I’ve taken a couple of months off from blogging, but it’s a new year, and there’s much to discuss. Most importantly, the Shamoun-Ahmed debate is now available, and can be watched by clicking on the screens below. The topic was “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” This was one of the most one-sided debates I’ve ever seen. Nadir is normally confident, but he was noticeably shaken throughout this debate. Nadir also typically scores points through rhetoric (rather than through argument), but his rhetoric was completely overpowered by Sam’s presentations. Sam dominated in his opening statement, in his rebuttals, in his conclusion, and in his answers to questions. Nadir constantly tried to divert the debate to Christianity (this is called the tu quoque fallacy), but Sam did an excellent job focusing on the topic of the debate. I would score the debate 95-5 (95 for Sam, 5 for Nadir). Anyone watching the debate will see immediately why Muslims are so reluctant to debate this topic. (Nadir was the only Muslim in the country willing to do it!)
PART ONE:
PART TWO:
PART THREE:
Sam Shamoun's debates notes (including quotations and references) may be accessed here.
See also the following articles:
The Debate Results Are in!
Nadir Ahmed Exposed! (Textual Criticism and Taqiyya)
Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya
Nadir Ahmed on "Dirty Tricks": Part One
Nadir Ahmed on "Dirty Tricks": Part Two
More Deception from Nadir Ahmed
Nadir Ahmed's First Positive "Review"
Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Sam Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”
55 comments:
Thank you for this. Any chance of an audio version that we could download for off-line listening?
David
This debate was great. I applaud Nadir's courage and attempt to prove the Islam a religion of peace. Unfortunately for him, there is no such accurate reliable proof. Sam did a great job. Worth listening to.
While this is such a great debate it only reaches some people with high speed internet. The impact will be greater if this can be made available for download. People in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa will find this so useful but some of my friends could not even watch this without any breakage...
These are the people that need to listen and watch the debate more for they have been suppressed by the overwhelming doctrinal attacks and do not have any knowledge of the opponent teachings.
I believe millions of people will be grateful should this debate is easily accessible for them.
Thanks
Gem..
There is a way of downloading the file to have on your computer. If you go to the space where it says Google video and go directly to Google Video. Once on the location of the video, look around the page, there is a link that lets you download a WMF of the video to play on your computer. So it will be good to play and listen to, and also anyone who has a slow connection and has it break up online for them, can download it overnight and watch and listen at their leisure!
I think the debate was one-sided. Nadir did a great job by posing 4 arguments which went unchallenged through out the debate. Anyone who gets a chance to hear the debate will realize that Sam could not quote one single verse from the Quran or the Hadith which promotes genocide or terrorism. He instead resorted to quoting scholarly opinions, "possible intentions" of the prophet and showing that muslims could be unfriendly people(sam's interpretation). All of this had nothing to do with explicit evidence showing genocide or terrorism(i.e. 1 samuel 15:3)
Good job Nadir, Must hear debate!
More Muslims should welcome debates like that but the majority simply prefer to call those who want an open discussion, Islamophobes.
I congratulate Sam on making his point clearly. Sam seemed to know the Quaran and Hadith better than Amir who had to stay by his computer to get messages of what to say next!!!!
TR,
A friend just emailed me to inform me that someone named "TR" had left a comment saying that Nadir won the debate, and that "TR" happens to sound exactly like Nadir Ahmed.
So I decided to do a little textual criticism, TR. Reading your short comment, a textual critic will note four peculiarities, which, taken together, can help identify a writer. The first two may be seen in your claim that "Nadir did a great job by posing 4 arguments which went unchallenged through out the debate."
First, most people (though not all) would write "four arguments" rather than "4 arguments," so we know that you typically write the number rather than the word. Interestingly, Nadir Ahmed often does the same thing. Consider these excerpts from his website: "Sam Shamoun refused to answer the 3 deadly questions of Christianity"; "The 4 arguments of why Islam is a religion of peace." Both you, TJ, and Nadir write "4 arguments."
Yet this is not enough for a conviction. Consider the second line of evidence. You wrote "through out" as if it were two words instead of one. Most people know that "throughout" is a single word, but you don't. It's funny, then, that Nadir doesn't either. When we go to his website, we read the following comment about the debate: "Shamoun was repeatedly challenged through out the debate, but he ran away from this issue and falsely claimed it was off topic." Isn't it amazing that both you, TJ, and Nadir misspell the same word in the same context?
But there's more. One also notes that you don't put a space between a word and a parenthesis that follows, e.g. "unfriendly people(sam's interpretation)" and "genocide or terrorism(i.e. 1 samuel 15:3)." The vast majority of people would have spaces here. Not surprisingly, we find that Nadir, too, often leaves out the space between a word and a parenthesis. Here's a section from his site: "Christians believe that Jesus is God( Islam teaches that Jesus is NOT God, rather God’s Messenger). Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands to go commit genocide . . ." Another coincidence?
Fourth, you write "Quran" rather than "Qur'an" or "Koran," and so does Nadir: "One of the main points of disagreement between the Quran and the Bible are the issues of terrorism and genocide."
Nadir, while it is common for two people to share a particular writing peculiarity, it is quite improbable that two random people would share an entire collection of writing peculiarities. Writing, then, turns out to function like a fingerprint, Nadir. And you've just been caught red-handed.
The conclusion to draw from this evidence is that you, Nadir Ahmed, seeing that no one thinks positively of your performance in this debate, invented "TJ" in order to praise yourself. This is absolutely pathetic, Nadir. Do you mean to tell me that you couldn't find a single person on the planet to write a positive comment about you? Are you so self-centered that you would lie in order to promote yourself? Wow! I have to ask, do you write love letters to yourself and show them to your friends to prove what a stud you are?
