Sunday, October 12, 2008

Yahya Hayder Seymour's First Defense of His Condemnation of Muhammad

Yahya has condemned Christian missionaries who produce, as he puts it, "rice Christians." The obvious problem with his criticism is that Muhammad produced many "camel Muslims" (i.e. people who became Muslims simply because Muhammad kept giving them camels), "gold Muslims" (people who converted for Muhammad's gifts of gold), "family Muslims" (people who became Muslims so that Muhammad would give them their families back), and, while we're at it, "survival Muslims" (people who converted so that Muhammad wouldn't kill them).

Yahya has offered two main defenses. First, he says that when he criticized Christianity, he was only referring to people who are in a psychologically weakened state because of their hunger. Now it is obvious that Muhammad also relied on psychologically weakened states--for instance, Muhammad told Malik that he would get his family back if he became a Muslim. Malik promptly converted. And we can't forget about all of the people who converted to avoid war with Muhammad. There was certainly a psychological factor at work there. So however Yahya wants to define his criticism, he certainly condemns the Muhammad we read about in the early Muslim sources. But let's focus on history and sources in the next post.

For now, let's pretend that Muhammad never relied on people's psychological distress to convert them. Let's simply go with the passages in which Muhammad gave many gifts to greedy people in an effort to convert them. It seems that Yahya is now saying that he's perfectly fine with this. That is, it's wrong to convert hungry people by feeding them, because they're psychologically unstable. But it's perfectly acceptable to convert greedy people by feeding their greed.

So I just want to ask Yahya: Is this your claim now? You've implied it every time you respond by saying, "No, I only meant people who weren't in the right frame of mind . . ." or something along those lines. So would you say that it's okay for Muhammad to convert people by giving them camels and gold? (Here we're laying the issue of historical sources aside for the moment. I simply want you to clarify your claim for now.)

To put it differently, consider the following. Here in the West, people love money. Would it be acceptable for rich Christians to go around giving people money in an effort to make them more favorable to Christianity, and ultimately to convert them? If, in a desperate effort to rescue Muhammad, you say it's okay, I would like to know why there's such a difference between the "sickening," "deceptive" practice of feeding people while preaching the Gospel, and the perfectly acceptable practice of giving people gifts and money while preaching the Gospel. I know you're going to say something about psychology. But I'm talking about morality. Why is one immoral and the other moral?

If, on the other hand, you say that both practices are immoral, you're stuck with rejecting the many narratives I've quoted, and with showing that no such narrations exist in Shia sources. But at the very least, you would have to admit that the Muhammad we read about in Sunni sources is guily of spiritual bribery, which you now seem quite comfortable with, provided the person isn't psychologically unstable. So according to your position, it would seem to be perfectly okay to win converts through all kinds of manipulative and deceptive methods, so long as people are psychologically healthy. Please clarify, so that I know whether you're condemning the Sunni Muhammad or not.

And please don't complain about sources right now. Again, I'm simply asking you to clarify what qualifies as a moral method of conversion and an immoral method of conversion. So tell me whether or not you find the things attributed to Muhammad in the passages I quoted moral or immoral. Then we can move on to a discussion of the sources--Sunni and Shia.

79 comments:

ben malik said...

You are doing a great job of exposing this deceitful, lying Shiite and his blatant inconsistencies. Poor Yahya didn't know that his big mouth would get him into such trouble and provide his opponents the opportunity to show he does and is actually the very thing he condemns Christian missionaries for doing and being, lying, conniving, deceiving, and yet masquerades as a serious student of history and scholarship. You have proven that he is really interested in clinging to his wicked, immoral religion, even if this means that he has to lie and deceive in order to do so.

David Wood said...

We'll see how he answers this first question. It should be an easy one. But I think he knows that, however he answers, he's going to be in trouble.

David said...

Ben, what exactly do you do that is productive? I mean, you are really doing more damage than good with your nasty attitude. If you want a knife fight go talk to Mr. Islamanswersback (Shadid Lewis) who is about as repugnant as they get. I enjoy David's comments, although he is getting a little bit aggressive. You, you just seem like you want to sling pejoratives over the fence at the other side. If you want to say this type of thing in private via e-mail that is one thing, but intentionally insulting people is not going to gain you many converts. I mean, your goal is to present the Gospel and glorify Christ, correct? Both in action and word, correct? If so, try a little bit harder and if necessary take it private. I think Islam is absolutely false, but I don't think that verbal mud slinging is the answer. This is turning into a sideshow akin to shallow self serving politicking. Not so good.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Professor Wood,

I'm a little knackered due to an imprompt return from a long day at Hyde Park Speaker's Corner and several exchanges with people who subscribe to fundamentalist christianity much like you. So I will endeavour to respond to your points, however I may refine my answer in a few hours in case I lapse in my logic during this response.

Yahya has condemned Christian missionaries who produce, as he puts it, "rice Christians." The obvious problem with his criticism is that Muhammad produced many "camel Muslims" (i.e. people who became Muslims simply because Muhammad kept giving them camels), "gold Muslims" (people who converted for Muhammad's gifts of gold), "family Muslims" (people who became Muslims so that Muhammad would give them their families back), and, while we're at it, "survival Muslims" (people who converted so that Muhammad wouldn't kill them).

Rice Christians in a vulnerable position David, never negate my actual words please.

Yahya has offered two main defenses. First, he says that when he criticized Christianity, he was only referring to people who are in a psychologically weakened state because of their hunger.

A Contextual reading of my posts would indeed illustrate that what I had condemned was this type of vulnerability abuse by Missionaries by use of Aid.

In fact Professor Wood, I might suggest a more contextual reading in all your day to day life, I appreciate you are a Philosopher specialising in the field of the Problem of Evil, and so are not a Historian, Theologian nor a Hermeneutician as such, however I believe context is the key here, as Hermeneuticians and scholars of analysing either A) Religious Texts and B) Historical Documents and statements would advocate doing. Perhaps if you viewed things more contextually then life would be a lot simpler for you Professor Wood.


Now it is obvious that Muhammad also relied on psychologically weakened states--for instance, Muhammad told Malik that he would get his family back if he became a Muslim. Malik promptly converted. And we can't forget about all of the people who converted to avoid war with Muhammad. There was certainly a psychological factor at work there. So however Yahya wants to define his criticism, he certainly condemns the Muhammad we read about in the early Muslim sources. But let's focus on history and sources in the next post.

I might condemn the Muhammad which we read of in certain documents and statements you have raised yes, much like I would condemn the God of the old testament which you happen to believe in. The key here David is two fold for me,

A) You have demonstrated a lack of any knowledge of the Arabic Language, and subsequently rely on Translations which they themselves can be rather suspect as I have attempted to tell you in the past. I do appreciate that this makes things problematic for you as someone who has just "not taken the time" to learn Arabic (to quote a phrase familiar from your colleague Dr. James White). However for someone such as myself, I believe it is not only required, but also intellectually honest of me to research the statements you have brought forward then make a comment on them.

For now, let's pretend that Muhammad never relied on people's psychological distress to convert them. Let's simply go with the passages in which Muhammad gave many gifts to greedy people in an effort to convert them. It seems that Yahya is now saying that he's perfectly fine with this.

Actually we need not pretend anything David, there is no need to be so quick handed in your approach, as a self professed rational thinking person David I would hope to see a little more intellectual honesty from you instead of back handed tactics such as the assertion that we should "pretend" something which you have failed to confirm for me in the first place.

As for the Asbab ul Nuzul (I appreciate you an unfamiliar with many Islamic terms so I'm informing you this means reason for revelation) and commentary, yes I am of the impression that this refers to noblemen, if my memory should serve me correctly, I shall verify this. This will admittedly require a more thorough investigation into historical context for myself, and I shall get back to you on what is meant here, and of course whether or not I condemn it.


That is, it's wrong to convert hungry people by feeding them, because they're psychologically unstable. But it's perfectly acceptable to convert greedy people by feeding their greed.

Shame on you Professor, for you have put words in my mouth. Secondly we are discussing mentally distraught people, not only those financially and nutritionally impoverished.

So I just want to ask Yahya: Is this your claim now? You've implied it every time you respond by saying, "No, I only meant people who weren't in the right frame of mind . . ." or something along those lines. So would you say that it's okay for Muhammad to convert people by giving them camels and gold? (Here we're laying the issue of historical sources aside for the moment. I simply want you to clarify your claim for now.)

If Muhammad could be demonstrated to have done this categorically on psychologically distraught people with no strings attached, I would naturally condemn this occurance however you'd have to effectively prove this to me.

To put it differently, consider the following. Here in the West, people love money. Would it be acceptable for rich Christians to go around giving people money in an effort to make them more favorable to Christianity, and ultimately to convert them?

It all depends on context, I'll elaborate upon what I mean in a second supplementary post entitled Appendix A.

Why is one immoral and the other moral?

Immorality is to carry religion on the backs of soldiers representing a Secular Nation, and bring the Gun in one hand and religion in the other. As I mentioned regarding White's personal friend.

If, on the other hand, you say that both practices are immoral, you're stuck with rejecting the many narratives I've quoted, and with showing that no such narrations exist in Shia sources. But at the very least, you would have to admit that the Muhammad we read about in Sunni sources is guily of spiritual bribery, which you now seem quite comfortable with, provided the person isn't psychologically unstable. So according to your position, it would seem to be perfectly okay to win converts through all kinds of manipulative and deceptive methods, so long as people are psychologically healthy. Please clarify, so that I know whether you're condemning the Sunni Muhammad or not.

The Sunni Muhammad, do I condemn him, no I think the Muhammad I've read of in Sunni works is one of the most beautiful people I have ever read about in my life, particularly in works such as Martin Ling's Biography of the Prophet from Earliest Sources, Tariq Ramadan's The Life of Muhammad, and the work on Muhammad's life by Fethlullah Gulen. However do I view these sources to depict an accurately portrayal of Muhammad? No thats why I am a Shi'a!!!!

And please don't complain about sources right now. Again, I'm simply asking you to clarify what qualifies as a moral method of conversion and an immoral method of conversion. So tell me whether or not you find the things attributed to Muhammad in the passages I quoted moral or immoral. Then we can move on to a discussion of the sources--Sunni and Shia.

Professor Wood, might I just add on a last note that your apologetic ministry is really in desperate need of a shake up, so much so that you specialise in debating with Muslims without even demonstrating a familiarity with their sources nor having a working knowledge of the original languages required.

You even turn a blind eye to people like Ben Malik being insultive and accusing people such as of deliberately lying and being deceitful. I might be inconsistent at times, and I acknowledge that is a genuine fault of mine, however I seriously doubt many of us have entered the world of apologetics to go on deliberate lying sprees.

Secondly, you have an issue with the Muhammad in the sources, thats your problem, its not mine, take it up with those who acknowledge these sources contain complete accurate accounts. You are meant to be answering me, where as all you seem to do is try to impose a rather suspect way of viewing things onto me.

Hypothetically say if you do demonstrate me to be inconsistent, and if you do so I will back down and acknowledge it, much like I did on the issue of slavery in the past with christian friends. Does it mean you have in anyway answered my queries or have refuted Islam? Change your name to AnsweringSunnis, because you have failed to demonstrate to me any knowledge of Shi'a Islam what so ever. Start acting Christian for once Wood, and start condemning the unfounded lies propagated against me and my fellow Muslim Brothers of us being deliberate compulsive liars and being delibaretly deceptive.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Sorry I missed a crucial part of my post.


The key here David is two fold for me,

A) You have demonstrated a lack of any knowledge of the Arabic Language, and subsequently rely on Translations which they themselves can be rather suspect as I have attempted to tell you in the past. I do appreciate that this makes things problematic for you as someone who has just "not taken the time" to learn Arabic (to quote a phrase familiar from your colleague Dr. James White). However for someone such as myself, I believe it is not only required, but also intellectually honest of me to research the statements you have brought forward then make a comment on them.

