Abdullah Kunde vs James White: "Can God Become a Man?"

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)


Can God Totally Dwell Inside of the Total Human Being: James White vs Abdullah Kunde.

http://neutralbayanglican.org.au/?p=1508


Allah-willing I will be commenting more on this remarkable debate soon.  I think this was an excellent opportunity for James White to make a very strong case for one of Christianity's most central doctrines. I also felt that James White did a very good job in making the very best case possible he could for the ideal that total God could take on the form and indwell in total man.

Even though James White gave it everything he had, for me his presentation was absolutely unconvincing.

I will say that James White made the best closing arguments I have ever heard him make in any debate. He clearly out shined Abdullah Kunde in the closing remarks.

That being said, Abdullah Kunde had mastery of the Q & A session. Many times Abdullah Kunde turned the question of James White back on him for reflection.

Especially on the issue of God taking on ignorance. James White beat a hasty retreat. This was an over all excellent discussion. Again I will be commenting more soon. (if Allah-wills)

This is an a general over view of the debate that transpired between our respected brother Abdullah Kunde and James White.


James White: Initial presentation over view and comments: My comments in bold. What you will find is not me going through every point by point detail. I am just giving an over view of the points they went over. For me the meat of the real issue was addressed during the Q & A where they could directly interact with each other.

James White begins with the presuppositional nature of the question.
For James White this is 'the fundamental difference that divides Islam and Christianity.

Rather or not God can or did become a man.


James White asserts that the scriptures provide a rather clear definition of the doctrine of incarnation.

The prologue : John 1:1

John 1:14  'became flesh'

"God invaded his own creation" - (rather odd way to put things but that's o.k)

Phillipians 2:5-9 "Kenosis"

"he made himself NOTHING"  "enters into human existence"

1 person "two complete natures"  "divine and human"

"How do you Crucify the 'Lord of Glory"   'not intermingled'  "the two natures are intermingled"

The person 'Jesus' came into existence as a point in time. (as a point in time?)

Ignatius 'There is one physician of flesh and spirit, and God in men, passable and impassable'

Melito of Sardis  "he who hung the heavens in earth is hanged"  

James White makes the blunder of saying that the collection of the New Testament was closer than the collection of the ahadeeth ( Abdullah Kunde did a great job refuting this mistake) 

word and wisdom -reflected in the targums  Isaiah 9:5 (masoretic text)


James White digresses to discuss the Holy Qur'an and the alleged son-ship of Jesus.

Not having a son -Not really our subject for this evening...

The Qur'an says God cannot have a son (19:82-84) -God has a servant

112: Begots not and there is none begotten.

James White asked the local Imam if the verses in Al Iklas refer to Christianity.
 (Abdullah Kunde also pointed out to James White the problem in going down to ask the local Imam for his opinion on matters.)

James White says, "that the incarnation does not necessitate a fundamental change in the divine being, but a fundamental change in the divine experience."  (This is problematic. If God can experience something he has not before does this mean that gains new information.) 

God interacts with us in time.   Christians believe in the Immutability of the Creator.


For James White the central question is:

"Does God as the Creator the power, ability, capacity to join a human nature to himself if he pleases to do so"

"God did not die because God is the essence and not the one person" 

"God is three persons not One." "The essence did not die, but a person who shared the essence"

"But than again God did not die because God is three persons in one essence."


This is extremely interesting! For the following: http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A62860827  Is now James White interested in endorsing Bart Ehrmans view that Hebrews 2:9 that Jesus "died apart from God" James White was not speaking of Orthodox Christian creed even when he made the statement he did above. That is the problem with any version of the Trinity (Eastern, Western, etc). The more you explain it the more it falls into the one of the many camps Christians claim it is not apart of (Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Subordinationism etc)

Lastly James White mentions the story of  "Christians persecution in the Roman state for 2 and half centuries"


Basically the old apologetic view of: "Would they die for a lie" 


===================================================================================

Abdullah Kunde begins his presentation: My comments in bold

In the beginning Abdullah Kunde cuts right to the chase. The Qur'an' -absolutely denies that God could become a man. 

