Debating Morality
More Muslim Muddlings and Manglings


Many Muslim critics of the Bible and Christianity tend to rely upon some very, ah, creative efforts at gainsaying the Word of God. One of these is Mr. Nadir Ahmed (who has been previously been dealt with on STA.Net). In this present endeavour, we see Mr. Ahmed responding to an interview he read with Rebecca St. James (a singer, I think?) in which Ms. St. James criticised the behaviour of Britney Spears. From this, Mr. Ahmed has built up quite an interesting little argument in which he tries to posit that the Bible is the reason for the moral decline of America. The only thing Mr. Ahmed demonstrates, however, is that he has not actually read the Bible, as his arguments are quite easily refuted from within the text of the Bible itself.

In this response, the text from Mr. Ahmed's article will appear in red, with my rebuttals in normal text. I have elected to pass over the first portion of his article, as it was not relevant to the primary issue at hand.

This being said, let us proceed to the meat of the matter.

'Dressing in a very promiscuous fashion'

But as we shall soon see, it will be Rebecca St. James whom we are going to feel sorry for. To start off, Rebecca attempted to criticize Britney Spears on her clothing, accusing her of being too promiscuous. Here, she gives the impression, that Britney dress style is going against the Bible. But this is not true. All the Bible states is be "modest" (1 Timothy 2:9), thatís it. But, the Bible does not state what clothing is considered modest. To put it in a nutshell, Modesty is simply an emotion. Itís a feeling one gets when they are personally satisfied with what they are dressed in. Therefore, Britney Spears fully meets this requirement, so long as she feels that she is modest.

It is dreadfully apparent at this early point that Mr. Ahmed did not do even the least bit of basic research when preparing this article. Let us look at I Timothy 2:9,

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

Clearly, from the context of this very verse, modesty is not an "emotion". It is an adjective describing a state of being. The Greek word translated as "modest" is kosmios, a word which denotes appropriateness, decourousness, and conformity to a standard of orderliness. Where the teaching on clothing in this particular verse comes from is in the descriptors which elaborate on the phrase "modest apparel". We are told that this apparel should be accompanied by sense of shamefacedness and sobriety. Shamefacedness carries with it the idea of "bashfulness" or "modesty" (in the sense that we think of the word), and it is THIS word which would most closely approximate an emotional sensibility. However, even then the term is not necessarily subjective, as it implies a tacit knowledge of what sort of clothing will prevent one from feeling ashamed - laid out objectively in the Bible, as will be illustrated more fully below. Sobriety denotes "temperance", not just in the sense of alcohol, but in the broader sense of self-control. Also, object examples of dressing in a kosmois manner are given in the avoidance of excessive accruements such as broided hair, gold, pearls, or costly array. The warning here is clearly one against women wearing clothing that is meant to draw undue attention to their physical appearance, whether this be by revealing too much or by being gaudy and ostentatious. This same affirmation is made elsewhere,

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." (I Peter 3:3-4)

Again, we see that "apparel" is referring more to ostentation than anything else. Clothing or ornamentation designed to draw a man's eye, as was common in the culture and society of the Roman Empire (as well as most others down throughout history), is taught to not be a proper thing for Christian women to wear.

Hence, we see that modesty is taught as an objective ideal against which a woman's clothing can presumably be judged in comparison, for if it were not, it would not be set forth in such a manner in this verse. It is not merely a "feeling" or "emotion" as Mr. Ahmed confuses. A woman's apparel, both her clothing and other things like jewelry and makeup, is to be orderly, presenting an image of godliness, reflecting the godliness within her heart.

So then, does the Bible illustrate for us what makes up godly clothing, and what or how much we are to wear? Despite Mr. Ahmed's ill-founded assertion to the contrary, we see that the Bible teaches quite a bit about this, both positively and negatively. Let us look back to the Hebrew scriptures which, despite another unfounded assertion on the part of Mr. Ahmed's, are certainly alive and well for today's Christian.