B) I need to go back and view the historical context of such traditions, and not view as isolated reports as you post them, thus having a sense of nuance. I would also be required to verify their authenticity.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

I asked for a clear answer to a simple question, but you haven't given one. Instead, you've raised another defense: the "translation defense" (probably the worst defense Muslims use when they get backed into a corner, as if the Arabic texts are going to say the opposite of what we read in English).

You said: "If Muhammad could be demonstrated to have done this categorically on psychologically distraught people with no strings attached, I would naturally condemn this occurance however you'd have to effectively prove this to me."

But that's not what I'm asking. I'm not talking about psychologically distraught people. I'm asking about a hypothetical scenario in which Prophet X gives Potential Convert Y lots of gifts to make him more favorable to the religion, all with the goal of converting the person. Notice that the question, as it stands now, has nothing to do with texts, sources, any particular prophet, etc. Would you condemn this or not? Do you condemn giving a psychologically healthy person gifts, money, or food in an effort to get that person to convert or not? Answer me clearly for once.

David Wood said...

And just to clarify another issue: Yahya, you're fluent in classical Arabic, correct? (This will be relevant to my fourth post on you. The third post will be on sources.)

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Yahya,

I asked for a clear answer to a simple question, but you haven't given one. Instead, you've raised another defense: the "translation defense" (probably the worst defense Muslims use when they get backed into a corner, as if the Arabic texts are going to say the opposite of what we read in English).


It's actually a relevant defense as will be demonstrated here in London in at least one of your debates.

You said: "If Muhammad could be demonstrated to have done this categorically on psychologically distraught people with no strings attached, I would naturally condemn this occurance however you'd have to effectively prove this to me."

But that's not what I'm asking. I'm not talking about psychologically distraught people. I'm asking about a hypothetical scenario in which Prophet X gives Potential Convert Y lots of gifts to make him more favorable to the religion, all with the goal of converting the person. Notice that the question, as it stands now, has nothing to do with texts, sources, any particular prophet, etc. Would you condemn this or not? Do you condemn giving a psychologically healthy person gifts, money, or food in an effort to get that person to convert or not?


I was actually about to post my response to this, basically NO, its not really condemnable.

Answer me clearly for once.

Stop making demands and start actually disproving Islam Wood, please learn some humility for once in your life as well. Plus, start acting like a decent Christian and condemn these unfounded accusations against us Muslim Apologists.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Clarification: When I say gifts etc, I do mean to warm someone up to Religion, not with the specific purpose, of "He's not getting anything because it's unlikely he'll convert".

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Wood, I have a working knowledge of Classical Arabic, not entirely infallible in the language. However I am trying.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ben malik said...

david (not wood), it would be nice if you practiced what you preached by contacting me privately and scold me for what you perceive for my attitude which you erroneously think doesn't glorify God, instead of whining in a public forum. Perhaps then I could have helped to expand your surface level reading of the Bible to see that there is a time and place to answer fools according to their folly and to even mock them.

And don't make the excuse you didn't have my email since you could have supplied yours and I would have love to chat with a fellow "brother". But again, I understand that humans tend to be hypocrites when judging others even though, much like yourself, they don't seem to realize that they are.

Now move along and waste someone else's time. Thanks.

ben malik said...

Man, will this guy ever in his life actually answer a question for once? This is getting rather pathetic and is simply more evidence that he is not a serious student of anything aside that of evasions, distractions, smokescreens, ad hominems, burden of proof shifting, deceptions, lies etc.

If this is how he is going to debate then David he is going to be colossal disaster for Islam and Muhammad. So I highly encourage you to go ahead with debating this Shiite master of lies and deceptions.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

I really want to be completely clear, because everytime I think I understand you, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. So please forgive me if I ask you several questions for clarification today.

If Bill Gates were a fanatical Christian, and he knew of many people who would appreciate large monetary gifts, and he kept sending them checks in order to convert them, and some of them converted, you would have no objections, right? This would be perfectly acceptable to you, correct? And those who converted because their hearts were enticed by large monetary gifts would be acceptable converts, yes?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Yahya,

I really want to be completely clear, because everytime I think I understand you, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. So please forgive me if I ask you several questions for clarification today.

If Bill Gates were a fanatical Christian, and he knew of many people who would appreciate large monetary gifts, and he kept sending them checks in order to convert them, and some of them converted, you would have no objections, right? This would be perfectly acceptable to you, correct? And those who converted because their hearts were enticed by large monetary gifts would be acceptable converts, yes?


Nope, if they converted due to the fact they had been bought over and were willing to give their souls for money this is a different reality.

The act committed by Gates himself would not really be condemnable, he's doing everything he can to intice people towards truth, acts of good will are ok in this manner.
(I know you never asked, but just to highlight, they must be psychologically stable here).

As for those who would be bought over, and become a believer simply to take the gift, (i.e if it was a case of become Muslim and get a free woddle of cash) this is condemnable on behalf of the one accepting the cash, if it were a case of giving a good will gift without setting the condition of converting this would be ok in my opinion.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

Thank you for answering clearly. Now please permit me a few more questions.

You said: The act committed by Gates himself would not really be condemnable, he's doing everything he can to intice people towards truth, acts of good will are ok in this manner.

So it's okay to do "everything in one's power" to entice people towards truth. (BTW, I'm glad you agree that Christinity is the truth!) But if Bill Gates were a soldier in a foreign land, it would be immoral for him to do everything in his power to entice people to the truth, correct? It seems you have to narrow down what is and what is not acceptable. "Anything in one's power" is too broad given the things you've said.

Now if this same Bill Gates were to go to a poor region in Ethiopia, and if he were to spend millions of dollars distributing food, while also preaching the Gospel, would this be acceptable or unacceptable?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

So it's okay to do "everything in one's power" to entice people towards truth. But if Bill Gates were a soldier in a foreign land, it would be immoral for him to do everything in his power to entice people to the truth, correct? It seems you have to narrow down what is and what is not acceptable.

Yes, I do believe in this circumstance it would be immoral of him, for he is there fulfilling a specified job as a combatant.

(BTW, I'm glad you agree that Christinity is the truth!)

A Cheap blow, but I should've seen it coming, I don't believe Christianity is the truth....dunno much about this religion known as "Christinity" though lol.

"Anything in one's power" is too broad given the things you've said.

Consider it a figure of speech, much like the famous statement of Malcolm X: "By Any Means Neccessary".

"Now if this same Bill Gates were to go to a poor region in Ethiopia, and if he were to spend millions of dollars distributing food, while also preaching the Gospel, would this be acceptable or unacceptable?"

I will have to think this one over if you don't mind, and consider the moral implications of it. Give me roughly 5 mins please.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

I look forward to your response on the other question. But I'll ask one concerning your comment:

"Yes, I do believe in this circumstance it would be immoral of him, for he is there fulfilling a specified job as a combatant."

So one is to do everything in one's power (within reason) to entice people to the truth, unless one has a specified job, in which case a person must under no circumstances entice people to the truth. Is this right?

David Wood said...

Let me add to that question. Let's say a person has a job in a factory. Thus, he has a specified job. Would you say that such a person must not entice his co-workers to the truth? Or do you have something more specific in mind when it comes to jobs?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Ok, I've pondered over it, I must acknowledge it's a touchy issue for me and I've generally criticised missionaries for this since high school.

I'll try and clarify where I stand on it, although I must highlight now that this is my uninformed personal opinion and is not an the Islamic opinion. I will try to research the Islamic opinion this week if I can.

My opinion is that it is generally rather immoral to go into a country in the guise of an Aid group, or NGO and slyly to missionary proselytisation. In terms of doing Aid and then letting someone know you are Christian and asking if you can speak to them about it, after the aid has been given, I don't see so much of a problem with that. I would condone no tied Aid here, where a condition of listening to the Gospel is stipulated on.

However in terms of a War Zone, where hope is bleak and people need a means of mental and physical migration or emancipation, they aren't in a state of mind in which a decision made would generally be rational, I would condemn ANY form of Proselytisation here, particular through means of material Aid.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Let me add to that question. Let's say a person has a job in a factory. Thus, he has a specified job. Would you say that such a person must not entice his co-workers to the truth? Or do you have something more specific in mind when it comes to jobs?

Again just a personal opinion, I meant specifically the Army, or even a U.N Worker sent to medically treat people. I have a problem with people abusing their positions in such situations to attempt to proselytise the vulnerable.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

You said: However in terms of a War Zone, where hope is bleak and people need a means of mental and physical migration or emancipation, they aren't in a state of mind in which a decision made would generally be rational, I would condemn ANY form of Proselytisation here, particular through means of material Aid.

After Badr, Muslims were constantly engaged in battles. Would you condemn all proselytization that occurred during these campaigns? More specifically, would you condemn the "If you become Muslims, you're lives and property will be safe from me" passages we find in Sunni sources?

David Wood said...

You said: "Again just a personal opinion, I meant specifically the Army, or even a U.N Worker sent to medically treat people. I have a problem with people abusing their positions in such situations to attempt to proselytise the vulnerable."

So do you believe that everyone in Iraq right now is psychologically unstable--unfit to think about religious matters and make religious decisions? Or is it only some people?

David said...

Ben, thanks for the godly reply and wisdom. I think it'll be really helpful as I grow in Christ. By the way, before I "move along and waste someone else's time", how long have you been a Christian? I'd really like to know, as it will give me an idea of how long it will take me to demonstrate the fruit you obviously have in your life. Thanks for your help. It's deeply appreciated.

Dale Bates said...

Well,

After reading this blog for a while, I thought I'd weight into this debate somewhat..

Ben Malik, let me as you a question. Apologies if this offends you.

In many instances, it could possibly be said that Islam manipulates people weak of mind for its own purposes. Such as reports of disabled people being used as suicide bombers ect... Is this behavior abhorrent to you?

I think the point Mr Wood may be trying to get at is that, is all means acceptable to convert people? In Christianity, -why- and -how- you become a christian is just as important as being one. Because we are to come to God with an empty hand of faith, knowing that he is God. Being bought by camels or god, or being blackmailed, then undermines the whole meaning of coming to faith in God. It just becomes something you did to either be rewarded with material goods, or to stave off death, an so is only a shallow belief, if a belief at all.

As for 'rice christians', it is not their fault that they try to not only feed the body of the person, but the soul as well. You can hardly say that Islam doesn't do that as well. Infact, at my university there is during ramadan free food for anyone, and I am sure they'd use the opportunity to talk about Islam to any who come.

So, if you are consistent, and fair to both Christianity and Islam, then you cannot object to 'rice christians'

Also, your attack on Mr White was quite funny. If you really think that the Iraq war is a new crusade by chrisedom, then you do not understand how brutally secular the west really is :)

Dale Bates said...

Also, as for 'rice christians' in the Army, it might pay to open up the history books and look at how Islam spread.

By the sword, mayhaps?

And what would have happened if the Muslim nations had succeeded in invading Israel at the very beigining of its existance? What, the Imams would have stayed at home, content with their lot?

When people in the army are faced with death every day, it is no surprise that they begin to see how spiritually bankrupt they are ( secular people ), therefore it is with no surpise that they would have the greatest need for the Gospel... Again, nothing wrong with that.

ben malik said...

hey the hypocrite dave chimes in once again. Hypocites just can't help themselves. So let me get this right, you condemn me in the spirit of trying to prove that I am wrong fo condeming and speaking in an ill-manner. Man, you take the cake on hypocrisy. Perhaps you can tell me how long you have masquearded as a mature christian who deceives himself into thinking that he represents Christ in a goldy manner despite your blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy?

Your fruits are a glaring indication of your "Christianity." Read Proverbs 26:4 to see what it says concerning answering fools like you.

Like I said, move on kid and waste someone else's time with your hypocrisy and inconsistency.

ben malik said...

bater, I am not taking the side of Islam or criticizing christianity, Yahya is. So your comments should be directed towards him. Lord bless you brother.

Dale Bates said...

Ah indeed, my apologies Ben. I was concentraiting on typing that I misdirected what I said. Apologies mate.

Nazam said...