"Those who say that Christ the son of Mary deny the truth"

Islam will categorically deny that Jesus is God and that God can become a man.

hypostatic union-

Islamic definition an essential attribute, -exist, neccessary existence -the thing that causes everything that exist

necessary, oneness, no beginning, no end, dissimiliar from everything else, will, power, knowledge and life, sight, hearing, and speech, self-subsistent

silly logical fallacies:

One essence (substance) that substance is with in three hypostasis (three distinct persons)

Jesus is fully God and fully man (not mixed)

If God is bound by the same things as his creation

There is nothing similar to his similarity


silly logical fallacies:

Can God make a square into a circle but keep it a square

Can God make another God.

Can God make a stone that you can't move

Holy Qur'an 2:255

Why would we would reject the Incarnation...

What caused the union? An action of the word alone?  Why cannot the father and the spirit have a uniting as well?

If it was the logos alone (they have independent power). If the Hypostasis can do things independently of the other this is problematic for the Muslims.

If it's an action of the substance and not the hypostasis (they are redundant)

God did not take any offspring for had they been each deity would over come one another limitless is God.

The nature of the messiah's birth is problematic.


When did the divine enter into the human? 

"Was it before the birth, during the pregnancy or after the birth"

before the birth....

"God is limitless in his glory he but says to it be and it is."


When you say, 'Jesus died' what do you mean by this?'

fully human die or the god die (did the divinity die?) 


Did all three die?  dependent and not divine

If the substance is dependent it is not divine

4:157 (Holy Qur'an)- Jesus did not die.

Ressurrection he didn't die 

the individual hypostasis are dependent (resurrection)


It is not enough for Christians to say that Jesus is Lord. It is more appropriate for Christians to say that Jesus is Lord, and Jesus is a man.


Jesus is eternal and temporal,

he is eternal and created

Jesus is a man, Jesus is Lord.

If he is truly both, than what do Christians not acknowledge that all the time? (very good point by Abdullah Kunde)

did the deity and the human eat together?

who rose from the dead (the human or the divinity)

I and the father are one - was that the human talking, or the divinity'  (the father and the spirit must have human natures)

Jesus said worship my lord who is my sustainer and your sustainer

Qur'an about Jesus (Don't listen to what I say because I might be a good looking guy)  :)

==================================================================================================


James White rebuttal section:


Here I believe in James rebuttal section he didn't make a strong enough case for his proposition: or refuting Abdullah Kunde. Instead he went for allot of asides.

The Qur'an says that Allah would make the followers of Jesus victorious-

So where is the evidence that anyone didn't believe this? (believe that Jesus was not God, or the divine Son etc)

Where are the people who accept what the Qur'an says about Jesus but not the incarnation. 


(James White catches himself because he is fully aware that there are such people. He tries to anticipate by naming some such groups)

James makes a blunder in saying that Abdullah Kunde was trying to seperate Jesus two natures.

In fact Abdullah was simply stating why such things would be problematic.

James White says that Jesus (God did become tired)

Jesus put himself in a position to be subordinate to the Spirit of God

Didn't do things that the Gnostics said he did "which interesting the Qur'an says he did"

Like taking little birds and making them alive (said with the same condescending tone you would expect from either an atheist or a person who is clearly frustrated and not confident in explaining their position)

On what consistent basis can White affirm presuppositional beliefs for himself (James White), but not allow it for the Muslims?

"They can do as what they as one divine God has chosen to do in accomplishing" THEY? 

"very interesting that Abdullah cited text that were directed towards polytheism"

"Is the islamic objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the Trinity"   "Allah knew what the trinity was"

"If he wanted to refute to do so he could do so accurately"  -Same arguments.....again....refuted over and over... in fact it is very sad and dishonest of James to bring up talking points that Abdullah Kunde has already addressed here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/quranic-doctrine-of-trinity-are-there.html


 In fact you can see James White use that same tired, refuted argument in his debate with Abdulalh Al Andalusi here:


http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/10/big-homoousia-debate-abdullah-al.html


I will repeat here what I have done in the blog entry above: Trinity. This assumes on James White's part that there is an accurate model of the Trinity to critique. It assumes that the Trinity is a correct to begin with. So much of James White' argument can easily be dismantled when one understands this.

For example that would be like James White saying 'The Qur'an does not give us an accurate description of a three sided circle.' Well this would assume that a thee sided circle is something accurate to begin with. All that is happening is James White is presupposing a doctrine that came about only after much intra-Christian debate which he admits to be revealed only'between the Old and the New Testament' to be accurate.

