Saturday, January 5, 2008

Sam Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

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!)




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


David Anderson said...

Thank you for this. Any chance of an audio version that we could download for off-line listening?


MJ Crown said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.


CeeCee said...

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!

TR said...

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!

Nonie Darwish said...

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!!!!

David Wood said...


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?

David Anderson said...

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. said...

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. said...

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. said...

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.

David Wood said...

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?

David Wood said...

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. said...

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?

As for her atheist views, I will not comment on them!

David Wood said...


I will gladly post the atheist video-reviews here. (Note: No Taqiyya, please! Real atheists, not Muslims pretending to be atheists!)

XIA said...

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.

David Wood said...

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?

Nadir Ahmed said...

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. 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'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 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’s coverage." and linked to the coverage right there on the flyer, please have a look:

Event flyer 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.

Nadir Ahmed

David Wood said...


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!

Nadir Ahmed said...

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. 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."

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 and 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.

Nadir Ahmed

Nadir Ahmed said...

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 ???

Nadir Ahmed

David Wood said...


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?

Unknown said...

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.

Joseph Kimonyi said...

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.

Élisa Naibed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Élisa Naibed said...

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!

Élisa Naibed said...

NB: my goal is to make subtitles for this excellent video. So, closer to the text, so better!

Nadir Ahmed said...

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 Ahmed

Nadir Ahmed said...

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 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.

Nadir Ahmed

David Wood said...


I'm sure other versions will be available soon. When they are, I will announce it on this page.


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.


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.

David Wood said...


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.

Nadir Ahmed said...

beware, I am predicting that Shamoun will hide the CBN pre-debate coverage where the issues of debate were clearly outlined:

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 placed before me, and I accepted. We both told 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 ?

Nadir Ahmed

Élisa Naibed said...

> 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 !)

Nadir Ahmed said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.


[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).

David Wood said...


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.

Anonymous said...

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.

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.

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

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.



Sunil said...

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.

Sunil said...

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.

Tom in Texas said...

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).


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).


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

Shofar said...

Is this whole Debate Available to Download as an mp3, would like to share it with others

Radical Moderate said...

Islam is a relegion of peace. It is the terms of that peace that should be totaly unacaptable to non muslims. "Humuliated, disgraced, dhimitude"

Élisa Naibed said...

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.

Unknown said...

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.

loki said...

I found it hillarious that Nadir said that Islam could not be judged by the actions of muslims!!


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.

John Morales said...

An atheist's take on Islam.

I agree with him.

Tuvong said...

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..

mrsonic said...


mrsonic said...

after reading FARrell TILL'S COMPLETE anihalation of glenn millers articles "a good question" i confess that i would use the Qur'aanic rule of war than jewdo-crosstian rule.

mrsonic said...

here is a link that takes you to till's replies to millers escuses

7 ARTicle point by point reply to millers articles


mrsonic said...

the amalekite INNOCENT non-jews DIED FOR THE CRIMES OF THIER ANCESTORS.yhwh gave the command to totally anihalate these innocent beings because their ancestors had hurt the israelites centuries eARLIER.

1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one [Yahweh] sent to anoint you king over His people Israel. Therefore, listen to
[Yahweh's] command! 2 Thus said [Yahweh] of hosts: I am exacting the penalty FOR WHAT Amalek DID to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road, on their way OUT OF Egypt. Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to them. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camel and

when the fukin hell did this 'assualt' occur and how the fuck were the women and children and unborn responsible for this 'assualt'?

check this verse out

Deuteronomy 25:17 REMEMBER what the Amalekites did to you along the way WHEN you came out of Egypt. 18 WHEN you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.

take note of the words 'remember' and 'when' then read

"There are biblical claims that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites on their way out of Egypt (Ex. 17:8-16) and then later after they had entered Canaan (Judges 3:13-14; Judges 7:12), but these encounters had happened some 400 years BEFORE Yahweh commanded Saul to destroy totally the Amalekites. "

mrsonic said...

"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."

your "certain instaces" claim has been CRUSHED TO DEATH HERE

all terms and expressions that r used when describing the killing of innocent non-jews are examined in thier contexts.

mrsonic said...

mrsonic said...

Deuteronomy 7:1 When Yahweh your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you--2 and when Yahweh your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must DESTROY THEM TOTALLY. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

What i find sick is that moses saves virgin girls numbered over 20 thousand but yhwh gives no commands to save the non-hebrew children from these nations who were "mightier and stronger" than israel.

Deuteronomy 20:16 However, in the cities of the nations Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance, DO NOT LEAVE ALIVE anything that BREATHES. 17 COMPLETELY destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as Yahweh your God has commanded you.

WHAT MORE EMPHASIS DOES ONE NEED to show that blood thirsty yhwh meant totall destruction on nearly all occasions? ? ?

mrsonic said...

...certain instances...

yeah bull shit !!

Dk said...