In Genesis 3:21 we see that after Adam and Eve had sinned, and had attempted to cover their new-found shame with aprons made of leaves, that God provides for them a new covering which is of His own creation and design. Instead of aprons, God provided to them "coats" of skins. The Hebrew word translated as coats is kathenowth, which is a word that everywhere in the Hebrew scriptures denotes a long, robelike garment. It's modern equivalent would be akin to an overcoat or robe, and would cover the body from the neck to at least the knees, in addition to having sleeves that would at least cover the top portion of the upper arm. The word kathenowth itself comes from an unused root meaning "to cover", thus the primary connotation of the word in the Genesis passage seems to be that it is a garment meant to cover over what was considered by God to be shameful after man had sinned and gained a sense of shame due to his now-fallen nature. These coats were not, let us remember, fashioned by Adam and Eve, but were given to them by God and thus surely represent His ideal for how fallen man is to be covered in clothing. Though the primary theological application in this passage is the shedding of blood (implied in the taking of the skins from animals) to cover over man's sin and shame, the practical teaching of clothing that is acceptable to God is also presented.

This level of covering is presented throughout the Scripture. The clothing which the priests of Israel were to wear included a pair of linen breeches (Exodus 28:42) which are specified to be worn for the purpose of "covering their nakedness". These breeches would come down to the knee, "from their loins even unto the thighs", and the priest was then further covered by a robe bearing the ephod which also extended down to at least the knees. Knowing this, it is then interesting to see that the specifications given for preparing altars unto the LORD includes a prohibition (Exodus 20:26) of building steps up to the altar, specifically so that the priest would not "discover his nakedness" while going up to the altar. The action of lifting the leg to the next step (instead of walking up an inclined plane), even with the priest wearing the breeches and then the ephod robe over these, still could potentially uncover his nakedness, as God defines it. Is this nakedness talking about the priest's private parts? No, it's talking about his upper leg, his thigh.

This is also shown in Isaiah's prophecies,

"Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." (Isaiah 47:1-3)

The nakedness described here is the uncovering of the thigh, the upper part of the leg, not complete nakedness.

Likewise, in the New Testament, "nakedness" is also shown to be a matter of ill-dress, but not necessarily "no dress". In John 21:7, a jubilant Peter seeing the risen Christ, is described,

"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea."

The garment that Peter put on was an outer garment, described as a "fisher's coat". It was not an article of clothing like a shirt or a pair of pants. Hence, the Bible is not saying that Peter was naked in the sense of having no clothing on at all (in which case he probably would have been under arrested or stoned, instead of out in a boat in public fishing), but rather as being in a state of ill-dress. He was not completely covered from neck to knee, as a result of his labouring, and put on his outer garment to meet the Lord. Yet, his dress is still described as "nakedness". Indeed, if the Bible seeks to describe complete nakedness, then it must specify this fact explicitly, such as in the case of the demon-possessed man wandering in the tombs of whom it is described that he "ware no clothes" (Luke 8:27).

The point to all this is to demonstrate that the Bible certainly does lay out, in a unified set of teaching spanning both Old and New Testaments, what sort of clothing is and is not considered sufficient by God. For Mr. Ahmed to claim that the Bible never sets a standard for clothing for God's people results only from Mr. Ahmed's own lack of knowledge of the Biblical texts. As the texts indicate, modesty is neither an emotion nor a matter of personal preference, but is set by specific guidelines and standards that are tacitly understood through the entirety of the Bible.

In addition to all of this, Britney Spears does not wear any thing too much different than what most Christians wear on a beach. Now, donít tell me that the Bible says that it is ok to wear swimsuits on a beach, but not anywhere else!!! In the debate on Morality, this was a major source of embarrassment for Rev. Matt Slick, in which he blurted out, that the holy ghost inspired his wife to wear a one piece bathing suit vs. a 2 piece!!! Out of foolishness, somehow thinking that people can not download the debate from my website, he later then retracted that remark, claiming that he never said it. Let me ask, is wearing pants modest? Is wearing shorts modest? Tank tops? Dress covering the entire body? Swimsuit? Therefore, modesty is left up to the individual to decide. That is why you have many people among Christians dressed anywhere from skimpy Madonna type outfits or bikini type outfits, to huge dresses covering everything. According to the Bible, it is "all good".

Mr. Ahmed here falls into the trap of assuming that because someone, maybe even someone who self-identifies as a Christian, does something, this must indicate that the Bible says to do it, teaches them to do it, etc. Hence, if Matt Slick's wife wears a one-piece bathing suit, it must be because the Bible hypocritically teaches that uncovering herself in such a fashion is fine on the beach, but not elsewhere. As demonstrated above, this is nothing at all like the Bible teaches, so Mr. Ahmed's assertion that "modesty is left up to the individual" has no truth to it. As such, the entire point of his argument is meaningless.