It is troubling that James White would repeat this age old 'argument' first crafted by Samuel Zwelmer and re-used and re-hashed time and again after Muslims have given answer to this.

It reminds one of Dan Barker being corrected on certain points about Bible contradictions only rehasing it 'for a fresh audience'.

"We do believe that is the case in eternity future" -Jesus united to a human being!!!  Huh? So James White now believes in a that the Godman will exist in eternity 

"a point in time"

Thetokos -God bearer

did divinity die'-what does it mean to die?  (yeah what does that mean -White doesn't explain)

death is not the cesation of existence.  (cease to exist,)

Jesus died ( the god man gave his life)   the human nature that dies upon the cross < WHAT!!! THE HUMAN NATURE THAT DIES UPON THE CROSS...(NOT THE BEING(GOD)) (I'll be sure to keep that one for another blog entry. Allah-willing)

===========================================================================================================================

Abdullah Kunde begins his rebutal: My comments in bold

substance (godhead)

hypostasis (the three persons)

who was he obedient to (it was pointless) sending himself, and obedient to himself

and if he is obedient to others (is dependent)

Arius is post 200 years..

Why doesn't the Qur'an address western trinitarianism

Qur'an did not encounter Western trinitarianism (jacobites, nestorians) etc...

The idea that we would argue against Chalcedonian Trinitarinism is a mute point.  (Very excellent)

Kitab Al Athar, and Muwatta of Imam Malik (the "death" of Jesus and the death of Muhammed comparative times from when the Hadith and the New Testament were being penned down)

50-60 years.. far out by a 100 years is absolutely incorrect. (White's point that the hadith were collected only 100 years after the death of Muhammed (saw) was completely refuted by Kunde.)

reference to an encounter of local Imam. (local Imam down at a Mosque has no religious skill, other than memorizing the Qur'an another good point by brother Abdullah. ) etc..

this idea that quoting a local Imam has some merit.  (would be like quoting a local perish point)

"power, ability and capacity"

God "does he have the power, ability and capacity" to create another God?

The word car can we re-arrange so it has 20 different letters...?

"Can God create a a rock he cannot move?"

Not trying to imply White has a deficientt intellect.  

James White is essentially foisted a created ideal upon the uncreated.

Ebionite information comes from Trinitarian sources (Those who considered themselves to be Orthodox Christians)
In other words how do we know that we are getting the real scoop on what the Ebionites actually believed. Good point by Abdullah Kunde. I wonder what White's response to that will be in the future. He didn't respond at all to it in the debate.

Non Canonical sources -the Qur'an  "The author of the Qur'an was doing a pretty good job of the rounds on early Christian belief"


On what consistent basis can James White allow presuppositionalism to prevail in believing in the New Testament text, without having the original manuscripts, yet deny Muslims a presuppositional view that says we too do not have the original Injeel (Gospel) but it is quite possible that parts of this Injeel (Gospel) ended up in sources that Christians today consider non-canonical? 


On What consistent basis is presuppositionalism allowed for the New Testament but not for the Qur'an? 

Was it an act of the hypostasis or the act of the substance---

(one or more of the hypostasis)

"Could the father have the capacity, ability, power"

Was Jesus dead or alive.  "Muslim scholars of creed differentiate between God existing and God having life."

"Do the dead have power, do they have will."

Lazarus responded to a command. This is much deeper than I have time for at the moment. Suffice that a person can look into it here: http://www.sovgrace.net/theological-essays/39-salvation/59-born-again-the-doctrine-of-effectual-calling

Individual freedom, and inter-dependence (how would you differientate for those terms) Very good question that White did not respond to.

=====================================================================================================


Q & A session: In which I felt Abdullah Kunde absolutely dominated.
James White cross examine Abdullah Kunde

When I ask the central question and your saying, "I have diminished capacity I think we are talking past each other."  


Actually White is taking offence even though Abdullah clearly stated, "Not trying to imply White has a deficient intellect." White took something to heart that he did not need to.

Illogical fallacies...

Q: James White,  "How it involves a logical fallacy"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "God has certain attributes which we consider essential without beginning and without an end."

