Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Bassam Zawadi vs. David Wood: "Does the Evidence Show that Islam Is True?"

This is one of two debates my friend Bassam and I did at Madinah Educational Center this past weekend (I'll post the other in the next couple of days). Jalal was an excellent host, and the Muslims were all very kind. It's certainly fun debating in a building full of Salafis!



The other debate I did with Bassam ("Does the Evidence Show that Christianity Is True?") can be viewed here.


ben malik said...


Fantastic job. You pretty much flattened this guy by God's grace. Can't wait for the rebuttals to be posted. I praise God for you and pray that he continues to use mightily for the glory of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Dk said...

definately the best debate and performance I have seen Daivd in. well done.

Javier said...

Have you read about the presuppositional responses to Islam? Do you have any critiques? You are a philosopher.

ben malik said...

Yep, the rebuttals further demonstrated that Bassam was outclassed and was way out of his league. Perhaps he will learn from this debate that he shouldn't be doing anymore debates if he doesn't want to make Islam look bad.

Dave, you were immensely impressive by the grace of Christ and in time Muslims will be running away from ever debating you.

You were awesome, bro truly awesome. May Christ our Lord always bless you.

B said...

Umm am I watching a different video here?

There were probably only three arguments I couldn't address from David due to time limits (wave above wave, falsifiability test) and he mentioned something about a false prophecy regarding buttocks that i never heard of, so yeah he probably got me there.

I think that is pretty good in comparison to David who had to change topics in the second debate and address the arguments that I posed in the first debate lol.

As for the black magic argument and Satanic verses argument, he didn't address the fact that even if the stories are true, they don't pose a threat.

He brought up self serving revelations arguments, but contradicts himself when he said that Muhammad is sincere.

All his alleged false prophecies (except the buttocks one) and scientific errors I addressed. Probably the one about the fly should be left neutral, since we can just go back and forth quoting our scientists and don't know how is right.

He didn't address my argument regarding how a Christian cannot claim that Muhammad is demon possessed. So that in turn refutes his fortune teller argument in order to explain away how Muhammad made those detailed prophecies. Also, fortune tellers are said to make a hundred lies. David didn't show us a single one out of those hundred lies.

David refutes himself by appealing to Nostradamus, since that would also mean that OT prophecies are not miraculous either. Plus, I stated how Nostradamus's prophecies are different from Muhammad's.

David as usual appeals to weak sources.

etc. etc. etc.

If I have time I might have someone, or I might do it myself writing a detailed review of these debates.

Anyways, I am glad that Ben Malik (Shamoun) thinks David clobbered me, so that means that it wouldn't be necessary for him to write a detailed commentary regarding the debate just like how he did with Sami's debate against David (which according to Shamoun, Sami got clobbered in as well. loool)

Thanks guys and David I had fun.


ben malik said...

Bassam, your comments here only provide more evidence that you are watching a different debate. David not only refuted your points he showed that you had no good arguments for Islam.

Since you mention Shamoun, you have proven that he is right concerning his assessment. You guys just don't see how weak your points are and that your so called replies don't refute anything. You live under the illusion that if you say something, anything, that this somehow means you have addressed someone's points.

Shamoun is further correct concerning how you guys throw your own scholars under the bus anytime they are used against you. When David hammered you with Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the satanic verses and the stringent method of authentication he used to verify its historicity you simply brushed him aside on the grounds that he is not infallible! But neither are your sources infallible so what did your lame response prove? Absolutely nothing, except that you are more than your willingness to attack your own Islamic heroes.

What makes this all the more laughable is that you contradicted your team mate Sami who argued that the story of the satanic verses is based on an actual event. So whose opinion should we take, your's or your colleague's? And which of you is blowing smoke and lying about the satanic verses? You or your colleague? Can you guys at least agree beforehand as to which lie and tactic you will use in public debates so as to not to be seen as contradicting and refuting each other?

Fact is you were simply overwhelmed by David's points and you didn't know what hit you, which clearly showed by your facial expressions (which your really funny to be honest).

You are out of your league and my kind advice to you would be, stay out of the debate arena since you really don't have the skills to successfully defend Muhammad or your religion.

On the other hand, we Christians don't mind using you to prove that Islam is a false religion since, as your nightmare Shamoun has often stated concerning you and your likes, you so called apologists are great at helping Christians like David to show how irrational and evil Muhammad and his religion are.

May the resurrected Lord Jesus use such debates to bring many Muslims out of Islam's lie and into the truth of his Gospel.

B said...

lol, what stringent historical method did Ibn Taymiyyah use for the satanic verses? Share that with me and don't just appeal to authority.

Didn't I quote other big shot scholars who went against Ibn Taymiyyah? Didn't I then go on to say that we shouldn't appeal to authority and that we should see who has the evidence and that at the end of the day there is no fully connected chain for the event? Didn't I?