Like it or not, Sam absolutely crushed you in that debate. You can either take that like a man, or you can invent a hundred false internet characters to say that you won. Which is it going to be, Nadir?
CL: thanks for the tip that we can download the Google video. It won't be of any use to anyone outside of the developed world though, as it's 180Mb for the first instalment; even if your connection is fast enough you're likely to be on pay-as-you-go. An MP3 without the visual element would be more manageable in such places.
I read a comment below that Nadir Ahmed used a lot of expressions rather than genuine arguments.
This is just an opinion. If you see the video again and turn off the speaker, you will see how much Shamoun moved. He doesn't move like that. He must have been trained by someone to have an impact on the viewers. Other than his body movements, his lip movement (what came out of it) was completely defeated.
Another caveat is that he changed the topic to the Bible. Well, the arguer must be using some sort of yardstick. If in return to his arguments, nadir had said that mass slaughter is completely acceptable, then Shamoun must bring some evidence that it is not acceptable and his criteria is the Bible and so while defending the Qur'an, the criteria had to be used.
If the Bible says to kill innocent children, then how can you criticize the Qur'an? Although Islam is against such acts but stil, how can one even argue when he himself is in deep waters?
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others.
Mr. mj crown wrote:
"Unfortunately for him, there is no such accurate reliable proof."
What exactly is reliable proof? Sam quoted Qur'an and Hadith and Nadir also quoted Qur'an and Hadith. So if Sam's arguments are reliable and accurate for you, then the responses should also be reliable and accurate proof.
The source of both sides is the same, i.e. Qur'an and Hadith while Nadir also used tafsirs which best explain what the Muslims back then believed.
My open challenge:
If you feel that Nadir won, then the best thing to do is to ask neutral people; neither Muslims, nor Christians.
If you do not accept, then I will do that for you. Insha'Allah, I will send this debate to some atheists on youtube and ask them to make a video reviewing the debate.
Insha'Allah (God Almighty willing), I will post the link of the debate review right here.
Parvin Darabi (of the Homa Darabi Foundation) contacted me and said that she wasn't able to post her comment. Here's what she wanted to say (Note: I disagree with much of her comment, but support her right to say it).
"This Nadir Ahmad is ignorant of Islam and its oppressive laws. He should explain why a non-Muslim's value as a person is half of the value of a Muslim. He did not explain why non-Muslims must pay the Jazia tax. He should explain why Mohammed believed that he was the best person, his tribe was the best tribe, Mecca was the best city and Saudi Arabia the best country in the world if Islam indeed believes in equality. Mohammed was a charlatan, a child molester and a womanizer. He was no prophet. There is no such thing as prophets.
In the 21st century to believe that these men were sent down from some thing in the sky is just beyond me. Haven't we passed these fairy tales?
Parvin"
Adeel ("Invitation to Truth"),
I agree that atheists should comment on the debate. Indeed, I hope the entire atheist world watches the debate, so that they can see the truth about Islam (and, to a lesser extent, the truth about Nadir). I hereby invite atheists everywhere to post their comments here.
As for the coments of atheists, I am trying to contact them and get them to make a short video that reviews the debate. As soon as it is done, I will post it here.
As for the comments of Parvin, I would comment on a few of them. I cannot comment on her personal views about Nadir, let her have them.
Non-Muslim's value half of Muslim?
That is wrong. I think she wanted to say "woman's value half of man" and not what you quoted. If she did say what you quoted, then she must read the Qur'an again.
Non-Muslims paying Jizya?
This is not against them. It is a protection tax and protects them. Muslims pay Zakaat and the words for the non-Muslims are different. Basically, both pay! Quoting one side is not a very good idea.
Prophet Muhammad was the best person?
Jesus said that there is none greater than John the Baptist except the last man to come.
Please see my blog for details!
His tribe the best tribe?
This is not what he said. Kaaba was the centre of Arabia and its keys were in the hands of his tribe and entire Arabia looked up to them. So, it were the people in general who took them as the best tribe.
Child molestor?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
As for her atheist views, I will not comment on them!
Adeel
I will gladly post the atheist video-reviews here. (Note: No Taqiyya, please! Real atheists, not Muslims pretending to be atheists!)
Nice Deebate.
but Sam like I have seen in many of his deebates always went off topic.
Moderator should have been frm both side.
Nadir is the guy to watch in future too very nice knowledge speically considering he was on defence.
I find Xia's comment interesting. Nadir went off-topic repeatedly. I didn't see Sam go off-topic at all. Yet Muslims will watch the same debate, ignore Nadir's constant attempts to change the subject, and somehow accuse Sam of changing the subject.
Xia, please give us some details. When did Sam go off-topic? And how do you not notice when Nadir tries to change the topic of the debate?
Hi David,
Please use your textual criticism skills to interpret this:
"I am not TR or Joseph. You and Sam Shamoun are making fools out of yourself"
David, you are suffering from "Nadir phobia". I do not need to make up any positive review, because my inbox is full of them. And the good thing is, Sam Shamoun was cc'ed on them :) Didnt he tell you ?
I want you guys to do the right thing and admit Sam Shamoun lost the debate, because terrorism (not jizya) was the focus topic. CBN.com would not take interest in a debate which jizya or "salafi" scholars opinions were being debated. They provided coverage for this debate because I explicitly stated Islam is not fueling Bin laden and terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and I am ready to challenge anyone to debate this. George Saieg hotly contested my statements, both of us had a meeting on the debate. George Saieg made it very clear why he and his ministry do not believe Islam is a religion of peace, and we discussed them in Seattle, here are the topics (please watch CBN.com's video footage):
Topics of debate
Jizyah, salafi understanding, and humiliating treatment of the kuffar are interesting topics,true, and Shamoun can raise them as side issues, but those were not the main topics.