Q: James White, "What essential attribute do you see the question assuming?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "All of them".  "(dependent time, sustenance, contained by other dimensions)"

Q: James White, "You understand the question to transmute into a human being?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, " Islamic definition"  (presupposition that is defensible) 

Q: James White, "Did Allah create the human nature?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "Your asking me can God be God if he takes on attributes that are ungodly."

Q: James White, "It seems as if you are saying that God is ceasing to be God" - No this is not what Abdullah is sound like saying, this is what you (White) would like him to say that.

A: Abdullah Kunde, "Your asking if God is omniescient and takes on the ignorance" -

Did James White listen to Abdullah Kunde?

Q: James White, "So perfect for you can only be applied to God."  .... Well duh! hehehe

Q: "Do you believe that all the messengers were sinless?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "absolutely".....

(someone in the audience goes hmph!) excellent! The audience is thinking! I can tell as well that it was not a Muslim. :)

Q: James White, "Was Muhammed sinless?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "absolutely."

Abdullah Kunde, "Your applying temporality to God."


Christians have yet to show me any example of God speaking to his creation while being outside of his Creation. 
If Christians do not believe that God created time, than this means they do not believe that God created everything.


I tried to get a Christian apologist Anthony Rogers to address the question and he blatantly refused.


You can see that here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/09/allah-cannot-reveal-himself-correcting.html

James White: "When he created the universe"  His actions in a point in time.

Q: James White, 'Do you believe the universe is eternal"


A: Abdullah Kunde, "of course not"

Abdullah Kunde "when we say God acted at a point in time it appears that way from our perspective."

James White"When it came into existence" 
Abdullah Kunde  "WHEN" "if your going to apply time to it"  It was the way he intended it at that time.

==================================================================================================


Abdullah Kunde cross examine James White

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Does the decree change"  
A: James White,  God's decree action decree in time."

The decree does not change-     We do not apply to time.

James White- "Until it happens in time is it real?"
-James White ask a question , when he is supposed to be answering. (Breaks rules of debate)

James White, "I see a difference in logic"

"Its imperfect because it's temporal" -if God comes into creation (time is a creation) So than he becomes temporal and is also imperfect by White's own definition!

White takes away from Abdullah Kunde's question time to address the audience....(Breaks the rules of the debate yet again)

Fundamental ontological difference between the Creator and the creation.

Presuppositions about belief in God.  

James not being consistent in his approach

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Does God have the freedom to cease to exist?"
A: James White , "no!"   
Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Why not?"

Abdullah was doing an excellent job of getting James White to probe his own theological presuppositions.

"God has the freedom to act in time out of his love.".(for example is one presupposition) but form the Muslim theological presuppostion and evidential proof text what this entails is taking on imperfection.


Abdullah Kunde reflects upon James White's theological presuppositions about the divine.

"Freedom to be eternal and temporal at the same time"-Abdullah Kunde
"and the freedom to be both living and dead at the same time"-Abdullah Kunde

James White interrupts "at the same time in which nature"

Surely anyone can see that White really took liberties when it was time for Abdullah to cross examine White. Abdullah was clearly the better man here in terms of his patience and sticking to the rules of engagement

===========================================================================================================================

James White cross examine Abdullah Kunde part 2

"Let me ask some of the other questions"  -So why leave from the central question? If you came all that way to Australia to have a meaningful debate on the most central issue that divides Islam and Christianity?

Q: James White, "What do you understand that Christians understood John 10:30 to be saying?" 
A: "Abdullah Kunde, "That he is of one being as the Father."


 "Jesus is not making an ontological claim" - Is James asking a question or giving a sermon?

The clay birds-in gnostic sources , Jesus speaking in the infancy gospel,

Q:James White, "Do you believe the Qur'an draws from those sources?"
A: Abdullah Kunde, "It is coincidence-pure coincidence."

Q: James White (series of questions), "Who was Jesus obedient to?" "What do you see as an objection." "If Jesus voluntarily does this or that ...would he be an atheist?"


A: Abdullah Kunde: "Jesus made a decision and he's just following it through."

Kunde seeks clarification, "Was the plan of salvation of the substance or of the hypostasis?"

(Kunde has the right to seek clarification)  (Kunde was charitable to white during his Q & A) So White could do the same.

White's point stands only from the theological presupposition that he stands on.

