Friday, October 10, 2008

On the Inconsistency of Yahya Hayder Seymour

I’m a philosopher by trade, and I have a built-in Inconsistency Detector. As far as I can tell, Muslim apologists are the most inconsistent thinkers on the planet. For instance, in my debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, Sami Zaatari repeatedly told the audience that our next debate would reveal inconsistencies in my position. Yet, when we had our next debate, Sami was the one who was shown to be inconsistent! This problem seems to be universal in the world of Muslim apologetics. James White often notes in debates that he has been searching for years for a consistent Muslim, but to no avail. When James debated Shabir Ally on the inspiration of the New Testament, James challenged Shabir to come up with an argument against the New Testament that wouldn’t also refute the Qur’an. Shabir had nothing to offer.

Given this tremendous problem in the world of Islamic thought, it seemed good to me to start a section on Muslim inconsistencies. Muslims often see something they dislike in Christianity, and they proceed to complain about how awful it is. Then, of course, someone points out that the same thing can be found in Muslim sources. Why didn’t the Muslim notice the obvious?

Let’s consider a simple example. Recently, Yahya Hayder Seymour began complaining about “Christian missionaries” who feed people and, in the process, preach the Gospel to them. According to Yahya, it is deceptive to use such methods of evangelism. Here’s how he began:

“ . . . I'm beginning to realise that Christians do spread the bible with rather deceptive methods, this man's job is to function as a soldier (despite the fact christians claim to be pacifist) and yet he feels the need to abuse vulnerable iraqis by offering them a different religion along with the aid they are bringing. Much like the ‘Rice Christians’ whom many Missionaries speak of when discussing evangelising the Muslim world.”

I pointed out to Yahya that Jesus, during His earthly ministry, met people’s physical needs (by feeding them and healing them) and preached the Gospel to them, and that Christians who feed people and preach to them are simply following Jesus’ example of caring for the whole person. I asked Yahya if he thought this was deceptive. He replied:

“I literally mean deceptive! If I attempt to proselytise a Christian who is going through a Nervous Breakdown, that is taking advantage of someone in a rather vulnerable situation. . . . It's really upto you David, produce "Rice Christians" if you will, but I think it's sickening to be honest.”

So we can see that, according to Yahya, it’s “deceptive” and “sickening” to take advantage of people by using worldly things to help people convert.

Ben Malik, who also seems to have a built-in Inconsistency Detector, immediately noticed the problem:

“Talking about rice Christians maybe Yahya can explain surah 9:60 where Muslims are told that part of their alms not only go to finance and fund terrorists but also to entice people to become Muslims. Perhaps he can further provide for us the historical application of this passage by his own prophet so we can see how Muhammad distributed more plunder and booty to the Meccans who had recently been forced to submit to his rule in order to bribe them into becoming or remaining Muslims.”

Now let’s look at the evidence. Here’s what Surah 9:60 says:

“Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.” (Shakir)

The part about alms being given for those “whose hearts are made to incline (to truth)” is the key. Consider Ibn Kathir’s commentary:

“There are several types of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum. There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam. For instance, the Prophet of Allah gave something to Safwan bin Umayyah from the war spoils of Hunayn, even though he attended it while a Mushrik. Safwan said, ‘He kept giving me until he became the dearest person to me after he had been the most hated person to me.’ Imam Ahmad recorded that Safwan bin Umayyah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah gave me (from the spoils of) Hunayn while he was the most hateful person to me. He kept giving me until he became the most beloved person to me.’ Muslim and At-Tirmidhi collected this Hadith, as well. Some of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum are given from alms so that they become better in Islam and their heart firmer in faith. For instance, the Prophet gave some of the chiefs of the Tulaqa' a hundred camels each after the battle of Hunayn, saying, ‘I give a man (from the alms) while another man is dearer to me than him, for fear that Allah might throw him on his face in the fire of Jahannam.’ It is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Sa`id said that ‘Ali sent the Messenger of Allah a gold nugget still in its dirt from Yemen. The Prophet divided it between four men: Al-Aqra` bin Habis, `Uyaynah bin Badr, `Alqamah bin `Ulathah and Zayd Al-Khayr, saying, “To draw their hearts closer.”’” (Ibn Kathir, Volume 4)

Just to reinforce Ibn Kathir, here’s a passage from Sahih Muslim:

“Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave one hundred camels to Safwan b. Umayya. He again gave him one hundred camels, and then again gave him one hundred camels. Sa'id b. Musayyib said that Safwan told him: (By Allah) Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave me what he gave me (and my state of mind at that time was) that he was the most detested person amongst people in my eyes. But he continued giving to me until now he is the dearest of people to me.” (Sahih Muslim 5730)

And here’s another passage from Sahih Muslim:

“Abdullah b. Zaid reported that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) conquered Hunain he distributed the booty, and he bestowed upon those whose hearts it was intended to win. . . .” (2313)

And here’s a passage from al-Bukhari:

“Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, ‘I give to Quraish people in order to let them adhere to Islam, for they are near to their life of Ignorance (i.e. they have newly embraced Islam and it is still not strong in their hearts.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4:374)

And another from al-Bukhari:

“Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed it among four persons: Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi, 'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta'i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Nahban, and 'Alqama bin Ulatha Al-'Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, ‘He (i.e. the Prophet) gives the chief of Najd and does not give us.’ The Prophet said, ‘I give them so as to attract their hearts (to Islam).’” (4:558)

And here’s what we find in Ibn Ishaq:

“The apostle told [the Muslim deputation] to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. On hearing this Malik came out from al-Taif. . . . He came out by night, mounted his horse, and rode hard until he got to the place where his camel was tethered, and rode off to join the apostle, overtaking him in al-Jirana or Mecca. [Muhammad] gave him back his family and property and gave him a hundred camels. He became an excellent Muslim . . . ” (Ibn Ishaq, p. 593).

And Muhammad also asked Muslims in Ibn Ishaq:

“Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam? Are you not satisfied that men should take away flocks and herds while you take back with you the apostle of God?” (p. 597)

Putting all of this together isn’t very difficult. Here’s the syllogism:

Premise One: It’s “deceptive” and “sickening” to use the things of this world to win people’s hearts.

Premise Two: Muhammad, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira literature, and the commentaries declare that Muslims are to use the things of this world to win people’s hearts.

Conclusion: Muhammad, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira literature, and the commentaries are deceptive and sickening.

That’s not my argument. It’s Yahya’s. I should note that this was not the method of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus strongly criticized people who believed in Him simply because He was meeting their physical needs. In John 6:26, Jesus tells some of the people who were following Him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” He then proceeds to criticize them for not seeking what was most important: the Bread of Life. Sadly, in John 6:66 we read: “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.” Like Yahya, these people abandoned Jesus to seek someone more to their liking. Interestingly enough, Yahya went to Muhammad, and now he condemns the methods of his favorite prophet.

43 comments:

Bfoali said...

I will leave Yahya, to address your article ,
but please correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that Yahya is a shia muslim, so I dont see the point in speaking about Bukahir and sahih muslim as evidence to show the inconsistency of yahya.
Granted I just scrolled up and down the blog, so maybe you were addressing somebody else after speaking about yahya.