Nadir insisted I watch this debate and his debate with James White. Well Nadir what can I say? I mean "Nadir Ahmed" is certainly becoming a "house-hold" name. Sam will atleast entertain him. I agree I think Nadir is one of the most funniest guys i've ever meet! (no really i'm serious!). He really does have the edge, he is just in the wrong career(easily solvable). Nadir can actually be the next Chris Rock. I would PAY TO SEE IT, i'm not joking, I WOULD PAY TO SEE IT. It cracks me up every-time.

BlackBaron said...


If anyone is telling you that you "won" either of these debate, they are lying to you and are not your friends.

I hope that God the Father removes your blind eyes, deaf ears, and stoney heart and replaces them with eyes that can see, ears that can hear, and a living heart. May He draw you to His Son.

Unknown said...

Nadir got well beat in this debate, ifact he made a fool of himself

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

I used to be of the opinion that Nadir lost this debate heavily, but since watching it three times now, I would argue Nadir presented adequate refutations, however Shamoun's delivery of his arguments was good giving the false impression that he refuted Nadir.

car313 said...

i am writing from india. i was born to brahmins and chose to become an agnostic. most of the so called divine books are based on a what we could call an odd-even system. in short this system is on by which, one assertion is made on an even numbered page and it is completely refuted and/or contradicted by another assertion on an odd numbered page. this virtually rules out any intelligent analysis of the contents of the book in question. so any inter-religion/religious debate is bound to end without a conclusive winner. what i am getting at is any debate between two 'believers' will just evolve into a sophisticated slanging match. sam appears to be a christian believer and nadir vouches to be a muslim believer. the result is for every point raised by sam, nadir cann counter quote an equally damaging point from the bible.
for a real debate with a fair chance of a conclusive outcome you should try two atheiests or agnostics.
might be worth a try.

Tony said...

After watching this debate twice, I have to say that I am both surprised and disappointed by Nadir Ahmed's performance.

I was surprised because, at the very start of the debate (with the exception of his making Sam sign the papers, which was overdone) Nadir really didn't do that bad. He addressed common passages and hadiths that people believe support terrorism and refuting them. Unfortunately, Sam also brings up a good point when he interprets the passages using the actions of Mohammad and his companions. Nadir must have surely realized this, hence why he immediately falls on straw man tactics such as diverting the argument to the Bible, as well as shrugging off the hadiths as if they were random internet writers. When he made the bold claim, "Every one scholar he cites, I can cite 100 that refute him", I was hoping he would back it up. Unfortunately, it boiled down to simply a bold claim.

The only part of Sam's debate that made me curious was when he said the Meccans were mad that Mohammad attacked their family values. Part of the pagan family values included burying infant daughters alive, which Mohammad rightly condemned. Was this one of those family values Sam was talking about? I'd like to hear his take on that - I'm not accusing him of anything, just curious.

Anonymous said...

I would really like to watch this debate but it has been removed from youtube. is there somewhere else I can watch it? Thanks!!

Tony said...

Actually yes, it's been reuploaded. Just search for Sam Shamoun and Nadir Ahmed, and you should find it. Essentially it was reuploaded into three longer parts.

David Wood said...

Try clicking on the videos now. I think I fixed them (though I'm thinking of uploading them onto YouTube myself, since Nadir's version contains an annoying introduction meant as an attempt to rescue him from his poor performance).

Tony said...

Please do sir :) Or upload it to Google Video if you can.

I don't know why they added in the constant intros. Seems like if you see it once you'd get the point.

Unknown said...

The Christian dude either hasn't researched or is lying regarding the "Jaziya" - the tax imposed on non-Muslims. It's true that the non-Muslims had to pay the "Jaziya", but not to be humiliated.

non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the "Zakat" as obligatory upon Muslim citizens.

As for Umar (PBUH), he was indeed the most just and the most humble ruler of his time. The Christian brother needs to do more research about him.

Unknown said...

hi how are you.I really liked this debate. Sam did a nice job. I have seen lots of debates between muslims and christians but this one is unique.i think sam is very good orator and i like his style. I have also seen some debates of dr zakir naik on christianity, specially his debate with dr william campbell was outstanding.Dr zakir naik is well renowned scholar of islam and he has converted lots of hindus into muslims therefore he is very famous in india.All his videos i've watched are completely one sided in favour of islam. After watching his videos there are lots of questions in my mind about christianity. kindly give the answers of his comments on christianity.i think it will be great to watch debate between sam shamoun and dr zakir naik for both muslims and christians.I will be greatful to u if u reply to all the questions he has raised in his video "Quran and Bible in the light of modern science". His video is available on you tube.

David Wood said...


I think we'd all like to see Sam debate Zakir Naik. Unfortunately, Dr. Naik won't debate any experienced Christian debater. He never has, and I suspect he never will.

rabid cyclist said...


David Wood, let me assure you that a neutral debate with Muslims is not possible in any Muslim majority country.

Even if it happened, the local Christians and Jews would be butchered, for comments made by orators like Sam Shamoun, if made in a Muslim country.

In countries like India, where Muslims are gaining strength, debates are possible, but again, the jury verdict is always in favor of Muslims.

Do not be in a dream state, as soon as Muslims reach a position of strength, they will try their level best to bring your system down. Violence and conflict will soon follow.