Finally, I presented Sam Shamoun the CBN.com video footage, he viewed it and understood all issues pertaining to this debate. I then created the flyer for the debate, and stated very clearly on the flyer,"To learn more about this debate, go to CBN.com’s coverage." and linked to the coverage right there on the flyer, please have a look:
Event flyer
MinistryToMuslims.com approved the flyer and shamoun himself viewed it and had no objections. At the end of the day, Shamoun was not able to prove the core issue for this debate - terrorism in Islam.
And remember, this debate was suppose to take place on September 11, however I nor Sam were available on this date.
Let us keep things in proper perspective - Today, the reason why people are questioning is Islam a religion of peace,is because of so-called Jihad violence, terrorism done in the name of Islam, fatawa against Jews, and Osama Bin Laden killing thousands of American and people abroad in the name fo Allah and Islam. Sam Shamoun challenged none of this.
One last point, David I own the copyright for this video.. please pull it down from your site because, that is not the final release. I got impatient and sent it out. My mistake. The final release is in HIGH QUALITY and contains headers.
I will send you the links where you can download the final copy from my server and you are free to post it on your site.
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
Nadir,
Good to hear from you.
First, everyone knows that you are "TR" and that you invented him to praise yourself. There's no getting around the facts, which are posted on my site. Lying only makes things worse, Nadir. If you'd like me to post more on this issue, further clarifying how I know it was you, just ask.
Second, on your website and here in your comment you have tried to define the debate topic. You have repeatedly tried to make it sound as if the views of Pastor George Saieg were the main issue. But let's be clear here. The views of Pastor George Saieg had nothing to do with this debate. The topic was not "Are the views of Pastor George Saieg correct?" The topic was "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" and your opponent was Sam Shamoun. Perhaps an example will help you understand. Right now, I'm arranging a debate between you and Dr. James White. At the debate, your job will be to respond to the ARGUMENTS of James White. If you do not respond to his ARGUMENTS, it will do you no good to respond to my views (unless, of course, James White argues for my views). If James White thoroughly refutes you (and unless a meteor falls on his head, he will), it won't make sense at all for you to post an article after the debate, saying, "The debate was about the New Testament. What does that mean? It means our debate was meant to assess David Wood's views of the New Testament. So here are David Wood's views: A, B, C, and D. But James White didn't prove David Wood's views. Thus, James White lost." If that's still not clear, Nadir, I've got another several posts to do about the debate, and I can explain further.
Third, like it or not, the views of scholars ARE relevant in a debate. Indeed, appealing to scholars is one of the strongest lines of evidence. Sam simply chose some Salafi scholars because that's your sect. He's showing that even scholars from your own sect agree with him!
Fourth, Jizya and the humiliating treatment of Christians and Jews is very important. As I think you said in your opening statement, "peace" means a lot of things. Imagine a religion whose leader taught his followers to scream and spit at all non-members. I would say that this isn't a religion of peace. A defender of the religion would say, "But we don't kill non-members! So we're a religion of peace!" Not at all. Society can never be peaceful with one group spitting and screaming at all others. Likewise, the world can never be peaceful with Muslims trying to dominate and humiliate all non-Muslims. Thus, Islam is not a religion of peace. You can try to redefine the topic all you want, but you're not persuading anyone.
Finally, you posted the video on YouTube, and I've linked to it fair and square. If you think you won, why are you trying to get me to take it down? Is it because you're realizing that only your Muslim friends think you won? You've even admitted that you're going to add headers to an edited version in order to score some extra points! Sad, Nadir. Sad.
Anyhow, stay tuned. I've got plenty more for the next week!
nice try David to defend Shamoun, but you were NOT in the Seattle meeting where me and George went over what will be discussed for this debate, so stay out of it! :)
Sam Shamoun and the Ministry saw the debate flyer and had no objections.
CBN.com stated very clearly on national television what the topic will be:
"Nadir Ahmed is raring to debate the key question: whether Islam is a religion of peace or terrorism."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/245934.aspx
This debate was about Osama Bin Laden killing 3000 Americans in the name of Allah and Islam. And this challenge was clearly put before me by CBN.com and MinistryToMuslims.com in Seattle.
NO ONE, not you or anyone else can divert our attention from this. Got it David? The American public came to this debate to get an answer to this terrible act in the name of Islam, not to hear about Jizya. And that's the way it was advertised.
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
David, you know, you got me really pissed off here...
are you saying that for this debate on Islam and peace, pact of Umar, salafism are more important to discuss than 3000 people dying on 911 in the name of Islam ???
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
Nadir,
You are amazing. During your debate, you said that what Muslims do in the world today is not relevant to whether Islam is a religion of peace. Now you are saying that it's the most important issue. Make up your mind!
You again appeal to your flyer and CBN as proof that the topic was limited to certain issues. But this is just absurd. Suppose I talk to CBN about my views of the New Testament, and you link to my interview with CBN. Does this mean that James White is limited to those issues? What sort of nonsense is this, Nadir?
You and Sam agreed to a topic. Your tasks in the debate were (1) to provide a positive case that Islam is a religion of peace, and (2) to prove that Sam's arguments are wrong. You did neither, and now you're trying to blame it on George Saieg!
