Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

This is the first of two debates Sami and I just had in California. (The debates were professionally recorded, but we won't have that footage for a few weeks. This is the footage from my camcorder.)

Here's my assessment. If we go to the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira literature, and the Commentaries, and we let the texts speak for themselves, the evidence is clear: Muslims are called to violence (in more ways than one).

There is a way out, however. Muslims can throw out all of the sources they are permitted to throw out, and they can reinterpret all of the sources they can't throw out. That is, they can convince themselves that Islam is peaceful by doing violence to their sources. There is a tremendous price to pay for this tactic, however. Muslims must reject their earliest historical sources, declare numerous ahadith "weak," ignore the views of their best commentators, and pretend that peaceful verses weren't abrogated by Surah 9.

I suspect that liberal Muslims will be upset with me for accurately representing Islam. I also suspect that devout Muslims will be upset with Sami for misrepresenting their religion and their scholars (as well as for saying that Aisha and Ali were "bad Muslims," and that Umar needed to be rebuked). See below for many of the verses we discussed and for additional commentary.






Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that 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.

Al-Tabari, Volume 10, p. 55—Abu Bakr to the Apostates: . . . “Verily God, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad with His truth to His creation as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner and as one calling [others] to God, with His permission, and as a light-bringing lamp, so that he might warn [all] who live, and so that the saying against the unbelievers might be fulfilled. So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2795—Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s cause).”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Ibn Kathir, Volume 4, 405—This honorable Ayah [9:29] was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.

Sami responded by arguing that, according to Islam, "there is no compulsion in religion" (despite the fact that Islam's greatest scholars hold either that Surah 2:256 was abrogated or that it only applies to "People of the Book" who submit and pay the Jizya tax).


Sahih al-Bukhari 6878—Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and that I am the Messenger of Allah, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) Life for life; (2) a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and (3) the one who turns renegade from Islam (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6921—Ibn Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, “A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah’s Messenger [said], “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Sami responded to these passages by claiming (without any actual evidence) that apostates were only to be killed in Muhammad's time, because they were spies.


Sunan Abu Dawud 4348—Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4349— Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Sami pointed out that the Muslim sources only report a few instances of critics being killed; hence, Muslims aren't supposed to kill critics. (I'm not sure how this follows.)


Sunan Abu Dawud 2141—Iyas b. Abd Allah b. Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5825—Narrated Ikrima: Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.” Allah's messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 1986—Ash’ath b. Qais is reported to have said, “One night Umar arranged a feast. When it was midnight, he got up and went towards his wife to beat her. I separated them both. When he went to bed, he said to me, ‘O Ash’ath, preserve from me a thing that I heard from Allah’s messenger. (These things are): A man will not be taken to task for beating his wife (for valid reasons) and do not sleep without observing witr prayer.’ I forgot the third (exhortation).”

Sahih Muslim 2127—[Aisha said:] When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?

Sahih al-Bukhari 6845—Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5204—Narrated Abdullah bin Zam’a: “The prophet said, ‘None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.’”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2142—Umar b. al-Khattab reported the Prophet as saying: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

According to Sami, women were supposed to be beaten with a stick so small that it couldn't actually hurt them. I'm not sure how he can square this claim with the above passages. If a woman doesn't respond to admonition or bed arrest, I don't see how tapping her with a twig is going to change her mind. However, Sami did point out that Muslims who beat women were "not the best of Muslims." But since Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Umar all beat women, it seems that Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Umar weren't the best of Muslims. (Sami even admitted that Umar needed to be rebuked for his sin.)


Qur’an 5:38—And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4447—Ibn Abbas reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4448—Ibn Abbas said: If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Qur’an 24:2—“(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let no pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.”


I really like Sami's version of Islam (apart from the fact that it's still false and that he has to twist and mangle his sources to arrive at a peaceful Islam). Sami has the courage to cast aside Islam's greatest scholars and to speak against Aisha, Umar, Ali, etc. He is also willing to reinterpret the clear teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadith when he disagrees with those false teachings. We can only hope that more young Muslims like Sami will take a stand against the early Muslim sources and the violence of the Qur'an. Of course, it would be better if Sami simply rejected Islam. But rejecting the violence is certainly better than nothing.


ben malik said...

Since you quoted certain narratives concerning wife-beating, specifically the reports regarding the woman whose husband left a green mark on her body and on Muhammad hitting Aisha, which the other deceiver Bassam Zawadi sought to explain away or justify, I thought it would be helpful to post my reply to his statements.

Bassam whines and says:

"The Prophet said...

and hit them 'without indecent violence'"


"As for the beating, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves? Can you find any quote from any well respected classical scholar that understood or interpreted Surah 4 as allowing injurious wife abuse? That the beating is injurious and causes physical harm and leaves bruises and marks? Can you? And even if you do, this would only be appealing to authority since this will go against the majority scholarly position and wouldnt contradict the statement of the Prophet regarding this issue."

We already did that, we cited a hadith where a woman was so badly beaten that she had a green bruise on her body. Your prophet Mo didn't do anything to censure her husband for what he did. You don't get any higher than Muhammad so we have proven our case.

Yet you did have a lame excuse for this severe beating. You claimed we were arguing from silence:

"You are arguing from silence. We have already shown that the Prophet said that the beating must be light. The whole point of the hadith was to speak about the law of re-marriage and that is what the narrator wanted to emphasize.

"Also, in Islam we are advised to rebuke people in private and not in public since it might embarrass the person. So it is not hard to believe that the Prophet Muhammad followed that method and rebuked that person in private."

Talk about a guy who will say anything to justify his prophet's immorality and abuse of women!

First of all, if you are insinuating that Mo didn't rebuke the person in public but in private then why did he shame the man's wife in public for claiming that her husband was impotent? If he could humiliate her publicly then he could have also done the same to the man, especially when knowledge of his wife's bruise became public knowledge.