Unknown said...

hi david, I have heard that dr zakir naik has refussed to debate sam shamoun. Is it true? If it is really true then is there any evidence that can prove his denial.

ben malik said...

Here is the proof that Naik is backing down from Shamoun:

Just like Ali Sina, we regularly receive challenges from Muslims that we should debate with Zakir Naik. We are ready, we have said so to Zakir Naik and his team. It is Zakir Naik who refuses to face our debate representative Sam Shamoun.

Religion of Peace said...

I can't believe Nadir Ahmed, he doesn't read his own books.

Thank GOD I am not a Muslim, I will not believe in the so called "Prophet" Muhammed.

Unknown said...

Nadir Ahmed's presentation was typical of a radical Muslim. He can articulate well - compared to other Muslims in Arab and other nations - beacuse he is in America - the most christianized nation on earth with it's a predominantely christian culture. He owes to Chrsitainity, not to Islam for that.I live in the Middle east and I know very well what the best muslims' skills are.
His arguements were nothing more than typical claims made by muslims.
He is accusing christians for saying that they are not under the old covenant with it's ceremonial and civil laws for Israel.He is totally ignorant and illiterate on this subject -christian beleifs and faith. Or he intentionally perverts the truth to make way for him to win.

He is accusing Jesus!. He is arguing if Jesus is the God of the old testament and authored the old testament he is guilty of all the wars and destructions commanded.Good.Nadir is trying very hard to become a judge and accuse Jesus.His own logic and arguments show clearly his intellectual strength and reasoning power which are inferior.If he assumes Jesus as God,he should also assume at the same time that he is also under that God.Then how can Nadir use his laws and morality to judge that God's decision,because God cannot be judged by man's laws as God by definition is the creator of all laws.Or how can he say God is wrong while he assumes Jesus as God in his arguement?.How can a subject accuse a moral law giver using the same moral law which he is subjected to ,without fully knowing the factors and facts involved. His assumptions defeat his arguements.

As any good muslim he is also resorting to lies,false assumptions,twisting and rheoterics and what is missing is intellect,good reasoning,honesty and love for truth.

Unknown said...

Christians are those who by definition are being led by the Holy Spirit - one who follows Christ and His commands.He is under the New covenant laid out in the New Testament.The command in the New testmant is to "love your enemy" and there is not a single verse in the Bible asking Christians to kill. So christians cannot kill obeying any Biblical commands.But Muslims kill siting Quran-by applying Quranic verses.A good muslim kill or support killing as they must follow Quranic instructions which are clear and direct.
How can these two books and their followers be compared to each other.Impossible-there is no comparison. Islam by it's very nature is evil and that's why we Indians just like any other people prefer America - a Christianized nation 'under God'- to Saudi or Iran......The impact of these religious books are evident in the predominant cultures in these two kinds of nations and any person with commmon sense can understand the difference.A simple talk with an Indian or Korean or Sri Lankan who have been to these countries will settle the issue of the nature of the impact of Quran and Bible in Islamic and Christian nations respectively and therefore the true nature of their religions and therefore the nature of their authors.

raoulkeller said...

@Nadir, @David:

I am a little confused here... (Sorry for my English, I live in Germany)

Nadir, you point out, that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism like the act of 9/11.

Okay, great! If that was the topic, you won the debate. Congratulations!

But - still - everyone here can see you seem to find it quite okay, if Muslims opress Non-Muslims - and that early teachings said so.

So - you claim to have won the debate, which maybe has happened, but still people here are even more assured now, that Islam is a religion of opression and therefore not of peace.

- To put it in the nutshell: You won a debate by showing Islam is a religion of opression of infidels.

Congratulation to this sound victory, Nadir!

Austin said...

I have converted a number of these debates to mp3 and will try to upload them this week.

I actually think Nadir did quite well. However his claim about the Qu'ran repealing the "barbarous" Old Testament was really bizarre. Even if they were "barbarous" and unjustified I don't understand his point. I think Sam could perhaps have addressed this issue more directly.

a) As Sam said the Qu'ran approved of the acts of the prophets and any violence carried out
b) It is irrelevant to the question of whether Islam as a peaceful religion.
c) Nadir should understand that Christianity didn't exist in Old Testament times! Christians go by the new covenant of Jesus, and regard the old law as fulfilled. No verses or sayings of Jesus were provided to show that Christianity is still under the old law
d) The Old Testament acts referenced are not injunctions on how followers should act today. Ask any Jew!

Also, did Nadir say that the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands for the past 1,300 years was an unjustified distortion of Islam? If so then perhaps Nadir discovered the true Islam, when all those countries - for all this time have been wrong.

A good debate

jonnykzj said...

@Patrick and @ALL

Patrick stated:
"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."