I think there was no need for Ben Malk aka Sam Shamoun to insult David the way that he did.

"Whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna"
Matthew 5:22.

I think Ben/Shamoun's anger against David was unjustified as he was only trying give advice and a reminder not just to Ben/Shamoun but to others as wells as to how Christians should go about answering enquiries to their faith with "gentleness and kindness",
1 Peter 3:16.

I am genuine surprised if this is how we speak to our co-religionist then what about to others?

Even if you disagreed with him I don't think there was any need to call him fool.

"Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble.
Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing.
For: "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep the tongue from evil and the lips from speaking deceit, must turn from evil and do good, seek peace and follow after it".
1 Peter 3:8-11

David said...

Nazam, I think you did a much better job of describing what I was trying to get at earlier. I do not know Ben and I do not have the hostility towards him that he seems to have towards others (whether perceived or actual). Name-calling needs to hang out with the second graders in the schoolyard, not Christians who are commanded to love even their enemies. I have no desire whatsoever to be right all the time, particularly at the expense of charity. I see a trend in apologetics that pretty much mimics a "convert or demolish" the other side. David Wood seems to be a pretty friendly fellow that has a pleasant demeanor, which is something we can all emulate. I have followed Jesus for 30 years and I have left a spotty history at best. However, I resolve to learn from my mistakes and grow in grace. God help us all.

David said...

By the way, I keep reading that Ben is really Sam. Is that true? Are you sure? If so, well, that would be really... strange. I have enjoyed the debates with Sam and I would hate to think this is what he looks like from behind the veil, if indeed I have correctly understood his demeanor. I certainly hope this is not the case. If anyone has any insight regarding this I would appreciate their input. Mr. Wood, do you have any information regarding this assertion? I would imagine that you would be aware of this if it were indeed true. Thanks for the feedback from anybody with inside knowledge. Me, I just figured Christians told the truth.

ben malik said...

wow, the humble christian can't stop from attacking and criticizing all in the name of it being wrong to criticize and attack? And now he enlisted the aid of a Muslim to attack his "brethren." Wonderful Christlike example.

David, can you give me the number of your local church so I can contact your elders about your blatant inconsistent and outright hypocrisy?

And it seems you don't get much attention and you feel the need to get it here even though this topic is not about yo, and no one cares about you really. So start yopur blog where you can get all the attention you can get.

Like I said, stop bothering me since I didn't ask for a hypocrite to try to pull the splinters from my eyes when there are boulders beaming out from his. Learn to first practice what you preach and stop worrying about my "secret identity." Drop the comic books and start living what you read from the Bible, even though it is hard with your myopic vision.

To Wood, can you have this hypocrite stop flooding this combox and distracting from the main topic? Thanks a bunch brother.

David said...

Wow Ben, that was another round of terrifically wise counsel and admonition. Please be assured I'm taking this to heart. By the way, I did not enlist anyone's assistance, so there might be a slight lapse in the factual data you presented. No problem, as we all make mistakes. I know I certainly do. You know, as hard as it is to imagine I'm really not that worried about your identity. In fact, I don't think you would be so shallow as to pretend to be someone other than... well, Ben. And you are right, I would imagine it's only proper to block me from commenting given all the insults, name-calling, and accusations I have been hurling. I mean, I really did do that, right? Again, I stand corrected and I appreciate your counsel. Of course, you could always absolutely ignore anything I say which is generally the best route to take with repugnant personalities. Seems to work pretty well in most cases. I'll make you a deal: don't respond to this post and I won't address any more comments to you. That seems really reasonable to me. As for me, I'm going back to looking for the attention I crave, wallowing in my hypocrisy, and masquerading as a mature Christian. Thanks again for pointing out my shortcomings and helping me to see by your example how it should conduct myself. I'm... well, I'm grateful beyond words.

Dale Bates said...

Probably no need to be nasty :)

You can respectively disagree and not character assasinate someone...

Nazam said...

Most of the people, I imagine including David Wood, knows that Sam Shamoun writes under the pen name Ben Malik on this blog. He sometimes also comes on Pal Talk using the same name, you can tell especially when his speaking on the microphone because you can recognise him from his voice.


I and David are not saying that it is wrong for Sam Shamoun or anyone else to criticise and disagree even robustly but we can do so respectively without having to result to insults such as, "you fool!" Mt 5:22. This was uncalled for, David did not needed to be called by that word.

As 1 Peter 3:15-6 puts it; ...if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ. (NLT)


“I have enjoyed the debates with Sam and I would hate to think this is what he looks like from behind the veil”

I also had a similar impression when I first saw Sam Shamoun in his debate with Shabir Ally. During the intertwining periods of the debate he would be the first to get up from his chair to offer his hand to him and also be wanting to hug him at the end of the debate. There after I was genuine surprise to learn that not only does he use loaded language behind the scenes but he also uses colourful language against his opponents, which makes me question if all of that was just a charade. Now coming to this blog I am surprise that this is how he speaks to his co-religionist whenever they disagree with him, I thought he just did it to non-Christians!

Here are some links to some documented evidence of Sam Shamoun’s behaviour behind the scenes.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/james_white_s_hypocrisy_and_inconsistency__his_refusal_to_speak_against_his_highly_ill_mannered_friend_sam_shamoun

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_

BTW, I am not a Christian but a Muslim and David did not ask me for his aid.

David said...

Nazam, I appreciate your honesty and insight. I hope this gentleman is not Sam but I will certainly give what you said some serious thought. I know that David and Sam know each other and I would like to think that David would not allow someone with whom he affiliates to deceive. We all know who the true Deceiver is and so this would not be a pleasant revelation. Nonetheless, I thank you for your honesty and fairness. I've never met you or spoken to you but your behavior is admirable and honorable. Best wishes in your pursuit of truth. Though we come from very different backgrounds and hold two different beliefs you can consider yourself my friend. Hopefully being kind to a stranger will not open up either one of us to further attacks. Take care.

BlackBaron said...

David (not Wood),

Would you say that Nazam is being deceived by the "true Deceiver"?

ben malik said...

It is amazing that a so-called professed Chritian who slandered another Christian by the name of Keith Truth, and who tried to appeal to pity by referring to his physical handicap takes the side of a Muslim who hates Jesus and the Gospel. I expcet Nazam who is deceived by Satan, the one who controlled his prophet, to slander Christians,but not a self-professed mature Christian to do this, but this only proves what I hav been saying about you.

This really shows that David is a snake who shames Jesus by attacking brothers in order to appease Christ-haters. Yes we know who the deceiver is, the one who inspired Muhammad and produced the Quran. And yet you side with him and those who follow him to slander Christians. You are pathetic and one of those whom the Bible says masquerade as ministers of righteousness.

And just to correct your stupidity, there have been and continue to be MANY Christians who use pseudonyms in order to protect their identity. But your myopic and surface level reading of the Bible hinders you from seeing this because, like I said, you are a snake aiding the enemy in your war against Christians who don't have the boulders in their eyes like you do. According to your kindergarten level understanding of the Bible Samuel must have been carrying out the will of the Deceiver when he withehld pertinent information from Saul, per the orders of God hmself. See 1 Samuel 16.

So, snake, you see just how stupid you are and how you end up dscrediting the very scriptures and God you claim to believe in?

Like I said hypocrite, please give me the name of your church if you really think you have the higher moral ground so I can call and have your elders see how you have attacked myself, Keith Truth and accused Shamoun. But being a fake, a snake, and hypocrite you won't do it. Call my bluff.

Now try to be a man of integrity and of your word, which you are not, and stop flooding this blog as you said you would if I left you alone to your lying snake ways.

David said...

Well, that certainly was enlightening :-). If I did not know that Ben was just joking and having a little good-natured fun I would be offended. Well, not really. I would really enjoy talking to you, Ben. Please post your telephone number and I will call with my pastor. At least we know he is not really Sam. I'm glad that was cleared up, as it would not be fair to attribute his language and behavior (even though he is not serious) to Sam. By the way, I know you are using hyperbole so do not worry, I do not take it personally. Good night, Ben. I look forward to talking to you soon. Take care, and keep up the good work!

Nazam said...

David

Notice, despite having many opportunities to do so Ben Malik still has not denied that he is Sam Shamoun writing under a pseudonyms' name. If you and Ben Malik do end up speaking over the phone, which I doubt it, I am sure you'll be able to recognise him from his voice. Sometimes Ben Malik comes on Pal Talk as 'Answering Islam' and you can tell it is the same voice.

In the past Ben Malik has also posted on other blogs linking people to his articles which he has claimed was written by him which turns out to be articles by Sam Shamoun. Here is one such example; http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1082&p=12412

I don’t know why people like David Wood and James White still publicly remain silent and refuse to speak out against Sam Shamoun’s very abusive and repulsive behaviour which you can see from the link below was never provoked.
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_

In all these instances, listed on the above link, Ben Malik aka Sam Shamoun viciously abuses towards Muslims and their faith without any provocation and even now look at the way he has attacked you on this blog when all you were doing was just giving him advice.

Sometimes some Christians I think become too much relax in their faith and think they can sin a little bit because they have a guarantee that they’ll go to heaven one day but they forget Jesus warning Christians against hell. One such example would be, Matthew 5:22, where Jesus says do not say “You fool” or you’ll be in danger of the fire of hell. This statement would only be meaningful if it was possible for a Christian to be punish by God by hell and hence the warning, do not become so relax in your faith. Why not just be on the safe side Shamoun and apologise for calling David a fool?

I think sometimes Missionaries need to take the advice of Gamaliel from the book of Acts (5:38-9), speaking about the new Christian movement, when it comes to Muslims and their religion, “if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." (NIV)
In the GNB the verse reads thus, “If what they have planned and done is of human origin, it will disappear, but if it comes from God, you cannot possibly defeat them. You might find yourself fighting against God! The council followed Gamaliel’s advice”.

If Islam is not from God then Christian should not stress and if it is from God then all you are doing is setting yourself up against God and remember we cannot harm God in the slightest.

I, too, consider you my friend even if you think Islam is totally false I know I don't think that about Christianity. After having looked at the faith and read and studied the Bible and through my discussions with many Christians face to face I have come to respect the Bible even more and the Christian religion. Many of Jesus’ teachings and parables which are found in the Bible I find them to be beautiful and inspiring, especially Jesus' teachings about the forgiveness of God and showing mercy to others.

I hope we can still maintain contact on this blog and through my You Tube account, Nazam44. You can see some of my on-line videos including a radio show on Christian radio station Premier which I appeared on as a guest.

At least some good came out of Ben/Shamoun’s attack, you made a new friend.

Your neighbour,
Nazam.

Nazam said...

Sorry, I just notice the link which I had posted about Ben Maliks' behaviour, writing in his real name i.e. Sam Shamoun, has been slightly chop off at the end, here it is again.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to
_christians_

David said...

Nazam, your insight has been extremely helpful. Also, your knowledge of the Bible and ability to quote in context is quite good (better than many Christians). Thanks for the kindness and the information you provided. You know, it is strange because some of the rudest people on the planet are religionists. I'm sure we all could use a good look in the mirror from time to time. By the way, I think you are correct. I'm really not looking for a telephone number to be posted, which is just fine. I'm just glad that the nastiness has died down and the pejoratives ceased. I will look forward to looking at the links and youtube channel. I'll make sure I say hello again soon. Thanks again. Take care, my friend.

LouisJ-B said...

David(not Wood),

Dr.James White' new YouTube video is about this new *friend* of yours.;-)

Accusations and Truth Regarding Nazam44

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWR_2vhcGPU

Nazam said...

And here is a documentation of the abuses hurled by LouisJ-B's OLD *FRIEND* Ben-Malik aka Sam Shamoun ;-)

Accusations and Truth Regarding Ben-Malik:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_

Which is worse: my initial accusation that James White lied - and my subsequent removal of that comment and apology - or Sam Shamoun's continued abusive conduct, for which he has not once apologized and which has not once been openly condemned by Wood and White?

