Response to Sheikh Awal (Part 1) from the Dividing Line

The Quran, the Bible, and the Debate Over Salvation

So, here is his opening statement. I'm going to be stopping and starting, responding as necessary to what he had to say.

Truth have come, and falsehood have perished. Anytime truth comes, falsehood is bound by nature to perish. Mr. Chairman, respected guest, and honorable speaker, Mr. Lopez, between myself and Pastor Lopez, God Almighty is the witness that Brother Lopez has stood here for 30 minutes and he never solved the issue.

The issue was salvation through the Quran or salvation through the Bible, which as you can see, you bear witness that he never taught the subject. So I have already computed what I'm going to say in my head already, but because of what he said, I have rechanneled what I'm going to be speaking.

So I'm going to be speaking on salvation through the Bible and the Quran as I go, both, inshallah. Where do I begin? From the beginning. You see, the concept of salvation in Christendom is actually based on the fact that Jesus Christ died for the sin of mankind.

So I remember in the Bible, in the book of Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 14, Paul said, if Christ did not die or if Christ did not rise from the dead, our salvation, our preaching is vain and our faith is vain.

That means Christ has to die. If he did not die, our preaching is vain, is garbage, and our faith, our religion is also garbage, according to Paul. So the concept of Christendom is for Jesus Christ to die.

Very briefly, and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is in vain. The term there is kene, it does not mean garbage. He goes on to say, moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise, if in fact the dead are not.

Raised.

This is in context, and I struggle, Shaykh Awal very frequently does not seem to take context into consideration in his interpretation of the Bible, and this will come out very clearly because what he's starting here is an argument that the Bible itself says that Jesus did not die upon the cross, therefore was not buried, did not rise again.

The third.

Day.

Every citation he's going to use, every citation he's going to use is from an author who clearly, openly, unequivocally, and without question affirms that Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again the third day.

So he has to take authors and say that those authors are contradicting each other, themselves, internally in their own writings, which I do not believe that Shaykh Awal would ever allow anyone to do to the Quran.

If we were to apply the exact same standards to the Quran, I could take any verse, ignore its context, and say it says this, if we were to be consistent, but of course they would never allow that to happen, and that again is the big issue, the very first debate.

I sort of consider my Shabir Ali debate to be the first debate that I did because the debate with Hamzah al-Dumalik, I was just simply defending the deity of Christ, was not studying Islam. My first debate that I did where I had actually begun the study of Islam was with Shabir Ali, and from that point onwards, what have you heard me say over and over again?

Looking for that consistent Muslim who will use the same standards of interpretation, exegesis, and scholarly resources in his study of the Quran that he does in his criticism of the New Testament, and I have not yet found that person.

But that's where we're going in Sheikha Wall's comments here.

His blood to clean the sin of mankind, and we read in the Bible again, in 2 Timothy 2 verse 8, Paul said, remember that Jesus Christ, the seed of David, raised from the dead according to my gospel, according to my gospel, meaning there were many gospels out there at that time that are actually fighting with the gospel of Paul that Christ did not die.

So he said, remember.

Now catch that. That is a completely unwarranted insertion for which there is absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever. What do I mean by that? Well, notice what he just said, that there were many gospels.

Well, Paul does make reference to false gospels. He makes reference to Judaizers, for example, and he talks about a gospel that does not save, that's true. But notice the interpretation that he added that has no foundation whatsoever, that there were other gospels in which Jesus did not die.

There is nothing in this text, remember, Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a.

Criminal.

There's nothing here about a gospel in which Jesus does not die or is not raised. That is a wholly unwarranted insertion, and the historical fact of the matter is that no matter how hard you try, you cannot find first century advocates of the idea of a non-crucifixion.

The Gnostics are second century. The Gnostics have theological reasons that no Muslim should ever find himself even close to embracing for their denial of the crucifixion, specifically that Jesus had no physical body.

In other words, the Gnostics deny the fundamental revelation of the Quran, and yet they will grab the Gnostics and say, well, this must reflect something that was going on in the first century, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

So once again, inconsistency in there, an insertion of something that is nowhere to be found in the text itself. Do you see how fast that was done? It was done very, very quickly, and it's done very, very much in passing.

That is something that you have to be listening for in polemics. That's a term that's often used very negatively, oh, you're a polemicist. It just simply means you engage in arguments, and as long as your goal in polemics is truth, then to be a polemicist is a good thing.

