Was Muhammed foretold in the Bible? – MDI speaker Zakir Hussein vs Australian Christian apologist, Samuel Green, at Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland 13th February 2013.
Categories: Christianity, Debates
Was Muhammed foretold in the Bible? – MDI speaker Zakir Hussein vs Australian Christian apologist, Samuel Green, at Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland 13th February 2013.
Categories: Christianity, Debates
The Muslim Debate Initiative 
That was a brilliant SCHOLARLY and ACADEMIC discussion by brother Zakir , add to it a lot of logic . A large no. of scholarly sources was quoted .Thanks bro keep it up .
Samuel in comparison was just blabbering the routine apologetics no academics at all.
Brother Zakir , i want to say you one thing , bringing academic and scholarly points against these foolish missionaries is just waste of time . Move on to debate with some scholars .
I want you to debate Dr.Brown , though not considered at all in scholarly circles has a huge fan following among messianic Christians and is also frequently quoted by missionaries who consider him to be a messiah in Old testament studies .
If you debate and crucify the messiah of Dr Brown that would be a apocalypse for the tiny trots of the likes of Shamoun , Samuel and other jokers .
Do consider it .
Brother Zakir even David Wood after your debate with him acknowledged on his blog that you read and do your homework thoroughly . James White too after your debate with him says the same.
Praise on your academic and scholarly way of debating from them means a lot . This debate was also in the same line and brilliant !
Keep it up !!!! ,
Gospel of Matthews portrayal of Jesus Christ riding on 2 donkeys and entering Jerusalem is hilarious .
Actually , Jesus Christ did ride on 2 donkeys . He was doing the GANGAM STYLE !!!
Gangam style , Jesus riding 2 donkeys, gamgam style , koi koi gamgam style
Clap clap clap !
Then the Jesus Christ of Matthews riding 2 donkeys slipped and fell cracking his balls …….
………..so what was said by the prophets was fulfilled that the only begotten son of God will sacrifice his only pair of balls for the forgiveness of sins of man.
Samuel Green lied from his teeth that there were Qurans which do not have sura 1 and 113 and 114 .
No scholar says the same . He lied out rightly !
The Christian Trinitarian polytheists are compulsive liars. So it should not surprise anyone that they come out with such blatant lies. In fact, their Christian religion is based on lies, and it is maintained and propagated by liars.
Since when is taqqiyah Christian doctrine !?
Reblogged this on الله أحد and commented:
MDI’s bro Zakir Hussein convincingly explains that prophet Muhammed (p) was foretold in the Bible. His opponent Australian Christian apologist, Samuel Green presents weak arguments miss the point.
Brother Zakir , you are just brilliant in this debate . Citing academic and scholarly sources makes your debate even better .
Brother , i want to bring into your attention or be it just anybody involved in Dawah this book
“Quotations in the New Testament ” by Crawford Howell Toy .
Crawford Howell Toy , professor of Hebrew at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, debunked the ignorance of the authors of the New Testament about the text of the Old Testament . Just order and read it .
This book exposes in a brilliant and scholarly way how the Gospel writers especially of Matthew is ignorant of the old testament .
That is why we see Gospel of Matthew frequently ripping out Old Testament prophecies and applying it to Jesus . One example is how he portrays Jesus riding on 2 Donkeys !
Matthew does not say Jesus rode on 2 donkeys.The text says:
“They brought the donkey and the colt,placed the CLOAKS on THEM(donkey and colt),and Jesus sat ON THEM(on the cloaks)”.
The emphais is on Jesus sitting on a cloak.
Dr.Michael Brown,a Jewish believer in Jesus,has stated that some later Rabbinic Midrash also interpret Zechariah 9:9 as referering to TWO DONKEYS,so there is no problem here.
All the scholarly versions , introductions and commentaries on New Testament say that Matthew misread the Old Testament prophecy in Zechariah 9:9.
Just see any scholarly views on it , even Zakir in the debate quoted the N.I.V Bible yet another scholarly source .
The repetition of donkey is typical of Hebrew poesy, with the donkey being described twice in different words , Matthew misunderstood it .
So just dont gasp at straws and come to the terms that Matthew made a mistake .