If you claim that this was a private event which al-Bukhari narrated, then why didn't Bukhari also narrate Muhammad rebuking the man for abusing his wife in that manner? The reason he didn't? Because Muhammad did nothing to chastise the man for this violent abuse of his wife, that's why.

Secondly, how do you know what light beating is? Why can't we assume that leaving a green bruise comes under the category of light beating especially when Muhammad didn't censure or rebuke the husband for marking or bruising his wife's body in that way?

You then say:

"Also, we understand this how the companions of the Prophet understood this. They understood that the beating should not even leave marks or bruises."

First, please provide the report where Mo's companions said that a person cannot leave marks or bruises on the body of the woman when beating her.

Second, even if you do this simply proves that your hadiths are filled with errors and contradictions since we have one example where a companion bruised his wife with Mo's tacit approval.

Now I went to the link to see the "defense" of Mo hitting a minor on the chest, Aisha, who also happened to be his wife! This is what I found:

"He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore." [translation by Shayk G.F. Haddad]

I really couldn't stop myself from laughing at this translation. In order to show you why let me simply insert Haddad's preferred way of translating the hadith into the report in order to see what happens:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain (Haddad's version - he pushed me with a push that made me sore), and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened.

To show just how laughable Haddad's translation is all we need to do is ask a series of questions. What was the context of the pushing or hitting? Why did Mo do that? Because Aisha had secretly left the house in order to follow Muhammad and then ran back in order to hide this from her husband. Was Mo angry because of what she did? You bet. Is this why he "pushed" her? Yes, he was so angry that he decided to "discipline" her for lying and for secretly following him in order to check up on him.

In other words, unless we assume that Mo intended to play patty-cake with Aisha it is obvious that the push was intended as a strike in order to hurt and punish Aisha. Therefore, the English version David Wood used, which is the one I just quoted, correctly translated the Arabic since it best captures the intention behind the push, to punish Aisha for angering Mo by lying to him and secretly following him.

So Bassam, do you see what happens to your case when you come up with such pathetic replies to defend what simply cannot be morally defended or justified?

David Wood said...

I find it incredibly interesting that Sami repeatedly said that the beating doesn't cause any pain to the woman. The historical context of 4:34, as I pointed out, is that a woman came to Muhammad after her husband slapped her in the face so hard that he left a hand print. Muhammad wanted to rebuke the man, but Allah decided otherwise.

The sources on beating say that the beating shouldn't be overly harsh, which, as I pointed out, means that the beating shouldn't break bones or cause other permanent damage. But Sami takes it to mean that the beatings don't cause any pain at all! Does he really expect us to believe that the woman whose face was slapped didn't feel any pain from it? Does he expect us to believe that green skin is caused by a beating that doesn't hurt? And what do we make of Aisha's claim that Muhammad hit her in her chest and hurt her? Or Ibn Abbas's statement that wives should be tied up and beaten until they submit? Does any of this sound painless? Not to me.

Sunil said...

David Wood,

You had one debate about Morality in Christianity/Islam, right? There are some lectures on legalism I have come across in Steve Gregg's website in "Topical Lectures" section on the left and "Toward a Radically Christian Counterculture" section. While there are some theological differences between Steve Gregg and Dr. James White (on Calvinism), I find Steve Greggs lectures also very good. Since Islam is a legalistic religion to the extreme, I thought it may be relevant to you.

ben malik said...

David, did you provide the references for your quotes, or did you just allude to them? For instance, did you mention where Ibn Abbas is recorded to have said what you just stated? I am sure Muslims will question your source, and Christians would love to know where to get this and read it for themselves.

Nakdimon said...

It is really funny how a muslim like Sami Zaatari will totally disregard his own sources and twist his own "sacret" texts to make Islam look peaceful.

IF Sami's Islam was so peaceful and the terrorists were "hi-jacking" his religion, then I find it extremely interesting to see that Sami has no word of condemnation whatsoever in him, when his religion is used to propegate violent behaviour. How is it possible that Sami, when undercover mosque exposed the two-faced nature of Muslims in the UK, didn't spend a word criticize his fellow muslims, but spend all his time in his video whining about the program instead?

This shows his true face. Islam is as peaceful as the suicide bombers that blast their way into eternity in their attempt of killing as much infidels as they can. Any religion that claims that there will be no utopiah before a race has been wiped out (i.e.: the Hour will not come untill all Jews are slaughtered) cannot in any way shape or form be peaceful.

Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of piece.

I would like to close with a few piece-full sonnets from Ibn Ishaq and Tabari:

Ishaq:576 "Allah and His servant overwhelmed every coward. Allah honored us and made our religion victorious. We were glorified in the worship of the Compassionate God who destroyed them all. He humiliated them in the worship of Satan. By what our Apostle recites from the Book and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the infidels received. Killing them was sweeter than drink. We galloped among them panting for the spoil. With our loud-voiced army, the Apostle's squadron advanced into the fray."

Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have cut off every opponent's nose and ears with our fine swords. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."

Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the Prophet's call. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah and killing them is a small matter to us. Peace be onto you."

Can anybody find an act of self defense in here? That's what muslims claim all the time right?


Nakdimon said...

#1 I can't believe that Sami quoted Surah 109 to show how peaceful Islam is. This Surah was one of the first "revelations" Mo had. Which was abrogated by numerous violent verses.

#2 And then we have Surah 2 "no compulsion in religion". Well, there is COMPULSORY salaat, COMPULSORY zakaat, COMPULSORY hadjj, COMPULSORY prayer, COMPULSORY jihaad. What about if someone leaves Islam he should be killed. That sounds kinda COMPULSORY!

#3 Surah 5:32 is plagiarised from the Talmud! Sami is trying to justify that by claiming that Allah is reminding people of that teaching. But that teaching was never "revealed" by God, this was the analysis of a rabbi. So the Quran is again ERRONEOUS when it claims that "We ordained for the children of Israel". It was never divinely ordained. This was an analysis of a rabbi. Sami, the MOST noble verse in the Quran is plagiarised from rabbinic Jewish thought, NOT from previous scripture! Muhammad/Allah couldn't come up with a noble verse, so they borrowed it from Jews "for a miserable price".