As for Sami Zaatari, he knows that the stories are weak BUT HE WANTS the story to be true because he believes that the story proves Muhammad is a prophet. I agree with him and i even stated in the debate that even if the story is true, it proves nothing but that angel gabriel came and exposed satan and that muhammad is a true prophet. Was there a response from david on this? Answer is no.

Get lost Ben Malik. Name me one Muslim who would take you seriously and would be interested in debating a trash talker like yourself. lool, pathetic. that is all you can do, just blab away and trash talk.



Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Good Debate Bassam,

Although, I must admit.... It was frustrating hearing almost exactly the same arguments David used against Sami being regurgitated against you.

And Bassam, no worries, Ben Malik clearly thinks David is incapable of handling you himself and so decided to call into the "Iron Sharpens Iron" Debate to help out.

ben malik said...

Thanks for proving my point. It is simply amazing how you simply cannot see how the satanic verses and the black magic stories utterly embarrass Muhammad and destroy his credibility as a prophet. Any sane, rational person would never follow a man who could be so deceived and manipulated by satan, actually thinking he was sleeping with his wives for nearly a year, and whose god was utterly powerless to do anything to prevent this from happening from the very get-go.

I assume and would even encourage David to post, or at least summarize, why the Salafi's biggest star Ibn Taymiyya thought the story of satan duping his prophet into reciting his verses was true, since this provides a powerful weapon in the hands of non-Muslims to debunk Islam. Even Bassam can see how this casts doubt upon Allah's ability to protect his messengers and Muhammad's reliability, and yet pretends that this can be turned around to vindicate his prophet!

Just imagine, the one Muslims believe is the greatest man who ever lived got pawned by satan and Allah couldn't save him in time.

No wonder you want me to get lost since you know that your goose got cooked!

ben malik said...

Ahh, the other lying loudmouth chimes in. Does this mean you are ready to justify the raping and prostituting of your women, no thanks to your fake prophet? Let me know when you decide to let your actions match your big mouth since I want to see your great learning put in use.

BTW, I should post Jay's reply to Shamoun since that will expose that your another lying Muslim who wonderfully puts Muhammad's teachings into practice. If you again say something stupid I may just do that. So call my bluff.

ben malik said...

Why should David change his arguments when you guys can't even refute them? What makes you guys even more sad is that you already know his arguments in advance, thanks to his previous debates, and yet you guys still got owned by David since your replies get worse and worse.

Keep up the great work David, since it is obvious from their reactions that Muslims are losing face and getting burned by your arguments.

ben malik said...

I couldn't help myself. I had to comment on Bassam's line that even though Sami knows the stories are weak he wants them to be true because it proves Muhammad's prophet, besides the fact that it also proves that Allah was a weakling since he couldn't save his prophet in time, that Muhammad was satan's pawn, and that satan produced verses that were identical to the Quran since no one could tell the difference! What a joker you are, Bassam.

And yeah Bassam, we're really buying your story. :-)

Jay said...

Unfortunately I've had a busy couple of days so I haven't been abel to comment on this debate. I watched the first half.

Bassam's arguments started with a series of straw men (e.g. Muhammad was sincere hence he was a prophet), then went on to the usual Muslim apologist time filler (i.e. if you can't defend Islam, attack the Bible - Zakir Naik is a great proponent of this), and then some rather curious appeals to "scientific" and "falsifiable" proofs. I would like to comment in more detail shortly.

For now, I just want to say that it was nice to see a courteous exchange between David and Bassam although I don't believe that David's objections were adequately answered - more on this later.

B said...

Jay, in regards to Muhammad's sincerity I stated it was circumstantial evidence.

As for attacking the Bible, it wasnt' my intention. i only wanted to demonstrate that Muhammad didn't copy from the Bible becuase if he did then he avoided its mistakes.

Looking forward to your comments Jay.

Yahya, as for Ben Malik (Shamoun) ignore him. There is no winning with him. He will continue with his ad hominem and just talk through what you say. How many times has he talked through what I am saying now regarding Satanic verses? Just leave him alone unless he actually says something worth addressing.

Dk said...

Assuming the "satanic verses events" are true, I believe this would falsify the claims of Islam.

This would mean the Quran answered it's own challenge of "a surah like it" with satan answering it which directly falsifies Islam atleast according to the Quranic Standards. It not only falsifys the Qurans "unfalsiable" challenge, it proves the QURAN HAS BEEN CHANGED!

Satans words were taken out from the Quran and also his words were added into the Quran which also falsfies Allahs claim that he would protect his message.

A Muslim may respond with "ah but Allah eventually sorted it out and had those words removed thus the Quran is unchanged in its final form"

All this means is that the Quran was STILL CHANGED temporarily for atleast one year, thus the MESSAGE is NOT PROTECTED during this year falsifying the Quran.

