Calling All Muslim Apologists: Three Debates I’d Like to See

After watching the debate between Shabir Ally and David Wood, I started thinking about what kind of debates I’d like to see Muslims engage in.  The more debates that I thought of, the more I noticed something interesting.  In these ideal debates, not one of them was with an apologist defending Christianity.  The more I though about it, every Muslim debate that I’ve seen was with an apologist defending the Christian viewpoint.  Here are the three debates that I’d like to see.

Shabir Ally vs Zakir Hussain – Was Jesus Put on the Cross?

Shabir Ally has had his views out there for quite some time.  Both Muslims and Christians know what he believes on this issue.  Last year, Zakir Hussain championed the theory that it was Simon of Cyrene that died on the cross and not Jesus.  The Quran’s 600 years removed statement is quite vague so it has allowed different apologists and commentators to explain it differently.  These two obviously have at least some respect for each other.  In the video above, if you go ten seconds in, you’ll see Zakir Hussain and Shabir Ally together.  Let’s hope that they can get together to debate this important issue since they have very contradictory views.

Muslim Apologist vs Jewish Apologist – Is the Islamic Jesus the Messiah?

Any apologist from either faith is good for this one.  The Muslim won’t have the option of drawing from the rich reservoir of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled since most of them are inconsistent with Islam.  I suppose they can use Isaiah 7:14 and the prophecy of the virgin birth but they’ll need more than that to win a debate against a Jewish apologist.  Christians have been doing debates like these for a long time.  It’s time for a Muslim to step in.

Muslim Apologist vs Atheist who believes Jesus didn’t exist – Did Jesus Exist?

As even atheist historians of Jesus will tell you, the most certain thing that we know about Him is that He died on a Roman cross.  It’s all throughout the NT and in other historical documents.  However, these are the documents that the Muslim will need to use against the atheist who believes Jesus didn’t exist.  It’ll be pretty hard for a Muslim to use the NT when they deny pretty much everything the NT says about Jesus, including His death on the cross.  When the atheists ask why should we trust the NT and what it says, I’d really be interested in hearing a Muslim response.

So these are the three debates that I want to see.  I’ve always said that Islam in a polemic against history.  None of these issues are a problem for the Christian position.  A Christian defending the Messianic credentials of Jesus from the OT or his existence from the NT has been done many times.  It’s time Muslims step up to the plate to defend their ahistorical Jesus.  If he’s historical, then it shouldn’t be a problem to defend his existence without using extreme double standards(or even using them).  Only these debates will tell.  Come on Muslims, I’m waiting!

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 thoughts on “Calling All Muslim Apologists: Three Debates I’d Like to See

  1. The last debate would be spectacular, if the debaters are Shabir Ally and mythicist Richard Carrier. The latter has thrown the gauntlet to modern scholarship with his peer-reviewed magnum opus “On The Historicity Of Jesus”.

  2. Why not eh, since we’ve had plenty of other interesting ones like two agnostics debating whether Jesus existed (Bart Ehrman & Robert Price).

    But your suggestions somehow have more of the feel of the classic Robert Spencer & David Wood debate on whether Mohammad never existed, or whether he did exist because the embarrassing things the Hadiths say he did are based on truth. Heads they win, tails…….

    • I don’t know about that. That Spencer-Wood debate wasn’t for religious truth, but only for the existence of a figure that neither of the debaters thought was a Prophet. Muhammad’s existence doesn’t hurt Christianity anymore than the existence of Joseph Smith. Neither had a dog in the fight. Also, the sources that they’d have to use are full of info that they disagree with. I personally think Spencer’s hypothesis was foolish. He could have argued for embellishment but the who argument that he didn’t exist is a poor thesis in my opinion.

  3. Excellent! Very thought-provoking. Amusing too, to think about it. If I had to choose one I would go for the Muslim v Jew debate.

    This highlights very serious issues that a religion that is confident that it has a sound basis of truth and Divine inspiration ought to be able to meet head on.

    • Yes. If they have the truth like they claim, this shouldn’t be a problem. Christians have debated Jews on this since the time of Christ. We have no problem with this debate since the Prophecies on the OT have to do with the historical Jesus, not the Muslim Jesus.