Credit goes to a Christian named “Frankz” who posted this video in the com-box of Paul Williams blog. I appreciate Paul Williams letting this video be published at his blog; and usually he lets me post comments; but other times he cuts me off and won’t allow some of my posts to go through, recently. (he did this before, and I thought he banned me permanently; but I waited a few months and found he let me in again. So, it seems he gives freedom for a while, until things become too difficult for him to handle, especially when Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, and David Wood start refuting him at www.answeringMuslims.com
This is an excellent video in its content by David Wood and Sam Shamoun, specifically answering and refuting Zakir Naik’s Islamic polemics of taking Bible verses out of context, in order to attack the doctrines of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Muslims complain all the time when they think we are taking their verses (either Qur’anic verses, or Ahadith), or their Sira (life of Muhammad) or Tarikh (history) or Fiq scholars, or their Tafsirs (commentaries) out of context, but then when we show the context, they will say, “You don’t understand the Hadith sciences of interpretation” or “the Qur’an sciences of interpretation” or “you don’t understand the Islamic scholars of Fiq (Islamic legal jurisprudence)” or “you don’t understand the deep meaning of the Arabic; and so, you have to learn Arabic first and then you can comment on the Qur’an or Hadith”.
But, when we do sincerely try to explain our doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, they take verses out of context and also ignore the Christian sciences of interpretation.
Or, the Muslims will not allow further comments in com-boxes.
(and in history, not allow Muslims to leave Islam, and make all out war against pagans, Jews, and Christians)
What are they afraid of?
Or, in history, (see the book, Crucified Again, by Raymond Ibrahim) Islam in general used war and force to subjugate anyone who opposes them – the pagans of Arabia (Surah 9:1-14); and Hindus and Buddhists and pagans of other areas later; but first, after conquering the pagan Arabs, they aggressively attacked the Byzantine and Persian Empires and conquered them and converted many by force over the centuries by the combination of persecution, war, Zimmi / dhimmi ( ذمی ) status, and economic / jiziyeh tax, and social pressure, and not allowing Muslims to leave Islam. (Surah 9:5; 9:28-29; 8:39)
Or, they accuse the Hadith that a Christian quotes as “Israiliyaat Hadith” (Israeli or Jewish Hadiths; usually they will also throw in “Zionist!!”) – right. One Muslim who goes by “Jesus” wrote that in the com box at Paul’s blog. Blame everything on the Jews! Typical Muslim conspiracy theory and bias and prejudice and hatred against everything Jewish. (except when it fits their agenda to attack Christianity.)
“He did not addressed a single point of your article and says Islam too is idolatry basing on some Israliyaat Hadith tries to show that God can appear in any form on the day of judgement . No Sunni Muslim scholar claim them to be authentic.” [my bolding]
A big problem with that is that all of those Hadith that Anthony Rogers, in his response to Paul Williams, quoted from are all from Sahih Al Bukhari!
Now, you should explain what those Hadith mean about “Allah’s Shin” and “seeing Him on judgment day as clear as the sun and the moon”, etc.They are all from Sahih Al Bukhari – you cannot just dismiss them. Anthony Roger’s 2 articles still stand. You need to answer the other questions.
They have yet to explain how Sahih صحیح ( correct, right, genuine, authentic, sound) Al Bukhari can be “Israeli Hadith”! Silence . . . we hear the crickets chirping . . .
Paul Bilal Williams and other Muslims at his blog recently employed some of these tactics; not all at once, and not all from one person, but the cumulative effect is ignoring context; ignoring the science of Christian interpretation; actually changing words in verses, and not understanding Christianity because Paul Williams was never born again in the first place, and then not allowing further comments in order to explain.
Paul B. Williams accused Christianity of having idolatry inherently built into its own system, because we worship Jesus as one person, with two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. But then when I tried to answer, he didn’t allow my further comments to be posted. He allowed one, but not any after that point and turned on the moderation on me. It is possible he will allow them through later, but as of this point, he won’t allow me to comment further. Hmmmm. I wonder what he is afraid of?