Anders said...

Hello!
I read your post and if you want people to follow the Torah-teachings of Ribi Yehoshua; you should now that the NT is redacted.

There is only one way to follow the historial Jesus.

A quote from James H. Charlesworth – The historical Jesus:
“[Ribi Yehoshuas] devout Jewishness. [Ribi Yehoshua] was a very devout Jew. [p.48] (..) [Ribi Yehoshuas] devotion to Torah and Judaism is evident also in his actions. During his last week alive, [Ribi Yehoshua] was in Jerusalem. Why? Ha had ascended to the Holy City to celebrate Passover, as required by Torah. During this week, [Ribi Yehoshua] taught in the Temple and, quoting the revered prophet Isaiah, called the Temple “a house of prayer” (..) Thus, [Ribi Yehoshua] should not be imagined as the first Christian. He was a very devout Jew who observed Torah (the Law [Instruction is the correct translation] recorded in the Bible). Perhaps, as previously mentioned, he was so devout that he wore the religious garment of a conservative Jew, the sitsit [ציצית ; tzitzit], which pours outside the outer garment with fringes (..) “
The commentars in brackets are mine.

James H. Charlesworth is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and Editor and Director of the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls project.

The way is to live as him.. That is by practising Torah non-selectively!

Ribi Yehoshua said:

"Don't think that I came to uproot the Torah or the Neviim [prophets], but rather I came to reconcile them with the Oral Law of emet (truth). Should the heavens and ha-aretz (the land, particularly referring to Israel) exchange places, still, not even one ' (yod) nor one ` (qeren) of the Oral Law of Mosheh shall so much as exchange places; until it shall become that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torah, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called "deleted." Both he who preserves and he who teaches them shall be called Ribi in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your Tzedaqah (righteousness) is over and above that of the Sophrim (Torah Scribes), and of the [probably 'Herodian'] Rabbinic-Perushim (corrupted to "Pharisees"), there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens! “

Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu 5:17-20.

and

“Take heed against false Neviim who come to you in wool like sheep, but inside they are wolves who extort. You shall recognize them by their works. Do men pick grapes from a stinging-nettle? Or figs from a thistle? So, every green tree is unable to produce evil fruit, and a dried-up tree is unable to produce good fruit."”

For words that you don’t understand; se www.netzarim.co.il ; the link to Glossaries at the first page.

From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Wood,

Please use these references in our debate =)

As for me being inconsistent, well I don't hold the notion that those whose hearts need to be reconciled (to give Ben Malik's golden verse) as being the poor, down trodden nor those in a state which cannot allow psychological stability, hence why the ayah explains itself with giving the other criteria as to whom the zakat maybe given to.

In fact, I was once given Zakat when I was travelling and no one gave me any dawah material what so ever.

Secondly Wood, you've just used a Strawman, my problem wasn't with the aid giving and a little propagation on the side of that, my problem was the state of the people whom many christians seem to proselytise to, and I did highlight that, I never once left it ambiguous.

and All Praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds, again the mistakes can be only mine, may his peace and blessings be upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

I guess I'm still pondering over what you may have intended to achieve with this post David, you know as well as I do that I will never accept these sources as Daleel, you yourself wrote to me in an email that Shi'as will hardly accept the Qur'anic Exegesis of Ibn Kathir to be any form of guidance or a paradigm for us. So whom are you are actually trying to win over here?

I think we need to establish a degree of intellectual sincerity when it comes to debates, I am open to being wrong and falling to human errors such as occasionally being inconsistent in my actions, you Mr. Wood seem to think you are infallible. However it only occurred to me just now the real funny thing here.

The real funny thing here is, your a Philosopher by profession yet you've made a key logical slip, you've established this post based on a false premise, because my moral objection was based upon the vulnerability and mental state of the ones being proselytised.

So naturally you will derive a very nice conclusion for yourself when you fail to take into account the actual first premise.

I firmly believe that you wrote this post due to being bitter about something I wrote in an email to you (God only knows what), however if you can stand before God and say that you didn't and this wasn't written in a moment of mental frustration then fair enough, I'm not the judge, you yourself know the truth.

However please, when arguing against me at least accurately represent my objections, use sound logic and finally be intellectually sincere, because this isn't a Battle for intellectual supremacy, Religious Apologetics should be a battle for hearts and minds.

David Wood said...

bfoali,

Yahya has some degree of respect for Sunni sources. I quoted a number of them to show how widespread the Muslim tactic was. We find it in the Qur'an, which not even a Shia can deny (provided he doesn't attribute the doctrine to the deception of Uthman). We find the tactic in Ibn Ishaq (who, by the way, favored Ali in the leadership split), our earliest biographical source on the life of Muhammad. We find it in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, Sunni Islam's most trusted collections of ahadith (and which, again, Yahya has some degree of respect for). And we find it in Ibn Kathir, Sunni Islam's greatest commentator. Yahya can say he doesn't like Ibn Kathir, but he can't deny the fact that Ibn Kathir was basing his views on the earliest Muslim materials. Given the facts, I don't think Yahya will deny that this was Muhammad's method. Hence, I think that the best thing Yahya can say here would be something like this: "In my desire to attack Christianity, I was sloppy and I attacked it without thinking clearly. If I were consistent, I would have to say that the practice of Muhammad in the earliest Muslim sources was 'deceptive' and 'sickening.' But I don't want to condemn Muhammad, so I take back my desperate attack, which applies to Islam far more than it applies to Christians."

David Wood said...

Yahya,

I expect better from you. You're trying to pull a Sami Zaatari move.

You attacked Christians for producing "rice Christians," i.e. people who come to Christ simply because the people feeding them are Christians. Their minds, you say, are vulnerable because of their desire for food. But this is exactly what we find in the Muslim sources.

Muhammad had Malik's family held hostage. "Come to Islam, and I will return your family. On top of this, I will give you 100 camels." Are you saying that Malik wasn't in a vulnerable state of mind?

Don't forget, Yahya, that the entire purpose of Muhammad giving people the gifts was because their minds were vulnerable to greed. Muhammad gave them what they wanted. He fed their desires for worldly wealth, all in an effort to convert them to Islam. Just as hungry people are vulnerable to offers of food, so also greedy people are vulnerable to offers of worldly possessions (gained through robbery and war).

So you have three options, my friend. (1) You can be consistent and say that both Muhammad and certain Christian missionaries are deceptive and sickening. (2) You can change your mind and take back your criticism. (3) You can reinterpret the Qur'an, and say that Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Muslim, Sahih al-Bukhari, and Ibn Kathir didn't know what they were talking about and that all of these (many) narratives were forged.

Take your pick. But again, I expect something better than what you've given.

Now for some side notes.

(a) No, I'm not infallible. I make mistakes all the time. But I'm usually pretty darn consistent. My mistakes are usually factual errors.

