Sunday, January 13, 2008

Nadir Ahmed’s First Positive “Review”: Did This Guy Even Watch the Debate???

Nadir Ahmed has been contacting numerous people, trying to get some positive reviews of his debate with Sam Shamoun. Apparenly, someone finally wrote a review that he likes. The amazing thing is that the reviewer, Kaiwaig, either didn’t watch the debate, or didn’t pay attention at all!

Kaiwaig talks about the debate itself very little. After vaguely mentioning the debate, he spends most of his time trying to prove that Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately, Kaiwaig obviously hasn’t studied the history of Islam—especially early Muslim commentaries and the Sira literature. Kaiwaig went so far as to say that the “Muslim method” is to distribute information about Islam and to let people decide for themselves! Has he read the Qur’an? Did he consider the verses presented by Sam in the debate? Has he read Ibn Ishaq, or Ibn Sad, or Al-Tabari? Obviously not.

But we can go further. Kaiwaig points to the “no compulsion in religion” verse in the Qur’an (2:256), which was addressed by Sam in the debate. Amazingly, Kaiwaig tells his viewers that Sam’s response to this verse was to point to modern day Muslims as proof that Islam is a religion of violence! Yet anyone who actually watched the debate knows that Sam did no such thing. In fact, Sam specifically said (over and over again) that he would not point to modern acts of violence by Muslims to defend his case. How could anyone who watched the debate miss this???

Sam’s answer was clear. The peaceful, tolerant passages, delivered by Muhammad when he was outnumbered in Mecca, were later abrogated when Islam took control. Yet Kaiwaig’s viewers will never know Sam’s real answer, since practically everything he said about Sam’s position was wrong. We can only conclude that Kaiwaig never even watched the debate, and that he got his information from skimming some of Nadir’s articles.

What’s even more interesting is that Nadir lists this as the first review of his debate! For the record, if I were to ask someone to post a review of my debate, and when they gave me the review it was obvious that they hadn’t even watched the debate, I would ask them to take back their review until they were ready to be more accurate. But not Nadir!

To see whether I am correct or not, please watch Kaiwaig’s review after watching the debate. This is hilarious!


Anonymous said...

Pardon? you mean the fact that the christian apologist asked the same question over and over and over and over again - even after it was addressed; why didn't he then ask - how do Muslims extremists use those scriptures and convince others that their interpretation is correct?

I also find it rude and insulting that you slander my name on this post, and make little effort to contact me, asking me questions in regards to what I meant.

Screaming the same question over and over again proves to me that the Christian had no case; all he proved is that the scriptures can be interpreted in different ways depending on the insecurities and prejudices that are thrown at the text when reading? shouldn't the correct question therefore be asked, is the understanding of the Qur'an easier to corrupt given the complex nature in which one has to interpret it?

David Wood said...


You find it "rude and insulting" that I "slander" your name? (Note: It would be libel, not slander.) In order to count as libel, I would have to have said something false. But everything I've said is absolutely true, and you know it.

Here's what I find amazing. In your review of the debate, you said things that are absolutely false. I pointed out the fact that what you said is absolutely false, and that you obviously know nothing about Islam. How do you respond? Do you correct your errors? No! You complain that you've been insulted! Just to review, here's a summary:

SAM (in the debate): "Let me repeat, I will not criticize Islam by pointing to modern Muslims!"

KAIWAIG: "All Sam could do in the debate was criticize Islam by pointing to modern Muslims."

DAVID: "Wow! Did Kaiwaig even watch the debate!"

KAIWAIG: "David, you've insulted me by pointing out the obvious fact that I know nothing about Islam and didn't even listen to Sam during the debate."

Wow! Nadir's pawn strikes again!

Anonymous said...

Firstly you claimed I didn't even watch it - which I did. Secondly you failed to answer the question - why did the Christian resort to asking the same question over and over again, after the person 'representing Islam' answered the question? why was there no follow up questions once establishing the meaning of those said verses, assuming those are the true meanings, why there are those who are able to change it to suite their agenda? IMHO the continuously repetition of the same question on something which has been as answered is as stupid as the debate regarding trinity and the constant bringing up of 'foetal alcohol syndrome' by Nadir as some sort of 'evidence' of the Qur'an being of a divine nature.

As for whether it is a peaceful region, all religions have war and peaceful parts to the religion, to simply filter a religion down into 'this is a peaceful one and this one isn't' is nothing more than pamphlet religion. I'm not debating whether or not there is violence in the Qur'an - because there is violence in it, it is plainly obvious, just like the bible has violence. The question that should be asked is not whether there is violence, but why do some adherents of those religions put an disproportionate emphasis on those parts?

David Wood said...


You say I didn't answer your question. Well, you need to apologize before we have any discussions. All I know about you at this point is that you've written a review in which you horribly misrepresented Sam's position. And yet all you do is complain that I've called you out for it.

As for my suggestion that you hadn't really watched the debate, keep in mind why I said this. Anyone who had watched the debate would know what Sam's argument was, since he said it over and over again. Hence, since you (1) attributed to him an argument he never made, (2) ignored the argument he actually made, and (3) argued that Islam is a religion of peace when your claims were refuted in the debate, I could only assume that you either hadn't watched the debate, or that you were being deliberately deceptive. I'm charitable, so I assumed you had committed the lesser evil. But if you're saying now that you actually did watch the debate, I can only assume that you knew Sam's arguments and yet you deliberately misrepresented them. Despicable. I see why Nadir goes to you for support.