I am also planning to write to James White and offer him a personal apology and I hope to also apologise to him in person when he comes on his London tour of the UK.

ben malik said...

Man, I have been away for one day and the topic has changed from Yahya to Shamoun and myself.

I am not surprised that Nazam is a liar and deceiver since he follows Allah who proudly claims to be the greatest deceiver of them all.

Yet if Nazam stopped trying to act like Muhammad and really pursue the truth he would have found Shamoun exposing these lying Muslims by producing their emails in context:

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

There you will find the very same Muslims who slander Shamoun come running to him and beg him to fight other Muslims for them, and then turn and attack each other! And these are the same liars who call Shamoun foul mouthed? Shamoun says there that he will provide more emails to further prove that it was these snakes who started the attacks, not him. He simply gave them a taste of their own medicine.

And if Nazam also refrain for a moment in trying to be illiterate like Muhammad he would have read me asking if Shamoun really started all this then how does he explain these same muslims attacking and slandering Wood and White who have been nothing but gracious and kind to them?

Now I expect this to come from Nazam since being a Muslim he can't help himself from being a liar and snake like Allah whom he follows. I didn't expect David (not Wood) to be one since he has been masquerading here as a Christian.

ben malik said...

Thank you louis for exposing David (not Wood) for pretending to be a Christian and yet siding with the enemies of the Gospel. And now we have documented proof from White that Nazam is exactly like the rest, a lying snake who slanders men like Shamoun while getting exposed like his prophet has been and continues to be exposed for the murdering liar he was.

Nazam, here's mud in your face. That's what you get for trying to be like Muhammad, you snake. Hahaha!

ben malik said...

Hey David (not Wood), send me your phone number to the following email so I can expose you for slandering Christians, siding with Muslims, and appealing to your physical handicap which was nothing more than an attempt to gather sympathy:

ben_malik3@hotmail.com

Shame on you for using Christ that way.

David said...

Hello Ben, it's good to hear from you. You can send your telephone number to the following e-mail address: notbenmalik@aol.com. You will have no trouble reaching me there :-). I look forward to talking to you soon. Take care.

David said...

I'm sorry, Louis. I didn't realize you were exposing me but rather I thought you were pointing out that Nazam was wrong to call JW a liar. By the way, I noticed he apologized and did exactly what JW requested. Gee, that seems pretty honorable and honest, doesn't it? Maybe certain others around here could learn from his example. Yes, it was a proper thing to acknowledge a mistake and make amends. Good job, Nazam. By the way, I think that Arabic food is delicious! That probably makes me evil as well :-). Fortunately, the apostle Paul was not aware that eating tabbouleh was wicked and something a Christian should not do!

David said...

By the way Ben, you keep mentioning that "David appeals to his physical handicap to get sympathy", do you not? Would you care to document this and actually copy and paste where I said this? I've mentioned this only one time and it was never looking for sympathy. I was accused of not believing in the supernatural and I responded "I'm paralyzed and pray for a miracle daily so I clearly believe...". I'll make you a deal, if you can produce a single instance of me ever appealing for sympathy I will send you $1000 for each time you can do so. Well, copy and paste this information and you can collect the money. Seems pretty easy to me. And because you are truthful and honest you should be able to earn quite a bit of cash with very little effort. I'm really looking forward to this and I'm sure everyone else would like to see what you can produce. Deal, or no deal? Also, I'm still waiting for your phone number at my following e-mail address:

Notbenmalik@aol.com

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Best wishes for a great day :-)

LouisJ-B said...

There seems to be an outbreak of *Shamounitis* on this blog.

Dr.White called you out.Your response was the right way to go about it.Sam is Definitely Aggressive but should never imho be "...openly condemned by Wood and White..." because someone claims abuse.

Nazam said:I think sometimes Missionaries need to take the advice of Gamaliel from the book of Acts (5:38-9),...when it comes to Muslims and their religion...

*Missionaries* can't apply Gamaliel' advice to Islam because the man,who meets Islam' criteria for prophethood,was Never part of the cultural context of Christianity like Jesus' fallowers were part of the cultural context of Judaism.

So we should and will keep "stressing" any belief which present a different Jesus,Gospel and Spirit,especially when such a belief was revealed by an angel.;-)

Nazam said...

Once again Shamoun merely abuses, mocks and insults...not only that, his arguments now border on the absurd (see below). Note again that no Muslim here mocked and insulted Christians and Christianity in this vicious fashion. So Shamoun has insulted, mocked, abused and made a series of hatefilled generalizations comments and demonized an entire people (billion plus) completely unprovoked. Consider also that Christians like Wood will be very unlikely to speak against this vile conduct.

It is very easy to reverse Ben-Malik aka Sam Shamoun's abuses upon him. For example, I could also say:

+++++++++


I am not surprised that Shamoun is a liar and deceiver since he follows Yahweh who proudly claims to be the greatest deceiver of them all ...


Now I expect this to come from Shamoun since being a Christian he can't help himself from being a liar and snake like Yahweh and Paul whom he follows ...

And now we have documented proof that Shamoun is exactly like the rest, a lying snake who slanders others while getting exposed like his prophet Paul has been and continues to be exposed for the Satan possessed liar he was ...

Shamoun, here's mud in your face. That's what you get for trying to be like Paul, you snake. Hahaha! ...

+++++++++++++

These are nothing more than abuses and hatefilled comments directed upon an entire people. This is all what Shamoun does. I reversed Shamoun's abuses upon him so that perhaps other fair minded and reasonable Christians may realize how vulgar this guy is and what an embarrassement he is to Christian apologetics.

Here we find documented evidence of Ben-Malik aka Shamoun mocking Islam and viciously abusing Muslims, JUST AS HE DOES ABOVE, without any provocation:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_

Shamoun abuses one Yusuf Ismail even though we can see that Yusuf Ismail never abused Shamoun:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/pussy_cat_threats.htm

Here Shamoun directs vulgar comments towards Basam Zawadi even though Basam had said nothing of the sort to Shamoun and had said nothing significant to provoke him:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_pornographic_manners.htm

Shamoun abuses, insults and throws vulgar comments towards Sami Zatri and his mother:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamouns_character_5.htm

Shamoun abusing and mocking Islam:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_foul_insults_exposed.htm

More unprovoked abuses and mocks:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_ludicrous_response.htm

Unprovoked insults and abuses:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamoun_4.htm

Abusing Zawadi on paltalk:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/Shamouns_bad_character.htm

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/shamoun_s_character_2.htm

(you can see above that Zawadi is relatively well behaved whereas Shamoun goes on a wild insultive rampage)

Mocking Islam with filthy comments in email:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/more_shamoun_foul_language.htm

So this guy is mentally unstable. In person, when he is debating on stage, he is polite and well mannered so much so that he will take every opportunity to hug his Muslim opponent and shake hands. But behind a computer he is a completely different man. It seems he suffers from multiple personalities and is facing deep seated psychological issues.

Shamoun, based on his above documented behaviour, is a disgrace and embarrassement for Christians, not to mention a barrier in dialogue between Christians and Muslims. If your purpose is to share the gospel with the Muslims, then adopting Shamoun vulgar behaviour and attitude would mean making non-Christians run far away from you (likewise, when Muslims mock and insult Christianity and Christians, they too ensure that the Christians they correspond with never study Islam with an open mind).

Shamoun asks "how does he explain these same muslims attacking and slandering Wood and White who have been nothing but gracious and kind to them?" Is this supposed to justify Shamoun's unprovoked barrages of filth, abuses and mockings? WHERE have any Muslim writer and apologist adopted Shamoun's low and gutter type behaviour while addressing and corresponding with Wood and White? When Nadir misbehaved (minutely compared to Shamoun), Muslims condemned that, as White admitted. Secondly, Wood and White are not doing anyone a favor for being "gracious" and "kind". This is how ALL human beings aught to behave.

Shamoun says: "There you will find the very same Muslims who slander Shamoun come running to him and beg him to fight other Muslims for them, and then turn and attack each other! And these are the same liars who call Shamoun foul mouthed?" To break down the "logic":

1. Some Muslims allegedly run to Shamoun to fight fellow Muslims for them;
2. they turn and attack each other...

and this is supposed to be a marvellous justification for Shamoun's filthy behaviour documented above? This guy can't even think straight in anger. It is not a "lie" that Shamoun is abusive; it is a simple fact whether one likes it or not. You can see this yourself above (AND IN THIS VERY BLOG ITSELF!).

According to Shamoun: "And now we have documented proof from White that Nazam is exactly like the rest, a lying snake..." What is the "documented" evidence by White that I am a "lying snake"? White simply claims that I failed to make a distinction between a lie and a mistake and that when I called him a "liar" I was being insultive. White does not say, let alone "document", that I allegedly "lied." In response, I agree with White that it was wrong to call him a liar and I acknowledged his explanation for the mistake he made. Shamoun is incapable of following a straightforward discussion. Not only that, you can see his hate and contempt towards all Muslims in the generalized comment "like the rest...", as if this filthy mannered guy has personally interviewed a billion plus Muslims.

BTW, I respect the God of the Bible and Bible itself unlike Ben/Shamoun who all he does is insults other people's believes.

Nazam said...

Hi there Louis,

It is not that someone has merely "claimed" that Shamoun is abusive. We say Shamoun is abusive because he IS abuse. Here is the proof:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_

This contains Shamoun's emails and paltalk conversations.

Now stop the denials. Just tell us if the above is acceptable behaviour? Or is it unChristian behaviour? Which is it?


"*Missionaries* can't apply Gamaliel' advice to Islam because the man,who meets Islam' criteria for prophethood,was Never part of the cultural context of Christianity like Jesus' fallowers were part of the cultural context of Judaism.

So we should and will keep "stressing" any belief which present a different Jesus,Gospel and Spirit,especially when such a belief was revealed by an angel.;-)"


This has nothing to do with cultural context. Gamaliel stressed a point which is applicable upon any context and cultural setting. Namely, that if a belief/movement is false, then there is nothing to worry about it but in case if it is right, then you are opposing God.

Secondly, since the Jewish context and cultural setting is very important to you, then it should be noted how the evangelical interpretation of Jesus has been severely undermined by modern historical Jesus studies precisely due to its disconnection from the 1st century Jewish context. This should concern you and cause you stress;-)

LouisJ-B said...

Nazam said:This has nothing to do with cultural context. Gamaliel stressed a point which is applicable upon any context and cultural setting. Namely, that if a belief/movement is false, then there is nothing to worry about it but in case if it is right, then you are opposing God.

david(not Wood),seemed pleased in "...your knowledge of the Bible and ability to quote in context...",but i see it as being superficial.

The necessity for Acts 5:39 to be "... applicable upon any context and cultural setting." is understandable especially when the man,who meets Islam' criteria for prophethood,left his followers with the impression that Gamaliel' *God* is also theirs.

Secondly,your statement that "...the evangelical interpretation of Jesus has been severely undermined by modern historical Jesus studies precisely due to its disconnection from the 1st century Jewish context." is meaningful because we Know what 1st century Jewish followers of Jesus believed.

So...,am i concerned? Does it cause me stress? No!,because the *God* of Gamaliel keeps a watchful eye on his revelation.;-)

ben malik said...

Louis, can't you see that Nazzam is trying to divert attention away from his cronies like Yahya after Wood exposed them for being lying slanderous snakes? And can't you see that Nazzam's greatest fear is Shamoun since he can't help but mention him over and over again? He knows deep down inisde that Shamoun even frightens the heck of out his own prophte Muhammad wh is being tortured in his grave.

The most laughable part of this snake is that he doesn't see how White exposed him for being the very thing he condemned Shamoun for, a lying, slanderous snake who doesn't hesitate to lie about people and abuse them in order to discredit them. But being a Muslim who seeks to emulate Muhammad's illiteracy he can't see how White exposed him so let me help. If you go to White's response you will see where he quotes Nazzam as accusng him of lying. Instead of giving White the benefit of the doubt he has to slander him and accuse of him of evil motives. And the reason he does so is because he blindly follows wharever lies and deceit his idols like Bassam feed him. But the poor idiot doesn't see how White and others will embarrass him and his fellow snakes by poducng the real facts and evidence. Pathetic serpent.