Paul was engaging in polemics when he wrote Romans. Jesus was engaging in polemics all the time in his teaching. So we have to listen very, very closely there.

That Christ, the seed of David, raised from the dead, according to my gospel. Then again, we read in the book of Galatians, chapter 3, verse 13, Paul trying so hard to crucify and kill Jesus. In the book of Galatians, chapter 3.

Paul trying so hard to crucify Jesus. Obviously, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, he had received the very same message he had passed on to them. They were all recipients of the same tradition, the same primitive Christian belief.

And what was that Christian belief? That Christ died for our sins according to scriptures, and he was buried, and he rose again the third day according to scriptures, and he was seen with these witnesses.

That is the basic Christian message. That is the earliest stratum of revelation that we can discern in the writings that we have, and that is what Christians have always believed. And I won't, in this particular context, get into this, but I think one of the topics was supposed to be, was Jesus Christ crucified in the debates.

I wish that would happen. I really wish that would happen. If that topic, if Sheikh Awal will not debate that topic, I would be glad to debate that.

Topic.

I'd add a third debate, because this is just such a historical slam dunk. It is a biblical slam dunk. The Islamic denial of the crucifixion is utterly untenable on any rational grounds. I mean, the only reason Muslims reject the crucifixion is because of 40 Arabic words written over six centuries after the events, 700 miles distant.

And those 40 Arabic words are not mubinun. They are not clear. They are not perspicuous. They have given rise to numerous different kinds of interpretations themselves. And so I would be happy to engage that.

Verse 13. Galatians 3, verse 13, Paul said.

Get a drink here.

Galatians 3, 13.

Verse 13.

Paul said, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law inasmuch that he became a curse for us, because it is written, whosoever is hung on a tree is a curse of God. May the curse of God be upon him. The Bible says that.

So why would Paul say Christ became a curse for us? Christ became a curse for us? And he came, he came a curse for us? Christ becoming a curse for us? I don't understand. How could Christ become a curse?

Well, Paul explains exactly what he's saying. The next verse says, In order that in Christ Jesus, the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Jesus bears in his body on the tree our sins. He becomes a curse for us, the curse of the law. Now, he's going to show fundamental confusion of what Christians believe here in just a.

Moment.

Because he's going to say that the law was not a curse. He's not saying that the law is the curse. The law curses anyone who breaks it. The law brings a curse upon anyone who is not perfect in their obedience to the law.

Galatians 3, 10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law to perform.

Them.

Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident, for the righteous man shall live by faith. However, the law is not of faith. On the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.

So the point is that Jesus takes that curse, that wrath that is due from God upon himself. He takes that curse of the law so that we might have his righteousness. He does so voluntarily. He does so purposefully.

This is in perfect accord with the gospel narratives. Jesus says, what does he say? It is necessary that the Son of Man go to Jerusalem, be betrayed, killed, rise the third.

Day.

In John chapter 7, I give my life freely. No one takes it from me. And so this is a consistent teaching. If we will allow the New Testament to be the New Testament, if we do not begin with the assumption that we're just going to tear it apart, we're not going to allow it to speak.

With one voice.

In other words, if we interpret the New Testament the same way the Muslim will absolutely demand that you interpret the Quran. If they're consistent, then they have to allow the New Testament to say what the New Testament actually says.

It's right there. It's explained in the text.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.

Which law?

The law of Moses. The law of Moses is not a curse. It is...

The law of Moses isn't a curse, but that wasn't Paul's point. He says the law of Moses curses anyone who does not live in perfect obedience to it. Those who do these things. Well, we don't do these things.

We fail to keep the letter of the law. Therefore, it pronounces a curse upon us. Deuteronomy 28 and 29. So Paul is being very accurate in his handling of the Old Testament text at this point. And Sheikha Wall does not understand the argument that he's presenting.

It's not a curse. But this is what Paul said. That Jesus Christ is a curse for us, having died on the cross, so that his blood will cleanse us. So now, this is what Paul is saying. But I'm going to ask Jesus here, did you actually die on the cross?

And I'm going to quote as many scriptures as possible to substantiate that Christ did not die on the cross. According to the Bible.

Now, did you catch that? His assertion, his argument is, Christ did not die upon the cross according to the Bible. But listen carefully. Make a note of his references and you will discover that every single citation he's going to give will come from a book that is written by an author who will affirm, directly and without question, the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Every single one. And so, he has to interpret the writers against themselves, not in the original context. And what he's going to do, remember I played this last week, but we're going to listen to it again, obviously not today.

