(Here is today’s program, noted below)
Someday I’m going to wrap myself around a light pole somewhere because I’m so amazed at something someone just said in a debate I’m listening to while riding my bike. Yesterday I was listening to the Morey vs. Ally debate while riding, and just about rode right off the bike path when once again Shabir Ally proved “use any tactic you want—who cares about consistency” is his modus operandi. You may recall his amazing statement to Sam Shamoun that he does not have to take the Bible in its own context: he can pick and choose verses, phrases, etc., at will, isolate them, take them out of context, etc., and it doesn’t matter. To any serious minded person, this was an admission on Shabir Ally’s part that you do not need to take his arguments seriously, since he is not presenting them seriously.
I will be playing these sections on the DL today, but briefly, in the Morey debate at one point Shabir Ally shows that he knows he uses sources and arguments in an inconsistent, illogical fashion. In defending the Qur’an, Ally argued that you cannot use “Western scholarship” since that disproves both the Qur’an and the Bible. Now, while one could surely argue that point, immediately you are left asking, “If that is the case, why do you quote from Raymond Brown and all sorts of Western scholarship ad infinitum et ad nauseum in your debates against William Craig or others?” The self-contradiction is glaring, and utterly self-destructive.
But later I was left gasping for breath, not because of how hard I was riding, but because of Ally’s willingness to show either utter ignorance of the Trinity (a possibility) or, to grossly misrepresent it. At one point Ally again shows his complete lack of exegetical capacity in speaking of the incarnation and the relationship of the Persons in the Trinity. He asserts confusion on the part of Christians as to who the Father of Jesus is, whether it is the Father in heaven or the Holy Spirit (as if the term “father” is being taken to mean ‘the one causing the incarnation’). Then he says this:
But I cannot help you with this kind of confusion, ladies and gentlemen, except to invite you to the truth that God has revealed to correct all of this confusion. Ladies and gentlemen, I noticed this confusion here today as well when during the prayers we noticed that some people were praying to Yahweh, and some were saying ‘Yes Jesus, praise be to Jesus.’ Because Yahweh and Jesus, according even to the Trinity, are two different persons, they are not one in the same. If you say that Yahweh is Jesus, then how can you say that Yahweh sends His Son? Who is His Son? Not Jesus?
I find it hard to believe Shabir Ally could possibly say something like this in a public debate. Surely any person who has done even the most basic amount of study knows that part and parcel of the proof of the Trinity adduced from the Holy Scriptures is the use of the divine name, YHWH, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Only by once again assuming unitarianism can Ally miss this vital point. And how could he possibly think that this argumentation is at all compelling to a Christian? A truly amazing example of “We don’t need to study what you believe or accurately represent it!” Listen in to the DL for this statement and others, and your phone calls at 877-753-3341. Perhaps some folks will finally call in this morning to defend Shabir Ally’s arguments? Some of the other Islamic apologists we have examined? We tried to find someone Thursday evening, but no one called. We will try again at 11am MST (1pm EST).