However, if Mr. Ahmed wants to play the "your book teaches you to sin" game, then I would assume he is comfortable designating prostitution and nakedness as Quranic teachings as well? Or how about the conduct of scandalously unveiled Arab female entertainers such as Hind Sabri, Hanan Turk, Nancy Ajram, or Haifa Wehby, Muslimahs who dress not unlike Britney Spears?

Let me now pose this challenge to any Christian believer: I challenge any Christian to prove from the Bible that wearing a Britney Spears type outfit is sinful or wrong, but wearing a pair of shorts or sleeveless shirt is "ok" according to the Bible.

That's a rather ridiculous "challenge" for Mr. Ahmed, especially in light of what has been seen above. Indeed, it is somewhat akin to asking a Muslim to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from the Qur'an.

Now, some Christians may look to see what the OT says, but, the laws of the OT has been cancelled out by the NT according to Christian doctrine, that is why Christians donít have to follow the 613 mitzvahs of the OT.

This is a wildly inaccurate understanding of what the New Testament actually says.

To begin, the reason that Christians do not follow the 613 mitzvoth is due to the fact that the specific formulation of these 613 rules dates to the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Indeed, many of these rules, particularly those pertaining to the conduct of the priests and the dietary regulations, are not needed for Christians due to the fact of the fulfillment of the Law by Christ, but the laws which pertain to moral and ethical conduct, which are not dependent on the existence of a priesthood and ritual Old Testament religion, are still largely understood by Christians to be necessary for pleasing God. For example, the prohibitions against tattooing or cutting the flesh ritually (#347-348), astrology, wizardry, and other occult methods (#335-344), and transvestitism (#365-366) would fall under the rubric of what Biblical Christians consider unacceptable practices. And some of the mitzvoth simply don't pertain to Gentile Christians at all, such as the prohibition on loaning money to a fellow Israelite on interest (#171) or the prohibition against selling a field of land in Israel in perpetuity (#267). As such, to merely point to the mitzvoth and say that Christians reject the Law or believe they are "cancelled out" by the New Testament is inaccurate.

Indeed, the New Testament takes pains to emphasise that the Law has not been done away with, only fulfilled and brought into its true and full meaning by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)

And likewise,

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:17)

Indeed, far from disposing of the Law, Jesus demonstrated its true fulfillment. The opposition which Jesus generated from among the Pharisees for His supposed "violations" of the Law were the result of the incorrect application of the Law by the Pharisees, not on any breaking of the Law by the Lord. As Jesus said to His detractors, "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" (John 7:19) The Lord demonstrated the spirit of the Law when He healed on the Sabbath,

"And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? And they could not answer him again to these things." (Luke 14:1-6)

The true Law of God was a spiritual law, of which the Lord Jesus said,

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)

Many of the "laws" which the Pharisees observed, and which Jesus has been criticised for ignoring, were man-made laws which were perversions of the Law or were outright contrary to it. It is of these that the Lord said, "And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." (Luke 11:46).

Far from destroying or abolishing the law, the Lord at the same time excised all the man-made nonsense of the Pharisees while also expounding the truer and fuller understanding of the Law. The Law was not simply a set of dos and don'ts. It was a systematic process through which man both showed his love to God and fellow man through obedience to God's Word. Jesus was not overturning the Law, but the mindset and attitudes of the Pharisees towards the Law which turned it into dead stone instead of a living Word.

The Lord also *fulfilled* the Law in that He kept it perfectly AND fulfilled the role of the Messiah to which many of the ceremonial aspects of the Law pointed. The portions of the law pertaining to the priests were foreshadowings of Christ's ministry as the eternal High Priest. The dietary laws served to teach about the holiness and keeping from confusion that were to pertain to service to the true High Priest, the Messiah. When Christ's role on earth was fulfilled, when He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven to fill the role of the High Priest who even now makes intercession (Hebrews 2:17, 7:26), there was no need for these ceremonial laws any more. They are not "abrogated" in the sense that the Qur'an abrogates portions of itself. Rather, these portions of the Law were fulfilled, and hence, their role as teaching aids to the people of God was also fulfilled. Even these ceremonial laws can still be useful to the Christian, however, in that they teach and point to deeper truths about Christ and His ministry, so even then, these portions of God's Word are not "destroyed".

