Friday, January 11, 2008

More Deception from Nadir Ahmed

For those who have watched the debate and read Nadir's recent comments here on the blog, there is an obvious inconsistency. In the debate, Nadir said repeatedly that what Muslims do in the world today (persecute people, terrorize innocents, etc.) was not relevant to the debate. Nadir reasoned that the topic of the debate was whether Islam is a religion of peace, not whether Muslims today are kind.

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.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed


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?"

10 comments:

Bassam said...

At the surface level, it does seem like Nadir has contradicted himself, however you have to know his intention behind his statements.

When Nadir says that the debate is not about what Muslims do today, he means that this cannot be taken as evidence against Islam. Shamoun can't appeal to them as evidence.

Regarding Umar's pact, Nadir argued that there was nothing violent about the pact. Someone could argue that the pact shows intolerance, however the debate is not about whether Islam is a religion of tolerance or not, but whether is a religion of violence or not. Now France is very intolerant of the belief of Muslims that the wearing of the hijab is compulsory in Islam and still insists that Muslim women are forbidden to wear the hijab in public places (that means that Muslims can’t practice their religion freely in France). However, this does not mean that France is violent towards the Muslims there. They are still peaceful towards the Muslims. So despite France being intolerant to the Muslim faith, they are still peaceful towards them.

As for Salafism, it is not relevant if the scholars Shamoun quotes is a Salafi or not, but rather what that Salafi scholar is saying is true. Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr is a salafi, yet he says that you can attack non Muslim for no justifiable reason http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=312&main_cat_id=15 So why didn't Shamoun quote this 'Salafi scholar'. Well, selective citation of course.

So Nadir's intention regarding Salafism is that it is not absolute evidence and he is correct.

Thus, I don't see Nadir contradicting himself if one understands what he was saying in context.

Bassam said...

Sorry, I mean to say...


Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr is a salafi, yet he says that you cannot attack non Muslims for no justifiable reason

Bassam said...

So basically, when Nadir said that this is about bin Laden doing the Sept 11 attacks in the name of Islam, he mean't that the debate was whether bin laden did something justified according to Islam. Since that atleast seems more related to the topic than Umar's pact of salafism

David Wood said...

Bassam,

All you've said is that the debate is really about what Islam teaches, not about modern terrorism. Great! That's exactly what we've been saying!

Umar wanted to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. Do you really think that this has nothing to do with whether Islam is a religion of peace? Think about it. Osama bin Laden looks at the teachings of Islam and realizes that non-believers are to be humiliated and treated as second-class citizens. This is the goal of Islam. Yet he looks at the West and sees that we have far more power, wealth, military might, etc., than all Muslim countries combined. So he does whatever he can to terrorize us, so that we become frightened and bow to Islam. What is he trying to do? He's trying to humiliate and degrade us. But he realizes that he can't do it the way Umar did, because Islam is very weak today. Hence, he carries out his mission by slightly different means.

As for the scholars, you're still missing the point. Suppose you and I were debating (wait, we are!), and you appealed to a Catholic scholar. I might reply that I am not a Catholic. Hence, your best bet would be to appeal to scholars who hold beliefs similar to mine. Since Nadir is a Salafi, Sam was correct to appeal to Salafi scholars. It's also important to note, Bassam, that Sam only appealed to Salafis as supporting evidence. He had already appealed to the Qur'an, the Hadith, and early Muslim commentators. The Salafi views were just icing on the cake.

Bassam said...

All you've said is that the debate is really about what Islam teaches, not about modern terrorism. Great! That's exactly what we've been saying!


and Nadir didn't contradict that.


As for Umar ibn Al Khattab supposedly trying to degrade non Muslims... no i dont think that it is related to the debate as I have mentioned. If bin Laden wanted to 'degrade' the non Muslims like Umar then he should have done so like Umar and not killed them. Thus, bin Laden's interpretation of Umar's action is not shown to be correct.


Yes i agree with your point regarding the Salafi scholars. But again, that is off the topic. We are talking about Nadir's statement about Salafism and how you accused him of being wrong that it is not related to the topic. Nadir is correct and as I have shown Shamoun went ahead and selectively cited his Salafi scholars.

GeneMBridges said...

and Nadir didn't contradict that.

In the debate or in his latest statements? If the former, you're right. If the latter, you're wrong.

Nadir is correct and as I have shown Shamoun went ahead and selectively cited his Salafi scholars

But you've not contradicted what Sam said with regard to those whom he actually quoted. To accuse someone of "selective citation" is not convertible with proving the citations selected are being incorrectly interpreted.

It's true one should consider the full sweep of a sects' teachings. Sam discussed those in order to answer Nadir on his own grounds, so he cited those with Nadir's own sect that hold a view at variance with those within that same sect who disagree. So, you're not helping your case, because you're demonstrating that there are at least two different views within that sect - and these views are not exactly in agreement. This would be rather like you quoting someone within the Reformed tradition of Christianity to me over, let's say infralapsarianism, knowing I am a supralapsarian. It would put the onus on me to produce reasons that I hold to one and not the other, even though my tradition is not dogmatic on either one. That isn't at all out of bounds.

Bassam said...

your right about the salafi issue genem, but i felt that Shamoun and David were giving the impression that Shamoun was presenting the Salafi view and that since Nadir was a Salafi then he necessarily had to ascribe to that view.

Nadir Ahmed said...

wait a second!!! I was not able to fully explain my postion on "the debate is not about what Muslims do today" because I was rudely interupted by the Christians.

Because of their interruption, I had to abandon the point I was making and address their question.

David Wood then takes my unfinished point and claims that I am contradicting myself! :)

This is called Christian Taqiyya. It goes to show how desperate David Wood is in trying to protect Shamoun from running away from the core topic of that night - terrorism done in the name of Islam!

Now, let me explain fully explain my answer to that question. The question was irrelevant only because the questioner did not appeal to Islam but only focused on the behavior of the Muslims. He made no reference to Islam. I then fixed the problem by saying, let's see what Islam says about the issue... because I wanted to see if Islam justifies his allegation of persecution against Christians.

Therfore, I had no problem with his question other than he did not state that Islam promotes persecution of Christians... rather he only focused on the behavior of the Muslims and forgot to mention Islam.

However, when it comes to Bin Laden and terrorism, this is very relevant because CBN.com and MinstryToMuslims.com are claiming that Islam promotes terrorism and is the source of the problem. I disagree and that is what the debate is about! Can the Christians demonstrate that Islam is the source of terrorism? I produced irrefutable evidence in my opening 25 minutes proving that Islam had nothing to do with terrorism. Sam Shamoun was crippled and could not refute the evidence.. and thus ran away the whole night.

David Wood is not trying to cover up this embarrassment with his bogus interpretations.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
ExamineTheTruth.com

Naibed said...

Excusez-moi ! ...mais vos interventions sont parfois si confuses et si contradictoires, que j'en arrive finalement à me demander qui est Nadir et qui est Sam ? Qui est le gros pas barbu ? Et qui est le (vilain) maigre barbu ?

BlueKing said...

« Qui est le gros pas barbu ? Et qui est le (vilain) maigre barbu ? »

:))

Always so caustic, huh? ;)