#4 Then Sami tries to pull a fast one. He then says that whoever kills an innocent person has committed a grave sin. This is bogus. The truth is that Muhammad said that whoever kills a DHIMMI commits a grave sin. Why? Because the Dhimmi pays an awfull lot of money and phattens the wallet. However, if the Dhimmi does NOT pay, he loses his Dhimmi status and becomes an enemy of Muhammad and his idol. Here is the proof:

Tabari IX:75 "He who holds fast to his religion, Judaism or Christianity, is not to be tempted from it.""It is incumbent on them to pay the jizyah protection tax. For every adult, male or female, free or slave, one full denarius, or its value in al-ma'afir. He who pays that to the Messenger has the protection of Allah and His Messenger, and he who holds back from it is the enemy of Allah and His Messenger."

So if you pay em up we are big buddies, but he who refuses to pay the mob is fair game for all muslims. Sorry Sami, we just dont fall for it.

#5 Then Sami goes to the story of the poisonous sheep to demonstrate how peaceful Muhammad was. He conveniently forgets to mention that earlier Muhammad slaughtered the entire family of the woman that brought him that dish. He killed the men, stole their property, distributed the women among the muslims as sex slaves and sold the children into slavery only to purchase more arms with the money of the slavetrade to terrorize other people. Sami is the master of convenient readings.

#6 Then, my favorite subject, JIHAAD. The overwhelming majority of the references to Jihaad in the Quran and the Hadith is PHYSICAL and OFFENSIVE battle! The few references that seem defensive (I will give Sami those) don't negate the many offensive.

#7 Then Sami claims that the Muslims were forced out of Mecca without any reason. This is utter nonsense. They only started to get physical with the muslims after numerous requests to Muhammad to stop offending their idols (one of which was Allah) and their way of life, after Muhammad promised to "bring [them] slaughter" and after the muslim Hamzah drew first blood when he smashed Abu Jahl's head open with his bow. But of course, when a Muslim does these things it's legitimate and it doesn't count, but when a non-muslim does that to a muslim, then all hell breaks loose.

By the way, Sami said earlier that it is an act of mercy from Muhammad when he was in position of power and didn't kill a man. He says that Muhammad said "go away from me" instead of putting the man to death. Well, when Muhammad told the Quraish that he would bring them slaughter, they didn't attack him either, since they were in the position of power. They could have easily seized him and bashed his head open or something. But they didn't! They said instead "depart from us" and didn't touch him with a finger. WHAT AN ACT OF MERCY FROM THE QURAISH! But you won't hear Sami about that, now will you?

#8 And then my 2nd favorite muslim "defense": prohibition of killing of women and children. I have pointed it out to Sami already and I'm amazed that he still goes around using this lame argument in defense of his peicefull religion: Women and Children were only spared because they were considered either sextoys or merchandise. Dead women and children make lousy merchandise. That would be like stealing a Ferrari and then smashing it into a wall before trying to sell it. That was the only reason why women and children weren't killed.

#9 Then he quotes verses of making peace sayinf that it is only permissable to fight when you are faught and make peace when peace is offerred. BUT what is this:

Qur'an 47:33 "Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand."

If you have the upperhand you shouldn't seek peace. only when you don't stand a chance whatsoever, then you seek peace, because you have to save your hide. But when you are in the majority and stronger, seeking peace is a sign of weakness according to Allah. How does this "mesh" with Sami's stance?

#10 Before leaving the stage, Sami is trying to cover Islam by telling the audience not to jump to conclussions when David speaks because David might quote everything "out of context". Well, that is nice! Why should we believe you then, Sami? Who says that YOU didn't quote everything out of context? What is the historical context of those quotes you provided, by the way? How do we know the historical context? The only way to know that is chronology. But the only two chronological sources of Islam, Ishaq and Tabari, you want to reject as "unauthorised". How do you know the historical context of those verses, when you reject the only two chronological accounts that Islam knows?

And by the way, before leaving the stage after your opening statement, you discredited Tabari and Ishaq, BUT YOU REFERENCE THEM A FEW MINUTES BEFORE TO PROVE HOW PEACEFUL YOUR RELIGION IS! WHY, SAMI? If they are unauthorised, you can't quote them yourself. On the contrary: By quoting them, you made them authorised!

Sami, quit debating, because your arguments are just worthless and inconsistent. I have challenged you on Islam's claim that Muhammad is to be found in the Bible, you declined. You know very well that Muhammad is nowhere to be found in the Bible. And since he isn't, the entire claim of the Quran is worthless, therefore Muhammad is not a prophet and Islam is false!


Nakdimon said...

HAHAHA! Asma and Abu Afak were inciting violence? Muhammad was going around killing people and when people were speaking up against his violent behaviour THEY were inciting violence?

Dk said...

1ST REBUTTALS clip isn't working

David Wood said...

Must have been something temporary. It worked when I just clicked on it.

Martyr Maker said...

I find it funny that muslism cary around there wife beating sticks in there cars. Hey you never know when you have to reach back and slap your tilth.

Nakdimon said...

I though of addressing Sami’s first rebuttal.

#11: Sami, in his first rebuttal, claims that the poets Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan were killed legitimately because they were instigators of violence against Muhammad. Nothing is further from the truth! These poets wrote poems as a REACTION to Muhammads violent and abusive behavior. This kind of behavior never happened in Medina before. Muhammad was being a nuisance to the societies. And when these people speak up, THEY are the instigators of violence? Muhammad goes around killing people and when two brave people finally say something about it, THEY instigate violence and THEY break treaties? I would like to ask Sami to prove his case: How did they instigate violence against Muhammad? What is the source for this claim? What was the cause of this “instigation”?