And this is what Paul affirms in his epistles. Paul did not overthrow or destroy the Law. Indeed Paul says that the Law was a schoolmaster, endowed with the necessary purpose of bringing the seeker to a full knowledge of Christ (Galatians 3:24). Throughout the epistles of Paul and the other apostles, it is shown that the Law is not abolished, but instead is to provide guidance to the life of one who wishes to be pleasing to God. Paul himself affirms, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7:12).

Paul is mistakenly thought to have abolished the law because he repeatedly emphasises that a person cannot keep the law FOR SALVATION. Salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), not by works of righteousness or the keeping of the law. But is this at variance with the Old Testament? No, it is not, for the Old Testament affirms that anyone who violates the law at any point is condemned under the law (Deuteronomy 27:26), and also affirms that ALL people are sinners who have broken God's Law (e.g. Psalm 14:2-3). The Old Testament teaches that a person is justified by faith, not by works (Genesis 15:6, Habakkuk 2:4), and that God desires the true righteousness and spiritual holiness exemplified by Jesus Christ's exposition of the true meaning of the Law more than He does ritualistic adherence (Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 6:6).

Thus, it is clear that far from canceling out the Old Testament, the New Testament is in consonant accord with the Hebrew Scriptures. Neither Jesus nor Paul tossed out the Law; instead they both affirmed it, but in a new, deeper, and better way than the ritualistic hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Law cannot save, for man can never keep the whole law, but the Law can teach the saved man how to live pleasing to God. As such, what the Old Testament has to say about appropriateness in clothing certainly has a bearing on the issue at hand.

Nevertheless, it is a well-known fact, that the dress a woman wears has a direct correlation to the moral decadence of a society. Even many of the most pious believers will "throw in the towel" when put in an environment of women wearing tightly fitted clothing and showing off many of their parts, day in day out. As we have just seen, Christianity is suffering from a terrible dilemma, in which there is no solution in the Bible to its problem. But, Islam, has the solution for the inherent problem of Christianity, please take a look at my debate references.

'Don't even go close to the line'

Rebecca St. James states, "My philosophy is, if you're committed to waiting then don't even go close to the lineÖ.". Finally, she says something intelligent. But this is not her own philosophy. Rather, this is a major theme of the Holy Quran! The Quran, not only forbids illegal sexual intercourse(29:45), but the Quran deliberately goes one step further, issues a clear command:

17:32. And come not near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a F‚hishah [i.e. anything that transgresses its limits (a great sin)], and an evil way (that leads one to Hell unless All‚h forgives him). (Al-Isra 17:32)

Alas! This was my point which I just made above, and that I spent over an hour trying to point out in front of a belligerent and hostile Rev. Matt Slick! And that is, Islam has the solutions for todayís social problems. And Rebecca St. James unknowingly, beautifully illustrates this one noble truth of the Holy Quran. And as a result of this one verse of the Quran, dozens of moral principles have been derived from the scholars, which directly impact our daily lives.

Anyone who is even passingly familiar with the Bible knows that if Mr. Ahmed thinks that the Bible does not address issues such as inappropriate sexual behaviour, then he obviously does not know much about the Bible! Some examples,

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." (I Corinthians 6:18)

"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;" (Ephesians 5:3)

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:" (I Thessalonians 4:3)

These are examples of specific commands to Christians to abstain from sexual sin. There are further statements in the Word of God which command Christians to keep even entering into a heart or mindset that would lead to sexual sin:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28, note, Mr. Ahmed has some issues with this verse as well)

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." (Romans 6:12)

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." (Galatians 5:16)

"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." (II Timothy 2:22)

"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." (I Peter 1:13-15)

These are only some from among many that could be referenced, and these only from the New Testament. These do not even begin to get into the applications of the commandments against adultery (Exodus 20:14) and against coveting your neighbour's wife (Exodus 20:17), and the fleshing out of details that occurs in the Law. Clearly, if Mr. Ahmed thinks the Bible fails to address these issues, then his own lack of knowledge of the Bible is to blame. Clearly it does, and the Quranic injunctions represent a carryover of Biblical material into the Qur'an, a common feature of the Muslim religious text, which draws much of its inspiration from the Christianity and Judaism that had penetrated deeply into Arabia by the 6th century AD. The Quranic text, as it was being developed during the first century and a half of the "Islamic era", drew from a number of Judeo-Christian sources. If Islam has the solution to today's social problems, it is only because it got them FROM the Bible, in the form of Biblical teachings or associated social adages which the Arabs learned and adapted as they infiltrated the Syro-Palestine region (Ash-Shams).

