Tuesday, 22 September 2009

Did the Christians forget their Covenant? Does it Imply that the Injeel was Corrupted?

My dear brother Ethasham has raised some good questions in some previous threads. I have decided to post some of these issues on separate threads, not to expose or attack Ethasham (in fact these are issue raised by Muslims generally), but so we can effectively deal with these issues separately; otherwise it will extend one thread so heavily that the reader will find it difficult to get along.

In this thread we will look particularly at the Christian covenant. Does the claim of the Qur’an that the Christians forgot parts of the covenant imply that they corrupted the Gospel?

Ethasam Gulam wrote:

As for the Quran 5:13-15, the Christians forgot their covenant as in, they made up certain doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus, physical resurrection, etc. Also the original gospel was the Q Gospel-- which had sayings of Jesus and not the crucifixion or resurrection narratives. So according to Muslim Scholars-- this points out to the New Testament being corrupted.

Elijah replies:

Firstly Ethasham implies that forgetting some of the covenant implies that the Gospel was corrupted.

Before we look at the covenant let me just raise a few pointers here:

Firstly, the Qur’an is here stating that the Christians forgot some parts of the covenant, it does not say Scripture; there is a clear distinction in Jewish and Christians cicles between these two. God gave scripture to both the Jews and the Christians, yet to forget that covenant or parts of it is not tantamount to forget the Scripture.

Secondly, the Qur’an states that the Christians 'forgot', it does not state that the Christians corrupted. If forgetting is corrupting, how does the Muslim explain Sura 87: 6-7:

• By degrees shall we teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the message), so thou shalt not forget, except as God wills ... (Sura 87:6-7, Yusuf Ali).

In other words parts of the Qur’an were also forgotten; hence if forgotten is corruption, then the Qur’an is corrupt. In fact forgetting seems to have been a major problem among the early Muslims even in case of Muhammad:

• Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Why does anyone of the people say, 'I have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Qur'an)?' He, in fact, is caused (by Allah) to forget." (Bukhari: volume 6, book 61, number 559, Khan)

Even Muhammad forgot revelation

• Narrated 'Abdullah: ... (Muhammad said) I am a human being like you and liable to forget like you. So if I forget remind me ... (Bukhari: volume 1, book 8, number 394, Khan)

According to Sahih Muslim 300 reciters had forgotten an entire chapter of the Qur’an which is still missing (Muslim: book 5, number 2286)

Thirdly, the Qur’an states that Christians only forgot a part of the covenant and even though the passage referred to the Injeel it implies that what was not forgotten was retained, which then implies that the Injeel we have today consists of those remaining parts, which then applies that the Injeel we have today is the truth, which would include Jesus death, resurrection and divinity.

Now lets turn to the actual meaning of covenant.

Ethasham claims that the covenant that was partly forgotten was totally corrupted, but can you (Ethasham) define covenant here, what covenant did the Christians supposedly forget?

Let me point out the problem here:

We only read of one covenant, and it is recorded in what you believe to be the earliest gospel, namely Mark’s Gospel.

Notice that many scholars believe Mark to be written 30-35 years after Jesus death, resurrection and ascencion. Some scholars say that Mark was written after years 70 AD, however this conclusion is based upon the humanist notion that miracles cannot occur and since Jesus in all the Synoptic Gospels predicts the fall of Jerusalem, many scholars date them late otherwise miracles occurs and pure naturalism is therefore questionable. These scholars have no other basis behind the conclusion except their own philosophical paradigm of the world, which renders liberal theology a practice of philosophy not as a basis historical studies.

Many Christians would not have a problem believing that Mark was written 60 AD, thirty years after Jesus, however, early tradition states that Mark was written in 50-55 AD, 25 years after Jesus.

So imagine we are here 25-30 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. Peter, Paul, John and many others are still alive; in fact most of the eyewitnesses are still alive at this time.

Furthermore, the church at this time is organised, much like Muslims, Christians are at this time memorizing their tradition (the gospel) orally under the influence of successors, who are either apostles or apostolic disciples (they will do so until 200 AD alongside the written transmission).

In addition the churches worldwide are united and are interactive even at this time.

At this time based upon Papias account who writes in 110 AD (based upon the living and abiding word of Aristion and John the Elder) Peter, the apostle of Jesus is giving his own personal account of the Gospel account in Rome and Mark records it.

Interestingly enough amid all this there is a covenant recognised among Peter and the Christians at this time, only 25-30 years after Jesus’ ascencion. It is recorded in this earliest written gospel, in chapter 14: 23-24:

‘Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it “This is my blood of the covenant ,” he said to them “which is poured out for many”’.