(b) You say that I wrote this because I was bitter. Well, I had been planning to write it ever since I saw the inconsistency. But in your emails, you're constantly attacking the shallowness of Christian thought. My friend, you have to learn that you're young, and that you don't know enough to make such sweeping generalizations. This is another area in which you're like Sami Zaatari. Muslim apologetics is becoming a world of people in their early 20's who think they know more than the greatest scholars in history (whether Christian or Muslim). You and Sami must learn some humility. I'm happy to teach you.

(c) What do you mean that I should bring up these passages in our debate? Our debate on Jesus??? Are you saying I should go into Muhammad's conversion tactics in a debate on Jesus? I'm not sure I see the relevance. But perhaps it's just my shallow Christian thinking.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

"bfoali,

Yahya has some degree of respect for Sunni sources."


Very very little respect, however yes I admire certain guys from amongst their scholars, I admire the humility of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the decency of an Nisai when he was approached on crucial issues, however I don't respect the integrity or the content of their sources to be honest.

"I quoted a number of them to show how widespread the Muslim tactic was. We find it in the Qur'an, which not even a Shia can deny (provided he doesn't attribute the doctrine to t
he deception of Uthman)."


You've quoted a passage of the Qur'an which itself is rather clear cut and doesn't even support what you have asserted, even if I was to assume the general context provided by Ibn Kathir, it goes against producing Rice Muslims, because the context alluded by Ibn Kathir is one of influencing intellectuals and those already rich. However I don't accept the context which Ibn Kathir believes is alluded to.

We find the tactic in Ibn Ishaq (who, by the way, favored Ali in the leadership split), our earliest biographical source on the life of Muhammad. We find it in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, Sunni Islam's most trusted collections of ahadith (and which, again, Yahya has some degree of respect for). And we find it in Ibn Kathir, Sunni Islam's greatest commentator.

Firstly Wood fails to realise that one being Pro-'Alid doesn't equate being on the Haqq, as was proven with Companions like Ibn Mas'oud who only nominally supported Ali with their pragmatism. Ibn Ishaq clearly is not what one would call a Shi'a of Ali in this sense.

Yahya can say he doesn't like Ibn Kathir, but he can't deny the fact that Ibn Kathir was basing his views on the earliest Muslim materials. Given the facts, I don't think Yahya will deny that this was Muhammad's method.

I don't accept Ibn Kathir as a source of reliability. You even reiterated this in one of your emails. However please be noble enough to raise this in our debate, I shall put an end to your imposition of false sources once and for all.


Yahya,

I expect better from you. You're trying to pull a Sami Zaatari move.

You attacked Christians for producing "rice Christians," i.e. people who come to Christ simply because the people feeding them are Christians. Their minds, you say, are vulnerable because of their desire for food. But this is exactly what we find in the Muslim sources.


Whether or not its found in "Muslim" Sources is irrelevant, I am telling you they are not sources from which I can derive certitude, therefore you are attempting to impose something which I consider to be false onto me and shall not succeed.

Muhammad had Malik's family held hostage. "Come to Islam, and I will return your family. On top of this, I will give you 100 camels." Are you saying that Malik wasn't in a vulnerable state of mind?

Don't forget, Yahya, that the entire purpose of Muhammad giving people the gifts was because their minds were vulnerable to greed. Muhammad gave them what they wanted. He fed their desires for worldly wealth, all in an effort to convert them to Islam. Just as hungry people are vulnerable to offers of food, so also greedy people are vulnerable to offers of worldly possessions (gained through robbery and war).

So you have three options, my friend. (1) You can be consistent and say that both Muhammad and certain Christian missionaries are deceptive and sickening. (2) You can change your mind and take back your criticism. (3) You can reinterpret the Qur'an, and say that Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Muslim, Sahih al-Bukhari, and Ibn Kathir didn't know what they were talking about and that all of these (many) narratives were forged.


There's actually option 4:

(4) Remind David, that I am not a Sunni and therefore am not bound by Sunni Islam's greatest exegete or any other Sunni Compilation of Ahadith which depict a very different image of Muhammad.

(b) You say that I wrote this because I was bitter. Well, I had been planning to write it ever since I saw the inconsistency. But in your emails, you're constantly attacking the shallowness of Christian thought. My friend, you have to learn that you're young, and that you don't know enough to make such sweeping generalizations. This is another area in which you're like Sami Zaatari. Muslim apologetics is becoming a world of people in their early 20's who think they know more than the greatest scholars in history (whether Christian or Muslim). You and Sami must learn some humility. I'm happy to teach you.

Again David, I attacked the shallowness of your form of Christianity, I am in love with the writings of John of the Cross so on so forth, its just your shallow form of fundamentalism which abhors me.

I have no idea what my age has to do with anything?! I never once claim to know more than your scholars Wood, in fact I even sent you an email showing appreciation of Alistair McGrath and I'm a big fan of Thomas Aquinas and currently I'm reading W.L Craig's book on Kalam.

So as far as that is concerned, I would object to this objection on the basis that at least I am willing to acknowledge my fallibility and inconsistencies when I do occasionally make them.

However, Humility and I are best friends, I have no qualms saying I don't know or I was wrong. In fact, many Christians I know even credit me with that quality.

As for Sami and I being in our 20s, its really irrelevant David, I don't claim to know more than the World's greatest Scholars, in fact I make it a habit to read works of the World's greatest Scholars. In fact, I'm beginning to think you must know so little about me, if you actually believe any of the tripe which is coming from you in regards to me.

(c) What do you mean that I should bring up these passages in our debate? Our debate on Jesus??? Are you saying I should go into Muhammad's conversion tactics in a debate on Jesus? I'm not sure I see the relevance. But perhaps it's just my shallow Christian thinking.

I believe you need to learn some Humility Wood, I mean that honestly, because its really beginning to seem like you are not doing this for God, it seems like you are more concerned with showing up your debate opponents and are concerned with blatant character assasination. However I am no one to judge.

I have endeavoured from day one to speak to you with a degree of respect, however you are one of the most patronising people I have ever spoken to in my life. You have a website named answeringMuslims, yet you only seem to be familiar with some monolithic understanding of Islam which has only been prevalent and dominant in the past three centuries along with the intellectual decline of Islamic Civilisation.

I am young, and my mistakes are enough to make me on par with the oldest of men no doubt, however I believe I am 100% sincere, and I am a firm believer that no matter how old one is, sweeping generalisations are not to be made with any form of credibility, hence why I attack the generalisations made on your website. I may make generalisations David, but at least I am willing to admit it, and acknowledge that there are many exceptions to the rule.

You, you like to take the exception and repackage it as the rule.

(c) What do you mean that I should bring up these passages in our debate? Our debate on Jesus??? Are you saying I should go into Muhammad's conversion tactics in a debate on Jesus? I'm not sure I see the relevance. But perhaps it's just my shallow Christian thinking.

Well perhaps its just your shallow thinking, tarnished with your desire to shoot loopholes into my statements, you know as well as I do that we have agreed to debate on the subject of Who Muhammad was, therefore a little reflection and beyond the surface thought should be able to allow you to deduce that we shall raise the issue in our Muhammad debate.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

(1) You say I should bring up these passages in our debate on Muhammad. But guess what. I'm not the one who makes an issue of this. You are. Have you ever seen me raise this as an issue in a debate? You're the one saying it's a sick deception. But I might bring it up, since you've given me a clear proof that, according to you, the Muhammad presented in Sunni sources is a deceptive, sickening person.

