“Christian morality is being ushered out of American social structures and off the cultural main stage, leaving a vacuum in its place—and the broader culture is attempting to fill the void. New research from Barna reveals growing concern about the moral condition of the nation, even as many American adults admit they are uncertain about how to determine right from wrong. So what do Americans believe? Is truth relative or absolute? And do Christians see truth and morality in radically different ways from the broader public, or are they equally influenced by the growing tide of secularism and religious skepticism?

A majority of American adults across age group, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status and political ideology expresses concern about the nation’s moral condition—eight in 10 overall (80%). The proportion is closer to nine in 10 among Elders (89%) and Boomers (87%), while about three-quarters of Gen-Xers (75%) and Millennials (74%) report concern. Similarly, practicing Christians (90%) are more likely than adults of no faith (67%) or those who identify with a religious faith other than Christianity (72%) to say they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Though measurable differences exist between population segments, moral concern is widespread across the demographic board.”

For complete article, here

We’ll now move on to numbers three and four on the list of naturalistic theories presented to ‘explain away’ the resurrection accounts—the hallucination and wrong tomb hypothesis.

The Hallucination Theory

In a nutshell, the hallucination theory claims that all of Jesus’ post resurrection appearances, were in fact, hallucinations or possibly visions. There are several factors that soundly refute this theory which is succinctly and thoroughly explained by the following New Testament scholars/critics.

Diversity of the Appearances-Different People, Different Times

In his article, Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis, William Lane Craig offers the following:

J. T. Thorburn puts the nail in the hallucination hypothesis ‘coffin’ via the following statement:

Does the Hallucination theory disprove the resurrection?-Lee Strobel

Were the disciples having hallucinations?-Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig

The Wrong Tomb Theory

A theory propounded by Professor Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women’s statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus’ body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there. One point of refutation is: If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.

Wilbur Smith cites the verdict of the British scholar, Professor Morse:

 
If the women went to the wrong tomb (an empty sepulchre), then the Sanhedrin could have gone to the right tomb and produced the body (if Jesus did not rise). this would have silenced the disciples forever! The high priests and the other enemies of Christ would certainly have gone to the right tomb! Even if the women, the disciples, the Romans and the Jews all went to the wrong tomb, one thing is sure, as Paul Little points out: “Certainly Joseph of Arimathea, owner of the tomb, would have solved the problem.”[3] 

Is there historical data on the empty tomb?-Gary Habermas

Peter Kreeft sums up and refutes the naturalistic explanations of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

Resurrection: Swoon, Conspiracy Hallucination, Myth-or Still Alive?-Peter Kreeft

Notes:
[1] William Lane Craig, Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis, here
[2] Thomas J. Thorburn, The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criticism, 1910, pg. 136
[3] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1999, pg. 279

Letters with the Mosque Next Door
How a budding friendship between a pastor and an imam brought a community together.
Jim Powell and Kamil Mufti

In the winter of 2007, Jim Powell contacted the leaders of the largest mosque in his community, knowing he would be moving next door to them within the year. After the initial phone conversation, it was agreed that a lunch would be set up between the elders of his church and the elders of the mosque: a lunch that eventually happened in the spring of 2007.

In 2010, when a Florida pastor made national and international news because of his plan to burn the Qur’an, Jim once again contacted the leaders of the mosque, now his church’s next-door neighbors. In his letter to them, he wrote:

“Jesus said that the hallmark of the Christian faith was love, and yet that is often the last virtue many of his followers practice. Furthermore, as Christians, we are called to avoid being judgmental, to work towards living at peace with all people, and that grace, mercy, and forgiveness are to be at the forefront of our lives. Unfortunately, many who profess to follow Jesus forget this, or they choose to ignore such elementary teachings as they allow their personal agendas and sinful nature to trump the Lord’s will.

“There is so much more that I could say. Yet for now, let me assure you that the hate speech which the media reports does not represent a majority of Christians, and it does not represent the mindset of the leadership of Richwoods Christian Church.

“If you would ever like to have dialogue on this topic, I would be more than glad to visit with you or any individuals that may be interested.”

After Jim and Kamil Mufti, the mosque’s imam, taught a class on the Abrahamic faiths together at Bradley University, their friendship evolved. Eventually Kamil invited Jim to teach a four-week class on Christianity at the mosque, and a relationship began to build—not merely between Jim and Kamil, but between their respective congregations. Soon, interactions that had been based on fear gave way to understanding.

In the correspondence below, Kamil and Jim speak candidly to one another about the challenges and benefits of reaching out to those we do not understand.