And he again didn't understand my my point when I mentioned the attitude of his fellow satanists. If Shamoun is really to blame here then can he please for the love of his dead prophet who is bunring in hell explain to us why he, Sami, Bassam and Yahya slanders the character of Wood and White when these gentleman haven't acted the way Shamoun has been accused of acting, but have been consistently gracious and kind?

He can't answer that so the snake avoids it by going on his Shamoun lovefest. We already know that you daydream of Shamoun and that he terrifies the very spirit of Muhammad, but try staying on topic and explain your lies and slanders you snake. But you won't find him attacking them.

And what this really funny is that I have seen the actual email from yusuf Ismail which Shamoun will post on the site and guess what Osama did with it? HE DELIBERATLY CHANGED YUSUF'S ACTUAL WORDS TO MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE SAINT. But these idiots don't know that Shamoun saved the email and when he does produce it this will be more proof that Muhammad does nothing more than produce filthy, lying snakes like Nazam. Man Nazam, how does your shoe taste in your mouth right now?

Ohh, I had to laugh at his claim that current studies regarding the Judaism have seriously undermine the Evangliecal intepretation since this shows that this guy is really illiterate like Muhammad. When I have time I will post some articles and books that prove the exact opposite of what this lying snake claims.

Nazam, keep it up with being a good Muslim since you are just like your Allah and Muhammad.

Nazam said...

Hello Louis,

You still fail to argue and explain where on earth Gamaliel made a point that is culture and context specific. He merely made a point which is applicable upon all cultural contexts and times and may be adopted by all people as it has to do with our behaviour towards others. When you say that:

"The necessity for Acts 5:39 to be "... applicable upon any context and cultural setting." is understandable especially when the man,who meets Islam' criteria for prophethood,left his followers with the impression that Gamaliel' *God* is also theirs."

um..huh? you are not offering any explanation and argument.

And to correct your second error, Muhammed did not merely leave one with the "impression" that Gamaliel's God is everyone's God, he clearly stated that there is only One God and we all (Jews and Christians and Muslims) worship Him, irrespective of our differences.

Third, I am talking about modern historical Jesus studies, which have, overall, severly undermined the typical Evangelical portrayal of Jesus (e.g. Trinitarian God, Jesus as divine) and not "1st century Jewish followers of Jesus". The latter were not a monolith and you have the 1st century Jewish followers of Jesus described in the early part of Acts as continuing to observe the laws/commandments and making Temple sacrifices.

Nazam said...

David (not Wood) has exposed Shamoun for his blunder (Shamoun's made a blinder that David used his handicap to gather sympathy). Shamoun blunder previously when he said that James White had "documented" my alleged "lies". Of course, White had done no such thing. He was only upset that I had called him a "liar" - after which I apologised to him and acknowledged that he had made an innocent mistake and had not deliberately lied. So after telling these untruths, Shamoun spews another error: that Wood "exposed" Yahya's "lie." Shamoun, being the unreasonable fellow he is, does not have the ability to make a distinction between lie, difference of opinion and mistake. So we have thus far 3 incontrovertible errors from Shamoun, not to mention his new batch of abuses, insults and mocks (which do not appear to concern his friends who are submitting comments here (Louis, for example).

Consider more mistakes by Shamoun. According to Shamoun:

"...he doesn't see how White exposed him for being the very thing he condemned Shamoun for, a lying, slanderous snake who doesn't hesitate to lie about people and abuse them in order to discredit them."

First, to correct Shamoun's mistake again: White did not assert that I had "lied." He only said that it was not civil for me to call him a liar. My response: White is right.

Secondly, at no time have I ever behaved like Shamoun towards anyone. Hence it is an outright untruth to state that White "exposed" me for "being the very thing" I condemn Shamoun for. So this is another one of Shamoun's errors. I have never abused anyone even remotely like him. Just see the abuses, insults, filth and mocks Shamoun has typed here (Wood has yet to condemn this). I now challenge all to search my comments and locate anything even minutely comparable to Shamoun's filthy conduct above on this blog.

Consider also Shamoun's audio of abuses and insults here:

http://www.answering-islam.com/sami_trinity_debate_2.mp3 (see near the end where Shamoun begins abusing zatri)

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_1.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_2.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_4.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_5.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_6.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_7.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_8.mp3

http://www.answering-islam.com/shamoun_low_class_9.mp3

Is Shamoun in the right state of mind to compare my referring to White as a "liar" - and my subsequent immediate apology - and his long history of documented abuse, mocks, insults and vulgar conduct?

This guy definitely has deep-seated psychological problems and is mentally unstable.

Shamoun wrote:

"If you go to White's response you will see where he quotes Nazzam as accusng him of lying. Instead of giving White the benefit of the doubt he has to slander him and accuse of him of evil motives."

This is an additional indication of Shamoun's psychological problem. That is because when White rightfully protested and said that he had made a mistake and had not lied; I reacted by apologising to White and then removing my comment to which he objected too. Shamoun still cannot comprehend this.

Did I react in the right or wrong way? I mean, what else can I do?

So I made a mistake and, thereafter, apologised and took my words back. Period.

Now compare my conduct with that of Shamoun. Despite the fact that I have ALWAYS been exceedingly polite and reasonably well-mannered, Shamoun has directed pure rage towards me. He has insulted and abused me continuously. Not only that, he continues to mock my religion and submit vulgar comments.

Yet he is outraged that I once upon a time called White a "liar" (note, even here I did not behave in anyway comparable to Shamoun) and will not accept the fact that I apologised to White and rectified my comment!

Shamoun writes (I am removing his blasphemy of Islam and mocks):

"...why he, Sami, Bassam and Yahya slanders the character of Wood and White"

Yes, he is mentally unstable for sure. Imagine a guy who calls you all the names in the book completely unprovoked (I never abused Shamoun and I never mocked Christianity the way he has been mocking and blaspheming Islam) and then gets upset when someone he supports is merely called a "liar" - despite the fact that an apology was subsequently made!

Now to Shamoun's new blundder, Basim, Yahya and Sami have NEVER "slandered" abused, mocked and insulted White and Wood the way Shamoun has insulted others. At no time have Wood and White been abused and slandered in the manner Shamoun is slandering his opponents here on this log and mocking their religion with filthy comments.

Shamoun now claims that Yusuf Ismail's email was changed by Osama Abdallah. He may or may not be right, let’s see what he posts on AI. Be that as it may, even if we put that aside, just look at the type of comments Ben-malik aka Shamoun has posted on this blog. Also view the above recordings of Shamoun's filth, particularly the way he abuses Zatri (first link). What is Shamoun's excuse for this?

And consider this:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamouns_character_5.htm

Shamoun, out of nowhere, began directing abuse towards Zatri.

Therefore, even if Yusuf Ismail's email was allegedly altered, it remains that Shamoun is a particularly bad mannered and uncivil individual, a disgrace for Christian apologetics and the efforts to spread the gospel. Hey, what on earth is his wonderful excuse to abuse me and mock Islam here when nothing of the sort was said by me regarding Christianity and any Christian?

I look forward to his attempt to "show" that historical Jesus studies have not undermined the Evangelical view of Jesus.

LouisJ-B said...

Nazam,

I'm grateful to God for his *Word*, as the responsibility to "... argue and explain where on earth Gamaliel made a point that is culture and context specific." isn't solely mine.

Acts 5:39 devoid of context Can and Has been understood as merely being "...a point which is applicable upon all cultural contexts and times and may be adopted by all people as it has to do with our behaviour towards others."

But i thank God that Gamaliel is not some random person thinking out loud as to the plight of theist' worldwide.

But rather,he is a Pharisee speaking to the Sanhedrin which has gathered due to an Jewish issue involving Jewish men in the land of Israel.This is the context of Acts 5:39.

Secondly,David Wood and James White have demonstrated that Muhammad' statement "...that there is only One God and we all (Jews and Christians and Muslims) worship Him, irrespective of our differences." to be false.

And finally, the only thing new and modern about the historical Jesus studies is... the audience.;-)

ben malik said...

Wow, talk about a gent who goes on a rant and rave. Because Islam has affected his capacity to see things clearly, Nazam is incapable of seeing his hypocrisy. And like his prophet who did the same thing in the Quran, all he can do is repeat the same lies over and over again. Posting the same links fifty thousand times doesn't change the facts, unless you are a Muslim who follows Muhammad. Let me try one more time to help cure him of his hypocrisy. He writes:

"Shamoun, being the unreasonable fellow he is, does not have the ability to make a distinction between lie, difference of opinion and mistake."

Yet when it came to White the snake didn't even allow for the possibility that White was simply mistaken. He jumped the gun and had to automtaically assume White MUST HAVE BEEN LYING, that is until White exposed this snake for what he truly is. And so now in order to save face he claims that since he apologized then this isn't really a good example. Yep, you make Muhammad proud with your schemes and tricks.


And to top it off he thinks he is a psychologist who can analyze people!

Too bad you weren't there to help Mo with his mental condition, especially during the time when he thought he was having sex with all of his wives when he hadn't even touched them, all thanks to the magic of a Jew who proved more powerful than Allah himself! Hahaha

Anyway, why not give me your paltalk name so you, Shamoun and myself all appear together for a little debate.

Moreover, befor I post the articles and books that thoroughly destroy your lies and selective reading on the religious views that were current during Jesus' day could you please provide the names of your books since I want to use that to further expose the kind of snake that you are.

Till then, keep acting like Muhammad and repeat yourself over and over again. Maybe someone will finally listen to your deceit and lies.

David said...

Hello Ben, I see you are back and I see you have brought your bag of insults with you, replete with name-calling and pejoratively laced innuendo. I mean really, Mo, is that the best you can do? I would not expect that will be successful in leading Muslims to Christ, but perhaps that was your best attempt. Your efforts are certainly appreciated, albeit not so good. Do you also have the documentation to back up your accusations against me? I'm looking forward to reading these in a public venue, since your insults were very much out there. Try discussing and presenting your arguments without nasty blustering and bullying and you may find the results different than what you are currently experiencing. At this point, all you are receiving is contempt and causing a lot of disgust. Perhaps that is the problem, you have confused "discussing" with "disgusting". That would certainly be a possible explanation as to why you keep maligning and insulting others. You simply misunderstood the mandate. Anyway, keep up the good work. You're knocking the cover off the ball :-). And thanks for the e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

David said...

Nazam, he's back! You know, it may be that he is not Sam, but rather a Muslim trying to do such a hatchet job on Islam in the name of Christ that he disgraces Christianity. Could this be the best possible explanation as to why he keeps calling names and belittling others? I'm still thinking about this, but it certainly make more sense than someone trying to represent Christ to the Muslim community. Either way, don't let the name calling bother you as it's just a different kind of global warming (hot air) :-) .

Nazam said...

LouisJ-B, you again fail to offer reasons and arguments as to why I am wrong. You position is as follows: "I am right because I am right." Well, that is not good enough. It is not an argument.

Now, I will grant the possibility that perhaps I was wrong and you were right. But you need to offer reasons to show why you are right rather than to just essentially repeat "I am right I am right I say so."

Yes Gamaliel was Jewish and addressing his fellow Jews. But the point he is making is a general one...take any culture and context and it will be applicable.

And no David Wood and James White have NOT "demonstrated" that it is false to say that there is only one God and we all worship him (by "we all" I mean Christians, Jews and Muslims). White has said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, though we have different understandings of this same God. I can refer to a number of Christians who say this (and yes I know there are those who disagree). You will be surprised to know that the Jews have always accepted Muslims as fellow monotheists while many have deemed Christians to be polytheists due to their Trinitarian conception of God. That is because despite the differences, the Muslims and Jews believe in One Undivided God. So if you can accept Jews as believers of One God, despite the fact they reject the Trinity, then there would seem to be no reason to deny Muslims as believers of the same God, given the similarities between the Muslim and Jewish concept of God.