(2) So let me get this straight. All of the passages on Muhammad distributing wealth to gain converts are fabricated? I want you to come right out and say this. You've said you don't think these sources are completely reliable, and that you're not bound by Sunni sources. But that's very different from saying that narratives u, v, w, x, y, and z are all fabricated. Tell me exactly what you mean before we proceed.

(3) Concerning Ibn Ishaq, the point was that you can't accuse him of inventing narratives to support Sunni positions, when he obviously would not hesitate to take his own path. This leaves us with the fact that he is our earliest detailed biographical source, and that this source contains multiple references to Muhammad performing outright spiritual bribery. I'll ask again: Are you saying that these narratives in Ibn Ishaq were fabricated?

(4) You keep referring to the "shallowness of my form of Christianity." How, may I ask, do you know so much about my form of Christianity? In my debates, I usually stick to defending what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity," i.e. the doctrines that all Christians would subscribe to. So please tell me more about my form of Christianity, and how you came to this knowledge. I make very few claims about your view of Islam, because I don't think I could have gathered detailed information from our limited interactions. Yet you claim to know a great deal about me--enough to make sweeping generalizations. So please share your knowledge the group (in a way that doesn't come across as presumptuous).

(5) You say that you and humility are best friends. Is that the sort of thing a humble man would say?

(6) You say that I am more concerned with character assassination than with the Gospel. Nonsense! The Christian position is that people who reject the Gospel are ultimately in rebellion against God. It's not primarily an intellectual rejection, but a spiritual rebellion. The point of showing that you, and Sami, and Bassam, and others are illogical in your attacks against Christianity is to show that there's something much deeper than evidence involved. You simply hate the true Jesus, and the Spirit of God, and you have declared war on Christianity. The inconsistency of your attacks and the venom and deception that Sami spews at the slightest provocation are evidence of this.

Now please tell me whether all of the sources I quoted were fabricated.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David

(1) I made an issue of the mental and psychological state of those being aided with material gain, thats it. I have not seen Muhammad do this.
(2) Show me from a source I accept.
(3) I view Ibn Ishaq as an Abbassid Apologetic work, it has some true narrations, but they often have an Abbassid spin to them.
(4) I acknowledge my assumption is based upon the Christianity of your colleagues, and if I am misrepresenting your position I am sorry. However Mere Christianity hardly is the intellectual height of Christianity- The Trilemma put forth by Lewis is a joke in light of contemporary christological research.

(5) Circular reasoning, I am willing to acknowledge all my mistakes if I am genuinely convinced they are mistakes. So I would argue that I am no stranger to humility.
(6) So Sami's attacks on Christianity some how prove that I am a hater of the true Jesus and of Christianity?!......Ok.



At least 60% are fabricated from my perspective.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

You say that at least 60% are fabricated. Are you saying that Muhammad is 40% deceptive and sickening? Again, please answer the question. I asked it twice. Are you saying that all of the passages I quoted are fabricated? Until you answer this, you're still stuck with passages such as the one about Malik, whose family was being held captive by Muhammad. Until you say that this passage was fabricated, your claim that Muhammad did not rely on people's psychological vulnerability is sheer nonsense.

Show you in sources you accept? Here you're taking advantage of the fact that your sources haven't been translated into English. It's a nice fortress you can retreat to, but it hardly solves your problem. I've relied on the historical method to prove my point. I've shown that there is early, independent, and multiple attestation that Muhammad performed spiritual bribery. The only way around this is for you to give some reason to think that all of these narrations were fabricated, but here all you can say is "Well, I'm a Shia, so you can't make me accept them, and I'm a Muslim, so you can't make me accept the historical method." Granted. But I can't make you believe that the moon isn't made of swiss cheese either. Now tell me whether you're claiming that all of these narrations are false.

When I say "mere Christianity," I don't mean the views of C.S. Lewis. Again, I simply mean the core of Christian doctrine, which existed long before C.S. Lewis. That's what I defend in public, so I don't see how you could know what else I subscribe to.

No, Sami's attacks don't show anything about you (except when you defend them, as you often do). You had made a broad statement, namely, that I'm only concerned with character assassination. I figured you were referring to more than the present discussion, i.e. my criticisms of Sami as well. So I pointed both to your inconsistency and to Sami's absurd and deceptive attacks as evidence of spiritual rebellion. The point is that when I show how absurd and biased your arguments are, it's not about you or me, it's about the Spirit of God and your rebellion against Him.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David,

I'll check for the Malik narrative in authentic sources and what Scholars have said about it, I have to plead ignorance on this, I suspect this shall take me roughly a couple of days.

As for your Historical Method, it cracks me up to be honest David. I'll leave it at that for now.

David said...

After listening to both sides (Christian and Muslim) for years, as well as following the recent dialogue here I have a very simple solution. Why do you not both agree to let God show who he truly is and what the truth is regarding Christianity or Islam? In other words, "let the God who answers by fire be God" such as in the days of Elijah. Is it unthinkable that this is a reasonable approach that will answer the skeptic and adherent alike? Muslim friend, if your God is the true God can he not show himself mighty by clear, unambiguous and undeniable answers to prayer? Christian friend, how about you, does your God stretch forth his arm in an answer to your prayers and display his glory and might? Is this not the way of the ancients and apostles of old? Did God become the deity of the religion with the most logical and well trained apologists? I'm not arguing for a lack of logic and scholarly credibility, but I am ashamed that we have had to revert to an anemic means of determining who is the true God, Baal or Jehovah. An honest response from both sides would be very insightful and greatly appreciated. Whatever you do, please don't resort to the non-nipotent of the "dispensation of miraculous gifts has passed... we don't need that anymore as we have the Bible... doctors, etc." or whatever the excuse might be. Let God be God as we believe him to be.

Sami Zaatari said...

notice what a hypocrite David is, when his friend Sam Shamoun insults and attacks people and even calls sawda the prophets wife a whore etc Wood will have no problem with this, but when i lash out etc im so evilllllllll bla bla, Wood stop being so pathetic and such a hypocrite infront of everyone, could you do that or is too much for you since honesty and consistency dont run in your system?

number 2 lets assume i hate Christianity, is that bad or wrong, because you write it in a way as if that makes me bad. many many christians including yourself hate Islam, but thats okay for you, but if we supposedly hate christianity that becomes wrong and something noteworthy.

David your the typical christian missionary who feels that he and his pals have a right to attack, insult both Islam and Muslims and get away with it, but yet when others do it to you you start crying foul play, well im sorry Wood it doesnt and never will work for that.

and just call me up if you want all the insults from your friend Shamoun and many other Christians against Muslims and Islam, offcourse you will not dare speak against it and deep down support it, which i repeat shows how pathetic you are, and what a true and REAL hypocrite you are. the spirit of God isnt in you David, the spirit of the devil is, as Jesus said, ye are of your father the devil.