Kamil,

Complete article, here

A little over 2000 years ago a Roman procurator asked the question, “WHAT IS TRUTH?” [1] Today this question is rarely, if ever asked, with the exception of a witness in a trial—“Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?”

To speak of truth, or to inject a truth claim into a conversation today, is tantamount to heresy, and is usually met with a ferocious attack by relativist proponents. Philosopher Peter Kreeft observes that of all the symptoms of decay in our culture, relativism is the most disastrous. It is, in the words of Michael Novak, “an invisible gas, odorless and deadly, that is polluting every free society on earth.” C. S. Lewis called it “the disease that will certainly end our species (and… damn our souls) if it is not crushed.” And as William Gairdner notes, “Ironically, relativism has become our only absolute.”[2]

But what is relativism? Here are two definitions:

The problem with relativism is that it is self-refuting, and as such, cannot be lived. Ask anyone who espouses relativism if it is true that all things are relative? If they say yes, then simply ask the question, “Well, is the statement you just made relative? If it is, and it has to be under your definition of relativism, then it is simply your opinion, and why should I value your opinion over mine or anyone else’s for that matter.” So if relativism is untenable, then objective truth must be the ethical and moral bedrock on which the universe was created, regardless of whether a person chooses to believe it or not.

Author and Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, Paul Copan stated, “Truth is true—even if no one knows it. Truth is true—even if no one admits it. Truth is true—even if no one agrees what it is. Truth is true—even if no one follows it. Truth is true— even if no one but God grasps it fully.”[3] Winston Churchill concurs, “Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.”

In his book, The Turn of the Tide, Prof Keith Ward offers the following observation:

 
Alan Bloom explains how relativism has become one of the crowning virtues of our age:

In a few weeks, a very special conference on evangelism will take place at Wheaton College called Amplify. It’s a bit of a mystery why there aren’t more conferences like this in light of the fact that so few churches are actually growing through evangelism. Maybe there’s a connection.

Just look at the worship movement that’s swept across the world. Worship conferences and seminars abound. These conferences have become catalysts that help identify and train worship leaders who are providing local churches of all types and sizes with an incredible worship experience. It would be hard to find a church that doesn’t have a worship leader or a worship team consistently laboring to help inspire every believer to be a worshipper. I’m convinced that if we follow this same pattern we would see evangelism become just as prevalent as worship.

With a few adjustments they can become “engaging churches.” These are congregations that are intentionally equipping believers to engage unbelievers with the gospel. It starts with finding and releasing these evangelism leaders who will build an evangelism team that equips the body of believers in this vital ministry. In scripture, these leaders are called evangelists. When these evangelists are identified and trained, they will provide the consistent leadership that can transform any church into an engaging church.

For complete article, here

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the corner stone, the foundation, the historical bedrock of the Christian faith. As Paul so definitively put it, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins….but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:17-20) It is not surprising then that attacks on the veracity of the Resurrection account, via naturalistic explanations, have been waged since it took place via the works of the pagan philosopher Celsus (AD 178) and philosopher Lucian of Samosata (AD 115-200), and continue to be brought to bear on the event even today via the works of David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and the New Atheists ‘four horsemen.’

The purpose of such anti-supernatural explanations is to discredit and nullify the historicity of the event. It is for this reason that “Resurrection apologtics” is one of the strongest affirmations of the truth of the Christian worldview, a branch of apologetics that every apologist, and Christian for that matter, should be well-versed in so as to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks them for the reason of the hope that is in them…” (1 Pet. 3:15)

What is ‘historical bedrock’?

Michael Licona offers the following definition:

But what of the competing naturalistic explanations? Are they founded on ‘historical bedrock,’ or is it the case that each of these explanations is built on ‘historical sand?’ Let’s follow the evidence and see where it leads.

In comparing the naturalistic explanations and the historicity of the resurrection, Michael Licona states, “…if the resurrection hypothesis is superior to the naturalistic explanations, the context will serve to strengthen the hypothesis that the resurrection of Jesus was historical and that the event was a miracle. Moreover, it is important to remember that our commitment to using only the historical bedrock serves as a safeguard from confusing urban legend with fact.” [2]  

Top Four Naturalistic Explanations for the Resurrection

The top four naturalistic explanations offered for the Resurrection are as follows:

 
British attorney, J. N. D. Anderson, understands the importance of the reliability and truthfulness of evidence when assessing the truth claim of any event. As per the testimony of the historicity of the resurrection he offers the following criteria for assessment:

 
I will cover each of these in brief with a list of resources at the end of this article for those who are interested in further study.