James goes back to the point about the Messiah being brought into being, He conviently side steps Abdullah Kunde's remarks about Jesus being obedient is virually meaningless.  White side stepped Kunde's point about Christians using the hypostasis and the substance when it is convenient for them.

Does like White hearing himself talk? Is he giving a speech or asking a question?

White at 1:41-1:42 minutes starts to become testy. He has to understand as do the Christians that Abdullah is not being snarky, or mean spirited. He is asking what so many in the Christian faith eventually begin to ask themselves.  Who and What is actually  saying, doing, coming or going on at any given time in the western/eastern/any version of the Trinity!

So James White becomes testy and snarks that Abdullah is confused and he finds the same confusion in the Qur'an.

Why is James White so uncomfortable in dealing with the issue?  This alone is proof enough that no one needs to call into his 'dividing line' when he can't even answer a question or clarify a position during a debate!

"Clarify for the purpose of the question" I think White relishes that stuff.  Again I don't see someone sincere in a debate.  He's a snarky self starter who is honestly lucky that he even gets to debate people like Bassam Zawadi and Abdullah Kunde and others who outclass him in every way.

Kunde makes the excellent point that  Western Trinitarian Christians and Non Western Trinitarian Christians and not Trinitarian Christians (Eastern, Western) or any stripe do not agree on the same points.

White goes on by pressing Abdullah that does anyone who doesn't believe in Muhammed (saw) would they be Muslim.  He eventually ask are the Ahmadi  considered to be Muslims.

White's point is valid here.
The reason I say it is a valid point is because Abdullah Kunde said that the ideal of hypostasis and being in the 'godhead' is difficult enough for Trinitarians and non Trinitarian Christians to agree upon.


The reason White's point is valid is because he is basically asking 'where do you draw the line'. This is a fair and good question. Again I think that White is letting valuble time slip away to get to the substance of the debate. I don't know if the audience was too happy with that.  Yet, if your going to go down the path of who is the true Christian or true Muslim, James White has an obviously good point here.


 From White's presuppositional view, basically the real Christians believe in Western Trinitarianism, etc...

So again I think this point is not helpful to the theme of the over all debate. Yet, since White is running out of time and doesn't have much substance to his presentation he is happy to chase after any red herring.

=============================================================================================================================
Abdullah Kunde cross examine James White part 2

Abdullah Kunde brings the debate back into focus.  He is trying to get White to give a clear and consistent understanding of the his understanding of the Trinity.

White again, tries to side step the question and being disingineous. Because, he than tries to throw in there that the tired and refuted argument that the Qur'an in Surah 5 says that we accept the (22 or 27 books of the New Testament.)

James White instead of giving a clear and consistent presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity, goes on the attack of Islam being 500 years after Jesus etc..yet, he tries to talk about Jesus being God.

Again James White proposes to debate about the Qur'an and the New Testament etc...however  White again not feeling comfortable to answer the questions.

"I'll read your book when you write it"-James White says to Abdullah Kunde.

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "You say the Trinity was revealed between the Old and the New Testament?"
 "If you are to back up the principle of Sola Scriptura, how is that you can maintain the argument that the Trinity is revealed between the scriptures?"  (This was personally helpful for me. I do recall reading/or hearing that White said that). Last year my good friends Ken Temple (a Christian friend who is doing some soul searching) and David Waltz who has an excellent blog asked me the source of my quotation on this. I did not have it so I had to retract the statement. I am happy to see it brought up here.


Q: Abdullah Kunde,  "Were would you draw the line between who is a Christian and who isn't?"

 1 hour and 51 minutes into the debate:

A: James White, "incarnation, death and resurrection (historically those things take place between the writing).  New Testament is written until 30-40 years after Christ."

James White , "Chalcedonian definition are not a negotiable thing." "Nestorious believed that Chaldecon vindicated him."  

James White, "Arianism is not Christinaity, "Utickism" (spelling?) (where you have a mixture) I am not going to kick them out of the kingdom."   "monophysite trinitarinism" - difference between knowing and willfully rejecting them, knowing and ignorance..