JK- Now this is very problematic and also would show that Islam can equally be from God. FOR then the Muslim can just say "If the God of the Quran is the true God THEN HE MUST have JUST reasons for telling Muhammad to say oppress the Jews, Christians and others coz theyve corrupted or misinterpreted His Message to them". This would put their absurdities on equal footing with the Bible's. NOW ofcourse i myself agree with most of wht Sam said about Islam and also that THE NT, NOT THE OT, is indeed not only peaceful but also lacks any sort of violence AND THATS wht Sam shldve argued. Im not a Christian as i find much of the Bible absurd but Christians are not supposed to follow the OT as it's not their covenant supposedly.
LASTLY from a secular standpoint HOW can u know a scripture is from God when He supposedly created us with a sense of justice in our brains but communicates something contrary to that via a particular human language? How would we recognize it's from God and not Satan? Ive read the first 5 Books of the OT and ive let quite a bit of Islamic literature. BOTH claim to be from GOD and if judging by violence then the OT is more violent and thus by tht criteria is less likely to be from GOD. Yet violence is the criteria to rebut Islam being from GOD and claim the whole of the Bible is. IF the comparison was just with the NT part of the Bible then it wld stand as stated earlier.

Silvy Mendonsa said...

Sam's observation of the three stages of Islam are so true in today's time. After hearing that theory I began thinking of its application in today's world.

Islam in stage 1: Countries like the USA, Canada. They preach unity and "I'm an American Muslim" not like the radicals philosophy.

Islam in stage 2: Countries like India. They are outnumbered by the Hindu's by a great deal. However they do have a sizable population. The approach there is "don't mess with us and we wont mess with you". I will place Europe somewhere between 1 & 2.

Islam in stage 3: All the Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc etc etc .. "Rule by the sword"

Patriot Sheepdog said...

Regarding the "Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque" You Tube video, here is a 12-video series that provides even more information about the true nature of the Islamic faith, devout Muslims' true intentions, why, and Barack Obama's involvement with the Islamic faith:

trueworshipper said...

@ Nadir , dont make me laugh!

You dont know how Non muslim treated by muslim in muslim country unless you become a non muslim .

here in the most populate muslim country in the world .yes we christians able to practice our faith however it has to be in our own comunnity or in a close door where no one sees u .
We are not allowed to pratice our faith on public property thats not the case with muslims who often block roads or just to do "sholat" together.

talk about tolerance by muslims . here in my city , Non-muslim are force to close their restaurants and business for a full month during ramadhan month . if they refuses , muslim will often burn down the stores and restaurants and whats funny about this ? is our goverment and police wont even do anything about this. lists goes on .

I used to think all religion are good and wonder why muslims are like this . Now i know even their qoran and mohammad encourage people to fight no believer.

yes some muslim are nice and friendly however 98% muslims in indonesia are born muslim . most of them are socalled moderate muslim or what we call " Citizen card muslim" they are muslim because it says so in their citizen ship card.

Unknown said...

I am an Indonesian Christian. I think it is nonsense to say that non-Muslim minority in Indonesia live in peace. Building permit for the church is difficult to obtain. Even the Christians who worship in the vacant land that did not get permission to establish the church live terror. Pastor beaten and stabbed. as a clear example of injustice for the Christian can be read at:
I must say this: Nadir is loaded with crap.

Unknown said...

Nadir has a very annoying fake laugh. He makes dramatic accusations and proclamations against his opponents calling them all kinds of names but he isn't bright enough to tell whether he won or lost a debate. He still thinks that he won this debate!

Sam SPANKED Nadir in this debate.
Watch CP ROAST this guy in a different debate:

Shan Siraj said...

Peace be with you...
Nice Debate...
I am a Muslim. Usually I love Mr Sam's arguments. I learn Islam because of him. Whenever he show something against ISLAM what we do is we clarify it with Authentic Islamic Teachings. For example as I can remember he posted Contradictions in Quran. Specially 1day equal to 1000years. But thanks to Einstein's(trough God)Relativity theory we stick more to ISLAM. I don't know about other Muslims but I respect Sam Shamoun's arguments.

Shan Siraj said...

Peace be with you....
We like to debate with Sam on the same topic. Not me ok.. I request him to challange P Zainul Abdeen who lives in India. Author of
Since Sam is interested on Debating with hadees we must know the status of Hadees. So try to debate him...
God bless you....

QuranCompared said...

Please see the following site:


Unknown said...

as salmalikum! as expected sam quoted half verses of THE HOLY QURAN which doesnt not make sense. what ever sam think 'ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE or not.Thats his choice. still ISLAM is the fastest growing religion.. Im surpurised that he dint gave any papers TO BROTHER NADIR which he does in every debate of his.

Anonymous said...

I actually give my thanks to Sam Shamoun. I think he is doing a wonderful job for muslims, even if his intentions are to prove islam wrong. Becuase of him and "christians" like him we truly see how perfect quran is. Whenever I want to learn more about quran and islam, I search for Sam Shamouns articles first and read them. Then i search for the muslim answers, in that way i have learned how perfect quran is. Thank you again Sam!

See also why Dr. Gary Miller and why he became a muslim, I really liked his story very well,

And to all readers and those who believe in God, if you truly believe in God, then its a duty for you to find the truth. Its so easy today to find materials to read, just think how it was before, today you can just google whatever you want. So google this for your own sake: Searchtruth

If you are afraid to search and learn about islam, because you may think that maybe this is the truth, then surely you dont believe in God.