Paul claims he was an Evangelical Christian before and pictured in his mind worshiping Jesus and Jesus receiving his worship, and based on that, and on dividing Jesus into 2 persons (thus committing the heresy of Nestorianism) accuses Christianity of being idolatrous, because Paul Williams split Jesus up, focusing only on Human nature, and then he claims that is idolatry.
Paul then takes a verse of the apostle Paul, whom he hates and distrusts and says “hijacked Christianity”, (Romans 1:25) and changes the phrase “rather than”/ “instead of” to “and” and voila, says, “see, the Christians are idolaters!”
The problems are many-fold:
1. Paul Williams was never truly born-again, so he was never able to truly worship God, the true God, in spirit and truth. (John 4:23-24; Philippians 3:3)
Since he never had the Holy Spirit living within him; he is not able to understand fully. Therefore, he was open to the deceptions of Islam that claims itself as the true religion. And now he attacks Christianity, but he never understood it in his soul or spirit, since he did not have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 2:19 and Hebrews 3:12 and 6:4-6; and John 15:2-3, 6 with John 13:10-11, like Judas Iscariot) describe people who are around other Christians and claim to be Christians and go to church and seem to be Christians for a time, but who eventually fall away, because they actually were never born-again in the first place. Like a dog who returns to his own vomit, or a pig that returns to the mud after being washed externally, when the heart is not actually changed, it leaves Christ and His church later. (2 Peter 2:21-22) This is not meant as a personal insult, but rather the reality of logic, Scripture and even the logic of Islam and its claims. Islam claims to be true, and according to its claim, there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit as Christians have taught, since according to Islam, Paul and the writers of John and Hebrews and Matthew hijacked Christianity. And in Islam, since there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit, it was impossible for Paul Williams to claim he was born again by the Spirit of God and was a true Christian for a while. (John 3:1-21; Ezekiel 36:26-27) Since he rejects Jesus’ voice in the Scriptures, he was never a true sheep. (John 10:27-30)
“For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:21-22)
2. Paul Williams took Romans 1:25 and changed the words, and that is not allowed; and not a proper way to do Da’awa; therefore his whole argument fails, since his argument is based on changing the wording of the Christian text.
3. He violated the Christian science of interpretation.
علم تفسیر (Farsi form) Arabic = علم التفسیر
prounounced “Elm -e-Tafsir” (Farsi) or ” ‘Alem al-Tafsir” (Arabic)
David Wood and Sam Shamoun did an excellent job of showing how Zakir Naik did basically the same thing in violating the science of interpretation.
a. Taking verses out of context
b. interpreting them in a way that splits them from each other, creating a contradiction; thus not following a basic rule of interpretation, that is, they must be studied and interpreted in a way that sees them in harmony, as coming from one source as a unity. Since there is no contradiction in God’s mind, they cannot be forced to be interpreted as a contradiction.
Here is the post of Anthony Rogers that started a lot of the back and forth and then Paul Williams beginning to avoid answering questions, when Anthony pointed out the differences between Sunni Islam and the Mu’tazilites, who were eventually deemed as heretics by Sunni Islam.
One should read Anthony’s entire article, and it is admittedly a deep subject. But I have always appreciated what Geisler and Abdul Saleeb wrote in their analysis of Islam here in the book, Answering Islam: (I read this book in 1993, soon after it came out)
“Furthermore, there is a serious moral problem with Islamic voluntarism. For if God is Will, without any real [i.e. definable – Anthony Rogers] essence, then he does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good….Since God has no essence, at least not one that the names (or attributes) of God really describe, the Islamic view of God involves a form of agnosticism. Indeed, the heart of Islam is not to know God but to obey him. It is not to meditate on his essence but to submit to his will. As Pfander correctly observed of Muslims, “If they think at all deeply, they find themselves absolutely unable to know God….Thus Islam leads to Agnosticism.”12(from Answering Islam, Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Baker, 1993 edition, pp. 136-137) [with my embolding – Ken Temple]