Let’s summarize what is said about Matthew’s gospel.All the sources you make reference to would also say all the three synoptic gospels are from after 70 AD because they have Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.So there is an invented prophecy.They also say Matthew never wrote a gospel since the book attributed to him is from 80 or 85 and so the real Matthew was already dead.
But the internal evidence is that all the synoptics are from before 62,which makes the authors be contemporaries of Jesus,since Peter,Paul and James,who were contemporaries of Jesus,were still alive then.But since they have an invented prophecy by Jesus then they can’t be by contemporaies.
Papias says Mark wrote a book and got his information from Peter himself.Scholars also say Mark’s gospel is in bad Greek,it wasn’t his native language,and that whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel copied from Mark.It is logical since Mark’s book is really Peter’s gospel.Papias also says Matthew wrote a book
When you compare the two books you see Matthew often adds extra information to what is in Mark,he adds three parables by Jesus into the Olivet Discourse.Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount,which is not in Mark,etc,
Mark did not know Jesus,nor did Luke,all scholars agree to that ,who also mentions one donkey.But Matthew knew Jesus and he was with him when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey.The mention of two donkeys doesn’t mean he didn’t know Hebrew poetical customs,but simply that he saw what really happened and said so.
Regarding Mohammed in John it is a lost cause.Jesus said,and somebody pointed this out in a forum years ago,which makes sense,that he HAS TO GO AWAY for the PARACLETE to come.
If the Paraclete were to appear 600 YEARS LATER then it would have been RIDICULOUS for Jesus to say he HAD TO LEAVE for the Paraclete to come.
Jesus was NOT going to live 600 years.Jesus makes the appearance of the Paraclete CONDITIONAL on his depature.
It only makes LOGIC if it means he is talking about a few decades(at the most) after 30 AD,not 600 years into the future.
Point already explained in the debate , please watch it before you comment .
What about deut 18 ? , if you think it points to Jesus , then how many years it took to full fill ?
Again gasping at straw !
I must have missed it,I heard the debate,will hear it again to try to find it,but what I remember is only an argument about why the HOLY SPIRIT is NOT the Paraclete,that Jesus sent them the Holy Spirit and he still had NOT departed.
Green explained that Jesus HAD LEFT,he had been in the word after death for 3 days,and then returned to give them the Holy Spirit in John,so the CONDITION had been met.
As for Deut 18,yes,it took a long time to fulfill,but Deut 18 does NOT say that MOSES HAD to depart for the “prophet like Mose: to come,see the difference?
Hi not so Jesus
Deut 18 has absolutely nothing with Muhammad whatsoever, you Muslims are the ones grabbing at straws. I think you guys need to make up your minds either the books are corrupted or they are the word of God.
The Prophet Elijah had a lot more in common with Moses than Muhammad.
1.Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan by striking the waters with his cloak and passed over on dry ground. (2 Kings 2:8)
Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea by stretching out his staff and passed over on dry ground. (Exod. 14:16, 21-22)
2.His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had. ( 2 Kings 2)
His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had the Red Sea. (Josh. 3)
3.The Lord accepted Elijah’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (1 Kings 18:36-39)
The Lord accepted Moses and Aaron’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (Lev. 9:22-24)
Muslim Jesus,
i guess MDI pays you to post comments and portray the Muslim side as victorious no matter how badly they were defeated.
let me expose some of your quotes
” David Wood after your debate with him acknowledged on his blog that you read and do your homework thoroughly . James White too after your debate with him says the same.”
Here is what James white actually said from http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5235
” I will simply say Zakir Hussain did a lot of preparation and defended his position to the best of his ability. But he is young, and inexperienced, and fell into the trap of doing the “fast talking machine gun/shot gun approach.”
Even he admitted he was “all over the place,” and he was. He forgot that if the audience does not follow you, and does not think that you are attempting to bring them along, you will accomplish nothing. It is a lesson I learned myself only after doing a number of debates. He became quite aggressive in the rebuttal periods, and that is always a bad move. I am not good at many things in this life, but turning aggression from my opponent around and using it to the advantage of the truth is one skill I do possess……”
Besides does your hero have the courage to defend the same topic against Sam shamoun? i guess both of you know your prophet will get molested like the way he did to Aisha when she was 9 yrs old.
