Sam Shamoun agreed with Nadir. Hence, Sam focused on early Muslim material (the Qur'an and the Hadith) as well as on the interpretations of Muslim scholars (such as Ibn Kathir). Nadir objected (unsuccessfully) to some of Sam's claims; however, it is clear that Sam and Nadir agreed that the actions of Muslims in the world today were not important for the debate.
Thus, I was absolutely shocked when Nadir claimed in the comment section that "This debate was about Osama Bin Laden killing 3000 Americans in the name of Allah and Islam."
I pointed out to Nadir that he had blatantly contradicted himself. In the debate, he claimed that what Osama Bin Laden and other Muslims do is irrelevant to the topic. After the debate, he claims that this was the main issue!
Apparently, Nadir will say anything to justify his poor performance. What is most disturbing, however, is what he did next. In an effort to go on the offensive, Nadir emailed more than 40 Christians and Muslims and said that (since I agree that modern terrorism wasn't relevant to the debate) I do not take terrorism seriously! Here's the email:
There are some Christians who are insinuating that for the debate on Is Islam a religion of peace, pact of Umar, salafism are more important to the topic than 3000 people dying on 911 in the name of Islam, I guess that is not important enough? ...
I find this to be very offensive... so you guys need to be careful with what you are saying. I don't take this stuff as a joke.
Since Muhammad told his followers to listen to Umar, and since Umar was one of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" as well as one of Muhammad's most trusted companions, his dealings with non-Muslims and his interpretations of Muhammad's teachings are completely relevant. As for Salafi scholars, their views are relevant for two reasons. First, scholarly views are always relevant, since scholars spend their lives interpreting texts and therefore often speak from knowledge. This doesn't mean that we should accept the views of scholars uncritically; however, scholarly works are obviously relevant. Second, Sam used Salafi teachings as evidence that Nadir was practicing Taqiyya. Nadir is a Salafi, but he backed away from his own sect and claimed that he is merely a Muslim. Sam rightly noted that this was proof that Nadir is trying to mislead his listeners. This is relevant because it calls Nadir's reliability into question. (From where I sit, Nadir has no credibility at all.)
To sum up, Nadir claimed, quite clearly, that modern terrorism was not relevant to the debate. Sam agreed with him, and did not pursue the matter in the debate. After the debate, Nadir claimed victory because Sam didn't address the issue of modern terrorism! Since I agreed that modern terrorism wasn't relevant to the debate, Nadir is now emailing person after person, saying that I don't take terrorism seriously!
Apparently, Nadir thinks that this will upset me. But it doesn't at all. I've come to expect this from Nadir. And besides, I find his behavior absolutely hilarious. He is obviously becoming quite desperate.
The only question remaining is this: "Would anyone buy a used car from Nadir Ahmed?"