Sami Zaatari said...

Sam shamoun and christians insult Muslims and Islam on a non stop basis

David Woods reply: silence, deep down justifies it and supports it

Sami lashes out at some Christians and speaks against Christianity

David: Sweet Jesus!!!!! look at this evil crazy hateful Muslim!!!!!!!!!!!

Sam Shamoun and other Christians continue continue insules

David: silence, praise Jesus i love you brothers you are very good men of Christ.

Wood your a hypocrite, pure and simple, and only you buy your own garbage because every Muslim who watches you has laughed at you and said you were demolished,just go read the comments and even your own Christians arent blown away by your rubbish arguments, only your few supports which can be counted on the hand on this blog are the only ones who think your doing a good job, and thats a fact.

now go on and continue to be a hypocrite.

David Wood said...

Yahya said:

I'll check for the Malik narrative in authentic sources and what Scholars have said about it, I have to plead ignorance on this, I suspect this shall take me roughly a couple of days.

Deal. Please check for the other narratives as well. I'd also like to see the official Shia interpretations of 9:60, since it seems clear, and since Sunnis understand the passage as I have indicated. Also, please give me the dates of these works, and why I should trust these sources more than, say, Sahih al-Bukhari or Ibn Ishaq.

Yahya said:

As for your Historical Method, it cracks me up to be honest David. I'll leave it at that for now.

Well, my young, HUMBLE friend. Feel free to correct all of the historians in the world. Feel free to tell them that you know better than they do, and that the tools that historians use must be replaced by your feelings. Go to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc., and correct the methods that they use. While you're at it, tell them how humble you are.

I said this to Bassam, and I'll say it again here. The West has relied on certain methods in science, history, etc. These methods have been extremely successful. But Muslims, who have been remarkably unsuccessful with their own (un)scholarly methods, now demand that the West returns to the ninth century to keep Muslims comfortable. Laugh if you want to, my humble friend.

David Wood said...

Sami,

(1) You have Sam's email address. Please contact him and ask him about my feedback when he insults Muslims (since you've declared that I approve of it. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not dealing with the most accurate Muslim in the world).

(2) You've missed my point entirely. I'm sure Sam would grant that he hates Islam. But if you read his articles, you will see that he is accurate and consistent in his criticisms against Islam. You, on the other hand, are completely wrong and illogical in almost everything you say about Christianity. And we've just seen Yahya raise a criticism that condemns your prophet. Thus, there seems to be something very different about Sam, on the one hand, and his Muslim opponents on the other. Sam's Muslim opponents are often highly irrational. The question is: Why? I say it's spiritual rebellion. What's the alternative? How would you explain your complete lack of rational investigation and your hatred of Jesus?

ben malik said...

Not to defend or justify what Shamoun does, but didn't he expose Sami and his "friends" by showing that these deceivers started insulting him and Christianity and so he decided to return the favor?

Yep, he sure did: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

And yep, David described Sami perfectly.

David Wood said...

By the way, Sami, would you agree with Yahya that the methods Muhammad used in Ibn Ishaq, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Ibn Kathir were, to quote Yahya, "deceptive" and "sickening"?

Man! What are we getting from our young apologist friends (Yahya, Bassam, and Sami)? Aisha and Ali were bad Muslims. Umar needed to be rebuked because he wouldn't stop beating his wife. Muhammad was deceptive and sickening. Allah is a deceiver who tricks people into believing false doctrines. Ibn Kathir didn't know what he was talking about. The Sunni sources are 60% false.

Wow! With apologists like this, who needs critics?

I love you guys. Keep up the good work.

Nazam said...

Isn't Ben Malik Sam Shamoun, just writing under a different pen name?

ben malik said...

I don't think you love them as much as Nakdimon or I do. It is a matter of time before all of them self-destruct. As Shamoun has often stated in his rebuttals against Bassam and Sami, these apologists do a much better job of destroying Islam and disgracing Muhammad than the Christian apologists do. And what makes it so much better is that they don't see that this is what they are doing! :-)

And yes, please do keep up the great work of destroying your prophet's legacy.

ben malik said...

nazam seems to be another shamoun fan. Yeah, this pretty much proves that these apologists view Shamoun as the greatest threat against Muhammad. hahahaha

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Deal. Please check for the other narratives as well. I'd also like to see the official Shia interpretations of 9:60.

Will Do.

Also, please give me the dates of these works, and why I should trust these sources more than, say, Sahih al-Bukhari or Ibn Ishaq.

I'm not here to argue Shi'i Supremacy over Sunni Islam, so it is up to you what you want to accept David, I've already told you that your view of Muhammad doesn't impose upon my view of him, as I don't accept your sources.

Well, my young, HUMBLE friend. Feel free to correct all of the historians in the world. Feel free to tell them that you know better than they do, and that the tools that historians use must be replaced by your feelings. Go to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc., and correct the methods that they use. While you're at it, tell them how humble you are.

My Middle aged, Experienced Colleague,

It seems once again you have chosen to speak on behalf of "ALL of the Historians in the World" another of your rather amazing sweeping generalizations, perhaps like all the Philosophers of the World and all the Theologians of the World, they have selected you to act as their Emissary to the Muslims. (Although I do suspect you represent a fringe group of Philosophers and Historians at best, probably those alligned with your radical branch of Fundamentalist Christian Apologetics).

I do recommend that you try reading some books by renowned Historians of Religion from Edinburgh, SOAS in London, Chapel Hill in North Carolina, as well as Glasgow University who are challenging what you have said.

Also curious why would I want to challenge them on the basis of emotion David, I'm not into that. I'd rather challenge the classical european historical method on the basis of other factors which need to be taken into account when analysing history.

The West has relied on certain methods in science, history, etc. These methods have been extremely successful.

Thank God that Western Researchers have tapped into different paradigms of research now, and is open to acknowledge the flaws of Western Histiography, Science and many other theories that have risen from the West.

But Muslims, who have been remarkably unsuccessful with their own (un)scholarly methods, now demand that the West returns to the ninth century to keep Muslims comfortable. Laugh if you want to, my humble friend.

Once again, Professor Wood has taken it upon himself to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner, well my most humble, most educated, most rational and most scholarly friend, whilst I have no doubts nor any reason to doubt your scholarly integrity as a Philosopher nor as a representative of all things Scholarly, I'd like to point out that you have no monopoly on the word Scholarship, and are therefore not the one who carries a stamp of approval over what can be classified as Scholarly or not.

Now as to what you said against Sami,

Why? I say it's spiritual rebellion. What's the alternative? How would you explain your complete lack of rational investigation and your hatred of Jesus?

Now that has to be one of the most arrogant things I've seen you say yet my middle aged, constantly humble, constantly rational and ever so scholarly professor friend.

According to you I too am a Spiritual Rebel, please show me one place where I have demonstrated a clear cut hatred of Jesus please. As for lack of Rational Investigation, well maybe he had a dream like your friend Nabeel and has based his faith upon that.

ben malik said...