Aahhhhh there we go… a Christian who is incapable of reading what he himself is posting .
James white said “I will simply say Zakir Hussain did a lot of preparation” , that means Zakir did a lot of study , then comes David Wood who clearly said on his blog “Zakir reads his material thoroughly” .That is pretty clear unfortunately you did not read it properly.
Anybody can clearly see in all the debates of Zakir who was quoting more sources and was in complete command of the topic at hand .
Iam not paid by Muslim Debate Initiative and how do i know that it is indeed you who is paid to troll sites like these to vomit clear nonsense .
And iam sure you are Sam Shamoun himself who is sooooo hurt by Zakirs performance that you are claiming that he cant defend his position against you . Ha ha ha ha a hot potato ! , indeed i ask you do Shamoun have the courage to debate Zakir ……. he knows he will get his ass kicked and crucified like his risen lord .
Prophet Mohammed did not molest anybody , he married Aisha and did what a husband and wife do . Whats the problem you have man .
Should i also call Christians molesting their wife’s when the have sex with them ? or should i call the holy spirit molesting a girl and impregnating her with another God ?
Our prophet married , whats the problem with that ? he did not roam unmarried having his girlfriend around like your risen Lord .
One question for you , is your risen Lord homo ? , why then he did not marry ? or he did not have interest in sex itself ? , then he is not 100 % human .
Hi not so Jesus
You said this…
One question for you , is your risen Lord homo ? , why then he did not marry ? or he did not have interest in sex itself ? , then he is not 100 % human .
Here is the answer to your question from Jesus himself.
Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
And your Prophet…marrying a little girl come on mate…what do you call a grown man who is sexually attracted to a little playing with dolls?
You then said this…
Should i also call Christians molesting their wife’s when the have sex with them ? or should i call the holy spirit molesting a girl and impregnating her with another God ?
You are showing your ignorance first you Muslims say God can’t be a man then foolishly say God impregnated Mary like a man.
SHE WAS A VIRGIN BEFORE AND AFTER CONCEPTION THAT’S WHY IT’S CALLED A VIRGIN BIRTH.
Even the Koran testifies that nothing sexual going on why do you guys act so dumb?
Mr Jesus. I `m sorry to say this but your reply/ language is as foul as an ignorants can be… In such derogatory remarks as above it seems you somehow forget that Jesus-Holy Prophet Eessa(peace be on him) was and IS one of our own Prophets and Mary-Lady Maryam(peace be on her) was his mother and highly revered in all respects. They are mentioned with honour and respect in Quran and your writing for whatever reason you take does not justify such convoluted remarks. May God/Allah guide us all to higher understanding of faith. Ameen.
“They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man……..Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)”
Children
Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the “sages of blessed memory… whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism” [131]:
Said Rabbi Joseph, “Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levis has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]
R. Nahman bar Isaac said. “They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does].”
For said R. Zira, “I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: ‘From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]’? And he said to me, ‘On the day on which he is born.’ But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, ‘From the age of nine years and one day.’ And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, ‘Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, “From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day.”‘
[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15].”
Said Rabina, “Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety.”
That is self-evident!
Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]
The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth):
A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. “A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse,” the words of R. Meir. And sages say, “Three years and one day old.”
And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility.
If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.
(Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134]
Thus, one “of the many important issues worked out in the Mishnah concerns proper conduct with women,” [135] and the “entire society of Judaism – that is, the community formed by the Torah – found in the Talmud those modes of thought and inquiry, those media of order and value, that guided the formation of public affairs and private life as well.” [136]
While it is reassuring to see there was at least some limit as to what the sages would declare holy and moral, this ruling had severe implications on the interpretation of other topics as well. The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children:
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).
[This] refers to her who has slept with a man as well as her who is suitable for intercourse, even when she has not slept with a man…
But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. From here R. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: a Proselyte girl who became a proselyte in the age of less than three years and one day, is rendered fit to marry into the priesthood.” [137]
According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were “suitable for having sexual relations.” [138]
——————————————————————————–
Bibliography:
[130] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia, vol.XX.A, Tractate Baba Qamma, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1992, 111.