This is typical Islamic thinking: We can do whatever we want to the kafir, because we are muslims and they are just kafirun. But if a kafir does something similar to us, it is unacceptable and we will fight jihad.

#12: Sami claims that David’s argument on Muhammad being able to preach in Mecca for 13 years and making it out alive, thus showing Meccan tolerance, is faulty because David leaves out the fact that Muhammad was protected by powerful family members. Although he was protected by his uncle Abu Talib, Muhammad never suffered severe persecution after Abu Talib died. The worst thing reported by Tabari was that someone poured dust on Muhammad’s head after Abu Talib died. If this is the worst “aggression” that Muhammad underwent after personally promising to bring the Quraish slaughter, then what is the severe persecution of Muhammad that Muslims are talking about? The point of the matter was that Muhammad was being a menace to Meccan society and the Quraish, after addressing Muhammad and all his family members about this numerous times, felt that enough was enough and starting to take their own measures.

By the way, talk about heroism! When Muhammad went out of control after Abu Talib’s death, the Quraish sought to ambush him and kill him. But when Muhammad found out that they wanted to attack him in his sleep, Muhammad took drastic measures: Muhammad told his adoptive son Ali to put on Muhammad’s pajamas and sleep in Muhammad’s bed saying that no harm would be done to him. Although Ali wasn’t hurt, Muhammad used his “son” as stooge, to pretend as if he was the one in the bed should the Quraish move in for the kill. A hero he was not!

#13: Then Sami tries to make the case that David’s argument about raiding caravans had nothing to do with stealing or terrorism, but everything to do with reclaiming what was stolen from the Muslims in Mecca. Again, although there was some Muslim property lost in Mecca that fell into the hands of the Meccans, this argument of Sami is an absolute lie! The raids weren’t to reclaim lost Muslim property, but to steal Meccan livelihood. As proof I always put the ball in Muslim court: What was the livelihood of the first Muslims? What did they live off? What did they build to sell? What did they sow to harvest?

The answer to this question is NOTHING! The first Muslims, and the generations after, lived of raids! To show that raiding the Meccan caravans had NOTHING to do with regaining stolen Muslim property, here is Islam’s earliest source on it’s formation about why the battle of Badr even occurred:

Ishaq:289 "Muhammad summoned the Muslims and said, 'This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out and attack it. Perhaps Allah will give it to us as prey."

I don’t know if you noticed, but Sami’s own prophet says that this was the Quraish caravan containing THEIR property. And there was nothing defensive about it either, for the words “go out and attack it” tell us beyond any shadow of a doubt that Muslims were the attackers and thus the aggressors. The Quraish fought a defensive battle and NOT the Muslims. And the first successful raid that the Muslims launched at Nakhlah had nothing to do with regaining lost Muslim property either, since Muhammad was given one fifth of the goods, which was conform the division of war BOOTY they stole on every raid:

Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:287 "Abd Allah told his Companions, 'A fifth of the booty we have taken belongs to the Apostle.' This was before Allah made surrendering a fifth of the booty taken a requirement."

Thus, this had nothing to do with regaining property, but everything to do with stealing other people’s property.

#14: Then Sami tries to justify the killing of the apostates by Muhammad, claiming that they were spies. David does a nice job refuting this obvious display of taqiyah, pointing to the text leaving no room for any such interpretation. But I would like to challenge Sami to support his claim with some sources. There are several instances that say the exact opposite of Sami’s claim:

Muslim:C9B1N29 "When the Messenger breathed his last and Bakr was appointed Caliph, many Arabs chose to become apostates. Umar said: 'Why would you fight against these people? Bakr replied: 'I would definitely fight against anyone who stopped paying the Zakat, for it is an obligation. I would fight against them even to secure the cord used for hobbling the feet of a camel which they used to pay if they withheld it now.' Umar remarked: 'Allah had opened the heart of Bakr for understanding the justification of fighting against those who refused to pay Zakat.'" (also see Bukhari:V9B84N59)

Tabari VIII:178/Ishaq:550 "Muhammad ordered that certain men should be assassinated even if they were found behind the curtains of the Ka'aba. Among them was Abdallah bin Sa'd [the Qur'an's first scribe]. The reason that Allah's Messenger ordered that he should be slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur'an Revelation. Then he apostatized, reverted to being a polytheist, and returned to Mecca."

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "Ali burnt some people to death and this news reached Abbas, who said, 'Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish anybody with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"

What “spies” are targeted here, Sami? It is obvious that anyone leaving Islam is to be fought against until they either come back to Islam or slaughtered. These aren’t anti-Islamic sources saying this, these are your own sources saying this. You are at odds with your own sources! Can somebody say “taqiyah”?

#15: Then Sami claims that quoting Ibn Kathir is of no relevance at all if we want to know the truth about Surah 9:29. He argues for the earliest source, which Ibn Kathir is not. But that is fascinating. We can’t quote Ibn Ishaq because he says things about Muhammad that Sami doesn’t like, although Ishaq comes more than a full century before Buhkari and Muslims ahadith. Now we go to Kathir and he claims that we have to go to the earliest sources. Can you make up your mind? In any event, for centuries Ibn Ishaq and Tabari have been accepted as authorized Islamic sources. Now they get translated and distributed and show how despicable the first Muslims behaved and leave no room for any re-interpretation of facts, they get discredited by the very people they sought to serve, being pious Muslims themselves.