Wow, what a cop out reply:

I'm not here to argue Shi'i Supremacy over Sunni Islam, so it is up to you what you want to accept David, I've already told you that your view of Muhammad doesn't impose upon my view of him, as I don't accept your sources.

So let's get this straight. When David asks for your source and its date so we can examine how credible you and your sources are you instead reply back by saying that you are not arguing for Shia supremacy and won't accept David's view of Muhammad? And this is supposed to be a reply?

PLEASE stop with all these diversionary tricks, since we already knew you have perfected the art of taqiyya, and for once answer an objection. Man, you are getting ridiculous.

David Wood said...

Yahya: It's deceptive and sickening to convert people by giving them things.

David: Amen. But according to the Qur'an, Ibn Ishaq, al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Ibn Kathir, that's exactly what Muhammad did.

Yahya: Ha! Apart from the Qur'an (which I can reinterpret), I don't need to believe any of those awful sources! Let me give you my Shia sources.

David: Cool. But please explain to me why these Shia sources are more reliable than all the other sources which you've condemned.

Yahya: Why should I show that the sources I'm using are more reliable than all of those unreliable sources?

David: Um, so we won't be inclined to throw them out the way you're throwing out the Sunni sources. Make sense?

David Wood said...

Yahya,

Concerning history, please name me one credible historian on the planet who rejects the following criteria: (1) early testimony, (2) multiple attestation. Like it or not, you're going against everyone on this one.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David,

We can save this till our Debate on Muhammad regarding Historical Method, I do not feel I would do the topic justice in a short written post.

As far as Shi'a Sources being Superior to Sunni, David you are debating a Shi'a here, I do not care about Sunni sources, as for my reasons for not accepting Sunni Sources, thats not really pertinent to our conversation here, the bottom line is I reject Sunni sources. As far as the Qur'an is concerned, its not really reinterpreting based on my whims, if you would just endure with some degree of patience I would check what the exegetes say on the verse you gave.

Give me one proof why I should accept Ibn Kathir as a source of evidence and Authority on the Qur'an please?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David: Yahya says It's deceptive and sickening to convert people by giving them things.

Yahya: Not really thats a gross misrepresentation, you failed to note the Psychological state of the person being given proselytisation.

David: Yeah well Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari and Ibn Kathir all mention these things.

Yahya: Erm ok, well I really amn't interested in what they say I am an Imami, not a Sunni.

David: Well prove to me that you shouldn't accept them!

Yahya: Why? because your website is incapable of dealing with people other than Sunnis, and even then uses sources which no scholar has considered as 100% authentic.

David: Well my YOUNG HUMBLE friend, YOU are Not scholarly, this website is, it answers ALL Muslims, hence the name AnsweringMuslims.

Yahya: What has my age or my humility really got to do with my points, does it discredit me at all?

David: You have rebelled against the Holy Spirit, its the only explanation for your insubordination! You hate Jesus and Christianity!

Yahya: Actually I quite like much of Christianity, particularly the Work of Christian Mystics, even Scholars such as Alistair McGrath I believe is top.

David: Well MY YOUNG HUMBLE friend, what do you know?!? You're sooo young and sooo unhumble, you need to be more consistent and rational like me, and rational like my friend Nabeel, he accepted Jesus based upon a dream, you and all other Muslim Apologists though, you have no idea about rationality and act upon emotion.

David: So Yahya, please name me one credible historian who agrees with the Islamic method of Histiography, by the way, when I say credible I mean someone who is a Rational Philosopher like me, consistent like me, has the holy spirit in him like me, believes in the Bible like me, and is taken seriously in the academic circles

Yahya: Could you name me a credible historian whom you might accept David? Who are your sources on Islamic Histiography normally.

David: Sure, Robert Spencer, he's a historical scholar on Islam, perhaps you could check out some of Dr. James White's references on Islam too, he's used some scholarly ones before.

Yahya: *slaps his head with slight frustration* Erm ok thanks David, I'll get back to you.....

Sami Zaatari said...

wow David your worst than a brick wall, you still repeat your lie that i said Aisha and Ali were bad, so no my friend, with apologists like you, who needs critics?

all you do is repeat repeat even when you have been refuted and answered, and i dont blame you because thats all u have, u THINK that IF u repeat urself enough times that i may somehow just let it go and that maybe the ppl will finally accept it, but my friend that wont work since i will keep exposing you on it. :)

as for the insulting, you claim the difference between me and Sam is that my hate clouds my articles, LOL ok David whatever you say buddy.

Sami Zaatari said...

David: sami you called Aisha and Ali bad Muslims!

Sami: ok maybe you could have mis-understood me, so i clarify, no David I didnt

David: sami you called Aisha and Ali bad Muslims!

Sami: David i just clarified my position on what i was saying, i didnt call them bad

David: no no no no sami i can read your mind and no i will interpret your own words even though they dont line with your thoughts and beliefs.

David: The prophet Muhammad rebuked Umar

Sami: And?

David: HE REBUKED UMAR!!!!!!!!!

Sami: yes okay and?

David: yohooooo Umar the companion and caliph

Sami: yohooooo yes i know, and whats your point

David: HE REBUKED UMAR

Sami: okay and? lol really whats the point, no man is infallible including the companions, i dont believe that so what is your point?

David: (okay i have no point but i will just repeat myself for crowd and reader effect) MUHAMMAD REBUKED UMAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sami: well if that makes you happy.

Sami Zaatari said...

David: Muhammad SURVIVED IN MAKKAH SEE HIS PEOPLE WERENT SO BAD!

Sami: yes because his grandfather was a powerful man who gave him protection

David: MUHAMMAD SURVIVED IN MAKKAH

Sami: did you forget i just told you he had protection?

David: MUHAMMAD SURVIVED IN MAKKAH!!!!!

Sami: yes because his familly gave him protection

David: Ok he had protection, BUT STILL SURVIVED

Sami: lol yes because thats the intetion and purpose of protection, to keep you safe from harm and death etc, without it they would have killed him.

David: MUHAMMAD SURVIVED IN MAKKAH!!!!!!!!!!

lol only to you David Wood do you not see how silly you truly look with such desperate SHALLOW arguments.

MoMo said...

Sami is the most arrogant young man that I have had the displeasure of seeing speak or write in quite some time.

Just his words here in the last week are like a ballet that flaunts self-indulgence of internal esteem, and hauty self-importance.

Yahya, please don't seek to replicate Sami's behavior. I find you to be a far more sincere person than he. I hope you stay that way.

Bfoali said...

This is starting to get a bit funny. I am a sixteen year old kid, but I feel as if I have more
maturity then some people on this blog. David, Yahya DOES NOT accept sunni sources, he is a shia muslims, as I am, we dont believe in Bukhari, or Muslim. Case and Point. Thats it, not point in going into it, why make such a huge deal on a simple manner. Secondly Momo, sami is not an arrogant man, and if you dis like speaking to him, or about him, then please save your comments for your freinds, not for a blog, that includes sami. Wood, sami didnt call Imam ALi (as) and Aisha bad muslims, and IF he did, obviousley it was a mistake IF he even said it, and he is a sunni, so my calling Imam Ali (as) and Aisha a bad muslim, not only does it NOT disprove islam, but it says nothing about the Prophets character. Its not fair for me to say that the KKKs action comes from the teaching of jesus (its just an example calm down yall).