The ‘swoon’ theory

The swoon theory postulates that although Jesus was nailed to the cross, he was taken down from the cross while still alive. He was then placed in the tomb and the cool air of the tomb revived him and he rose up and departed from the tomb under his own strength. Another version of the theory also adds the “reviving effects of the spices with which He had been embalmed.” [4]

There have been a number of refutations by New Testament scholars (ranging from conservative to skeptic) to this theory, so I will refer only to what I consider to be the most definitive:

Again, attorney J. N. D. Anderson states, “This theory does not stand up to investigation.” [5]

T. J. Thorburn observes, “It would be difficult to imagine even the most powerful of men, after enduring all these, not succumbing to death. Moreover, it is recorded that the victims of crucifixion seldom recovered, even under the most favorable circumstances….Then there is the most impossible thing of all; the poor, weak Jesus, with difficulty holding Himself erect, in hiding, disguised, and finally dying—this Jesus an object of faith. Of exalted emotion, of the triumph of His adherents, a risen conqueror, and Son of God! Here in fact, the theory begins to grow paltry, absurd, worth only of rejections.”[6]

Then we have the most convincing refutation of the swoon theory by skeptic David Friedrich Strauss. Strauss’ refutation has become known as the ‘nail in the coffin’ of the theory. Although a non-believer in the resurrection, Strauss saw the absurdity of the swoon theory and offered the following refutation:

What is the ‘swoon theory’ and is it true?

What about the “swoon theory?”-Gary Habermas

The Theft/Conspiracy Theory

In this view it is understood that the disciples came during the night and stole the body from the tomb. The Jewish leaders, upon hearing that the tomb was found empty, perpetrated the ‘theft and/or stolen body’ theory/story in order to discredit the resurrection:

 
Wilbur M. Smith comments:

 
According to the writings of Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (AD 130) states that the Jewish authorities had dispatched representatives throughout the Mediterranean to explain Jesus’ followers had stolen Jesus’ body.

Albert Roper writes:

 
E. Le Camus reasons thus in refuting the theft/stolen body theory:

 
The conspiracy theory was refuted by the early church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Demonstratio evangelica(314-18AD). Eusebius argues that it would be inconsistent to hold that the disciples were on one hand followers of Jesus with His high moral teaching and yet on the other hand such base liars as to invent all these miraculous stories about Jesus. It makes no sense to say that the men who learned and then taught the ethics of Jesus would themselves be deceivers.

Not only that, Eusebius continues, but it is inconceivable that such a conspiracy could ever be formed or hold together. Eusebius composes a wonderfully satirical speech, which he imagines to have been delivered when the disciples first joined together in this conspiracy:

 
Through this satire, Eusebius wants to show how ridiculous it is to imagine that the disciples invented the whole thing. But even if they had, he continues, the plot would never have held together. How could so many persona agree unanimously to lie about these things? Could such an enterprise engineered by liars ever endure? Eusebius pints out that these men went to their deaths testifying to the truth of what they believed. It is unbelievable that they would suffer and die for nothing. And how could the testimonies of all these deceivers agree? The disciples gave up family, worldly pleasures, and money to out into foreign lands to preach what they believed. They could not have been liars. Eusebius, himself a great historian, emphasizes that if we distrust these men. then we must distrust all writers of history and records. If we accept the testimony of secular historians, then we must be the same standard also accept the reliability of the disciple’ testimony to the resurrection.[11]

Was Jesus’ Body Stolen?-William Lane Craig

Could the Disciples Have Stolen Jesus’ Body?-A lawyers perspective

In Part 2, we’ll take a look at the hallucination and wrong tomb hypothesis.

Footnotes:
[1] Michael R. Licona, Historians and Miracle Claims, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 12 (2014), pgs.106-129
[2] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus-A New Historiographical Approach, IVP, 2010, pg. 302
[3] J.N.D. Anderson, A Dialogue on Christ’s Resurrection, Christianity Today, April 1968
[4] Ernest F. Kevan, The Resurrection of Christ, 1961, pg. 9
[5] Ibid, J.N.D. Anderson
[6] Thomas J. Throburn, The Resurrection; Narratives and Modern Criticism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1910, pgs. 183-85
[7] David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People, 2d ed. Vol. 1, London: Williams and Norgate., 1879, pg. 412
[8] Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1965, pg. 375-76
[9] Albert Roper, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965, pg. 34
[10]E. Le Camus, The Life of Christ, Vol. 3, New York; The Cathedral Library Association, 1908, pg. 482
[11] William Lane Craig, The Son Rises-The Histoical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, Wipf & Stock, 2000, pgs. 24-25

Of all that can transpire in a bedroom, nothing can be as titillating to the religious, or those of us who write about them, as a dying man’s conversion.

