Understanding Sh. Ahmed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- This is a clip from a longer interview with Dr. Matthew Kuiper on the history of Dawa. This video gives an overview of the work of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik, two popular spokesmen who have become dawa icons. You can find the full interview here: • Matthew Kuiper: The Hi...
![Jack Tannous [II]: Christianity in Arabia | Does the Qur'an Know an Arabic Translation of the Bible?](/img/1.gif)
Deedat was so instrumental to my understanding of comparative religion, understanding theology, critical, thinking, etc. I don’t have the VHS tapes, but somehow his videos were circulating across the Internet circa 2001 onwards
First of all: What an interesting discussion!
I myself came across the late Ahmad Deedat online 20 years ago during my college years. Someone had uploaded his videos (this was before RUclips) on Google Video (I believe). I was totally floored by his debate style.
I would say that what made him so effective in his debate style was that Deedat was raised in an English context. He could talk to a western audience in a way that Zakir Naik can't, which is logical since Zakir Naik is the product of an Indian context.
I personally have a hard time understanding alot of Naiks speeches because of his very "thick" accent. Deedat on the other hand had a very eloquent English.
Out of the "new school" of Dawah on social media there are so many. There's a whole range of guys uploading videos from speakers corner in London. Then you have Sheikh Uthman Bin Farooq from San Diego.
My main problem with the new school of dawah is that it's so agressive, like it's made for the sake of creating click baits and "cool" content for social media. I much rather prefer the Deedat style of debates where they would gather a large audience, have an opponent and each given a limited (but lenghty) time to put forward each persons arguments and then cross examine the points being made and then let the audience walk home with their own reflections of the debate.
That 2 little scammers had been exposed long time ago
Even though I'm a Muslim I do still think that ahmed deedat and zakir naik are way to rude and arrogant
Talking about dawa icons, there is an interesting person from India who calls himself "Quranwala" (Quran-man) who has appeared on the RUclips in recent years engaging in anti-dawa. He is apparently a hafiz and a madrassah graduate who has studied the Quran for many years and now become a very rational ex-Muslim. Although he seems to have a vast and deep knowledge of the Quran, unfortunately, his Quranwala channel on RUclips is in Urdu and therefore hard to reach by most Westerners. He has made up a number of surahs including one called Surah RUclips(available on RUclips) in imitation of the Quranic surahs. Definitely worth checking out!
I grew up with Ahmad Deedat VHS.
Don't forget to Erase and Rewind.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos The premise of the existence of the religion of Islam is based on the narrative that says 'the prophet who lived in the 7th century started and spread the religion of Islam.' However, the problem is that there was no such concept as the religion of Islam in the 7th century. Religion was practiced but not conceptualized.
Religion is a modern concept. The word "religion" was introduced into the English language around 1200 AD. Initially, it referred to various ways of worship among Christian denominations. The meaning of the word has evolved over time.
Religion is a modern concept. No ancient language had a term or word that corresponded to the meaning of what modern people call 'religion.'
Religion is a modern concept. Neither Abraham, Moses, nor Jesus talked about religion. None of them started their own religions because the concept of religion didn't exist.
Religion is a modern concept. According to the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, the Arabic word "din" (دين) was never translated into English as 'religion' before the 20th century.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the Arabic "din" is law, judgment, or way of life, similar to how the Hebrew "din" means law or judgment.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the word "Islam" is submission. In the 7th century, "Islam" simply meant submission, not the name or the brand of a religion, a modern concept.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the phrase "DIN (AL-)ISLAM” is not the religion of Islam but rather ‘submission as a way of life’. This is evident from the fact that the Arabic "din" was never translated into English as religion before the 20th century.
Thus, the famous Qur'anic phrase (3:19) "the religion (din) in the sight of Allah is Islam" is a modern interpretation and can be rephrased as "the way of life (din) that is acceptable to or that is from Allah is submission (Islam)." Hence, The Qur'an doesn't talk about the religion of Islam. This means the prophet who lived in the 7th century didn't know anything about the religion of Islam because the concept of religion didn't exist.
It means that what scholars have been saying for decades-that the Qur'an is a Christian text-is true because there was no concept of religion in the 7th century. What was "din" before it became a religion? What was Islam before it became the name or the brand of a religion? When did Islam (meaning submission) become the name of a religion, a modern concept?
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who were the people called 'Muslims' in the Qur'an? "Muslims" simply means submitters (those who submit to God). The word 'Muslims' in the Qur'an has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who was the prophet who lived in the 7th century? The fact that the Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah suggests that the prophet must have been a non-Trinitarian Christian, and the author of the Qur'an must have been non-Trinitarian Christians (as proposed by scholars like Angelika Neuwirth in "The Qur'an as a Late Antique Text" or Christoph Luxenberg in "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran").
