I have long come to the conclusion that Muslim apologists cannot be consistent. They’ll quote a verse from the Gospel of John to support Muhammad being a prophet but when that same Gospel is quoted back at them to prove a Christian doctrine, it suddenly becomes “late and unreliable”. One ambiguous verse in Hebrews is quoted while the rest of the book is ignored. It’s worthless in their eyes. Countless other examples could be given.
Now, Christianity isn’t the only enemy of Islamic apologists. They argue against liberalism as well. Now, since I’m not promoting liberalism on this blog or in my personal life, I won’t argue against them on that point. In the above video we see four Speakers’ Corner apologists talking to Turks in Istanbul about Islam and liberalism. This would make sense since Turkey has been infected with liberalism and Istanbul is the most liberal city in Turkey.
On the left of the panel is Mohammed Hijab who seems to be the new celebrity apologist because of the David Wood debate. On the right is Zakir Hussain who I’ve refuted many times on this blog. In the middle are two apologists who are regulars at Speakers’ Corner regulars and can be seen on many YouTube videos. I don’t know their names but they always debate against Christians there. All four of these apologists use double standards of the like that I’ve referenced above.
What is most amazing is that while watching this panel there was an impressive amount of consistency. They were making an Islamic critique of liberalism to these Turks. They were Islamically critiquing a position. This was so impressive to see. They were consistently using Islam to expose the inconsistencies in liberalism.
When these people debate Christianity, they’ll be as inconsistent as the day is long but in this case they don’t have to. I’ve often criticized Christians for critiquing Islam from a secular point of view. I’ve done this numerous times on this blog so I’m being very consistent here. Not all Christians do this but some do. None of us need to; I certainly don’t. In fact, on this blog the philosophers that I’ve promoted the most are those who criticize liberalism and the enlightenment such as Louis de Bonald, Rene de Chateaubriand, and Joseph de Maistre. They do it from a Christian perspective.
Now, I recommend Christians watch the above video. It’s quite enjoyable to watch. Without knowing it, these Muslims have shown that the Emperor(or Caliph) has no clothes. In contrast to this, the Christian critique Islam and liberalism are consistent. Christ is King and He rules over false leaders whether they be Muhammad or Voltaire. Every critique I make whether it be against Islam, liberalism, Judaism, communism, modernism or any other false ideology is done from a Christ-centered perspective.
In case anyone wants to see a post where I shred the inconsistencies of one of the above four speakers, see the post below where I expose the inconsistencies of Mohammed Hijab in regards to the Gospel of John. The Gospel that is either unreliable or super reliable depending on if you’re trying to prove a Christian or Muslim doctrine.
Funny that we don’t find Muslim dawagandists in the West railing against liberalism as much as they polemicize against Christianity.
Why is that? The two ‘Abrahamic faiths’ (a term I personally dislike and disagree with actually) could band together to fight the tide of godless licentiousness.
Well as I’ve heard it said… Muslim groups ARE interested in defeating liberalism. They just see it as more efficient to make Islam the majority first (which will come quicker if all churches convert to mosques), then chop the necks of all the immoral cavorters later.
So they let the churches stand alone against liberalism, and get hit by all the PC flak that gets fired. All the easier to take over when the big powers are worn out by each other, which was the case with Byzantium and Persia leading to the early Arab conquests!