Additionally adding the qualification that 15:9 is actually referring to the "final form(i.e. canonized 114 chapters) standardized by Uthman" and that this is what is being protected is simply eisegesis of the text. Clearly in context it is referring to the Message being SENT DOWN to Mohammad NOT what was "FINALLY COMPLETED BY UTHMAN".

B said...

assuming the satanic verses event was true...

"This would mean the Quran answered it's own challenge of "a surah like it" with satan answering it which directly falsifies Islam atleast according to the Quranic Standards."

No it doesn't. The Qur'anic challenge to produce a surah like it is not only from a literary aspect. i don't have time to type out the details, why don't you visit

"which also falsfies Allahs claim that he would protect his message."

No it doesn't. If the event is true and Allah exposed Satan's plot and ensured that his words were taken out of the Qur'an, that means that the Qur'an we have today is "satan free". Thus, Allah's promise has been true.

Surah 15:9 only says that the Qur'an would be preserved, i don't see how this even falsifies this claim.

"All this means is that the Quran was STILL CHANGED temporarily for atleast one year, thus the MESSAGE is NOT PROTECTED during this year falsifying the Quran."

For at least a year? You really believe that the Muslims were praising the idols of the Meccans for a whole year? That is absurd. The story doesn't say that. The account that I read said that Gabriel came to the Prophet to correct the story that same evening.

But again, this is only one of the narrations that majorily contradicts the other narrations. I can't trust such sources.


ben malik said...

Excellent points dk, but you need to remember that you are talking to Bassam so this is way over his head. Your points are simply beyond his comprehension level.

He claims that the miracle of the Quran lies in its literary aspect. First, where does the Quran say this exactly? Bassam and his cronies are simply making things up.

Second, the Quran itself doesn't limit the challenge to literary feature:

Yet when the truth came to them 'from Ourselves, they said, 'Why has he not been given the like' of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also in what Moses was given aforetime? They said, 'A pair of sorceries mutually supporting each other.' They said, 'We disbelieve both.' Say: 'Bring a Book from God that gives BETTER GUIDANCE than these, and follow it, if you speak truly.' S. 28:48-49

The Quran's challenge includes finding a book that contains better guidance than itself, a challenge which we all know is easily met since much of the Quran's guidance is grossly immoral and unjust, just as Shamoun and David have successfully pointed out time and time again. Why, even Yahya knows this which explains his reason for running like a frightened puppy from discussing Muta, or the Islamic practice of whoring and prostituting women.

Third, even his own link lists matchless eloquence as one of the "unique" features of the Quran:

So your point regarding Satan still stands, dk, even though Bassam can't see this because it is way over his head. But let's keep it simple with the hope that Bassam will be able to follow (highly unlikely). The only way Muhammad and the rest could be duped into thinking that satan's verses were really from allah is if the words were identical in eloquence and structure to the rest of the Quran, or to what Muhammad had composed. Otherwise, Muhammad and his cronies would have spotted the difference in the structure, style, and eloquence.

You can see why Bassam runs from me and Shamoun, while coming up with the most pathetic excuses to avoid us. He knows he will get crushed much like David owned him in their debate.

So leave this little boy alone until he comes up with something original and intelligent for once in his life.

Dk said...

Bassam, I was confusing stories re: "the one year" error, my apologies.

"No it doesn't. If the event is true and Allah exposed Satan's plot and ensured that his words were taken out of the Qur'an, that means that the Qur'an we have today is "satan free". Thus, Allah's promise has been true."

As I predicted you appealed to the final edition of the Quran as been preserved until this day, this basically ignores what I said, regarding an incorrect assumption made about surah 15:9, as I pointed out surah 15:9 is inclusive of what is progressively being SENT DOWN to Mohammad (not a futuristic finalized form created by Uthman). Thus it is an immediate promise to Mohammad to protect his message in the near-future aswell as the future.

It also is both of my ignores the fact that the Quran was temporarily still changed and the message wasn't protected, no matter what the precise timeframepoints remain.

Ben is spot on re: the challenge being met, so I won't comment further on that.

B said...

No Ben Malik, we ignore you and avoid you because you are not to be taken seriously.

First of all, has Ben Malik proven the story to be true? Answer is no.

Secondly, Ben Malik the ignoramus is not aware of the fact that the narrations regarding the Satanic verses are sooo contradictory, that some narrations state Satan threw the statement but not on the tongue of the Prophet AND THE MUSLIMS DID NOT HEAR THAT STATEMENT. But Satan ONLY tricked the disbelievers into hearing it.

So yes of course the disbelievers would like the verse because it praises their idols. But the Muslims never heard it. So your argument regarding the falsification of the Quranic challenge is not based on any strong historical evidence.

Some narrations as I stated don't even show that it was the Muslims that fell for it.

For more details, see Mohar Ali's book on my website and go to page 202 on the acrobat reader or on page 700 of his book.

But again, since Ben Malik as a Christian is used to putting his soul on the line on the corrupted NT, why should he care? loool pathetic.