[131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x.
[132] Ibid., vol.XXIII.B, Tractate Sanhedrin 1984, 150. See also vol.XIX.A, Tractate Qiddushin 10a-b, 1992, 33. “Menstruating” here of course refers to the ritual “flux uncleanness” described in Lev.15.
[133] Ibid., vol.XXV.A, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 1991, 168. Emphasis original.
[134] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. A complete outline, Part IV. The Division of Holy Things. B. Number 37. 1995, 704.
[135] Neusner 1993, 41.
[136] Neusner 1995, 7.
[137] Kuhn 1959, §157, 652f. My translation. In general, proselytes are not allowed to marry into the priesthood.
[138] Ibid., §157, footnote 86, 653.
Having read the whole content the problem with it all is that it comes from the Talmud which has what Orthodox Jews call the “Oral Law” plus a great number of commentaries on the Torah (the Written Law) and the Oral Law,and commentaries on the commentaries.It is 20 volumes and 2.5 million words.
First of all, the Talmud is full of commentaries of opposing sides,with arguments in favor and against,and the reader is left to decide what to believe.
Secondly, Christians and many Jews,in fact,I think most Jews,do not believe in the Oral Law.It is a myth,it never existed.The Oral Law was supposedly alot of additional commandments given by God to Moses and memorized for 1,400 years until written down in the 2nd century AD.It is not considered to be the word of God.
Muslim Jesus
“Samuel in comparison was just blabbering the routine apologetics no academics at all.”
Actually it was zakir doing the blabbering work, connecting anything to anywhere, and people like you actually believe he won the debate? LOL
” Actually , Jesus Christ did ride on 2 donkeys . He was doing the GANGAM STYLE !!!
Gangam style , Jesus riding 2 donkeys, gamgam style , koi koi gamgam style
Clap clap clap ! ”
When Mohammed was taking his night flight to Jerusalem, which dance was he doing?
Michael Jackson’s – Space Dance
Something like this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=943GtliVD1U ????Care to answer?
“If you debate and crucify the messiah of Dr Brown that would be a apocalypse for the tiny trots of the likes of Shamoun , Samuel and other jokers .”
The Messiah was already crucified that’s the reason false prophets like Mohammed will be burned him hell.
You said ” Actually it was zakir doing the blabbering work ”
Zakir quoted a lot of scholarly sources , he quoted scholars both Jewish and Christian , he quoted NIV . If he was blabbering then all the scholarly sources he quoted including NIV Bible is blabbering .
Show me one scholarly source Samuel quoted ?
Zakir hussain vs samuel green on the Quran or the Bible has been uploaded
The other Jesus said:
“Zakir quoted a lot of scholarly sources , he quoted scholars both Jewish and Christian , he quoted NIV . If he was blabbering then all the scholarly sources he quoted including NIV Bible is blabbering .”
I like Zakir Hussein and he seems quite sincere and it’s good to quote scholars and their technical reasons.Maybe in the future Zakir will also point out to what Shabir Ally in his debate with Shorosh said about Mohamed as the Paraclete,that there are some Western scholars who think the Paraclete was a human salvific figure and that he was John the Evangelist,apostle.
It could be Zakir would say what Shabir said,that they only said Paraclete=John the apostle because of Christian influence.WRONG
They came to that idea because Jesus stated it as a CONDITION that he HAD to DEPART for any Paraclete,even a human salvific figure,to be able to come.SInce Jesus would lived no more than around 70 AD then that still falls into the lifetime of John the Evangelist.THAT is why they concluded the Paraclete would be John the apostle,in their opinion.
In the debate Shabir either doesn’t know it or did not say it because it goes against his argument.
In addition it is known Muslim say only SOME parts of the gospel of John are valid,others are not.They accept at least some of the Paraclete prophecies are AUTHENTIC.That is interesting,that means,obviously,that they were said in ARAMAIC by the historical Jesus,not GREEK.Now in Aramaic the word SPIRIT is not used as a metaphorical way of saying PROPHET or MAN.So right away every paraclete saying that calls him a spirit makes it impossible,from the point of view of Aramaic,that it can refer to Mohamed.