See Gulam this is the covenant and it is based upon the earliest written account of the gospel; it refutes the Qur'anic allegation Christians ever forgot their covenant partly or entirely.

It is interesting because we do based upon early church history know how Christians presereved their information through succession and transmission and how everything was controlled by the apostles and their disciples.

However we also know as Helmut Koester claims in his review of ‘Written gospels or oral traditions’ (Journal of Biblical Literature, Summer94, Vol. 113 Issue 2, p.293) that a third factor was always utilized in early transmission namely a tangible object, which in the Christian circle would be the Eucharist or the consummation of bread and wine to remember Jesus the doctrines, which is what we read off in Mark 14: 23-24.The Christian covenant is therefore according to Jesus' own words as recorded by a the apostle Peter in 55-60 AD based upon the death of Jesus Christ.

That was the covenant as understood by the early apostles. The Qur’an as every Muslim is aware of ascribes great honour to the apostles and describes them as victorious, hence their wording from 60 AD ought to be considered factual and reliable by the Muslim community, that is if they adhere to the Qur'anic teaching.

18 comments:

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

What verse from the Quran is this hadith talking about? Quran 5:13-15. Anyways I gotta go to school, we'll discuss this later.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Oh and The Quran 2:75,79. Our scholars say that these verses say the Bible has been corrupted

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

You also may want to read:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures

as for the Quran persvation:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/qur_anic_variants

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Let me quote also Sura 5: 13 which only supports my statement that breaking the covenant is not the same as changing the Scripture.

Sura 5: 12-13 says:

'Allah made a covenant of old with the children of Israel...and because of the breaking of the covenant we have cursed them and made their hearts hard'

Hence this is breaking a covenant, probably it refers to Israel's fall into idolatry.

Let's then continue, verse 13 says: 'they change words from their context and forget part of of that whereof they were admonished'.

Firstly this is written about Jews not Christians.

Secondly, we see that that they did two things: changed words and forgot part of the message; these are two different things.

Only the changing part implies corruption, yet we need to discus further on this since, in the Qur'anic context and within the early islamic scholarship this implied primarily oral corruption not textual.

Thirdly, it confirms that breaking the covenant, which is mentioned prior to this is not the same as the act they engage with in changing the text after Allah has hardened their hearts.

Notice in verse 14 that the Christians do not change the words, they do not even forget the covenant in its entirety, they forgot part of the covenant.

Hence the Christians according to this passage did not changed the text.

The covenant which is still existing is still intact.

History reverals and confirms that Christians did not confirm forget their covenant has I pointed out in the original post.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

Elijah replies:

The problem in utilizing this text is its reference to Ibn Abbas not the Qur'an nor Muhammad. The Qur'an does not include the Injeel into this; here Abbas is reading his own opinion into the Qur'anic text and distorting its meaning.

As a matter of fact the Qur'an is pretty clear about the integrity of the Injeel in Muhammad's time:

“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM (Sura 7:156-157)

“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

The Messenger believeth In what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith, each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, HIS BOOKS, and His messenger. “WE MAKE NOT DISTINCTION (they say) between one and another of his messengers.” And they say: “We hear, and we obey: (we seek) Thy forgivness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys” (Sura 2:285)

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray (Sura 4:136)

It seems to me that I am encouraged by the Qur'an to adhere to my own book and that the Muslims who objects to my devotion to the previous revelations opposes Allah.

Furthermore Ibn Abbas also stated that the previous revelations were not corrupted and could never face textual distortions:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. Then,
they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;
As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed. (Ibid., p. 196)
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Volume 2, pp. 195-196

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

Oh and The Quran 2:75,79. Our scholars say that these verses say the Bible has been corrupted

Elijah replies:

Again, I think you are depending to much upon scholars. Scholars can misinterpret a text, they often do.

Again this passage seems to talk about Jews, but I wonder if they are changing the Torah here or the words they hear from Muhammad.

Also the passage is clear that only a party of them do this.

Hence even if this implied textual corruption of the Torah, it is not a universal corruption.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Hogan, Bro,

Islam clearly says the current Bible has been corrupted. When the Quran is talking about The Torah, The Psalms and the Gospel-- it's talking about the Torah that was revealed to Moses-- not the one we have now, the Psalms as given to David, Not the one written after the exile and the Gospel of Jesus-- NOT the New Testament Gospels.

In fact we Muslims believe the Torah was given to Moses, and the Gospel was given to Jesus, for instance the Quran says:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
(Quran 5:46)

Notice the Quran says that a Gospel was given to Jesus, so we know from the Quran that Jesus had a Gospel with him, in fact the Bible even testifies to this:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. (Luke 9:6)

So as you can see, Jesus was given a Gospel, however so where is the Gospel of Jesus? rather we have the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! Hence the Christians have invented their own books with their hands and claim that these books that were written by men such as Mark and Matthew are from God! Yet we know they are not from God, and we know they are a corrupted distorted version of the true Gospel which was the Gospel of Jesus. The four Gospels we have today were written after Jesus, which were based on many false interpretations and guess-work, which was then written down in ink, and then many claimed that these Gospels were from God.