DK, surah 15:9 only says that the Qur'an will be preserved. That is all. Even if the story is true, it doesn't disprove that.

B said...

And since David Wood is proud of the fact that he cited Ibn Taymiyyah, why didn't he also mention that Ibn Taymiyyah concluded by looking at the narrations, that the statement was ONLY PLACED INTO THE EARS OF THE DISBELIEVERS and not that the Prophet uttered it. (Majmu Fatawa, Volume 2, page 282)

Again people, knowledgeable Muslims don't take these arguments seriously.

ben malik said...


This guy doesn't know what he is getting himself into. Little does he realize that his hero Ibn Taymiyya already addressed the discrepancies among the various reports and concluded that despite the variations there is a core element which all of these reports agree upon.

And to show why this guy isn't serious but simply blowing smoke, he knows full well that there are variations of the same report within al-Bukhari which actually contradict each other. Let me cite a few from an article written by his nightmare Shamoun:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Prophet Solomon who had SIXTY WIVES, once said, "Tonight I will have sexual relation (sleep) with all my wives so that each of them will become pregnant and bring forth (a boy who will grow into) a cavalier and will fight in Allah's Cause." So he slept with his wives and none of them (conceived and) delivered (a child) except one who brought a half (body) boy (deformed). Allah's Prophet said, "If Solomon had said; ‘If Allah Will,’ then each of those women would have delivered a (would-be) cavalier to fight in Allah’s Cause." (See Hadith No. 74 A, Vol. 4). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 561:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Solomon (the son of) David said, ‘Tonight I will sleep with SEVENTY LADIES each of whom will conceive a child who will be a knight fighting for "Allah's Cause."’ His companion said, ‘If Allah will.’ But Solomon did not say so; therefore none of those women got pregnant except one who gave birth to a half child." The Prophet further said, "If the Prophet Solomon had said it (i.e. ‘If Allah will’) he would have begotten children who would have fought in Allah's Cause." Shuaib and Ibn Abi Az-Zinad said, "NINETY (women) IS MORE CORRECT (than seventy)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 635:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet) Solomon said, "Tonight I will sleep with (my) NINETY WIVES, each of whom will get a male child who will fight for Allah’s Cause." On that, his companion (Sufyan said that his companion was an angel) said to him, "Say, ‘If Allah will (Allah willing).’" But Solomon forgot (to say it). He slept with all his wives, but none of the women gave birth to a child, except one who gave birth to a half boy. Abu Huraira added: The Prophet said, "If Solomon had said, ‘If Allah will’ (Allah willing), he would not have been unsuccessful in his action, and would have attained what he had desired." Once Abu Huraira added: Allah apostle said, "If he had accepted." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 79, Number 711:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
(The Prophet) Solomon son of (the Prophet) David said, "Tonight I will go round (i.e. have sexual relations with) ONE HUNDRED WOMEN (my wives) everyone of whom will deliver a male child who will fight in Allah’s Cause." On that an Angel said to him, "Say: ‘If Allah will.’" But Solomon did not say it and forgot to say it. Then he had sexual relations with them but none of them delivered any child except one who delivered a half person. The Prophet said, "If Solomon had said: ‘If Allah will,’ Allah would have fulfilled his (above) desire and that saying would have made him more hopeful." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 169:

For more of these errors I recommend reading the paper written by Bassam's terror:

Moreover, Ibn Taymiyya DID NOT SAY that Satan only placed it into the ears of the unbelievers but believed that Muhammad did recite these verses of satan. Thus, either Bassam is lying (which is likely since he follows the father of all liars), or is simply an ignoramus who is delving into matters way over his head.

But again Bassam can't help but to embarrass himself as David will show once he provides the actual quotes from this Salafi scholar whom Salafis drool over.

Dk, what do you expect from a guy who has been duped to believe his Quran is perfect despite the fact he couldn't make heads or tails out of the seven ahruf of his joke book, nor could his scholars, and has to contend with the fact that an uninspired, imperfect caliph (much like Muhammad was imperfect and fallible) destroyed six of the seven so called ahruf of the Quran, despite Muhammad pleading with Gabriel to grant him all these versions in order to make it easier for his illiterate cronies. To make matters worse, Uthman perversion of th Quran was passed down through multiple various readings. It took a an uninspired scholar to select 7 of these readings, which were passed through two chains for a total of fourteen perversions of Uthman's own perversion of Muhammad's seven perversions of Allah's eternal speech!

Yeah, Shamoun nailed you on this point in the radio exchange.

So what was that you said about the NT? As I said, you are a joke and a joker. No wonder you follow the greatest joke book ever produced, the unholy Quran.

B said...

what a total joker. he changes the subject and talks about the wives of solomon. what a fool?

You are a liar, show me where Ibn Taymiyyah said that it was on the Prophet's tongue. You liar, I have his full fatwa in Arabic infront of me. But you a low life punk who does nothing all day but mock and insult other people's faiths without any evidence.