Muslims do not understand what the Qur'an is trying to say because they have been separated from the sources (the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church) that many verses of the Qur'an refer to, such as the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, the Nicene Creed, etc.
For those who think that the Qur'an has nothing to do with the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church, such as the majority of Christians and modern Muslims, many esoteric verses in the Qur'an are misunderstood because they cannot grasp that these verses are actually discussing the theological disputes among Christians in the early Church.
Is Jesus divine in the Quran? And who or what is MHMD in the Quran?
#### Case 1
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is divine (Jesus had two natures, human and divine) because it confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. The Qur'an renders the name of Jesus as "Isa," the Redeemer, a title used by Christians in Jordan before Islam as a divine title for Jesus.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the "Rasulullah" (Messenger of God). The concept of "rasul" (messenger) in the Qur'an is similar to the concept of the messenger in the Old Testament. There are two types of messengers in the Old Testament: human messengers (prophets) and divine messengers (Malak Elohim, the Angel of the LORD, malakh = messenger = angel). In the Qur'an, the human messenger is called "rasul" (rasul = messenger = malakh). And what is the Quranic rasulullah?
The problem is that Muslims do not understand the difference between "rasul" and "Rasulullah." The only possible answer is that "Rasulullah" = the Malak Elohim = the Angel of the LORD.
Thus, the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was the Angel of the LORD who appeared several times in the Old Testament (some Chrisitans also believed that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord).
How about the MHMD?
Therefore, the Qur'an and the hadith are not talking about the same "Muhammad." The Qur'an is talking about a divine "Muhammad" (MHMD = the Praised One), not the person of Muhammad proposed in the hadith (the word "Muhammad" is mentioned only four times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions, QS 33:40, rejects the Muhammad of the hadith).
The two-nature of Jesus in the Quran? Did the author of the Quran believe that Jesus was fully human?
#### Case 2
Muslims don't understand what the Qur'an is trying to say in some of its verses because they are esoteric. For example, the crucifixion verses (QS 4:157-158):
There are two Jesuses in these verses. The first Jesus was on the cross, while the second one was raised by Allah unto Himself. Muslims misunderstand these verses, and some say that Allah replaced Jesus with someone else, which is incorrect according to the Qur'an.
In these verses, the author of the Qur'an was trying to say that:
- The DIVINE Jesus was raised by Allah unto Himself.
If Jesus were not divine, how could He live for more than 2,000 years with Allah? Does Jesus eat with Allah?
- While the divine Jesus was raised by Allah, the HUMAN Jesus was still on the cross.
The difference between mainstream Christians, who believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and the author of the Qur'an is that: the author of the Quran believed that the HUMAN Jesus was only an ILLUSION or APPARITION of His divine nature.
Thus, according to the author of the Qur'an, Jesus didn't actually suffer on the cross because the one on the cross was just an illusion or apparition of His divine nature (Docetism). These verses were intended to be recited to the Jewish audience of the Qur'an because some Jews couldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah, since the Old Testament says that a person hanging on a tree is cursed by God. Thus, this verse solved that problem.
Neither Ahmed Deedat nor Zakir Naik understood their own Quran.
I hate ahmed deedat he was so rude and arrogant not to mention he degraded the Christian bible and belittled Christianity all that just so he could defend islam
Ahmed deedat was an asshole And I'm saying that as a Muslim
Sheikh Deedat was a legend and led me down the journey of exploring the Bible. What an orator, what a legend.
For you he may be legend but when he was teaching his Quran, we did not have any idea what the Quran says in Book. So he can fool lots of people Today, he cannot win the argument because we learn Arabic and know what is written in his Quran. Even Zakir refused to talk with Christian Prince Or Sam Samounian So he makes an excuse, bring me 10 thousand audience.
Now did you know when Deedat debated Anis Shorrosh who can speak Arabic and knows the Quran, only once On 2nd debate Deedat did not show up for the debate. And when Anis when to his home town for debate, Deedat encourage some one to stab him. So grow up and know the Truth.
That's the issue with Islam. It's all about that celebrity connotation, and that's what everyone latches onto, not the truth. Those people use bravado to bamboozle their gullible audience and base.
When you probe into them, you realise they know little to nothing about even the religion they are defending talkless of anything else?
@@childofgod4862Sam Shampoo and Christian Prince are clown. So are you 👍
@@childofgod4862
Christian prince, sam shoumon? 😂
@@likeAmnesty.HRW.etc. Yes those are apologetic people whom your sheikh and imams cannot debate! Even Zakir said, "Bring me 10 thousand people and I will debate with you" But in today's world, you do not need to leave your home and you can debate sitting in your home Correct?