As for Ibn Abbas, he is regarded as one of the highest authorities in interpretation of the Qur'an and narration of correct hadiths.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Once the Prophet embraced me and said, "O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur'an)." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 75)

So Ibn Abbas is quite correct in what he was saying.

Also see the Quran 4:157-- The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

Have a good day, Hogan

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com (my site)

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan, Bro,

Islam clearly says the current Bible has been corrupted.

Elijah replies:

I totally fail to see, and I can only as a Christian defend the Qur’an at this point. At least the Qur’an does not sink down to the level of modern muslim notion to follow humanist philosophy. The Qur’an recognises that the Injeel was retained intact:

“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM (Sura 7:156-157)

“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

The Messenger believeth In what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith, each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, HIS BOOKS, and His messenger. “WE MAKE NOT DISTINCTION (they say) between one and another of his messengers.” And they say: “We hear, and we obey: (we seek) Thy forgivness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys” (Sura 2:285)

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray (Sura 4:136)

Gulam wrote:

When the Quran is talking about The Torah, The Psalms and the Gospel-- it's talking about the Torah that was revealed to Moses-- not the one we have now, the Psalms as given to David, Not the one written after the exile and the Gospel of Jesus-- NOT the New Testament Gospels.

Elijah replies:

How then do you explain
...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM (Sura 7:156-157)

“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

Why is Allah referring to the Torah and the Gospel as still with the Christians and the Jews if these books are corrupted?
Why am I a Christian founded upon something if I perform the Torah and the Gospel, if they are corrupted?

If these books are corrupt and these passages are to be understood in your way, why is Allah not conveying along with these passages a clear explanation that these books are corrupted rather than revealing in these passages that they are not or at least giving the impression that they are not?

Gulam wrote:

In fact we Muslims believe the Torah was given to Moses, and the Gospel was given to Jesus, for instance the Quran says:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
(Quran 5:46)

Elijah replies:

Notice Gulam, that the passage says that in this Gospel there is guidance and light, not that there ones was guidance and light but these are now corrupted.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

Notice the Quran says that a Gospel was given to Jesus, so we know from the Quran that Jesus had a Gospel with him, in fact the Bible even testifies to this:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. (Luke 9:6)

Elijah replies:

Gospel means simply good news, this is not a book given to Jesus, it means that Jesus and his disciples were preaching the good news, which is: ‘The Kingdom of God is near’ (Mark 1: 14-15)

I think you are mixing this with teachings of the Kingdom, which is what fulfills the Law and effectively substitutes it (Matthew 11: 11-15).

But this teaching is recorded in the gospel writings. These two, his teaching and preaching are different things. Gospel simply implies the good news that the kingdom is near and the teaching is the teaching of the kingdom.
Also you need to differentiate between the preaching of the gospel as per definition ‘good news’ and the gospel as writing. Mark begins his gospel with, this is the gospel of Jesus. Yet the gospel writings are also referred to as memoirs of the apostles.

Gulam writes:

So as you can see, Jesus was given a Gospel, however so where is the Gospel of Jesus?

Elijah replies:

Well let’s post it here
This is the beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1: 1)

Let me also point out that the Qur’an itself selects its own favorite gospel among the four-fold gospel tradition, let me show you, the Qur’an refers to the unlettered prophet, Muhammad who is supposedly found in the gospel:
Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet , whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (Sura 7: 157)

According to Sura 61: 6 this prophet is referred to as Ahmad ‘praised one’, which I am sure you will agree is a reference to John 14: 17.

Now since the Qur’an states that Muhammad is mentioned in the Gospel and that particular Gospel is John’s Gospel, the Trinitarian Gospel not Mark the earliest gospel, are we not to assume that the author of the Qur’an somehow favored John’s gospel among the four and therefore that John’s gospel at least from the reference, which the Qur’an is providing is the Gospel of Jesus.
Can you explain to me why this reference in John is not found in Mark, the earliest gospel

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

rather we have the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! Hence the Christians have invented their own books with their hands and claim that these books that were written by men such as Mark and Matthew are from God!

Elijah replies:

You will have to bring a lot of primary sources to prove all these statement. I have studied this for years, full-time, and you are using humanist material and humanist reasoning at this point.
Let me ask you for example:

1. would Jesus’ message and tradition be corrupted within a time-span of 30 years while apostles, eyewitnesses were alive and when succession and transmission was applied effectively?