Anonymous said...

Nadir Ahmed is a known snake in debates when things don't go his way, he automatically takes things off topic to get away from the question by which he needs to rebut, considering he has divorced 2 times, because of him beating his wives, he would go as far to call a call girl a christian occupation whilst he is looking for booty

Anonymous said...

GBU brother Sam. Great explanation of the three Islamic stages. I guess the moderate Muslims living in Christians lands are in stage 1 and therefore pretending to be peaceful. Stage 2 will only come into effect when the Muslims find themselves stronger, whereby they will be able to call for sharia law. Just like the extremeists who are calling for it now. I trust that God will never let Islam enter into stage three. Again GBU Sam for exposing the truths of Islam.

Anonymous said...

GBU brother Sam. Great debate. Hey TR, the debate was not about the Bible. But anyway as you have brought it up. All the Genocide verses of the Bible show the punishments the enemies of the Israelites encountered for waging war against the Israelites. So God punished the ememies of the Israelites who were the one that first attacked the Israelites. It was not about attacking the enemies of the Israelites for worshipping false Gods. This is something practiced by Muhammad who first verbally attacked the pagan Gods. Does God need us? No he does not. So why did Muhammad force his beliefs upon the pagans, then the Jews and Chrsitians? Especially as it eventually lead to stage three as brother Sam showed. We all need to be aware that the Muslims living in Christian lands are in stage 1, or stage 2 as shown by the extremists. I Trust the Lord Jesus Chrsit will never let stage 2 or 3 materialise in our lands. Muslims are only taking advantage of the love Jesus Christ taught us. But i wonder how the Muslims would feel if we stopped them from building mosques, stopped them from inviting non-mMuslims to Islam, forced them into the narrowest part of the road, and forced a special tax upon them for not being Christians. Luckily for the Muslims Jesus also taught in Matthew 26:52: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Kraven Amica said...

Great debate Bro. Sam. You won it fair and square. Nadir Ahmad got his head buried. Since he has the copyright to the video, he has edited the video a bit. When we check the 2 link on youtbe, Sam's 2nd rebuttal, Nadir has edited the video so that people do not understand what you have to say. Nadir, you made a fool out of yourself.

Muslimbychoice has also blocked me from posting comments on his youtube videos.

TR/Nadir, you are one and the same.

God Bless you Sam.

BORZ said...

I believe that all debates between Islam and Christianity should only depend on the Bible and the Qura'an. Since the Hadeeth is a science of it's own, and Ahadeeth are categorized;Weak, Unreliable etc...After all, any Hadeeth contradicts/not in context with the Qura'an, should be ignored and not considered. Moreover, I believe that it is unjust for the Muslim debater to be confronted with Two sources, and the Christian side is confronted with the Bible only. As I've mentioned earlier, the Hadeeth is a science of it's own.
Thank you.

David Wood said...


Your comments make no sense. The topic is whether Islam is a religion of peace. The Bible is irrelevant.

You want to take the Hadith off the table, but the Qur'an makes no sense without the Hadith.

Besides, Muslims are commanded to live not only by the Qur'an, but by the Sunnah of Muhammad. Hence, if we're asking whether Islam is a religion of peace, we have to ask about the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Of course, we know that there are many violent ahadith, just as there are many violent commands in the Qur'an. But that's not our problem.

BORZ said...


Sunnah is one thing and Hadeeth is another thing, same as Hadeeth is one thing and Tafseer is something else, I am sure that you understand what I'm saying, hopefully.
I know that you prefer to read comments of those attacking or mocking the Muslim debaters more. As for violent Ahadeeth, as I've said in my previous comment, Hadeeth is a science of it's own for the reasons that I also mentioned in the previous comment. As for the so-called violent verses in the Qura'an, I am more than sure that if you want to compare the so-called violent Qura'an verses will look peaceful if compared with the violent verses of the Bible. So if we want to compare the violence between the Two books, Islam will surely be nominated the religion of peace.
And I do believe that it is sarcastic for Christians to debate the peacefulness of Islam depending on the Qura'an, while the Bible have blood dripping from it's pages.
I know you'll say that the Bible is not the issue here, and this is exactly where sarcasm lies.

David Wood said...


You really need to learn something before you try to tell us something.

The Sunnah of Muhammad is the example of Muhammad contained in the Hadith. Where else would you find it? And if Muslims are commanded to follow the example set by Muhammad (and even the Qur'an commands you to follow Muhammad's example), why are you trying to get rid of Muhammad's example? Isn't it because you're embarrassed by his horrendously violent teachings? If you're so ashamed of your prophet, why do you believe in him?

And here you try to change the subject to the Bible, as if we're commanded to fight non-believers simply for being non-believers. No, that's what Muslims are commanded to do. As a Christian, I'm commanded to love everyone.

BORZ said...