What he's going to do is he's going to promote the idea that these books were just cobbled together over time. He's going to specifically say they weren't written until the Council of Nicaea, which is historically, utterly disproven by historical fact.

We have papyri, fragments, or entire copies of the Gospels that long predate Nicaea. But the idea is to, for his own people, to promote the idea that the New Testament is this completely unreliable text that has undergone this massive amount of editing.

And then for the Christians, and folks, this is why I keep emphasizing this, this is why I have now given my New Testament presentation, I don't know how many times. Reliability of the text in the New Testament, things like that.

Most evangelicals, when they hear this kind of thing, just sit back and go, I don't know anything about that, I don't know anything about manuscripts and things like that. The day when we can remain in ignorance about the history of the text in the New Testament has long passed us by.

It has long passed us by. My friends, we have to be aware of the truth about the New Testament text, and here is a very good reason why.

Christ did not die. Paul said, if Christ died on the cross, our preaching is vain, our salvation is vain, and our teaching is vain. Inshallah, I'm going to prove tonight that Christ did not die on the cross, according to Christ himself.

Jesus' Death, Burial, and Resurrection in Paul and the Gospels

So, where do I begin? I begin from the Gospels. The book of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 17. Jesus Christ said, do not think that I, Jesus Christ, have come to destroy the law of Moses and the prophet. I have not come to destroy, I have come to confirm.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but a dot from the law shall not pass till all is fulfilled. And whoso therefore do the law of Moses, and teach somebody so, will become great in the kingdom of heaven.

But whosoever cancel the law of Moses, and teach somebody so, will become least in the kingdom of heaven. How could Christ become a curse, when he is saying that, if you want to go to heaven, the law of Moses?

That's not what Jesus said. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means until the law is accomplished. There is a fundamental and gross misunderstanding of Jesus' fulfillment of the law. The continuing, abiding validity of the moral law.

But the fulfillment of the law in Jesus Christ. And, just as Ahmed Deedat, Sheikh Awal, normally quotes his text. Now that's, you know, I appreciate that, that is impressive. Unfortunately, he frequently does not quote them overly accurately.

At the very same time, you'll notice that he reversed some of the material in verses 18 and 19. I wonder why he doesn't go on with verse 20. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So what does that mean? I mean, these are the most righteous people according to the works of the law possible. The whole point is, they don't have that righteousness. And he's going to go to what seems to be their favorite text, The Rich Young Ruler, here in a moment.

And again, never completely cite the whole story. And as a result, grossly abuse the text of the Bible at this point.

In Jerusalem, as Christ was walking in Jerusalem, a man who wants to go to heaven, a man who wants to go to eternal life, a man who wants to be among the kingdom of God, came to him in Jerusalem. And the man said, and I'm quoting in the book of Matthew, chapter 19, verse 16.

The man said, good master, what good must I do to enter heaven? This man is looking for salvation. So he came to the right person, Jesus. He said, good master, what good thing must I do to enter life, eternally in heaven?

Jesus Christ said, why do you call me good for? Don't begin by elevating me. Why does thou call me good for? The only one that is good is the Father in heaven.

But...

Now, I stop immediately because it is very common for Muslims to abuse the statement of the young man and Jesus' response as if Jesus is saying he's not good. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Why do you call me good?

I'm not good. Is that what Jesus is saying? Even from the Islamic perspective, hasn't any Muslim ever stopped and gone, uh, we actually believe Jesus was sinless, so he was good, so why would he say this?

What Jesus is doing is, once again, seeking... He knows the heart of this man. And what's the whole story? He goes through the commandments and the young man says, I've kept these from my youth up. And what is Jesus' response?

Which you're not going to hear from Sheikha Wal, because Sheikha Wal doesn't understand this text. But what's his... What does Jesus do? He says, one thing you lack. Go sell all you have and give it to the poor.

Come follow me. And, uh, what happens? The man goes away. And he goes away sad. And why does he go away sad? Uh, because he had many possessions. And Jesus' response is then to talk about the difficulty with which the rich man enters into the kingdom of heaven because of his love of earthly things.

That's the whole point of the text. It's not to say, oh, the means of salvation is to keep the law. Well, if anybody could do that perfectly, that would be fine, but the whole point of the Bible, Sheikha Wal, is that no one can do that.