You wrote:

"And finally, the only thing new and modern about the historical Jesus studies is... the audience.;-)"

The is a rather ignorant comment. True, audience continues to grow, but the studies themselves have progressed a lot. Do you know nothing about the works of Sanders, Dunn, Wright, Vermes etc?

LouisJ-B said...

Actually Nazam,

Your failure to understand arguments and to deal with evidence is due to the unfortunate and uncomfortable task that Muslims have in proving Mohammad claims and statements to be true.

In your desperation to validate Muhammad' statement "...that there is only One God and we all (Jews and Christians and Muslims) worship Him, irrespective of our differences." you quoted Acts 5:39 devoid of context hence turning the words of a member of the PHARISEE sect(of all people) into an invitation for inclusivism and cordiality amongst theist'.Puhleeez

Seeing how you're having difficulty quoting accurately and in context,I'm confident that you misunderstood Dr.White,Dr. Wood,the Jews and Christians with whom you're in contact with.There is No "*we* all".The revelation of Who God is and Salvation is of the Jews.Muhammad,the Qu'ran and Islam is irrelevant.

Indulge in whatever studies which strengthens or soothes your beliefs.The fact remains that Muhammad was ignorant of *us*.;-)

Nazam said...

Thank you for your comments David. I will, as always, try to ignore Shamoun's insults, poisonous attacks and mocks as much as I can and respond to his relevant deceptive attacks. You suggested that: "it may be that he is not Sam, but rather a Muslim trying to do such a hatchet job on Islam in the name of Christ that he disgraces Christianity." Oh, he is definitely Shamoun and I think it is highly unlikely that a Muslim would behave in this manner towards his own religion. Check out the previous links I mentioned and there you will find Shamoun, using his own name, abusing, insulting and mocking in an identical manner. I would suggest you ask David Wood about Ben Malik and in private he will likely confirm to you that Ben Malik and Shamoun are one and the same. Check out the audios as well to listen to Shamoun's colorful language.

Now to Shamoun the snakes recent ramblings:

"He writes:

"Shamoun, being the unreasonable fellow he is, does not have the ability to make a distinction between lie, difference of opinion and mistake."

Yet when it came to White the snake didn't even allow for the possibility that White was simply mistaken. He jumped the gun and had to automtaically assume White MUST HAVE BEEN LYING, that is until White exposed this snake for what he truly is."

First, Shamoun continues to reveal his psychological problems. Yes I made a mistake but then I apologised for it and corrected myself. What else can be done? When a person makes a mistake and then, when it is pointed out, corrects himself, is that good or bad? Does it make sense to just harp on and on about the initial mistake, never mind the correction thereafter?

Second, my above statement was made in response to Shamoun's claim that Wood had allegedly exposed Yahya's "lies." In response I correctly noted that a difference of opinion is not a "lie."

Instead of responding to this, Shamoun merely insults and then repeats that I had initially mistakenly addressed White as a liar.

Shamoun says:

"And so now in order to save face he claims that since he apologized then this isn't really a good example."

I don't understand what this guys problem is. He appears to have lost the ability to think straight. What is Shamoun's "example" in response to my argument that because Wood disagrees with Yahya's viewpoint, that does not mean that Yahya is "lying"? That I initially mistakenly claimed that White is a liar, never mind the subsequent apology for that? huh?

Shamoun says:

"And to top it off he thinks he is a psychologist who can analyze people!"

I am not required to be a psychologist to conclude from your comments that you suffer from serious psychological and anger problems. Anyone can read your ramblings here and conclude that you are mentally unstable because rational and reasonable minded people do not communicate in this highly uncivil and illogical manner.

Shamoun says:

"Moreover, befor I post the articles and books that thoroughly destroy your lies and selective reading on the religious views that were current during Jesus' day could you please provide the names of your books since I want to use that to further expose the kind of snake that you are."

Again Shamoun fails to make a distinction between a difference of opinion and a lie. If Shamoun posts an article or books containing arguments which disagree with, say, something said by Geza vermes, for example, then that does not mean that Vermes was "lying".

Talk about selective reading, for Shamoun no scholar is acceptable unless and until he/she endorses or says something affirming his presuppositions, a typical Evangelical Jesus. This means he is reliant upon a handful of scholars, inerranists or scholars very close to an inerrant view of the Bible. So Shamoun IS selective and for him to pretend otherwise is nothing more than self-deception on his part.

I, on the other hand, rely upon a range of scholars from different backgrounds and traditions, who do not necessarily agree with each other on every point of detail but who have individually presented very different historical Jesus reconstructions from an evangelical Jesus. I have already named such scholars before, here they are again (with some additional names): E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, James Dunn, Graham Stanton, J.K. Elliott, Bruce Chilton, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredrickson, James Robinson, Arthur Bellinzoni, Helmut Koester, J. Houlden, J. Bowden, H. C. Kee, Crossan, John Meier...and many others. These are just some names from the top of my head and many of them have written multiple books on the subject, which can be searched on amazon.

ben malik said...

Exactly what I expected this snake to be consulting, liberal-critical scholars who's views can be turned more forceful against Muhammad (not that we need them to show that Mo was a fraud). Ehrman, Chilton, Dunn are representative of serious historical scholarship? You gotta be kidding me. Their underlying presuppositions guide how they analyze and interpret the data, presuppositions which would destroy the Muslim view of Mo's false religion.

Where is your appeal to those who have interacted and refuted these critical scholars by appealing to the same historical data? Why do I not see Wallace Bauckham or Hurtado, just to name a few? The reason because you are an inconsistent lying snake.

Anyway, when I manage to find time this week I will produce some of the books and links which destroy your sources.

Thanks snake for helping me to further expose your lies and inconsistencies. Mo would have been proud of you.

DrOakley said...

Greetings:

Let me begin by saying I hate comboxes. I have one of the most active blogs around, and I think one of the main reasons is I have never had comboxes. There is something about that them brings out the worst in people. I have never seen anything good come from them, personally, and even if some does, the 99% of the garbage they produce is not worth the 1% of good.

I was directed to this thread by Nazam. For those who might not know who I am, I am the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, James White. I am a Christian apologist, an elder in my church, a professor, and a author. Over the past few years I have been privileged to engage in the defense of the Christian faith in reference to Islam. I consider myself a student of Islam, for I still have much to learn. But I'm a fast study, too. :-)

In any case, Nazam believes Ben Malik is Sam Shamoun. Ben Malik says otherwise, as does Sam Shamoun. Another reason to avoid comboxes, PalTalk, and private e-mail fights. I have no interest in such things.

I would like to direct all of my fellow Christian believers to the following article, posted by my friend, Tom Ascol of the Founders Ministries. It contains a letter by the great John Newton. Some of you might know him as the author of the hymn, Amazing Grace. In any case, I believe his words, convicting as they might be, need to be read, repeatedly.

http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/09/if-you-must-engage-in-controversy.html

Nazam has been asking me to condemn Sam Shamoun so as to avoid being a hypocrite. Evidently, Nazam does realize that I approach the task of apologetics with a particular theological and ethical framework in place. I have already been in enough debates to demonstrate that while I do not compromise my faith, I likewise refuse to engage in name-calling and childish behavior, unlike some of my opponents. I believe the truth I seek to proclaim to the glory of Christ is obscured and hindered when I let myself get in the way. This is why I seek to remain "on point," stay focused upon the topic of the debate, and even managed to get through an entire two hours with Nadir Ahmed chattering at my side without blowing my top. :-) As most of you know, that's a supernatural feat.

In any case, I would like to say to Ben Malik, whoever you are: brother, your language is getting in the way of your message, big time. Constant use of terms like "snake" and "liar" and the constant denigration inherent in your language is reprehensible. Yes, I read what you wrote:

it would be nice if you practiced what you preached by contacting me privately and scold me for what you perceive for my attitude which you erroneously think doesn't glorify God, instead of whining in a public forum. Perhaps then I could have helped to expand your surface level reading of the Bible to see that there is a time and place to answer fools according to their folly and to even mock them.

But you have posted this material in public, and as one whose stand against Islam cannot possibly be questioned in any rational fashion, and as an elder in Christ's church, I must tell you that your language has utterly overthrown your profession in this thread. Indeed, could anyone even figure out what the topic is supposed to be after so much bluster and emotionalism has been cast into the midst of it? The gospel of Christ is not proclaimed by means of hatred, sir, and it is hard not to conclude that given you begin with referring to someone as "this deceitful, lying Shiite" that you are hardly spending much time praying for this man's deliverance from the deception that blinds his eyes.

I am not blameless in this matter. I am a sinner, in need of God's grace, and I have often failed to love as Christ commanded me to. But I seek His forgiveness, and I do seek to be consistent in this issue. And so I call upon all Christians, no matter what your experience with Muslim apologists, some of whom, I well know, do all they can to *exacerbate* this kind of situation---we have no choice in this matter. "Speak the truth in love" is our command. If you think you have the right to mock, I exhort you to consider well the role your own flesh is playing in the matter. Give no place to it, brethren. Examine your motives. Examine your heart. Do you find pride? Arrogance? Hubris? Repent and confess it and ask God to fill you with His Spirit.

I would like to address Nazam in my next comment. Thank you.

james

DrOakley said...

Nazam:

You said, "White has said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, though we have different understandings of this same God." Where have I said this? I do not believe we worship the same God. We are both monotheists, but my God is by nature Triune, and yours is by nature unitarian. Could you direct me to where I have said otherwise? Thank you.

Next, you wrote:

I, on the other hand, rely upon a range of scholars from different backgrounds and traditions, who do not necessarily agree with each other on every point of detail but who have individually presented very different historical Jesus reconstructions from an evangelical Jesus. I have already named such scholars before, here they are again (with some additional names): E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, James Dunn, Graham Stanton, J.K. Elliott, Bruce Chilton, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredrickson, James Robinson, Arthur Bellinzoni, Helmut Koester, J. Houlden, J. Bowden, H. C. Kee, Crossan, John Meier...and many others.

Once again, I continue seeking the consistent Muslim. Do you embrace a naturalistic worldview, Nazam? Do you believe in prophets? Do you believe God has sent down books? Why then are you wedded to a realm of scholarship that, *presuppositionally* rejects all such things? *If* you embrace the most radical Orientalists' views of the Qur'an, then I will grant you consistency. If you believe you can start with a rejection of the Qur'an's nature as scripture, so that you can cut it apart, set on surah against another, theorize about who wrote what and when, posit post-Muhammadan redactions, etc., THEN you would be right at home with Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Crossan (the nicest heretic you will ever meet---trust me, I know). But if you are a believing Muslim who believes the Qur'an is the perfect revelation from Allah, unchanging and unchangeable, delivered without flaw through the Angel Gabriel, and preserved without flaw to our day, then you have no right to be playing games with Ehrman/Crossan/et al.

Think about it, Nazam. When I address my own Scriptures, I seek, as a scholar, to be consistent in my handling of them. I have been doing textual critical work for decades now, as a believing Christian who strives to glorify his Lord through a consistent application of a thought-out Christian worldview to the entirety of my life--including my apologetics. So, when I turn to Islam and the Qur'an, how can I abandon that worldview and adopt another? How can I become double-minded? How can I be a supernaturalist when dealing with my own scriptures, and yet embrace naturalism as my modus operandi when examining the Qur'an? I cannot. I must be consistent, for if I am not consistent, then I cannot pretend to be dealing truthfully with the issues at hand.

Honestly, Nazam, I have yet to meet my first consistent Muslim at this point. In every instance, the Muslim uses one worldview when talking about the Qur'an, early Qur'anic transmission, the Uthmanic revision, etc. and etc., and a completely *different* one when discussing the Bible. When in the masjid he believes in the supernatural realm of God and angels and divine revelation; when he leaves the masjid and enters the debate hall, he becomes a good humanist, a secularist in love with the most liberal of unbelieving scholarship. The transformation is complete---and indicative of a lost position, if you ask me.