You ask whether I think that the pact of Umar and Jizya are more important than people being killed today. As far as the debate topic goes, the teachings of Muhammad and the caliphs are what matter most. That's why Sam focused on early Islamic teachings, and you agreed with this in your debate (by saying, repeatedly, that what Muslims do in the world today doesn't matter). You've only changed you mind because you couldn't respond to the issues.
Like it or not, Muhammad and Umar taught Muslims to dominate and humiliate non-Muslims. Muslims, then, view non-Muslims as inferior beings, who must be put in their place. Is this relevant to whether Islam is a religion of peace? Of course!
But let's not forget that these issues were only a part of Sam's case. Sam offered an arsenal of evidence (including the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the opinions of Muslim scholars), and he refuted your claims one by one.
You are now doing everything in your power to change the outcome of the debate. You're trying to change the topic. You're pretending that you were forced to accept unfair debate terms. You're adding headers to the debate to sway viewers. Why can't you just accept the fact that you lost?
It seems strange that Nadir expects people, who likely know nothing of the principles of Biblical interpretation, to take a single verse out of the Old Testament (I Samuel 15:3) and interpret it with no recourse to the full text of the passage, the historical context, and any Jewish or Christian commentaries, but individuals must read the Hadith to fully understand the Koran.
Full text of the passage (I Samuel 3:1-3, NASB):
1. Then Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the Lord.
2. "Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.
3. 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
This command from God was as a punishment against Amalek for their fighting against Israel during the Exodus. Read Exodus 17:8-16 for the actual event. In that passage God instructs Moses to
"Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." (v. 14).
If the God that spoke to Moses was the true God then He had the right to punish Amalek for their deeds against Israel. Calling the extermination of Amalek 'terrorism' is calling God a terrorist, which would be true if the action ordered by God was unjust. But if the God of Moses is in fact the self-existent, holy creator of the universe then all of His actions are righteous and just. In today's modern society killing babies is considered horrible, and from our perspective it is. But what if God had a legitimate reason for commanding such a thing that is beyond our ability to understand, or at least has not been directly revealed to us? Just because a person can't think of a legitimate reason for these killings doesn't mean there isn't one. It would be the height of arrogance to assume otherwise. Unless, of course, Nadir fully understands the mind of God and is able to stand as a judge over Him.
As a debater for a popular audience Nadir is impressive with his tenacity and quickness of reply. But from a scholarly perspective his presentation is lacking in substance and betrays a clear lack of familiarity with Christian and Jewish theology and hermeneutics. I would encourage all viewers to seriously take the time to study Christian and Jewish commentators to see how this passage has been interpreted. That is the only fair and civil way of investigating a truth claim like this. It would be intellectually dishonest to simply quote Surah 2:192 as "Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is more greivous than bloodshed" and say that killing non-Muslims is always commanded. Nadir would legitimately expect nothing less of a critic of Islam.
Since Nadir frequently used the term 'terrorism' in the debate, let's define it. Terrorism is, essentially, unjustified violence against innocent people. However, the terrorists of Sept. 11 believed they were fighting for God and thus considered their actions justified. If they were in fact doing God's will then they weren't terrorists, they were instruments of God's righteous judgement.
SHALOM. Thank you brothers for earnestly contending for the faith(JUDE 3). I am writting from Nairobi-Kenya and I love the great work which is being done by some christian apologists such as; Sam Shamoun,David Wood,Anis Shorrosh,James White,JP Holding just to mention afew.
Can you please provide links where we can download the audio debate clips in MP3 format? Video streaming on the internet is practically impossible in developing countries such as kenya OR Open a large Libray/Store in Cities like Nairobi where we can access and buy your products easily.
Thanks in advance.
JK KIMONYI
Is it possible to read the full text somewhere? I think about making a french translation. In Europe, and especially in France and francophone countries, this debate is largely stifled!
NB: my goal is to make subtitles for this excellent video. So, closer to the text, so better!
Hi Naibed,
I own the copyright for this debate, therefore, you will need to get my permission to do so.
I don't mind it being translated in other languages, but I would like to oversee the process. Here is my email: nadir@examinethetruth.com
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
ExamineTheTruth.com
Do you know what the problem is? David Wood or for that matter, anyone here on this post does not believe that Islam promotes terrorism!!!
They do not believe that Islam gives justification to the actions of Osama Bin Laden.
Therefore, to them, terrorism, and Jihad violence done today is irrelevant and not a topic they can score points on, because Islam is clear on this issue.
Notice, no one who watched the debate is saying, "of course Islam teaches terrorism!".
The bottom line, the organizers for this debate and myself agreed that this issue will be debated. Sam Shamoun saw event the event flyer and voiced no objection.
In the opening round of the debate, I then smashed and refuted all the false allegations of MinistryToMuslims.com... and Shamoun was crippled the entire night, and simply could not formulate a counter rebuttal to my opening 25 minutes. So he concentrated on Salafism, Umar...etc.
As I stated... it is ok for Shamoun to bring up these points as a side issue to strengthen his case on why Islam is the problem of jihad violence and terrorism in the world today, and why Islam demands the death of Jews and Christians - the core topic.
So, no one is limiting Shamoun on what issues he can raise... but rather I am point out what he FAILED on addressing and how those were the core issues as outlined in the
pre-debate interview.
Now, David Wood is trying to cover up Shamoun's defeat on the issue of Islamic terrorism.
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
ExamineTheTruth.com
Joseph,
I'm sure other versions will be available soon. When they are, I will announce it on this page.
Naibed,
When a transcript is completed, I will link to it here. You may want to contact Sam Shamoun about your project. Sam's video should be available soon.