#16: The Diplomats: Muslims going to Byzantine empire and get killed. Sami uses this excuse for Muslim aggression towards the Byzantine Christians. David, again, does a great job in refuting this position of Sami, as he points out that Sami conveniently forgets to mention that the Muslim “diplomats” went to the Byzantines territory with the message “accept Islam and you will be safe”. Meaning: if you decline, you are not. So that is allowed, but when a non-muslim does this to a Muslim, then there is outrage in the Muslim Ummah. I have said it before and I’ll say it again: This is how Muslims think. You can’t treat them the way they treat you. Sami goes past the threat made by the Muslims (if it were the other way around he would accuse the Byzantines of “inciting violence”) and focuses on the killing of the Muslims. Just as in his opening statement, where he accused Robert Spencer of abusing the word “jihad”. But he totally ignores the fact that the only reason why people such as Robert Spencer use the word Jihad as they do, is because Muslims use it that way. Had Muslims not used Jihad as an excuse for blowing up infidels on their way to their virgins, people such as Robert Spencer wouldn’t have used the word Jihad as he does it now. So, again, Sami accuses non-Muslims for something Muslims started.

Here is an analogy of my own: If a delegate of a non-Muslim country goes to a Muslim country and starts threatening the leader of the country by saying “renounce Islam and you will be safe” and the Muslim leader would have the delegate killed, Sami would agree with the fate of the delegate. Sami would go out of his way to defend the Muslim leader’s decision. This is evident by his behavior surrounding the Undercover Mosque video.

In other words: The Muslims had no reason whatsoever to attack the Byzantines. Thus they were the ones choosing the violent solution over a peaceful co-existence and were therefore the ones instigating the violence. Since Sami claims otherwise, then the challenge is issued again: What source is he referring to? What hadith gave him the idea that the Byzantines attacked the Muslims at Tabuq and not the other way around?

#17: Martyrdom. According to Sami, the martyrs only want to come back and be killed again to fight oppression. This is, again, an untenable position.

Nakhlah was offensive, a robbery of a caravan. Muslims attacked:
Ishaq:287 "The Prophet has forbidden me to compel you, so whoever desires martyrdom, let him come with me. If not, retreat. I am going to carry out the Prophet's orders.'"

Badr was offensive, another robbery of a caravan. Muslims attacked again:
Tabari VII:52/Ishaq:299 Ubaydah and Utbah each inflicted a blow upon his adversary. Hamzah and Ali then turned on Utbah with their swords and finished him off. They lifted up their companion Ubaydah to safety. His foot had been cut off and the marrow was flowing out. When they brought him to Muhammad, Ubaydah said, 'Am I not a martyr, O Messenger of Allah.' 'Yes indeed.' the Prophet replied."

This hadith from Bukhari tells us that Muhammad fought people, not because of oppression, but because they didn’t worship Allah and were forced to pay the Jizyah. In addition, whoever is killed fighting to subjugate non-Muslims dies as a martyr. There is no fighting against oppression but fighting for oppression: Bukhari:V4B53N386 "Our Prophet ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay us the Jizyah tax in submission. Our Prophet informed us that our Lord says: 'Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead a luxurious life, and whoever survives shall become your master.'

As so many raids Muhammad led his comrades in, the battle at Khaybar was offensive too. Here we see, again, that Muslims who died in this battle, were martyrs! This is how Muhammad got people to fight: the promise of Paradise. Martyrdom is the only guarantee a Muslim has to make it into Paradise.
Ishaq:518 "Masud was one of those who found martyrdom at Khaybar. Muhammad said, 'He has with him now his two dark-eyed virgins. When a martyr is slain, his two virgins pet him, wiping the dust from his face. They say, "May Allah throw dust on the face of the man who did this to you, and slay him who slew you!"

We could go on, but It should be clear by now that David’s reading is correct and that Sami’s reading is false. Martyrdom does NOT flow from defensive battles against oppression. It is death in any battle that is claimed to be “for Allah” or “for Islam”.

#18: Then Sami says something fascinating: The conflict between Ali and Aisha was “something normal”. Something normal? Although we think it’s something normal today, when we see Muslims blowing each other up almost every day, we are talking about the first Muslims here. These are the best as Muslims can get. And yet, these people were slaughtering each other for power. Sami totally misses the point, by the way, as David correctly pointed out, this was another dispute that was settled by violence! Where Yeshua takes care of that problem by telling His disciples that the greatest of them is the one who serves, Muhammad never took such measures and left his Ummah to fight it out themselves. As soon as he was dead the Muslims started appointing their own leaders. There was almost a fight broken out between those of Abu Bakr and Ali. These first Muslims, especially the “rightly guided Caliph” Ali, should have known better HAD ISLAM REALLY BEEN A RELIGION OF PEACE, i.e. one that pursued peace. But this is another episode that is a nail in Islam’s peaceful coffin: Fight to get things your way is the standard, not the exception.

It should be very clear. Sami misuses his own sources and claims that David is reading them wrong. Sami STOP DEBATING! If you have to discredit your own sources to have your prophet look good, then what’s the point of defending them?


Elisha Kai said...

Hi David

I am informed of a Christian-muslim debate that will take place in Birmingham UK in october.
Is there any chance this debate could be advertised here. And if you approve of it how do we send you the details.

Elisha Kai said...

Hi Guys I don't know how I can get to David by email

But this is further information which I have received about the debate that will take place in UK Birmingham, it will take place on the sixth October somewhere in the city centre, the topic is 'The Bible or the Qur'an which is the Word of God'

David Wood said...


Who's debating?

Elisha Kai said...

So far as I know a Christian by the name Hogan Hagbard or something and a local muslim by the name of Ayaz

Elisha Kai said...

As far as I know the debate will be recorded, so it should be available after the debate

Nakdimon said...

Sami’s second rebuttal:

#19: Jihad. Sami claims that jihad doesn’t have to mean physical fighting, it can also mean spiritual fighting. Sami, the overwhelming majority of references to jihad are physical and NOT spiritual. Jihad in the Qur’an and Hadith is ALWAYS physical:

Bukhari:V4B52N44 "A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed.' Then he added, 'Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battlefield enter your mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever.' The man said, 'But who can do that?'"

So according to Bukhari Islam is better than performing prayers and fasting forever without ceasing. So, in other words, PHYSICAL JIHAD IS SUPERIOR TO SPIRITUAL JIHAD.