2. Also could you provide the names of those who invented these books?

3. And why were these not exposed by the apostles whom even the Qur’an refers to as victorious to the end

4. Could you also explain why, if this happened and if these corruptors had to fabricate names of authors, why invent the name Mark, who never met Jesus, why not the name of an apostle, and why Luke?

Does this not completely backfire against your entire assumption?

Gulam wrote:

Yet we know they are not from God, and we know they are a corrupted distorted version of the true Gospel which was the Gospel of Jesus.

Elijah replies:

How can you deny the gospels which existed and were utilized by Christians in Muhammad’s time and which the Qur’an itself provides credit?

I simply don’t get you here, you approach and conclusion here is illogical

And again can you explain from primary sources how this corruption from the Gospel of Jesus, which according to the Qur’an is John’s Gospel, took place?

Gulam wrote:

The four Gospels we have today were written after Jesus, which were based on many false interpretations and guess-work, which was then written down in ink, and then many claimed that these Gospels were from God.

Elijah replies:

You are reiterating the same claims as above, can you provide primary sources to support your claim?

Gulam wrote:

As for Ibn Abbas, he is regarded as one of the highest authorities in interpretation of the Qur'an and narration of correct hadiths.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Once the Prophet embraced me and said, "O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur'an)." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 75)

So Ibn Abbas is quite correct in what he was saying.

Elijah replies:

How can you believe in a human source such as the Hadith that went through a long period of transmission and then discredit the gospel.

Also as I qouted earlier, Abbas also stated that none of Allah’s books could be corrupted by writing. Which of these sources are correct?

But then again, if you are to apply your strictness and methodology as you apply it on the gospels, your primary source is the Qur’an, which does not make any appeal about the corruption of the Injeel.

Your secondary source is Muhammad which makes no such claim either. Your third class source is Abbas, who is unclear about the matter.

My question is: are you gona believe man’s word here or what you assume to be God’s word?

Gulam wrote:

Also see the Quran 4:157-- The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

Elijah replies:

This passage does not say that the Injeel is corrupted, it says that the teaching about his death is a conjecture, unfortunately the author is not aware of the fact that the previous revelations that Muslims are to believe in (in Muhammad’s time) to remain Muslims, and which I a Christian am to perform contains this very teaching of Jesus death and suffering.

This merely suggests that the author of the Qur’an was not God

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I think bro,

That it would interesting if we had a debate or dialogue on pal-talk about these matters.

Let me know if you are interested.

Rafa-el_1 said...

Ethesaam ,

Cause you like ibn abbas so much


The Andalusian interpreter Ibn ‘Atiyya stated that Tahrif means "to change or transfer something from its original character to another" and that Ibn ‘Abbas held that the Jewish (and possibly the Christian, by implication) corruption and change was to be found in exegesis, the letter of the Torah surviving intact, although a second school of scholars maintained that the letters themselves had been changed on the basis that although the Jews had been asked to safeguard the Torah, unlike the Qur’an it was not safeguarded by God Himself. (Laylah, The Qur’an and the Gospels – A Comparative Study [Al-Falah Foundation for Translation, Publication & Distribution, Third edition, 2005], pp. 145-146; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/f/The_Quran_and_the_Gospels__A_Comparative_Study.pdf


Seems that ibn abbas didn't believe that the bible was corrupted(textuel)

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Hogan, where do you live?

If you would like you should come to Michigan and we can debate this either next year or something. I am sure if David and Nabeel crossed the pond, you should be able to also.

I also don't do online debates-- I personally don't like them.

Let me know.

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Let me see. Coming to USA next year is to me at the moment firstly a question about expenses.
But lets put it this way, if David Wood and Nabeel plan another debate serie in USA, then maybe they could include us two (I will try to raise the money somehow); furthermore I would love to do a debate with Osama Abdallah about science in the Bible and the Qur'an at the same time.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

The reason why I said online debating is because the matters we discuss here demand much writing, perhaps too much writing. It might be much easier to talk them through over a mic.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

And my dear brother Rafael,

welcome to my blog, do feel at home

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I wouldn't debate Osama Abdullah. That's my humble advice, the reason why is because he's too arrogant, ignorant, racist, etc. Plus go to his site, if you want an internet virus.

I don't think he'll ever learn that he needs to study more and more if he's ever going to get anywhere with Islamic Apologetics.

As for coming to America-- what David and Nabeel do to raise funds is simply ask Pastor George Saiege of Arabic Christian Perspective. I am sure he will be able to pay for your trip. If not I will try to cover some of it. But yeah, I don't do online debates-- they are too long and with School and studies, I really can't.

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.