Nadir,
I do believe that Islam promotes terrorism. To see why, just read my article:
Murdered by Muhammad
If you listen to the debate, you will see Sam repeatedly correcting you on what the Qur'an actually says. If anyone is trying to "cover up" a defeat, it's you.
Nadir,
Naibed brings up an interesting issue about the transcript. Why not make a book out of the debate? The first part of the book could be a transcript, and the rest of the book could consist of essays by Muslims and Christians about the central debate issues. The book could conclude with an assessment from you and Sam.
beware, I am predicting that Shamoun will hide the CBN pre-debate coverage where the issues of debate were clearly outlined:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/245934.aspx
Again, I repeat - the issues which Shamoun raised are ok, but you guys need to accept that the issues to be debated are what was mentioned in the pre-debate interview.. because this was the challenge MinistryToMuslims.com placed before me, and I accepted. We both told CBN.com our intentions and they interviewed us to make it official. And finally, I placed the link right on the flyer so people can learn more about the debate topics. So you guys need to accept that these are important topics for this debate.. ok?
But because Shamoun was blown away in the opening 25 minute where I refuted and debunked all the garbage of the ministry, Shamoun could not produce a counter-rebuttal.
But don't worry ;) once people come to my site and see his deception... he will be exposed... we're going to take necessary action.
And as for you comments about Islam teaching terrorism, I know you are lying.... and that is why I am challenging to you debate on that.. do you accept ?
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
> Do you know what the problem is?
Probably: they don't know french, and they don't read what is published on my blog :)
> David Wood or for that matter, anyone here on this post does not believe that Islam promotes terrorism!!!
Except that the reality is even worse than that ! Islam does not *only* promote terrorism !
| Islam, in its texts, *is* a call to terrorism !
| And in its day-to-day application, islam *is* terrorism !
(No need to say "Islamic terrorism": it is enough to say "Islam" ... Simply !)
naibed,
Ok... here is the problem - you did not watch the debate. When you watch the debate, you will be shocked, here is what happened:
I came out in my opening 25 minute presentation and produced Quran verses to show that Islam condemns terrorism.
Shamoun, was crippled. he was not able to refute the evidence and ran away from this issue. I then repeated it again and again.
Now, if you think you can do better than I invite you to.
In his debate with Sam Shamoun Nadir Ahmed the big macher (big shot) for islam has claimed that the Bible teaches genocide. He stated Samuel verses which said to kill all the men, woman, children, animals etc. This he claimed taught genocide and his koran came to correct that. Well lets see if this is so. Can any muslim show me any where in koran where it says you may not kill the woman and the children. Funny how he claims his koran came to correct the genocide of killing woman and children never once mentions not to kill them. This is a funny way to correct a book.
In fact in Deuteronomy Chapter 20 it clearly states to keep the woman and children alive. It was only in certain instances, for specific reasons, where every one was to be killed.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; 14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, 17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; 18 that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God.
Now let us see the koran. Here their allah what Ahmed calls genocide which he claims his koran forbids is implemented by none other than their own allah. Now if Ahmed wants to call his god a genocidal maniac I would agree. Ahmed can dispute and say well this is not a commandment for the muslims this is what their god did. Well did their god kill these generations, which means woman and children too, without justification? Well if their allah thought that he was justified in killing all these generations what is the difference if he killed them or he ordered man to do it if they were deserving of death. So I don't know how Ahmed can claim that his book came to correct the bible about genocide when it was his allah that committed more genocide than any one. Bible only mentions a few instances to specific people their allah killed whole generations. Generations means a minimum of two.
KORAN
[10.13] And certainly We did destroy generations before you when they were unjust, and their apostles had come to them with clear arguments, and they would not believe; thus do We recompense the guilty people.
[25.37] And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the apostles, We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust;
[17.17] And how many of the generations did We destroy after Nuh! and your Lord is sufficient as Knowing and Seeing with regard to His servants' faults.
[25.36] Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications; so We destroyed them with utter destruction.
[25.38] And Ad and Samood and the dwellers of the Rass and many generations between them.
[25.39] And to every one We gave examples and every one did We destroy with utter destruction.
[25.40] And certainly they have (often) passed by the town on which was rained an evil rain; did they not then see it? Nay! they did not hope to be raised again.
[7.4] And how many a town that We destroyed, so Our punishment came to it by night or while they slept at midday.
The muslims claim that they only fight to defend themselves. Does any one in their right mind think that attacking people while they sleep is self defense.
[13.32] And apostles before you were certainly mocked at, but I gave respite to those who disbelieved, then I destroyed them; how then was My requital (of evil)?
[18.59] And (as for) these towns, We destroyed them when they acted unjustly, and We have appointed a time for their destruction.
[21.6] There did not believe before them any town which We destroyed, will they then believe?
[27.51] See, then, how was the end of their plan that We destroyed them and their people, all (of them).
[37.136] Then We destroyed the others.
[40.21] Have they not travelled in the earth and seen how was the end of those who were before them? Mightier than these were they in strength-- and in fortific
[44.37] Are they better or the people of Tubba and those before them? We destroyed them, for surely they were guilty.
[46.27] And certainly We destroyed the towns which are around you, and We repeat the communications that they might turn.
[53.53] And He destroyed the Overthrown Cities (of Sodom and Gomorrah).
Nadir,
Where exactly does the article say that Sam Shamoun must defend the views of George Saieg? The article discusses Saieg's views. It also states that his organization will sponsor a debate. But where does it say that Sam Shamoun must defend particular views, rather than simply address the topic in whatever way he sees fit? I must have missed it. Please quote the passage you're referring to.