As for Uthman selecting the six out of the seven, I already answered this question on the radio show after Shamoun hung up.

Get lost loser.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...


Why waste your time with someone who refers to himself in third person as "Bassam's nightmare" and uses a pseudo name to post his articles on the net. If it was David I can understand why you would continue the discussion but you are communicating with someone who is primarily concerned with building a reputation and winning competitions in offensive vulgar language exchange.

Let Nadir Ahmed and this guy continue their exchanges, I think they are on a level together.

ben malik said...

wow, Bassam, take it easy. Don't lose your cool. Thanks again for proving that you can't follow, let alone refute, a point. The examples of Solomon was to prove that even your allegedly sound narrations of full of error and yet you still accept. Why? Because you are hypocrite, which we already knew.

And be patient since David will (hopefully) produce the full quote of Ibn Taymiyya to show why you really need to stop debating since you are way over your head. In a manner of time we will see who the liar is (and it sure ain't me). So keep up your bravado and talk.

And I do want to encourage you to debate the veracity of Islam since this only helps to show why Muhammad was the greatest disaster to hit mankind. Just look at the community he left behind! So please So keep it up friend!

Ohh, btw, I will give your regards to your nightmare Shamoun. I am sure he will love this.

ben malik said...

Like I said, I was going to expose this other lying Muslim, one who has no shame to condone the prostitution of women and call it temporary marriages.

So here you go, in Jay Smith's own words:

"Of course I wouldn't say anything of the sort to a Muslim about any of my Brother's in Christ. I don't recall ever talking about Paltalk to a Muslim, as I know very little about it. I don't recall talking about you with someone at Speaker's Corner, since I wouldn't expect those who frequent the place to know much about you.

"Nonetheless, I'm sure if asked that I would call you a 'street fighter', as you are, and one of the best we have, but that is a commendation, and I hope you take it as such, since we have so few who can 'shoot from the hip' as you do, on such a range of subjects. It's a rare gift to have, and you should be proud of it.

"I don't know where he quotes me saying that you wouldn't work well in Academic discourse, since I don't use that kind of terminology. You have one of the finest minds in the business, tackling difficult subjects 'head on'. I'm not sure if you have an academic degree in Islamics, and maybe that is what he thinks I may have said, but since I don't even recall talking about you to any Muslim, this is really a moot subject.

"I really hope this puts your mind to rest. You can quote what I say above to Yahya, so that he knows what I really feel about you."

You can contact Jay here and verify that he said this:

Yahya, I am not surprised that you are a liar since your religion has perfected the science of lying, being created by satan himself.

Bassam, what was that about a lying punk? It is amazing how you nailed Yahya down perfectly.

Yahya, when you produce some hair on your chest then contact me since I would love to see you defend your Islamic prostitution. I won't be holding my breath.

B said...

your analogy on Solomon's wives is false. scholars have harmonized those hadiths, but that is not the point. the point is this:

There are MAJOR, not minor, MAJOR contradictions between the Satanic verses narrations.

SOME narrations say that the Muslims never even heard the verses, but it was only the disbelievers. So why don't you accept this narration? Isn't the fact that some narrations that state that the Prophet never uttered them contradicting the ones that say he did A HUGE CONTRADICTION? Yes, it is. So why do you choose one of those fabricated narrations over the other?

Yahya, you are right. I will leave this convo unless i see something worth addressing.

As for David Wood and the Ibn Taymiyyah quote. He actually has to provide the quote from Ibn Tayimyyah himself and not just cite someone who said that this was Ibn Taymiyyah's position.

ben malik said...

Oh brother, here we go again. Please tell me how your scholars reconciled the contradictions. So what did they decide upon? 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100 wives? And produce their reasons to see why they arbitrarily chose a specific narration.

Secondly, this is just one of many examples of contradictions from Sahih al-Bukhari.

Thirdly, if you accept the harmonization of these narratives then why not also see how the so-called major contradictions among the different reports on satan's verses can also be harmonized so as to establish that basic core element of the story is true and that Muhammad did recite satan's revelations.

Fourthly, please list these alleged major contradictions for us so we examine whether you speak the truth or are blowing more smoke.

Fifthly, the reason why your version is an obvious fabrication created to protect Muhammad's reputation is that all the major sources mention that Muhammad mistakenly recited verses he thought were from god. We can see why muslims would create a story where satan made the disbelievers believe that Muhammad praised their goddesses, but we cannot understand why pious Muslims would forge a version of the event where Muhammad is made to recite these verses from satan. Care to explain?

Finally, why do you keep appealing to Yahya when he, as a Shia, does not even accept the absolute authority of your allegedly sound collections of narrations? After all, if he did accept it then he would have rejected Muta as nothing more than Islam's way of prostituting and whoring women, instead of trying to defend the permissibility of such a filthy practice, since the sahih narrations report Ali as saying that this vile and evil practice has been abrogated.