World Cup 2022
Why dignify those two apologists? They're not worth anyone's time.
Because they are skillful and hardworking. They memorize significant parts from all the books they refer to. They are multilingual. They don't use notes and yet they demonstrate great oratory skills. You have the right to feel jealous and envious of their impact. I mean how many lifetimes do you need to be a 10th of these highly esteemed apologists?
@@marwafawzy2465 So was a guy in the 1940s called Adolf (maybe not the multilingual bit, but still). How does that make you feel now? Actually probably proud, I suspect. Anyway I could at least have some respect towards people like Shabir Aly or something. But definitely not these two.
@marwafawzy2465 Lol, feel jealous for what reason. The like of deedat can not survive today. I mean, look at zakr nikr, the guy, is running away from debate. Back in the days people know little to nothing about quran so deedat was able to use that in bamboozling his gullible base, today the guy would only shine among the Muslims.
@@Trothoflife his question outlives him: "give me an uniequivocal statement in which Jesus says I am God or worship me". Pastors would desperately cite Revelation 22:13 which is a dream that John saw, or John 10:30 or the comma johanneum which is an interpolated verse. He keeps telling them what games are u guys playing? Do u know the meaning of unequivocal? Until now, no answer.
@@marwafawzy2465
You just proved what it takes to be a ☪️. All you guys do is recycle the same old nonsense, transferring your lack of knowledge as everyone faces the same direction five times a day.
Jesus came to teach how to be the best of humans in the flesh, not to seek attention, unlike some individuals using the name of God in vain (Sahih Bukhari 14), seeking submission to control the gullible. That’s left for your prophet and his imaginary god. Imagine what you would have found out if you concentrated on your own book. Isn't this shirk? Quran 4.65 places Muhammad and Allah on the same level. Or is there no Allah all along, just one man playing both roles?
Do you see Elon Musk running around trying to prove he is a billionaire? You only demand what you don’t have. Jesus knew who he was; what's the use in running around town telling everyone, "I am God, worship me"? When it was needed to prove, he did (John 4.10). The one who demanded it ended as he predicted (Quran 69.44-46, Sahih Bukhari 4428), and 1400 years later, you folks are still playing catch up. Hopefully, when his second prediction comes true, everyone will wake up (Sahih Muslim 147).
ChatGPT can make mistak
2:18- who's that? Can someone type out the name of this person.
I think it's Kairanawi
rahmatullah kairanawi
Kairanvi. Author of Izhar ul haqq - Truth Revealed. He debated British Missionaries in India.
@@mikhan5191 Subhanallah. I've come across that book. It's been printed in 4 volumes.
@@abdullahimusa9761 The premise of the existence of the religion of Islam is based on the narrative that says 'the prophet who lived in the 7th century started and spread the religion of Islam.' However, the problem is that there was no such concept as the religion of Islam in the 7th century. Religion was practiced but not conceptualized.
Religion is a modern concept. The word "religion" was introduced into the English language around 1200 AD. Initially, it referred to various ways of worship among Christian denominations. The meaning of the word has evolved over time.
Religion is a modern concept. No ancient language had a term or word that corresponded to the meaning of what modern people call 'religion.'
Religion is a modern concept. Neither Abraham, Moses, nor Jesus talked about religion. None of them started their own religions because the concept of religion didn't exist.
Religion is a modern concept. According to the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, the Arabic word "din" (دين) was never translated into English as 'religion' before the 20th century.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the Arabic "din" is law, judgment, or way of life, similar to how the Hebrew "din" means law or judgment.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the word "Islam" is submission. In the 7th century, "Islam" simply meant submission, not the name or the brand of a religion, a modern concept.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the phrase "DIN (AL-)ISLAM” is not the religion of Islam but rather ‘submission as a way of life’. This is evident from the fact that the Arabic "din" was never translated into English as religion before the 20th century.
Thus, the famous Qur'anic phrase (3:19) "the religion (din) in the sight of Allah is Islam" is a modern interpretation and can be rephrased as "the way of life (din) that is acceptable to or that is from Allah is submission (Islam)." Hence, The Qur'an doesn't talk about the religion of Islam. This means the prophet who lived in the 7th century didn't know anything about the religion of Islam because the concept of religion didn't exist.
It means that what scholars have been saying for decades-that the Qur'an is a Christian text-is true because there was no concept of religion in the 7th century. What was "din" before it became a religion? What was Islam before it became the name or the brand of a religion? When did Islam (meaning submission) become the name of a religion, a modern concept?