Oscar Wilde’s deathbed baptism remains a coup for the Roman Catholic Church 116 years later, and an embarrassment for those who cherish his legacy of hedonism. In his new biography of the poet Wallace Stevens, Paul Mariani repeats the claim that Mr. Stevens was baptized by a priest as he lay dying in a Hartford hospital.

There are others. Karen Edmisten, in her 2013 book “Deathbed Conversions: Finding Faith at the Finish Line,” recounts, with varying degrees of historical support, the putative deathbed conversions of Buffalo Bill Cody, John Wayne, the gangster Dutch Schultz and the mathematician John von Neumann.

The latest controversy about a late-in-life religious turn involves Christopher Hitchens, one of world’s most prominent atheists. In his new book, “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist,” the evangelical writer Larry Alex Taunton writes about his friendship with Mr. Hitchens, the witty and impious author of “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” who died of esophageal cancer in 2011. Mr. Taunton describes intimate talks that occurred during drives the two took together, which left him wondering if a dying Mr. Hitchens was edging toward belief in God. Unsurprisingly, evangelicals have celebrated the book, while some of Mr. Hitchens’s secular friends have winced.

For complete article, here

Connect the Dots: Responding to the Tough Questions in Word, Story and Deed
Trinity Western University, Langley, BC Canada
July 10 – July 15, 2016

What’s the toughest question about or objection to the Christian faith you’ve been faced with? Perhaps it concerned God and science; or the problem of evil; or gender and sexuality; or violence and the Old Testament. Questions like these can be challenging and intimidating—but at the same time, they can present incredible opportunities if we can learn to connect our answers to the gospel.

But because the gospel is more than just words, good apologetics needs to engage the heart and the imagination as well as the head if we are going to reach the questioner behind the question. We also need to learn to get inside the lives of those with whom we share Christ, to learn what makes them tick and then show how the Christian faith explains those things they care deeply about—justice and compassion, beauty and art, science and truth—in a way that other worldviews do not.

RZIM Canada’s 2016 Summer School, taking place in beautiful British Columbia, will help you learn to tackle the big questions—but do so in a way that addresses the whole person. We’ll show how the best answers are intellectually rich, imaginatively powerful, and make a practical difference in the real world.
Canadian culture is undergoing seismic shifts and that can sometimes be unnerving. But 2,000 years ago, the apostle Paul, writing to Christians who were also struggling to engage their culture and share their faith, encouraged his readers to “Let your speech be always gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col 4:6). I warmly invite you to join members of the RZIM speaking team and other world-class speakers next summer who want to help you to do that more effectively, so that you can be better equipped not just to answer questions but to answer people.

I hope to see you there.

Andy Bannister

reMind-Renewing the Mind-Revolutionizing the Culture
Conference web site/registration, here

Thank you for your interest in our 2nd Annual reMind Conference. Last year, our first conference was a hit, as over 540 youth and young adults (as well as some not so young adults!) had their minds renewed so they could revolutionize the culture. That is the recurring theme of reMind—taken from the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 12:2 “be transformed by the renewal of your MIND.”

Everything that was once considered foundational is now being challenged. Western culture stands at a precipice as it runs headlong into a future of its own making. And you, our youth and young adults, are at the forefront, being pushed ever closer to the edge. And so we’ve brought some of the best speakers in the world to help you hold the line and withstand the challenges that threaten to push you over the edge.

But it isn’t enough to just withstand the challenges. As ambassadors for Christ, we need to stand with our challengers. Those who challenge the Christian faith are not our enemies. They are, like us, sinners in need of a Savior. The gospel’s beauty is founded in two ways: (1) it has the evidence and logic that allows it to withstand the intellectual challenges of our day, and (2) its truths are so beautifully intertwined that they can touch the challenger’s heart.

To equip you to present these two foundations, we’ve assembled world-class speakers and scholars. Check out our speakers’ pages on this site. Top communicators will teach you how to defend the Bible, understand the history of the Resurrection, and see how science and Christianity complement each other. You’ll learn how to address tough contemporary issues like sexuality and tolerance as well.

We’ve had you in mind every step of the way. On behalf of RZIM, our volunteers, and the rest of the speakers, I invite you to browse our site and register for what is sure to be an amazing weekend.

