're not going to stay on the topic.

So why should you bother? Let's not worry about it. Let's go where it goes. And that's what he did. Because if you're looking to this debate for a meaningful, full presentation on the deity of Christ, certainly Sam presents an argument.

But I don't think he even got to the subject until about eight minutes into his 18 minute opening statement. And then later on, people who listen primarily to my debates, if you listen to the debate, and it's available online, I just grabbed it off YouTube and pulled the mp3 out of it and listened to it while I was writing.

If you're used to listening to my debates, there'll be a number of times where Chowdhury will do one of his rebuttals, and he's doing the shotgun thing, and he's throwing this out and that out. Someone who's listened to me a lot could almost go, all right, James is going to respond to this, this, this, and this.

He's going to respond to this text, and this text, and this text, and man, he's going to knock that one out of the park. And you can sort of do it that way. That's not how Sam responds. And in fact, there were a number of times there were things that Chowdhury said that I just, it would have been the center of my response.

Sam never even mentioned it. Didn't even bother to go there. Why? Well, because we hear what the other side is saying differently. Everyone knows that I have a different debating style, that I do not have a background.

Sam was born in the Middle East, and he's a little bit on the fiery side, and he and I have had conversations about that very issue. And so, he hears things differently than I do, and it was fascinating to see how he would respond to stuff.

His focus was on catching Anjum Chowdhury in inconsistencies, primarily through the use of the Quran. And, you know, Sam knows the Quran backwards and forwards, knows the Hadith backwards and forwards, and it was fascinating to hear him constantly saying to Anjum Chowdhury, well, if you say that, then you're guilty of shirk, and you've just proven the Quran is wrong, and you need to leave Islam and embrace Jesus Christ.

And it's interesting. It is really, really, really interesting, the different approach that we have on that issue. And I leave that to everybody else to decide how you go there. Now, so what I want to do, and I just realized I had not there we go, plugged in.

Chowdhury's Rebuttal on the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and Jesus in Islam

Chowdhury's opening statement was exactly what you would expect from a Salafi Muslim. He does not show any meaningful understanding of the Christian position, and if his prophet didn't have any meaningful understanding, why should he?

I mean, that's just the majority viewpoint. I mean, if on our side, we recognize that accurately representing the other side is a sign of respect, that is not a two-way street, at least not with a Salafi Muslim.

So, it wasn't all that interesting, to be honest with you, and you can tell he ran out of stuff to say before his time was over. And so, where it really got interesting and useful educationally for us is in the rebuttals.

Now, not because Chowdhury had listened carefully to Sam's presentation, because he didn't, but what he thought was a rebuttal. And what it shows, really, honestly, for us, what it illustrates is a tremendous amount of disrespect toward Christians on Chowdhury's part.

It really does. I mean, it's extremely disrespectful. But it also, unfortunately, gives us an insight into the way that the majority of Muslims that we're going to talk to hear a criticism and hear the Christian faith.

So, let's take a listen to it. I'm not playing it fast, because one thing he has learned is he's on Fox News and stuff enough that he knows they have to talk fast. And so, if I sped this up, I think with just a little bit of the British and foreign accent in it, it might be too much for a lot of folks.

And so, we're actually going at normal speed here. So, here's Anjum Chowdhury's first rebuttal.

Yes, thank you very much, Sam. I think we admitted a couple of things that we need to refer to the Qur 'an and the Sunnah. I'm very happy that you laid this foundation as well as one of the planks of your argument, because I'm going to be referring to the Qur 'an and Sunnah rather a lot today.

And we're going to deal with the Gospels as well a little bit later. But let me just begin by saying that you can't be selective, you see, from what you quote from the inimitable word of.

God, which is the Qur 'an. Now, of course, Chowdhury is completely selective, clearly has no earthly idea of the context of any of the verses that he quotes from the Bible. But if you believe the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted, as he does, why should you care?

Why would that matter to you? And that's the attitude that he brings to all the conversations.

The actual word of Allah as revealed to the messenger Muhammad, he can't pick and choose. This is not strawberry season, Sam. And obviously, we have to take as well the Hadith as the explanation and the elaboration of what is mentioned in the Qur 'an.

So let's see exactly what Allah actually says about Isa, peace be upon him. Allah said in the Qur 'an, for example, about the return of Isa, peace be upon him, in chapter 4, 159. Allah said here in the Qur 'an, I seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Satan.

Now, one thing is for certain. Chowdhury and many other Salafi hand us a tremendous advantage in debate. When they follow the standardized tradition of attaching Arabic phrases to the name of God, the name Muhammad, the name of any prophet, and he will even use this same standardized phraseology as an introduction to any time he quotes from the Qur 'an in Arabic.

Just time wise, I know I'm easily going to have minimally a minute in a brief period, sometimes multiple minutes, more time. Because I actually just stick with the language, then my opponent is going to.

You add it all up. It's a lot of time.

He said, and there is none of the people in the book that must believe in him before his death. And obviously, we're talking now about Isa. Now, if you look at the Asbab Al-Nuzul, which I'm sure you know what that means, the circumstances of revelation of this particular eye in the Qur 'an, it is narrated in Bukhari from Saeed bin Musayyib, Rahim Allah, that the message of Muhammad, peace be upon him, said by the one who has my soul in his hand.

Definitely, Isa, peace be upon him, will return and will judge between the people and will be just for the truth. He will destroy the cross. He will kill the pigs.

Now, catch that. A lot of a lot of. Western Muslims do not want to be open about the fact that it is a consistent teaching of the Islamic sources that at the return of Jesus, he will destroy the cross and slay the pigs.