On page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam's publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari : "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite."

Full force and weaponry, huh? Definitely sounds like spiritual fighting to me! Who was abusing and misusing the word jihad again?

Bukhari:V4B52N85 "Allah's Apostle dictated the Divine Verse: 'Not equal are those believers who sit at home and those who strive hard, fighting in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives.' [Qur'an 4:95] Zaid said, 'Maktum came to the Prophet while he was reciting that verse. "O Allah's Apostle! If I had power, I would take part in Jihad." He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Apostle while his thigh was on mine. [That's not a pleasant picture.] It became so heavy I feared he would break my leg before Allah revealed: 'Except those who are disabled by injury or are blind or lame.'"

Blind and people are able to commit Jihad HAD IT BEEN SPIRITUAL FIGHTING. But it is clear that Allah doesn’t mean spiritual fighting when he mentions Jihad. The blind and lame would only need exemption of jihad if it regards PHYSICAL FIGHTING. Sami, this is another case of taqiyah. Who are you trying to fool?

Bukhari:V4B53N412 "Allah's Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, 'There is no migration now, only Jihad, holy battle. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once.'"

There is no need to explain that this means only one thing.

#20: Sami then claims that no one was forced to accept Islam. Sami is really getting himself in trouble here. David quoted Abu Bakr as a witness and then Sami jumps up and says “but over here Abu Bakr says this”. So what! Abu Bakr fought Arabs who rejected Islam for the zakat, thus forcing them back to Islam. Then Sami gives us the conquest of Mecca as proof of his claim, that no one was killed. However, I don’t think Sami realizes how bad this example works for Islam. We have Muhammad being rejected for a good 20 years by Mecca and one day he comes marching against them when they least expect it, breaking the peace treaty he made with Mecca, and all of a sudden all of Mecca accept Islam collectively? Excuse me, but this has all the traits of forced submission. People were forced to swear allegiance to Muhammad or else they would suffer the consequences. Since Sami challenged David to provide proof for forced conversion, here is the proof:

Tabari VIII:173/Ishaq:547 "Alas, Sufyan, isn't it time for you to admit that I am the Messenger of Allah?' Sufyan replied, 'As to that I have some doubt.'" [Abbas said] "'Woe to you! Submit and recite the testimony that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah before your head is cut off!'"

The leader of the Meccans had 2 options: Testify or die. If this isn’t forcing someone to submit to Islam, then I ask Sami what forcing someone actually is. And to show that Islam was forced on the people of Mecca and that they were slaughtered if they resisted:

Muslim: B19N4395 "I said: 'Should I tell you a Hadith from your Traditions.' He gave an account of the Conquest of Mecca, saying: 'Muhammad (may peace be upon him) advanced until he reached Mecca. He assigned Zubayr to his right flank and Khalid to his left. Then he dispatched Ubaida with the force that had no armor. They advanced to the interior. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) was in the midst of a large contingent of his fighters. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: 'You see the ruffians and the lowly followers of the Quraysh.' He indicated by striking one of his hands over the other that they should be killed. So we went off on his orders and if anyone wanted a person killed; he was slain. No one could offer any resistance. Then Abu Sufyan said: Messenger, the blood of the Quraysh has become very cheap. The Prophet said: 'Kill all who stand in your way.'"

#21 The Banu Qaynuqa. Sami starts to give us the background surrounding the Banu Qaynuqa. He goes out of his way to vindicate the Muslims behavior and blame the Jews. Because a woman got naked by accident a Muslim jumps up and kills the Jew. Sami says that killing the Jew was a crime since they had a treaty with the Jew. Well, if that is the case, then using Muslim standards, the Muslims broke the treaty. But not this time, since that would put the Muslims in a disadvantage. So Sami declares that it’s just “a crime”. But he then goes on to explain that the Jews took matters in their own hands by attacking the Muslim that killed the Jew, i.e. they were out of order. According to Sami, the Jews should have taken the Muslim to Muhammad instead. But since they didn’t, the other Muslims were justified to attack the Jews for taking matters in their own hands. Now look at the hypocrisy here. The Muslims had every right to attack the Jews and expel them because the Jews took matters into their own hands. Yet the Muslims drew first blood! Why didn’t the Muslim bring the Jew to Muhammad instead of taking matters into HIS own hands? So the Muslim was allowed to kill the Jew and thus take matters into his own hands, but the Jews weren’t in their right to take matters into their own hands and kill the Muslim. Why not write the action of the Jews off as “a crime”. NO! Sami needs to make it bad enough so to blame the Jews and portray them as the instigators of the entire episode and make the Muslim the victim. But, again, that’s how Muslims think when it comes to their prophet and his companions: when the Muslim violated the treaty between them and the Jew, it was merely “a crime” and not “a violation of the treaty” nor was it equal to “inciting violence”. Yet for far less on this and on other occasions Muslims accuse others of breaking treaties and inciting violence all the time. See the pattern? Muslims are allowed to abuse infidels but non-Muslims have no similar right.