BTW, your opening statement was weak. You fumbled over your words, you refused to stand up at the podium, your arguments were flawed, and you came across as angry and nervous. Sam refuted your interpretations of the Qur'an by simply pointing out what the verses actually say. And what do those passages say? "Fight them until they stop oppressing you"? No. They say, "Fight them until they believe or pay the tax." That's terrorism.
Shamoun--95; Nadir--5.
Nadir ahmed, the big macher of islam, claims that he challenges every one to a debate on his web site and every one refuses. I have a room in paltalk called muslims cant debate Jews and have challenged Nadir many times to debate it has been a year and he still refuses to debate me. So Nadir is a liar it is him that runs away from a debate. My website on the left will tell you the times the room is open.
During the debate Nadir lied and said there were no such things as stages in koran. Here are islamic web sites that talks about the stages which Nadir claimed did not exist.
http://www.thewaytotruth.org/islam-humanity/jihad.html
The stages of jihad
After he received the first Revelation, the command Read!, God’s Messenger returned home in great excitement. His wife Khadija wrapped him in a cloak, and he slept enwrapped by people’s suffering and his heavy responsibility. Then God told him:
O enwrapped one! Keep vigil the night long, save a little (a half of it, or diminish a little, or add a little), and chant the Qur’an in measure. For We shall charge you with a weighty word. (73:1-5)
In Makka, God’s Messenger never resorted to or allowed retaliation, saying that Islam was meant to unite—not to divide—people.
God permitted His Messenger to resort to fighting only after he emigrated to Madina and established an independent state, because the Muslims had been wronged. These verses are worth mentioning so that the true nature of war in Islam and the reason why it was made lawful will be understood correctly:
Here is another web site that talks about stages.
REASONS WHY QUR'AN WAS REVEALED IN STAGES
http://www.sunnah.org/sources/ulumquran/chapter1.htm
The Qur'an was revealed in stages over a period of 23 years, and not as a complete book in one single act of revelation. There are a number of reasons for this; most important are the following:
- To strengthen the heart of the Prophet (s) by addressing him continuously and whenever the need for guidance arose. - Out of consideration for the Prophet (s) since revelation was a very difficult experience for him. - To gradually implement the laws of God. - To make understanding, application and memorisation of the revelation easier for the believers.
Actually the reason it took 23 years is because muhamed made it up and that's how long it took him to make it up. The Torah is a billion times bigger than the koran yet it was taught to Moses in 40 days and 40 nights. Their allah claims that the arabs are worst in unbelief so who does their allah send as a profit to all mankind from among these people. Now you tell me if any one were picking a leader or a prophet would he go to the worst of people to pick from there or the best of people
009.097
YUSUFALI: The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.
VISIT MY WEB SITE
http://islamsnitemare.blogspot.com/
PETER
Firstly, the use of religion based wars, imposing/establishing religion based rule of law itself is wrong, and deviates from OT/NT. The violation of OT/NT/Jesus on part of Muhammad on practically all matters means that Muhammad invented a new religion that merely makes a poor imitation of Judaism/Christianity. NT validates itself by repeatedly quoting OT. The continuity with the revelation of God of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/David is lost with Muhammad. The more Nadir Ahmed distances himself from OT/NT, the more he is self-refuting. His religion then hangs in mid air with no basis/foundation. Nadir uses extremely poor exegesis by depending on few select verses of the Quran and the Bible. A good exegesis takes into account the whole picture. We have before us, the history of actions/beliefs/doctrines/laws proclaimed and acted on by Muhammad and his companions (Sam did a great job of showing what they are). And we have the history of Jesus and his disciples (and the actions/beliefs/doctrines/laws they proclaimed). Assessment needs to be based on the whole picture and not merely picking verses here and there to fit a predefined conclusion. The OT does have instances of God's judgment on some peoples in their entirety (and the OT does make it clear). However, how one ought to live, the goal of living in relationship with God, what kingdom of God means etc is made clear in its ultimate form by the life/message/doctrine of Jesus. Similarly the goal of Islam is seen on the life/actions of Muhammad and his companions who went out on expansionist offensive wars to impose/establish their religion using brutality and the sword (with doctrines like dar al-Islam and dar al-harb etc). This clearly violates what Jesus lived/taught.
The question of "Is Islam a religion of peace?" is not just a issue of some verses in the Quran (as Nadir wants to project it). The issue, as Sam rightly tackled, is the overall/final/ultimate message, as enacted by the various actions of Muhammad and his Caliphs and what they attempted to do as the religious goals/teachings. The question involves wide ranging issues like expansionist wars to impose religion based rule of law, notions of dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and dar al-harb (House of War), Jiziya, treatment of women, human rights, equality of citizens before law, freedom of religion, treatment of enemies/critics, armed jihad and religious warfare etc.
Similarly, the question of "Is Christianity a religion of peace?" would be an interesting one too, with respect to what Christianity considers as the ultimate/highest revelation to mankind in the person of Jesus.
There are very distinct differences between the god of Islam and the God of Christianity:
Islam has a view of Allah as a solitary creator-person, causing a theological problem for which Islam has no solution. The theological word, “aseity,” is used to express the characteristic of self-sufficiency. It comes from the Latin expression, “a se” (being unto itself). A-se-ity means that God was totally and completely self-sufficient before any of His creative acts, and is not in any way dependent upon His creation (Acts 17:25). An interesting corollary, from everything we know by analogy with God, is that a solitary person is always incomplete. After He made Adam, and before Adam sinned, God stated, “It is not good that man be alone” (Genesis 2:18). And, in that statement, was a fundamental observation about persons. The Bible knows no such thing as solitary personality—personality is corporate—demanding another person.