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who were the people called 'Muslims' in the Qur'an? "Muslims" simply means submitters (those who submit to God). The word 'Muslims' in the Qur'an has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who was the prophet who lived in the 7th century? The fact that the Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah suggests that the prophet must have been a non-Trinitarian Christian, and the author of the Qur'an must have been non-Trinitarian Christians (as proposed by scholars like Angelika Neuwirth in "The Qur'an as a Late Antique Text" or Christoph Luxenberg in "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran").
Muslims do not understand what the Qur'an is trying to say because they have been separated from the sources (the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church) that many verses of the Qur'an refer to, such as the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, the Nicene Creed, etc.
For those who think that the Qur'an has nothing to do with the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church, such as the majority of Christians and modern Muslims, many esoteric verses in the Qur'an are misunderstood because they cannot grasp that these verses are actually discussing the theological disputes among Christians in the early Church.
Is Jesus divine in the Quran? And who or what is MHMD in the Quran?
#### Case 1
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is divine (Jesus had two natures, human and divine) because it confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. The Qur'an renders the name of Jesus as "Isa," the Redeemer, a title used by Christians in Jordan before Islam as a divine title for Jesus.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the "Rasulullah" (Messenger of God). The concept of "rasul" (messenger) in the Qur'an is similar to the concept of the messenger in the Old Testament. There are two types of messengers in the Old Testament: human messengers (prophets) and divine messengers (Malak Elohim, the Angel of the LORD, malakh = messenger = angel). In the Qur'an, the human messenger is called "rasul" (rasul = messenger = malakh). And what is the Quranic rasulullah?
The problem is that Muslims do not understand the difference between "rasul" and "Rasulullah." The only possible answer is that "Rasulullah" = the Malak Elohim = the Angel of the LORD.
Thus, the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was the Angel of the LORD who appeared several times in the Old Testament (some Chrisitans also believed that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord).
How about the MHMD?
Therefore, the Qur'an and the hadith are not talking about the same "Muhammad." The Qur'an is talking about a divine "Muhammad" (MHMD = the Praised One), not the person of Muhammad proposed in the hadith (the word "Muhammad" is mentioned only four times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions, QS 33:40, rejects the Muhammad of the hadith).
The two-nature of Jesus in the Quran? Did the author of the Quran believe that Jesus was fully human?
#### Case 2
Muslims don't understand what the Qur'an is trying to say in some of its verses because they are esoteric. For example, the crucifixion verses (QS 4:157-158):
There are two Jesuses in these verses. The first Jesus was on the cross, while the second one was raised by Allah unto Himself. Muslims misunderstand these verses, and some say that Allah replaced Jesus with someone else, which is incorrect according to the Qur'an.
In these verses, the author of the Qur'an was trying to say that:
- The DIVINE Jesus was raised by Allah unto Himself.
If Jesus were not divine, how could He live for more than 2,000 years with Allah? Does Jesus eat with Allah?
- While the divine Jesus was raised by Allah, the HUMAN Jesus was still on the cross.
The difference between mainstream Christians, who believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and the author of the Qur'an is that: the author of the Quran believed that the HUMAN Jesus was only an ILLUSION or APPARITION of His divine nature.
Thus, according to the author of the Qur'an, Jesus didn't actually suffer on the cross because the one on the cross was just an illusion or apparition of His divine nature (Docetism). These verses were intended to be recited to the Jewish audience of the Qur'an because some Jews couldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah, since the Old Testament says that a person hanging on a tree is cursed by God. Thus, this verse solved that problem.
Neither Ahmed Deedat nor Zakir Naik understood their own Quran.
Deedat depicts his hatred towards Christianity and Westerns in his Book The Choice. He has no deeper understanding of Bible. How can he say Injil for OT books?
Duh arek suroboyo
Ojok kementus cok
Sek usum ta propaganda ngene iki
@@SatsJava laopo bos? Takonono deedat karo naik. Laopo katik nyenggol Kekristenan.
@@ganteng_ini_menyiksa- Even though I'm a Muslim I do still think that ahmed deedat and zakir naik are very rude and arrogant
And as a Muslim I'm truly sorry
But Both deedat and zakir polemics are based on twisting the scriptures, even to the point of scientific fallacies, mainly out of its context. Deedad has awaken hundreds of Christian’s apologists around the world refuting Deedat and Zakir both from Christian’s or ex Muslims.
Example of the phenomenon among the too many are Christian prince, Sam Shamounian, David Wood, Apostate prophet, Adam Seeker, God Logic, DCCI ministries, Usama Dakdok, etc.
In Indonesia, as response to “the effects of deedad and Zakir on Muslims polemic against Christian’s”, the growth of online Christian’s apologists grows exponentially in recent time due to media outlets such as RUclips, and TikTok, link with zoom , streamyard, rumble etc..
Welcome to the democratization (good or bad) of religions..
If you think Dr. Zakir is twisting scriptures then debate him & prove him wrong....!!!!