This week I was listening to Shabir Ally debate Anis Shorrosh. Now, I have to pray regularly for the Lord to give me grace, because honestly, I do like Shabir as a person, but since I know he is a smart man, his MASSIVE and CONSTANT inconsistency on this very issue is MADDENING to me. Surely he must see it! He will chide Morey or Shorrosh for using double standards in addressing the Qur'an, and then will turn around and cobble together the wildest theory out of the mere suppositions of rank liberals and conclude that his view is a certainty! It drives me crazy! Thankfully, I get the opportunity once in a while of demonstrating his inconsistencies, and, by God's grace, will do so again in a few weeks. You'll get to watch, Nazam! :-)

In any case, I truly believe this is your biggest problem (i.e., you on the Muslim side). You cannot produce a consistent apologetic that matches your religious profession. You are, no offense intended, epistemologically schizophrenic, and to the person seeking truth, that is a fatal error. That is why I say I continue to seek after my first consistent Muslim. Haven't met him yet, and to be honest, I am uncertain that one could possibly exist, given the reality of the Qur'an and its errors in teaching.

In any case, I have here responded to you without a single insinuation of insult or ad hominem. Please do not expect me to frequent comboxes--I detest them for many reasons (one is I cannot see the text well enough to catch typos properly), but for right now, I am obviously so very, very busy that I cannot even promise a response here. But in any case, I hope I have at least provided a Christian response that is consistent with the Christian profession. Thank you for your time.

james

Nazam said...

Actually LouisJ-B, you haven't produced any "arguments" nor have you submitted any evidence. Making assertions is not the same as presenting "evidence." The two are different. Likewise, when you make declarations such as, "The necessity for Acts 5:39 to be "... applicable upon any context and cultural setting." is understandable especially when the man,who meets Islam' criteria for prophethood,left his followers with the impression that Gamaliel' *God* is also theirs", then you are NOT presenting an "argument." I will advice you to read an introductory book on critical reasoning, which explains the difference between assertions, arguments and evidence.

You wrote:


"In your desperation to validate Muhammad' statement "...that there is only One God and we all (Jews and Christians and Muslims) worship Him, irrespective of our differences." you quoted Acts 5:39 devoid of context hence turning the words of a member of the PHARISEE sect(of all people) into an invitation for inclusivism and cordiality amongst theist'.Puhleee"

This is completely wrong:

1. I did not quote Acts 5:39 to validate the statement "there is only One God and we all (Jews and Christians and Muslims) worship Him, irrespective of our differences." Acts 5:39 was cited in response to Shamoun calling David a "fool" and also in response to his vile behavior and filthy conduct on this blog.

2. I didn't claim that Muhammed (P) made this statement verbally in exactly these words: "...that there is only One God and we all (Jews and Christians and Muslims) worship Him, irrespective of our differences." These were my own words...but true, the Islamic view is that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God even if they differ about His teachings upon His concept (as far as the latter is concerned, the Trinitarian view is the odd one out).

So you are not at all following a simple discussion and yet you have the audacity to wrongly claim that I am "desperate."

Again, present arguments. Do not just go on and on making assertions. Make at least some attempt at offering reasons as to why/how I was allegedly wrong in making use of Acts 5:38-39. In case you still fail to follow the discussion, I am not preaching inclusivism. Just to say we worship One God and to regard this as a common ground is not inclusivism. My point is regarding behavior and conduct when we speak to each others. I say we need to discuss differences with good manners and etiquettes. Do you disagree with this?

You wrote:

"Seeing how you're having difficulty quoting accurately and in context,I'm confident that you misunderstood Dr.White,"

I quoted accurately and in context. Just to claim ad nausem that I allegedly cited out of context and misquoted does not mean that I cited out of context and misquoted.

And how did I allegedly "misunderstood" White? -----Please produce your evidence instead of making allegations. White has said clearly in his public debates and acknowledged that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, albeit with a different understanding of this same God. For Christians (most of them) God is Trinitarian whereas for Muslims (AND JEWS) God is Unitarian.

You said:

"Dr. Wood,the Jews and Christians with whom you're in contact with.There is No "*we* all".The revelation of Who God is and Salvation is of the Jews.Muhammad,the Qu'ran and Islam is irrelevant."

Wood is not yet a "Dr" as far as I can tell. Let's wait for him to complete his Phd :) The remainder of your comments are just more circular assertions. My reply would be: you are wrong.

LouisJ-B said...

Nazam,

"And how did I allegedly "misunderstood" White? -----Please produce your evidence instead of making allegations."

Nazam:White has said clearly in his public debates and acknowledged that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, albeit with a different understanding of this same God. For Christians (most of them) God is Trinitarian whereas for Muslims (AND JEWS) God is Unitarian.

Dr.White:Where have I said this? I do not believe we worship the same God. We are both monotheists, but my God is by nature Triune, and yours is by nature unitarian. Could you direct me to where I have said otherwise? Thank you.


Again Nazam, it's unfortunate and uncomfortable to defend the "prophethood" of a man who was ignorant of the God of the Jews.

"I think sometimes Missionaries need to take the advice of Gamaliel from the book of Acts (5:38-9),...when it comes to Muslims and their religion..."

I think it's time that you make your case as to Why missionaries need to take the advice of Gamaliel when it comes to Muslims and their religion.

David Wood, i apologize for going off on a tangent.

ben malik said...

Dr. White,

Because I respect and love you I will refrain from attacking Muslims and want to apologize for offending my Christian brothers by attacking Muslims, despite their lies and slanders against the brethren. I respect you as my elder and accept your rebuke gladly and will stop posting here lest I continue to attacking Muslims. We expect Muslims to act in this manner and yet I do need to conform to a higher standard since Jesus, not Muhammad, is our manner and standard of truth and morality.

Again, Dr. White, please forgive me, your brother, for allowing myself to treat Muslims in the same manner that they treat others.

Lord bless you and all you do.

ben malik said...

BTW, Dr. White, those comments concerning questioning me publicly here weren't directed to you but to someone else. I would not get angry with you holding me accountable since this is what I would want from my brethren. Thanks.

Nazam said...

Dear Dr. White.

Thank you for your comments. I will respond to your points below.

Very sorry for the late reply.

You wrote:

"Nazam:

You said, "White has said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, though we have different understandings of this same God." Where have I said this? I do not believe we worship the same God. We are both monotheists, but my God is by nature Triune, and yours is by nature unitarian. Could you direct me to where I have said otherwise? Thank you."

In your first debate with Shabir Ally, you stated in your opening statement that Muslims, Christians and Jews worship One God and that we are all monotheists. To quote your words:



“Is the NT we posses today inspire? This evening this question can only be debated in one contexts that if two men who openly and unashamedly confess absolute monotheism.



We both confess that God not only can speak, he has spoken and in fact he has demonstrated his ability to preserve that which he has revealed in His scripture.



This is not a debate between with an atheist whether God has the power or the Will to reveal himself?



No, the argument this evening is between two monotheist and I believe it is this fact that must be kept in the minds of all thee attendees this evening".




I am sorry if I misunderstood your words. I think most people reading the above would have been led to wrongly believe that it is your view that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Here I was not attacking you but stating a positive point in your defence.

Secondly, would you say that the Jews and Christians worship the same God or would you say that while they are monotheists, they do not worship the same God because your God is by nature truine whereas the Jewish God is by nature Unitatrian? I think the latter would probably be your answer since Jews are also Unitarians.

Having said this, I do not think it is wrong to assert that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God. I think this is a helpful common ground which can be used as a basis to have a dialogue. Is only our understanding of the same God which is different. That does not mean that we do not worship the same God. According to Christians, God is Truine, whereas for both Muslims and Jews, He is Unitarian. So we worship the same God and are monothiests, but the Christian understanding of this same God is different from the Jewish/Muslim understanding. That we understand God differently does not mean, I think, that we do not worship the same God.

Please note that I did acknowledge that Muslims (and Jews) and Christians have a different understanding of God, Unitrian and a Truine one.



****************************

Next, you wrote:

I, on the other hand, rely upon a range of scholars from different backgrounds and traditions, who do not necessarily agree with each other on every point of detail but who have individually presented very different historical Jesus reconstructions from an evangelical Jesus. I have already named such scholars before, here they are again (with some additional names): E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, James Dunn, Graham Stanton, J.K. Elliott, Bruce Chilton, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredrickson, James Robinson, Arthur Bellinzoni, Helmut Koester, J. Houlden, J. Bowden, H. C. Kee, Crossan, John Meier...and many others.

****************************

Your reply to the above:

"Once again, I continue seeking the consistent Muslim. Do you embrace a naturalistic worldview, Nazam? Do you believe in prophets? Do you believe God has sent down books?"

And I continue to seek the consistent Dr. White (below my comments) :). And no I am not naturalistic. Yes I believe in prophets and that God sent down books. I think I said nothing that would suggest otherwise.

You wrote:

"Why then are you wedded to a realm of scholarship that, *presuppositionally* rejects all such things? *If* you embrace the most radical Orientalists' views of the Qur'an, then I will grant you consistency."

The above is actually not accurate Dr. White. I do not believe I cited any scholar who comes out with a historical Jesus reconstruction based on presuppositions such as there are no prophets, no divinely revealed books etc. Some of the referred scholars may well endorse such notions, but that does not guide or control the way they examine the New Testament data. I think you are being too simplistic in brushing aside New Testament scholarship and historical Jesus research. For example, some of the scholars I greatly admire are Dunn, Sanders and Stanton. Dunn and Stanton are committed Christians, rather moderate and by no means liberal. whereas Sanders is a Protestant liberal. If you read their writings, they evaluate the evidence critically using scholarly tools and then present their arguments. They do not argue along the following lines: "oh I am naturalistic, so I will dismiss the authenticity of this gospel passage; I do not believe in prophets, so let me now deny the authenticity of this passage in Mark; God did not send down books, so let me conclude by saying that the gospel of John in many places is less reliable than the synoptic gospels." This isn't how it works. Sanders does not believe in the occurence of miracles as we do, but I have so far not come across an instance where he argues along these lines: "hmmm...this passage mentions Jesus doing a miracle. Because miracles cannot happen, this passage is not historical." On the contrary, he argues for the probable historicity of passages which mention Jesus' various miracles. Nor are these scholars "radical."

Consider the non-Christian scholars, such as Vermes and Fredrickson (both Jewish). If you check out their books, they too offer careful arguments and apply widely accepted historical critical tools upon the gospels. They do not deny the authenticity/historicity of gospel passages based on any anti-supernatural presuppositions, denial of revelation by God etc...

I would regard Bellinzoni to be radical in some respects. But he too offers arguments and reasons in his book to support the historicity/lack of historicity, of certain Biblical passages through an examination of the textual data. His radical presupposition do not play a role here.

The same applies to all the other scholars I mentioned, most of whom are not "radicals." yet even the radical ones carefully examine passages and then present their reasons and arguments. This is not to say that all of their arguments and conclusions are agreeable.

I am not denying the fact the people have presuppositions. We all do. Including yourself. But I think it is quite simplistic and unfair to dismiss the above in this fashion.

You wrote:

"If you believe you can start with a rejection of the Qur'an's nature as scripture, so that you can cut it apart, set on surah against another, theorize about who wrote what and when, posit post-Muhammadan redactions, etc., THEN you would be right at home with Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Crossan (the nicest heretic you will ever meet---trust me, I know)."

This is a very unrealistic description of the way the above referred scholars approach the gospels. Dunn, Sanders, Meier, Houlden and Stanton, for example, do not begin with "a rejection of the New Testament's nature as scripture, so that they can cut it apart." They ARE committed Christians. Neither is this the way how Ehrman approaches the New Testament and conducts his analysis of its contents to conclude which bits are probably historical or unhistorical. And the same holds true for Crossan etc. Certainly, these two do not believe in miracles the way we do and they do not accept revelation the way we do, but this presupposition of theirs does not influence their judgement regarding the historicity and the lack of historicity of the gospel data. You can disagree with the details of their arguments, but to say that their analysis operates and is guided as a result of "a rejection of the New Testament's nature as scripture, so that you can cut it apart" is quite wrong.