David Wood said...

I agree with MoMo that Yahya has a sincerity that Sami lacks. But he does seem to be slowly turning toward the path that Sami's been on for years. Let's look at the similarity.

DAVID: The people who knew Muhammad best slaughtered each other on the battlefield. They were led by Aisha and Ali. According to Muhammad, this was the "best generation" of Muslims.

SAMI: But they were bad Muslims!

DAVID: Whoa! Sami just said that Aisha and Ali were bad Muslims!

SAMI [realizing what he said]: What? Um . . . well . . . er . . . Stop distorting what I said. I only meant that the people who actually did the killing were bad, not that the people who led the armies were bad (as if this makes sense). Yeah. That's what I meant. Now where's Bassam to help bail me out of this mess?

(No, bfoali, this isn't the same as saying that the KKK comes from Christianity. The first generation of Muslims that slaughtered each other--and there have been many--were the Muslims who knew Muhammad best. They sat at his feet receiving instruction for years. If any Muslims in all of history knew what Muhammad would want, it was that first generation of Muslims. And then they slaughtered each other.)

Now let's compare this to Yahya.

YAHYA: Do you know what repulses me more than anything? Christians who win converts by giving them food!

DAVID: Well, didn't Muhammad win converts by giving them things?

YAHYA (realizing what he said): Um . . . I only meant that people who are really hungry are psychologically vulnerable and that it's wrong to take advantage of them.

DAVID: Well, Muhammad took advantage of people's desire for gold and camels. Wasn't the point that it's wrong to entice people to convert for the wrong reason?

YAHYA: No! Um . . . er . . . well . . . I don't like Sunni sources!

(bfoali, I know that you don't accept Sunni sources, but Yahya doesn't reject all narratives from Sunni sources, which is why I've repeatedly asked him to say whether ALL of these narratives have been fabricated. If he says that all of these narratives are false, he's in trouble. I should add that I find the Muslim approach to history rather pathetic. Imagine the following scenario. Let's say that historians come across a number of early Christian documents that describe the life of Jesus. Let's say that, according to these documents, Jesus claimed to be nothing but a prophet. So you come to me and say, "David, don't you see, these documents say that Jesus claimed to be nothing but a prophet!" And I respond, "Well, I just believe in the Bible." You say, "But David, don't you care about these documents?" And I say, "No, I just believe the Bible." Here you would rightly say I'm biased and closed-minded. But what do we find in the present discussion? I say, "Yahya, here are a bunch of Muslim sources that show Muhammad bribing people into converting." And Yahya says, "But I only like Shia sources." And I say, "Yahya, I've got all kinds of evidence for this." And Yahya says, "I don't care. I will only believe the sources of my own sect." And this is simply amazing. According to Shias, the Sunni sources are unreliable. According to Sunnis, the Shia sources are unreliable. Hence, no matter what historical source I go to, millions of Muslims will tell me I can't trust the sources. I'm glad that Christians aren't in such a horrible position!)

David Wood said...

Concerning Sami's last attempt at describing one of my arguments, let's review here.

DAVID: Muslims often complain about the intolerance of the pagans in Mecca. Let's not forget that those pagans let Muhammad criticize their religion for more than a decade. Would the Muslims in Mecca today let me preach there for ten years?

SAMI: But Muhammad had an old man to protect him.

DAVID: But the pagans had ten years to kill him, to secretly assassinate him, or even to openly kill him and accept the retalliation. But they didn't. They tried to resolve their differences with Muhammad through peaceful means.

SAMI: I said that Muhammad had someone to protect him.

DAVID: You're totally missing the point Sami. They had every opportunity to kill him. But they didn't. I would not be so lucky among Muslims today, even if I had someone willing to seek vengeance on my behalf. So it seems that Muslims are far more violent and intolerant than the pagans they complain about.

Simple, isn't it? And yet Sami just can't grasp the point.

David Wood said...

One more point concerning Umar. Sami, what are you talking about? Umar got up to beat his wife, and one of the Muslims there tried to stop him. Then Umar rebuked the Muslim for interfering with his right to beat his wife. Umar rebuked the man by quoting Muhammad's command that a man should not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Now, according to you, Umar needed to be rebuked for beating his wife. But you said that Muhammad did it. My friend, Umar wasn't rebuked. Umar did the rebuking, using Muhammad's commands as justification to beat his wife and to tell his follower not to interfere.

So, according to you, Umar needed to be rebuked for beating his wife, even though Muhammad and the Qur'an allowed him to do so, and even though Umar defended himself by quoting your most reliable collection of ahadith. Care to wriggle out of this one, my friend? Let me know quickly, or I'm going to do a separate post on your attack against Umar. You might need to get some help from Bassam on this one.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

Your description of the conversation is complete deception. Early testimony and multiple attestation are the cornerstones of the historical method. That's what I said, and I'm completely correct on this. You've represented my claim as if I said that I only accept the methodology of Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians such as Robert Spencer. I would never in a trillion years say anything even remotely like this, and you know it. If you're not ashamed of yourself for such deception, it says a lot about you. Is this what you do when you get cornered because of something you've said? I feel another post coming on.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David: Yahya so you stated: "Do you know what repulses me more than anything? Christians who win converts by giving them food!" and I'm quoting ad verbatim here because you never said more than anything anywhere, but this statement is an exaggeration so I claim poetic licensing. But Yahya, Well, didn't Muhammad win converts by giving them things?

YAHYA (slightly confused at David's gross misrepresentation): No David, WTH?!?! I had mentioned psychological state from the very start why did you fail to include that?! Thats a little dishonest David.

DAVID: Well, Muhammad took advantage of people's desire for gold and camels. Wasn't the point that it's wrong to entice people to convert for the wrong reason?

YAHYA: Well David, I'll look into it if you can give me a single credible source for it, since I am a Shi'a please give me an authentic shi'a source.

David: Nope, This site can't handle Shia sources, but we call ourselves Answering Muslims anyway, I have learnt quite a bit about Shi'as from Shiachat forums though, thats the closest thing to a book I've done about Shias. So Yahya prove to me why you should reject Sunni Sources.

Yahya: Erm, David you do know that your website makes the claim to answer Muslims, at least answer me based upon my own sources, as your colleague Dr. White commented in his debate with Jalal Abu al Rub, it would be intellectually dishonest to raise Shi'i hadith in a Sunni debate so why use such a cheap tactic David?

David: WOW Yahya, You Deciever! Taqiyyah! You are doing Taqiyyah!

Yahya: What you mean now?!

David: You claim that I only accept Spirit filled Christians like Robert Spencer to be decent Historians on Islam which is a lie, and you lied because I just kicked your rear end, because I'm a mature Philosopher for my profession.

Yahya: Not really, it's called Sarcasm Wood, I was merely pointing out the joke of you requesting any form of scholarly integrity from Muslims whilst supporting works by men such as Robert Spencer and his cult following which produces Hate films like OBsession.