May God bless them. Thanks God for Islam
@@Kassalawy56789many challenge him. Christian prince taunted him for years. He dared not to debate. I wish I have a chance.
You figure Deedat was blessed?? Go figure how he died. Zakir is still forbidden in many countries. I guess we are different in what is called “blessed”
Deedat and Zakir has ripple effects of many Muslims leaving Islam, making Indonesian Ulamas worried even more to the point of jihadist burning churches, disturbing religious worships in many homes and places. I see that democratization of religions can fireback in many directions.
Envy
@@dadrewpagit6238 No need to bring up one a**hole to counter another a**hole. Naik and C.prince are two peas of the same pod in their fundamental nature.
Lol not a single Christian refuted them. @@dadrewpagit6238
God bless Deddat & Dr. Zakir....
Thanks God for Islam ❤❤❤❤❤❤
God does not like Islam. It falsely represents Him.
Are you kidding me ahmed deedat and zakir naik were so rude and arrogant towards their non muslim audience and can't believe you even praised them
And I'm saying that as a Muslim
Muslim apologetics is so bad. It makes me feel embarrassed for them.
Muhammad Hijab is a also not someone an audience as intelligent as you have should pay attention to! Honestly there are so many brilliant Muslims in the world, the ejits u mention r not amongst them. Muslims will also eventually realise its not a good sell.
I agree but he's 'fun' to watch
He is fun, most of his content is not supposed to be taken seriously
I am your sister from Yemen, and by Allah I only spoke out of hunger and distress. My mother, my brothers, and I lessons and tears. We are in a situation that only God knows about. God is sufficient for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs for those who brought us to this situation. By Allah Almighty, I did not write this appeal out of distress and distress. Poverty, O world, they have felt it So, I hope for you. By Allah Almighty, Lord of the Great Throne, he ate what I had in the house. By Allah, my brothers, he is my brothers by sitting in the house. Who has no food? By God, we are in a very difficult situation. We have 6 people entering the house, and my father has died, and there is no one who can depend on us and who lives in it.We live in a rented house because we cannot pay the rent we owe. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' My brother, my first words are: I swear to God that I will not lie to you or deceive you. I am a Yemeni girl displaced from the war. My family and I live in a rented house in Al-Shahrab 15,000 Yemenis among us, and now we owe 45,000 for 3 months. The owner of the house is one of the people who does not have mercy, by God, my brother. He comes every day, insulting us, talking about us, and moving from the house to the street because we were unable to pay him the rent. The neighbors saw us crying and came back.They came back to talk to the neighbors and we were given the weekend. So we made him swear by God. He will take us out into the street. Have mercy on him and us. Our country is due to this war and we do not find food for our day, and my brothers and I live in a difficult life. Our father died, may God have mercy on him, and we have no one in this world who was with us in these harsh circumstances. My younger brothers went out into the street and saw...The neighbors eat and stand at their door in order to give them bread even if they break it. By God, to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, they closed the door and expelled them and came back crying. They are dying of hunger. No one has mercy on them and a holiday is returned. I have made a living, and now if one of us helps us with a kilo of flour, I swear to God, I am dying of hunger. My brother, I am an alien to God. Then, I ask you to help me for the sake of God. I ask you, by God, to love goodness and to help me, even if you can, by messaging me on WhatsApp.On this number 00967717415667 and ask for the name of my card and send it and do not be late and may God reward you with all the best, my brothers Sagar, see how they are and help us and save us before they throw us out in the street, you will be lost or we will die of hunger. My family and I ask you, by God, if you are able to help us, do not be late and may God reward you well..`/--~«««~-♡~♡~♡~~•~•~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡♡♡~~~: ~:~¡~¡~¡~;I.i.i.i.i.i......
The premise of the existence of the religion of Islam is based on the narrative that says 'the prophet who lived in the 7th century started and spread the religion of Islam.' However, the problem is that there was no such concept as the religion of Islam in the 7th century. Religion was practiced but not conceptualized.
Religion is a modern concept. The word "religion" was introduced into the English language around 1200 AD. Initially, it referred to various ways of worship among Christian denominations. The meaning of the word has evolved over time.
Religion is a modern concept. No ancient language had a term or word that corresponded to the meaning of what modern people call 'religion.'
Religion is a modern concept. Neither Abraham, Moses, nor Jesus talked about religion. None of them started their own religions because the concept of religion didn't exist.
Religion is a modern concept. According to the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, the Arabic word "din" (دين) was never translated into English as 'religion' before the 20th century.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the Arabic "din" is law, judgment, or way of life, similar to how the Hebrew "din" means law or judgment.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the word "Islam" is submission. In the 7th century, "Islam" simply meant submission, not the name or the brand of a religion, a modern concept.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the phrase "DIN (AL-)ISLAM” is not the religion of Islam but rather ‘submission as a way of life’. This is evident from the fact that the Arabic "din" was never translated into English as religion before the 20th century.