#22: The Banu Nadir: The Nadir conspired to kill Muhammad. And this, according to Sami, was a declaration of war. Again, where do we find this story? Did Sami forget the instance of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, the leader of the Banu Nadir? Muhammad had him assassinated for writing a poem as a response to the poems Muslim women against him! And now Muhammad has to pay blood money for a Muslim killing a man of another tribe with which he had a treaty and who does he go to, to loan the money? The BANU NADIR! So he first kills their chief and then begs them for their money. Of course Muhammad was looking for an excuse to expel the Banu Nadir and so he did. He came up with the lame excuse that the Banu Nadir were trying to kill him secretly. The Banu Nadir were farmers who had all the agricultural equipment and sharp tools to attack Muhammad when he was in the midst of the Jews, being only with Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali. The Muslims wouldn’t have stood a chance, yet the Muslim sources want us to believe that the Banu Nadir were concocting a plan to kill Muhammad with a stone? In any event, it was Muhammad and his companions who first broke the treaty with the Nadir Jews by murdering their chief, yet the story is man-handled by Sami to make the Nadir Jews look as the perpetrators and instigators in this affair: The Banu Nadir allegedly made a “declaration of war” by conspiring to kill Muhammad (with a stone??? When there were sharp tools of agriculture at their disposal and totally outnumbered the Muslims), yet it was the Muslims who used conniving tactics in order to murder their chief to begin with. But THAT is irrelevant, lest this makes Muhammad a perpetrator and instigator when he is supposed to be this peace loving guy. Had it not been for Abdullah bin Ubay the Nadir Jews would have been slaughtered on the spot. But, alas, Muhammad would eventually get his way with the Nadir Jews at Khaybar.

#23: The Banu Quraizah: This is one of the most troubling events in Islam’s history. Again, they are accused of breaking a treaty. However, they had witnessed how Muhammad got out of his way to be able to exterminate the other two major Jewish tribes by accusing and condemning them of what he and his companions were most guilty of: breaking treaties. As David correctly pointed out, they figured out that they were next in line. Of course, no one has to be a rocket scientist to do the math there: Muhammad declared war on the treaties he had made with the other Jewish tribes, so he wasn’t to be trusted any longer. So the Quraizah sided with Mecca in the Battle of the Trench. The development of this story is so incredibly filled with errors in the attempt to convict the Quraizah of breaking the treaty, one might wonder if it even occurred. Just to name one: If the trench was so impenetrable that neither the Quraizah nor the Quraish could make it to the Muslims, then how in the world could Nu’aym make it to the Quraizah, then to the Quraish and then back to the Muslims? Furthermore, how could the Quraizah get to the Quraish to have the conversation that led to their break up? (Ishaq 458-459; Tabari VII:23)
But in any event, Muhammad had all the men murdered. And then he claims that the judgment was according to Deuteronomy 21, where it says that “if a town wages war against you, strike the men with the edge of the sword. However the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you.”
There is simply no comparison here. Contrary to Muhammad, Moses had demonstrated beyond any doubt that he acted on behalf of Yahweh. Freeing an entire nation from the tyranny and slavery of the most powerful nation in the world and totally bringing it to it’s knees without even lifting up a single weapon, establishes the fact that Moses spoke and acted on behalf of the Most High. Although Sami often brings up the miracles allegedly performed by Muhammad, there are a few reasons why Sami’s arguments fall extremely short:

1: Muhammad, according to the earliest sources in Islam, never performed any miracles. Sami’s claims of miraculous deeds of his prophet come solely from the later Hadith collections. However, the Qur’an doesn’t allow Muhammad to have miracles since the Qur’an says that Muhammad would only get the miracle of the Qur’an from Allah. Hence, Muhammad could have never committed these miracles that the ahadith attributed to him, because Allah says the exact opposite. So these so-called miracles are embellishments from centuries after Muhammad.

2: Since we have already established that Moses’ message was the truth from Yahweh, Muhammad couldn’t have delivered any message from Yahweh, since he contradicts Moses on most every page of his revelation. If both claim to have been sent by the same Sender and Moses tells a true story and Muhammad comes along and contradicts Moses, they can’t be speaking on behalf of the same Sender. And thus Moses is true and Muhammad not. So whatever Muhammad said or did was not on behalf of God and therefore Muhammad’s butchery against the people of Moses was perpetrated on his own accord.

3: Speaking of the judgment of God in Deuteronomy, Islam’s own sources say that Muhammad was a false prophet by the very criteria that the Torah conveys. Namely, in Deuteronomy 18:20 says that a prophet that claims to speak on behalf of Yahweh and utters what God has not told him to utter, that man should die! Muhammad did just that in the Satanic verses episode. Muhammad claimed to speak the words of God and then confessed to have spoken the words of Satan. This perfectly meets the criterion on Deut 18:20 and instantly disqualifies him as a prophet of the God of Avraham, Yitzchaq and Ya’aqov. It is plain and simple.

Furthermore, Sami often claims that the Bible promotes terrorism and pornography and all kinds of nonsense, but Sami also claims that Allah is the same as Yahweh. (which is as nonsensical as saying that Sami is David, by the way) IF these are the same, then Allah promotes terrorism and pornography. This is exactly how Muslims like Sami reason to attribute violence to Yeshua as “the God of the Old Testament. So why then claim that Islam is a religion of peace when the god that introduced this religion promotes terrorism and pornography? Is this even a fair assessment? If not then why do Muslims use this line of reasoning when they try desperately to make Yeshua look violent? And saying that the Bible is corrupted and therefore these things aren’t relevant, since they aren’t authentic therefore the source can’t be a true revelation from Allah. But if that is the case, then why does he refer to Deuteronomy 21, which according to him and his website is an endorsement of terrorism, to vindicate his prophet? So what Sami has to do to save face is be inconsistent and cherry-pick the verses from the Bible. So, yes Sami, there is always a historical context for everything and in this case it is, yet again, obvious: If Muhammad was a prophet, then so was Al Capone!

#24: I really hesitate to get into the wife beating. This is such an obvious subject. David leaves nothing to the imagination to show how Islam allows beating of the wife. To even claim that the beating is not a bad thing is preposterous beyond belief. How can anyone claim that beating someone until the skin changes color doesn’t hurt is simply lying through his teeth. Can you imagine how Sami would attack this if this was to be found in the New Testament? Speaking of the New Testament, I would like to school Sami about the subject of husband and wife as recorded in Messianic sources:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church: (Ephes 5:25-29)

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

Here we see, that, according to the New Testament, mistreating your wife (i.e. beating her) hinders your prayers. Yet Allah insists on the beating of the wife by the husband. To even claim that the Islamic standards, whether that of the Qur’an or the Hadith, are loftier than those of the New Testament makes one really wonder what sources one is reading.