Care to explain this as well?

Radical Moderate said...

Has anyone counted how many times Bassam says "Is it possible?"

ben malik said...

I told you Bassam is a clown. Look at what he writes on his site:

August 8, 2008: Hamdillah, the debates were a victory for Islam. They can be found in the multimedia section.

No doubt that this guy is a joker. He really has no clue what he is talking about. I am afraid that I have to agree with Shamoun that this guy is beyond hope since even a blind and deaf person can see and hear that David steamrolled him. He is just as bad and illiterate as Nadir Ahmed.

ben malik said...

And here is further proof that Yahya is a master liar and deceiver, courtesy of Shamoun:

Hi Sam

I got your message re: whether Jay slandered you. I have no evidence whatsoever that he did any such thing, though you would of course be best off taking it up with him directly. Thanks

Justin Brierley

Justin Brierley
Radio Presenter

Listen to "Unbelievable" at

Here is his email for confirmation:

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Re: Shamoun (Ben Malik),

Your correspondance with Jay illustrates nothing with the exception of two possible facts:

1) Jay can't recall his conversation with me regarding you, however one of Jay's best friends was there and can actually testify to the conversation taking place.

2) I may have got two words wrong in the quoting however the gist of the message still exists- Street Fighter Boy.

Oh and thanks for calling my bluff, Shamoun! We have literally all the evidence we need to prove you are Shamoun now.

P.S What Jay said is hardly slander, so please learn some more english, perhaps you could buy an Assyrian-English Dictionary.

ben malik said...

Hey, the other joker chimes in. Amazing how big your mouth is when it comes to talking about things besides your religion.

As I said, I may be Shamoun, I may be his friend, I may be his twin brother, his father etc. What's it to you?

Just admit that you got caught lying like Muhammad and Allah. Or you can do what your prophet did and say that your previous words have been abrogated. :-)

Since you think you know english and Arabic maybe you should have been there to help Muhammad with his Arabic Quran. Who knows, when they invent a time machine you can go back and give Muhammad a course in Arabic grammar and spelling and help him rewrite his joke book. :-)

Go back to your mosque and start cutting yourself and bleed for your martyr, much like the prophets of Baal did for their fake god. Pagans like you do have this in common.

ben malik said...

Here are some more errors from Sahih al-Bukhari, this time regarding Muhammad's stay at Mecca and Medina:

Narrated Rabia bin Abi Abdur-Rahman:

I heard Anas bin Malik describing the Prophet saying, "He was of medium height amongst the people, neither tall nor short; he had a rosy color, neither absolutely white nor deep brown; his hair was neither completely curly nor quite lank. Divine Inspiration was revealed to him when he was forty years old. He stayed ten years in Mecca receiving the Divine Inspiration, and stayed in Medina for ten more years. When he expired, he had scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard." Rabi'a said, "I saw some of his hairs and it was red. When I asked about that, I was told that it turned red because of scent." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 747:

Narrated Anas:

Allah's Apostle was neither very tall nor short, neither absolutely white nor deep brown. His hair was neither curly nor lank. Allah sent him (as an Apostle) when he was forty years old. Afterwards he resided in Mecca for ten years and in Medina for ten more years. When Allah took him unto Him, there was scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 748:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Allah's Apostle was inspired Divinely at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, and then was ordered to migrate, and he migrated to Medina and stayed there for ten years and then died. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 190:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Allah's Apostle started receiving the Divine Inspiration at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, receiving the Divine Revelation. Then he was ordered to migrate and he lived as an Emigrant for ten years and then died at the age of sixty-three (years).(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 242:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Allah's Apostle stayed in Mecca for thirteen years (after receiving the first Divine Inspiration) and died at the age of sixty-three. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 243:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet was neither conspicuously tall, nor short; neither, very white, nor tawny. His hair was neither much curled, nor very straight. Allah sent him (as an Apostle) at the age of forty (and after that) he stayed for ten years in Mecca, and for ten more years in Medina. Allah took him unto Him at the age of sixty, and he scarcely had ten white hairs on his head and in his beard. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 787:

So Bassam, care to convince us which of these contradictions are sound? Did Mo stay in Mecca for ten or thirteen years? Was he a prophet for 20 or 23 years? Was he 60 or 63 years when he died?

And do you think we are going to really buy your attempts of reconciling these errors in your most authentic collection of forged narrations?

Like I said, David owned Bassam and Bassam needs to exit the debate arena and humble himself enough to realize he is dealing with the issues that are beyond his comprehension. But hey, we don't mind since the more you debate, Bassam, the worse Islam looks and the better Christianity appears.

Nakdimon said...

I have read the claims of Basam and Sami about the Satanic verses and the black magic and I really don't see any reason in their claims. Their claims basically goes like this:

1 The fact that Muhammad spoke on behalf of Satan PROVES that he is a true prophet of God.
2 The fact that Muhammad was affected by black magic, making him hallucinogenic, actually PROVES that he was a true prophet.