Anonymous said...

1) I'm watching it right now, and no, I'm not going to apologise, because I have nothign to apologise for. Screaming adjulations about Jesus Christ at the end of every other sentence does nothing to establish whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. Like Sam, you completely ignore what I said in my previous post too. I never said Islam was a religion of peace, because to say that a religion is whole sale peaceful ignores the complex dynamics at play.

2) I never said I supported Nadir; did you even bother to read my last post?

3) Sam and Nadir aren't academics, they have no desire to understand, Sam has already made up his mind that Islam is evil, and there is no point to debate. The point to debate is for people to learn, and when the truth comes out correct, their assertions on a given subject. Again, Sam fails to explain how there are Muslim groups scattered around the world which are pacifist - how can a religion who he uniformly claims is as the source of violence, on the other hand, have adherents who are pacifist. Is he claiming that these people are either lazy or not following the Qur'an as he see's it?

4) Personally I prefer the debates between Shabir Ally and others; both sides present their case without the degree of arrogance I saw from Nadir; there is a fine line between conviction of ones own view and being arrogant.

5) I find it interesting that Nadir quotes a Salafi Qur'an which Khaleel Mohammed, Sheila Musaji and Khaled Abou El Fadl all decry as what one would call wholly inaccurate and fabricated translations.

6) Nadir was willing to criticise Muslims and them not living up to his interpretation of the Qur'an - but one has to remember, it is the doctrine on trial, not the followers.

7) Sam labels Nadir a Salafi given no evidence; sure, Nadir uses a Qur'an translated by a well known (and heavily criticised) Salafi translator, but provides no evidence that Nadir is a Salafi. If you're going to label someone something, provide evidence to back it up.

8) He therefore bases his version of interpretation based on Salafi logic; which is far removed from the mainstream of Islam; if you are going to debate Islam, you base it on the mainstream interpretation, not a niche followers. To argue based on Salafi interpretation would be like me arguing Christianity based on the ideas of the Armish.

9) The whole debate descends from there because he is debating Islam on something which even I don't believe. I'm not a Salafi Muslim, so I don't agree or interpret the Qur'an that way, so how can he turn around and claim that I believe in something I don't. Many Muslim don't believe it in the way displayed by him in the debate. All he has successfully done is shown that the Salafi understanding of Islam isn't peaceful, but he has failed to demonstrate how my interpretation of Islam isn't peaceful.

10) Sam's whole debate was on the basis of whether Muslims are nice people; who cares what the first three generation's did or didn't do. I certainly don't care what they did. It has no relevance to contemporary Islamic interpretation. Again, by quoting those people like Ulma, you are saying "Islam isn't peaceful because Ulma isn't a nice Muslim".

David Wood said...


Wow! I've never seen someone speak so confidently yet without the slightest bit of knowledge!

You say that the first three generations of Muslims are irrelevant. Don't you know what Muhammad said about the first three generations of Muslims? You don't even think that Umar is relevant. Don't you know what Muhammad said about Umar? You say that Salafis are irrelevant. But Sam didn't appeal merely to Salafis. He appealed to the Qur'an, the ahadith, major Muslim commentators (such as Ibn Kathir), and then, as icing on the cake, he pointed out that even scholars from Nadir's own sect agree with his interpretation. Like it or not, the positions of scholars are relevant. And if Sam is going to cite a scholar, why not cite a scholar from Nadir's sect?

Apart from all of this, you're still ignoring one important fact. Sam said, over and over again, that he would not base his argument on the actions of modern Muslims. In your review, you said that Sam based his argument on the actions of modern Muslims. Hence, you completely, utterly, totally misrepresented his position. And you refuse to apologize! Hence, you have declared that you have a right to misrepresent a person's position whenever you feel like it, and that you will not, under any circumstances, apologize for your actions.

If that's your stance, do you really think people are interested in your opinion about the debate? In other words, do you think people want unbiased, honest reviews, or reviews written by people who assume they have the right to be deceptive?

Dk said...

Hey the video is no longer avaliable (I wonder why cough).

"10) Sam's whole debate was on the basis of whether Muslims are nice people;"

LOOL. He actually said this in all seriousness. LOOL

El-Cid said...

"Dk said...
Hey the video is no longer avaliable (I wonder why cough)."

I believe Kaiwai removed it (along with many other YouTube vids) because it no longer represents his position on Islam.

Kaiwai is an intelligent young man. It just took him some time to get a grasp on the facts of the issue.

If anyone is interested they can visit his YouTube channel to see how his level of quality knowledge on the subject of Islam has increased since the original January comments in this thread (I myself am one of his subscribers).

Anonymous said...

RE: Momo

You are right, it did take a while for me to grasp the issues. I tried to believe that all what was said against Islam was just 'name calling'. Call me naive, but I try to think that there is good in every religion. As I researched more and more into Islam I become increasingly disgusting at how debauched and inhumane the cult really is.

Like most westerners I assumed that Islam was just a religion. I realised that it isn't the case. It is alot more than just a religion, it is a complete way of life whose doctrine is nothing sort of a cult of personality based around Muhammad's 'eccentric characteristics' being pawned off as 'actions inspired by God'. Why else would a religion who claims to worship Allah spend so much time documenting their founder - everything from how to have sex to have to go to the toilet. Its pathetic idolatry - too bad the average Muslim is too ignorant to see it for what it truly is.