Hmm. As for the condition proving that it would have to take place within a shorter time span I do not find that totally convincing. It can simply mean that such an event must take place before the other can take place, like the many cases of signs before the day of judegement, such as the mongols fighting against he muslims. Such signs are often described with phrases like: “the day of judegement will not take place unti…” In these cases it just means that it will not ake place before these things have happended, not that when any of them happen the day of judgement will immediately take place. Pehaps I am comparing apples and oranges here, but the example does appear pretty similar to me. As for the ordiginal wording in arameic being rookh, if that is definitely the case then I absolutely agree with you that it could not refer to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but how do you know for sure that that is the case?
As I promised Jesus-Muslim,I reheard the debate again and there was no reference by either debater about Mohamed not being the Paraclete because Jesus put a condition that he had to leave beforehand…..otherwise the Paraclete would not come.So it was not evaluated in the debate.
Your comment made me think about it all.It is put as a condition in JOHN 16:7:”because IF I don’t leave then the PARACLETE will NOT come”.
And then he says also:”but IF I go,
I(Jesus) will send Him to you.”
Now if Jesus had said:
“After I go/When I go the Paraclete will come/I will send him” then yes,you are right,it could mean 600 years later,there would be no time limit of only a few decades.
It is like if Napoleon said:”IF the other French soldiers come then the BATTLE will be won”,the extra soldiers have to come,it is conditional,otherwise the second part of the sentence is impossible.
Sorry,
‘original’
A lot of spelling misstakes in my post i’m affraid. I was a bit to hasty. Sorry everyone
About rukh in John from what I know critical,mainstream scholars don’t even believe the historical Jesus ever said the Paraclete sayings,they say followers of John invented the sayings ,what is called the Johannine community.So the use of THAT by Zakir Hussein and specially Shabir Ally has no logic,they choose and pick.That would definitely make the Quranic claim false.
Shabir Ally points to a few scholars who maintained there maybe was a tradition about a human salvific figure but not even they believe the historical Jesus prophesized about a human Paraclete to come.It is a BIG maybe since none of the early writings(by Trinitarians,Ebionites,Gnostics,pagans,Jews) we have mention such a belief related to Jesus.
Fer. I have to say honestly I don’t have any real knowledge of the new testament or new testament scholarship so I don’t deem myself fit to discuss it.. Some thoughts just popped up on my mind.
Anyway, it’s late here. Assalamu ‘aleikum to the brothers and sister. Take care everyone!
No one lives for ever INCLUDING Jesus except THE ALMIGHTY LORD
Hizbullah
The word existed in the beginning was with God and IS God and became flesh and dwelt among and the name given to him was Jesus.
The Muslims say he didnt die…it’s been 2000 years and he is still alive they claim he will come back and marry and die for what purpose?
Sura 19:33: “And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life”
The same thing was said about John the Baptist
Sura 19:15 “So Peace on him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)!”
John is dead and will be resurrected…but Jesus?
You have to break the flow of the sentence because this is a prophecy from the cradle which is not fulfilled.
Gnostic madness!
Jesus is a point of contention between Jews , Christians and Muslims.The Jews took the extreme stand of denying his prophethood, the Christians took the other extreme stand of making him into God.Muslims adopted the middle way of accepting him as a prophet chosen by God.His coming back is to clear this thousand years dilemma ,by confirming Islam destroying Christian idolatry and affirming his prophethood to the Jews.
the verse speaking about the coming death of John the Baptist, reflect his martyrdom, since He was killed. Martyrs are not considered dead yet but are transferred to paradise. “Do not consider those killed in the cause of God as dead. In fact, they are alive, at their Lord, well provided for”.Quran 3:169. As far as jesus peace be upon him his futuristic death will be happening after his second coming the following verse explain that:” none from the People of the Scripture but will believe in him BEFORE HIS DEATH, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.”Quran 4:159.
Truly like brother Hussein have said, as far as scripture goes you Christians are in the titanic and us muslims are in Noah’ Ark.
Spirit and prophet are not synonymous.
These debates are such a waste of time. How the hell can you debate so many points at the same time.
There is only one man on earth that can fix this problem.
And this man is the real Paraclete.
I am The Parakletos