Before man was created, what did Allah do, talk to himself? Did he have soliloquies, forever and ever? Or, worse, did he have to create the universe in order to have other persons with whom to commune? Allah could not have fellowship with himself, not in a corporate, social sense. If God were a solitary being, then He would have to create in order to have an object with which to talk or have fellowship. A solitary monotheism, such as Islam, has to have a god who creates, or he is a lonely god.
Once you have to have a god creating something external to himself in order to exercise this principle, you've made your god dependent on the external creation. Your god is no longer self-contained, self-sufficient, and absolutely independent; he is a god who is dependent on the universe. Only the God of Christianity satisfies the qualification of aseity—that the True God must be totally self-sufficient and independent of His Creation from eternity past.
It is the God of Christianity in which God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit communed among themselves in eternity past. What did Jesus say in His priestly prayer, in the Garden of Gethsemane? His comment allows us to penetrate eternity past when He prayed, "Father, before the world was made, You loved me.” (John 17:24). The Son talked with the Father—They had fellowship together, before the creation of man or the universe. “And God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26). Two more distinctions between Biblical Christianity and Islam are introduced in these prehistoric conversations: the Trinity, and the attribute of deity we know as Love.
A second distinction of Christianity is its recognition of the Trinity. By “Trinity” or “Triune God,” Christianity does not mean a pantheon of three gods, but rather One God Who expresses Himself as three co-equal personalities—One in essence, but three in personality (2 Corinthians 13:14; Matthew 3:16-17; Isaiah 48:16; Haggai 2:4-5; John 17:5, 24).
Whereas Islam is a solitary monotheism, Christianity is a Trinitarian monotheism.
All the attributes of God have to be exercisable without having the universe available, otherwise they're not eternal to His character, and He becomes dependent on the universe to manifest His attributes.
Christianity alone knows a self-contained, self-sufficient, absolutely independent God, Who did not need to create in order to have fellowship, or otherwise to express His attributes of deity.
Love—An Attribute of True Deity
Muslim theology cannot explain how its all-powerful Allah could have had an attribute of love in eternity past, since a pre-creation, monotheistic Allah would have had no object for that love.
In some sense, a solitary monotheistic god is dependent upon something outside of himself to be an object for his love. Who does Allah love before he creates? Can Allah exercise an attribute of love toward any object, outside of himself, if there are no objects outside of himself toward whom he might exercise it? No.
On the other hand, the attribute of love, according to Scripture, preexists the universe as one of the immutable attributes of God (1 John 4:8), and becomes a third distinction of Christianity. God within His own Godhead has an object for His love. The universe was not necessary to God's Being. What is so powerful about the love of God in the Bible is that it is unconditional. That is how He can love the world with a powerful love that is not dependent on our response to it (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:4-7). It is part of His character to love.
So, those who believe in a solitary monotheism worship an insufficient and incomplete god who must supplement Himself with a created object outside of Himself in order to exercise any attribute of love. And, consequently, love is not one of the prime selling points of Islam. It's not because Muslims wouldn't want to, it's because of the relentless force of logic—they cannot defend love as a pre-existent attribute of a god like Allah.
The Incarnation — A Peer
A fourth distinction between the Christian faith and Islam—indeed, all other religions—is related to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. “For God so loved the world that He gave His uniquely born Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). No deity of any non-biblical religion ever incarnated himself and came into contact with evil, as the Christian God incarnated Himself in Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, 14) and took sin upon Himself at the Cross (1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:4-6). Christianity stands in sharp contrast with Islam, in that Allah never walked our path. He is so utterly transcendent—so utterly "other"—that an incarnation of Allah would be inconceivable. This is one more reason why Allah can not really be a personal god to followers of Muhammad.
Jesus Christ qualifies as our priest—our representative before God—to plead our case with the Father (Romans 8:34), because He has personally walked the path we are walking (1 Timothy 2:5). Moreover, being both Eternal God and True Humanity—equal to both parties—He is qualified to be the Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Furthermore, “For not even the Father judges any one, but He has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22, 27). Why? For the same reason we have trials in courtrooms by juries of our peers, so that the juries are equal in rank, stature, and experience to the person being accused.
Allah never walked around on the earth. Allah never got dirt under his fingernails. Allah never learned obedience. Allah never died for all the Muslims. Allah doesn't know what it means to walk around and face the problems that we face as human beings.
But our God does, because He walked the face of the earth as a carpenter. He knows what it means to be a man. Our High Priest can sympathize with our weaknesses, as one who has been tempted in all things as we are (Hebrews 4:15), yet without sin (1 Peter 1:19; 2:22). That's the incarnation of Christ. These are among the central great truths of the Christian faith.
Allah doesn't have a scar on his body from dying for an otherwise lost world. Christ, alone, carries that distinction (John 20:25-29).
The Immanence of the Judeo-Christian God
No other religion in the world has anything that remotely approximates God’s characteristic of immanence—a fifth distinction. Islam has an absentee deity who is so transcendent that he apparently cannot speak in all human languages, and demands that any writings of his followers be in Arabic. The Christian God is the exact opposite. While God’s attribute of transcendence emphasizes His state of existence as being different from and superior to ours (Isaiah 46:9-10), the doctrine of God’s immanence reminds us that He is not distanced from us in a way that renders personal attention and communication with Him impossible (Matthew 28:20; Acts 17:27).
In fact, the Bible portrays God as One who is deeply involved in human history and individual lives. Both His presence and His power are a vital part of the universe and the world of men. For example, Psalm 139:7-10 indicates that besides being present everywhere, God can also be present to provide guidance and assistance. He is far different from and superior to us, and yet He can have personal interactions with human beings. God is both transcendent and immanent, and these two attributes do not contradict or diminish each other.