David: Yahya you best shut your mouth or I'll do another post!!!! Either that or I'll post another Islamophobic video and try and do my bit in inciting some more attempted Murders on Muslims by Neo Nazis and Racists.

Yahya:...... fair enough, do another post, why not do one or your misrepresentation of me whilst your at it, for I have never added in psychological factors into my case later, it was there from the start.

David: Erm..... WELL MY YOUNG HUMBLE FRIEND.

Yahya: Dude, not this again. Ok I'm young, ok maybe I might be arrogant at times, heck I'm sorry if it seems that way.

David: Early testimony and multiple attestation are the cornerstones of the historical method.

Yahya: Sure, in most cases, however there are certain problems with this method, they've even been pointed out by certain scholars, I'll raise these points in our debate on Muhammad.

David: Which Scholars have pointed out these problems?

Yahya: Credible ones largely, I'll compile a list for you for our debate.

David: Well, Make sure they are credible like the Scholars I quote, unbiased men like Robert Spencer and other high rated men within the world of impartial academia.

Yahya: *sighs* Ok David, I'll try and make sure they are ever so slightly more credible than the scholars like him who you are prone to quoting. Oh one last question.....when are you going to start using Shi'a sources against me?!

David: *lowers his head* Erm.... Erm.... None of my research is original, so when the arguments against you get translated and your sources get translated thats when I'll do it.

Yahya: Damn! So y'all can't even verify the information you give is correct except through the whims of what might often be largely biased early 20th century orientalist translation?!

David: Nope, unfortunately not, ARE YOU GETTING UNHUMBLE with me again?!?

Yahya: Erm Nah David, lets just leave it at that.

Sami Zaatari said...

lol David you continue to show how pathetic and shallow your arguments are.

go ahead and write articles against me, you think you scare me by saying that? LOL David i repeat, ONLY IN YOUR HEAD do your arguments make sense, to everyone else we see how rubbish they truly are. only your few supports by the fingers of the hand on this blog actually agree with you.

Sami Zaatari said...

as for sincerity and arrogance, David you seem to throw your own character defects on me.

it is you who suffers from a lack of sincerity since you keep lying and repeating false accusations even after they have been clarified, so it is only you who shows he has no sincerity but wants to use cheap dirty tactics and continue to indulge in his lies because hes so pathetic he thinks if he repeats himself 20 times somehow people will actually buy it.

and you truly are the arrogant one thinking you are some debate champion and someone great who can keep passing judgement on others etc.

so go look at yourself and fix yourself before you want to keep passing judgements like many other typical Christians who always like to point fingers at others and ignore themselves.

but its all good i am happy all the Muslims who have seen our debates and articles against you have seen right through you and seen how WEAK and PATHETIC your argument and material is, and i repeat lol only the few christians who make comments on this blog actually think your doing a very good job and are getting blown away by your arguments.

Sami Zaatari said...

oh yes and as for Umar David you show what a hypocrite you are YET AGAIN, because you are now brining a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT to try and squirm away from your silliness.

your first point was LOOK SAMI SAYS UMAR GOT REBUKED! since i have shown that means nothing and your just making a point out of nothing NOW YOU RUN TO SOME TOTALLY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT, LOL your too funny with your continous twisting and deceptive turning.

ben malik said...

The great thing about the posts of Sami, Bassam and Yahya is that they actually prove that Shamoun isn't the one who started the insults. The filth, venom, vile spirit of these Muslims shines through clearly for all to see. For example, David Wood and James White have been nothing but respectful in the way they address these Muslims. So why do these Muslims attack their characters and ridicule them, specifically Sami, but also Yahya who accuses White of being ignorant and dishonest?

David, I would save their posts to expose every time these liars try to attack Shamoun or others for supposedly starting with the insults since you have all the evidence right here on your blog that they are once again employing lies and deceptions to justify and further the cause of Islam. What they are actually doing is to show the world just how evil Muhammad was and how wicked his Allah is.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Ben Malik,

I might very well have accused Dr. White of intellectual dishonesty, but I can't seem to locate the post. Could you please highlight where I did this please?

I have never begun the insults to the best of my knowledge, for that is rather unlike me, however I can respond with the best of them, please locate for me a location in which I have indulged in insult drawing the first strike thanks.

ben malik said...

I am writing this on the go so here are a few of your very loving and respectful comments concerning White.

Hmmm I personally do not know Nadir and so could not possibly comment upon either his sanity nor his general methodology (having only heard two of his debates).

However what I will say is that, as soon as I heard he was willing to debate Sam Shamoun, I became a little concerned for his sincerity. However he claims that it was for similar reasons to Shabir's reasons for debating Dave Hunt.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/08/nadir-ahmed-vs-james-white-can-we-trust.html

So this means that White is either just as sincere as Shabir or he is just as insincere as Ally. You pick. But seeing that you are a Shiite I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that you did believe Shabir is insincere like White.

And here are some excerpts taken from your reply to Wood, with Wood’s comments being in italics.


Sami attacked James in a completely irrational manner. I draw attention to it, since I've debated Sami several times and will continue to do so.

I don't really view Sami's latest attack on James to have been highly irrational as you have so asserted, in fact I can completely understand the frustration that someone like Sami has regarding the Christian double standard. Whilst many Muslims blow this out of proportion and ascribe it to all Christians, I'm beginning to realise that Christians do spread the bible with rather deceptive methods, this man's job is to function as a soldier (despite the fact christians claim to be pacifist) and yet he feels the need to abuse vulnerable iraqis by offering them a different religion along with the aid they are bringing. Much like the "Rice Christians" whom many Missionaries speak of when discussing evangelising the Muslim world.

"I don't think Sami would deny this. Clearly, we can hate something so much that rationality goes out the window. The point of posting Sami's emails was to show how much he hates Christianity. He hates Jesus and the Gospel so much that he can't discuss these things logically.

I think its safe to say (I'll double check with Sami) that Sami's attack on Dr. White was due to hypocrisy, you discuss Islamic Oppression on one hand then support someone in an invading army illegally occupying Iraq.

Compare this with James. James tries to be as accurate as posssible when he discusses Islam. So do I. So does Sam Shamoun. So you can attack Sam as much as you like, but the fact remains. Sam is remarkably accurate when he talks about Islam, whereas practically everything Sami says about Christianity is false.

1) Dr. White hasn't really discussed Islam that accurately actually, all he has really done is raise terrible strawman arguments, and given false citations as far as I have seen. It doesn't matter how great a library he has until we actually see him utilising scholarly resources in his debates.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=2253836636122258552
So Zaatari’s response isn’t so “irrational” and you actually understand his frustration at Christian double standards. So this means you pretty understand when Zaatari accuses White of holding “a very bigoted racist view of the Muslim world,” for having a “rising bigotry in himself,” and for being an ignoramus. He even accuses White of promoting deceitful teachings.

And you yourself in your comments to Wood say that you believe that White pretty much supports Christians who use deceptive methods to evangelize people and gives false citations.

So I wonder what does this make White, a guy who supports deceivers and who's quotations are false?

I will go through all your posts and document what you have said of White.