And obviously, that has been interpreted in many different ways. But it is impossible not to interpret it. In such a way as to not understand that to destroy the cross speaks of a destruction of the Christian faith and of a focus upon Jesus as redeemer and as savior, which is the very central aspect of the cross itself.

There is a visceral detestation, especially on the part of cultural Muslims and certainly amongst the Salafi, a visceral detestation of the cross of Jesus Christ. History has part is partly to blame for that.

When we idolize the cross in making it. And a relic making it an idol rather than well. When we do not communicate and live in light of a serious theology of the atonement. We are assisting. In the denigration of the cross and even amongst evangelicals, even amongst evangelicals, there is so often such a sentimentality.

About the cross rather than a meaningful proclamation of the cross. But it is understandable that they then combine that with the idolatry they see of crucifixes and all sorts of people bowing in front of crosses.

And I think we worship the cross. It is almost like a fourth person of the trinity and all the rest of this kind of stuff. But you combine that with the fact that so few people will proclaim the power of the cross.

The fact that Christ himself chooses to go to the cross, that he humbles himself, that he makes himself of no reputation, that he becomes obedient to the point of death, even the cross death, etc., etc.

It is understandable how this fits together with the natural detestation that the natural man has of what God has done in Jesus Christ. Yeah, someone in channel just mentioned appropriately that that Arabic phrase that Chowdhury uses before he quotes the Koran in English means, I take refuge from Satan, the accursed.

And it is, again, certain sects of Islam will use these kinds of, well, let us be honest. You look at Surah 113, Surah 114. There is within the practice of folk Islam around the world a lot of superstition and really magic mantras.

I mean, there is a lot of Muslims that treat the Koran almost like a magic amulet. And there is a deep part.

Of that within the Islamic faith. And there will be no more Jizya. This is what he said. So, this is one verse and the explanation from the Hadith, from what the Prophet ﷺ said. Let us have a look at another one, shall we?

Now, as soon as I heard him say that, because, again, that is the statement, he shall destroy the cross, slay the pig, and abolish Jizya. I made a mental note to myself. And I said, Sam is going to jump on that.

Sam is going to go after that. Because Sam has a particular argument.

On that subject. And I was right. He actually did. We see, for example, here, and this is when a group of Christians came to him, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and asked what he believed about Isa. And he said, I believe he is a sign of the hour and that Allah will make him come and address and challenge him, whether he is the son of God or not.

And indeed, Allah mentions in the Quran in chapter 43, verse 61. He said that Isa will be a sign of the hour. So, he is as well here mentioned as a sign of the hour. That is the, if you like, circumstances of that particular verse.

And we can see as well here in chapter 3, verse 46, and the circumstances of this one as well been mentioned by Ibn Zayd, that the Prophet said that Jesus will address the people in his cradle, and he speaks to them again when he is quite old as well.

Now, of course, again, I just point out,.

Jesus speaking in the cradle is found in sources prior to the time of the Quran. In those sources, in the Arabic infancy gospel, Jesus actually says he is the son of God. But, if our Muslim friends who love to quote liberal scholars were consistent, they would apply that standard to the Quran and go, well, obviously the Quran got it from the Arabic infancy gospel.

They won't do that. They will demand that there is a different source, it doesn't come from that, it is both going back to something that is true that happened. They will abandon all the methodologies that they use in criticizing the New Testament so as to defend the Quran.

They will not use the same standards at this point. It is interesting to note. There is that phrase, you know, taking refuge from Satan, the accursed. You know, not now, but a few years ago, I think I could read Arabic better than he does.

I mean, when I was meeting with my tutor regularly, I think I could have read Arabic.

Better than he actually does. He will speak to the people in the cradle, in manhood, and he will be one of the righteous. So, obviously, Jesus, we believe, will return because it is agreed that he was taken up by Allah when he was quite young, and he will address the people even in his old age.

You've got to give him some props here. He is trying, unlike most Muslims, and Sheikh Umar did this as well, that they did try to give some kind of a presentation as to who Jesus is from their sources.

It is tough to do. There are only 25 references to the name of Isa in the Quran, and most people put at somewhere under 100. The total number of ayat that you could even argue has connection to him. The Quranic understanding of Jesus is incredibly minimal, and it is tangential.

It is, Jesus is only important as he touches upon the development of the Islamic faith, as Muhammad is interacting with the Christian community, or things like that. It is really hard to come up with anything overly positive.

Very, very difficult.

So, I think this is important to understand, and once we are talking about the messages of Allah, I will say to you that all of the messages of Allah essentially have the same message, to call the people to tawheed, and that means to worship Allah exclusively, not to attribute sons or daughters or parents or cousins to him.

Secondly, to do tabligh, to command good and forbid evil, to convey the message, to carry dawah. Number three, to make bayan, to elaborate and clarify the answers to the questions that the people have, to guide the people, to give them the hidayah, not for their own benefit or interest, but rather to guide them to worshipping Allah, and also to be an example and role model to follow, and as well to keep reminding them to make this tazkir, and to be leadership for mankind, and as well to be witness over their own affairs, and we can see that Jesus,.

Isa was no different in that respect. Now, I get a feeling that this was pre-written. It gets more interesting when he gets off script, and starts pulling from his memory.

Now, you mentioned quite a few times John, and I have a couple of things to say about that really. You know, you called John as if, you know, he's authentic, and everybody agrees.

Actually, what Sam had done, is he had pointed out that, and this is important to understand, in Ibn Ishaq, and I'm going off top of my head here, I didn't write it down, but as I recall, in the standard English translation, Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq, which is actually Ibn Hisham, it's a long story, but it's pretty much the earliest biography of Muhammad.