It was a pleasure working with Adnan Rashid (and the other Muslim apologists in the UK). He was very kind and pleasant, as were nearly all the Muslims I met in London. I look forward to many more debates on the other side of the Atlantic.
While watching this debate, we would do well to ask ourselves, “How many ways does Adnan condemn his own religion (in his desperate effort to condemn mine)?” Let me count the ways.
(1) Adnan condemns the Old Testament, which (a) he used as evidence for Islam in his opening statement, and (b) his own prophet declared to be the Word of God (in both the Qur’an and the Hadith). Thus, since Muhammad approved of such a book, he must not be a prophet.
(2) Adnan declares that the true God would never kill a child; yet, according to the Qur’an, God destroyed Sodom with fire and flooded the world in the time of Noah (and some children were presumably present). Since the true God would never do this, the God of the Qur'an cannot be the true God.
(3) Adnan declares that the true God would never order a human being to kill a child, despite the fact that one of Allah’s “servants” does just that in Surah 18. Once again, the God of the Qur'an cannot be the true God.
(4) Adnan condemns me for saying that I would kill if, contrary to what God has actually commanded me, He had instead commanded me to kill. In doing so, Adnan condemns the prophet Abraham, who was willing to kill his own son at God’s command. If we agree with Adnan, we would have to say that any book that praises Abraham's (wicked) behavior cannot come from God. Thus, the Qur'an cannot be the Word of God.
We can add other inconsistencies to this list. For instance, Adnan accuses me of only pointing to the negative aspects of Islam, and he then proceeds to degrade Christianity in every possible way. Adnan says that Christianity is violent because Catholics and Protestants once fought (despite the fact that they did so in violation of Christ's teachings), yet it never occurs to Adnan to apply his reasoning to Sunnis and Shias. Adnan points to a handful of Christian thinkers down through the ages who have advocated some form of violence, and he holds that this shows that Christianity is violent (despite the fact that these thinkers are ignoring Christ's teachings). Yet I could easily give him a massive list of Muslim scholars who advocate violence (and who do so in complete harmony with the Qur'an). Adnan points to violent acts committed in the name of Christianity as if this proves that Christianity is violent (despite the fact that such acts are committed in strict violation of Christ's teachings), yet he would never allow me to point to acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam as proof that Islam is violent (and I wouldn't do this anyway).
As James White often says, “I’m still waiting for the consistent Muslim” (i.e. the Muslim who applies the same criticisms to Islam that he applies to Christianity).
Inconsistencies aside, this debate teaches us four things. First, Islam’s sources command Muslims to fight anyone who (a) doesn’t accept Islam, or (b) refuses to pay the Jizya in complete humiliation. Second, Christianity’s source commands Christians, repeatedly, to live in peace with everyone. Third, no matter how many times I use the same material, Muslims still can’t offer a good response. Fourth, when Muslims get nervous, they cheer more (notice how many times the Muslims burst into applause for no reason whatsoever).
ADNAN'S OPENING STATEMENT
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
For more on this issue, see Sam Shamoun's debate with Nadir Ahmed ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", and my debates with Sami Zaatari ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" and "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?")