We have all fallen short. And so to say, see, Jews just simply said, do good deeds.

And you'll go to heaven.

That's not what Jesus said. He said, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven. His whole point, if you will allow the text to speak for itself, is to point to our sinfulness and our need for something beyond ourselves, which is the very thing that Islam denies.

And that is the whole point. And that's how we see the abuse of this text by Islamic apologists.

If you want to enter heaven, you want salvation, keep the commandment of Moses. And the man said, Master, what is the commandment? And Jesus repeated exactly what Abraham said, what Moses said, what Isaiah said, what Nehemiah said, what Nehum said, what Daniel said, what Ezekiel said, what Habakkuk said, what Haggai said.

Jesus spoke in Hebrew and he said, the only way you go to heaven is this. And he spoke in Hebrew. Shema Israel, Adonai Elohim, Adonai Elohim, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. If you believe in this, heaven is yours.

Did he mention that he's going to die for mankind?

And notice that that's just a total misrepresentation of the text. This may be how he remembers it, but it's a total misrepresentation of the text. He has not only conflated two different stories because in another instance a man comes before him and when he asks what is the greatest commandment? He talks about loving God and loving your neighbors yourself.

He's put those two together now. But he's not dealing with the text. And this is not what Jesus was saying. Now, maybe he heard it that way, maybe he hasn't checked it out, maybe he's memorized that way and said it so many times and never been challenged on it that he hasn't gone back.

I don't know. All I know is if you actually look at the text that that's not what it says.

That.

The young man said to him, all these I have kept, what do I still lack? And Jesus said to him, if you would be perfect go sell what you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven and come follow me.

When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful. He went away grieving as New American Standard says. For he had great possessions. And then that prompts the discussion of how difficult it is for the rich to enter in.

You just have to let the text be the text. And you see that it does not actually present what Sheikh Awal is saying. Just a note to our Muslim friends, shouting Allahu Akbar is not an argument in a debate.

It is nothing more than a demonstration that you lack self-control.

That's all it is.

And yet, over and over again they kept having to try to get these people to not yell Allahu Akbar. And notice what they just yelled Allahu Akbar at. At a gross misrepresentation of the text. Which means nobody in the audience is actually looking at any of this.

They.

Aren't checking it out. I don't see any difference between that and what happened when I debated Tim Staples that first time. And the guy in the audience you know, you grasp and everybody gets all excited.

It's like, okay don't you see that at least for the rational person who's actually examining arguments here, he just made a really bad argument. He just conflated text and misrepresented it and ignored it and didn't cite the whole text and didn't cite it correctly.

And you all are going.

Allahu Akbar.

Doesn't that tell you something? It tells me something. It tells me your dawah.

Is weak.

Your dawah is inaccurate. Because you're misrepresenting.

The facts.

So, I would be very careful about, you know yelling out Allahu Akbar. You might want to make sure that what you're yelling at is actually true first. I think that would be helpful.

The Rich Young Ruler and the Misuse of Matthew 19

So, I'm.

Quoting the master, because the master himself said, the master is greater than the servant. Paul, who has never seen Jesus for once, never seen Jesus, out of nowhere, he began to write gospel. Ephesian, Corinthian, Thessalonian, 1st John, 2nd John, Timothy.

Um, Paul didn't write 1st and 2nd John, that would be John, who wrote 1st and 2nd John, actually.

You contradict any Christian, Timothy, Galatian, why don't you call the master himself? The master said, the master is greater than the servant. So, Jesus Christ is telling us how to go to heaven, keep the commandment of Moses.

The man asked him, master, what of the commandment? And he said, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt keep the servant as a holy day, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet your daughter's wife, and he has found the 10th commandment, and he said, if you keep this, salvation is yours, meaning you will enter heaven.

Um,.

That's not what he said, because he then said if you wish to be complete, go and sell all your possessions. So, I wonder, does Shekel Wall own anything? Has he sold all his possessions? I mean, if that's the kind of interpretation that he wants to give, then, and if he wants to present this in our debate in Detroit, then I just simply strongly suggest to him that he be consistent, because I'm going to ask that he be so.

Does he own anything? Does he want to say that Jesus' teaching was you could not own possessions? That would not be consistent with Islamic understanding. Or would he just simply dismiss this text? Because what's he going to do?