Thus, the famous Qur'anic phrase (3:19) "the religion (din) in the sight of Allah is Islam" is a modern interpretation and can be rephrased as "the way of life (din) that is acceptable to or that is from Allah is submission (Islam)." Hence, The Qur'an doesn't talk about the religion of Islam. This means the prophet who lived in the 7th century didn't know anything about the religion of Islam because the concept of religion didn't exist.
It means that what scholars have been saying for decades-that the Qur'an is a Christian text-is true because there was no concept of religion in the 7th century. What was "din" before it became a religion? What was Islam before it became the name or the brand of a religion? When did Islam (meaning submission) become the name of a religion, a modern concept?
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who were the people called 'Muslims' in the Qur'an? "Muslims" simply means submitters (those who submit to God). The word 'Muslims' in the Qur'an has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who was the prophet who lived in the 7th century? The fact that the Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah suggests that the prophet must have been a non-Trinitarian Christian, and the author of the Qur'an must have been non-Trinitarian Christians (as proposed by scholars like Angelika Neuwirth in "The Qur'an as a Late Antique Text" or Christoph Luxenberg in "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran").
Muslims do not understand what the Qur'an is trying to say because they have been separated from the sources (the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church) that many verses of the Qur'an refer to, such as the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, the Nicene Creed, etc.
For those who think that the Qur'an has nothing to do with the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church, such as the majority of Christians and modern Muslims, many esoteric verses in the Qur'an are misunderstood because they cannot grasp that these verses are actually discussing the theological disputes among Christians in the early Church.
Is Jesus divine in the Quran? And who or what is MHMD in the Quran?
#### Case 1
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is divine (Jesus had two natures, human and divine) because it confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. The Qur'an renders the name of Jesus as "Isa," the Redeemer, a title used by Christians in Jordan before Islam as a divine title for Jesus.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the "Rasulullah" (Messenger of God). The concept of "rasul" (messenger) in the Qur'an is similar to the concept of the messenger in the Old Testament. There are two types of messengers in the Old Testament: human messengers (prophets) and divine messengers (Malak Elohim, the Angel of the LORD, malakh = messenger = angel). In the Qur'an, the human messenger is called "rasul" (rasul = messenger = malakh). And what is the Quranic rasulullah?
The problem is that Muslims do not understand the difference between "rasul" and "Rasulullah." The only possible answer is that "Rasulullah" = the Malak Elohim = the Angel of the LORD.
Thus, the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was the Angel of the LORD who appeared several times in the Old Testament (some Chrisitans also believed that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord).
How about the MHMD?
Therefore, the Qur'an and the hadith are not talking about the same "Muhammad." The Qur'an is talking about a divine "Muhammad" (MHMD = the Praised One), not the person of Muhammad proposed in the hadith (the word "Muhammad" is mentioned only four times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions, QS 33:40, rejects the Muhammad of the hadith).
The two-nature of Jesus in the Quran? Did the author of the Quran believe that Jesus was fully human?
#### Case 2
Muslims don't understand what the Qur'an is trying to say in some of its verses because they are esoteric. For example, the crucifixion verses (QS 4:157-158):
There are two Jesuses in these verses. The first Jesus was on the cross, while the second one was raised by Allah unto Himself. Muslims misunderstand these verses, and some say that Allah replaced Jesus with someone else, which is incorrect according to the Qur'an.
In these verses, the author of the Qur'an was trying to say that:
- The DIVINE Jesus was raised by Allah unto Himself.
If Jesus were not divine, how could He live for more than 2,000 years with Allah? Does Jesus eat with Allah?
- While the divine Jesus was raised by Allah, the HUMAN Jesus was still on the cross.
The difference between mainstream Christians, who believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and the author of the Qur'an is that: the author of the Quran believed that the HUMAN Jesus was only an ILLUSION or APPARITION of His divine nature.
Thus, according to the author of the Qur'an, Jesus didn't actually suffer on the cross because the one on the cross was just an illusion or apparition of His divine nature (Docetism). These verses were intended to be recited to the Jewish audience of the Qur'an because some Jews couldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah, since the Old Testament says that a person hanging on a tree is cursed by God. Thus, this verse solved that problem.
Neither Ahmed Deedat nor Zakir Naik understood their own Quran.
You seem very knowledgeable. What are your main sources? Further readings?
@@discernit6297 at least read these sources:
- Before Religion, a History of a modern concept.