Another point, which is extremely relevant to todayís society and the topic of "sexual promiscuity", is wear do you draw the line as far as men and woman contact or dating. Unfortunately, the Bible allows you to do EVERYTHING except for the actual act of sexual intercourse! For example, the Bible does not condemn using a computer or driving a car, therefore, the logical conclusion is that it must be ok to drive a car or use a computer. Using the same common sense, if the Bible does not condemn those sexual acts, then it is ok to do. This has been the topic of many comedians who joke, "Christian girls aint virgins!" due, to the sexual contact they engage in with men (except sexual intercourse).

This has to be the most tortured attempt at a logical construction that I think I have ever seen, at least when applied to theological matters. If the Bible does not specifically address something to condemn it, then it de facto allows it? This argument is ridiculous, for a couple of reasons.

1) We see from the Bible itself that Mr. Ahmed's supposition is simply not true.

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (I Corinthians 7:1)

The word translated "touch" here is the Greek haptomai, which literally means "to attach to, fasten, bind fast". In the context of chapters six and seven, the activity here is understood as sexual activity between those not married. Indeed, the very verse after this one says that, so as to avoid fornication and temptation, every man ought to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. The use of this verb becomes an even more striking commandment against fornication in light of Paul's previous warning that fornication "joins" a man to a harlot and is a breach of God's plan for monogamous, unadulterated marriage (6:15-16). Verse 7:1 then emphasises that a man should not even begin to "touch" a woman in a way that is going to create an emotion or physical bond to her (and vice verse) if they are not married. While this verse may not be forbidding a man from shaking a woman's hand, it certainly is forbidding the "everything up to intercourse" that Mr. Ahmed seems to think the Bible allows.

2) Mr. Ahmed apparently is not familiar with the notion of "general principles". Simply because something is not mentioned specifically does not mean that it is de facto allowed. As seen above, I Corinthians 7:1 may not lay out a detailed list of "don't dos", but it certainly teaches abstention from any sort of sexually oriented touching or activity outside of the marriage bond. It may not detail each and every act that a man and a woman might conceivably engage in with each other, but it does cover them all with its general teaching. Certainly I Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil", could be considered a verse that covers a wide range of topics and activities, and should cause a Christian to consider not only the actual consequences of an action, but also whether the action could lend a poor testimony to the lost.

If Mr. Ahmed wishes to quibble with this idea of general principle, the it should be enough to point out that his Qur'an, likewise, does not address each and every wrong thing that a person might engage in. He quotes Surah 17:32, which speaks against adultery. Okay, so this means that the Qur'an allows everything up to sexual intercourse then, right? Also, the Qur'an allows a person to smoke crack cocaine or be a member of a street gang, since it does not specifically command against these activities, does it not? Well, of course not. Nobody would interpret the Qur'an as allowing these, even though cocaine and gangs are not specifically mentioned in that book. But, this is exactly the sort of argument on which Mr. Ahmed tries to base his "Bible allows a 'Girls Gone Wild' lifestyle" argument. It is logically flawed, and only ends up being a boomerang that comes right back on him.

Let me issue the following challenge: I challenge any Christian to prove from the Bible that it is ok for men and woman to kiss and hold hands on a date, but it is wrong or sinful for them to engage in any other kind of sexual activity except intercourse according to the Bible.

From a technical standpoint, I find this challenge somewhat confusing, as Mr. Ahmed asks Christians to prove from the Bible that one activity is acceptable, but then asks Christians to CONCURRENTLY prove from the Bible that another set of activities, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THAT FIRST ACTIVITY, are wrong. Which is it? Does he want us to prove that it is okay for men and women to kiss and hold hands on a date, or does he want us to prove that these are wrong and sinful (since they would be included under the rubric of "any other kind of sexual activity except intercourse")?

However, I think I know what he means *smirk*. And in light of what was said above regarding I Corinthians 7:1 and its prohibition against any sort of sexual touching outside of marriage, we can see that Mr. Ahmed's challenge is either already answered or else asks for an answer that simply would not be given from the text. Either way, his point fails.