It is interesting, he's quoting from Matthew 19 here. Later in the debate, when someone's going to ask him about another text in Matthew where Jesus talks about going to Jerusalem and dying and being buried and rising, well, you see, remember I played this last week, that's, you know, Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus are from the 12th century, and they don't contain anything after Matthew 3, which is completely bogus, completely untrue.

Uh, I mean, you can go online! CodexSinaiticus .org is online, folks. Go look, go to Matthew, and go to Matthew 4.

And you'll find it right there!

Uh, it's just, I mean, it's factually untrue, and yet that's going to be his response at that point. But why is he quoting from Matthew 19, if that wasn't a part either? Uh, again, uh, inconsistency, sign of a failed.

Argument. This is the case.

Christ did not die on the cross. Who said that? Jesus Christ said that. Where? In the Gospel!

You see,.

Paul said salvation. I give you a quotation. The book of Romans, chapter 10, verse 9. Paul said, If you confess with your mouth, and you believe in your heart that Christ raised from the dead, you are saved.

No way. Just believe in your, say it with your lips, and confirm in your heart that Christ was raised from the dead, you will be saved. But Christ, let's see what Christ said about this. Jesus Christ said, Christ said, in the book of Matthew, chapter 15, verse 8, Jesus Christ said, These people, they worship me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.

In vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrine of men, men like Paul, who wrote the books.

Okay, uh, okay, the men like Paul who wrote the books. I don't have the foggiest idea how you leap from the context of Matthew 15, which is which is, again, a text we've used over and over again in talking about Roman Catholicism.

It is, this is a specific quotation that is that is actually being used here uh, from the Old Testament uh, that is talking, being applied by Jesus to the Jews in regards to the core bound rule.

How.

That then is to be transmitted to one of his most faithful apostles that he converts himself on the road to Damascus. And how that's relevant to Paul we're not told. But that is a massive mixture of context and there is no logical reason whatsoever to think that Matthew chapter 15 has anything to do with the Apostle Paul whatsoever.

In fact, um, that description of those who will not listen to the word of God would be much better applied to Paul's opponents not to the Apostle Paul himself. There is really at that point an amazing breakdown of logic.

Paul said in Roman 10 -9 that you confess with your lips and you believe in your heart but Christ said, these people, they worship me with their lips, their heart is far away from me.

Okay, uh so if the word heart is used um, there can't be anyone who has true faith in their heart because there are people who in their hearts are far from me. So if they're hypocrites there can't be any true believers.

Uh, shank a wall, are there Muslims that are hypocrites? I happen to know that the Hadith talks about them. So if they don't have true, uh, faith in their hearts.

Their.

Their faith is false. How come you can make that distinction?

Their Iman.

Is not true and then there are Muslims who have true faith in God, um if you can make that distinction, why can't we have that distinction in the New Testament? Because that's what it's talking.

About. So.

In Matthew 15 we're talking about hypocrites who say one thing with their mouth and their heart's different. Paul talks about having true faith in your heart that is represented by what you say and yet you see a contradiction here?

Why? Logically speaking? Uh, there's obviously no contradiction.

At all. When are they worshipping me, teaching the doctrine of men? Men wrote the book. Men wrote it. Christ did not write it, nor did the disciple wrote it. It was written over 325 years after Christ left the earth.

Where? In the council of Nicaea, Constantine and the pagan king was the leader of that community.

Now, that's that's just, you know, really bad fiction being presented in a debate. Um, it's difficult. We've played that before. I am uncertain as to whether he's talking about Paul's books there or the Gospels or both but the fact of the matter is that in a court of law you could demonstrate that the Gospels were written long before the council of Nicaea because we have physical.

Evidence.

We have over 100 papyri manuscripts.

The.

Vast majority of them would date before the council of Nicaea. We have the writings of early church fathers like Ignatius we have Clement's epistle from the Romans to the Corinthians we have Justin Martyr and we have Tertullian and we have all this material that quotes frequently from Paul and the Gospels all of which long predates the council of Nicaea and so this kind of assertion is documentably completely bogus.

It's not just false, it's bogus it's fiction it is Dan Brown fiction.

And I.

Just strongly encourage shake a wall, don't bring fiction to a scholarly debate in Detroit. Bring the facts, bring something you can actually substantiate. Don't bring fiction because the assertion that any of the New Testament was written in the council of Nicaea is just that, it's really really.

Bad fiction.

It's not even Pulp Fiction, it's just.

Bad fiction.