James White says that monophysite Christianity is Christian!!!  (better save that one for a future debate) 

=============================================================================================================================

JAMES WHITE CLOSING REMARKS:

James White really shined ruing his closing remarks. From a Christian perspective and as a person who is a former Christian I can absolutely relate to it. I can imagine myself a Christian in the audience nodding my head and saying 'Amen' or feeling that my guy (James White) represented me well.


 I think for the most part the Christian walks away feeling that James White represented them well.  White makes a plea for Calvinism that the spirit of God has to change a person's heart (regeneration) however he doesn't explain if regeneration happens before faith, or does it happen simultaenously with faith (he has refused to debate fellow Calvinist Bob Ross on this issue). 


You can see Bob Ross comments here: 


James is trying his dead-level best to carve out for himself a reputation as a "debater" who whups up on the "Arminians," but I wonder how he would fare against a Confessional Calvinist? Could he successfully defend Fort Pre-Faith Regeneration?

I saw somewhere that he said he has had many "debates," all of them with debaters who are not Confessional Calvinists, but he has had no debate with a Confessional Calvinist. Wonder why? 

Could he defend his Hybrid Calvinism against Confessional Calvinism? If a Confessional Calvinist paid to go on his Cruise, do you think he would condescend to debate with a Confessional Calvinist?

Do you think James will ever really establish himself as a legitimate, respected debater if he does not take on a Calvinist who rejects his "born again before faith" palabber? -- Bob L. Ross


http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/james-white-and-rossphobia.html


For example fellow James White has refused to debate fellow Calvinist Bob Ross on this issue of regeneration before fait. He has been ducking Bob Ross for a long, long, long time.

In fact Christians will tell me the reason he doesn't debate it is because it would not be edifying. I think it would be extremely edifying.  

Crucifiction -debate. White claims to have the high ground but did horrible in his debate with Shabir Ally! 


You can see that here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html


  (Yet white made a challenge to white to debate New Tesament and the Qur'an).

"Can't God do more than Abraham."-James White


The problem with this is that James White believes that Abraham can do anything outside of the power of God!  So that was a very strange statement coming from a Calvinist.

"Abdullah has a good bit of Aristotillian philsophy going on there."   James White has a good bit of Platonic philosophy going on in his doctrine.

=============================================================================================================================

ABDULLAH KUNDE CLOSING REMARKS:


In history this was the norm. (For Christians and Muslims to debate)

"John of Damascus a Christian Priest -made strong claims against Islam." 

Yahya ibn Adi "wrote a book why the Islamic understanding of God is illogical" the book was printing and distrubting in Muslim lands.  

"St. Francis of Assisi -engaged with Muslims."

"It's not a new thing, no its not we just have to pick this back up."

"Ibrahim wanted yaqin (certainty)!" 


"We can gain certainty, by  eyewitness, irrefutable irrational, or from direct experience."

Abdullah Kunde makes a very beautiful point to counter Whites closing " Can't God do more than Abraham?"


He mentioned the story about how Abraham wanted certainty! Excellent!

"Our faith is based upon certainty." "We believe you cannot build certainty upon sand (very good point and counter to presuppositonal apologetic)"

"Christian belief is a belief built upon a sandy surface."

"Certainty and Faith is combined."  (That is the ideal of Islam)

"We do not have a belief, you have an affirmation."  (you do not affirm something on the basis of sand or uncertainty!)

The Christian theological presupposition of the Creator,  "It is imposing a created ideal upon the creator."-Abdullah Kunde
 "It is basically saying that God cannot approach us without a mediator." -Abdullah Kunde.

"That God has to become a man, places a limitation upon man."-Abdullah Kunde

Abdullah Kunde, "I am a gnat compared to James White"  mash'Allah humility! :)

"I hope you all return home safely and go in peace." "Thank you very much!"


Presentation: James White excellent.
Presentation: Abdullah Kunde excellent.
Cross Examination: Abdullah Kunde wins hands down. White was put on the defensive and at times can be seen as being testy. Abdullah Kunde answered the questions with resolute calmness.
Closing remarks: I would say that James White out shined Abdullah Kunde. James White had strong Christian emotional appeal and he really pandered to the Christians in the audience. However, if you pay close attention Abdullah Kunde was not just pandering to a Muslim audience. He put things in such a way that he has the Christian thinking; especially on the issue of certainty!

Conclusion: Abdullah Kunde wins this debate due to his excellence at cross examination.