Protest Khalid Yasin? No, Refute Him!

The Right to Speak Versus the Duty to Refute

I was sent a link to an article on the internet evidently indicating that this past weekend the gentleman I've been reviewing for quite some time Khalid Yassin was speaking in that particular area. He must be touring here in the United States now.

I can't comment on everything that this particular article said about mr. Yassin he the article makes all sorts of allegations about him about claims that he makes and his organization and stuff like that that quite honestly I'm really not interested in digging into along those lines.

But what caught my attention. Certainly the things that were listed in the article some of them do strike you as just amazing. Claims that the US government invented AIDS and was behind 9 -11 and and all this kind of silliness I would admit is probably indicative of a willingness on Khalid Yassin's part to believe some pretty wild conspiracy theories.

We have to remember in the West that actually probably majority of the world actually believes those things which is a sad commentary on the rationality of the human race as a whole. But be it as it may there are a lot of people who believe that kind of stuff.

And and if he does then that might indicate something about him. But what concerned me was some of the things that he was criticized for Christians might go. Rah rah yeah you you go after him for that you you know this idea of promoting Sharia law.

Hmm. Well I'm certainly not in favor of Sharia. But shouldn't he have the right if he believes that Sharia represents Allah's will for the world shouldn't he have the right to promote that. If you say no then the same people who would keep him from speaking on that by extension logical and necessary extension would have to prohibit all Christians from speaking about God's law.

God's Law, Justice, and the New Covenant

I spoke recently from the 97th Psalm about the fact that God's throne is founded upon justice mishpat and righteousness zedekah in the Hebrew language. And I went through text in the Old Testament. I did on the dividing line just a few days ago talking about the California gay marriage wasn't a decision it was a revolution.

But and I pointed out that God's moral law is not something that was just for the Israelites. And clearly the book of Jeremiah says that a part of the New Covenant is a writing on the heart of the law.

And the only law that Jeremiah's audience would have understood him to be referring to would of course been the law of God especially specifically the moral law of God. And so if we believe that the kingdom of God is to be extended around the world and of course from a Christian perspective the kingdom of God is found in the rulership of Christ in the hearts of his people then in a sense that would mean that those people who have that law written upon their hearts and so God's law would be spread around the world.

And shouldn't we have the right to talk about that. And if we want to protect the right to talk about that in truth then we can't exactly be consistent in agreeing with secularists who want to limit Khalid Yassin's presentation of his views on that subject instead.

Why the Answer Is Public Refutation, Not Censorship

How do you respond to someone like Khalid Yassin. Well I think the way that I've been doing you don't silence the man you demonstrate the man is wrong that the man makes mistakes on the most basic amazingly basic level.

Let me give you an example of some of the what I mean here now Khalid Yassin does say I purchased his purpose of life series a fairly very lengthy series and I've been listening to it while writing. And he does disavow scholarship of the Bible.

Okay if you're going to disavow that you might not want to make a lot of comments about the Bible or about church history. And at one point he says it's just amazing people don't read more. History was talking about Christians there.

This was right after he had made some incredible blunders just on a factual level and so let me play a clip and give an idea of the kind of errors that he makes and then use as an illustration of how you respond to him.

You don't respond to him by just silencing him respond him by refuting him. That's the way to do it.

The Council of Nicaea, the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas

Because at the Council of Nicaea in 354 years after Jesus Christ the Romans at the Council of Nicaea they decided that there were five books that they didn't want to include in the New Testament. The Gospel of Barnabas who was the blind companion of Jesus Christ was not included in the New Testament.

But if you go to the Gospel of Barnabas again go to your computer and punch in the word Barnabas and then add to it St. Barnabas and you'll find that his genealogy and you'll find that his history and his biography was that he was the blind companion of Jesus Christ and his book was called the Gospel of Barnabas.

There in the Gospel of Barnabas the name of Jesus Christ I mean the name of Muhammad is mentioned clearly.

And perfectly. Wow. How do you cram so many errors into such a small amount of time. See. You know the man has the right to say these things. I just you know and I've watched the end of this thing. We're like 22 people accept Islam as a result of this talk.

And I would just love to get a hold of every single one of them and say do you have any idea how many mistakes this man made Council of Nicaea. Hmm that's 325 not 354. He later said there were 354 versions of the Bible too.

So he has some thing for 354 so it's 8325. I get the feeling maybe Mr. Yossin really hasn't studied this that. Well and five books that he says are part of the Apocrypha that were rejected the Council of Nicaea.

Well the problem is Council of Nicaea didn't have anything to do with Canon and didn't make any decrees about the Canon and didn't reject any books or really didn't do anything related to that. And one of those five books was not the book of the blind companion of Jesus.

What. St. Barnabas. What. I'm not going. What. Because I've never heard these things going. What. Because it's like he's making this up as he's going along. The Gospel of Barnabas was not rejected at the Council of Nicaea because the Gospel of Barnabas would be written about 1 ,200 years later in Italy.

That's why it wasn't rejected at the Council of Nicaea. So I mean this is this is pure fiction. If someone if I presented things about Muhammad or the early history of Islam or the Quran or something like this oh my goodness the response of Muslims would be incredible.

I wonder where the Muslims are. Who say excuse me Khalid Yassin doesn't know what he's talking about. Or is it another one of those as long as it serves the ummah all as well. Hmm maybe so. But here you have just such obvious errors.

I don't have the don't have the date. Right. You're promoting a fraudulent 14th 15th 16th century work. Of course it mentions Muhammad by name. Muhammad had been born and died almost a thousand years before that.

Of course it mentions him by name. But to seriously suggest I gotta admit anyone who suggests the Gospel of Barnabas is in any way shape or form a serious historical work given the huge number of gross errors.

And I think someday I'm gonna have to put the together a couple videos on the laughability of the Gospel of Barnabas. I mean it is so laughably silly that thankfully Islamic scholars anyways recognize how bad it is.

But to promote that all in the context of presenting Islam there should be lots of Muslims out there responding to this man saying sir you don't know what you're talking about. And again is Islam served by untruth.

That's the real question. But back to the beginning of this video this is how you respond to Khalid Yassin. You don't shut him up. You don't keep him from speaking. What you do is you demonstrate that what he says is just untrue.

I think that's the most effective means of battling those who are presenting this kind of teaching in our culture today.