Translation of Dr. Sami ‘Amiri’s comments on the debate between Muhammad Hijab @mohammed_hijab and William Lane Craig @RFupdates | thread 🧵
Quick Thoughts on the Historic Debate between Muhammad Hijab and William Lane Craig:
Yesterday, there was a one-hour debate on the reasonableness of Christian Trinity between brother Muhammad Hijab and philosopher (and theologian) William Lane Craig, one of the most renowned
Yesterday, there was a one-hour debate on the reasonableness of Christian Trinity between brother Muhammad Hijab and philosopher (and theologian) William Lane Craig, one of the most renowned
Christian apologists in the West in the last century. Here are some quick reflections on the debate:
1. I must extend my gratitude to Mr. Muhammad Hijab for his choices in debates with Christians, especially after his debate where he humiliated David Wood.
1. I must extend my gratitude to Mr. Muhammad Hijab for his choices in debates with Christians, especially after his debate where he humiliated David Wood.
He avoided the trap many other debaters fall into. We are tired of seeing respected scholars debate unknown or troublesome figures seeking fame among Muslims by engaging with well-known personalities. William Craig is an excellent gateway to addressing Christians
, especially intellectuals. If you want to hunt, aim for the head, not the tail, and bring the battle to your opponent’s ground.
2. I must also thank Mr. Muhammad Hijab for choosing the topic of the Trinity for two reasons.
2. I must also thank Mr. Muhammad Hijab for choosing the topic of the Trinity for two reasons.
First, it focused the debate on the problems of Christianity, thus gaining ground for daʿwah. Second, the Trinity is one of the weakest pillars of Christianity, even though it is fundamental. This is why most Christians avoid beginning debates on this topic (as I mentioned in the
introduction to my book "Who Chose the Four Gospels?").
3. I thank Mr. Hijab for showing respect to the Muslim viewers he represented by thoroughly preparing for the debate. He did what is unfortunately rare among many debaters—he studied the writings of his opponent, tracked
3. I thank Mr. Hijab for showing respect to the Muslim viewers he represented by thoroughly preparing for the debate. He did what is unfortunately rare among many debaters—he studied the writings of his opponent, tracked
their arguments, and responded to them. This comment may seem odd, but it reflects reality. I’ve seen debates where people speak without preparation, assuming that because the opponent holds a false belief, preparation is unnecessary. This is a mistake.
A Muslim debater must aim to strike falsehood from every angle, not just throw objections without regard for their strength or relevance to the opponent’s position.
4. Mr. Muhammad Hijab skillfully turned the tables on Craig when he tried to shift the discussion to Islamic
4. Mr. Muhammad Hijab skillfully turned the tables on Craig when he tried to shift the discussion to Islamic
theology, particularly differences among Muslims on certain attributes of Allah ﷻ. Hijab’s response was brilliant, showing that the real issue is not the differences within one religion. Such differences do not undermine the core beliefs.
The real problem is that William Lane Craig holds a view of the Trinity that few Christian theologians agree with (Craig even falsely claimed that Clement of Alexandria agreed with him, a topic that requires further discussion).
Essentially, Hijab said: “How can you defend the Trinity, the very foundation of your religion, when no one follows your understanding? Doesn’t this show that Christian theologians for the past 2,000 years have admitted its irrationality?”
Hijab then went a step further, agreeing with Craig that mainstream Christian theologians’ views on the Trinity are indeed irrational, polytheistic, and false. With this, he hit everyone—he exposed the errors of church theologians using Craig’s own objections and criticized
Craig’s explanation of the Trinity as a fabricated interpretation that no one before him had accepted.
5. Brother Muhammad Hijab challenged the Trinity rationally using the argument of mutual exclusivity, which many commentators consider a Qur’anic argument.
5. Brother Muhammad Hijab challenged the Trinity rationally using the argument of mutual exclusivity, which many commentators consider a Qur’anic argument.
Craig couldn’t respond and tried to argue for the rationality of the gods being in agreement and not contradicting each other. Hijab brought him back to the original question: that this agreement must be necessary, not merely possible. Hijab also revealed that Craig holds
a view of divine voluntary will that contradicts his own belief in the necessity of divine action. Craig admitted this but couldn’t reconcile the two logically. His response was clear shirk (polytheism), arguing that the Trinity consists of three persons, each with an independent
will! If this isn’t polytheism, what is? Craig also struggled with the issue of the persons of the Trinity sharing in creation while each having an independent will! Surprisingly, Craig also seemed to adopt the view that the persons of the Trinity are parts of the whole.
His examples to explain his view only worsened the situation and aligned him with heretics.
6. I would have preferred the debate to be titled “The Trinity between Reason and Scripture,” as the problem of the Trinity also includes its contradiction to the texts of both the Old
6. I would have preferred the debate to be titled “The Trinity between Reason and Scripture,” as the problem of the Trinity also includes its contradiction to the texts of both the Old
and New Testaments. This issue also involves the matter of altering the New Testament in favor of the Trinity, a topic I discussed in detail in my book "The Alteration of the Gospel." However, the official debate title was limited to the rational aspect, and interestingly, Craig
attempted to shift the debate towards the Trinity and scripture by arguing that his view aligns with the New Testament. This was an unethical move on his part.
7. Craig began by accusing Mr. Muhammad Hijab and Muslims in general of misunderstanding the Trinity due to their influence by the Qurʾān, which—according to him—mistakenly presents the Trinity as the Father, Son, and Mary
(Do you say to people, take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?). He claimed the Qurʾān presents the Trinity as the Father, Son, and Mother instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mr. Hijab responded effectively by clarifying that the verse addresses the excessive
veneration of Mary, which led many Christians to worship her—a point supported by several Orientalists, such as Sidney Griffith, David Thomas, and Guillaume Dye. I discussed this issue in detail in my book "Historical Doubts about the Qurʾān." As a side note, this discussion is
part of an academic book in English that I’ve been working on this past summer, and I hope to publish it by the end of next year, in shā’ Allah. It will address a specific issue related to Orientalist studies and Qur’ānic sources, and I may translate it into Arabic later.
Loading suggestions...