How is any of this all logical at all?

As for point 1, It is clear that someone claiming to be a prophet and then speaks on behalf of Satan when he claims to speak on behalf of God is per Deut 18:20 a false prophet and should die. That person can no longer be a prophet and should be rejected since he is proven untrustworthy.

As for point 2, a true prophet can’t be affected by black magic or any power of Satan whatsoever. Muhammad was not only affected by black magic, but he became delusional. How can someone be trustworthy when he imagines that he does things that never happened? A person like this should be put in a straight jacket instead.

No, Muhammad wasn’t a prophet and he DEFINITELY wasn’t foretold. I would like to see a debate about “Muhammad in the Bible” and how there are supposed prophecies pointing to him. I have written a short essay to Osama Abdallah of and analysed the texts from the original Hebrew to show that Muhammad is nowhere to be found in the Tenach (OT). There are simply no prophecies about him. I have never heard anything from Osama.


Nakdimon said...

"He is just as bad and illiterate as Nadir Ahmed."

Well, I would kindly disagree. Nadir Ahmed is the worst of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. Basam does much better than Nadir. That guy is so poor, that he needs to praise himself multiple times in his debates, as if he doesn't get it from others.

That guy is so pathetic and deliberately dishonest, that I don't even know why anyone would want to debate him.


Nakdimon said...

"No it doesn't. The Qur'anic challenge to produce a surah like it is not only from a literary aspect. i don't have time to type out the details, why don't you visit"


The Quranic challenge is to "produce a Surah like it". Not to procuse an entire Qur'an. So if this is true, you can't come up with all kinds of criteria to save the Qur'an from being exposed as a mediocre book. Cause how does Suran 108 meet those standards on that website. Or Surah 111? Or Surah 110? Or Surah 114?

THEY DON'T! So why do you claim that anyone that wants to produce a Surah like that of the Qur'an, must meet a long list of criteria, when those Surahs in the Qur'an don't even meet them?


Anonymous said...

The Aristotle-quote ruled.
You can ofen appeal to persians and greeks when it comes to "scientific foreknowledge" in scripture, which is why I reject such arguments for my own scripture.

Fernando said...

Well... I just jumped to this thread to habe a good laught at John Seymour's comments... so foonie he is...

donna60 said...

I'm not sure that that is really fair to say that so-called black magic doesn't work on Christians because of the Holy Spirit. I sincerely don't believe that "black magic" would work on Richard Dawkins either.

The fact of the matter is that "black magic" is make-believe, and it only works on the gullible.

There are plenty of young women who practice Wiccan in college, and the go out to the woods and dance under the moon and blah, blah, blah. However, the only ones who succeed are the ones who finish their university studies, and get decent jobs and decent husbands, and essentially earn success the old-fashioned way by working at it.

The girls that didn't work hard in school and life, might still be out there dancing under the moon for all I know.

Anonymous said...

David, OMG OMG, I've never seen Bassam lose in such fashion! Is he even listening to your arguments at all?

Bassam, you are basically repeating yourself over and over again to try to get away with Islam. Every single time, you go to "this is a weak Hadith" argument which is very lame, sorry. I love your professionalism and honesty as a debater, but I honestly am having a very hard time believing your arguments. David was clear on the Satanic verses and all you did was produce the weak hadith argument which fails quite miserably (having seen your great honesty in debates, I am surprised that you're still denying the satanic verses here). There is too much evidence for them AND since this would make Muhammad look bad, Muslims could have never made up such stories about him. This argument alone proves that the story have to be authentic.

About Aristotle and Nostradomus, you said it yourself "They made so many mistakes therefore you don't believe them", AND SO DID MUHAMMAD! Muhammad also made false prophecies so why don't you hold him at the same scrutiny you're holding Nostordamus at?

The supposed science you proposed for the Quran is also very weak and could not be called science. Muslims do tend to place miracles into Quranic text quite often.

Also, one last thing about the "miracle of the BEE", you know in Arabic we (I am an arab) refer to the Bee by Na7la (Nahla) which automatically implies a female (and so is the ant - Namleh which also implies a female). It's not a miracle if the Quran says the female Bee makes honey because in Arabic we always refer to Bees in a feminine fashion (as we do to the Ant - Namleh, and other animals) we also refer to other animals, whether female or male, as always in a male fashion like Elephant - al-feel (implies male, and rarely we ever say feela when we refer to the animal) You're just abusing the arabic language to make the quranic text look miraculous when it just happened by accident that the Quran was right. You know better, in Arabic everything is feminine or male whether it's animal or solid...etc. When we refer to any animal, it will always imply a male or female, and just by accident as we always refer to the BEE as female, the Quran states that it makes honey. this is NOT a miracle, come on.

Sophie said...

