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

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is 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 what,

I don't like how I digitized that. Oh, so it was part of the Wayback Machine.

I'm remastering. 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, and after the series was over, it just then snowballed into the book.

Yeah. Yep, 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 switching your feet over to them and all is well.

But, so that's cool. I've not heard those since I did them, so 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 -listening 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 that. So, dismantling it was not that difficult to do.

It's just, push hard enough on it, it sort of falls apart. Anyway, that sort of does take me to my first subject on the program today.

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 Lumpy was still around. I figured, you know, once you've been a vice president of something, and then what you're a 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, 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, but he's still out there.

And he posted an article, JB 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 this? What was it? I thought he was Plymouth Brethren. Well, it's still part of the

Brethren movement. Did you see the footnote? Did you read this? No. Oh. What's the footnote?

White is founder. I read the first line, Peter Lumpkins, and that was all I needed. 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, you know, for a long time, especially between 2010 and just a little 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 happened? Which is why I've not done anything with Islam or done anything in that sense.

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? What Love Is This? It was on the horizon, remember?

Oh yeah, it was, because we did the KPXQ interview. Yeah, 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 Lumpy's stuff is.

You started June 26th, 1999, when did he start paying attention?

Oh, I don't know, but I mean, the reality, 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, 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 Frasier Crane, what color is the sky in your world, quote, because it just, what?

As I'm digging... The cassette tape, that's great. Did he get it from a museum or what? This is a predestination and election recording.

Oh yeah. Was Peter Lumpkins 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 would 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 there.

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, 9 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.

When I grew up, everybody knew Kate Smith.

Kate Smith sang, God Bless America. And when you would hear

Kate Smith start that, 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.

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 its 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 Jardin's hands given what impure thoughts he holds in his mind.

Jardin 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.

For the same reason, I ask 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, it's so constant now.

I don't even know what to say. I don't even 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. 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, 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 little sick and not sure if you ever exactly landed a blow.

And that's what I was feeling. You know, 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.

Yeah, it was frustrating and it was like boxing with cotton candy. That was a good way of putting it.

So it was an interesting exchange.

So if you want to see that, you can still find it on Twitter if you wanted to track that down.

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 the only reason that he goes on and it's the only reason that Hannity has him on.

And Anjum just sits there smiling because he is using

Hannity. He's just using him. It amazes me that Sean 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 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 started 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 the top of their head, who can hear what someone else is saying and can stop long enough to go, hmm, that was one of the things that I really.

Oh, yeah, someone in someone in channel Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed. Yeah. That. Sorry, I'm impressed.

That's one of one of the things that really struck me about.

Some of the people that I've 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 is seen by many as a 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 and and and read Al -Qurtabi and Ibn Kathir.

And, you know, I was even I was even saying to the Sheikh Umar, man,

I really wish Razi was available in English and he's like, man, don't we all? And and stuff like that.

But, you know, we did 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 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 till 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 you can it's available online, I just grabbed it off YouTube and pulled the

MP3 out of it. And. And listen 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'll you know, he's doing the shotgun thing and he's throwing this out and that out.

You could 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 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 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.

You know, Sam was born in the Middle East and he's a little bit on the, you know, 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 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 plugged in. 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 could 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 he has 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 is

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

Koran 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

Koran 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

Koran. Now, of course, Chowdhury is completely selective. Clearly has no worthy 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, why, why would that matter to you? And that's the attitude that that he brings to all the conversations.

The actual word of Allah as revealed to the messenger, Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

You 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

Koran. So let's see exactly what Allah actually says about Isa, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Allah said in the Koran, for example, about the return of Isa, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, in chapter 4, 159.

Allah said here in the Koran, Now one thing is for certain.

Chaudhry 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, to the name of Muhammad, to the name of any prophet.