- The Encyclopedia of the Quran, 'religion'
- The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion, by
Christian Julien Robin
- An invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription, by Ahmad al Jallad
some of the above sources can be read online or downloaded freely.
@@discernit6297 I am not knowledgeable. I am just trying to use my brain to think .. to think about the right questions to ask so that I can get the right questions.
sources:
- before religion, a history of a modern concept
- the encyclopedia of the Quran, 'religion'
- The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion, Christian Julien Robin
(the term MHMD before ISLAM)
- An invocation to Jesus in safaitic inscription, by Ahmad Al Jallad (the meaning of the word ISA)
@@discernit6297 RUclips keeps deleting my comments. Sources:
- the history of the term RELIGION:
'Before RELIGION, a history of a modern concept'
- the Arabic word DYN:
Encyclopedia of the Quran, in English, search for 'RELIGION'
- the Nicean Creeds in the Quran
Angelika Neuwirth, The Late Antique Quran, available on RUclips (lecture)
- the term ISA before ISLAM
'an invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription' by Ahmad Al Jallad, available on RUclips (lecture) and academia (paper)
- the term MHMD before ISLAM
'The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion, Christian Julien Robin, available online (open book publication)
There is always a market for hate, so hateful bigots will always find an audience.
Allah himself is hate monger! Surah 5:14 >>> so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other,
What are you trying to say ?
@@theguyver4934 He is saying, "Allah is hateful begot and he will find (stupid) audience"
zakir is computer 😁
A broken clock is right twice a day. Not sure a broken computer is ever right.
@@dodgysmum8340it depends on the broken part.
Ahmed deedat is a legend. Zakir "madical dactur" naik is a joke
The premise of the existence of the religion of Islam is based on the narrative that says 'the prophet who lived in the 7th century started and spread the religion of Islam.' However, the problem is that there was no such concept as the religion of Islam in the 7th century. Religion was practiced but not conceptualized.
Religion is a modern concept. The word "religion" was introduced into the English language around 1200 AD. Initially, it referred to various ways of worship among Christian denominations. The meaning of the word has evolved over time.
Religion is a modern concept. No ancient language had a term or word that corresponded to the meaning of what modern people call 'religion.'
Religion is a modern concept. Neither Abraham, Moses, nor Jesus talked about religion. None of them started their own religions because the concept of religion didn't exist.
Religion is a modern concept. According to the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, the Arabic word "din" (دين) was never translated into English as 'religion' before the 20th century.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the Arabic "din" is law, judgment, or way of life, similar to how the Hebrew "din" means law or judgment.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the word "Islam" is submission. In the 7th century, "Islam" simply meant submission, not the name or the brand of a religion, a modern concept.
Religion is a modern concept. The original meaning of the phrase "DIN (AL-)ISLAM” is not the religion of Islam but rather ‘submission as a way of life’. This is evident from the fact that the Arabic "din" was never translated into English as religion before the 20th century.
Thus, the famous Qur'anic phrase (3:19) "the religion (din) in the sight of Allah is Islam" is a modern interpretation and can be rephrased as "the way of life (din) that is acceptable to or that is from Allah is submission (Islam)." Hence, The Qur'an doesn't talk about the religion of Islam. This means the prophet who lived in the 7th century didn't know anything about the religion of Islam because the concept of religion didn't exist.
It means that what scholars have been saying for decades-that the Qur'an is a Christian text-is true because there was no concept of religion in the 7th century. What was "din" before it became a religion? What was Islam before it became the name or the brand of a religion? When did Islam (meaning submission) become the name of a religion, a modern concept?
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who were the people called 'Muslims' in the Qur'an? "Muslims" simply means submitters (those who submit to God). The word 'Muslims' in the Qur'an has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.
If the religion of Islam didn't exist in the 7th century, who was the prophet who lived in the 7th century? The fact that the Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah suggests that the prophet must have been a non-Trinitarian Christian, and the author of the Qur'an must have been non-Trinitarian Christians (as proposed by scholars like Angelika Neuwirth in "The Qur'an as a Late Antique Text" or Christoph Luxenberg in "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran").
Muslims do not understand what the Qur'an is trying to say because they have been separated from the sources (the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church) that many verses of the Qur'an refer to, such as the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, the Nicene Creed, etc.
For those who think that the Qur'an has nothing to do with the Bible and the theological disputes in the Early Church, such as the majority of Christians and modern Muslims, many esoteric verses in the Qur'an are misunderstood because they cannot grasp that these verses are actually discussing the theological disputes among Christians in the early Church.
Is Jesus divine in the Quran? And who or what is MHMD in the Quran?