Abdu Murray
North American Director, RZIM

When attending the recent Thinking 2016 Apologetics Conference, I came across the book, The Gentle Answer-To The Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification , by Dr. Gordon Nickel. [1] Once I began reading the book, I found it difficult to put down, as Dr. Nickel takes the reader on a comprehensive and chronological journey of the development of the Islamic doctrine of biblical falsification/corruption. Dr. Nickel targets both the Christian and Muslim audience, asking questions and presenting challenges to the Muslim reader, as well as informing the Christian reader of the reasoning that is behind the Muslim accusation of biblical falsification/corruption. I highly recommend the book as it will equip those of us in Muslim ministry with an “answer to him that asks us of the reason of the hope that is in us, yet, with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)

I am including here excerpts of the first chapter of the book, in which Dr. Nickel explains the reason and purpose for which the book is written:

During a recent debate with Christian apologist Andy Bannister,[3] and Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally,[4] Andy highlighted the book and recommended it to the attendees saying, “Amazing book…and is probably, considered in scholarship now, the definitive answer to what Shabir has said. What’s interesting about Gordon’s book, is that he actually tracks where the idea of biblical corruption began in Islam and why, because it’s not in the Qur’an. In fact every time the Qur’an mentions the former scriptures by name, it says very positive things about them, so does the hadith, so does the sunnah.” (Please see the video excerpt of their debate below.)

It is interesting to see how Shabir reacts to Andy’s recommendation of the book. Shabir is usually calm, courteous and forthright in his presentations, considered to be a real gentleman by the Christian apologists that he has debated. However, on this occasion he is noticeably upset with Andy for highlighting and promoting the book, and publicly challenges Gordon Nickel to a debate, telling Andy that unless he wants to produce Dr. Nickel on the spot, that he should not mention the book again. Although Shabir may have a number of reasons for reacting in such a way, my personal take is that Dr. Nickel’s book is, as Andy put it, the “definitive answer” to the accusations of falsification/corruption found in the Izher al-haqq, accusations that have negatively impacted the Muslim community since its publication. But more importantly, The Gentle Answer is a masterful expose and truth bearer, presented in a “gentle” format, that when read with an open heart, will help to set our Muslim brothers and sisters free and enable them to read the Torah and the Gospels with eyes that are free from the falsehoods of the Izher. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will use this book to bring many into Jesus’ glorious Kingdom.

Debate-Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. Andy Bannister–Shabir challenges Gordon Nickel to a debate

References:
[1] Dr. Gordon Nickel is adjunct professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He began his study of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London (M. A. 1987), and wrote his PhD dissertation under Dr. Andrew Rippin at the University of Calgary (2004). Gordon also has an M.A. in Hebrew bible and has completed several years of doctoral research in Indian Islam at Osmania University in Hyderabad, India. In 2011 Brill Academic Publishers published his monograph Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an. Gordon has taught on Islam and the Qur’an at Associated Canadian Theological Schools, the University of British Columbia, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and the University of Calgary.

[2] Gordon Nickel, The Gentle Answer to the Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification, Bruton Gate, Calgary, 2015, pgs. 1-4

[3] Dr. Andy Bannister is the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity, based in Scotland. He speaks and teaches regularly throughout Canada, the US, Europe, and the wider world. From churches to universities, business forums to TV and radio, Andy regularly addresses both Christian audiences and those of all faiths and none on issues relating to faith, culture, politics, and society.
Andy holds a PhD in Islamic studies, a topic on which he has taught extensively. He has spoken and taught at universities across Canada, the US, the UK, and farther afield on both Islam and philosophy and is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology.
Andy is the author of An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur’an, a groundbreaking and innovative study that reveals many of the ways the Qur’an was first composed. His latest book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist (or: The Terrible Consequences of Really Bad Arguments), is a humorous engagement with the New Atheism.

[4] Dr. Shabir Ally is the president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, Canada. He is a Muslim academic and public speaker on Islam and comparative religion. He is also a prolific debater engaging in regular debates around the world with noted theologians, Christian apologists and renowned philosophers. Dr. Shabir Ally holds an M.A. and PhD in Islamic studies from the University of Toronto. He completed his B.A. in Religious Studies from Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, with a specialization in Biblical Literature. He also possesses a B.Sc with a major in Physics. In 2013, he completed his Ph.D and obtained his doctorate with his thesis being on Qur’anic exegesis.
For over 30 years, he has been an active member of the Muslim community in Toronto, as well as an active participant in interfaith dialogues, debates and initiatives. He is a prolific debater and is viewed as a leading Muslim debater in the world on religion and Christianity. He is an internationally sought after speaker, scholar and theologian, and is the author of numerous books on Islam and Christianity. He is also the founder and resident scholar of Let the Quran Speak, a show that promotes the understanding and appreciation of Islam and Muslims globally and is broadcast weekly on Canadian national television.