Therefore, let me encapsulate the type of culture the Bible promotes: Men and woman walking around in tight fitted, skimpy outfits exposing much of their parts, each one engaged in flirting and indiscreetly seducing each other (there is no condemnation in the Bible for any of this), and not only that, but engaging in several if not all sexual acts except for sexual intercourse, engaging in "mashing", and all the free cocaine, heroin and marijuana that they desire. A good example of living within the confines of Biblical morality would be the "Girls Gone Wild" commercials on TV, or MTV's spring break parties. No wonder we have a screwed up society. (it was proved in the debate, that the Bible does NOT condemn drug use, please see my references for more information) . And there is no doubt, that, this Biblical culture is exactly what we see in America. Therefore, there can be no doubt, that Christianity, is a huge contributing factor for the moral decadence of the society which we live in. Unfortunately, Christianity is not the solution, rather, Christianity is part of the problem, as it simply fails to address the real time issues of todayís society, and this was the take home point in the Ahmed-Slick morality debate, which I thank God for using Christians to help witness to the truth of Islam.

Again, we see that Mr. Ahmed's argument is based upon a complete illogic that, in fact, turns right back around and gobbles up his Qur'an. After all, the Qur'an does NOT condemn drug abuse, so the Qur'an may well be the cause of increased drug abuse in the United States, and in drug-producing countries such as Afghanistan. The Qur'an never condemns a number of unmentionable sexual perversions, so it must allow them. The Qur'an never condemns jaywalking, so the Qur'an is the cause of the rampant jaywalking epidemic that afflicts our modern world. The Qur'an never condemns dousing your neighbour's cat with petrol and setting it ablaze, so it must allow that..... The list could go on endlessly if we are to accept Mr. Ahmed's nonsensical arguments that ignore the concept of "general principles".

As has been clearly shown throughout my rebuttal above, the Bible does indeed address matters of sexual purity, clothing, and inappropriate behaviours quite adequately. It is only Mr. Ahmed's own misunderstanding of the Bible and/or unwillingness to invest the time needed to acquaint himself with that text that causes him to believe the Bible does not address these issues. Further, Mr. Ahmed fails to grasp that perhaps the reason why American society has become so immoral is not because of the Bible, but because people have turned away from the Bible. Frankly, the "Christianity" of most who claim the name today is superficial, at best. Most of what goes under the name "Christian" in Western countries today is either ritualistic or emotionalistic, but neither is truly based upon a love for and adherence to the Bible as God's Word. It is the replacement of the Bible with emotion, ritual, tradition, and the desire to self-justify hedonism that is the cause of moral decline in America and other Western nations. Indeed, looking back through the history of America and other "Christian" nations, we see that the times when the Bible was most respected and followed were also the times when these sorts of societal ills were on the ebb. Only when these countries became increasingly secular and more people did not want to be constrained from their evil desires by the Word of God, did we see the concurrent rise of abominations such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. Whereas Muslim nations can only suppress these sorts of sin by the rigid application of draconian punishments, nations where the Bible was respected enjoyed peace, public morality, and societal order even without the sort of "vice squad" suppression so typical of an Iran or a Saudi Arabia today. This is because Islam is not a religion that can change the heart of man. The Muslim may be constrained from sin by the sword of the state, but the man or woman who is truly born again by the Spirit of God does not NEED such compulsion. This was shown in America's past, and thus we see that a revival of true Christianity is what would bring America back from her present lawlessness, not the superficially enforced piety of Islam.

Mr. Ahmed, as with most Muslims, makes the mistake of equating "America" with "Christianity". To many Muslims, what America does automatically becomes what Christianity does, and if America displays corruption, then it must be because of Christianity. However, Mr. Ahmed fails to understand that Christianity is not a socio-political entity such as Islam is. Whereas Muslims may speak of an "Islamic state", Biblical Christianity posits exactly the opposite. Christians, the Bible says, are called out FROM the surrounding world into local assemblies of believers. There is no such thing as a truly "Christian nation", though the term is often blithely applied to nations which had strong or predominately Christian influences in the public life in days gone by. However, America is not, nor ever has been, a Christian nation in the sense that Christianity was the state religion or mandated the constitution of political governance. America has never had the Bible as its constitution in the same way that some Muslim countries claim to have the Qur'an as theirs. Thus, Mr. Ahmed's belief that America and Christianity can be equated, or that the ills of America can somehow be blamed on Christianity, simply has no historical or social basis.