#### Case 1
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is divine (Jesus had two natures, human and divine) because it confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. The Qur'an renders the name of Jesus as "Isa," the Redeemer, a title used by Christians in Jordan before Islam as a divine title for Jesus.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the "Rasulullah" (Messenger of God). The concept of "rasul" (messenger) in the Qur'an is similar to the concept of the messenger in the Old Testament. There are two types of messengers in the Old Testament: human messengers (prophets) and divine messengers (Malak Elohim, the Angel of the LORD, malakh = messenger = angel). In the Qur'an, the human messenger is called "rasul" (rasul = messenger = malakh). And what is the Quranic rasulullah?
The problem is that Muslims do not understand the difference between "rasul" and "Rasulullah." The only possible answer is that "Rasulullah" = the Malak Elohim = the Angel of the LORD.
Thus, the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was the Angel of the LORD who appeared several times in the Old Testament (some Chrisitans also believed that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord).
How about the MHMD?
Therefore, the Qur'an and the hadith are not talking about the same "Muhammad." The Qur'an is talking about a divine "Muhammad" (MHMD = the Praised One), not the person of Muhammad proposed in the hadith (the word "Muhammad" is mentioned only four times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions, QS 33:40, rejects the Muhammad of the hadith).
The two-nature of Jesus in the Quran? Did the author of the Quran believe that Jesus was fully human?
#### Case 2
Muslims don't understand what the Qur'an is trying to say in some of its verses because they are esoteric. For example, the crucifixion verses (QS 4:157-158):
There are two Jesuses in these verses. The first Jesus was on the cross, while the second one was raised by Allah unto Himself. Muslims misunderstand these verses, and some say that Allah replaced Jesus with someone else, which is incorrect according to the Qur'an.
In these verses, the author of the Qur'an was trying to say that:
- The DIVINE Jesus was raised by Allah unto Himself.
If Jesus were not divine, how could He live for more than 2,000 years with Allah? Does Jesus eat with Allah?
- While the divine Jesus was raised by Allah, the HUMAN Jesus was still on the cross.
The difference between mainstream Christians, who believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and the author of the Qur'an is that: the author of the Quran believed that the HUMAN Jesus was only an ILLUSION or APPARITION of His divine nature.
Thus, according to the author of the Qur'an, Jesus didn't actually suffer on the cross because the one on the cross was just an illusion or apparition of His divine nature (Docetism). These verses were intended to be recited to the Jewish audience of the Qur'an because some Jews couldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah, since the Old Testament says that a person hanging on a tree is cursed by God. Thus, this verse solved that problem.
Neither Ahmed Deedat nor Zakir Naik understood their own Quran.
I can't believe you're here praising ahmed deedat and zakir naik those two are so rude and arrogant towards their non muslim audience
Especially ahmed deedat he was an asshole
And I'm saying that as a Muslim
I never respected dedat nor naik ,Naik is a big lier a disgrace to islam ,and deedat way of debating is based on shaming ,redeculing his opponents, .
Finally a Muslim like me who agree's that ahmed deedat and zakir naik are assholes
Both tend to grasp at straws and fail to see their own fallacies during debates. All to win face unfortunately.
For example: in one of his debates, and in attempt to claim “Muhammad’s” name is mentioned in the Bible (it isn’t), Deedat points at Christian’s and says they shouldn’t use translated names such as “Jesus” - and yet, the Quran is riddled with translated names including Isa, nooh, haroon, yqcoub, etc.
Naik thinks the Arabic Quran grammar is the “standard” that Arabs tend to use for grammar… it is not! In fact the quranic grammar is quite inconsistent.
Unfortunately many Muslims just parrot things said by these two without thinking… “show me in the Bible where Jesus said ‘I am god or worship me’”…. This is just like saying “show me in the Quran where Isa said “I am the Christ”’… such fallacies don’t fly these days.
Zakir Naik is a shame, but I used to be a fan of Deedat's confidence. As an Ex-Muslim, I use that drive to spread anti-dawah. The fight to spread the truth still rages on. :)
Zakir naik is a good case study in preacher dynamics because he created a lot of exmuslims in addition to creating muslims. His lies and deception were so expertly crafted that only those who had the curiosity for research were able to detect them. His popularity also made a lot of people recognize the true scale of gullibility of the average Muhammadan.
to be honest if you are trying to disprove our religion then you're just as bad as those apologists
@@waterishorrendous It is not matter of disproving Islam but tell you the Truth about Islam what Allah says in his Quran!
For example surah 5:14 >>> so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other,
@@childofgod4862 I don’t see how this is an issue. God can do this either as a punishment or as a test to see if they will forgive.
@@waterishorrendous My friend, you have to be honest in your life. My question is who is the person who makes enmity and hatred with each other?
And my answer was it is Satan's job but in your Quran, it is the job of your Allah So why your Allah is doing the job of Satan?