And he will even use the same standardized phraseology as an introduction to any time he quotes from the

Koran 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 Ibn Maryam. Now, if you look at the Asbab -ul -Nuzul, which

I'm sure you know what that means, the circumstances of revelation of this particular ayah in the

Koran. It is narrated in Bukhari from Sa 'id Ibn Musayyib, that the message of Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, said,

By the one who has my soul in his hand. Definitely, Isa Ibn Maryam 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 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 is partly to blame for that. When we idolize the cross in making it 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, 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.

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. Someone on channel just mentioned, appropriately, that that Arabic phrase that Chowdhury uses before he quotes the

Quran. In English, it means, I take refuge from Satan, the accursed.

Again, certain sects of Islam will use these kinds of, well, let's 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.

There are a lot of Muslims that treat the Quran 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 explanation from the Hadith. From what the

Prophet, peace be upon him, said. Let's have a look at another one, shall we? Now, as soon as I heard him say that.

Because, again, that's the statement. He shall destroy the cross, slay the pig, and abolish

Jizya. I made a mental note to myself. And I said,

Sam's going to jump on that. Sam's 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, peace be upon him, and asked what he believed about Isa, peace be upon him.

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.

A 'udhu Billahi Minash Shaitanir Rajeem. Wa innahu la ilmun li sa 'ati.

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 have 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. 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, you know, when I was meeting with my tutor regularly.

I think I could have read Arabic better than he actually does. And he will speak to the people in the cradle, in manhood.

And he will be one of the righteous. So obviously, Isa, 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.

They did try to give some kind of a presentation. As to who

Jesus is. From their sources. It is tough to do. There is only 25 references to the name of Isa in the

Quran. And most people put at somewhere under 100. The total number of ayats that you could even argue has connection to him.

The Quranic understanding of Jesus is incredibly minimal. And it is tangential.

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 you know, once we're 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 taskir.

And to be leadership for mankind. And as well to be witness over their own affairs.

And we can see that Jesus or Isa A .S. 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 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 the 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.

Everything else is dependent upon Ibn Ishaq. It really is. I mean, there are other streams that come through.

But Ibn Ishaq is really important. In Ibn Ishaq, in the

Guillaume edition. And I have it in the other room. I think it's pages 103 and 104.

The top of page 104, if I recall correctly. John is referred to.

In this extremely early source. As one who wrote down the gospel.

And there are other, you know. When the audio becomes available.

And I have the audio, by the way, of my debate with Sheikh Umar. And if we can't get the professionally recorded audio fairly quickly.

I'll ask Sheikh Umar if he would mind. If I utilize the audio from my pen.

My Livescribe pen. But there was one point during the cross -ex.

That I asked the Sheikh. I said, would you say that John 14 and 16.

Prophesize the coming of Muhammad. In fulfillment of the two texts in the

Quran. That say that the people of the book find Muhammad mentioned in their scriptures. And, you know, he was born here.

And he very wisely said. I'm not certain about that. Almost Allahualam.

The Allahualam approach. And I sort of grinned. Because I wanted to follow up.

With, you know, how can you question the validity. Of John 1 .1

or John 8 .58 or John 20 .28. Or all the other references to the deity of Christ in the gospel of John. If you then accept the validity of the transmission of the text.

Of chapters 14 and 16. But he said, I'm not sure.

So I said, well then I'll forego the second part of my question. So that was wise on his part.

But here what Sam had done. Was he had gone back to those sources. And he had said, look, how can you reject this stuff.

When your own sources say positive things. In fact, I forget which.

It wasn't the reference I've used. At least I don't think it was the reference that I use.

In regards to Ibn Kathir making reference to Bulus. Who is Paul. In a positive fashion in his commentary.

I think on Surah 39. But there was another one that Sam brought up. That is escaping me at the moment.

What the reference was to. But it was another positive reference to Bulus. To Paul.

In the early Islamic sources. And then when he made his point.

He goes, Bulus Akbar. Paul is greater.

And the funny thing is. I've told people this. But we get new people in the audience. I'll just mention this.