Again, SAMI STOP DEBATING! Your arguments are inconsistent, unconvincing, contradictory to your own scholars and sources and , therefore, WEAK! I have challenged you to a polemical debate, set with a format since I believe that in an audio debate one can throw things out and get away with them because of time limitations of the opponent. However, in a written debate, you can be challenged thoroughly, without time limitation and claims can thoroughly be studied out and proven false. Yet you want none of it. You want to make claims without being called to account for them.


shafsha said...

Sami Dont lie, you really look bad if you do so, I know lying is allowed in islam but respect the audience. Snce I know arabic, I would like to say that (Darab ضرب) never meany hate. Ask any one who knows arbic he will tell you it means srike or beat, and never been used in anyway as hate.

Also if Ibn Abass said to beat them with a small stick then first it mean beat or strike and not hate. Second, does it make any sense that if you broke up with a friends and then someone advised you saying go beat him, would anyone on earth think that this means beat with a small stick and please be gentle!!! why didnt he say blame them better ?!

If the prophet wanted to say gently what prevented him to say so!!

You are mutilating your own text, and accuse non-muslims of interpreting the verse out of context ?! are u serious ?!

shafsha said...

You said hey were not just poets ...ok ... did they raise their sowrd against him ?!! or against any other one ??

dont you have the verse eye for an eye ?! then he should replied with poet and not killing.. if u applied this rule, then the quran said bad things against everone specially christians jews and pagans, then do u want all of them to kill muslims ?!!

This proves that islam was so weak and not from God, that islam feard people sayings, as u said it will cause fitna !! does a religion from god, will get affected by a poet ?!!

As Dr Wood said, would you allow any christian or non muslim to preach against islam in Mecca ?!!

u will say no, then why you give this right to yourself, and muslim goes to christian countries say quran is a truth, and Jesus is a lie ?!! wont u afraid u get killed by saying poetry (quran) against christians !!!

shafsha said...

On what basis you select from you muslim sources ??!! is this like a supermarket , u have all kind of things in your books!!!, if u want violence go to ibn katheer, peace go to ibn abas, sex go to Aisha ...and so on !!!

now u said Ibn Katheer wrong , why ? on what basis ?! cause i doesnt fit your own interpretation ??!! well we dont want your interpretations, we need to are seeking the truth of islam

shafsha said...

LOL .. Believer women are in the worst positions ... that hadith is very truthful

I dont know why Sami, said that doesn what she mean ?!! can u look around yourself ?!!

ok let me tell u:
Married at 9 or even before puberty , with no will.

Age difference has no limit, e.g about 40 years in case of aish ... and so she became a young widow

Veiled, why men not ?!!

polygams, why women not ?!

they have half the mentality and religion of man ?!!

I dont know what Allah promised them in paradise. Men will have 70 virgins, what about muslims women , will they have 70 men ... that woud exceed prozies mans

inheritence ... u will say cause she has man, what about if she is not married , still very young, or divorced or even widowed ?!!!

a man can beat his wife, why women not beat their husbands ?!!

etc etc

so after this u say aisha didnt mean it ?!! do u think any muslim women would praise her situation ??

shafsha said...

u say a war between musims in the very early generation is Normal !!! WOW !! that really shows that islam was very succeful teaching its folowers !!! they had a good lesson !!! is this how they defend their Allah !!!

Allah is reall happy with you guys, specially eeryone of the opponent teams thinks that he is doing what allah want!! and how they did know .... Muhammed lessons

shafsha said...

sami you are very funny ..saying in 24 years only 4 poets were killed for their poetry, is this against islam ?!!

u think muhammed should have killed all poets first to be judged.

it is like saying well I havent robbed all the money in the bank, i only stole 100,000 $$ .. do u think the bank is affected, or is that a robbery !!!

is that how u judge cases, by quantity !!! THIS IS KILLING ... so if u killed one person durina 50 years of life, u r not a killer ???????????

shafsha said...

Sami u said : only against oppresed

but the Quran and hadith are crystal clear, saying non believer, and saying till they recite the witnesss (shehada)

where can we find the word (oppressed) in , other than your speech ????????? specially if the commentary is perfectly consistent with direct meaning of he verse !!!

shafsha said...

Sami ...

if another muslim said no , prophet muhammed didnt mean this when he said that, or when the quran said this he meant something else, who proves who is wrong and who is right ?!!
you ? or commentaries ?!

leenajava said...

David Wood,

God Bless you and brother Sam for the great work You are doing.

I am a christian from Pakistan and I would request you to have a debate arranged with Dr Zakir Naik in any way.

God Bless.

Rosey said...

It is hard debating people whose "religion" rationalizes lying. But David Wood does a wonderful job, on the same level as Robert Spencer, in quoting from Islam itself and exposing/establishing/educating the truth about Islam. Mr. Wood also evangelizes with boldness, kindness, and humor in presenting the comparison of Islam with Christianity. Wonderful job!

Pip said...

Al Taqiyya

Islamic Scholar Warns U.S. of 'Two-Faced' Muslims

A leader of the small worldwide Muslim reform movement is warning the West against wishful thinking as the U.S. government promotes an intensive dialogue with Islam. “The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other," Bassam Tibi said Tuesday in an interview with United Press International.

"First, both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them. The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to the entire world," explained Tibi, who is also a research scholar at Harvard University. "This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought, a concept developed by Immanuel Kant," an 18th-century philosopher.

"Similarly, when Muslims and the Western heirs of the Enlightenment speak of tolerance they have different things in mind. In Islamic terminology, this term implies abiding non-Islamic monotheists, such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, as second-class believers. They are 'dhimmi,' a protected but politically immature minority." According to Tibi, the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview. Only if this task is accomplished, if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam," will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace.

Imam Ghazali's authority in Islam is indisputable. He says:

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible " (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)