Give me one horrendously violent teaching by Muhammad that you know of.
And if you understood from what I'm saying that I am embarrassed or ashamed by Muhammad, well, that makes me wonder!! how can you be involved in debates while you easily misunderstand what you're reading or hearing. I am good to my parents because Muhammad told me so, I am good to my neighbours because Muhammad told me so, I wish to others the good things that I wish for myself because Muhammad told me so and many many more. And here you repeat the cliche "As a Christian, I'm commanded to love everyone", then what about Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." and this is only one of many.

David Wood said...

Here are a few:

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day . . .

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain . . .

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness . . .

Sahih Muslim 30—The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

And your response is Luke 19:27??? Have you even read the verse? If you had, you would have known that Jesus is telling a story about a king who goes on a journey, then returns and finds a rebellion. It's the king in the story who calls for his enemies to be killed in 19:27.

But you just tried to make us think that Jesus was commanding Christians to kill. This is despicable behavior on your part. Did Muhammad teach you to lie like this? Wait, he did! He said that "War is deceit."

I'm sorry, but if you're not even going to try to be honest, there's no point in continuing this conversation. You're not seeking the truth. You're seeking to deceive. Why am I not surprised?

Unknown said...

Sam Shamoun,i have severally watched your debates on youtube and honestly,you are a tool in God's hands.Keep up exposing the fallacies in Islam so that souls can be delivered from the deciet of a false prophet called muhammed.David too,your colleague in Jesus or muhammed is equally gifted.Guess what?In my private time i pray for you all,mentioning you by names.May God continue to use you.I'm a Nigerian and i tell you something,the eyes of many are opening and they are beginning to accept Christ.So long.

Unknown said...

I am a Christian in Indonesia which was known as the largest number of muslim in the world. I have faced and seen so much things that showed that Islam is not a religion of peace.

My aunt is living in Canada, and when I asked her about muslims there, she said that muslims are very welomed there. No one forbid them to worshipping their god.

I saw the unfair things here. In the country where the muslim is dominated, the christian would be threatened, not allowed to worship our God, they closed our church (although, we have all the permissions needed), they shot and kill our pastor, they burn our church, forced to use their muslim's headgear, forced to read their Koran and pray as they pray, discrimination in getting a job (It was so hard for us to work in goverment), discrimination in public school (we have been forced to join their religion's class). It was happened more in several city where the muslims so dominated. You can search it on Google about the news. Hopefuly, the the news is as pure as it was. Or you can watch "the martyrs cry" for this kind of things.

It was so nauseated and such a hypocrite when Nadir Ahmed said that we lives peaceful here in Indonesia.

I have the video where one of my church here has been closed ufairly, so we need to have a service in the street (you can have it by youtube, HKBP Church, and other else). They should have known that so many Christians (our forefathers), strugled to make the independence of Indonesia. They forgot it all just because of their Koran taught that.

Thank God, they could not do anything more of that because of this country is still depended on europe and western country.

Hopefuly, my bro and sist there, are not be deceited by the muslims. I'm looking forward to seeing the europe and western still being the one which could see anything fairly and clear not influenced by Koran's view.

Praise to our Lord Jesus Christ, that the number of christians here is increasing day by day. But, I'm worrying about you guys.. I heard from the news here, that in europe and western the muslims has been increased significantly. I don't know whether the news is right or not. But, we pray for you always.

By this video, I know that most of the christians there are fighting to their influence too. I really love this video. Pastor Sam seems to be so anointed and used by Christ. He speaks so clear to open the islam's mask.

Above all, let Jesus be glorified in all things. Jesus loves u guys..

Unknown said...

*Thank God, they could not do anything more of that because of this country is still depending on europe and western country.

I have found a video called Fitna. This video has ever been banned by Indonesia's goverment. Therefore, we could not access this video at all.

I found this video on youtube just now. Please see below for the link:

Hopefully, it was useful for you.

Unknown said...

If you are a truly believing muslim, you must exercise your the commands in quran. which states that-

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness...

1. Muslims have been commanded to fight with those of the unbelievers.
2. Muslims along with non-muslims comprise the global population. Muslims must fight the non-musims as they are commanded. So this clearly states that muslims are against peace and Islam is a religion which destroys peace.

Muslims, be frank and accept the fact that yours is not a religion of peace. Truth is uneasy to accept, but still you must accept the truth. If you are not going to fight non-muslims, you are denying your muslim identity.

If you have accepted this fact at the begigning itself, the debate would have not been this much lengthier.

I not commanded to debate with a muslim, rather I have been commanded to make the pavement for others to be saved.

Anyway, as a Christian I love you muslims, as I have been commanded t do so.
I pray for your salvation.
Don't harden your hearts, Jesus Christ Died for your sins too (even you deny him). Accept him because you are not perfect, and he is the only way for the babes, sinners and under-perfectionist.
Because once you are fallen or sinned you are sinned for ever. Other than Jesus Christ there is no remedy for your wounds.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

May God's name be glorified for ever and more. אמן

Unknown said...

If you are a truly believing muslim, you must exercise your the commands in quran. which states that-

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness...

1. Muslims have been commanded to fight with those of the unbelievers.
2. Muslims along with non-muslims comprise the global population. Muslims must fight the non-musims as they are commanded. So this clearly states that muslims are against peace and Islam is a religion which destroys peace.

