What I've noticed is that there is a strong aversion from the Christian apologetics community towards Ahmed Deedat. In fact, there's a few cheap shots going around. This is quite sad as Ahmed Deedat was simply arguing against those arguments that Christians were putting forward to him at the time, so to claim he didn't understand Christianity or the Trinity based on this is quite folly. As for his mistakes, we must remember he didn't have any formal training in the Bible. We must also remember apologetics has moved on since then, Ijaz Ahmad comments on a critic of Ahmed Deedat :
For example, he openly criticizes Shaykh Deedat, a man who responded to the evangelical setting of the 80′s and 90′s. Yet demeans him based on the apologetics of the 21st century. It’s easy to attack a dead man, it takes real bravery and intelligence to attack a living man who uses today’s apologetics.
Of course, Muslim apologetics has moved on since then. I mean how many people back in those days were talking about the forgeries in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John? How many people back in those days were talking about book of Hebrews being of unknown authorship? You get the picture, nobody was whipping out Bart Ehrman back in those days. People were simply responding to each other. Ahmed Deedat was dialoguing with preachers and what have you. These Christian opponents of Ahmed Deedat didn't have anything substantial to offer.
I think when you contextualise Ahmed Deedat then you begin to understand him and through this understanding the criticism is tempered.
Here's what a Muslim commentator, Alexander, wrote about Ahmed Deedat (with some alterations):
They think shaykh Ahmad Deedat (rahimahullah), May Allah forgive him and have
mercy on him, didn't have strong arguments. He was the best man in his time
doing the work that he did regardless of what you may think. He destroyed all
the christian rethoric and and silenced the greatest christian preachers in his
time. His arguments based on the Quran will never get old or refuted because
they are based on Allah's Word. He made it clear to both christians and muslims
that Christianity don't have anything to offer and that the bible they have
isn't anywhere close to the originals. He called to the worship of one God and
warned against the disbelief (ie trinity and man made gods). He cleared up all
the lies of the Christian missionaries of all different sects and showed us the
flaws in their arguments. There wasn't any christian in the world that could
hide from him and his lectures. He explained who Jesus (p) really is in the bible
and the Quran and made it clear and convincing. May Allah have mercy on him. Ha
traveled the world and lectured even at old age and he didn't stop his dawah
until his last breath. May Allah forgive him. He didn't have any special degrees
and showed us it isn't needed. We don't have to know who Paul is or the
historical backgrounds of this and that to refute christians, Allah is
sufficient for us. One of the stronger arguments Deedat had on the Christian
nation was the different copy's of the bible and the changes made over time all
of whom Bart Ehrman and other historians and Christians confirm for us today to
be true. In other words it doesn't matter if you think you can win a debate with
a muslim sometime because Allah's religion will prevail either way, and the truth
will always stand against falsehood.
"Nay, We fling
(send down) the truth (this Quran) against the falsehood (disbelief), so it
destroys it, and behold, it (falsehood) is vanished..." (21:18)
"They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e. the religion of
Islam, this Quran, and Prophet Muhammad SAW) with their mouths. But Allah will
complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it)."(61:8)
And how can one forget the biggest cheap shot at Ahmed Deedat that Christians are pressing:
Rather than modern Christian apologists attacking Sheikh Ahmed Deedat with such zeal, why don't they not try to spend time to reflect on questions such as this:
Have you ever stopped to think about all those Christians prior to the 19th
century discovery of Codex Sinaticus who used to believe the last 12 verses of
Mark were inspired by God and part of the Bible (they had similar beliefs about
John 7:53-8:11 and that version of Luke 23:34). NOW you and other modern day
Christians will claim those Christians of the past believed in
You have no guaranty that this will not happen to you
in your life time (i.e. a new MSS discovery is made and a passage is denounced
as an unauthorised addition).
Jesus taught people to do the Will of
God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or
sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to
become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.