I can't quite believe what I'm hearing. According to Bassam, one of the many descriptions of hell in the qur'an contains something about skin being replaced so that demons can torture unbelievers over and over again - and that is somehow a scientific miracle? How can someone educated and articulate be so biased and misguided as to use this as proof of his faith? How can he believe that he has made a strong case when this kind of nonsense is included as 'evidence'? Bewildering.

Sophie said...

... Just finished listening to the whole debate. This debate was a "clear victory for Islam", Bassam?! With all due respect, are you on some kind of auditory hallucinogenic that makes you think your arguments stood up to even the most elementary examination? Is this the best evidence islam has?! If it is, then it's incredibly sad and disturbing that more than 1 billion people follow this faith. I suppose many followers are uneducated, but you're NOT uneducated, Bassam- what excuse do you have for defending this obvious sham? Please, for the sake of truth and honesty, just do something you've evidently never done and turn your critical faculties to your religion.

Sophie said...

Bassam also states here in the comments that even if the satanic verses was a true story, then it would still prove that Mohammed was a prophet. Presumably the reasoning he is applying here is that Mohammed himself apparently said something about how all true prophets are tested by the devil with false statements, so he must have also been a prophet as he was also tested.

This is plainly circular reasoning based on the 'if Mohammed said it, it must be true' school of thought; the school of thought that nobody but a Muslim accredits. This is no proof at all.

By the way, Bassam, David addressed your previous points about Christianity because there really is no possible way to refute somebody whose tactic in debating ISN'T to state a compelling case, but rather to use circular reasoning and who uses one standard to measure the efficacy of their own argument and a different one for the opponent. I suppose nobody could ever win a debate against you; congratulations.

There is also no contradiction, as you claim there is, in stating that Mohammed was both sincere and under the influence of evil spirits. Spiritists and tarot card readers are sincere - they really believe what they say, yet from a Christian perspective they may be under an evil influence. Mohammed could have been sincerely mislead. It would be vastly more of a contradiction to say that Mohammed was insincere and under the influence of evil spirits masquerading as a god. When someone is willing to tell lies why would demons need to influence him to tell lies?

Sophie said...

...another point: in the Bible, some of the things that people may be tempted to take out of context to be scientific claims, are not scientific claims. The claim 'The earth is fixed', for example, comes from a Psalm - the psalms were poems, full of metaphor; not at all meant to be literal, but rather, literature. They weren't anyhthing to do with science. The Qur'an as you see it, however, is the inerrant word of Allah, full of scientific information. There's a huge difference. Only the most ardent literalist would claim the Bible is as much a science manual as a collection of spiritual documents. You are forced by the very nature of your holy book to take the stuff about shooting stars as literal; you Muslims are forced to place your faith on the non-existent (not even 'shaky'; just plain 'non-existent')grounds of Qur'anic science. When you do so, you make your religion a laughing stock.

Unknown said...

Hello.. here,

Are we all talking about these verses.

Please read the whole article.

Roger said...

How can any one belive in a good thats says thats it ok to spread is world by the sword.It as simple as that.While Jesus sad go out and spread my teatchings as lamms amongs lions allah sads its ok to spread his word whid violens.While christians belive in the power of the bible alone to show people the right way. muslims on the other hand use force to spread the koran.excuse my english

Roger said...

The koran says its ok to concor and spread the word of islam by the sword while jesus sad to his folowers go out as lambs among lions and spread my teatchins.Christians trust the words in the bible to show people the right way whidout use of force.while the koran states the opposit.What makes most sence a god that says turn the other cheak or a god that promot death penelty for leaving islam and thinks its ok to kill in his name?

Unknown said...

I have a question that has nothing to do with what everyone is talking about. I would like an answer from Muslims only please as I am trying to research what they consider sources...
What exactly is hadith and/or what is considered hadith? Does this change within the different sects (sunni, shi, etc)?

Great debate by the way. I enjoyed Bassam's debate style. He did not appeal to the tu quoque arguments nearly as much as I have seen in other debates.

Kraven Amica said...

Bassam, The Napkin Religion is the only true Religion, because it says so right there on the Napkin. LOL!

Islam is a series of poor theology coupled with Lies.

Jesus is Alive Mohammad is Dead!

Answering Judaism said...

I'd say David and Bassam were not too bad in this debate. Both very courteous when giving their responses to each other.

Sandra Mello said...

To Mr. Bassam Zwadi.
I will not go all theologian on you I wil be plain and simple
Bassam " As for the black magic argument and Satanic verses argument, he didn't address the fact that even if the stories are true, they don't pose a threat. "

Yes they do because they pose a treat to the salvation of MY SOUL. How am I to trust the salvation of my most precious possession given to by GOD with a man that was influenced by the devil ?
You keep saying that the prophets are the most tested. Call me crazy but I choose to trust love and glorify the one who passed the test. Thus Jesus Christ.