Muslims, be frank and accept the fact that yours is not a religion of peace. Truth is uneasy to accept, but still you must accept the truth. If you are not going to fight non-muslims, you are denying your muslim identity.

If you have accepted this fact at the begigning itself, the debate would have not been this much lengthier.

I not commanded to debate with a muslim, rather I have been commanded to make the pavement for others to be saved.

Anyway, as a Christian I love you muslims, as I have been commanded t do so.
I pray for your salvation.
Don't harden your hearts, Jesus Christ Died for your sins too (even you deny him). Accept him because you are not perfect, and he is the only way for the babes, sinners and under-perfectionist.
Because once you are fallen or sinned you are sinned for ever. Other than Jesus Christ there is no remedy for your wounds.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

May God's name be glorified for ever and more.- אמן

Anonymous said...


If you put the mouse on TR & click it will show you which blogg he follows:


Unknown said...

Did the comments at the end of the 3rd video appear as part of the original debate,because they were totally one-sided in every way,and I thought this was supposed to be a debate,which allows for equal views from both sides? Next time the rights to the video should be free-domain so that no-one can edit it afterwards.

Unknown said...

I found this on YouTube:

Now, I'm a BIG fan of Sam's work, and I know this video was published back in 2011, but according to this video, Sam did not fulfill his promise to schedule a debate regarding Old Testament violence.

Now, obviously I'm taking this with a grain of salt (or as I prefer a bottle of vodka). I was just wondering if this were true. Nadir's trying to make it seem like Sam intentionally ignored any attempt to schedule a debate to this end. I did watch the debate but it was a long time ago.

So did this ever come up again?

Unknown said...

Agnostic atheist here (definitely not new atheist). It is quite clear that Sam Shamoun won the debate. However, I'm surprised that he didn't take Nadir Ahmed to task on some of his more grandiose claims about Islam's inception, such as that "it came to confront and condemn genocide". To buttress his argument, Ahmed cites the infamous historical figure Heraclius. It is strange that he, as a Muslim, would do this. It is my understanding that Heraclius is widely well regarded within Islamic history with the Sunnah stating that Heraclius pleaded with the Byzantines for them to convert to Islam. Ibn Kathir states that Heraclius was "one of the wisest men and among the most resolute, shrewd, deep and opinionated of kings. He ruled the Romans with great leadership and splendor." If the early Muslims were so disgusted with Heraclius, then why do they praise him in their own historical texts going so far as to suggest that he was secretly a Muslim? It should also be noted that some Christians (the Copts) to this day practice the Fast of Heraclius in atonement for what happened to the Jews under Heraclius. Ahmed’s central agrument was so dishonest that I was a little disappointed Sam Shamoun didn’t take him to task on it.

Unknown said...

I'm new here, and I am from Indonesia as well.

Well Nadir said that muslims and non-muslims live in peace in Indonesia. Mostly yes we are. But it is not because of Islam per se. It never becausr of Islam is peace and tolerant. It is because Indonesian are by its nature and culture peaceful and tolerant. It had always been like that long before any foreign religions came in.

Nadir and most of you never wonder why despite being the largest muslim population in the world, Indonesia is not Islamic country, like Malaysia or Brunei for example?
Everytime muslim apologist always using Indonesian muslims as example of how peaceful and tolerant Islam is which is not true.

Most of Indonesian muslims are indeed peaceful and tolerant and never want Indonesia to be Islamic country because they are Indonesian not because they are muslims.

These Islam apologists never bother to learn Indonesian history or how Islam came to Indonesia and what it had done to our people. Yes many and it is become main religion for most of Indonesians, but i think most Muslims clerics, scholars and Imams will will declare Indonesiam muslims as heretic muslims once they learned Indonesian history and how muslims here still maintain all their old traditions they keep from their Hindu/Budhist/Pagan ancestors, muslims here devout in performing all Islamic rituals or teachings yes, but they also syncretists they won't let go of their roots as a people by maintaining old traditions mixed up with foreign traditions that being acculturated with their own. Religions assimilated with people's culture and traditions not the other way that people and their culture or tradition being assimilated or even replaced by religion's ways. That is Indonesian people's nature. So Nadir will be very disappointed if he comes here to Central Java (The heart of what left of Islamic Kingdom) find muslims perfom shalah and also they will go to beach to perfom a ceremony to honor and give sacrifices to the queen of south sea for good fortune and seasons. That people adore their King of Jogjakarta (descendant of Islamic Kings of Islamic Mataram Kingdom) almost in the same way they adore Mohammed. So you may see these people are peaceful and tolerant because of their nature and culture not because of Islam.

Islam in the other way what makes them intolerant and not peaceful.
The muslims now many of them especially theu who are sent to learn in Islamic schools or religioua schools, or being part of "arabic" muslim orgnisations or quran learning (by history Islam in Java brought by Chinese and Persians,while in Sumatra by Gujarati traders from India, Egyptians and or Persians) but later these arabs want to re-islamised Indonesian muslims with wahabism or salafism of arab-origin thats how these muslims (growing) become more intolerant and not peaceful.

