There was a recent debate between Adnan Rashid and Samuel Green on salvation in Christianity and Islam. Samuel Green was technically representing the Christian side, though Green isn’t a Catholic so his theology is somewhat off though obviously closer to my position than the position of Adnan Rashid.
I want to start by critiquing the format. This debate should have been split into two since two religious views of salvation are being discussed. My second complaint was that the debate should have been longer. You can’t hammer out complex topics like this in less than two hours, let alone for both religions. My third complaint was that there was no cross-examination. The format was opening statements, rebuttals, second rebuttals, questions then closing statements. This was a very poor format.
Now for the debate. Both opening statements were decent. I was actually surprised that Adnan Rashid didn’t quote the Quran much, but the Hadith. The more I learn about Islam, the more I’m convinced that it’s a religion of the Hadith and not the Quran. When Rashid talked about Christianity, the classic Paul vs James dichotomy took centre stage. He naturally quoted Martin Luther. Rashid barely responded to any of Green’s points. Rashid just kept repeating his opening points in his rebuttal and second rebuttal.
Green had a good opening statement and he drew much from the Old Testament. Rashid didn’t even attempt to respond to this since he just repeated his opening statement over again. Green had some good responses to Rashid in his rebuttal but where he really dropped the ball was in his response to the Ninevites repenting in the book of Jonah. Green gave one of the worst answers that I have ever heard in this regard. In case anyone wants to know the right answer, see Dr. Michael Brown’s book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 2.
So who won? I would give this one to Green though I don’t think either performance was outstanding. When Rashid debated James White, I thought the issues were better presented, even by Rashid. I was a bit disappointed in Rashid. Green gave a half decent answer to the supposed dichotomy between Paul and James and Rashid didn’t really respond. He just repeated his points. I want to stress that more than anything, this debate was a lost opportunity. It was too short, had a subject that was way too broad, and didn’t have cross examination.
I’ve seen a lot of good Christian vs. Muslim debates in the past, even with these two debaters. I cannot count this one as being up there though. In this debate, they mentioned that they were going to have another debate. One was going to be on the crucifixion and the other one was Trinity vs. Tawheed. I will look into those soon but hopefully they’re better than this one.
On a final note. Adnan Rashid really needs to sit down with a knowledgeable Catholic. Martin Luther and his views on James and Paul doesn’t represent the Catholic position. Green agreed that he didn’t agree with Luther, but it would have been good to know that when Luther said this, he was no longer in the Catholic Church. I would be happy to sit down and dialogue with Rashid on this but I have no plans on going to England anytime soon.
Tried to listen to this, but I had just finished listening to David Wood v Mohammed Hijab so my tolerance for Muslim misrepresentation was a bit low. I don’t like listening to Adnan Rashid but judging by the opening statements he appears to have grown in composure and seemed (at that part in the video anyway) more reasonable than he has before. I couldn’t comment on the rest as I haven’t seen it. After your comments I doubt that I will try again. Thanks for tipping us off about it.
Perhaps you might like to comment on the David Wood v Mohammed Hijab one.
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for the comments. Skip this debate. There isn’t anything new here and as I pointed out, the stuff that was here wasn’t good at all.
I will comment on the Wood vs. Hijab debate. I will do it on the next post or two as I haven’t watched it all yet. I just want to say that Hijab sounds like a showman. He reminds me of Ahmed Deedat, but with better arguments lol.
What did you think of Wood vs. Hijab?
I hope you don’t mind if I refrain from commenting on Wood v Hijab until you have seen it. What I will say is that Hijab appears to be more representative of Muslim thought and opinion that Shabir Ally. (That isn’t my own idea by the way – I got it from a later comment by David Wood discussing the debate with Vocab Malone, but it is one that I tend to agree with.)
David is on to something when he says to Vocab, that debating people like Hijab achieves the purpose of revealing ‘true Islam’ (shouting, insults, unthinking mobs) to onlookers.
However I think this might backfire, because many liberals – especially on colleges campuses! – FAVOUR the shouting, insults and unthinking mob method.
David could inadvertently convert masses of Antifa to Islam.
Enjoy my brother: https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/ninevites.html
Hi Sam,
Thank you for this very thorough response. Jews for Judaism likes to parrot this argument as if it hasn’t been refuted.
It’s a shame that Green didn’t mention the Temple. Do you agree that Green had a poor answer on this one?
God bless,
Allan
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I do think he did better in this debate than in the one on Tawhid versus Trinity.
I still haven’t seen that one yet. It was kind of overshadowed by the Wood vs. Hijab debate on the same topic.
Mr Shamoun, further to Wood vs Hijab, I had some ideas for logic/consistency traps whereby Islamic doctrines and arguments are used to defend Christian beliefs.
This has the plus points of being unexpected, exposes the audience to the many problems and self-contradictions in Islamic theology, and cannot be easily criticized without attacking their own Islamic philosophy.
(In fact, David Wood did share that he attempted some of this by including some easily-answered problems with Tawhid – his real goal was to use Hijab’s answers as a defense of the Trinity. Unfortunately Hijab was showboating so much that he never actually tried to give any answers.)
Since I will likely never have the chance to debate against Islam (I live in Malaysia IYKWIM), perhaps I could share them with you in case they are ever useful for future debates.