When people ask me. How can you remember stuff. When you're riding your bike.

And listening to this kind of stuff. And the reality is. I can tell you exactly where I was.

To within 5 meters either direction. Exactly where I was.

I can pinpoint on a map. Give you GPS coordinates. Of where I was.

When Sam Shamoon said, Bulus Akbar. Because the first thought that crossed my mind was.

Well I never would have thought to say that. Wouldn't have crossed my mind.

But yeah. I was descending actually. Just past Tower Road in South Mountain Park.

I was descending. I was just coming out of a curve. I was only doing about 21 at that point.

That's where I was. I'm going to have to look up the reference that Sam used.

Because I'd like to share it with you. Unless a certain someone in channel.

Who happens to know much about these things. Remembers what the reference was.

I'm looking at someone in channel. He knows who he is. He's an expert in Islam himself.

If he happens to remember. What reference he gave to Bulus.

Because it wasn't the one from Ibn Kathir. There is an important one in Ibn Kathir. This was a different one.

I'd be interested in giving that information. If we can get it within the next few minutes.

To get into this hour. But it was interesting. It was very very interesting.

I can mention a few things to you. This is from your own people. In fact FF Bruce.

A conservative scholar in the 1990s. Said about John. That his depiction of Jesus is like Shakespeare.

In Julius Caesar. He said he put his words in his mouth. Now. One of the best commentaries.

One of the best conservative commentaries. On the gospel of John. Is Bruce's. Leon Morris.

FF Bruce. It's so painfully obvious.

When folks like Anjum Chowdhury. Are doing. Internet level research.

Internet level research. Where you're going to. Where Muslim sources and other people.

Have pulled stuff out of. Out of context. And out of sources. And put stuff together.

And you're sharing this with one another. And that kind of stuff. And it's just.

It's painful. It really is painful. When you know that's what they're doing.

You know that's what they're doing. He hasn't. He would no more invest time reading

FF Bruce. Then. I don't know. He wouldn't do it. He wouldn't do it.

Craig Lombard said the same thing about him. In 2006.

One Scottish Christian said. That all those scholars agree. That John. Is responsible.

Rather. Rather John. Is reported. And it's an extensive interpretation.

Version. It's really a very far -fetched version. If you like. Of the story of Isa.

Now. Balcom is certainly no conservative. In regards to.

The historicity of John. But. He wrote the eyewitnesses.

Book. The eyewitnesses of Jesus book. Which had extensive discussion of John. And that's not even close.

To what Balcom actually says. He's not. He's not listened to Balcom. I wonder if he would listen to Balcom.

And Balcom's response. To the constant citation. That Anjum himself does.

In this debate. Of the text from Mark. You know.

Why do you call me good? You know what Balcom says about that? The young man didn't know he was talking to God. You know.

I wonder if he'd be consistent. And go there. I sort of doubt that he would.

But. It is interesting to note that. I'm going to mark where we are here.

Because we didn't get into. Actually the really super interesting part. Where he really goes off into some wild.

Really wild eyed stuff. Mainly because I was giving too much background. And things like that. But again.

One of the things we do. On the program. Is listen to what the other side says.

Interact with it meaningfully. Hopefully. And try to provide some education in the process.

And some background information. So that you will be encouraged. To open your mouth.

And to testify of the gospel. When that opportunity is given to you. Especially to the Muslim people.

And that you will pray. Pray for Anjum Chowdhury. I mean look. God can save anybody.

I'm a Calvinist. I believe that. Pray for Anjum Chowdhury. Pray for Sheikh Umar.

I told him I'd be praying for him. And I said I'm sure you will not. You won't take that.

In the way that it's intended. And I'm sure that he will. And we may have opened up opportunities.

For another debate there in Southern California. But at their facility. And I would love to see that happen.

And I talked to him afterwards at dinner. About being more focused. Upon specific passages. And he agreed that would be a good thing to do.