Indonesia is never and will never be Islamic country because Indonesian people have endured for so long enslavement by colonialism, our forefolks knew it very well what it is like to be dictated and treated have their lives in the mercy of their masters and to be humiliated, to know that their worth to live or die is in the hands of their masters. They never want Sharia Islam despite they are muslims because they had it all too much already and Sharia Law will be another enslavement for them. That is why Indonesian muslims mostly wanted Sharia Law as interen Islam law. Not to be applied for all, they don't want another episode of oppression.

So to Indonesians who commented here, yes we face new wave of Islamic intolerance and menace towards us non-muslima. But I don't think we should be hypocrite also to say that all muslims are intolerant. North and Jesson you both need to learn Indonesia history and read some of Sukarno's will understand why you are now live better here than in Malaysia or Brunei as a christian!

I must say it is far safer here now in Indonesia than in Europe or America where their political correctnes have destroying themselves...

Lillian J. Turner said...

MyBlogger Club

Guest Posting Site

Best Guest Blogging Site

Guest Blogger

Guest Blogging Site

Farhan.Jee said...

Now the fifty percent (50%) of the population around the world are using the internet. And by 2020 the active internet users are crossing 65% of the population across the world. data science course syllabus

Huongkv said...

Aivivu vé máy bay giá rẻ

vé máy bay tết 2021 Vietnam Airline

Ve may bay di My

book vé máy bay đi Pháp

vé máy bay khứ hồi đi hàn quốc

giá vé máy bay việt nam nhật bản

thời gian bay từ Hà Nội sang Anh

Ashok said...

Really nice and interesting post. I was looking for this kind of information and enjoyed reading this one. Keep posting. Thanks for sharing.
Artificial Intelligence Course

Arefa Akter said...

Whatsapp Number Call us Now! 01537587949
please visit us: Graphic Design Training
sex video: Dropped phone repair Erie
pone video usa: mobile phone repair in West Des Moines
pone video usa: Social Bookmarking Sites List 2021

Huongkv said...

Aivivu chuyên vé máy bay, tham khảo

mua ve may bay di my

vé máy bay từ los angeles về việt nam

vé máy bay từ canada về việt nam

mua ve may bay tu han quoc ve viet nam

mua vé từ nhật về việt nam

Ayushi Mishra said...

Every religion has a peace. Education Jagran

onlyblog said...

Nice Blog. Thanks for sharing with us. Such amazing information.

Need of having a pair of exclusive chairs for playing games

Matrix Outsourcing Solutions said...

This article was very instructive as well as the debate was awesome.

If you are interested in learning Graphics Design, Web Development, Digital Marketing click in the link bellow.
Matrix Outsourcing Solutions

komakdon said... is also important to note that today there are second-hand and low-quality parts in this area

Edison hope said...

Wonderful post. Thanks. (Turkey e Visa) Online website method for two main categories of travellers, business travellers, tourist travellers, select your categories & simple online fill visa application form Turke.

Ricky said...

I really like your thoughts . Thanks for your efforts. check the
evisa Kenya online application form. It is very useful for people

Damin Williams said...

Wow.. Very informative article thanks for sharing please keep it up.. Pakistan visa form filled online via Pak visa website. Within 5 to 10 minutes you can fill your visa form online.

Rebecca Grundy said...

Interesting and attractive information. This blog is really rocking... Yes, the post is very interesting and I enjoy it a lot. How India Visa Works? In 3 simple steps you can get your visa. You can fill your online application form &, then upload all documents & pay your visa fee.

Armin Martin said...

This is new knowledge for me, I am excited about it. for India, Indian visas you can apply online via India e visa website. It's too easy and a simple process.

Sophia said...

Hii friends, this is great. If you want to learn more about Turkish e visa you can visit our Turkey e visa website. And read here all info about Turkey visa online.

dennishcaraid said...

Hey guys, You can fill your India visa on arrival form within 5 to 10 minutes and get your visa 3 to 5 working days.

mostafa said...

آموزش آشپزی در سایت هنری عصر پاییز

mostafa said...

اخبار موسیقی

Huongkv said...

phòng vé China Airlines

phí đổi ngày vé máy bay Eva Air

di may bay Japan Airlines duoc mang bao nhieu kg

Alexender said...

This blog post is a true masterpiece! Your talent for making difficult concepts understandable is unparalleled. It's like you have a gift for turning complexity into simplicity. Your writing style is so engaging and informative—I feel like I've just had a personal tutoring session. I'll be revisiting this post time and time again for its wealth of knowledge. Keep up the fantastic work. Ease into your Azerbaijani journey hassle-free with Azerbaijan eVisa Skip the bureaucratic hurdles and long waits. Our online platform streamlines the visa process, letting you focus on planning your adventures. Whether it's wandering through Baku's historic lanes or marveling at the beauty of Sheki's landscapes, Azerbaijan e Visa is your key to exploration. Apply conveniently from anywhere, and set off to uncover the treasures of this captivating country.