You wrote:

"But if you are a believing Muslim who believes the Qur'an is the perfect revelation from Allah, unchanging and unchangeable, delivered without flaw through the Angel Gabriel, and preserved without flaw to our day, then you have no right to be playing games with Ehrman/Crossan/et al."

I am not playing any "games" with the named scholars. I read a variety of writings on the subject from as many scholars as possible. That I believe that the Quran is preserved and is Revelation - on the basis of other arguments/reasons - has no bearing on my reading of the writings by Ehrman, Crossan, Dunn and others and adopting and rejecting some of their arguments/conclusions. There is no connection between the two. For Quranic studies I read a wide variety of writings as well, ranging from the likes of Azami to Wansbrough and I do the same when it comes to the Bible.

You wrote:

"Think about it, Nazam. When I address my own Scriptures, I seek, as a scholar, to be consistent in my handling of them. I have been doing textual critical work for decades now, as a believing Christian who strives to glorify his Lord through a consistent application of a thought-out Christian worldview to the entirety of my life--including my apologetics. So, when I turn to Islam and the Qur'an, how can I abandon that worldview and adopt another? How can I become double-minded? How can I be a supernaturalist when dealing with my own scriptures, and yet embrace naturalism as my modus operandi when examining the Qur'an? I cannot. I must be consistent, for if I am not consistent, then I cannot pretend to be dealing truthfully with the issues at hand."

First of all, I do not "adopt" anti-supernaturalism or "embrace" naturalism when it comes to examining the New Testament. Nor do scholars in general assess the data within the gospels based on "anti-supernaturalism" and "naturalism" even if some of them may be anti-supernaturalists and naturalists.

Secondly, I think, with all due respect, that you are inconsistent and you do apply double-standard from time to time. For example, in your recent talk on the Ibn Masud issue, you mentioned the Encyclopedia of the Quran and the Encyclopedia of Islam and presented them as reliable sources even though, as you acknowledged, most of their contributers are non-Muslims and Muslims would not accept many of their conclusions. You still said that these references were reliable and could be used. In other words, you are using sources which are the product of mostly those scholars who often do not believe in miracles, revelation and are naturalists (for example, Andrew Rippin). But you seem to be perfectly at ease using this source against Muslims but have problems when historical Jesus scholars are mentioned, most of whom happen to be Christians. You would likely be upset if I made use of the Anchor Bible Dictionary, because many of the conclusions reached by its contributors would be unacceptable to you. This is inconsistency on your part.

You wrote:

"Honestly, Nazam, I have yet to meet my first consistent Muslim at this point. In every instance, the Muslim uses one worldview when talking about the Qur'an, early Qur'anic transmission, the Uthmanic revision, etc. and etc., and a completely *different* one when discussing the Bible. When in the masjid he believes in the supernatural realm of God and angels and divine revelation; when he leaves the masjid and enters the debate hall, he becomes a good humanist, a secularist in love with the most liberal of unbelieving scholarship. The transformation is complete---and indicative of a lost position, if you ask me."

And honestly, Dr. White, I have yet to see you being consistent despite your protests at being consistent. Moreover, as much as I respect you, the fact is that we see inconsistency on both sides. You are true that much of Muslim apologetics is inconsistent. But it is also true that much of Christian apologetics and polemic against Islam is equally, if not more, inconsistent and ridden with double standard. For a history of the latter, see Norman Daniels various writings. Hence, it is not correct to imply that while Christians are consistent the Muslims are not, because BOTH are overwhelmingly inconsistent.

And to reiterate, I personally did not adopt a different worldview when I mentioned the historical Jesus scholars. Nor did I put aside supernaturalism etc. You are stretching it a bit too far I'm afraid.

Finally, I thank you for your comments and for speaking against Ben Malik's vile abusive behaviour. Let me state that Ben Malik IS Sam Shamoun. If he has denied that to you then he is lying. I have given an example of where Ben Malik directs readers to read an article which he claims "I authored" and when you click on that article it is by Sam Shamoun! Not only that, he uses the same terms, phrases and wording as does Sam Shamoun in his emails, chats and his essays. On top of that, Ben Malik somehow knows that Mr. Ismail's email on Osama Abdallah's website was allegedly altered, he talks about putting up "books and articles" to "expose" what I have said, and he just happens to be intimately familiar with all of Shamoun's writings. Further, nowhere here has he outright denying being Shamoun. I am very confident that he IS Sam Shamoun. He probably denied that to you on email/phone for being embarrassed. But have a heart to heart chat with him and he may just acknowledge that he uses the Ben Malik alias.

El-Cid said...

Nazam wrote (referring to James White):

"In your first debate with Shabir Ally, you stated in your opening statement that Muslims, Christians and Jews worship One God and that we are all monotheists."

I fail to see how acknowledging the monotheistic nature of Islam and Christianity is statement that the same deity is being worshipped? This is especially true, when the gentleman himself posts comments that point to the fact that he believes you are misrepresenting his words.

I have to ask, if James White were to say Zoroastrians are monotheists would he be saying they worship the same deity as Christians?

I must say I really appreciate Dr. White's words here, and in fact they have prompted me to change the name I post as. I don't want it to be mistaken as a source of disrespect or a personal insult to anyone here (especially after seeing the use of "Mo" in these comments).

Nazam said...

MoMo, I was explaining how, based on White's cited comments, one could (mistakenly) conclude that White did not deny that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I did not deliberately or knowingly "misrepresent" White's position. It was an understandable mistake on my part.

Secondly, I do not still see how the Diety is different. We are disagreeing over the nature of the SAME Diety; for you He's Trinitarian in nature for me He is Undivided. Therefore, we both worship the same God, it is just that we disagree about the nature of this same God. I don't see why this is a "problem."



I have no problems in accepting whom the Christians call God the Father as my God just as I do not have a problem in accepting whom the Jews call Hashem as my Maker.

Thirdly, perhaps you may wish to reply to this question: do Christians and Jews worship the same God? They do not because Christians believe in a Trinitarian God whereas Jews (like Muslims) believe in the Unitarian God?

El-Cid said...

Nazam,

Firstly, if you say you unknowingly misrepresented James White's position, that is fine. I accept that. It happens.

As for the "unitarian" vs. "trinitarian" issue with the nature of God, *I* (the artist formerly known as MoMo :P) never brought this up in any way, so I'm not sure why you are advancing it as some sort of 'conflict' in MY words that *I* need to address visa-vi Christians/Jews/& Muslims.

As far as if Jews and Christians worship the same God and how this relates to the claims of the Quran, it really has NOTHING to do with my statement. I can only assume you; misread my comment, confused me with someone else, or personally prefer to try to start a trinitarian vs unitarian argument.

What I said was quite simple:

1. James White does not say Muslims and Christians worship the same deity (I draw this from his debates, website, AND his own comments here).

2. Attributing a deity-synonymity position to him is false.

It seems we both agree now, as you say you made an honest mistake in misunderstanding him.

The above being said, I would like to address one statement you made-

"..for you He's Trinitarian in nature for me He is Undivided."

I think you should spend a little more time understanding your opposition's theology. I have never met a Christian that believes their God is "divided". In point of fact, holding such a belief would contradict the Bible as the Shema in the Old Testament (and repeated in the New) cleary states that God is "echad" (that is, indivisible/united). The word "trinity" itself comes etymologically from a compound of "tri-" and "unity" implying an indivisible nature.

I say this not to pedantically bemoan semantics, but to point out that it seems you (probably without even realizing it) carry a filter (as most Muslims I have spoken with do) that makes it quite difficult to conceptualize the trinitarian concept in a way that overcomes Islamic theological presuppositions.

To say the issue is one of 'Undivided vs Divided' is contrary to my understanding of orthodox Christian theology, and (with the Shema in mind) contrary to what the text of the Bible teaches.

Nazam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nazam said...

Nazam said...
El-Cid said...

"Nazam,

Firstly, if you say you unknowingly misrepresented James White's position, that is fine. I accept that. It happens".

I believe the comments I cited made by White would have led many, if not all, to conclude that White, at the very least, accepted that Christians and Muslims (and Jews) worshipped the same God. You cannot blame someone coming to this understandable conclusion based on White's quoted wording. I think White should have explained his position more carefully in the debated, as he has done so here.

"As for the "unitarian" vs. "trinitarian" issue with the nature of God, *I* (the artist formerly known as MoMo :P) never brought this up in any way, so I'm not sure why you are advancing it as some sort of 'conflict' in MY words that *I* need to address visa-vi Christians/Jews/& Muslims".

I did not say nor suggest that you "brought it up". I was merely curious to know what you thought about it; If you do not have any answers or views on this related issue, then that is fine. You are not required to answer if you do not want to.

As far as if Jews and Christians worship the same God and how this relates to the claims of the Quran,

This is not what I asked. I did not ask anything about any Quranic claim. Let me rephrase my query: Muslims and Jews have the same concept of God: He is Undivided (Unitarian conception of God.). That is, both Muslims and Jews deny the Trinitarian conception of God. So if you (presumably) have no qualms accepting Jews as worshipers of the same God despite your Trinitarian conception, then what is the reasoning behind denying Muslims as worshipers of the same God? That's all.

"it really has NOTHING to do with my statement. I can only assume you; misread my comment, confused me with someone else, or personally prefer to try to start a trinitarian vs unitarian argument".

I did not say that what I had to ask you had something to do with your comments. I was just curious to know about your view on a logically related issue. Now if you do not want to explain your position, then that is perfectly alright. But your unwillingness to answer does not mean that I "misread" your comments or that I am "confusing" you with someone else.

"What I said was quite simple:

1. James White does not say Muslims and Christians worship the same deity (I draw this from his debates, website, AND his own comments here)".

Yes, I accept this. I am not denying that this is what White's believes (based on his clarification of his position here). I just don't understand how the logic works, particularly if you accept Jews as worshipers of the same God despite their Unitarian conception of God. And yes, you are not obligated to respond to this if you also do not appear to understand how this logic works.

"2. Attributing a deity-synonymity position to him is false.

It seems we both agree now, as you say you made an honest mistake in misunderstanding him".

Yes we do agree on this. I would also add that the mistake I made was an understandable given White's wording.

"The above being said, I would like to address one statement you made-

"..for you He's Trinitarian in nature for me He is Undivided."

I think you should spend a little more time understanding your opposition's theology. I have never met a Christian that believes their God is "divided". In point of fact, holding such a belief would contradict the Bible as the Shema in the Old Testament (and repeated in the New) cleary states that God is "echad" (that is, indivisible/united). The word "trinity" itself comes etymologically from a compound of "tri-" and "unity" implying an indivisible nature".

Thank you for the advice, and I would give you the same advice as well. To clarify myself: by "undivided" I mean lack of persons and not that the persons of the Trinity are divided etc. In a Trinity you have three-persons in the God-head, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And yes, they are believed to be united together. But in a Unitarian conception of God, which is shared by BOTH Jews and Muslims, we do not have "persons" united to form the God-head. Hence it is an "undivided" conception of God.

But I will avoid this terminology from now on given it may confuse some people. So let me put it this way: BOTH Jews and Muslims accept a Unitarian conception of God whereas Christians accept a Trinitarian conception of God, which consists of three persons. Would this be acceptable to you?

"I say this not to pedantically bemoan semantics, but to point out that it seems you (probably without even realizing it) carry a filter (as most Muslims I have spoken with do) that makes it quite difficult to conceptualize the trinitarian concept in a way that overcomes Islamic theological presuppositions".

I think you will probably face the same problem when discussing the Trinity with the Jews as well. They too will have the same problems as do Muslims you've encountered.

I am interested to learn how Christians became the odd ones out through their Trinitarian conception of God and what made them dismiss the Unitarian conception of God as well preached and belived by all prophets and the Jewish Bible.

LouisJ-B said...

El-Cid,

Today' 'Dividing Line' first 20 mins might be useful to this dialogue.;-)