The Indwelling Holy Spirit
No other religion in the world has anything that remotely approximates the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit—a manifestation of God’s immanence and a sixth distinction. The Third Person of the Trinity indwells the Christian’s body (1 Corinthians 6:19), and is so close that He grieves when we sin (Ephesians 4:30). He dwells in the middle of what must appear, to Him, to be a cesspool. He hears our prayers and interprets them to the Father, through the Son (Romans 8:26-27).
Compassion
There are many more distinctions between Biblical Christianity and Islam. But, the Holy Spirit’s grieving when we sin suggests a seventh distinction which deserves further comment in this very incomplete discussion. Islam makes a big thing about Allah—the great sovereign omnipotent god, but Allah always stays safe. Allah never gets dirt under his fingernails; Allah never dies for anybody; Allah never feels sadness. In John 11:35, the incarnate God approached the grave of His friend, Lazarus—and He wept. Jesus Christ— the God-Man—was grieved at the death of His friend, and He acted with compassion, and with sorrow. His compassion for us continues, as He intercedes on our behalf before the Father (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).
Conclusion
While Christian prison ministries emphasize a loving God, Who gave His uniquely-born Son to purchase fallen man from eternal condemnation (Mark 10:45; Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:13-14; 1 Peter 1:18-19), and to provide them with an abundant life (John 10:10) and everlasting fellowship with Him (John 10:28), Islamic ministries emphasize an all-powerful Allah, who solicits men to die for him, in order to procure human gratification in an after-life.
Apart from the God of the Bible, there is no comparable relationship with the Creator found in world religions.
Christians use one of the most unpopular, politically incorrect verses of all Scripture, John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by me," because no man can come to the Father any other way than through the Person of Jesus Christ. “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
The Noahic Flood, also, depicted the exclusivity of God’s way of salvation—there was only one boat (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5). The Exodus of God’s Chosen People from Egypt provided another example of the exclusivity of God’s way of salvation. There was only one way to avoid the Death Angel’s killing of the firstborn in every household—the blood of a substitute on the door posts and lentils of one’s home. The blood signified to the Death Angel the occupants’ faith in God’s exclusive way of salvation (Exodus 12:12-13).
There is a vast difference between the Biblical God and the god of Islam—indeed, the gods of all world religions. Their gods are impersonal, distanced from contact with the human race, do not understand the temptations with which we live, and do not touch the hearts of human beings. Allah never got hungry. Allah never walked around tired. But our God did.
So, with Whom would you rather talk? And, by Whom would you rather be judged? “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, … and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” (John 5:22, 27).
Tom in Texas
Is this whole Debate Available to Download as an mp3, would like to share it with others
Islam is a relegion of peace. It is the terms of that peace that should be totaly unacaptable to non muslims. "Humuliated, disgraced, dhimitude"
Martyr said...
"Islam is a religion of peace"
Voilà ! a religion of peace
...for muslims, when all other are eliminated. The same for "tolerance", who means "tolerance for muslims", and so one.
Well, many here are suggested atheists to come up commenting on the debate. As an atheist let me….
The debate was interesting… I watched it over and over. And if you are Nadir Ahmed, or a supporter of Nadir, I am sorry, what I am going to say will not be appeasing to you. Because,
Nadir didn’t hold a chance in hell to outplay Sam Shamoun in the entire debate. He failed miserably with his tu quoque tactics. What would have been his fate if there was an atheist instead of Sam Shamoun?
Remember, the debate-topic was whether Islam promotes terrorism or not. NOT whether Bible does. That can be the topic of another debate. I don’t value either Bible or Quran, hence, am not at all concerned what Bible teaches... I went through the debate to get an understanding on whether Islamic teachings prompt terrorism or not, and what I got from Nadir is: Bible does so why not Islam?
For me it is clear as mud.
I will respect Sam Shamoun a lot more than Nadir provided; Sam has a better understanding of Nadir’s religion. This was the first time I could see Sam, though I heard him debating Shabir Ally earlier. I want to add this more: Shabir Ally is a genius who can not be compared to Nadir Ahmed by any means. The way Shabir contested one of the greatest philosophers of our time Dr. William Lane Craig; reveals it all how brilliant and animated this guy is. I will never hesitate to bow in respect of Shabir.
All that s aid: I think Sam Shamoun should focus on contesting with people like Shabir Ally, M.S.M. Saifullah or one more name comes to my mind is Moiz Amjad. I would love to add Imran Aijaz too in this list, but he doesn’t attend many debates.
Finally Nadir, you terribly lack the temperament one should preserve when in dear or dire situations. And this shortcoming alone was sufficient to make you singularly unattractive… You may load the other side and helpless spectators with your pathetic tu quoques, but unfortunately for you, that doesn’t make either you or your religion look good. If you want to defend Islam, defend well within an independent framework. If you can’t do so, please vacate the dais.
I found it hillarious that Nadir said that Islam could not be judged by the actions of muslims!!
WHAT???
How can that be.
Islam surely MUST be judged by the actions of muslims in the beginning of islam and now.
For it is islam that they tout as the reason for ALL their actions, be them good or bad.
An atheist's take on Islam.
I agree with him.
In the first place Nadir should study the debate topic first before he take on Sham. It seem to me that Nadir was lost somewhere in Arabian desert when he keep on insisting to his four point to be answered by Sham..knowingly that the topic is not on his four point but on Islam. Some how he(Nadir) could not find some Oasis to quench his thirst. LOL..